Ask Zardoz Anything; Redux!

[Zardoz]

Open to all this time, reboot of my old thread which after 250-ish reply got buried as threads do.

Anything related to MJ... go ahead! :yes:

 

[anotherglenda]

General questions if that's ok?

Many options for redemption are given in scripture, to allow for people not having access to preferred options eg if you don't have a sheep then you can substitute with alternatives eg birds or grain or money etc. Is the Septuagint version of redemption of a donkey more likely than the Masoretic text? ie Septuagint says at Ex 13:13 & Ex 34:20 that if you can't redeem a donkey with a lamb then you can redeem it with money ... while Masoretic version says break its neck? (Breaking the neck of a donkey would be difficult and time-consuming & cruel and distressing for both the donkey and the person attempting to do the deed ... and seems not a kosher way to kill a quadruped?). Since God promotes speedy humane minimal-stress death of creatures (while calming patting head of creature), I personally can't imagine God promoting the extended stressful death of a donkey. What do other Messianics think?

God uses special people for special purposes. In his time, might Moses also have been used as 'the finger of God' to write the decalogue on stone?

Might 'the mountain of God' been a volcano?

Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes were all recognised as legitimate sects of Judaism in the time of Jesus/Yeshua. If Sadducees were legitimate Jewish priests historically derived from Zadokites before Pharisees existed, and Sadducees rejected the oral law, shouldn't Karaites likewise be recognised as a legitimate sect of Judaism who likewise reject the oral law?

 

[Zardoz]

General questions if that's ok?

Many options for redemption are given in scripture, to allow for people not having access to preferred options eg if you don't have a sheep then you can substitute with alternatives eg birds or grain or money etc. Is the Septuagint version of redemption of a donkey more likely than the Masoretic text? ie Septuagint says at Ex 13:13 & Ex 34:20 that if you can't redeem a donkey with a lamb then you can redeem it with money ... while Masoretic version says break its neck? (Breaking the neck of a donkey would be difficult and time-consuming & cruel and distressing for both the donkey and the person attempting to do the deed ... and seems not a kosher way to kill a quadruped?). Since God promotes speedy humane minimal-stress death of creatures (while calming patting head of creature), I personally can't imagine God promoting the extended stressful death of a donkey. What do other Messianics think?

Interesting, as I will be visiting a donkey rescue facility soon...

I can't imagine anyone doing that to a donkey foal, rather than give it to the priest.
I'm pretty sure that a monetary substitute was kosher, not everyone has sheep.
Donkey was special, as it was the animal that came out of Egypt with us in the exodus,
therefore gets special status. I can't see the Rashi on this ATM, but I'm sure I've seen this.

God uses special people for special purposes. In his time, might Moses also have been used as 'the finger of God' to write the decalogue on stone?

Might 'the mountain of God' been a volcano?

I don't think so...

Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes were all recognised as legitimate sects of Judaism in the time of Jesus/Yeshua. If Sadducees were legitimate Jewish priests historically derived from Zadokites before Pharisees existed, and Sadducees rejected the oral law, shouldn't Karaites likewise be recognised as a legitimate sect of Judaism who likewise reject the oral law?

Karaites were much later, eh? Seventh century or so. I don't think they can be compared with Sadducees, circumstances were different.

I'm out of town for this week, probably not be able to get on again. Sorry!

 

[anotherglenda]

I'm out of town for this week, probably not be able to get on again. Sorry!

Thank you for responding to my wonderings. Much appreciated. No need to be sorry. Hope your week out of town was good.

Interesting, as I will be visiting a donkey rescue facility soon...

I like donkeys & glad there is a rescue resource for them there. Hope your visit there is a blessing.
On topic of donkeys needing rescuing, a friend has ponies but no car. Her ponies are multi-coloured & agisted at a property a few kms/miles away. Early one morning she got an urgent call that one of her ponies had escaped and was distressed & racing around on the road outside the agistment fence line trying to get back in & better be caught urgently since it was a traffic hazard. I drove her to the location and as we rounded the last bend, there in the road was a beautiful multi-coloured equine ... with ears up to the sky!!! Yes it was distressed & trying to find a way into the pony paddocks. The donkey was caught & its owner located. The poor donkey was evidently distressed because its companion creature, an old goat, had died & the donkey was seeking comfort with other creatures. Sadly the ponies rejected it so alternative companion creatures had to be found.
A funny comment ... a lady once said on Aus TV "since donkeys have such big ears, why do they make so much noise?"

I can't imagine anyone doing that to a donkey foal, rather than give it to the priest.

Maybe some baby creatures which God commands are to be redeemed with alternatives aren't meant to be given to the priest? eg human babies?

I'm pretty sure that a monetary substitute was kosher, not everyone has sheep.

Thank you for clarifying that a money substitute is kosher & I'm so glad to hear it.

Donkey was special, as it was the animal that came out of Egypt with us in the exodus,therefore gets special status. I can't see the Rashi on this ATM, but I'm sure I've seen this.

I like that scripture clearly shows that the life of donkeys is valued by Heaven eg the angel intended to save the donkey while killing its wicked owner:
NUM 22:33 And the *** saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.

I don't think so...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Appreciated.

Karaites were much later, eh? Seventh century or so. I don't think they can be compared with Sadducees, circumstances were different.

I appreciate that times & circumstances were different, but Reform Judaism is fairly new and yet recognised as a valid sect of Judaism which loosely embraces Pharisee basics. If Karaite Judaism loosely embraces the alternative Sadducee basics, can't that be considered equally as a valid sect of Judaism, especially when Sadducee Judaism preceded the later Pharisee Judaism?

thanks & peace to you

 

[anotherglenda]

Another question if that's ok?

Scripture sometimes discusses non-plants as trees
eg
PROV 3:18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.
PROV 15:4 A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.

Also scripture discusses 'words' as a form of fruit,
PROV 12:14 A man shall be satisfied with good by the fruit of his mouth: and the recompence of a man's hands shall be rendered unto him.
PROV 13:2 A man shall eat good by the fruit of his mouth: but the soul of the transgressors shall eat violence.
PROV 18:20 A man's belly shall be satisfied with the fruit of his mouth; and with the increase of his lips shall he be filled.
IS 57:19 I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him.

Since scripture discusses such non-plant trees and fruits, would you consider it possible that maybe the deadly fruit which Eve and then Adam swallowed was subtle 'lies' if words can be fruits? ('subtle' since it was mixed with a touch of truth to give it enough credibility to entice? Blatant lies usually don't trick anyone but mixed with a touch of truth is dangerous and the 'talking' serpent was crafty ... 'words' play a big part in Eden)

Couldn't that explain God's comment about 'who TOLD you that you were naked?' God's question specified 'words' being involved but I had previously overlooked this and assumed Adam & Eve simply became 'aware' of their nakedness.

Do you think it's possible it's discussing swallowing deadly lies which undermined God's truth?
For me it matters because I had previously swallowed subtle deadly mixed-message lies which undermined God's truth (Pauline Christianity which promotes God's life-giving instructions as inaccurate ... much like the snake told Eve God's life-giving instructions weren't totally accurate) and I was unaware of my naked state til I read scripture so I needed to be 'told' ... but since heeding Jesus it's like being allowed to return to Eden and now be allowed to deliberately select the right tree (of life-giving truth) while rejecting the deadly tree (mixed-message subtle lies which some parts dangerously seem ok and appealing).

Your thoughts please if that's ok?
peace to you and yours

 

[Zardoz]

Another question if that's ok?

Sure! :yes:

Scripture sometimes discusses non-plants as trees
...
Also scripture discusses 'words' as a form of fruit,
...
Since scripture discusses such non-plant trees and fruits, would you consider it possible that maybe the deadly fruit which Eve and then Adam swallowed was subtle 'lies' if words can be fruits? ('subtle' since it was mixed with a touch of truth to give it enough credibility to entice? Blatant lies usually don't trick anyone but mixed with a touch of truth is dangerous and the 'talking' serpent was crafty ... 'words' play a big part in Eden)

Couldn't that explain God's comment about 'who TOLD you that you were naked?' God's question specified 'words' being involved but I had previously overlooked this and assumed Adam & Eve simply became 'aware' of their nakedness.

Interesting thought, I'll have to look around see if this interpretation is found elsewhere.

All I can offer is what my Rebbi told us. He said it was an actual fruit, but unlike what popular culture depicts it was not an apple. It was the grape. See, there was a purpose why G-d forbid them to eat of it... it was meant to be turned into wine for the very first kiddush of the very first shabbat! It would have been permitted... at the proper time. They where not being tested, it was for a practical reason it was forbidden. For everything, G-d has a reason, even if the man and woman could not understand it.

Do you think it's possible it's discussing swallowing deadly lies which undermined God's truth?
For me it matters because I had previously swallowed subtle deadly mixed-message lies which undermined God's truth

Sometimes, it's not outright lies but those 'little white lies' which are the most dangerous. See here:

"The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but G-d did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

See the lie? It's subtle. 'Must not touch it'. That's NOT what G-d said, he said nothing about touching, only eating. It's a man-made law. (or woman-made, we don't know) Made probably with good intent. But, when the serpent heard it, he pushed the woman into the tree. Then serpent said 'See? did you die? No.'

 

[CynthiaCypher]

John 8:44?

 

[Zardoz]

John 8:44?

I don't read anything of John or Paul. On par with the 'Protocols' IMHO.

 

[anotherglenda]

Sure! :yes:

Thank you. Much appreciated

Interesting thought, I'll have to look around see if this interpretation is found elsewhere.

a web search didn't help me find any similar considerations but I'm not very good at web-searching

All I can offer is what my Rebbi told us. He said it was an actual fruit, but unlike what popular culture depicts it was not an apple. It was the grape. See, there was a purpose why G-d forbid them to eat of it... it was meant to be turned into wine for the very first kiddush of the very first shabbat! It would have been permitted... at the proper time. They where not being tested, it was for a practical reason it was forbidden. For everything, G-d has a reason, even if the man and woman could not understand it.

What your Rebbi said raises a host of other considerations ... the 1st being the time frame ... the first shabbat had already passed by the time the snake incident happened (God made humans on the 6th day then there was the 1st shabbat before the snake incident) and it would have taken a number of sabbaths for a grape to turn to wine
2nd, a grape comes from a vine rather than a tree
3rd, why wouldn't God test Adam & Eve since God does not change ... and God always grants and tests human free will. God always gives life-giving instructions and then places the alternative in front of us to choose from ... life & death, good & evil and tells us to choose life. God has been consistent with this habit right through human history, beginning in Eden. Why would Adam & Eve be excluded from the free will test and why would God place life and death before them?
4th, why would God tell Adam & Eve that eating the fruit would result in death if God didn't mean it?
5th, why would God curse the ground and curse the snake and evict Eden residents for a minor misdemeanor? Timing of trees is a kosher issue (fruit from young trees are to be treated as uncircumcised) but not cause for cursing

Sometimes, it's not outright lies but those 'little white lies' which are the most dangerous. See here:

See the lie? It's subtle. 'Must not touch it'. That's NOT what G-d said, he said nothing about touching, only eating. It's a man-made law. (or woman-made, we don't know) Made probably with good intent. But, when the serpent heard it, he pushed the woman into the tree. Then serpent said 'See? did you die? No.'

Yes, I do see that thank you. You are right that is NOT what God said, which is why the grape issue disturbs me because it doesn't accurately reflect what God says (don't eat it or you will die vs don't eat it now or you will die) even if it's a man-made law with good intent.

The bottom line is they chose disobedience and death and cursings rather than obedience and life and blessings .... just like the choice we are given with Torah
DEUT 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

I truly am grateful for your response and patience and efforts with me and I hope you'll forgive my discomfort with what your Rebbi told you.
Apologies and peace to you and yours

 

[anotherglenda]

John 8:44?

Thank you for your input. Much appreciated

 

[Zardoz]

What your Rebbi said raises a host of other considerations ... the 1st being the time frame ... the first shabbat had already passed by the time the snake incident happened (God made humans on the 6th day then there was the 1st shabbat before the snake incident) and it would have taken a number of sabbaths for a grape to turn to wine

I am of firm belief that the days of creation are not solar days. A 'day' exists before the sun. A 'day' is a complete cycle, of which our solar day is only a similar echo. So, the shabbat had not occurred yet.

2nd, a grape comes from a vine rather than a tree

I'm no expert in Hebrew, I need translations; so I don't know if was only a tree or if it could also be a vine in the original text. Without looking into it, but sorry have no time now.

Perhaps, it was also diminished, and now needs support.

3rd, why wouldn't God test Adam & Eve since God does not change ... and God always grants and tests human free will. God always gives life-giving instructions and then places the alternative in front of us to choose from ... life & death, good & evil and tells us to choose life. God has been consistent with this habit right through human history, beginning in Eden. Why would Adam & Eve be excluded from the free will test and why would God place life and death before them?

I don't know if such a test would have been needed for Adam & Eve. Adam was perfect, why would there need to be a test? Death & evil did not exist yet. Why test for something that does not exist?

4th, why would God tell Adam & Eve that eating the fruit would result in death if God didn't mean it? 5th, why would God curse the ground and curse the snake and evict Eden residents for a minor misdemeanor? Timing of trees is a kosher issue (fruit from young trees are to be treated as uncircumcised) but not cause for cursing

It also seems to bestow knowledge that they were not prepared for, besides just being grapes for wine. In their incomplete state of learning, getting that knowledge prematurely meant that they would have to be evicted from the garden, and if that happened being in the natural world meant they would eventually die. A consequence, not a punishment.

I may not have remembered everything, and I may have been a bit confused about some things. Forgive me, I'm an old man and this was long ago, in a different world. My Rebbi was a Tsaddik, and blessed. But he spoke english not all that perfectly, and I had trouble sometimes.

 

[anotherglenda]

I am of firm belief that the days of creation are not solar days. A 'day' exists before the sun. A 'day' is a complete cycle, of which our solar day is only a similar echo. So, the shabbat had not occurred yet.

I hadn't considered that. Thank you

I'm no expert in Hebrew, I need translations; so I don't know if was only a tree or if it could also be a vine in the original text. Without looking into it, but sorry have no time now.

Please don't be sorry since we are in the same boat since I'm no expert (or even novice!) in Hebrew and checking that against expert opinion would take time which neither of us has to spare at present.

Perhaps, it was also diminished, and now needs support.

why not ... I'm now diminished and need support
(of course it hangs on whether a tree or vine is specified in expert opinion which we lack)

I don't know if such a test would have been needed for Adam & Eve. Adam was perfect, why would there need to be a test? Death & evil did not exist yet. Why test for something that does not exist?

According to what God said, death certainly did exist otherwise God would not have warned Adam and Eve about its reality and their danger of experiencing death if they ate from the tree.
Free will existed and God was allowing them to exercise is by testing that.
I don't think it had anything to do with them being perfect ... I think it had to do with God proving He grants free will and seeing what they would choose ... otherwise why would God place both plants in the garden under their noses and tell them which to avoid?

It also seems to bestow knowledge that they were not prepared for, besides just being grapes for wine. In their incomplete state of learning, getting that knowledge prematurely meant that they would have to be evicted from the garden, and if that happened being in the natural world meant they would eventually die. A consequence, not a punishment.

The outcome then was death as God had warned and the curses were surely punishments?

I may not have remembered everything, and I may have been a bit confused about some things. Forgive me, I'm an old man and this was long ago, in a different world. My Rebbi was a Tsaddik, and blessed. But he spoke english not all that perfectly, and I had trouble sometimes.

Nothing to forgive ... I'm an old woman and the older I get the more questions I have and you have been consistently kind and patient with my queries and I'm very grateful.
Thank you very much
peace to you and yours

 

[Zardoz]

...According to what God said, death certainly did exist otherwise God would not have warned Adam and Eve about its reality and their danger of experiencing death if they ate from the tree.
Free will existed and God was allowing them to exercise is by testing that.
I don't think it had anything to do with them being perfect ... I think it had to do with God proving He grants free will and seeing what they would choose ... otherwise why would God place both plants in the garden under their noses and tell them which to avoid?

The outcome then was death as God had warned and the curses were surely punishments?

True, death existed, but not for them. They might see plants die, but they never saw a human die. It was still outside of their reality. I don't know if they really understood it.

The purpose was not to test IMHO.

Imagine a mother cooking dinner. She puts on the stove and puts the pot to boil. Tells her child not to touch the stove, it's hot. Child ignores this warning and burns it's hand on the stove. The mother did not put on the stove to teach the child, did she? No, she put it on to cook. It became a teaching event, but that was not the goal. Likewise the burn was not a punishment for disobedience was it? No, it was a natural consequence of touching the hot stove.

Shalom

 

[BilliardsBall]

Zardoz, I really like your responses on this thread. Great thoughts!

 

[Zardoz]

Zardoz, I really like your responses on this thread. Great thoughts!

Thank you! It's not my best, I fear.

After almost 3000 posts, sometimes I come across something I wrote long ago and am amazed, totally forgot it.

Say, so few MJ come here... where are my manners....

Welcome to RF and the MJ DIR!

I posted stuff long ago, when I first came here, I usually ask new MJ to check it out, no one ever sees it much less gives me feedback.

It had the tag 'Messianic Midrash' but tags and other things didn't make the transition to the new forums very well.

Well, just scroll back in the the DIR and look for posts I made which are locked. Those are the ones.

Shalom

 

[Zardoz]

Locking this thread, as I no longer belong to this DIR.
I can now only be found in the root Abrahamic DIR, as I have no other DIR identity.