jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Jesus was a Jew.
You are assuming Jesus even existed. There is no evidence of such.
At any rate, the books of the New Testament were not written by Jesus nor were they written by any contemporaries of Jesus or anybody who knew him.
They were written by Christians who were trying to justify their apostasy.
quote:
Adam was also created with an immortal life.
Then what's the point of the Tree of Life? The only thing standing between Adam and Eve and complete apotheosis was the Tree of Life. What would god have done had they eaten of it first?
quote:
It lools like Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Which flies in the face of Judaism and the very first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. There is no son because that would imply a second and there is no second. There is only one. God doesn't need a son.
quote:
And I am pointing out that some of your interpretation surely cannot boast of greater Jewish Orthodoxy.
And I never said they were. The fact that my comments don't necessarily jibe with Judaism doesn't mean yours do.
The only point regarding Judaism I have made is that Judaism doesn't have a concept of the devil the way Christianity does. The serpent in the garden is just a serpent. It cannot be the devil because there is no devil.
Again, there is only one god.
quote:
quote:
There's a lesson to be learned there. Hint: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I don't follow this comment. You'd have to elaborate.
The very complaint you are making toward me also applies to you.
quote:
This is too drastic a change of subject and requires a lot of additional discussion.
No, it isn't. You said that god hates death. And yet, there are myriad examples of god killing everything in sight. One of them quite literally.
quote:
But here are a few passages from the New Testament which show that Messiah Jesus and His apostles considered some people dead though they were walking around
You cannot use the New Testament to try and justify its contradictions of the Old. If you could, then there wouldn't be any Christians for they would all be Jews as Judaism would recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The very point behind the New Testament is that it doesn't match the Old. The books of the Jews were written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context.
quote:
I did not state that He did catagorically.
Huh? First you're saying god changed his mind and rather than having Adam die like he said in Gen 2:17, he changed his mind and saved Adam's life. Now you're saying he didn't change his mind. They can't both be true. Either he changed his mind or he didn't. Nowhere in the text do we find a statement that god changes his mind. Since it doesn't, any claim that god did is an imposition upon the text.
quote:
I think surely this teaching is sourced in demons.
Stop beating around the bush, jaywill. If you're going to claim I'm a Satanist, just come right out and say it.
quote:
I don't see God panicing at all.
OK, first, a spelling flame (yeah...I know): It's "panicking," with a "k." In English, "c" before "i" is soft as in "icing." "Panicing" would be pronounced "PAN-ih-seeng." Similarly, "c" before "e" is also soft, so it's "panicked."
Second, the text clearly states that he does:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
What's god afraid of? Why does god care if Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Life? You just said that god hates death, so why would god condemn Adam and Eve to death? God is clearly panicking, doing everything he can to get rid of Adam and Eve lest they achieve apotheosis.
quote:
A Satanist is a worshipper of Satan. I do not think that you are that.
And yet, you just said:
I think surely this teaching is sourced in demons. I think that possibly some people who espouse this teaching are the unwitting pupils of evil spirits.
...
It is a demonic teaching to teach that the serpent was the trustworthy one in Genesis and that Yahweh God was the untrustworthy lying one.
You should drop this teaching.
That you're feigning modesty and claiming that I'm "unwitting," you're still insisting that I'm spreading the word of the devil.
So just come out and say it.
quote:
I think probably you are playing around with a concept which you don't think is really realistic.
So I'm playing the Devil's Advocate?
quote:
ase tell me on which DAY did Jehovah God make earth and heaven?
According to Genesis 1, heaven was created on the second day:
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Earth was created on the third:
Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
[...]
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
quote:
My point is this word [Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary #3117] is used in Gen. 2:4 to speak generally. For it was not on a single day that God made the heavens and the earth but in six.
But Genesis 1 is where we find the specific days on which things happen. You're trying to say that "day" only means one thing and it does not. If you phrase it in a certain way, it means a literal, 24-hour day ("evening and morning"). If you phrase it another way, it means a nebulous, non-specific length of time ("in my day.")
And in Genesis 2:17, the phrasing is very specific: If you eat from the tree, you will be physically dead before the sun sets.
quote:
Are you taking a position that you positively know that they were not the same author ? Could not one author compile them both into one writing though he knew that two sources were being derived?
The text has been redacted, yes. But the two stories are contradictory. A single author writing both as if it were a coherent, single story makes no sense.
This is even more apparent in the story of Noah. It is literally two stories shuffled together. That's why Noah enters the ark twice, why the animals come in two different sets of numbers, why the ark lands twice, etc. It's two different stories by two different people.
quote:
Are you slipping into another debate on another subject ?
No, we're talking about what is meant by "on the day you eat" means. You seem to think it means that it's not really a day. And since you brought up the "day" reference from earlier in Genesis as an example of how "day" can mean something other than a literal, 24-hour day, I responded that you seem to be indicating that "yowm" only means one thing.
Instead, "yowm" means different things and the contextual phrasing surrounding it will tell you what is meant. And in Genesis 2:17, the context is quite clear: If you eat from the tree, you will be physically dead before the sun sets.
quote:
And this is suppose to champion Orthodox Judaism?
I never said it was any kind of Judaism let alone Orthodox. How did we land upon Orthodox?
I am simply reading the text. The fact that I am not speaking for the Jews doesn't mean you are, though.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
quote:
As I suspected you're drifting into another debate.
You're the one who brought it up. If you don't like the fact that you're being shown up, then perhaps you should retract your statement. You're trying to say that the word "day" in Gen 2:17 doesn't mean an actual day and you're using Gen 2:4 as justification. All I'm pointing out is that "day" can actually mean a literal, 24-hour day as well as a nebulous, non-specific length of time and that the way you determine which is meant is by looking at the contextual phrasing surrounding the word.
And in Genesis 2:17, the context is quite clear: If you eat from the tree, you will be physically dead before the sun sets.
quote:
I think this rendering brings you closer to my understanding. Beginnig to die, Adam will die.
No, not "beginning." If I had meant "beginning," I would have said "beginning." If the text meant "beginning," it would have said "beginning." Since neither I nor the text say that, it is clear we don't mean that. The phrase, "dying, you will die," means something very specific. It isn't implying that you're going to linger for another thousand years or that you will lose your immortality. It means that you're going to drop dead on the spot.
quote:
In the Bible there is a chapter or so about Asa. There are 27 books about Jesus.
Jesus isn't mentioned anywhere in the Jewish texts. The fact that Christians are obsessed with him is irrelevant when discussing the Old Testament. Asa and Noah, however, are mentioned and both of them are declared to be perfect.
quote:
The point here is that nothing and no one in the Old Testament is greater than Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is irrelevant when approaching the Old Testament. You're still trying to impose Christian sensibilities upon a Jewish text.
quote:
Since when was pagan nation of Tyre "the holy mountain of God?"
Since the notions of "hyperbole" and "metaphor" were invented. How many times do I have to say it before you remember it?
quote:
I don't know what "Christianity claims" about Judaism's knowledge of the Devil.
You misunderstand. I am comparing Judaism's concept of the devil with Christianity's. The concept of where evil comes from is different in Judaism than it is in Christianity. There is no devil the way that Christians claim there is.
quote:
Do you still want to feel pity for this "misunderstood" enemy of God and man?
How does one feel "pity" for something that doesn't exist, according to the text?
The serpent in the garden was just a serpent. It wasn't the devil.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
