Yeah, I found that as well.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls
- Thread starter Vouthon
- Start date
So, again - assuming the plant discussed here is the right plant, I searched in Hebrew rabbinical responsa on tithing mint and found that:
a. In general, yes, mint and other herbs need to be tithed.
b. if the plants are only used to add flavor and aren't actually eaten (such as in making tea), the herb doesn't need to be tithed.
a. In general, yes, mint and other herbs need to be tithed.
b. if the plants are only used to add flavor and aren't actually eaten (such as in making tea), the herb doesn't need to be tithed.
Here's another interesting piece:
Maven in Blue Jeans
Maven in Blue Jeans
Hi @dybmh :
While I cannot speak for Vouthon and what context he is speaking from, it seems to me that you two will have to agree on the basic concept of how the early Christian viewed Jesus since it feels like your multiple caricuratures of Christianity all seem wrong. Given your description of Christianity, I don’t believe in that sort of Christianity either. For examples :
1) There is no such thing as “one step salvation” in Early Judeo-Christian doctrine.
dybmh said : “I'll be reading the Book of John making notes on the themes and imagery throughout looking for a pattern of simple, one-step salvation, that is only available *through* Jesus and no one / nothing else.” (#86)
Proving “one step salvation” wrong will not prove anything related to early Christianity since that is not authentic Judeo-christianity. For example, Jewish Haggadah tells us about repentance and justice as well. These are principles no Christian can avoid or get around.
“In the beginning, Two thousand years before the Heaven and the earth, seven things were created: .... The advice of the Torah was given with some reservations. She was skeptical about the value of an earthly world, on account of the sinfulness of men, who would be sure to disregard her precepts. But God dispelled her doubts. He told her that repentance had been created long before, and sinners would have the opportunity of mending their ways. Besides, the Temple service would be invested with atoning power, and Paradise and Hell were intended to do duty as reward and punishment. Finally, the messiah was appointed to bring salvation, which would put an end to all sinfulness. ... But even this last world would have had no permanence, if God had executed his original plan of ruling it according to the principle of strict justice. It was only when he saw that justice by itself would undermine the world that he associated mercy with justice, and made them to rule jointly.” The Haggadah ch 1;
This sort of Judeo-Christianity is not a “one step salvation”. Justice and repentance and mercy and other principles are involved.
In your post #98, this same misrepresentation occurs : dybmh said : “The people JC was preaching to, they were at the mikvah to be purified. (Presumably) so they would know that consenting to go into the JC-Father pair for absolution instead of doing the work themselves is a shortcut, at best. It would have been common sense that it's risky to exploit the loophole and not to do the work themselves (#98)
Again, to characterize the JC-Father pair as “absolution instead of doing the work themselves is a shortcut” is not authentic Judeo-Christian doctrine. It is an incorrect characterization and not associated with Early Christianity. There is no shortcut in early Christian doctrine for Faith to repent (i.e. doing the work for ones self).
Even the Mikvah was, of itself, insufficient to cleanse a person of moral transgressions as the early Dead Sea Scroll Judeo-Christian doctrine tells us : “Ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence, neither cultic waters his purity. He cannot be sanctified by baptism in oceans and rivers, nor purified by mere ritual bathing. Unclean, unclean shall he be all the days that he rejects the laws of God, refusing to be disciplined in the Yahad of His society. For only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities; thus only can he gaze upon the light of life and so be joined to his truth by his Holy Spirit, purified from all iniquity. Through an upright and humble attitude his sin may be covered, and by humbling himself before all God’s laws his flesh can be made clean. Only thus can he really receive the purifying waters and be purged by the cleansing flow. 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col. 3
Neither Jewish Mikvah nor Christian baptism is sufficient, but instead, there is work to be done that must be done by the individual. No loopholes and no short-cuts.
2) Regarding the putting of Adam’s spirit into Adams body. Possession is not Early Christian doctrine.
Dybmh said : I think this idea of sharing spirit one within the other is discussed in the early chapters of the Book of John. (#90)
You are confused. The early texts speak of Adams spirit being placed in Adam’s lifeless body. It is not a spirit or demon possession.
3) Praying through an angel is not Early Christian doctrine.
dybmh said : I'm still thinking that it would be good for you to locate a translation of Enoch for us to use if it is important for your arguments that praying to or through an Angel is kosher. (#99)
You are confused. Praying through an angel is not early Christian doctrine.
4) “Pairing” of JC-and-Father as the only way to be absolved from sin is not early Christian doctrine.
Dybmh said : “What I did see was a conistent *pairing* of JC-and-Father as the *only* way to be absolved from sin without the requisite” (#96)
You are confused again.
Brickjectivity pointed out to dybmh : “This was a comment you made to Clear. The intent of "in Jesus name" could also have several meanings. It is unclear whether its pairing. (#100)
God the Father is the Lord God over all other beings in early Christianity.
The Messiah (Jesus) is a separate being who is directed by God the Father to accomplish tasks delegated to him.
The atonement is the door that all men must go through for salvation.
The messiah is the one who accomplishes the atonement by virtue of being delegated the task and the authority to accomplish it and who has the requisite Characteristics to accomplish it. The Messiah is honored for the accomplishment of his task and teaches mankind that the atonement accomplished by him is the manner by which mankind may return to the Father.
For example, one prays to the Father (not to Jesus or an angel), and prays for forgiveness in the name of (i.e. because of) the atonement wrought by the messiah. It is the atonement that is the door and it is the messiah who wrought the atonement.
The Atonement wrought by the Messiah is not a “one step” process, nor is it a “short cut”, but involved the moral tutoring of mankind in learning by experience, good from evil and those who choose good must still learn to master social and moral laws that will prepare them to live in a social heaven, having learned to live principles by which a social heaven is both built and sustained. This takes more than a lifetime to accomplish.
IF you are going to discuss authentic Christianity, then you should discuss authentic christianity, not a fictionized or caricaturized version of it.
In any case, I hope you both have wonderful spiritual journeys and will try to stay out of your conversations as much as possible.
Clear
While I cannot speak for Vouthon and what context he is speaking from, it seems to me that you two will have to agree on the basic concept of how the early Christian viewed Jesus since it feels like your multiple caricuratures of Christianity all seem wrong. Given your description of Christianity, I don’t believe in that sort of Christianity either. For examples :
1) There is no such thing as “one step salvation” in Early Judeo-Christian doctrine.
dybmh said : “I'll be reading the Book of John making notes on the themes and imagery throughout looking for a pattern of simple, one-step salvation, that is only available *through* Jesus and no one / nothing else.” (#86)
Proving “one step salvation” wrong will not prove anything related to early Christianity since that is not authentic Judeo-christianity. For example, Jewish Haggadah tells us about repentance and justice as well. These are principles no Christian can avoid or get around.
“In the beginning, Two thousand years before the Heaven and the earth, seven things were created: .... The advice of the Torah was given with some reservations. She was skeptical about the value of an earthly world, on account of the sinfulness of men, who would be sure to disregard her precepts. But God dispelled her doubts. He told her that repentance had been created long before, and sinners would have the opportunity of mending their ways. Besides, the Temple service would be invested with atoning power, and Paradise and Hell were intended to do duty as reward and punishment. Finally, the messiah was appointed to bring salvation, which would put an end to all sinfulness. ... But even this last world would have had no permanence, if God had executed his original plan of ruling it according to the principle of strict justice. It was only when he saw that justice by itself would undermine the world that he associated mercy with justice, and made them to rule jointly.” The Haggadah ch 1;
This sort of Judeo-Christianity is not a “one step salvation”. Justice and repentance and mercy and other principles are involved.
In your post #98, this same misrepresentation occurs : dybmh said : “The people JC was preaching to, they were at the mikvah to be purified. (Presumably) so they would know that consenting to go into the JC-Father pair for absolution instead of doing the work themselves is a shortcut, at best. It would have been common sense that it's risky to exploit the loophole and not to do the work themselves (#98)
Again, to characterize the JC-Father pair as “absolution instead of doing the work themselves is a shortcut” is not authentic Judeo-Christian doctrine. It is an incorrect characterization and not associated with Early Christianity. There is no shortcut in early Christian doctrine for Faith to repent (i.e. doing the work for ones self).
Even the Mikvah was, of itself, insufficient to cleanse a person of moral transgressions as the early Dead Sea Scroll Judeo-Christian doctrine tells us : “Ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence, neither cultic waters his purity. He cannot be sanctified by baptism in oceans and rivers, nor purified by mere ritual bathing. Unclean, unclean shall he be all the days that he rejects the laws of God, refusing to be disciplined in the Yahad of His society. For only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities; thus only can he gaze upon the light of life and so be joined to his truth by his Holy Spirit, purified from all iniquity. Through an upright and humble attitude his sin may be covered, and by humbling himself before all God’s laws his flesh can be made clean. Only thus can he really receive the purifying waters and be purged by the cleansing flow. 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col. 3
Neither Jewish Mikvah nor Christian baptism is sufficient, but instead, there is work to be done that must be done by the individual. No loopholes and no short-cuts.
2) Regarding the putting of Adam’s spirit into Adams body. Possession is not Early Christian doctrine.
Dybmh said : I think this idea of sharing spirit one within the other is discussed in the early chapters of the Book of John. (#90)
You are confused. The early texts speak of Adams spirit being placed in Adam’s lifeless body. It is not a spirit or demon possession.
3) Praying through an angel is not Early Christian doctrine.
dybmh said : I'm still thinking that it would be good for you to locate a translation of Enoch for us to use if it is important for your arguments that praying to or through an Angel is kosher. (#99)
You are confused. Praying through an angel is not early Christian doctrine.
4) “Pairing” of JC-and-Father as the only way to be absolved from sin is not early Christian doctrine.
Dybmh said : “What I did see was a conistent *pairing* of JC-and-Father as the *only* way to be absolved from sin without the requisite” (#96)
You are confused again.
Brickjectivity pointed out to dybmh : “This was a comment you made to Clear. The intent of "in Jesus name" could also have several meanings. It is unclear whether its pairing. (#100)
God the Father is the Lord God over all other beings in early Christianity.
The Messiah (Jesus) is a separate being who is directed by God the Father to accomplish tasks delegated to him.
The atonement is the door that all men must go through for salvation.
The messiah is the one who accomplishes the atonement by virtue of being delegated the task and the authority to accomplish it and who has the requisite Characteristics to accomplish it. The Messiah is honored for the accomplishment of his task and teaches mankind that the atonement accomplished by him is the manner by which mankind may return to the Father.
For example, one prays to the Father (not to Jesus or an angel), and prays for forgiveness in the name of (i.e. because of) the atonement wrought by the messiah. It is the atonement that is the door and it is the messiah who wrought the atonement.
The Atonement wrought by the Messiah is not a “one step” process, nor is it a “short cut”, but involved the moral tutoring of mankind in learning by experience, good from evil and those who choose good must still learn to master social and moral laws that will prepare them to live in a social heaven, having learned to live principles by which a social heaven is both built and sustained. This takes more than a lifetime to accomplish.
IF you are going to discuss authentic Christianity, then you should discuss authentic christianity, not a fictionized or caricaturized version of it.
In any case, I hope you both have wonderful spiritual journeys and will try to stay out of your conversations as much as possible.
Clear
Last edited:
Your interventions are greatly welcome!
I hold myself at fault on this one, as what I was trying to stress to @dybmh is that the 'mediators' in these Second Temple texts (whether heavenly beings or exalted humans) are placed above the angels and uniquely associated with God as manifestations of his divine presence (i.e. "Lesser YHWH" as the Sefer Hekhalot put it, or "Your Elohim" in the Melchizedek scroll) and in 1 Enoch I do believe God is worshipped in the person of the Son of Man.
The emergence of this concept may, however, be related to the 'Angel of the Lord' in Exodus (in tandem with other currents) but.....
In the Christian New Testamental texts, Jesus is the incarnation of the 'Wisdom/Word' of God, pre-existing with the Father before the creation of the World and is described in the same terms as God (as "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature" (Hebrews 1:3)).
Last edited:
Another important point, salvation in the New Testament involves multiple steps: faith, baptism, love, works. St. Paul summed it up when he said: "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phillipians 2:1). That's no reference to a one-step 'happenstance'.
The Gospel of John itself emphasizes the overriding importance of 'abiding' in Jesus by continuing to obey his commandments:
"If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love." (John 15:10)
That's why the 'Vine' discourse in John makes such pains to emphasise that failure to 'abide in love' by keeping Christ's commandments, means that the 'branch' (an individual disciple) will be cut off from the vine (Jesus).
As another book of the New Testament puts it:
oremus Bible Browser : James 1
18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.
20Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith without works is barren? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.
23Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
20Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith without works is barren? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.
23Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Or as St. Paul cautioned in I Corinthians 13:3:
If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
In Romans 8:1-14, St. Paul explains that we must constantly live our lives in Christ in order to do works that please God:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus… who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit… and those who are in the flesh cannot please God… So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh – for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.
Its a 'walk', not 'one step'. In Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus himself said to the rich young man who had asked him what was required for salvation:
… If you would enter life, keep the commandments… You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
He directed him back to the observation of the commandments.
Last edited:
I have to point out that Ancient Judaism also is stamped with the concept of a mediator.
For example, the priests were mediators between God and mankind. In fact, the base entymology for "cohen" (hebrew for priest) has a mediator as it's base origin and meaning. The priest would take the sacrifice from the individual bringing it to one of the temples and would be the one who actually prepared and offered it to God. The cohen gadol (high priest) was the great mediator, and thus the Christian spoke of Jesus as their great "high priest".
It may be difficult for modern Jews to look at ancient Judaism and see the parallels, since modern Judaism is a different religion than ancient Judaism, but still, it was easy for the ancient Jews to make the connections.
Clear
ειδρσενεω
The sacrifice is only half the story, though. The person for whom it was made also has to repent and have a true intention, otherwise the sacrifice is null. We also see at the time after the first temple was destroyed, the Israelites (as today) used prayer. Solomon says this will be the case at the dedication of the first temple. Repentance needs no mediator; such as David when he repented of his sin with Bathsheba, he offered no sacrifice. I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think it is the whole picture.
Indeed, although it should be stressed that the early Christians followed earlier 'Qumranites' (we have no idea if the text in question actually came from Qumran, even though it was used and preserved there - so I put that in hyphens) in one key respect here, as attested in the Melchizedek Scroll (11q13) in my OP.
The New Testament - like the ancient pre-Christian Jewish scribe who authored 11q13 - placed a "heavenly high priest" as mediator in a redemptive eschatological function above (in efficacy) the cohen gadol as mediator in the earthly Temple, on the day of judgement.
Thus, we find the Melchizedek scroll from Qumran saying:
11QMelch II... And concerning that which He said, In [this] year of Jubilee...And it will be proclaimed at the end of days concerning the captives as He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. lxi, 1). Its interpretation is that He will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; for He will cast their [lot] amid the portions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities. And this thing will [occur] in the first week of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees. And the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth Jubilee, when all the Sons of Light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them to provide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek...
This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] concerning which [God] spoke through Isaiah the prophet, who said, [How] beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: Your ELOHIM [reigns] (Isa. lii, 7).
This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] concerning which [God] spoke through Isaiah the prophet, who said, [How] beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: Your ELOHIM [reigns] (Isa. lii, 7).
And similarly in the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament:
"And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears...Now if perfection had been attainable through the levitical priesthood—for the people received the law under this priesthood—what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the manner of Melchizedek, rather than one according to the order of Aaron?...
It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek, 16 one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent, but through the power of an indestructible life...
Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins...
Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up."
(Hebrews 7-8)
There is clearly a 'conversation' going on here IMHO, in the original Second Temple context, that modern readers are often deaf to because they aren't aware of the context.
I think its difficult to deny that we have correlations and since the Qumran scroll was composed roughly a hundred years or more prior to Hebrews, it is clearly the Christians who have been influenced by these earlier Jewish beliefs (whomsoever they were) in respect of Melchizedek.
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I concur with the first part, but I think you may want to consider putting the breaks on the second part, and leave that WMD to the supercessionists to carry.
- Matthew 15.
- 21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
- T.S. notes: Jesus was a Jew. A Jew coming to the lost sheep of the house is certainly not a reform of Judaism.
- Who are the lost sheep of Israel? Jeremiah 50.
- 6 My people were lost sheep, their shepherds caused them to stray, [to the] mountains [they] led them astray; from mountain to hill they went, they forgot their resting place.
- Did Jesus give Jewish religious leaders a hard time? No doubt about that. But so what? Nothing new, IMO. Samuel Dresner's "The Zaddik" tells me that Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polonoy wrote a book ("Toldot Yaakov Yosef") that the Mitnagdim of his time (late 18th century) burned when they could find copies because it ripped into the Jewish leaders of that time and place. I say: Jesus was a true Zaddik of Israel in his lifetime on earth; and, thanks to his resurrection and ascension, he has become an eternal Zaddik to and for us non-Jews.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Actually, the passage in question is Deuteronomy 14:22-23. Verse 23 restricts the words 'all the produce of the land' in verse 22 to these items:' Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks.' There is a name for this hermeneutic method called a kelal u-ferat. If a law is stated in general terms and followed by particular instances, only those instances are covered by the law.
A helpful description of the hermeneutics involved, thanks!
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Just trying to address the idea that Jesus was NOT endorsing a rabbinic tradition. You will hear the retort that God commanded tithing of dill, mint and cumin in the Torah and they will cite this passage. But they stop at verse 22 and don't continue to verse 23 nor do they understand the rabbinic approach that can be applied here.
All this to say that, indeed, Jesus DID endorse some rabbinic traditions.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Agreed
Thank you for explaining.Compare what is said in Enoch to what is said in the Book of John. When a person prostrates themselves without speaking, that is one form of devotion. There is less commitment in this action. Bowing without words. On the other hand, bowing while making a proclamation is a much stronger action. It demonstrates more commitment.
Sidebar: If you're a parent you know how this works. Parent says: "I want you to brush your teeth before bed." Child nods and walks off. Parent knows that this is not a commitment. The parent calls back to child: "Come here. Look me in the eye, I want you to brush your teeth before bed, OK?" The child agrees , this time verbally in front of their parent, and even if it's a begrudging, "ok". That is much much better than a non-verbal nod and walking off. Why? because the child if asked afterwards, "Why didn't you brush your teeth? You nodded and agreed to brush your teeth?" The child could say, "I was nodding to something else".
Saying the words seals the deal. Perhaps... imagine that this "sealing the deal" is happening inside of the Merkabah vision. Every action is cosmic. Precision, logically, would be important. If again, we are looking at this as if both stories ( Book of Enoch and Book of John ) are factual and real and true. Neither of them are very reliable sources. At best the events which occurred in both of them can be corroborated by equally unbelievable stories. For the Book John we would be looking at corroboration from the other Gospels. And for the Merkabah vision we would looking at something like Sefer Raziel HaMelech. It's all spooky mystical and far-fetched.
So that said... it's cosmic man. Which words are said is what matters, both here in the material world and in among the heavenly processionals. If a person is engaged in a holy activity and holiness is real, here, in the material world, then that means what words are said here matter as well. And that's why sending a message to G-d via JC is a rather big problem in Jewish theology.
Ok.... now we can look at the vision as described in chapter 62.
There are 4 titles of characters in the scene:
The Lord-of-Hosts,
The Son-of-Man,
The Most-High-One,
Him-Who-Rules-Over-Everything-Who-As-Been-Concealed
The-Rulers-(who-denied-the-son-man, ref the very beginning of the parable)
"Him-Who-Rules-Over-Everything-He-Who-As-Been-concealed" believe it our not, is an english poetic rendering of "Melech HaOlam" from every Jewish bracha in the prayer book. It is a usually translated as Master-Of-The-Universe, but the word Olam implies all the concealed worlds. From ulam in aramaic. The blessings a they are uttering are 2nd Temple period brachot supposedly penned by Beis Ezra. It fits the context and time period... Jewish, 2nd temple period. A Jewish blessing / bracha would beginning literally... Baruch ( translated as Blessed, it's a blessing, literally ). Then comes the 4-letter name who is Melech HaOlam. "Him-Who-Rules-Over-Everything-He-Who-As-Been-concealed" is the the 4 letter name.
Now, why is this so painful for those Rulers, when they see that the son of man has been concealed and then revealed. Why does this strike them with additional pain? Not just once, but twice they are pained. This is because, they see the resemblance between "Him-Who-Rules-Over-Everything-He-Who-As-Been-concealed" whom they *have believed in* and blessed and worshiped, "Him-Who-Rules-Over-Everything-He-Who-As-Been-concealed" aka the 4-letter name, the one who transcends and permeates everything for all time. but they *denied* the Son-Of-Man. This recognition, of how foolish they were to base their conclusion on their sense of sight. And it pains them greatly to realize how illogical it was to believe in he who rules everything who was concealed, and not believe in the son-of-man who was also concealed. This would, logically, be shocking and painful.
Now. It's possible that you're thinking that "Him-Who-Rules-Over-Everything-Who-As-Been-Concealed" is actually two beings, not just one. And blessings were offered to both? Please note that a blessing is specific thing in Judaism... [Starting with Baruch.... This is why it's called "Making a Blessing" in english... Baruch comes from Bara "to create" ... just like Gen 1:1... Blessings are specific ... ] That's fine. I actually don't need that. Take a look at the text, what's missing from the actions of the Rulers-Who-Deny when they bow at the feet of Son-Of-Man? They do not bless, they worship and hope.
Even more could be clarified if this dang thing was available in Hebrew. And issues of divine titles of Angels, G-d, Demons, whomever, having them Hebrew is essential to understand who and what is going on.
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Correction in blue bold: bless, glorify, extol him who rules over everything him who has been concealed.
If you don't mind, I would prefer that pieces from the middle of the verses not be removed for effect. I think you would agree that had I snipped off the end of that same verse omitting the concealed part, it would significantly change the meaning of the verse. The same here. I can't remove the "concealed" part of the verse, you can't remove the "rules over everything" part of the verse. It's changing the text for effect. Do we agree?
Would you ever so kindly post the translation you have of Chapter 48. It is 9 verses. Specifically I want to see the entire verse 5 from beginning to end, but also of note is that Chapter 48 describes 1 specific scene. And the blessing in my translation is specified in verse 9 as the closing remark. They bless in the name of the Lord of Hosts.
Now if, they same thing is happening in Chapter 62, then as I have proposed from the very beginning, this text specifies whom the is being blessed verbally, and that is confirmation of where the prayers are being directed. They are directed to the "name of the Lord of Hosts", not "The Lord of Hosts in the Name of Son-Of-Man." Therefore I conclude ( pending review of your chosen translation ) that this text of Enoch does not have evidence of a binary G-d.
Without evidence of this, it is logical and reasonable to conclude based on the 10 commandments that no Jewish sect, would be able to be labeled Jewish if it is blessings were offered to 2 iterations of g-d where one g-d is lesser than the other. Note, chapter 62 clearly delinates that the Son-Of-Man is not The-Most-High. Chapter 48 also clearly demonstrates this. And that is why, it isn't Jewish to include him in prayer... he's an Angel. Judaism doesn't bless an Angel in the same manner as G-d. If you can find an example, you win the debate.
Except for the source you provided... Is the Throne of Glory important as an element of your argument or not? If it's significant, you'll need to show that somehow, and to do that you'll need the sources from the Kaballists. Whom do you think the scholars are going to use, where do you think they will go to get mystical information for Jewish tradition?
Look, you wanted to explain the meaning of the Throne of Glory to me. I shared what I know about the topic, if you dispute it as a later innovation, Go ahead, what do the scholars say about it? What are their sources? And how is it relevant?
OK, what are acceptable sources for Jewish mystical tradition. They must be in Hebrew or they will be immediately dismissed.
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
This is all 100% crystal clear. ( no pun intended ). The distinction is, I am discussing the story that is rendered by The Book of John via the NIV. What I am gathering from your post, is that, The Book of John as rendered by the NIV conflicts with Christian doctrine in many significant areas.
I have intended to be very clear with my wording. But, perhaps I was not clear enough. This is all focused on the book of John. Part of what you're missing is that this is a spin-off conversation from a different thread. In it, the OP ( not Vouthon ) had claimed to be able to use the contents of the Book of Mormon to unify all three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I asked the OP if there was something in the Book of Mormon that addresses the incompatibility of the Book of John with Jewish doctrine. I told the OP, that in the past when I had addressed this on RF who claimed to be able to unify these religions, a few times, the answer given was to simply disavow the entire book. And that's how this discussion started. It is comparing what is written in this one Book with Jewish doctrine, not Christian doctrine.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
But not in the name of the Son-Of-Man, right?
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Actually, my friend, I made the same exact point earlier in the thread.
It's important because the Shliach Tzibur ( a cantor ) must be pure in order to perform their duties. ( gathering and lifting the prayers of others). The same is obviously true of the High Priest, Leviticus... many chapters are devoted it.
The Book of John describes JC as sinning while performing miracles, working on Shabbos... this would disqualify him for gathering and lifting his fellows prayers.
Shaliach Tzibur - Halachipedia
Further, the prayers are always in the name of G-d and none nothing else. If it were comparable to the mediator in the Book of John, then in Jewish tradition, the congregation would offer prayers in the name of the cantor.
Last edited: