Just tooling around on the ole internet and happened across someone saying that the word for eve chaya is very similar or the same as the aramaic root for serpent.
Can't find any good evidence, anyone else know anything about this? Did see some more writing about it, but nothing solid.
I found this but I didn't get anywhere with it.
http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=serpent&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0
Just where do you "tool?"
I was searching for mythology and the bible. I still have a few unanswered questions, like why are there so many pagan god names, for instance heaven in NT is ouranos, or uranus. Star is aster, or ashera/astarte.
What is the nature or how much revelation was given to the pagan nations.
Why did God use symbolism identical to pagan nations? Like the sphinx/cherubim.
I just found out that the sphinx in egypt and most of the egyptian sphinxes wore a cobra around the head (pharoahs did too). Since I think the cherubim symbolize our flesh it makes sense that they have a serpent around their head. The wings on the sphinx represent horus, the hawk/eagle, and the body is the lion with the human face. The rear legs are the ox.
Oh to answer your question, I was just doing a google search. I found that on a few sites. Just no primary sources.
Not sure what you're looking at RHM.
E-sword says Eve means 'lifegiver.'
Chavvah (or Eve),
lifegiver
Comes from the root chavah, to live.
The Bible calls her the mother of all living.
Then the man--Adam--named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live.
--Gen 3:20
Got to be careful out there on the internet...
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/12/the-serpent-and-eve-nonsense-where-the-idea-comes-from-and-does-not-come-from/
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 22, 2011, 09:58:11 AM
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/12/the-serpent-and-eve-nonsense-where-the-idea-comes-from-and-does-not-come-from/
You can trust this guy, RHM [Michael Heiser]. He's the real thing. He's a scholar of ancient languages and history. He also teaches [cheap:50 dollars a course] courses on the internet in the Memra Institute, and has some software you might like for searching the Bible [although I'm not sure how expensive that is.]
Molly, do you have a link to that software? Or teh name of the program?
QuoteYou can trust this guy, RHM [Michael Heiser].
You can trust me too RHM! As long as nothing of value is near :winkgrin:
Found it. http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/heiser
Overpriced bloatware with a clumsy interface. $150-$4500. All sorts of of extra's sold seperately.
I read the article he provides. There are credible scholars who point to the connection. He doesn't think so. I don't know enough about it and the reasons given in the article (against the connection) seem logical. So...
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/08/romans-512-and-universalism-applying-my-take-on-romans-512-to-the-problem/
Molly Heiser may lose some credibility in your eyes when you read his handling of romans 5:12.
Not saying you have to agree with everything someone says, but...
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 23, 2011, 04:58:37 AM
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/08/romans-512-and-universalism-applying-my-take-on-romans-512-to-the-problem/
Molly Heiser may lose some credibility in your eyes when you read his handling of romans 5:12.
Not saying you have to agree with everything someone says, but...
says, but :eek:
lol, BUT.
IN THEORY, THEN — :eek:
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 23, 2011, 04:58:37 AM
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/08/romans-512-and-universalism-applying-my-take-on-romans-512-to-the-problem/
Molly Heiser may lose some credibility in your eyes when you read his handling of romans 5:12.
Not saying you have to agree with everything someone says, but...
Oh, this is just his opinion of Bible verses in English. Same as your opinion or my opinion.
I didn't say he was a universalist.
His expertise is ancient semitic languages and OT Hebrew and history.
Otherwise, he's just like you and me.
And all the other fire and brimstone preachers.
Heiser has a particular area of expertise that RHM shows an interest in --words and their meanings in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.
He is not a preacher, much less a fire and brimstone preacher.
He is a much better source for the meaning of words than whoever told RHM that Eve means snake.
Take it or leave it.
He's fun to talk to, maybe RHM could introduce him to universalism.
http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/heiser
"He has taught over twenty different courses covering both testaments, systematic theology, ethics, and biblical languages."
"Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs. He observed that many who have adopted "alternative" worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had."
So it seems he also teaches NT. His NT view is fire and brimstone. Obviouly that can't be seen seperate from his OT views.
How do you know his new testament view is fire and brimstone?
Maybe it's annihilation.
And what does that have to do with the meaning of words?
Aramaic is one of his languages=NT, also probably ancient Greek.
He does have a wholeview of the Bible, but it seems to revolve around the sons of God.
I have never heard him say anything about fire and brimstone.
Do you people only talk to universalists?
Quote"Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs. He observed that many who have adopted "alternative" worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had."
I don't know if you would call this a 'ministry.'
He seems to give lectures on the OT at strange UFO conferences from time to time.
He talks on the radio about similar things from time to time.
What he presents to these people is that what they think is going on is described in the Bible.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 08:38:52 AM
How do you know his new testament view is fire and brimstone?
Maybe it's annihilation.
QuoteOn one hand, the "life" part is easy, since it could refer to eternal life, which is actually shared by all (unless there is annihilation), the unsaved and the saved.
Annihilation seems not to be his first choice of doctrine.
QuoteHow to avoid universalism here?
He rejects universalism.
So I would say he's an ET that thinks tehre is a small possibility for annihilation.
QuoteAnd what does that have to do with the meaning of words?
It means for example he disagrees wth most Jewish scholars who are are mostly universalists. A few belevieve in annihilation for a small percentage of people. I never founds another Jewish view. With an exception the Saduccees who didn't believe in afterlife at all.
Basicly that means his expertise is challanged by lots of Jewish scholars.
QuoteAnd what does that have to do with the meaning of words?
When people look in a dictionary/lexicon they (usually) aren't primary looking for the meaning of words. They are looking for information that helps them understand words in a certain context. In this case the meaning of a verse.
Take 3 top notch scholars. Let them study a few verses and ask them to label them: ET, ED or UR.
Only one answer can be correct
QuoteAramaic is one of his languages=NT, also probably ancient Greek.
But that's not the basis of this article.
He doesn't analyse the words. He reasons from a certain perspective.
QuoteHow to avoid universalism here? (and it's important since universalism is denied elsewhere in Romans 5 and many other places
In that quoute he basicly says: "As shown above, the verses seems to clearly point to Universalism. I don't believe in Universalism so I'll reason it away."
Everybody uses a certain amount of reasoning to reach a conclusion. That's totally fine with me. But it does also mean the article isn't a scholary approach.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 08:52:29 AM
Quote"Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs. He observed that many who have adopted "alternative" worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had."
I don't know if you would call this a 'ministry.'
Maybe that depends on what you think the definition of ministry is.
Reading his article he certainly doesn't sound like a secular linguist.
:cloud9: He's a tree like all the rest of us, and we were told in the garden we could eat of ALL the trees, EXCEPT the one (carnal mind). Let the Spirit distill the truth he has been given to hold in UN-righteousness (corrupted by reason of the carnal mind), and drink of the new wine of the Kingdom. My :2c: Blessings....
QuoteIt means for example he disagrees wth most Jewish scholars who are are mostly universalists
What do you mean by Jewish scholars? All the ones I have known were atheists. Do you mean priests from ancient times? Or rabbi's today?
Here's a question for you. I could see why Jews would be universalists--for the Jews. But what did they think happens to the Gentiles?
Did the ancient rabbi's[priests] or current ones even consider the Gentiles? Did they ever make a statement about them?
I've seen things in the Talmud that don't paint a pretty picture of Gentiles. I don't see how the people writing that stuff could be universalists for Gentiles.
QuoteIn that quoute he basicly says: "As shown above, the verses seems to clearly point to Universalism. I don't believe in Universalism so I'll reason it away."
I agree with that. He's out of his field here and into belief. Because that verse does clearly point to universalism, what he said after that, didn't make any sense to me. Did it make sense to you? It sounded like he was trying his best to not make it universalist.
This article was found on a website, not in a scholarly paper. He's just chatting with his friends.
That doesn't detract from his area of expertise. There is nothing in that verse that requires a Greek or Aramaic expert to understand it.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 23, 2011, 12:22:02 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 08:52:29 AM
Quote"Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs. He observed that many who have adopted "alternative" worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had."
I don't know if you would call this a 'ministry.'
Maybe that depends on what you think the definition of ministry is.
Reading his article he certainly doesn't sound like a secular linguist.
He's a Christian with Christian beliefs. So I suppose in your mind that makes him not a 'secular linguist' which would require him to be atheist. Neither are the 'Hebrew scholars' you mention secular linguists then. That doesn't make them any less expert on the Hebrew language.
He isn't talking about linguistics in that chat session He's talking about belief.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 05:32:44 PM
QuoteIt means for example he disagrees wth most Jewish scholars who are are mostly universalists
What do you mean by Jewish scholars? All the ones I have known were atheists.
That's impossible. That would make them Hebrew scholars. :winkgrin:
QuoteDo you mean priests from ancient times? Or rabbi's today?
"Today".
There are several sites where Jews can ask a Rabbi al sort of questions. Or just articles from a Jewish perspective. The first thing you will notice when looking for such articles it that they are really hard to find. That's a big hint hell isn't a concept considered by Jews. On Christian websites a large percentage is about hell.
The few articles I found are about correction in afterlife. Just from memory. 3 months for most of humanity. Up to 12 months for the very severe cases. A small percentage believes a tiny part will be destroyed completely.
That's for today's orthodox Jews who are AFAIK very similar to Pharisees.
QuoteHere's a question for you. I could see why Jews would be universalists--for the Jews. But what did they think happens to the Gentiles?
In their view Gentiles are saved too.
QuoteDid the ancient rabbi's[priests] or current ones even consider the Gentiles? Did they ever make a statement about them?
I've seen things in the Talmud that don't paint a pretty picture of Gentiles. I don't see how the people writing that stuff could be universalists for Gentiles.
Could be. But we should see that seperately from what they think will be teh end result. Obviously in their mind everybody should become Jewish. Or at the very least bow to their God., who is also the Christian God but not of other religions.
I've read an article that the 7 pre-flood commandments are for all people on earth and the 613 of Moses for all Jews. Everyone will be judged accordingly to those commands. I think that means Gentiles aren't without hope in the Jewish view.
All that isn't unlike Christianity. Or what Gary teaches. Gary believes in UR (yeah really! :winkgrin:) but he also believes everybody should kneel before God. In my understanding Jews excpect such an understanding too.
Not sure about this!! but I remeber a Rabbi teaching Hitler will be friends with his victims.
All that said I'm sure your able to find articles that state all none Jews are eternally doomed. Just like UR is a Chritsian minory view that doesn't believe in classic hell, Jews have a minory view that does believe in ED (for some) and ET.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Afterlife_and_Messiah/Life_After_Death/Heaven_and_Hell.shtml
http://www.asktherabbi.org/DisplayQuestion.asp?ID=390
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/section-9.html
QuoteQuoteIn that quoute he basicly says: "As shown above, the verses seems to clearly point to Universalism. I don't believe in Universalism so I'll reason it away."
I agree with that. He's out of his field here and into belief. Because that verse does clearly point to universalism, what he said after that, didn't make any sense to me. Did it make sense to you? It sounded like he was trying his best to not make it universalist.
This article was found on a website, not in a scholarly paper. He's just chatting with his friends.
He's not just chatting with friends. He has a blog with articles that state his views. Then people can respond to that article. He doesn't interact with his "friends". He just bites at them.
QuoteThat doesn't detract from his area of expertise. There is nothing in that verse that requires a Greek or Aramaic expert to understand it.
That's your view. My view is that he plainly admits he does not understand the verse in a scholary way. He clearly admits he set a trap for himself elsewere and now needs to reason himself out of it. Perhaps that's why he uses no scholary approach?
Finally let it be said that I noticed you totally ignored the conclusion of my post :laughing7:
You are trying to tell me that the ancient and current 'Jewish scholars' believe that all the Gentiles will be saved? Please show me evidence of this. They were forbidden to even interact with the Gentiles in an intimate way. So how would they come to that conclusion? And, I would like to see evidence that this is a mainstream Jewish belief.
My recommendation of Heiser to RHM was not about his universalist beliefs. Good grief. It was about RHM finding a source other than the one that told him Eve means the sepent which is one of the most misogynistic things I have ever heard, in addition to being wrong.
RHM also asked questions about pagan names and pagan nations. Heiser teaches a course on that online.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 23, 2011, 12:22:02 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 08:52:29 AM
Quote"Mike has an active ministry to people whose worldview is molded by occult, paranormal, and esoteric beliefs. He observed that many who have adopted "alternative" worldviews were formerly traditional theists and Christians who left the faith when their questions on difficult passages and topics went unanswered, or when spiritual leaders failed to address experiences they had had."
I don't know if you would call this a 'ministry.'
Maybe that depends on what you think the definition of ministry is.
Reading his article he certainly doesn't sound like a secular linguist.
He's a Christian with Christian beliefs. So I suppose in your mind that makes him not a 'secular linguist' which would require him to be atheist. Neither are the 'Hebrew scholars' you mention secular linguists then. That doesn't make them any less expert on the Hebrew language.
He isn't talking about linguistics in that chat session He's talking about belief.
You are mixing thing up Molly.
For a liguist it doesn't matter if s/he is religious if it's about none Biblical languages. German for example.
But what if linguists are hired for religious translations? No matter what religion their work must be in line who pays them.
Regarding the article:
He refers to other posts he made that clearly show UR is a hoax. The whole aricle is about the fact that the "all verse" sounds very UR. He gives a doctrinal twist to the answer.
A secular linguist would just have concluded the verses contradict or certain words have a (wide) range of meanings. Secular liguists do care about God's need/desire to (not) punish sinners.
Heiser draws conclusions that are not in his field of expertise (religion).
And yes, that's also true for Jewish scholars/linguists.
Then we see, imo, Heiser is outnumbered a 1000 to 1.
Same goes for Gary and any UR teacher.
Does that make them bad?
No, not in my opinion.
All I said, and repeat is that religion, opinions in general erode sound scholarship.
Compare it to a court.
Say there are two judges. Both, obviously, graduated. One judge just graduated while the judge that wears the KKK hat graduated with summa cum laude.
Which judge would give the "black criminal" the most honest (scholary) ruling?
QuoteHeiser draws conclusions that are not in his field of expertise (religion).
I agree with you on this chat session. He clearly states that this is sounding like a universalist scripture, and then he twists it so it is not [in his mind].
I have never seen him do anything like that before and I have watched and read hours of his stuff.
But he is not presenting this as a scholarly argument, no matter what you say, he is chatting on his blog.
Read some of his scholarly papers before you condemn him.
When he makes scholarly arguments, he always digs into the original language it was written in.
I never thought that eve and the serpent were the same, but that they had root words linking them. Btw the article he gives doesn't even mention the aramaic, it just writes off the notion, by linking it with the idea that eve was deceived by sex with the serpent, which was not my thinking anyway, and saying that aramaic is not hebrew, or something to that effect.
But
If eve is the soul, which is(?) the carnal mind, which may be satan (I'm still up in the air on all this), this would give some philological evidence for the link.
I was just posting it for you molly because I know you seem to adhere to some of his teachings, with the nachash being the shining one, the two powers etc. This article just confirms what I've felt in reading some of his other writings, that he makes some missteps in his logic, and may not be as trusted a source as previously thought. Just because someone has a degree, and has books, doesn't mean they actually know what they talk about.
I see him as many other carnal christians, with a POV to prove, a tainted worldview. Maybe I'm not giving him a fair shake, but the divine council has not sat well with me from day one, and with him being an ET, thats a big strike against his credibility in my eyes. Whether thats fair or not, its just the way I judge the matter. :2c:
"The one act of Jesus affects all IN THEORY but actually leads to a subset of many. All could have eternal life and justification, but not all do. Why take it this way? Because it resolves what looks like a contradiction in Paul. In verse 18 Paul says what Jesus did "leads to justification and life for all humanity" but then he turns around and limits it (creates a subset) in the next verse: "so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." My proposal has Paul make sense here and not appear schizophrenic."
--Heiser
It could be taken that way I guess. Paul could look schizophrenic in this verse,-- if Jesus' act on the cross leads to justification and life for all, why are only the many made righteous, -- unless--you take into account God's plan for the ages. Some now, the rest later. I don't know why he doesn't take this into account. Maybe he's never thought about it.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 07:55:10 PM
You are trying to tell me that the ancient and current 'Jewish scholars' believe that all the Gentiles will be saved?
I wrote I found little on the subject, modern jews thik so and I didn't find information that shows otherwise for ancient Jews.
QuotePlease show me evidence of this.
Just read the links I gave you. Just do some Googling.
QuoteThey were forbidden to even interact with the Gentiles in an intimate way.
So? Not much of interacting was needed for the ancient Jews to conclude the Egyptians, Romans and Greeks were not Jews living by the laws of Moses.
QuoteSo how would they come to that conclusion?
Just a wild guess: OT study? :winkgrin:
QuoteAnd, I would like to see evidence that this is a mainstream Jewish belief.
I already answered that.
QuoteMy recommendation of Heiser to RHM was not about his universalist beliefs. Good grief.
You are long enough on this forum to know threads frequently go off-topic. But in this case I'm not so sure it;s off-topic.
If you truely believe in the scholarship of Heiser you would be better of on a forum like CARM. That's a religious forum and opposes UR.
QuoteIt was about RHM finding a source other than the one that told him Eve means the sepent which is one of the most misogynistic things I have ever heard, in addition to being wrong.
RHM also asked questions about pagan names and pagan nations. Heiser teaches a course on that online.
Sure I'm not denying that. I think it was even good you helped Red with that link.
You promoted Heiser so people think: Ha! Molly found a good scholar. Let's read a few good articles.
Just like when I mentiion that most Jews are not ETs you start an "attack" and demand proof of my claims. If that's the right thing to do why aren't others allowed to look beyond the "Heiser-link" you gave?
well, I'm not promotiing the guy for any personal reasons. I have just found his lectures fascinating, and thought RHM might enjoy them.
So if you want to reject him based on one chat, your loss not mine.
But I notice that you will not present me evidence that Jews believe all the Gentiles will be saved.
And, I don't believe that to be a factual statement.
That belief would only come out of Christianity and Christ's work on the cross.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 08:28:40 PM
well, I'm not promotiing the guy for any personal reasons. I have just found his lectures fascinating, and thought RHM might enjoy them.
So if you want to reject him based on one chat, your loss not mine.
But I notice that you will not present me evidence that Jews believe all the Gentiles will be saved.
And, I don't believe that to be a factual statement.
That belief would only come out of Christianity and Christ's work on the cross.
Molly I do appreciate you pointing me to that link. I know there is no personal agenda here.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 08:17:32 PM
QuoteHeiser draws conclusions that are not in his field of expertise (religion).
I agree with you on this chat session. He clearly states that this is sounding like a universalist scripture, and then he twists it so it is not [in his mind].
I have never seen him do anything like that before and I have watched and read hours of his stuff.
But he is not presenting this as a scholarly argument, no matter what you say, he is chatting on his blog.
Read some of his scholarly papers before you condemn him.
When he makes scholarly arguments, he always digs into the original language it was written in.
Molly I'm not saying he made a scholarly post. I state again I totally agree with that Molly.
Let's say you teach math at a university and you are among the best in your field.
A five year old asks you to help with some calculus. Obviously you will not take the scholary approach that makes even your collegues dizzy.
But neither you will teach the child 6x6=22, which would totally deny your scholastic (sp?) roots. You will use simple words and examples but the answer will be 36 just as you teach your students.
Believes and opions often erode honest research and judgement. Imo everybody (me included) should guard about that. No matter what level that research is on.
You know whitout that article I might have thought. Yep, smart scholar that certainly makes a solid argument. But now I think, true scholarship or force fit religious scholarship?
Still I think there is much to learn from him.
As I wrote in Micahs "Study Bible" thread just read opposing views from scholars and you have the best arguments from both sides.
In the end each induvidual has to make up his/her own mind. Either by reading stuff from scholars or become a scholar in each relevant field.
:2c:
I think math is an unfair comparison. Math is just applying internal rules.
What I have noticed in general in the field of Biblical studies is that there are no scholars who do not bring a religious bias to the topic.
At least, I haven't seen any.
But in the case of words--yes you are limited by your understanding of words in the original languages. And, someone who can read the original languages and knows the cultural context of them is head and shoulders over someone who can just compare various English translations to each other.
That type of bias is true of most other fields, as well.
It has even bled into scientific fields now---see:evolution.
ps I consider atheism a religion.
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 23, 2011, 08:19:29 PM
I never thought that eve and the serpent were the same, but that they had root words linking them.
Obviously Eve can't be the snake becaus ethat would mean she had sex with herself or talked to herself.
QuoteBtw the article he gives doesn't even mention the Aramaic, it just writes off the notion, by linking it with the idea that eve was deceived by sex with the serpent, which was not my thinking anyway, and saying that Aramaic is not Hebrew, or something to that effect.
I wonder if the languages were different at those times.
Many languages come from the same source. Hebrew uses "loan words" from Aramaic. Just like English uses French words or even Latin.
I wonder that at the time of Moses there was much difference between Hebrew and Aramaic.
The words I have in my avatar is how Moses wrote them. The modern Jewish "square script" was invented by Ezra (father of the Scribes).
The reason btw was that He wanted to distinguish the true words f God from the many paganised Jewish writing that floated around at his time.
QuoteBut
If eve is the soul, which is(?) the carnal mind, which may be satan (I'm still up in the air on all this), this would give some philological evidence for the link.
If Eve is the soul it would mean Adam and Eve never existed because they were one person.
Anyway sex with the serpent could for example mean that her mind lusted for the fruit of that tree and then she concieved the thought as expressed in Gen 3:1-5
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 23, 2011, 08:19:29 PM
I was just posting it for you molly because I know you seem to adhere to some of his teachings, with the nachash being the shining one, the two powers etc. This article just confirms what I've felt in reading some of his other writings, that he makes some missteps in his logic, and may not be as trusted a source as previously thought. Just because someone has a degree, and has books, doesn't mean they actually know what they talk about.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/discussions_universal_salvation/the_fall_man_8424.msg101596.html#msg101596
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 23, 2011, 09:04:54 PM
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 23, 2011, 08:19:29 PM
I was just posting it for you molly because I know you seem to adhere to some of his teachings, with the nachash being the shining one, the two powers etc. This article just confirms what I've felt in reading some of his other writings, that he makes some missteps in his logic, and may not be as trusted a source as previously thought. Just because someone has a degree, and has books, doesn't mean they actually know what they talk about.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/discussions_universal_salvation/the_fall_man_8424.msg101596.html#msg101596
What do you think of that article?
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 23, 2011, 08:59:06 PM
If Eve is the soul it would mean Adam and Eve never existed because they were one person.
Anyway sex with the serpent could for example mean that her mind lusted for the fruit of that tree and then she concieved the thought as expressed in Gen 3:1-5
:cloud9: Eve was his stony heart that God removed, the rib in type (bones/calcium, a mineral). God called THEIR name Adam. Adam named her Eve.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 08:28:40 PM
well, I'm not promotiing the guy for any personal reasons. I have just found his lectures fascinating, and thought RHM might enjoy them.
So if you want to reject him based on one chat, your loss not mine.
But I notice that you will not present me evidence that Jews believe all the Gentiles will be saved.
I gave you that in a previous post.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Afterlife_and_Messiah/Life_After_Death/Heaven_and_Hell.shtml
http://www.asktherabbi.org/DisplayQuestion.asp?ID=390
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/section-9.html
Notice how they speak about souls instead of Jews.
And different rules for Jew and gentile.
I don't read ET stuff in that for non-Jews
In fact I;ve read the opposite. You just hve to believe that or not. I can't find the article.
On of the reasons for that is, that's hard to Google for hell related subject concerning Jews.
Imo that means hell is not on their mind. They warn to live a rightous life because God will deal with all tresspasses. But even in those articles they never mention Et hell.
Most certainly there are Jews that could qualify for hell (if it exited) for example one of their own kings (Jochaim IIRC) who burned a Torah scroll.
Quote from: Cardinal on December 23, 2011, 09:10:51 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 23, 2011, 08:59:06 PM
If Eve is the soul it would mean Adam and Eve never existed because they were one person.
Anyway sex with the serpent could for example mean that her mind lusted for the fruit of that tree and then she concieved the thought as expressed in Gen 3:1-5
:cloud9: Eve was his stony heart that God removed, the rib in type (bones/calcium, a mineral). God called THEIR name Adam. Adam named her Eve.
Ok.
How many persons were Adam and Eve?
2? Male and female?
1? Just one person with a "female mind" ?
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 23, 2011, 09:17:25 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 08:28:40 PM
well, I'm not promotiing the guy for any personal reasons. I have just found his lectures fascinating, and thought RHM might enjoy them.
So if you want to reject him based on one chat, your loss not mine.
But I notice that you will not present me evidence that Jews believe all the Gentiles will be saved.
I gave you that in a previous post.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Afterlife_and_Messiah/Life_After_Death/Heaven_and_Hell.shtml
http://www.asktherabbi.org/DisplayQuestion.asp?ID=390
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/section-9.html
Notice how they speak about souls instead of Jews.
And different rules for Jew and gentile.
I don't read ET stuff in that for non-Jews
In fact I;ve read the opposite. You just hve to believe that or not. I can't find the article.
On of the reasons for that is, that's hard to Google for hell related subject concerning Jews.
Imo that means hell is not on their mind. They warn to live a rightous life because God will deal with all tresspasses. But even in those articles they never mention Et hell.
Most certainly there are Jews that could qualify for hell (if it exited) for example one of their own kings (Jochaim IIRC) who burned a Torah scroll.
"How is one to receive a place in the World to Come? By performing Mitzvot, commandments, and keeping God's Torah. There are people in this world that deny the very existence of God and they believe that they have no need for the World to Come. However, such people manage to perform plenty of Mitzvot during their lives. This is so even if they did so without any of the correct intentions at all. God, then has to reward them for their actions with a form of "currency" that fits their lifestyle. One of the ways that God has for rewarding the wicked is to grant them long life and riches in this world. This means that at their Final Judgment, the Heavenly Tribunal can check its records and see that all merits and rewards were paid in the physical world."
It sounds like a ledger system. You pay all your debts or ---what? He says the wicked rich are rewarded in this life, so that they will already have been paid in full for any good deeds when it comes to tallying things up. So, then what? Anihilation?
It explains though why people think they can do unspeakably bad acts and pave them over with good deeds. If it's just a ledger system, one side balances the other. They hope.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 09:09:46 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 23, 2011, 09:04:54 PM
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 23, 2011, 08:19:29 PM
I was just posting it for you molly because I know you seem to adhere to some of his teachings, with the nachash being the shining one, the two powers etc. This article just confirms what I've felt in reading some of his other writings, that he makes some missteps in his logic, and may not be as trusted a source as previously thought. Just because someone has a degree, and has books, doesn't mean they actually know what they talk about.
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/discussions_universal_salvation/the_fall_man_8424.msg101596.html#msg101596
What do you think of that article?
It's far more scholary than the blog post. It also aligns a bit with the view that the serpent was a "wizard" or like the witch of Edor.
I have to re-read the article. I just remembered I posted it a few years ago. It also refereneces to his book the Facade. (which I have, but not read yet. PM for info)
But now it's time for a few eps of Hi-Di-Hi :thumbsup:
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 09:36:20 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 23, 2011, 09:17:25 PM
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 08:28:40 PM
well, I'm not promotiing the guy for any personal reasons. I have just found his lectures fascinating, and thought RHM might enjoy them.
So if you want to reject him based on one chat, your loss not mine.
But I notice that you will not present me evidence that Jews believe all the Gentiles will be saved.
I gave you that in a previous post.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Afterlife_and_Messiah/Life_After_Death/Heaven_and_Hell.shtml
http://www.asktherabbi.org/DisplayQuestion.asp?ID=390
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/section-9.html
Notice how they speak about souls instead of Jews.
And different rules for Jew and gentile.
I don't read ET stuff in that for non-Jews
In fact I;ve read the opposite. You just hve to believe that or not. I can't find the article.
On of the reasons for that is, that's hard to Google for hell related subject concerning Jews.
Imo that means hell is not on their mind. They warn to live a rightous life because God will deal with all tresspasses. But even in those articles they never mention Et hell.
Most certainly there are Jews that could qualify for hell (if it exited) for example one of their own kings (Jochaim IIRC) who burned a Torah scroll.
"How is one to receive a place in the World to Come? By performing Mitzvot, commandments, and keeping God's Torah. There are people in this world that deny the very existence of God and they believe that they have no need for the World to Come. However, such people manage to perform plenty of Mitzvot during their lives. This is so even if they did so without any of the correct intentions at all. God, then has to reward them for their actions with a form of "currency" that fits their lifestyle. One of the ways that God has for rewarding the wicked is to grant them long life and riches in this world. This means that at their Final Judgment, the Heavenly Tribunal can check its records and see that all merits and rewards were paid in the physical world."
It sounds like a ledger system. You pay all your debts or ---what? He says the wicked rich are rewarded in this life, so that they will already have been paid in full for any good deeds when it comes to tallying things up. So, then what? Anihilation?
It explains though why people think they can do unspeakably bad acts and pave them over with good deeds. If it's just a ledger system, one side balances the other. They hope.
Not unlike Christianity that teaches Jesus paved over all unspeakably bad acts.
QuoteNot unlike Christianity that teaches Jesus paved over all unspeakably bad acts.
Yes, But, it's one thing for Jesus to do it, and another for a man to think he can do it for himself.
The whole point of Christianity is that man cannot do it for himself. The debt is too great.
I wonder how they even figure out the balancing act?
Let's see, what good deed do I have to do for destroying the lives of a million people to make myself rich...
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 22, 2011, 04:17:20 AM
Just tooling around on the ole internet and happened across someone saying that the word for eve chaya is very similar or the same as the aramaic root for serpent.
Can't find any good evidence, anyone else know anything about this? Did see some more writing about it, but nothing solid.
What is your suspicion?
Do you think that Eve is similar to the serpent, subtil, seducing Adam to eat the fruit?
Quote from: thinktank on December 24, 2011, 12:19:57 AM
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 22, 2011, 04:17:20 AM
Just tooling around on the ole internet and happened across someone saying that the word for eve chaya is very similar or the same as the aramaic root for serpent.
Can't find any good evidence, anyone else know anything about this? Did see some more writing about it, but nothing solid.
What is your suspicion?
Do you think that Eve is similar to the serpent, subtil, seducing Adam to eat the fruit?
Well, its the whole soul=woman=carnal mind==>tokogae
Not that I even think they necessarily are the same but that they are maybe associated etymologically. I wasn't searching for it, I just happened on it. my exact search was
"mythology bible"
If serpent means to learn by experience(one definition), and that is our flesh nature/soul that we experience the outside world by then it wouldn't surprise me if there was some verbal linkage.
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 09:43:58 PM
QuoteNot unlike Christianity that teaches Jesus paved over all unspeakably bad acts.
Yes, But, it's one thing for Jesus to do it, and another for a man to think he can do it for himself.
The whole point of Christianity is that man cannot do it for himself. The debt is too great.
True. But both religions think that God will forgive all sins. Either by following 613 rules or 1 bow before Jesus rule.
What is the Jewish view about the Messiah and their sin? Is the Messiah just a great teacher and warrior that destrys their enemies? Or does the Messiah also has the ability to wipe out their sins?
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 09:50:59 PM
I wonder how they even figure out the balancing act?
Let's see, what good deed do I have to do for destroying the lives of a million people to make myself rich...
Nothing undo's a murder. But good deeds are always of value. I think they don't believe that anyone, or at least very few, die without a negative balance that needed to be purged away.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 24, 2011, 02:47:17 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 23, 2011, 09:43:58 PM
QuoteNot unlike Christianity that teaches Jesus paved over all unspeakably bad acts.
Yes, But, it's one thing for Jesus to do it, and another for a man to think he can do it for himself.
The whole point of Christianity is that man cannot do it for himself. The debt is too great.
True. But both religions think that God will forgive all sins. Either by following 613 rules or 1 bow before Jesus rule.
What is the Jewish view about the Messiah and their sin? Is the Messiah just a great teacher and warrior that destrys their enemies? Or does the Messiah also has the ability to wipe out their sins?
The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.
It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach.
Although some scholars believed that G-d has set aside a specific date for the coming of the mashiach, most authority suggests that the conduct of mankind will determine the time of the mashiach's coming. In general, it is believed that the mashiach will come in a time when he is most needed (because the world is so sinful), or in a time when he is most deserved (because the world is so good). For example, each of the following has been suggested as the time when the mashiach will come:
if Israel repented a single day;
if Israel observed a single Shabbat properly;
if Israel observed two Shabbats in a row properly;
in a generation that is totally innocent or totally guilty;
in a generation that loses hope;
in a generation where children are totally disrespectful towards their parents and elders;
What Will the Mashiach Do?
Before the time of the mashiach, there shall be war and suffering (Ezekiel 38:16)
The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).
Olam Ha-Ba: The Messianic Age
The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come. This term can cause some confusion, because it is also used to refer to a spiritual afterlife. In English, we commonly use the term "messianic age" to refer specifically to the time of the messiah.
Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people (Isaiah 2:4). Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist. Some authorities suggest that the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth supernatural abundance (Isaiah 11:6-11:9). Others, however, say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace and prosperity.
All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among the nations to their home in Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). The law of the Jubilee will be reinstated.
In the Olam Ha-Ba, the whole world will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9). There will be no murder, robbery, competition or jealousy. There will be no sin (Zephaniah 3:13). Sacrifices will continue to be brought in the Temple, but these will be limited to thanksgiving offerings, because there will be no further need for expiatory offerings.
Biblical Passages Referring to the Mashiach
The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:
Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14
http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
This is who they say the Messiah is and what he will do, but it seems to me it requires them to ignore many parts of their own Bible, and scripture like Isa 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.I doubt that any of them ever look at Isa 53, including the rabbi's.
Yet, they also have this promise from God--
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD:
for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. --Jer 31
This is talking about the northern kingdom [house of Israel] and the southern kingdom [house of Judah] and how God will bring them together and make a new covenant with them [two sticks in one hand]. I wonder who they think the northern kingdom is today [house of Israel] since that group was taken into captivity and lost to history [the northern ten tribes].
Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.
The Seven Laws of Noah
According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles. Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come.
http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm
This implies that any Gentile who doesn't follow these laws does not have a place in the world to come. So what happens to them? Likewise, what about those Gentiles that are not righteous? What happens to them?
It would have to be annihilation or being held in some place away from the world to come.
I didn't see anything about Gentiles going to a place where they can pay for their sins or be purified.
From ww's link:
A discussion of the classic rabbinic view of the afterlife, including
these topics and more, can be found in an essay by Rabbi Zalman
Schacter Shalomi called "Life in the hereafter: A tour of what's to
come", found at [5]http://www.elevated.fsnet.co.uk/index-page13.html.
Gehenna is fairly well defined in rabbinic literature. It is sometimes
translated as "hell", but Jews must take note that the Christian
version of hell is different from the Jewish view of Gehenna. Some
Christians believe that hell is an abode of eternal torment where
sinners go, and is also for anyone who does not accept Jesus as their
messiah and G-d. Other Christians believe Hell is a place of
separation from G-d (which, for Christians, is torture enough), from
which believers are eventually saved by Jesus. Roman Catholics believe
that Hell is a place of eternal suffering--physical, mental and
spiritual suffering. In the Roman Catholic view of Hell, the physical
pain is constant and severe; but the worst torture of Hell is the
knowledge that they will never see G-d and that they will remain in
Hell for eternity. For Roman Catholics, Hell is permanent and eternal.
For Roman Catholics, the soul that has deliberately and knowingly
disobeyed G-d's commandments in life and that remains in a state of
mortal sin upon death has through it's own free will damned itself to
Hell for all eternity. Roman Catholics also have the notion of
Purgatory, which is for souls that are truly repentant, but not in the
state of grace upon death. Purgatory is similar to Hell in that there
is physical suffering, the Roman Catholic belief is that the soul will
return to G-d when it is purged of its sins. Purgatory can last a day
or thousands of years depending on the amount of purging the
individual soul requires.
However, for Jews, gehenna--while certainly a terribly unpleasant
place--is not hell. The majority of rabbinic thought maintains that
people are not tortured in hell forever; the longest that one can be
there is said to be 12 months. It is a spiritual forge where the soul
is purified for its eventual ascent to Gan Eden [Heaven], and where
all imperfections are purged. [In this sense, it is somewhat similar
to the Roman Catholic purgatory, however the time period has a
definate maximum]. Gehennom (lit: the valley of Hinnom, in Jerusalem;
i.e. hell) is the sinner's experience in the afterlife. In other
words, it's the same "place" as gan eiden (lit: the garden of Eden;
i.e. heaven) -- it's the perspective of the individual that makes it
one or the other.
In some descriptions of the afterlife, we find that beyond Gan Eden
there is a little known realm called the otzar, the divine treasury of
souls; this is also called the tzror ha-hayyim, the bundle of life.
This otzar is a transcendent realm of human souls, in the highest
spheres of creation. Before souls are born they are said to come from
this treasury, and they return they at some point after death.
Souls are said to originate in a realm called the 'guf' (Avodah Zarah
5a, Nedarim 13b, Yevamot 62a), from which they descend to the earthly
real to animate human bodies. After death, these souls return to the
otzar, or tzror ha-hayyim. (Shabbat 152a; Pesikta Rabbati 2:3)
According to the Kabbalah [Jewish mysticism] every human has at least
one element in their soul; with the proper study a person can
eventually develop two higher levels of the soul. A common way of
explaining the three parts of the soul is as follows:
1. Nefesh - the lower part, or animal part, of the soul. Is linked to
instincts and bodily cravings.
2. Ruach - the middle soul, the spirit. It contains the moral virtues
and the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
3. Neshamah - the higher soul, or super-soul. This separates man from
all other lifeforms. It is related to the intellect, and allows
man to enjoy and benefit from the afterlife. This part of the soul
is provided both to Jew and non-Jew alike at birth. It allows one
to have some awareness of the existence and presence of G-d.
The "Raaya Meheimna," a later addition to the Zohar, posits that
there are in fact two more parts of the human soul, the chayyah
and yehidah. These parts were considered to represent the
sublimest levels of intuitive cognition, and were only within the
grasp of very few individuals.
4. Chayyah - The part of the soul that allows one to have an
awareness of the divine life force itself.
5. Yehidad - the highest plane of the soul, in which one can achieve
as full a union with G-d as is possible.
According to the Zohar, after death each aspect of the soul undergoes
a different experience on the afterlife journey. The lower levels of
the soul are purified and purged of physical and emotional
attachments, while the higher levels experience transcendental bliss.
The nefesh temporarily remains with the body in the grave, undergoing
the Hibbut Ha-Kever, the suffering of the grave. Simultaneously, the
Ruach experiences Gehenna for 12 months. "Gehenna is conceived of as a
purification process in which the psychic remnants from the previous
life are purged and transformed. This purgation process lasts only
twelve months and is tormentingly painful in direct proportion to each
individual's lived life experience. [Simcha Paull-Rapahel ] After
leaving Gehenna, the ruah then permanently enters the Lower Gan Eden.
After death the Neshama, since it not subject to being tainted by sin,
goes to Gan Eden Elyon, the Upper Gan Eden, where it experiences
divine reward and bliss. The hayyah and yehidah also return to Upper
Gan Eden immediately after death, and become as one with G-d as is
possible. "Those who have awakened these dimensions of their being are
able to perceive the infinite grandeur of the divine realms, to enter
the everflowing celestial stream - described by the Zoha as the
"bundle of life". [Paull-Rapahel]
Given all this, what happens to the soul of the nonbeliever? The most
common belief in contemporary traditional Jewish communities is that
all souls go to the after-life. Nearly all, barring a handful or two
in all of human history, eventually end up in Gan Eden (roughly:
heaven), even non-believers. Maimonides (a medieval Jewish thinker)
opined that non-believers cease to exist upon death. His reasoning was
that the ability to exist eternally is G-d's, and is only acquired by
the soul to the extent that the soul knows of, and therefore shares
some of the form of, G-d. This opinion was more popular in the midevil
period, but no longer captures much attention, since around the early
19th century. At that time, the Chassidic and Mussar movements
influenced Orthodox thought. The Aristotilian influence of the
medieval thinkers like Maimonides faded in favor of other, equally
old, approaches to the problem. All of these notions have roots in the
Talmud (our earliest written rabbinic texts) and earlier. It is just a
matter of which approach to G-d from within that tradition people
follow. [Note: While you may have heard of Chassidim, there are few if
any Mussarists left post-WWII. It was an Orthodox movement based on
personality improvement and stressed the inter-personal commandments.]
As for the question of Purgatory. Again, there is no one Jewish
position on the subject, even if we limit ourselves to the traditional
Orthodox position. The Talmud refers to the deceased going to a Word
of Truth or going to the heavens--without distinction. It is generally
assumed these are homonyms, but these quotes still speak of a single
afterlife. Others speak of the Garden of Eden and Gehenna. Neither
could be meant literally, as Adam was in the literal Garden before
death, and the valley of Hinnom (Gei Hinnom, in Hebrew) is a valley in
current Jerusalem (where the Canaanite locals practiced human
sacrifice by passing their children through the fires for Molech).
Some therefore understand this to mean that Eden vs Gehenna is not a
difference in "location" but rather in how one experiences the
afterlife. Someone who spent life developing an appreciation for G-d
and Truth will find it as pleasant (Heb: eden) as the garden, those
who developed interest in other pursuits will find the experience
hellish. A number of sources, such as R' Chaim of Vilozhin (founder of
the current Yeshiva movement, late 18th early 19th cent) and R' Israel
of Salant (founder of the Mussar movement, late 18th cent), describe
the fires of gehenna as those of shame. Facing the truth of what one
could have been and seeing what one was. The number of people subject
to a permanent "stay" in gehenna is very small. The Talmud (Tr
Sanhedrin, 11th ch) names 4 people up to their day who qualified.
Otherwise, the experience itself is atoning, creating a person who is
capable of enjoying the presence of G-d. For these few people, they so
identified themselves with sin that to abandon sin would be to lose
their essence.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/section-9.html
Sounds to me like they just make up the rules as they go along, ww. One falls out of favor, another falls out of favor, and so on.
I don't see much Biblical support summoned for their positions.
I don't know where they get their 12 months atonement or that Gentiles have to follow laws given to Noah.
Notice Gentiles includes all Christians. We don't even get to follow the ten commandments.
I never wrote that they are right or wrong. I just said they have UR like believes.
QuoteNearly all, barring a handful or two in all of human history, eventually end up in Gan Eden (roughly: heaven), even non-believers.
QuoteHowever, for Jews, gehenna--while certainly a terribly unpleasant place--is not hell. The majority of rabbinic thought maintains that people are not tortured in hell forever; the longest that one can be there is said to be 12 months. It is a spiritual forge where the soul is purified for its eventual ascent to Gan Eden [Heaven], and where all imperfections are purged.
So, everybody enters heaven. It's about correction instead of demons running around with pith forks. Very limited time even compared to purgatory.
QuoteSounds to me like they just make up the rules as they go along, ww
I think the Jews can righfully say the same of Christians with their zillion denominations.
QuoteI don't see much Biblical support summoned for their positions.
Is that their mistake or because your OT knowledge isn't deep enough? Same can be asked about RCC's purgatory. Where did it originate from?
I think that the Jews received more knowledge than is written in the OT. Two examples of that. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they had to leave Gan Eden but nowhere we see "I your Lord commands:....." that forbids eating from the tree.
Same thing when Cain kills Abel. No sins without law. Killing Abel was wrong meaning their was a law against it. A law we were not told of.
The Jewish "hell" is in the valley of Hinnom. Jesus refereed to that valley too. Again it seems Jews had certain knowledge that Hinnom wasn't just a literal valley like millions of others on earth.
:2c:
Quote from: wwI never wrote that they are right or wrong. I just said they have UR like believes.
Some do, at least for Jews, although it's not always clear what happens to the Gentiles.
Some don't.
"Maimonides (a medieval Jewish thinker)
opined that non-believers cease to exist upon death"
QuoteI think the Jews can righfully say the same of Christians with their zillion denominations.
How so? All Christian denominations are biblically based. What differs is the translations and understanding of the Bible.
QuoteI think that the Jews received more knowledge than is written in the OT. Two examples of that. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they had to leave Gan Eden but nowhere we see "I your Lord commands:....." that forbids eating from the tree.
Gen 2:16 And the LORDH3068 GodH430
commandedH6680 H5921
the manH120
command=
appoint, enjoin, forbid, give a charge, give a command 2:17 But of the treeH4480 H6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil,H7451 thou shalt notH3808 eatH398 ofH4480 it:
Quote from: Molly on December 24, 2011, 04:48:28 PM
Quote from: wwI never wrote that they are right or wrong. I just said they have UR like believes.
Some do, at least for Jews, although it's not always clear what happens to the Gentiles.
The article uses words as "souls" and "all humanity".
That doesn't seem to exclude Gentiles.
QuoteSome don't.
"Maimonides (a medieval Jewish thinker)
opined that non-believers cease to exist upon death"
True, but the article also states is was short lived minority view.
QuoteQuoteI think the Jews can righfully say the same of Christians with their zillion denominations.
How so? All Christian denominations are biblically based. What differs is the translations and understanding of the Bible.
Jews don't have Biblical based views?
About Bible translations. What came first? Wrong translation or doctrine?
QuoteQuoteI think that the Jews received more knowledge than is written in the OT. Two examples of that. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they had to leave Gan Eden but nowhere we see "I your Lord commands:....." that forbids eating from the tree.
Gen 2:16 And the LORDH3068 GodH430 commandedH6680 H5921 the manH120
command=appoint, enjoin, forbid, give a charge, give a command
2:17 But of the treeH4480 H6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil,H7451 thou shalt notH3808 eatH398 ofH4480 it:
Whoops :mblush:
How about murder? Keeping Sabbath?
Quote from: wwThe article uses words as "souls" and "all humanity".
That doesn't seem to exclude Gentiles.
It wasn't clear enough to me that I would bet my soul on it.
QuoteTrue, but the article also states is was short lived minority view.
The article used it as an example of differing views going back to ancient times.
QuoteJews don't have Biblical based views?
About Bible translations. What came first? Wrong translation or doctrine?
Jews have a lot of extra Biblical views. Jesus accused them of this--traditions of men that make the word of God of no effect.
Translation error first or doctrine first? You mean is it a conspiracy? I don't know enough to say, but I think most Christians do their best to keep their views Biblically based, and they are stuck with the translations we have.
QuoteJews have a lot of extra Biblical views.
Luckily Christianity has no pagan influence at all.
QuoteTranslation error first or doctrine first? You mean is it a conspiracy?
Politics.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 24, 2011, 08:47:31 PM
QuoteJews have a lot of extra Biblical views.
Luckily Christianity has no pagan influence at all.
QuoteTranslation error first or doctrine first? You mean is it a conspiracy?
Politics.
Is this the Christmas debate again? :rollingeyes:
Mark 16:15
"He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."Peace on Earth and Mercy Mild is taken from the Christmas Carol, 'Hark The Herald Angels Sing. Written by the brother of John Wesley, Charles in 1739. It is normally set to Felix Mendelssohn's tune 'The Festival Dance' written 1840.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDPwNPAV6tA
Hark the herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled"
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
I would say that most of christianity is pseudo-biblical. Communion as a little cracker and cup of grape juice, church services, pastor/priest layperson divide. Many of the doctrines are based of the traditions of men.
For me christianity looks pretty similar to pharisee judaism.
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 24, 2011, 09:22:33 PM
I would say that most of christianity is pseudo-biblical. Communion as a little cracker and cup of grape juice, church services, pastor/priest layperson divide. Many of the doctrines are based of the traditions of men.
For me christianity looks pretty similar to pharisee judaism.
What would you suggest they do instead of bread and grape juice for communion?
In Protestant churches the minister is responsible to the deacons in what he preaches about.
Quote from: Molly on December 24, 2011, 08:58:41 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 24, 2011, 08:47:31 PM
QuoteJews have a lot of extra Biblical views.
Luckily Christianity has no pagan influence at all.
QuoteTranslation error first or doctrine first? You mean is it a conspiracy?
Politics.
Is this the Christmas debate again? :rollingeyes:
It's part of the package deal :winkgrin:
The founding of RCC had political motives. It caused a very rapid growth (Constantine just declared it a state religion). But it also caused adding lots of pagan stuff. Hell being the most prominent.
Quote from: Molly on December 24, 2011, 09:24:59 PM
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 24, 2011, 09:22:33 PM
I would say that most of christianity is pseudo-biblical. Communion as a little cracker and cup of grape juice, church services, pastor/priest layperson divide. Many of the doctrines are based of the traditions of men.
For me christianity looks pretty similar to pharisee judaism.
What would you suggest they do instead of bread and grape juice for communion?
In Protestant churches the minister is responsible to the deacons in what he preaches about.
Communion is not meant to be a ritual. It is sharing in the body of christ, if any food is involved its an actual meal. Not some specified time where the clergy passes out the elements, but sharing your life with your brethren. My same issue is with the clergy. There is no such thing as clergy or titles in the NC. Christ is our high priest, we are all priests. Christ is the head of the body, not any man. Each one brings a word, a prophecy a song. Not one guy brings a word, and a professional worship team brings a song, week after week, while the masses sit in rows waiting to be fed by the people on stage.
Most churches teach hell, which needs no explaining, also many other erroneous doctrines, whatever fits the flavor of the denomination. The protestant church is supposedly based on the NC church, but I have yet to find anything in the Bible that shows me anything like what I've attended. Church membership, there's a problem right there, as if you can take classes, or sign a document to be part of the church, well at least not to be part of the ecclesia. Even calling the building or the place a church is an abomination that deceives people into believing God is far from them.
:cloud9: :thumbsup: Couldn't agree more....
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 25, 2011, 01:58:56 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 24, 2011, 09:24:59 PM
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 24, 2011, 09:22:33 PM
I would say that most of christianity is pseudo-biblical. Communion as a little cracker and cup of grape juice, church services, pastor/priest layperson divide. Many of the doctrines are based of the traditions of men.
For me christianity looks pretty similar to pharisee judaism.
What would you suggest they do instead of bread and grape juice for communion?
In Protestant churches the minister is responsible to the deacons in what he preaches about.
Communion is not meant to be a ritual. It is sharing in the body of christ, if any food is involved its an actual meal. Not some specified time where the clergy passes out the elements, but sharing your life with your brethren. My same issue is with the clergy. There is no such thing as clergy or titles in the NC. Christ is our high priest, we are all priests. Christ is the head of the body, not any man. Each one brings a word, a prophecy a song. Not one guy brings a word, and a professional worship team brings a song, week after week, while the masses sit in rows waiting to be fed by the people on stage.
Most churches teach hell, which needs no explaining, also many other erroneous doctrines, whatever fits the flavor of the denomination. The protestant church is supposedly based on the NC church, but I have yet to find anything in the Bible that shows me anything like what I've attended. Church membership, there's a problem right there, as if you can take classes, or sign a document to be part of the church, well at least not to be part of the ecclesia. Even calling the building or the place a church is an abomination that deceives people into believing God is far from them.
Yes amen!
:cloud9: Just wanted to add to that, that the references that begin, "to the church at _____", was not a literal building on that site, nor was it just the current roster of believers, but the WHOLE of that city is His habitation, just not all of them know it yet.
Our initial salvation experience is not so much an "inviting Him in" as if He were not there (although He honors the cry where we are at or what we have been taught), but is the heart's turning TO Him, with the sudden awareness of His "location" as being within. We literally wake up to righteousness, as Christ IS the righteousness of God. Prior to this, the darkness in us, comprehended it not. He is the breath that we take; without the Spirit we die. There is no place where He is NOT, NOTHING can separate us from the love of God, and His Spirit IS love.
In my walk, since receiving this revelation, I've had more results with talking to unbelievers about "Him being in them, so where can they run to?", than to try to tell them to ask Him in. There is something that registers in them when this is voiced, their spirit gives witness and brings repentance and right standing as their heart turns to Him. All have to have this experience; hearts must be pierced. To be pierced in custom, was what they did to slaves; this is why Paul said he was a bond slave of His love. My :2c:
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 25, 2011, 01:58:56 AM
Quote from: Molly on December 24, 2011, 09:24:59 PM
Quote from: redhotmagma on December 24, 2011, 09:22:33 PM
I would say that most of christianity is pseudo-biblical. Communion as a little cracker and cup of grape juice, church services, pastor/priest layperson divide. Many of the doctrines are based of the traditions of men.
For me christianity looks pretty similar to pharisee judaism.
What would you suggest they do instead of bread and grape juice for communion?
In Protestant churches the minister is responsible to the deacons in what he preaches about.
Communion is not meant to be a ritual. It is sharing in the body of christ, if any food is involved its an actual meal. Not some specified time where the clergy passes out the elements, but sharing your life with your brethren. My same issue is with the clergy. There is no such thing as clergy or titles in the NC. Christ is our high priest, we are all priests. Christ is the head of the body, not any man. Each one brings a word, a prophecy a song. Not one guy brings a word, and a professional worship team brings a song, week after week, while the masses sit in rows waiting to be fed by the people on stage.
Most churches teach hell, which needs no explaining, also many other erroneous doctrines, whatever fits the flavor of the denomination. The protestant church is supposedly based on the NC church, but I have yet to find anything in the Bible that shows me anything like what I've attended. Church membership, there's a problem right there, as if you can take classes, or sign a document to be part of the church, well at least not to be part of the ecclesia. Even calling the building or the place a church is an abomination that deceives people into believing God is far from them.
Enjoyed that. Agree. :thumbsup: