Did Jesus only come for the Jews ?

[seanph]

Good morning J.

The very same idea MSH is putting forth... it seems that what he is saying is nothing new but rather a simple rehashing of what the Jews were known to believe. When Jesus identifies himself as the cloud rider of Daniel 7, the Pharisee's called it blashamy and tore their clothes, why?

Mark 14:60-63

60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"

62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

First, I would say this account is highly doubtful. Who was there to witness this event, for it was held in private? Second, even if this event occurred, Jesus told them -- as you mentioned in reference to Daniel 7 -- that they would see him returning in the clouds. Did he? No. He died on the cross crying out to Yahweh as to why he had been forsaken. Third, this addresses the whole idea of Jesus and Yahweh being one. Why would Jesus cry out to himself as to why he had abandoned himself?! Fourth, which leads me to ask the question I have done on a myriad of occasions: Why would God come to earth to sacrifice himself to himself so that he may save his own creation from himself?!

Jesus was stating that he was Yahweh in human form, we also know that this title is one that was used of Baal the co-regent of El, and a clear parallel should be seen by scholars in this, they don't why not?

Well, the reason scholars do not see the parallel is simply because there is none. Jesus and Yahweh as co-eternal and of one substance is a Christian invention -- one that needed to be resolved in a Council no less (Council of Nicaea 325 CE). As KCJM stated in his post on page 6, one cannot look at the Old Testament through New Testament eyes. This is what is being done here by MSH. And I believe it is a terrible mistake. Jesus was a devout Jew, and to equate himself equal with Yahweh would be pure blasphemy. Of course, now we are getting in to the whole discussion of the relationship between Jesus and God as described in the New Testament. The whole "Son" issue has been discussed in many a thread ad nauseam.

Don't discount Heiser just because he is a christian. His views are valid and accepted academically or he wouldn't have recieved his doctorate on this subject expounding his views, which are all part of his dissertation. If it was academically inaccurate, he would have been laughed out of the room...

I certainly don't discount him because he is a Christian. I discount him because he has mixed faith with scholarship -- Devotion Method with Historical Method. And this is why, I believe, he is teaching at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary -- where his views are accepted as a valid. And, again, please know I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you or your beliefs. But these are the guys I used to believe in -- add Craig, McDowell et al-- part of the glue that held together my Christian beliefs. And they are a major part of why I left.

As for his dissertation ... In order to earn a doctorate in this field, one must be persuasive in his argument. The historical information he uses must be accurate. How he uses that information to defend his position is another thing--what is focused on. He must persuade the thesis committee that his argument as defined in his dissertation -- in this case "the presence of a pantheon in the Hebrew Bible and the binitarian nature of ancient Israelite religion and Judaism, a backdrop for the belief in the deity of Christ and the New Testament" -- is plausible. Obviously he did so. Does that mean he is correct that Jesus was the co-regent of Yahweh? No. Does that mean the thesis committee now believes that Jesus was the co-regent of Yahweh? No.

That said, MSH will be speaking at a UFO Conference near you soon. You know, I might go!

Alien Resistance

http://www.alienresistance.org/aod05speakers.htm

MSH--The Facade

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

Most kindly,

Sean

Edited June 26, 2008 by seanph

[+Sherapy]

Good morning J.

First, I would say this account is highly doubtful. Who was there to witness this event, for it was held in private? Second, even if this event occurred, Jesus told them -- as you mentioned in reference to Daniel 7 -- that they would see him returning in the clouds. Did he? No. He died on the cross crying out to Yahweh as to why he had been forsaken. Third, this addresses the whole idea of Jesus and Yahweh being one. Why would Jesus cry out to himself as to why he abandoned himself?! Fourth, which leads me to ask the question I have done on a myriad of occasions: Why would God come to earth to sacrifice himself to himself so that he may save his own creation from himself?!

Well, the reason scholars do not see the parallel is simply because there is none. Jesus and Yahweh as co-eternal and of one substance is a Christian invention -- one that needed to be resolved in a Council no less (Council of Nicaea 325 CE). As KCJM stated in his post on page 6, one cannot look at the Old Testament through New Testament eyes. This is what is being done here by MSH. And I believe it is a terrible mistake. Jesus was a devout Jew, and to equate himself equal with Yahweh would be pure blasphemy. Of course, now we are getting in to the whole discussion of the relationship between Jesus and God as described in the New Testament. The whole "Son" issue has been discussed in many a thread ad nauseam.

I certainly don't discount him because he is a Christian. I discount him because he has mixed faith with scholarship -- Devotion Method with Historical Method. And this is why, I believe, he is teaching at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary -- where his views are accepted as a valid. And, again, please know I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you or your beliefs. But these are the guys I used to believe in -- add Craig, McDowell et al-- part of the glue that held together my Christian beliefs. And they are a major part of why I left.

As for his dissertation ... In order to earn a doctorate in this field, one must be persuasive in his argument. The historical information he uses must be accurate. How he uses that information to defend his position is another thing--what is focused on. He must persuade the thesis committee that his argument as defined in his dissertation -- in this case "the presence of a pantheon in the Hebrew Bible and the binitarian nature of ancient Israelite religion and Judaism, a backdrop for the belief in the deity of Christ and the New Testament" -- is plausible. Obviously he did so. Does that mean he is correct that Jesus was the co-Regent of Yahweh? No.

That said, MSH will be speaking at a UFO Conference near you soon.

Alien Resistance

http://www.alienresistance.org/aod05speakers.htm

MSH--The Facade

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

Most kindly,

Sean

as always Seany P a wonder ful way to begin my day a very informed and educational post penned by you...

[danielost]

A redeemer will come to Israel, to them that turn away from transgression. It does not say "There shall come a deliverer who will turn ungodliness away from Jacob. You are using that which came after to interpret what is before because you are unwilling to accept the Truth.

================================================================================

Isaiah 59:20~And a redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

I think your misreading this again.

To me it reads

A redeemer will come to isreal.

A redeemer will come to those who turn away from transgression.

Edited June 26, 2008 by danielost

[Apostle]

You quote Romans because you are doing exactly what I said you shouldn't do. You are reading the NT and then reading the OT and then saying that because the NT says it one way, it must mean the same thing in the OT. This is a mistake. The verse says, "And a redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. "

A redeemer will come to Israel, to them that turn away from transgression. It does not say "There shall come a deliverer who will turn ungodliness away from Jacob. You are using that which came after to interpret what is before because you are unwilling to accept the Truth.

Romans was not the only thing I brought up.

However, since we are on it, I do not see how you can accuse the New Testament of mucking up the Old Testament. Paul wrote Romans and Paul was a Jew. He probably had all the understanding of the Old Testament as you do and more, since he convinced other Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, and he saw Jesus. The New Testament is history; many books are letters written for encouragement or understanding to other churches or people.

An understanding of the Old Testament and Jewish traditions bring much more understanding to the New Testament; so now that I think about it, I think you've got it backwards. The Old Testament exemplifies the New. I quoted Romans because Paul talked a lot about misunderstandings or problems people had with the Bible and he talked a lot about Jews. He faced some of the same problems people face today, and had very wise answers.

Sure, he didn't quote that Scripture word for word and also uses some of Isaiah 27:9, but they give the same notion and it is the Word of God.

But, Romans wasn't the only thing I brought up. From reading the chapter and getting better understand from a previous verse, I said that I just think you misunderstand the verse.

Isaiah 59:1-2

"Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear."

The Lord saves and the Lord hears; but sin separates us from God that he cannot reach us to save us and because we are not willing to let him save us he will not hear us.

But read on in the chapter. In verse 12 it says, "we acknowledge our iniquities" and that was all it took. In verse 16, it was the Lord who worked salvation, or brought victory over sin. The Lord will deliver those who acknowledge their sin and allow him to turn them. He takes away our sin and gives us new life.

Ezekiel 18:31- "Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

Ezekiel 36:26- "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."

These two verse do not contradict each other. It is God who turns us from our sins and gives us a new hear and spirit. The only thing he requires is that we cooperate with him and ask him- Lamentations 5:21 - "Turn us to you, O Lord..." Even these exemplify the New Testament and salvation through Jesus Christ.

[TheKnight]

Even these exemplify the New Testament and salvation through Jesus Christ.

*sighs* why do I even bother? Like I said, your reading the old through eyes of the new.

[Apostle]

*sighs* why do I even bother? Like I said, your reading the old through eyes of the new.

Have you ever read any of the New Testament?

[Apostle]

Ok, ~Kaizen~ CJM, I have a couple questions for you. I've been thinking about this and looked in the Tanakh, which didn't get me a clear answer. What is the Tanakh to you, or to Jews? I know more about Messianic Judaism than about just Judaism and I've never thought about this much before. All I could find in the Tanakh was that it is "the textbook of the soul" and the "instructions for life." Is that all it is or what exactly does that mean? And just to clarify, how do you believe you get "saved" and are you specifically still waiting for a Messiah? Thanks if you answer all of these.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Apostle

[Jor-el]

Good morning J.

First, I would say this account is highly doubtful. Who was there to witness this event, for it was held in private? Second, even if this event occurred, Jesus told them -- as you mentioned in reference to Daniel 7 -- that they would see him returning in the clouds. Did he? No. He died on the cross crying out to Yahweh as to why he had been forsaken. Third, this addresses the whole idea of Jesus and Yahweh being one. Why would Jesus cry out to himself as to why he had abandoned himself?! Fourth, which leads me to ask the question I have done on a myriad of occasions: Why would God come to earth to sacrifice himself to himself so that he may save his own creation from himself?!

Hi Sean, nice post as Supra Sheri said, you truly are one of the more demanding and challenging posters on the forum, not only do I learn directly from you in many instances but you force me to learn alot indirectly by provoking a desire to check up and refute some of what you say, if I remeber correctly you're the one who indirectly lead me to Heisers work which I had difficulty in accepting initially. The Divine Council was NEWS to me...

The point is not so much that Jesus used those words to describe himself, but rather that the concept of a second power in heaven was accepted by orthodox Judaism before the "reformation" in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. That the Head priest would claim blasphemy is a clear indication that the priest connected the "Son of Man" to Yahweh. My intent is not to use NT scripture and read it back into the OT to come up with this concept but rather just to present the evidence that the concept was not only known but also accepted in Jewish orthodoxy of the 2nd temple period as well as before.

Before I do so, I would like to quickly anser your comments above, no they didn't see him returning in the clouds because it simply hasn't happened yet, as you well know from your acquaintance with NT scripture. It was held in private yet we have the conversation recorded by Mark, it seems that somehow the conversation got out, maybe by one of the others in that private room, maybe even one of the guards which were present as can be discerned by the text. Why Jesus would cry out to himself, now here is a good question which Philo answers dramatically.

l. "God"

In three passages Philo describes the Logos even as God:

a.) Commenting on Genesis 22:16 Philo explains that God could only swear by himself (LA 3.207).

b.) When the scripture uses the Greek term for God ho theos, it refers to the true God, but when it uses the term theos, without the article ho, it refers not to the God, but to his most ancient Logos (Somn. 1.229-230).

c.) Commenting on Genesis 9:6 Philo states the reference to creation of man after the image of God is to the second deity, the Divine Logos of the Supreme being and to the father himself, because it is only fitting that the rational soul of man cannot be in relation to the preeminent and transcendent Divinity (QG 2.62).

Philo himself, however, explains that to call the Logos "God" is not a correct appellation (Somn.1.230). Also, through this Logos, which men share with God, men know God and are able to perceive Him (LA 1.37-38).

See: The Logos and God

The Logos was a ‘second God’; Philo says (Quaest. in Gen. 62) and elsewhere he is careful to define what he means (Som. 228). Our habit of reading back into first-century Judaism the orthodoxies of the later rabbis has led us to discount the possibility that a second God could have had a place within his Judaism. Philo was an acknowledged leader of the great Jewish community in Alexandria, and it is unlikely that he could have invented a second God and still retained any credibility, let alone led their embassy to the Emperor.

This from a man who was a Jew, a well known one at that, who never mentioned christians in his works and had, according to modern scholarly articles, absolutely no connection to christians. Amazing isn't it?

So to answer your question, no he wasn't calling out to himself.But to the father of which he (Jesus) as Logos was but a manifestation as a seperate entity.

For the benefit of other readers who might be interested I will supply a link to Philos thoughts on God and the Logos.

See: Doctrine of the Logos in Philo's Writings (All of chapter 11)

Your last question is actually answered inadvertantly as you read the above chapter 11.

Well, the reason scholars do not see the parallel is simply because there is none. Jesus and Yahweh as co-eternal and of one substance is a Christian invention -- one that needed to be resolved in a Council no less (Council of Nicaea 325 CE). As KCJM stated in his post on page 6, one cannot look at the Old Testament through New Testament eyes. This is what is being done here by MSH. And I believe it is a terrible mistake. Jesus was a devout Jew, and to equate himself equal with Yahweh would be pure blasphemy. Of course, now we are getting in to the whole discussion of the relationship between Jesus and God as described in the New Testament. The whole "Son" issue has been discussed in many a thread ad nauseam.

Actually again that is not true, Philos link demonstrates the concept is Jewish and not of christian origin, yet it is ignored by scholars who should know better.

Just over thirty years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought: Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism (Brill, 1977). Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9-13, Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. He was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of Judaism’s two powers in heaven were evil.

The Jewish category of a “second power in heaven” caught the attention of scholarly specialists in New Testament origins and Second Temple Jewish monotheism since the exaltation of a second power in heaven became the hallmark of Christianity. New Testament scholars were stimulated by the work of Segal and others who followed to search for an explanation for the exaltation of Jesus by a Jewish sect whose adherents were willing to suffer death rather than deny monotheism. How could the early Christians simultaneously affirm monotheism and worship a second power in heaven? If Christianity derived from Judaism, was the exaltation of a second power a departure from Israelite religion? Was there such a structure in Israelite religion and if so, from whence did it derive?

Segal could not answer the question of where Jews got the two powers idea from their own Bible, what we typically refer to as the Old Testament. He speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship. I agreed in principle, but eventually found a more precise and coherent explanation. Tracing the two powers in heaven idea back into Israel’s most ancient religion was my own dissertation topic (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004; available as a PDF via the right sidebar of this blog). I argued that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the co-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. The two powers teaching was a surviving element in Common Era Judaism of the old pre-exilic divine council-and quite an explosive one given the issue of monotheism.

I got the above from one of Heisers blogs, it is very interesting that a Jewish scholar, Alan Segal, found this same parallel in his own studies 30 years ago but it seems it also got ignored by the scholarly community. Not interesting or simply not something that should be talked about because it might rock the boat a little too much?

See: Two Powers in Heaven

See: Alan Segal

Please remember that none of what I have posted is looking at the OT through the eyes of christianity or the NT, it is the work of Jewish scholars.

I certainly don't discount him because he is a Christian. I discount him because he has mixed faith with scholarship -- Devotion Method with Historical Method. And this is why, I believe, he is teaching at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary -- where his views are accepted as a valid. And, again, please know I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you or your beliefs. But these are the guys I used to believe in -- add Craig, McDowell et al-- part of the glue that held together my Christian beliefs. And they are a major part of why I left.

I know you aren't being disrespectful, we got over that issue ages ago on a thread now long gone. I also don't accept something just because a christian says so, but if it jives with the rest of what I have come to accept then it merits a look. The same for none christian scholars who don't have an agenda, which many do as you well know.

As for his dissertation ... In order to earn a doctorate in this field, one must be persuasive in his argument. The historical information he uses must be accurate. How he uses that information to defend his position is another thing--what is focused on. He must persuade the thesis committee that his argument as defined in his dissertation -- in this case "the presence of a pantheon in the Hebrew Bible and the binitarian nature of ancient Israelite religion and Judaism, a backdrop for the belief in the deity of Christ and the New Testament" -- is plausible. Obviously he did so. Does that mean he is correct that Jesus was the co-regent of Yahweh? No. Does that mean the thesis committee now believes that Jesus was the co-regent of Yahweh? No.

Well it seems that at leat one of his sources was Philo among other Jewish literature found at Qumran. True, the thesis comitee probably remained skeptical, but it does show that this is an acceptable viewpoint even if it isn't palatable by many in the field.

That said, MSH will be speaking at a UFO Conference near you soon. You know, I might go!

Alien Resistance

http://www.alienresistance.org/aod05speakers.htm

MSH--The Facade

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

I'm seriously jealous, unfortunately I'd have to travel to the US to do that, not so good for me at this time. This is actually one of his specialty hobbies, going from UFO conference to conference just so that he can explain just what he thinks of Sitchin's Alien God theories.

He has also demonstrated that the phenomenon can be linked to spiritual entities rather than aliens from another star system. Heisers work has actually validated the ideas of Jacques Vallée one of UFOologies leading researchers, ideas that UFO's are actually multidmensional and not extra planetary.

As an alternative to the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis, Vallée has suggested a multidimensional visitation hypothesis. This hypothesis represents an extension of the ETH where the alleged extraterrestrials could be potentially from anywhere. The entities could be multidimensional beyond space-time, and thus could coexist with humans, yet remain undetected.

A slam dunk for what we term spiritual beings from the spiritual world.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Jor-el

[+Sherapy]

Jorel, It is very transparent that you are fair and open minded and educated i have learned alot from you also....

thankyou for all the info you have posted, very interesting, I look forward to following your continued discussion with Sean p.... you both bring a aspect of intellegensia that is refreshing and apprectiated by those as me who love to learn..... ....

[Lt_Ripley]

Have you ever read any of the New Testament?

lmao . obviously you don't know Kaizen ! lol.

not poking fun. but it is funny if you only knew. lmao

Edited June 27, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[Lt_Ripley]

Jorel, It is very transparent that you are fair and open minded and educated i have learned alot from you also....

thankyou for all the info you have posted, very interesting, I look forward to following your continued discussion with Sean p.... you both bring a aspect of intellegensia that is refreshing and apprectiated by those as me who love to learn..... ....

I agree.

[seanph]

Good morning J.

Hi Sean, nice post as Supra Sheri said, you truly are one of the more demanding and challenging posters on the forum, not only do I learn directly from you in many instances but you force me to learn alot indirectly by provoking a desire to check up and refute some of what you say, if I remeber correctly you're the one who indirectly lead me to Heisers work which I had difficulty in accepting initially. The Divine Council was NEWS to me...

First, thank you so much for your very kind words. And may I say ditto!

As for the Divine Council ... I think we were discussing Satan as being a part of God's Divine Council. Other than that, I obviously would not have taken it as far as MSH -- though I understand the logic behind it.

The point is not so much that Jesus used those words to describe himself, but rather that the concept of a second power in heaven was accepted by orthodox Judaism before the "reformation" in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. That the Head priest would claim blasphemy is a clear indication that the priest connected the "Son of Man" to Yahweh. My intent is not to use NT scripture and read it back into the OT to come up with this concept but rather just to present the evidence that the concept was not only known but also accepted in Jewish orthodoxy of the 2nd temple period as well as before.

As for the "Son of Man" issue ... This is always a very difficult issue. How it is used, can obviously lead to very different conclusions. And I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. My definition of SOM is more mainstream.

... The most common designation for Jesus, the term characteristic of his own usage, is “son of man.” This is often mistaken as a messianic title, though it was not used that way in rabbinic Judaism. It is not a title at all, but rather a Semitic idiom meaning simply an instance of the “human” race. Similarly, the idiom “daughters of Jerusalem” is not a title, but simply a way of referring to women from Jerusalem, Jerusalemites.17 Another instance of this kind of Semitic idiom occurs when Jesus refers to the head of a household who, in response to his greeting “Peace,” admits Jesus or his disciple for bed and breakfast. Jesus calls him a “son of peace,” that is, a peaceful person.18

Similarly “son of man” really means no more than son of humanity, an instance of the human race, a human being. Hence, it is just a synonym for “human,” as in the parallel lines of a psalm.19 The King James translation is word for word:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

The freer, but accurate, modern translation of the New Revised Standard Version reads:

What are human beings that you are mindful of them,

mortals that you care for them?

Here the self-effacing self-designation “son of man” is accurately rendered simply “mortals.”

This idiom meaning “human” is an unassuming way to refer to oneself as early as the book of Ezekiel, in which each of Ezekiel’s visions begins when God addresses him as “son of man,” meaning only “son of humanity,” “you human,” “frail mortal that you are.”20 We have already pointed out, in the case of the founder of the Dead Sea sect, the “Teacher of Righteousness,” that a shortage of adjectives made prepositional phrases play the role of adjectives— “Teacher of Righteousness” really just means “Righteous Teacher.” In the same way “son of man” really just means “human person.”

This idiom for “human” has been misunderstood as if it were primarily an apocalyptic title based on one occurrence in the book of Daniel.21 Daniel is narrating a vision spanning the world history of his day in which a series of beastly empires (lion, bear, leopard, and a fourth unnamed beast representing Rome) would be followed by a worldwide kingdom ruled on God’s behalf by a son of man, that is, by a son of humanity, a human, rather than by a beast. The point is that it will be a humane kingdom.22 The book of Daniel is not giving the ruler a title, but distinguishing the humane Jews from the beastly Romans.

Some modern translations do simply say “human,” rather than the cumbersome and misleading “son of man.” But to bring to expression the simple meaning a “human” while retaining the flavor of the Semitic idiom ... In the last saying “son of man [humanity]” is not a messianic title referring to Jesus as judge at the last judgment (a concept all too familiar to us from the Apostles’ Creed)...--The Gospel of Jesus, James Robinson, p. 182-7

The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of the Original Good News by James M. Robinson

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Jesus-Search-...TF8&s=books

AND:

"Son of man" is a common term in the Psalms, used to accentuate the difference between God and human beings. As in Ps. viii. 4 (A. V. 5), the phrase implies "mortality," "impotence," "transientness,"as against the omnipotence and eternality of God. Yhwh looks down from His throne in heaven upon the "children," or "sons," of "man" (Ps. xi. 4, xxxiii. 13). The faithful fail among them (Ps. xii. 2 [A. V. 1]); the seed of Yhwh's enemies will not abide among the "children of men" (Ps. xxi. 10). "Children of men" is thus equivalent to "mankind" (Ps. xxxvi. 8 [A. V. 7], lxvi. 5).

SOURCE: Jewish Encyclopedia

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?art...=son%20of%20man

Before I do so, I would like to quickly anser your comments above, no they didn't see him returning in the clouds because it simply hasn't happened yet, as you well know from your acquaintance with NT scripture. It was held in private yet we have the conversation recorded by Mark, it seems that somehow the conversation got out, maybe by one of the others in that private room, maybe even one of the guards which were present as can be discerned by the text. Why Jesus would cry out to himself, now here is a good question which Philo answers dramatically.

As for the Second Coming (Olivet Discourse) ... Again, I think you know when I'm going to say. This is a reflection of Christian eschatology. Jesus makes it clear that his return is imminent -- and this is expounded upon in the writings of Paul. Of course, I know you disagree with this assessment, so let us not beat a dead horse. That would be gross!

As for Philo of Alexandria and his use of Logos ... There are numerous difficulties with POA. First, what is known about him is rather sparce. Scholars cannot even say for sure when he was born so forth and so on! Second, while the word "Logos" appears numerous times in his writings, it is never given a clear definition. As Martin McNamara states in International Literature, pp 232-233:

.... Central to his teachings on God's relationship to the world is his doctrine of the Logos. The term itself occurs repeatedly in his works but is never defined. In Who is there of Things Divine?, chapter 42 (P. 206) the logo says of itself: 'I stand between the Lord and you; I am neither uncreated like God nor created like you, but midway between the two extremes, a hostage on both sides.' It is a batter of debate whether Philo consider the Logos as a reality, as a distinct identity having real existence, or as no more than an abstraction."

Third, it was Christians seized upon his work and expounded upon it in a way that would fit their evolving theology. A perfect example of this would be the Gospel of John. Here, the word "Logos" gets twisted into a pretzel and is made to fit the person of Jesus. Philo would have had a serious problem with such a thing IMO. As Emil Schürer states in The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus pp., 366-367 Philo (who knew nothing of Jesus) believed Moses to be the "... true teacher of mankind ...".

SOURCE: Philo of Alexandria (Early Christian Writings)

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

So, as you can see, there is a real dilemma concerning Philo of Alexandria. And his writings certainly had not been to do, as I mentioned above, with Christianity. It is, again, Christians who turned Logos into Jesus--at least IMHO.

Best my friend.

Sean

Edited June 27, 2008 by seanph

[Ozi]

Excuse me?

It is considered a proof of their "being right" that they are still here even though they have gone through sociological conditions which other more powerful cultures have perished in.

If that is the only condition for being right, then there are many other tribes and races still around today. My point was that the tribes of isreal were the light to humanity, but due to their constant rebellion to god, they lost this status and this is confirmed by them wondering for 40 years with out a home land. Then we needed a second world war and tryant like hitler to realise the jewish poeple have been trampled upon by mnay nations and religions, even the christian throughout history have persecuted them. This is ofcourse a shame, and happens due to lack of knowlegde tolerance etc.

However, the topic is not judaism, but whether the fact Jesus a Jew was sent to the whole universe or the tribes of isreal, as much as peopple want to play with words, the explicit words of the NT, and to an extent the OT clearly state he came to them for that time only and no one else. Although his message is universal, it was supposed to land on the ears of the lost jews.

THere are many learned christians and non christian here who are putting it to the test, which is good, maybe they ought to stick to the orignal sources, oops, we dont have any, then maybe the earliest and not some one else intpretations of translations. Just the like the trinity concept and jesus a man god, dont actually exist in the bible, these are later doctered false additions.

[Leonardo]

As for the "Son of Man" issue ... This is always a very difficult issue. How it is used, can obviously lead to very different conclusions. And I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. My definition of SOM is more mainstream.

... The most common designation for Jesus, the term characteristic of his own usage, is “son of man.” This is often mistaken as a messianic title, though it was not used that way in rabbinic Judaism. It is not a title at all, but rather a Semitic idiom meaning simply an instance of the “human” race. Similarly, the idiom “daughters of Jerusalem” is not a title, but simply a way of referring to women from Jerusalem, Jerusalemites.17 Another instance of this kind of Semitic idiom occurs when Jesus refers to the head of a household who, in response to his greeting “Peace,” admits Jesus or his disciple for bed and breakfast. Jesus calls him a “son of peace,” that is, a peaceful person.18

Similarly “son of man” really means no more than son of humanity, an instance of the human race, a human being. Hence, it is just a synonym for “human,” as in the parallel lines of a psalm.19 The King James translation is word for word:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

The freer, but accurate, modern translation of the New Revised Standard Version reads:

What are human beings that you are mindful of them,

mortals that you care for them?

Here the self-effacing self-designation “son of man” is accurately rendered simply “mortals.”

This idiom meaning “human” is an unassuming way to refer to oneself as early as the book of Ezekiel, in which each of Ezekiel’s visions begins when God addresses him as “son of man,” meaning only “son of humanity,” “you human,” “frail mortal that you are.”20 We have already pointed out, in the case of the founder of the Dead Sea sect, the “Teacher of Righteousness,” that a shortage of adjectives made prepositional phrases play the role of adjectives— “Teacher of Righteousness” really just means “Righteous Teacher.” In the same way “son of man” really just means “human person.”

This idiom for “human” has been misunderstood as if it were primarily an apocalyptic title based on one occurrence in the book of Daniel.21 Daniel is narrating a vision spanning the world history of his day in which a series of beastly empires (lion, bear, leopard, and a fourth unnamed beast representing Rome) would be followed by a worldwide kingdom ruled on God’s behalf by a son of man, that is, by a son of humanity, a human, rather than by a beast. The point is that it will be a humane kingdom.22 The book of Daniel is not giving the ruler a title, but distinguishing the humane Jews from the beastly Romans.

Some modern translations do simply say “human,” rather than the cumbersome and misleading “son of man.” But to bring to expression the simple meaning a “human” while retaining the flavor of the Semitic idiom ... In the last saying “son of man [humanity]” is not a messianic title referring to Jesus as judge at the last judgment (a concept all too familiar to us from the Apostles’ Creed)...--The Gospel of Jesus, James Robinson, p. 182-7

The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of the Original Good News by James M. Robinson

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Jesus-Search-...TF8&s=books

AND:

"Son of man" is a common term in the Psalms, used to accentuate the difference between God and human beings. As in Ps. viii. 4 (A. V. 5), the phrase implies "mortality," "impotence," "transientness,"as against the omnipotence and eternality of God. Yhwh looks down from His throne in heaven upon the "children," or "sons," of "man" (Ps. xi. 4, xxxiii. 13). The faithful fail among them (Ps. xii. 2 [A. V. 1]); the seed of Yhwh's enemies will not abide among the "children of men" (Ps. xxi. 10). "Children of men" is thus equivalent to "mankind" (Ps. xxxvi. 8 [A. V. 7], lxvi. 5).

SOURCE: Jewish Encyclopedia

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?art...=son%20of%20man

Sean,

Good post about the idiomatic use of terminology in scripture. I agree in the main, but do think that the term 'Son of Man' does carry more meaning - when applied to Jesus - than just 'human' or 'mortal'.

In early Jewish culture the son is not only obedient to the father (Man), but also the inheritor. My opinion is that Jesus, when applying the title to himself, was referring to himself as the 'good son' of Man (Mankind) - his father and from whom (with God) he would inherit his kingdom - as well as the other meaning of 'human'. As you state, Jesus would not blaspheme by deifying himself as the Son of God - although he would use this term in the idiomatic sense to imply he was, again, human, and one of God's children.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Leonardo

[TheKnight]

Have you ever read any of the New Testament?

Yes actually. I was quite a devout Christian in fact. If you don't believe me, you can ask any UM member that knows me...or you could go and read my posts before august 15 2007. Just read my first posts on this forum, you'd probably agree with most of what I posted back then.

Ok, ~Kaizen~ CJM, I have a couple questions for you. I've been thinking about this and looked in the Tanakh, which didn't get me a clear answer. What is the Tanakh to you, or to Jews? '

The Tanakh is basically what you guys call the Old Testament. It is an abbreviation for Torah, Nevi'im (prophets) and Kethuvim(writings)

I know more about Messianic Judaism than about just Judaism and I've never thought about this much before. All I could find in the Tanakh was that it is "the textbook of the soul" and the "instructions for life." Is that all it is or what exactly does that mean? And just to clarify, how do you believe you get "saved" and are you specifically still waiting for a Messiah? Thanks if you answer all of these.

Many questions here:

1. It is (in the opinion of Orthodox Judaism) a "tree of life to all who grab on to it". It is basically the Jewish translation of what you would call the Old Testament. It's pretty much the same, the ordering of the books is different.

2. This concept of "saved" does not exist in Judaism. There's nothing to be saved from. Everyone goes to heaven in Judaism. The process is like this:

-God created the world

-God put Adam and Eve in the Garden

-God put the Serpent in the Garden (the serpent v. eve story also represents man's internal struggles with his physical/animal nature

-Adam and Eve sin

-Sin Separates us from God

-Mitzvah means connection.

-At sinai God gave 613 mitzvot (connections) in the Torah. 613 to the Jews, 7 to the Gentiles.

-Our purpose is to make the world a better place/change the evil to good through the Torah

-By keeping commandments we connect to God

-When we sin, we are able to atone for our sins by either A.) Sacrificing, B.)Charity and C.) Repentance.

That is the basic outline of Judaism.

3. Yes, we are still waiting for the Messiah. He is not prophesied to take away our sins, in fact, it is prophesied (in Isaiah 59:20) that he will come when Israel has turned away from their sins. He will do many things (such as bring world peace, swallow up death, heal the sick, etc etc).

[Dragohunter]

Sean,

Good post about the idiomatic use of terminology in scripture. I agree in the main, but do think that the term 'Son of Man' does carry more meaning - when applied to Jesus - than just 'human' or 'mortal'.

In early Jewish culture the son is not only obedient to the father (Man), but also the inheritor. My opinion is that Jesus, when applying the title to himself, was referring to himself as the 'good son' of Man (Mankind) - his father and from whom (with God) he would inherit his kingdom - as well as the other meaning of 'human'. As you state, Jesus would not blaspheme by deifying himself as the Son of God - although he would use this term in the idiomatic sense to imply he was, again, human, and one of God's children.

Jesus is the son of God because he is a human created completely only by God's influence rather than the natural process of sexual reproduction. That's why he is called sinless and perfect.

[Lt_Ripley]

Jesus is the son of God because he is a human created completely only by God's influence rather than the natural process of sexual reproduction. That's why he is called sinless and perfect.

no proof that he was born a virgin. actually I've read the people of his own villige called him the son of mary = equating that he was a b******.

Mary could have very well said it was a virgin birth in stead of a rape or concentual coupling to save herself from being stoned to death.

more likely than virgin birth. people were pretty gullible then , seems now too.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[Jor-el]

Good morning J.

First, thank you so much for your very kind words. And may I say ditto!

As for the Divine Council ... I think we were discussing Satan as being a part of God's Divine Council. Other than that, I obviously would not have taken it as far as MSH -- though I understand the logic behind it.

Hi Sean, yes it was partly our debate on Satan and his role in the bible as well as the evolution of who and what Satan is that encouraged me to look at how that evolution occured, you mentioned Elaine Pagels book, "The Origin of Satan" at the time, which I read but did not agree with, due to oversights and a limited perspective of Satan not only on the early church but also on 2nd Temple Judaism. She offered a purely political aspect to the rise of the Satan figure of the early church and did not read back into Jewish roots where the figure arises and how it developed within judaism. Left me with more questions than answers. I enjoyed her other books more...

It was also a need to reconcile early Mesopotamian mythological accounts with the biblical perspective, this led me to Sitchins' books which I nearly threw out the window in disgust. Finally I found an interesting article online on christianity and ET's, which in turn lead me to Heisers site.

See: Is the Idea of Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life Compatible with [Conservative] Judaism & Christianity?

The way was twisted and full of unexpected turns, but the destination, was worth the entire voyage.

As for the "Son of Man" issue ... This is always a very difficult issue. How it is used, can obviously lead to very different conclusions. And I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. My definition of SOM is more mainstream.

... The most common designation for Jesus, the term characteristic of his own usage, is “son of man.” This is often mistaken as a messianic title, though it was not used that way in rabbinic Judaism. It is not a title at all, but rather a Semitic idiom meaning simply an instance of the “human” race. Similarly, the idiom “daughters of Jerusalem” is not a title, but simply a way of referring to women from Jerusalem, Jerusalemites.17 Another instance of this kind of Semitic idiom occurs when Jesus refers to the head of a household who, in response to his greeting “Peace,” admits Jesus or his disciple for bed and breakfast. Jesus calls him a “son of peace,” that is, a peaceful person.18

Similarly “son of man” really means no more than son of humanity, an instance of the human race, a human being. Hence, it is just a synonym for “human,” as in the parallel lines of a psalm.19 The King James translation is word for word:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

The freer, but accurate, modern translation of the New Revised Standard Version reads:

What are human beings that you are mindful of them,

mortals that you care for them?

Here the self-effacing self-designation “son of man” is accurately rendered simply “mortals.”

This idiom meaning “human” is an unassuming way to refer to oneself as early as the book of Ezekiel, in which each of Ezekiel’s visions begins when God addresses him as “son of man,” meaning only “son of humanity,” “you human,” “frail mortal that you are.”20 We have already pointed out, in the case of the founder of the Dead Sea sect, the “Teacher of Righteousness,” that a shortage of adjectives made prepositional phrases play the role of adjectives— “Teacher of Righteousness” really just means “Righteous Teacher.” In the same way “son of man” really just means “human person.”

Agreed, this is naturally the most common usage of the "title". It simply means a man, one head, two arms a torso and two legs.

This idiom for “human” has been misunderstood as if it were primarily an apocalyptic title based on one occurrence in the book of Daniel.21 Daniel is narrating a vision spanning the world history of his day in which a series of beastly empires (lion, bear, leopard, and a fourth unnamed beast representing Rome) would be followed by a worldwide kingdom ruled on God’s behalf by a son of man, that is, by a son of humanity, a human, rather than by a beast. The point is that it will be a humane kingdom.22 The book of Daniel is not giving the ruler a title, but distinguishing the humane Jews from the beastly Romans.

Hmm, I agree to a point, it is not a title connected in any way to messianic ideas, rather the opposite, it is a title to emphasize the humanity of an individual. It is here that we have a problem, you see according to the exact wording of Daniel 7 and not bothering to look up what others say in terms of interpretation, we see something very different in the text. As you know, one of the most important rules when interpreting a text is to let it speak for itself.

Daniel 7:13-14

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Pretty straight foreward, if you ask me. But let us analyze the text, due to its uniqueness it cannot be compared to the usage of son of man in other biblical texts. This is not an assumption but a result of the analysis we are going to make of this text.

1. There is one LIKE the son of man

It doesn't say that he is a son of man, but it is a similarity. Someone who looks "human", if we go by James M. Robinson.

2. He approached the Ancient of Days, into the very presence of God

A "human", not only approaching God but going into his presence... this must be a very special individual, humans are sinful and no-one can live and be in the presence of God, at least no-one who is merely human.

3. This individual was given authority

This person who has the appearance of a human being, is given ULTIMATE authority over all things human. He is WORSHIPPED by all men. God gives over ultimate sovereignty to a human being and allows that human being to be worshipped by all men, (that means the Jews as well). I wonder how the Jews will take that, instead of Worshipping Yahweh, the one true God, now they are to worship a "man".

4. His Kingdom is eternal

So this "man" not only takes the place of God but is eternal as well.... that places him in the realm of deity, which is what Jesus was alluding to when he paraphrased this passge to the high priest. Note that he doesn't say he is God (the Father), just that he is the 2nd deity mentioned in Daniel.

As we can see, this is no simple "Human being". He is the second deity, the second power in heaven. He is also called the "Word", by the Old Testament text itself, the christians didn't place that there, it is actually there, put there by Jewish authors, who didn't think it heretical, that God would give all power and authority to a "human being".

And we find this theme playing itself out in many books of the OLD Testament, not just Daniel.

Two observations are critical with respect to this summary:

1. The rabbis had a concept, deriving from passages like Exod. 15:3 and Dan. 7:9, that there were two powers – two YHWHs as it were – in heaven.

2. Both YHWHs could appear as human figures, even simultaneously.

Sure the Jewish scholars as well as others can deny that all they want, but it doesn't change one iota of what we can see with one eye closed, when we look at that text, it is plain as day, that at least here, the son of man, is a little more than just human.

As for the Second Coming (Olivet Discourse) ... Again, I think you know when I'm going to say. This is a reflection of Christian eschatology. Jesus makes it clear that his return is imminent -- and this is expounded upon in the writings of Paul. Of course, I know you disagree with this assessment, so let us not beat a dead horse. That would be gross!

Agreed, the horse must be pulp by now....

As for Philo of Alexandria and his use of Logos ... There are numerous difficulties with POA. First, what is known about him is rather sparce. Scholars cannot even say for sure when he was born so forth and so on! Second, while the word "Logos" appears numerous times in his writings, it is never given a clear definition. As Martin McNamara states in International Literature, pp 232-233:

.... Central to his teachings on God's relationship to the world is his doctrine of the Logos. The term itself occurs repeatedly in his works but is never defined. In Who is there of Things Divine?, chapter 42 (P. 206) the logo says of itself: 'I stand between the Lord and you; I am neither uncreated like God nor created like you, but midway between the two extremes, a hostage on both sides.' It is a batter of debate whether Philo consider the Logos as a reality, as a distinct identity having real existence, or as no more than an abstraction."

Well as for his birthdate and death, it seems that it is pretty much settled, since all the online sites I searched are unanimous in regard to that. 20 BCE - 50 CE.

Yes the Logos is not given a clear definition, Philo, in fact gives a multitude of definitions, I'll list a few:

The Logos is more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension, to which Philo ascribes many names and functions.

1. Following the Jewish mythical tradition, Philo represents the Logos as the utterance of God found in the Jewish scripture of the Old Testament since God's words do not differ from his actions (Sacr. 8; Somn. 1.182; Op. 13).

2. In his doctrine of God Philo interprets the Logos, which is the Divine Mind, as the Form of Forms (Platonic), the Idea of Ideas or the sum total of Forms or Ideas. Logos is the indestructible Form of wisdom comprehensible only by the intellect (Det. 75-76; Mig. 103).

3. The Logos has an origin, but as God's thought it also has eternal generation. It exists as such before everything else all of which are secondary products of God's thought and therefore it is called the "first-born." "Monogenes" (1st born) is better tranlated as unique.

4. Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture (Gen. 31:13; 16:8; etc) by an angel of the Lord (Somn. 1.228-239; Cher. 1-3).

5. Philo's Logos has many names (Conf. 146). Philo identifies his Logos with Wisdom of Proverbs 8:22 (Ebr. 31). Moreover, Moses, according to Philo called this Wisdom "Beginning," "Image," "Sight of God." And his personal wisdom is an imitation of the archetypal Divine Wisdom. All terrestrial wisdom and virtue are but copies and representations of the heavenly Logos (LA 1.43, 45-46).

6. The fundamental doctrine propounded by Philo is that of Logos as an intermediary power, a messenger and mediator between God and the world.

7. When speaking of the high priest, Philo describes the Logos as God's son, a perfect being procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings: "For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world [the high priest] should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings" (Mos. 2.134). Philo transforms the Stoic impersonal and immanent Logos into a being who was neither eternal like God nor created like creatures, but begotten from eternity.

Philo's doctrine of the Logos is blurred by his mystical and religious vision, but his Logos is clearly the second individual in one God as a hypostatization of God's Creative Power - Wisdom. The supreme being is God and the next is Wisdom or the Logos of God (Op. 24). Logos has many names as did Zeus (LA 1.43,45,46), and multiple functions.

I remember that Heiser has two studies available on his website regarding The Logos and Wisdom, I seem to remember that you stated that One of the evidences of polytheism in the OT is the occurence of Widom a female deity (Sofia). It is interesting that wisdom is female because of grammatical syntax and not because it is a female deity.

Philo mentions this as well:

Having identified the Logos with Wisdom, Philo runs into a grammatical problem: in the Greek language "wisdom" (sophia) is feminine and "word" (logos) is masculine; moreover, Philo saw Wisdom's function as masculine. So he explains that Wisdom's name is feminine, but her nature is masculine.

Actually it is merely the fact that Hebrew like other languages has gender based syntax. (Unlike english)

Just as maleness or femaleness is an inherent characteristic of human beings and most animals, so is gender an inherent characteristic of nouns in Hebrew. Hebrew nouns are classified as either feminine or masculine, remember that there can be feminine nouns that describe things we think of as masculine, and vice versa. As luck would have it, "Sophia" or "Wisdom" is feminine, but its idea is certainly masculine.

Another interesting bit of information is that there is no Hebrew word for "Goddess", all deity forms are masculine. It is also interesting is that the Genesis account is unique among all creation accounts in earths cultures in that it doesn't use sexual imagery to bring forth creation. As such, no female deities are needed.

Third, it was Christians seized upon his work and expounded upon it in a way that would fit their evolving theology. A perfect example of this would be the Gospel of John. Here, the word "Logos" gets twisted into a pretzel and is made to fit the person of Jesus. Philo would have had a serious problem with such a thing IMO. As Emil Schürer states in The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus pp., 366-367 Philo (who knew nothing of Jesus) believed Moses to be the "... true teacher of mankind ...".

SOURCE: Philo of Alexandria (Early Christian Writings)

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

That may be true, christians may have (and that is only a possibility) expounded on his work and used it as a basis for their theology, but it doesn't detract from the fact that it's origin is Jewish and so is the theology behind that.

As I said, it isn't only Philo that has the concept of "Two Powers in Heaven", Early Rabbinical studies also demonstrate this as does the OT itself in many instances. I will try get more sources on that to back it up but it might take a while.

In the meantime, here are some indepth studies on the concept of the Word (which is clearly a Jewish concept) and on Wisdom.

She said, He said - Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D.

The Word of the Lord Came to Me - Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D.

This link I just provided for interest sake, for those who might be curious to see how the concept evolved into what is known as the Trinity.

I personally think it has alot more merit than some bishops coming together at the Council of Nicea.

The Concept of a Godhead in the Old Testament - Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D. (Audio / Video)

So, as you can see, there is a real dilemma concerning Philo of Alexandria. And his writings certainly had not been to do, as I mentioned above, with Christianity. It is, again, Christians who turned Logos into Jesus--at least IMHO.

Best my friend.

Sean

Of course there are problems, if it were as clear as some state, we wouldn't be having this discussion....

[Jor-el]

Sean,

Good post about the idiomatic use of terminology in scripture. I agree in the main, but do think that the term 'Son of Man' does carry more meaning - when applied to Jesus - than just 'human' or 'mortal'.

In early Jewish culture the son is not only obedient to the father (Man), but also the inheritor. My opinion is that Jesus, when applying the title to himself, was referring to himself as the 'good son' of Man (Mankind) - his father and from whom (with God) he would inherit his kingdom - as well as the other meaning of 'human'. As you state, Jesus would not blaspheme by deifying himself as the Son of God - although he would use this term in the idiomatic sense to imply he was, again, human, and one of God's children.

In terms of Old Testament scripture the term "son of God" only rarely is conotated with humans, in the main it has to do with deity, as in the the case of the gods who are sons of El. This is divine council language to refer to other gods who were created by Yahweh, and no I'm not speaking of angels.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Jor-el

[Apostle]

Yes actually. I was quite a devout Christian in fact. If you don't believe me, you can ask any UM member that knows me...or you could go and read my posts before august 15 2007. Just read my first posts on this forum, you'd probably agree with most of what I posted back then.

The Tanakh is basically what you guys call the Old Testament. It is an abbreviation for Torah, Nevi'im (prophets) and Kethuvim(writings)

Many questions here:

1. It is (in the opinion of Orthodox Judaism) a "tree of life to all who grab on to it". It is basically the Jewish translation of what you would call the Old Testament. It's pretty much the same, the ordering of the books is different.

2. This concept of "saved" does not exist in Judaism. There's nothing to be saved from. Everyone goes to heaven in Judaism. The process is like this:

-God created the world

-God put Adam and Eve in the Garden

-God put the Serpent in the Garden (the serpent v. eve story also represents man's internal struggles with his physical/animal nature

-Adam and Eve sin

-Sin Separates us from God

-Mitzvah means connection.

-At sinai God gave 613 mitzvot (connections) in the Torah. 613 to the Jews, 7 to the Gentiles.

-Our purpose is to make the world a better place/change the evil to good through the Torah

-By keeping commandments we connect to God

-When we sin, we are able to atone for our sins by either A.) Sacrificing, B.)Charity and C.) Repentance.

That is the basic outline of Judaism.

3. Yes, we are still waiting for the Messiah. He is not prophesied to take away our sins, in fact, it is prophesied (in Isaiah 59:20) that he will come when Israel has turned away from their sins. He will do many things (such as bring world peace, swallow up death, heal the sick, etc etc).

Just a couple of questions here.

When you say ,in point number 2, everyone in Judaism goes to heaven, do you mean that everyone goes to heaven or that everyone in Judaism goes to heaven? Also, what prophecy is it that say the Messiah will bring world peace?

And is it correct to say that, rather than the Messiah coming to save our souls and for spiritual purposes, the Messiah will come for the physical things of this earth? And what is sin to you if not something to be saved from?

[seanph]

Good morning L. :tu:

Good morning JR. :tu: I'll give those articles you provided a good reading over. Should be quite interesting.

As for Satan ... You're right. Pagels does focus mainly on the political ramifications of Satan upon the Jews so forth and so on. I think the best text I've read regarding the evolution of Satan is Gregory Riley's The River of God. It's an excellent read by a terrific scholar. I reference the text often.

The River of God, Chapter 4 (The Devil, The Demons, And the End of the World), p., 90 +

http://books.google.com/books?id=kZ-kSzJnl...7Chirw#PPA90,M1

If interested, here are a couple of my favorite websites dealing with Judaic Studies -- particularly The Center for Online Judaic Studies.

COJS

http://www.cojs.org/

Student of the Hebrew Bible, Brandeis University

http://people.brandeis.edu/~brettler/bible-links.html

Marc Brettler, Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies and chair of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University

http://people.brandeis.edu/~brettler/index.html

Judaic Studies, Virtual Religion, Rutgers University

http://virtualreligion.net/vri/judaic.html

The Creation of History in Ancient Israel by Marc Z Brettler

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-d...155&s=books

Most kindly,

Sean

[TheKnight]

Just a couple of questions here.

When you say ,in point number 2, everyone in Judaism goes to heaven, do you mean that everyone goes to heaven or that everyone in Judaism goes to heaven?

Everyone (you don't have to believe in Judaism) goes to "heaven".

Also, what prophecy is it that say the Messiah will bring world peace?

Isaiah 2:4

And is it correct to say that, rather than the Messiah coming to save our souls and for spiritual purposes, the Messiah will come for the physical things of this earth?

No one can change our spiritual condition for us. It is up to us to make that decision, God will not come and turn us away, we have to strive to be righteous.

And what is sin to you if not something to be saved from?

Sin separates us from God. We don't need to be "saved" from it because its not like sin is going to eternally harm us. To get away from sin, we merely need to turn around and do good.

[Ozi]

In terms of Old Testament scripture the term "son of God" only rarely is conotated with humans, in the main it has to do with deity, as in the the case of the gods who are sons of El. This is divine council language to refer to other gods who were created by Yahweh, and no I'm not speaking of angels.

Actually in the torah in the earliest manucripts, the term son of god is rarely used, i think only in intance they applied it to Ezra, in the context of son of a deity. Like jesus is son of god. Otherwise, the words used in hebrew, we metophoric are they called all their prophets sons of god, not in a literal sense, but metaphoric and what they meant is these men are of god, and doing his work. You see El, means God in hebrew, and something similar is shared by their brethren the arabs, both semetic languages, in arabic god is Il, hebrew El, so sons of Il or El mean sons of God, Yaweh in hebrew means eternal, its an attribute and another name for the same god. They would not use son of Yaweh, yaweh was an exlusive name to god, given by the jews, in arabic its Allah.

For council etc, mate. El and yaweh are the same god, yes some tribes of isreal started to worship other deities along with yaweh, this was rebellion. They worshipped the babylonian god Ba'al and some others.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Ozi

[Leonardo]

Jesus is the son of God because he is a human created completely only by God's influence rather than the natural process of sexual reproduction. That's why he is called sinless and perfect.

When reading scripture are we sure the term used is 'the Son of God' or 'a son of God'? As you can see, a very small change in text makes a very large change in meaning.

In terms of Old Testament scripture the term "son of God" only rarely is conotated with humans, in the main it has to do with deity, as in the the case of the gods who are sons of El. This is divine council language to refer to other gods who were created by Yahweh, and no I'm not speaking of angels.

If the term was to be used literally I'd tend to agree with you, Jor-el. I suspect very strongly, though, that Jesus, when referring to himself, was using this term in a metaphorical sense as I pointed out to Dragohunter above. Possibly as well the translation should properly read 'a son of God' (can anyone confirm if this is how the original Hebrew/Greek could be read?) and the sense would be much clearer.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Leonardo

[Jor-el]

Good morning L. :tu:

Good morning JR. :tu: I'll give those articles you provided a good reading over. Should be quite interesting.

As for Satan ... You're right. Pagels does focus mainly on the political ramifications of Satan upon the Jews so forth and so on. I think the best text I've read regarding the evolution of Satan is Gregory Riley's The River of God. It's an excellent read by a terrific scholar. I reference the text often.

The River of God, Chapter 4 (The Devil, The Demons, And the End of the World), p., 90 +

http://books.google.com/books?id=kZ-kSzJnl...7Chirw#PPA90,M1

If interested, here are a couple of my favorite websites dealing with Judaic Studies -- particularly The Center for Online Judaic Studies.

COJS

http://www.cojs.org/

Student of the Hebrew Bible, Brandeis University

http://people.brandeis.edu/~brettler/bible-links.html

Marc Brettler, Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies and chair of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University

http://people.brandeis.edu/~brettler/index.html

Judaic Studies, Virtual Religion, Rutgers University

http://virtualreligion.net/vri/judaic.html

The Creation of History in Ancient Israel by Marc Z Brettler

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-d...155&s=books

Most kindly,

Sean

Hi Sean I'll try get hold of the books you mentioned, being in Portugal, doesn't help me all that much when it comes to books, I have to order out...

I'm especially curious about "The River of God", a provocative title indeed....

When you get through those links I posted, let me know what you think...

Edited June 28, 2008 by Jor-el