Religions

[Joshuamonkey]

(sorry if my editing of my last post while you were posting causes some confusion)

Only a prophet equal in stature to Moses could even theoretically possibly do that and (Deut. 34:10) "Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face"

Well that makes it easy, because Jesus > Moses. Moses is an example of a prophet of a dispensation ("In certain religions, a dispensation is a distinctive arrangement or period in history that form the framework through which God relates to mankind"), such as Adam, Abraham, Jesus, and in my religion, Joseph Smith. In my religion, Joseph Smith wrote (as God told him) much of the scripture for this dispensation similar to how Moses did for his dispensation.

Numbers 23:19 -- God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?

And I believe that Jesus was fulfilling, not relenting.

[gejyspa]

(sorry if my editing of my last post while you were posting causes some confusion)

Only a prophet equal in stature to Moses could even theoretically possibly do that and (Deut. 34:10) "Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face"

Well that makes it easy, because Jesus > Moses. Moses is an example of a prophet of a dispensation ("In certain religions, a dispensation is a distinctive arrangement or period in history that form the framework through which God relates to mankind"), such as Adam, Abraham, Jesus, and in my religion, Joseph Smith. In my religion, Joseph Smith wrote (as God told him) much of the scripture for this dispensation similar to how Moses did for his dispensation.

Thanks for explaining what a dispensation is, before I asked, 'cause I would've. So does that mean (if you are calling J a prophet, as you do in that list), that God is lying in Deuteronomy? The statement seems pretty unequivocal -- "Since that time, NO prophet...like Moses"

But I feel this is where the discussion has to stop. Because, of course, you believe that J is divine, and Judaism says just as certainly, not. He was neither divine, nor the Messiah. There is no irrefutable proof that you can possibly bring, since it is based on faith alone. Since we can't agree on the givens, there is no point of commonality to continue down this road.

Numbers 23:19 -- God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?

And I believe that Jesus was fulfilling, not relenting.

Thanks for editing your penultimate post (although I wish you had mentioned it here that you had done so, because I only saw accidentally that you added three paragraphs to more fully explain what you meant by "fulfilling the law". Although I'm curious why the law needs "affirm[ation of] its own truthfulness" It was clear that it was true (see Deuteronomy chapters 4-5).) (Also that's an interesting alternate reading, but the plain meaning of πληρωσαι is to be a completion) But it's a novelty that anyone should remove the strictures of the law, because that's not what God says he will do, even in the endtimes (Deuteronomy 29-30, Malachi 3:4, Daniel 7:27, Zechariah 6:15).

[Abe]

Thanks for the translation, gejyspa. My Aramaic indeed needs some improvement, as it were.
But I cannot say I fully understood the English translation either. I'd like to hear your take on two things.

Ultimately it does derive from there, via exigetical reasoning, as it shows on that page of Talmud. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah derived it from Psalms 9:17 "The wicked shall be returned into Sheol* and all the nations that forget God". It stands to reason therefore, that those nations (or individuals thereof) that did NOT forget God do NOT get punished in the world to come.

1) What does it mean to forget God? Does it mean forgetting to observe the 613 laws of the Torah? That should not be, as then heathens couldn't enter the "future world".
2) And what does it mean to "be returned into Sheol"? Now how does any nation go to hell*? All the individuals of that nation go to hell? Or does this mean that they should be destroyed, killed?

*I know you wrote it is a somewhat different, but the question still applies: how do you punish an abstract thing like a nation?

[gejyspa]

Thanks for the translation, gejyspa. My Aramaic indeed needs some improvement, as it were.
But I cannot say I fully understood the English translation either. I'd like to hear your take on two things.

Ultimately it does derive from there, via exigetical reasoning, as it shows on that page of Talmud. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah derived it from Psalms 9:17 "The wicked shall be returned into Sheol* and all the nations that forget God". It stands to reason therefore, that those nations (or individuals thereof) that did NOT forget God do NOT get punished in the world to come.

1) What does it mean to forget God? Does it mean forgetting to observe the 613 laws of the Torah? That should not be, as then heathens couldn't enter the "future world".

No, it means that they don't obey the seven laws of the sons of Noach (as explained by me in an earlier post on the thread). These are the laws that all peoples are responsible for (notice that one of the laws (establishing courts of justice) is a communal responsibility, not an individual one)

2) And what does it mean to "be returned into Sheol"? Now how does any nation go to hell*? All the individuals of that nation go to hell? Or does this mean that they should be destroyed, killed?

*I know you wrote it is a somewhat different, but the question still applies: how do you punish an abstract thing like a nation?

Two possibilities here. I admit to not being enough of a scholar to necessarily know what's considered the "normative" Jewish answer. One is that yes, the individuals are punished in the hereafter (we don't believe in eternal punishment, however, except in supraextraordinary cases). This would appear to jive with Rabbi Eliezer's view since he says "to transgressors among the heathen". Another possibility is that there is some kind of communal punishment since no one in those evil societies took the incentive to make sure that justice was served, or turning a blind eye to the plight of their fellow citizens. (see above on question 1) (cf. Sodom, for example).

[Doug R.]

Do not rip the limbs off of living creatures

Every child that has walked the earth (except, perhaps, Jewish ones), seem to be destined for Sheol, then. Unless, of course, God doesn't consider flies and spiders to be living creatures. Really, this one is completely bizarre to me, given the sensibility of the rest of them. (Like, it's OK if I abuse my dog, I just can't rip it's legs off).

[Joshuamonkey]

Malachi 3:4

That's interesting that you mention Malachi 3:4, because it and the verses before it are an important prophecy I remember hearing in my religion.
"1Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
2But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:
3And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.
4Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years."
In my religion, this relates primarily to the Second Coming (of the Lord; in my religion, Jesus Christ), as well as the First Coming (His birth). So, at the time of the Second Coming, the sons of Levi shall offer and offering in righteousness. A quote from another church leader (and you may find this interesting):
"The Prophet Joseph explained that purified priesthood bearers will officiate in the temples in righteousness in two ways: (1) by performing temple ordinances in behalf of the dead (see D&C 128:24), and (2) when the Levites offer an acceptable blood sacrifice as part of the “restitution of all things” in this dispensation."
I should mention also, that descendants of Levi have a special right to the Aaronic Priesthood in my religion.*

To help answer Abe's question:
Psalms 50:16-22:
"16But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
17Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.
18When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.
19Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.
20Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother’s son.
21These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.
22Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver."

*D&C 68:15-18:
"15 Wherefore they [Bishops, who are ward leaders, wards being those people within a certain area. Basically, those who go to a certain church building. The office of Bishop is the highest in the Aaronic Priesthood in my religion and the President of the ward Priest Quorum] shall be high priests who are worthy, and they shall be appointed by the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood, except they be literal descendants of Aaron.
16 And if they be literal descendants of Aaron they have a legal right to the bishopric, if they are the firstborn among the sons of Aaron;
17 For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same.
18 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn of Aaron."
In addition, they don't need to have Councilors (though it would be an even harder job without them. You don't get paid).

[gejyspa]

Malachi 3:4

That's interesting that you mention Malachi 3:4, because it and the verses before it are an important prophecy I remember hearing in my religion.
"1Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
2But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:
3And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.
4Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years."
In my religion, this relates primarily to the Second Coming (of the Lord; in my religion, Jesus Christ), as well as the First Coming (His birth). So, at the time of the Second Coming, the sons of Levi shall offer and offering in righteousness.

Oh, we are in definite agreement that this refers to the coming of the Messaish. When he comes, the Temple service will be restored. Since that HASN'T happened yet, the Messiah hasn't come yet. (There is no mention of any kind of "second coming" anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. The Messiah has to fulfill all the conditions of the prophecies when he comes. If he doesn't, he isn't the Messiah. This is the main problem that Jews have with the claims ofXtianity. There has been no ingathering of all the exiles, restoration of the Temple, resurrection of all the dead, everlasting peace, etc. etc. In other words, we'll know it when we see it. It will be pretty hard to miss.)

[gejyspa]

Do not rip the limbs off of living creatures

Every child that has walked the earth (except, perhaps, Jewish ones), seem to be destined for Sheol, then. Unless, of course, God doesn't consider flies and spiders to be living creatures. Really, this one is completely bizarre to me, given the sensibility of the rest of them. (Like, it's OK if I abuse my dog, I just can't rip it's legs off).

Really? You've pulled legs off spiders? Ewww! In any case, we are not talking about children since those under the age of majority aren't legally cupable. As to general abuse of animals, it's certainly forbidden for Jews to do so, but as far as the rest of humanity is concerned? I dunno. You could address that question to the various B'nai Noach ("sons of Noah", also known as "noachide" or "noahide") groups out there (those non-Jews who have specifically set out to abide by those 7 laws). But in any case, the prohibition is specifically against EATING any part of an animal that is still alive (see Gen 9:3-4 "Every moving thing that lives shall be for you for food; just as the green herbs, I have given you everything. But flesh with its living soul, its blood, you shall not eat.") (Also, cross-reference this old joke.) My understanding is that in western nations, this is mostly a problem with stone crabs, which the practice is to remove a claw, and return them to the sea, since they will regenerate.

[Alladinsane]

I want to point one very random thing out and I have no facts to bulster it. I think Jews will be around forever..

I am trying this formatting thing again, forgive me if I show my ignorance of board mechanics.

I will say it again I dont believe in God I believe that Jesus was a great man sorta along the lines of Gandhi.

This is a widespread belief amongst a lot and I don’t quite understand why it is. This ‘great man’ who some like to think was a really charismatic hippie or something. He walked around not saying ‘I am a great man’; he walked around saying “I am the son of God and he and I are one” and “none comes to the father (I.e. heaven) except through me”. If someone runs around now and tells us he is God, we usually have a nice room with real soft walls for him, back then they had a whole bunch of not so soft stones for that person. So if one of us believes that he was ‘a great man’, we have to deal with the obvious and documented fact that he was a bald-faced liar! Okay, okay, with some of America’s recent politicians, we have seen some liars labelled as great men.

There is no half-way with this guy, just because of his words that we have. You either believe that he is God; or he was a lying sack of dung. I am not standing in assessment of anyone if they choose not to believe, it’s a personal choice after all. But the least of all possible things he could have been was a ‘great man’. If you believe that he is (the son of…) God, then you may want to look into your relationship with him. If you don’t believe that he is who he said he was…congratulations you’re free! Date a hooker; eat a twinkie; buy a house near the San Andreas, or whatever you feel like doing. Other than certain laws in your respective locality, you are pretty much untouchable and all that awaits you in the afterlife is hungry worms. But why are we even discussing this when you could be out having fun???

Still, I enjoy the varied opinions and dialectic. I am learning alot, thanks!

Be well


Edit: Darn I screwed up and totally forgot my third (or thereabouts) paragraph. summarize: If you don't believe, again, not judging. I am only referring to your relationship with Jesus. What amends, if any, that you have to make with your own faith or not inclusive to the prior paragraphs.

[Abe]

There has been no ingathering of all the exiles, restoration of the Temple, resurrection of all the dead, everlasting peace, etc. etc. In other words, we'll know it when we see it. It will be pretty hard to miss.

Every child that has walked the earth (except, perhaps, Jewish ones), seem to be destined for Sheol, then. Unless, of course, God doesn't consider flies and spiders to be living creatures.

Yes, I did the same, I admit it. I also remember from my childhood how evil children can get.
The different culpability of the children are from the Talmud, isn't it, gejyspa?
Still there must be something in the Bible as well, because in the early middle ages, children were considered to be as innocent as anyone can get, God's favorites or something along those lines. That's why they sent them to fight in the crusades. They thought they'd be invincible, because God will protect them.
I did some research and it seems that Roman law made a distinction between children and adults. On the other hand:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070127162456/http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/hanging1.html#child
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Executed_juvenile_offenders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Juvenile_offenders_executed_by_the_United_States

From the last one see Scott Hain for the latest case, Hannah Ocuish is from the 18th century. (And I've found the article about Johnny Garrett quite interesting, though it does not add anything to our current discussion.)

At the end of the page first linked it says laws were changed only in the 20th century in the UK.
Maybe the origins/reasons of these punishments have something to do with the early modern age belief that children are exactly like adults, except in size (homonculus). This should mean they are just as culpable as adults.

What do you think about the inconsistency between the punishments prescribed in the Bible and those of the current legal system? Is that part of the Bible to be disregarded?

[gejyspa]

Well of course, the Romans considered children chattel, whom you could expose to death on a hillside for pretty much whatever reason you wanted. And they considered wives chattel. And slaves chattel. Ah, those were the good old days

....Anyhow, the concept of mens rea does go back a long way.

In the Bible, one place that lack of juvenile criminal culpability is derived from is Numbers 14:26-35. Only those males who were at least age 20 were to die in the wilderness from the sin of listening to the evil report of the spies. The children bore no culpability, and were therefore able to enter the land.

In later times (starting at least in the Mishnaic times of ~100 CE), the age of responsibility for keeping of the commandments was considered to start at the age of the onset of puberty (defined as the appearance of two pubic hairs), but, to avoid humiliation of an examination, was standardized at 13 years and a day for boys, 12 years and a day for girls. One place this is derived from is Numbers 6:2. Since this refers to a "man or woman" (only) being capable of taking a vow, you have to figure out what the definition of "man or woman" is.

I don't know if those definitions of adulthood are considered by Jewish Law to be the same for non-Jews.

As far as the differences between the punishments in the Bible and today goes there a simple answer -- we (the Jews) have no court system legally qualified to carry out corporal or capital punishment. In order to have a court of 23 or 71 that can do so, all the members must have an unbroken chain of true ordination going back to Moses. Unfortunately, that chain was broken during the Roman period. (See the Wikipedia article on "Semikha" for more details).

[Joshuamonkey]

There is no mention of any kind of "second coming" anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. The Messiah has to fulfill all the conditions of the prophecies when he comes. If he doesn't, he isn't the Messiah. This is the main problem that Jews have with the claims ofXtianity. There has been no ingathering of all the exiles, restoration of the Temple, resurrection of all the dead, everlasting peace, etc. etc. In other words, we'll know it when we see it. It will be pretty hard to miss

The difference here is we believe that the signs you refer to happen around the time when the Lord comes in glory (to us the Second Coming) as opposed to when he's born on Earth. Do you believe that he needs to be born? (Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6)
As opposed to the above scriptures, Daniel 7:13-14, Zechariah 12:6 and 13:6 (evidence that the crucifixion happens. In fact, both chapters 12 and 13 contain interesting prophecies about what happens in Jerusalem at His coming) and Malachi 3:2 don't seem to imply that the Lord is going to come by birth, but instead from heaven in glory. So, in my religion, we believe that first, he is born and goes through mortality, and then, later, he comes in glory, very conspicuously.

Edit: My religion believes that children under the age of accountability (defined to us as 8 years old) can not sin. I didn't find much in the Old Testament about this, but I found an interesting scripture in the New Testament relating to people being able to accept the Gospel after their death, and I'd kind of like to argue about this (I may need another Christian to argue with):
1 Peter 4:6:
"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
Along with 1 Cor. 15:29 and 1 Peter 3:18-19. I did find an article online refuting the Peter passages, but it was a bad argument, at many points, mostly saying that "We don't think that Peter would want to be talking about this at this time, therefore that's not what he was talking about, but we don't know what he did mean." The summary of the article mentioned 1 Cor. 15:29, but the actual article didn't (fail). Anyway..
Here's my Old Testament argument relating to this:
These scripture references aren't very explicit, but my religion believes that the prison and captives refers to those in "spiritual prison" after their death, being those who didn't know the Gospel and sinned. I would like to know what an alternative interpretation of this may be:
Isaiah 24:22, 42:7, 49:9, 61:1. We also believe that Jesus Christ opened the way for those who know the Gospel in the spirit world to teach those who don't (those in spirit prison). In this way, everyone can eventually learn the true Gospel and repent.
Another similar topic:
A very familiar scripture (at least for me): Malachi 4:6:
"And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."
To my religion this means performing ordinances for our dead ancestors, such as baptism. Is the alternative meaning of this mostly respect within the family?

[gejyspa]

There is no mention of any kind of "second coming" anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. The Messiah has to fulfill all the conditions of the prophecies when he comes. If he doesn't, he isn't the Messiah. This is the main problem that Jews have with the claims ofXtianity. There has been no ingathering of all the exiles, restoration of the Temple, resurrection of all the dead, everlasting peace, etc. etc. In other words, we'll know it when we see it. It will be pretty hard to miss

The difference here is we believe that the signs you refer to happen around the time when the Lord comes in glory (to us the Second Coming) as opposed to when he's born on Earth. Do you believe that he needs to be born? (Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6)
As opposed to the above scriptures, Daniel 7:13-14, Zechariah 12:6 and 13:6 (evidence that the crucifixion happens. In fact, both chapters 12 and 13 contain interesting prophecies about what happens in Jerusalem at His coming) and Malachi 3:2 don't seem to imply that the Lord is going to come by birth, but instead from heaven in glory. So, in my religion, we believe that first, he is born and goes through mortality, and then, later, he comes in glory, very conspicuously.

I'm gonna be a bit busy until after the end of the Sabbath, so don't take my lack of responsiveness as any kinf of acquiescence. I need some time to read those scriptures. (I did however look at Zech 12-13, and I can't figure out at all how you get how that has anything to do with the personage of the Messiah).

However, the short answer is this: The Messiah (which simply means, as I'm sure you know, "annointed one". Even King David was referred to thus) is a mortal human being. No more, no less. He will be the ruler of the children of Israel, and will lead the Jews back to the land, and vanquish our enemies with the help of God. He will either have the Temple rebuilt or the Third Temple will miraculously come down from Heaven (opinions differ). Miracles and so forth associated with the Messianic era will happen, but they are not wrought by the Messiah, but by God. In short, "Messiah" does not = "God". One is a human, one is the deity.

[Doug R.]

@Joshua - Catholics believe in two after-death principles. First is purgatory, which is a period of spiritual cleansing for souls that are neither too bad to go to Hell, nor too good to go directly to Heaven. The passage you cite might be a basis for this belief. Second, we believe that prayers on behalf of the deceased (intercessions) can help them in this cleansing, and that the dead exist outside of time - so I could pray today for someone that died in 1040 (or, oddly, someone yet to exist), and my prayers would count. This belief is the basis for the rite of Christian burial (otherwise, what good would it do, since they've already died and received their judgment?)

@gejyspa - Christians believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God. This duality is one of the many mysteries of our faith.

Oh, and I have to ask, why do you use Xtians and J instead of their proper terms? It's almost like you're superstitious and uttering them would have some ill effect, like saying Voldemort.

[Joshuamonkey]

In my religion we believe that Jesus Christ lived a mortal life, was resurrected (and thereby receiving a perfect and eternal body except for his crucifixion wounds) and became perfect and complete, like God the Father. They are both perfect, so their will is the same. Something also, that I guess may seem like an odd idea, is that we believe that Jesus Christ was the Lord of the Old Testament and also, under the direction of God, created the Earth and everything therein. God, however, is the father and creator of our spirits, as well as Jesus Christ, His firstborn; we believe our spirits existed before we were born. We come to Earth to receive a body, gain experience, and make choices. We die and are resurrected at different times (we believe that those who are good are resurrected first, at or soon after the Second Coming. Even those who are bad are resurrected and receive perfect bodies. Whether they'll want to be alive at that time is a different matter), and then we are judged.
Sorry, I meant Zechariah 12:10 instead of 12:6, being:
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
Here, I was referring to the fact that Jesus Christ was pierced in his side at the crucifixion.
Zechariah 13:6:
"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."
With this I was referring to the wounds in Jesus Christ's hands from the crucifixion (which he still has after his resurrection). The "house of friends" would mean the Jews who crucified him, since he was born into the house of Israel.