Fighting Two Fronts

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would put forth that is the case for the exaggerated stats on Christians. Many atheists saying they believe as an act.

I don't doubt this is true for many people who self-declare themselves to be religious.

Daniel Dennett has done a fair bit of writing about the problem of atheist pastors: if declaring your real beliefs means losing your job, your home, and being rejected by your peer group, there's a huge incentive to stay in the closet... especially if your skills don't readily transfer to the sort of careers available in the secular job market.

The host of one atheist podcast I listen to put it interestingly recently: every atheist who was once religious passed through a period where they no longer believed, but - usually due to social pressure - hadn't yet declared themselves to not believe in what their faith group proclaimed.

 

[Meow Mix]

Sure, that's splitting hairs. The only simple clean cut definition I see that can distinguish an atheist is exactly as 9/10 penguin said. It's the person's choice.

Can you agree on that?

I'm not sure whether it's a de facto choice or not: this implies doxastic volunteerism (i.e., our ability to choose what we believe or not). It seems to me as though if someone tells me the sky is green that no matter how much I try I'm unable to choose to believe them. I can nod my head and say "Yep," but I can't in my heart of hearts choose to actually believe them -- I just either believe them or I don't (hopefully the latter, without some kind of amazing justification).

Doxastic volunteerism seems to be prima facie false on its face. So, I would submit carefully that it probably has a lot more to do with something besides simply choosing what to believe.

I think it makes the most sense to couch it in traditional terms of theists making ontological claims of something existing or possessing specific attributes related to theism while atheists are skeptical of them.

 

[Thief]

Absolutely not. You know the meaning for the expression "all ears." That I am ready to listen to whatever you have to say.

So by having acquired the knowledge of good and evil, man became wiser. The first thing he learnt was that he didn't know anything. That he was completely naked. He had not been just another animal. He obeyed God although unaware of the real meaning of His will. Then, in "they have become like us," it means with God's attributes. Since not all God's attributes had been granted to man, God would remind us in Genesis 3:22 that also the attribute of eternity had not been granted to man. So, he could not live forever. He would have to die. It means that Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden not because they ate from the tree of knowledge but because they could not eat from the tree of life.

And this is different than my viewpoint....how?

Still hedging to life eternal as a physical form?

 

[kylixguru]

I'm not sure whether it's a de facto choice or not: this implies doxastic volunteerism (i.e., our ability to choose what we believe or not). It seems to me as though if someone tells me the sky is green that no matter how much I try I'm unable to choose to believe them. I can nod my head and say "Yep," but I can't in my heart of hearts choose to actually believe them -- I just either believe them or I don't (hopefully the latter, without some kind of amazing justification).

Doxastic volunteerism seems to be prima facie false on its face. So, I would submit carefully that it probably has a lot more to do with something besides simply choosing what to believe.

I think it makes the most sense to couch it in traditional terms of theists making ontological claims of something existing or possessing specific attributes related to theism while atheists are skeptical of them.

Well, this is why I contest the easiest way to sum up the distinction (meaning it isn't cut and dry) is choice or belief, yet knowing even then the question goes deeper still. Their can be individuals who believe something without ever having made that choice, such as in brainwashed children. One person can fall prey to the intellectual power of another to impell them to a certain belief, such as a college professor bulldozing over his student's theistic inclinations. Did that student make a choice or was he simply overpowered?

I guess I lean toward choice as the single best distinction because really that's the only distinction I fully respect.

Let me demonstrate how it works for me. When an atheist tells me they choose to be such because they believe God doesn't exist, I am entirely calm and accepting about it. They have full integrity to their beliefs in a way that also leaves me room to have full integrity to my choice based on my beliefs.

When an atheist tells me they are such because God doesn't exist and imply that beliefs have no part of it, I find this to be them demonstrating a mirror image of what they project onto religious people who they don't respect for doing exactly the same thing. It is problematic and unhealthy on both sides to make it a matter of anything but choice.

When choice is removed as a component then the dialog devolves into banterings about proof. Atheists have no proof that the theists' God doesn't exist and theists have no proof that their God does exist that an atheist would respect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me demonstrate how it works for me. When an atheist tells me they choose to be such because they believe God doesn't exist, I am entirely calm and accepting about it. They have full integrity to their beliefs in a way that also leaves me room to have full integrity to my choice based on my beliefs.

When an atheist tells me they are such because God doesn't exist and imply that beliefs have no part of it, I find this to be them demonstrating a mirror image of what they project onto religious people who they don't respect for doing exactly the same thing. It is problematic and unhealthy on both sides to make it a matter of anything but choice.

When choice is removed as a component then the dialog devolves into banterings about proof. Atheists have no proof that the theists' God doesn't exist and theists have no proof that their God does exist that an atheist would respect.

I don't think your argument makes any sense. You talk about the problems of removing belief from the equation and then make a conclusion about choice. Until you show the linkage you're apparently assuming between belief and choice, your argument doesn't speak to your conclusion.

Here is the way it works for me:

Our beliefs are the product of the perceptions and evidence we're confronted with and our state of mind. While our actions have ramifications for these things and therefore our beliefs, given a particular set of evidence/perceptions and our prior state of mind, we can't help but come to some sort of believe about what we've seen or thought about.

As an example, it's my choice whether or not to read the newspaper. I might even have a good idea about how reading the newspaper will affect me. However, given that I've read a particular story, I can't help but form whatever conclusion I draw from it.

I also can't help but believe what I do about things that are imposed upon me: for instance, I've done nothing to encourage any particular belief about the rain (i.e. I've made no choice about it), but I've still inexorably come to the belief that it's wet and falls downward.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that it seems ridiculous to me to think that belief is entirely a matter of choice.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, this is why I contest the easiest way to sum up the distinction (meaning it isn't cut and dry) is choice or belief, yet knowing even then the question goes deeper still. Their can be individuals who believe something without ever having made that choice, such as in brainwashed children. One person can fall prey to the intellectual power of another to impell them to a certain belief, such as a college professor bulldozing over his student's theistic inclinations. Did that student make a choice or was he simply overpowered?

But again: does the student just choose to believe any evidence the professor gives, or do they just find it compelling and so believe it?

Let's say that I claim to you that I'm in contact with aliens. You either believe this claim or you don't. Let's say you don't; you're skeptical.

I pull out my communicator, tap the button, and the aliens come down right in front of you to party with me. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, did you choose to believe the evidence made my case -- or did you just happen to find it compelling enough without choice? You can test doxastic volunteerism by supposing that you DO find it compelling, and ask yourself if you can then just choose to still disbelieve me?

You probably couldn't. Don't confuse this with perhaps having skepticism that you're in a dream or something -- the point is that you can never consciously choose whether you believe something (i.e. find it compelling enough to adopt) or not. You just do, or you just don't. If it happens to compel you by showing you the aliens and your heart of hearts becomes convinced, you can't just choose to disbelieve it (because you believe it, even if you want to deny it!)

So, if a professor "plows" through someone's beliefs and they wind up believing the professor instead, it isn't necessarily because they chose to. If they believed that A > B and B > C but that A < C and the professor said if A > B and B > C that A must > C, and the student cognizes this and believes it, they cannot choose to disbelieve it. They can search for ways in which it might be wrong, but they're stuck believing it simply because they're compelled to believe it by something other than choice.

I guess I lean toward choice as the single best distinction because really that's the only distinction I fully respect.

Let me demonstrate how it works for me. When an atheist tells me they choose to be such because they believe God doesn't exist, I am entirely calm and accepting about it. They have full integrity to their beliefs in a way that also leaves me room to have full integrity to my choice based on my beliefs.

When an atheist tells me they are such because God doesn't exist and imply that beliefs have no part of it, I find this to be them demonstrating a mirror image of what they project onto religious people who they don't respect for doing exactly the same thing. It is problematic and unhealthy on both sides to make it a matter of anything but choice.

When choice is removed as a component then the dialog devolves into banterings about proof. Atheists have no proof that the theists' God doesn't exist and theists have no proof that their God does exist that an atheist would respect.

We do make choices with our beliefs, but we don't choose what we believe -- if that makes sense. If there were a very strong justification for God that I discovered that I was unable to defeat I would be compelled to believe the argument is true. I couldn't just decide not to believe that the argument has merit because it would be inherent in understanding the argument that it was valid; I could no more choose to believe it wasn't than I can choose to actually believe the sky is green.

I could be skeptical of it: I could believe that there's a solution that I don't know about yet, perhaps. But we don't choose what we believe; we're just compelled to believe and then to decide based on that.

In any case, I agree that atheists have beliefs -- but hopefully for the most part these are justified beliefs. Belief without epistemic justification -- i.e., faith -- is what's irrational.

 

[kylixguru]

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that it seems ridiculous to me to think that belief is entirely a matter of choice.

I think I leaned more on choice as a result of belief. I understand what you are saying about rain, but the matter of the existence of God is not a direct parallel. From my point of view, matters of religion, spirituality and consciousness have their foundation in the realm of quantum mechanics where all the rules of the physical creation no longer apply. Things like rain are inappropriate parallels because it is merely a physical phenomenon. Matters of intent and observation of a conscious being do seem to play a significant role in the realm of quantum mechanics. I view an atheist and a theist as two sides of a quantum experiment. Both of them can observe a different apparent reality based upon what the intent of their observation is.

I have a little saying you can ponder on.

Reality influences perception.
Perception creates reality.

 

[astarath]

uhhh... so you believe if you perceive a truth it becomes reality? So if somebody perceives they can fly what happens when they jump of their roof?

 

[kylixguru]

But again: does the student just choose to believe any evidence the professor gives, or do they just find it compelling and so believe it?

I believe this can vary depending on the level of consciousness the individual has. A person with low consciousness would be easily overpowered such that they were slammed like a pool ball in a completely predictable direction like simple vector analysis. And, I agree, that person's new beliefs (vectors) would be entirely predictable because their choice had no component due to low consciousness.

However, a person with a high level of consciousness would simply hear out the professor and no significant force from him would register to them as "compelling". They would hold all of his information compartmentalized in their mind and then proceed to digest it all and formulate how they wished to respond to it by their own choice.

My conclusion was my college professors of this vein of thinking and behavior to attempt to steam roller over their students with theistic leanings was fraught with as much or more hypocrisy and "brainwashing" pressures as I ever had observed in religious groups.

I at length made the choice to reject atheist's arguments because they were more reactive and oppositional with no greater proof, but in fact had less evidence in my view. Ultimately, they offered nothing tangible and fulfilling other than to avoid their sneers.

But, at the same time, though they were just as guilty themselves, I most definitely agreed with them that much violence is done to people's souls in religious groups where an individual's right to choose their own beliefs is systematically violated. The only thing worse than this is when a faction of individuals conspire openly or secretly against a group to pervert its fundamentals. That's another subject all together.

Let's say that I claim to you that I'm in contact with aliens. You either believe this claim or you don't. Let's say you don't; you're skeptical.

I pull out my communicator, tap the button, and the aliens come down right in front of you to party with me. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, did you choose to believe the evidence made my case -- or did you just happen to find it compelling enough without choice? You can test doxastic volunteerism by supposing that you DO find it compelling, and ask yourself if you can then just choose to still disbelieve me?

You probably couldn't. Don't confuse this with perhaps having skepticism that you're in a dream or something -- the point is that you can never consciously choose whether you believe something (i.e. find it compelling enough to adopt) or not. You just do, or you just don't. If it happens to compel you by showing you the aliens and your heart of hearts becomes convinced, you can't just choose to disbelieve it (because you believe it, even if you want to deny it!)

I understand your analogy but you again brought in the physical realm which is not the entirety of the landscape being dealt with here.

So, if a professor "plows" through someone's beliefs and they wind up believing the professor instead, it isn't necessarily because they chose to.

That's my point. Their choice was violated every bit as much as brainwashing that happens in churches.

If they believed that A > B and B > C but that A < C and the professor said if A > B and B > C that A must > C, and the student cognizes this and believes it, they cannot choose to disbelieve it. They can search for ways in which it might be wrong, but they're stuck believing it simply because they're compelled to believe it by something other than choice.

What they fail to do is detect the flaws in their professor's premise. Without realizing it, and without him saying it openly, he brings them into his limited domain of thinking. This is a classic manipulation tactic sales people use. The power of the unsaid and implied.

Yes, the string of facts he presents are flawless within the context provided, but if you are functioning in a flawed or limited premise your conclusions shall also be flawed or limited.

We do make choices with our beliefs, but we don't choose what we believe -- if that makes sense.

It does if you are referring to people who have extremely low to no consciousness.

If there were a very strong justification for God that I discovered that I was unable to defeat I would be compelled to believe the argument is true.

And, as I have come to know my God, this is exactly what He would rather go away and have no part of Him. My God only wishes to have a relationship with individuals whose consciousness is at a level that they are entities who truly act for themselves and are not merely objects to be acted upon. My God finds pool balls boring to have a personal relationship with. But, He may enjoy playing some pool from time to time, so to speak.

And, please, before this gets missed. I am not implying all atheists have low consciousness. It's just that like is true with most religionists, they are caught up in being billiard balls in one way or another. Some just have stripes and some are solids.

It's those like the haughty professors or the proud preachers who think they can cross the line of merely wishing to be heard out. They imply shame if they are not also believed too. It is those who bulldoze through others rights to choose their beliefs that I find to be the most reprehensible of hypocrites and reducers of consciousness.

Also, as I am learning by my experience here, depending on the level of a person's consciousness, they will only want to hear so much. Their ruminant organ can only hold so much information to process. Thus, if they merely "hear someone out" in their present state of mind it will "billiard ball" them instead of raise their consciousness. Thus, I am determined to be more sensistive in this area myself.

I favor religion over atheism because if you put into place pure spiritual tenets that are not corrupted, you will result in programs and practices that increase an individuals consciousness. The direction atheism has a propensity to go is the idea man cannot and does not actually make choices. It reduces mankind to billiard balls because it omits consciousness and choice from its premise. Therefore, it establishes and maintains that which shall omit it from themselves.

I couldn't just decide not to believe that the argument has merit because it would be inherent in understanding the argument that it was valid; I could no more choose to believe it wasn't than I can choose to actually believe the sky is green.

I could be skeptical of it: I could believe that there's a solution that I don't know about yet, perhaps. But we don't choose what we believe; we're just compelled to believe and then to decide based on that.

I guess this all boils down to what a person believes about their own individual capacities. Do they seem themselves as a billiard ball or as a pool player. There certainly is a significant evolutionary gap between the two.

In any case, I agree that atheists have beliefs -- but hopefully for the most part these are justified beliefs. Belief without epistemic justification -- i.e., faith -- is what's irrational.

As I see it, atheists do have justified beliefs as long as you only measure their value and applicability within the domain or premise they choose to limit themselves by.

To me, faith is the driving creative principle that takes things from quantum entanglement to manifestation in our perceived reality. It is how what our hearts truly desire (or fear) becomes realized.

 

[kylixguru]

uhhh... so you believe if you perceive a truth it becomes reality? So if somebody perceives they can fly what happens when they jump of their roof?

You aren't taking into consideration the part about how reality influences perception. There is most definitely some influence.

You also have to take into consideration we are not the only unit of consciousness. Our observations are also influenced by the perceptions of others too.

 

[Ben Masada]

And this is different than my viewpoint....how?

Still hedging to life eternal as a physical form?

There is no eternal life for man, period. Eternity belongs with God only. According to the law of genesis and destruction, anyone who has experienced birth, must eventually die. Only God, Who had no beginning, will have no end.

 

[Ben Masada]

An atheist could choose to pretend to believe in God, I suppose. But not to believe.

LuisDantas! I can't believe you! Would you be able of that much? It would be the climax of deceit and hypocrisy. And what for, for heaven's sake? Based on what kind of interest, to proselytize indefensible Theists into becoming one like you? What basis would he or she have to stand upon after the deceit was discovered? Tell me you are kidding. I still had you on a higher reputation than that.

 

[Ben Masada]

(...continued.)

I apologize but I really need to raise my voice here. You are not waking up.

AND TO HIM SHALL THE GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE BE

No, problem, you can shout your lungs out. A Jew who is aware of both territories, his and of the enemy's won't budge. The gathering of the people was the joining of the Ten Tribes to Jeroboam after the split of the Tribes.

Jeroboam was not Shiloh. What you suggest does NOT fulfill that passage.
What you speak of is division, not gathering. The division had to occur then so that the gathering would come later. Shiloh would not come until it was time for the divisions to be reunited. That time will not be established in power until after Israel's 2,730 year judgment has expired. No other time for this has been eligible up to this point.

Whoever said that Jeroboam was Shiloh? Sorry if my English is not enough for you to understand what I man. Shiloh was the event, the split, the fact that 10 Tribes were leaving Rehoboam. There was division and gathering. Division of Ephraim from Judah and gathering of Ephraim under Jeroboam. Shiloh happened already.

Your interpretation is highly flawed and self-serving.

That's exactly what yours is; no less.

Had to drop the a-bomb on me huh? As I said, I can support all that see without relying upon Paul. It just so happens Paul understood the laws far better than most Jews.

That's exactly what all Christians say when I reveal Replacement Theology as a synonym for Antisemitism. They all deny the name but keep on with the action. Every Christian Pastor cannot open his or her mouth without bringing up the message of Replacement Theology.

Of course I draw heavily from Mormonism. Who else do you know of that calls themselves Ephraim? Do you think they would appreciate me telling them they are about to get blotted out as a tribe for backsliding and walking contrary to God? I have one loyalty and that is to God.

If He has an eternal life in paradise as an afterlife reward for you, isn't that right? Just like Paul "If the dead won't resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." (I Cor. 15:32) Such a conditional faith is worthy menstrual rags.

I rigorously strip myself of anything that I detect comes from external influences and bias of men. Have you ever done a total meltdown and reboot of your entire religious point of view in like manner? If you haven't then you don't know the point of the washings and anointings priests would do in the temple. I think its about time you considered a good scrubbing too.

Try me. Sola Scriptura is my theme.

[quote)Your manner of interpretation implies God won't speak His Word to anyone but Jews. Only in your dreams Ben.

Let me get ready. I guess you are about to tell me that God spoke to Joseph Smith.

No, you don't. You overlook things like "gathering" and instead think "dividing" is an applicable substitute. You stumble on things like this because your ego is attached to the singular special place you think God has for the Jewish people to the exclusion of all others.

Both went together, first, division of the Tribes and their gathering under another master. And with regards to the special place God has for my people, mine is not the idea but of the Prophets. You probably do not believe the Prophets, because I have documented the fact to you for more than several times and you resist to understand.

I agree the Jewish people are indeed a special people set aside for a special purpose. You demonstrating how asleep you currently are is helping to manifest that. Fortunately, whether you do or do not remains to be seen, but those who are true sons of Judah who truly love the Lord, they are going to awake from their slumber and get up off their couches and do much good to establish the real Zion, not the Edomite one many of your people are currently being hoodwinked into supporting.

We have been awaken from our slumber for over 60 years before your own blinded eyes, and back to the Land of Israel. (Ezek. 37:12) About the Edomites you mention above, it is interesting that we have a tradition developed by our Tzadiking that the modern Edomites are represented by Christianity. Contrary to what you think of us, you should see an Edomite every time you look at yourself in the mirrow.

 

[Ben Masada]

Yes, the northern kingdom went into exile before the southern kingdom did. Thus, since the Lord knew this would happen, the scepter was transferred to Judah so that they could facilitate the birth of the King of all Israel. What was established forever was for the sake of David, not Judah as a whole. All kings upon the throne of Israel shall indeed be descended from Jesse through David.

The scepter was NOT transferred to Judah. This continued with the scepter over two of the Tribes: Judah and Benjamin. The scepter over Ten of the Tribes was transferred to Jeroboam. For heaven's sake, forgive me to diagnose you, but I think you need a craniotomy. It doesn't matter the reason, but the Tribe Divinely promised to remain forever as a People before the Lord was Judah and not the Ten Tribes. (Jer. 31:35-37)

The King who comes by way of Judah is 'stumped'. He is the first goat of the Yom Kippur who is slain.

Not the king who comes by way of Judah, but Judah himself, was supposed to be slain, but for the sake of David, his Tribe (Judah) was allowed to stay forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem. The second goat, which symbolized Israel, was "sent" to the desert with the sins of Judah to be slain by getting lost among the Gentiles. (Hosea 8:8,9)

The 'rod', which is a sprout that grows up from the 'stump', is a new growth by way of Ephraim's House with Jesse's blood mixed in. However, the 'rod' gets broken and Ephraim is blotted out as a tribe per Deuteronomy 29:18-20 and Rev 7. The ram burned of Yom Kippur comes from Ephraim.

Yes, Ephraim in terms of Tribes was burned as a sacrifice for the sins of the "many" of Judah. (Isa. 53:11,12) Really blotted out of existence as a Tribal system. The ram burned on Yom Kippur does not come from Ephraim, it symbolizes Ephraim himself. His name has indeed been blotted out from under heaven in terms of Tribes, or a separated kingdom. Only a few thousands of them who joined Judah will constitute one single nation in the "hand" of God. One only stick. (Deut. 29:20; Ezek. 37:22)

The 'branch' comes out of Joseph and is the second goat of Yom Kippur and obtains the victory over the adversary. He escapes alive. His is not the scapegoat, he is the escapegoat. He grows up from the roots out of a dry ground because at his time all is in darkness and chaos as a result of the stump and the rod being burned to the ground. He must survive against all odds, including defeat the adversary when the calamities of the end of the age come. He stands as the survivor of a ruined world to start over again in the wilderness and is who gathers the seedstock for the new cycle of creation to begin anew. He is the beginning. Aleph-Bet. Ox's House. Joseph. The Father. The Shepherd and Stone of Israel. The birthright Shiloh. Adam redeemed and restored to His throne by His redeemer Son of Man.

Fantastic Mormon Mythology.

Anyway, you seem to forget other portions of scripture that put the southern kingdom in the same fix as the northern kingdom was in. Judah also was conquered and went into exile. Ezekiel made it clear all had become fallen and he laid out the terms of how long those periods of exile would be. Judah's exile was 280 years and Israel's exile was 2,730 years. Why is it do you believe Judah gets to be regathered as a people again after their judgment period expired and the northern kingdom does not?

The exile of Judah was of 70 years (Jer. 25:11; Dan. 9:24) And the one of Israel was permanent. You are trying to rewrite the Scriptures but it won't help you. Israel is swallowed up, now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel of no pleasure. They are gone up to Assyria. They lost themselves for good.(Hosea 8:8,9)

Why do you also ignore that Judah was deposed and scattered again? Don't you realize you are still a spiritually dead people? You have no temple where you keep your obligations to the God you claim to worship. Your ordinances are thoroughally corrupted. Your scholars are ever learning but despite all these years the only thing they offer are more questions. If you as a people are supposed to be the light and life of the world you claim to be, it's high time you start providing some answers! The fact that you don't, because you can't, should at least put you in a more open-minded posture, shouldn't it?

Judah was never destroyed. Judah cannot be destroyed. Of the other nations God will eventually make an end of them, including yours, but of Judah, God will only chatise as we deserve. That's in Jeremiah 46:28) Why should I be open minded to the nonsense of Christian Mormonism? You must be kidding! Tell me something that I don't know, but that makes sense and we can talk. In the meantime we are only arguing.

Israel was given to be for signs and wonders to manifest in this people the glory of God. The core essential lesson I see being taught is exactly how resurrection from the dead works.

Prove it! Show me in the Tamakh where resurrection is taught to work from the dead. Use quotations please.

He is showing us how His law applies to us as individuals by giving us a showcase of what He is doing with His people. They sin and they are put to death and their elements decompose but they are gathered again and they are restored to life. He did this with two separate portions. Both portions shall be resurrected. Judah already had been, but they sinned again. Israel yet awaits theirs because it was to be for such a long duration. You deny their resurrection the same as you deny your own future resurrection. You are totally missing the whole point of the Torah. But, since you are asleep on the couch, that is to be expected.

More of Mormon Mythology?

Am I any less of a person because I believe in God in hopes to live again under more glorious and peaceful circumstances and to do all I can to invite others to partake as well? If I am given to be the light of the world, how does a message of death accomplish that?

Our message is of life indeedl, but of life that we have been permitted to live here on earth, and not this eternal life you talk about in the afterlife, which God Himself has prohibited man to, because we are not supposed to have it. Read Genesis 3:22. What do you want, to be deceived with false promises? Stop acting like a child and start behaving as a grown up!

 

[kylixguru]

The scepter was NOT transferred to Judah.

Why would Jacob say "it wouldn't depart until..." if Judah never had it?
Judah was given the scepter initially but in time it would go to another tribe.
That is the only possible meaning I can see from Gen 49:10.

This continued with the scepter over two of the Tribes: Judah and Benjamin. The scepter over Ten of the Tribes was transferred to Jeroboam. For heaven's sake, forgive me to diagnose you, but I think you need a craniotomy. It doesn't matter the reason, but the Tribe Divinely promised to remain forever as a People before the Lord was Judah and not the Ten Tribes. (Jer. 31:35-37)

Ezekiel 37, which I know you know, says the kingdoms would eventually be reunited under one king and one shepherd. He shall be of the offspring of David but the unification is under the birthright banner of Joseph. That's one reason why Jews are waiting for so long for their Messiah to come. The judgment against the northern people has to expire first before they would be fully eligible.

Not the king who comes by way of Judah, but Judah himself, was supposed to be slain, but for the sake of David, his Tribe (Judah) was allowed to stay forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem. The second goat, which symbolized Israel, was "sent" to the desert with the sins of Judah to be slain by getting lost among the Gentiles. (Hosea 8:8,9)

He carried all the sins of all of the 12 tribes, not just Judah. And, those sins were poured out upon the serpent, thus obtaining the victory and escaping ALIVE.

Your ordinances were perverted or you would know that. Also, Judah didn't survive. Judah was dispersed as a people in 587BC and again in 70AD and have been in a scattered and decomposing state pretty much ever since. There has been much preparation for them in anticipation of their part of Israel's reassembly as a people when everything comes back together again. But even as of yet, they are not properly performing their ordinances and they hardly can agree on what doctrines are correct and so on. It's been a mess for all the intervening time and if a people ever needed their Messiah, its the Jewish people.

Yes, Ephraim in terms of Tribes was burned as a sacrifice for the sins of the "many" of Judah. (Isa. 53:11,12)

Again, I remind you, it's not all about Judah to the exclusion of the others. This offering is for all the children of all the tribes. Why are you so prone to exclude your brothers?

Really blotted out of existence as a Tribal system. The ram burned on Yom Kippur does not come from Ephraim, it symbolizes Ephraim himself. His name has indeed been blotted out from under heaven in terms of Tribes, or a separated kingdom.

Yes, this I can entirely agree with although it hasn't fully played out yet. Just as when Jesus was martyred it took some time before Judah followed suit and was stumped in 70AD. Ephraim's advent of the Messiah, the ram, was indeed burned (he died a transgressor per Isaiah 53:12) the tribe of Ephraim is yet awaiting undergoing their collective burning as a people for backsliding again. The terms of Deuteronomy 29:18-20 are soon to be focused upon the people who identify themselves as Ephraim and indeed their tribal name shall be blotted out. This is the burning of the ram that is Ephraim.

Only a few thousands of them who joined Judah will constitute one single nation in the "hand" of God. One only stick. (Deut. 29:20; Ezek. 37:22)

This is incongruent with the overall flow of things. This fate cannot be given to Ephraim until he is gathered from among all the nations where he was scattered. Then, in his gathered state, he could bring upon himself collectively the due punishment. You are trying to tell me that the bulk of Ephraim yet scattered among the gentiles awaiting their time to be gathered could be represented by a few ragtag survivors who fled to Judah and that they somehow committed an action that would add insult to injury to the tribe of Ephraim such that their tribal name would be blotted out. It doesn't add up.

Fantastic Mormon Mythology.

None of which you can explicitly refute.

The exile of Judah was of 70 years (Jer. 25:11; Dan. 9:24) And the one of Israel was permanent.

Why are you not paying attention to what Ezekiel said in chapter 4 and applying the 7x factor from Leviticus 26:24? That gives a period of 40x7=280 years for Judah and 390x7=2,730 years for the northern kingdom. This is really simple law and math here.

You are trying to rewrite the Scriptures but it won't help you. Israel is swallowed up, now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel of no pleasure. They are gone up to Assyria. They lost themselves for good.(Hosea 8:8,9)

That doesn't square with a lot of other passages. Nor do I see anything that is definitive that Israel's condition would persist without any end at anytime. I do believe Ephraim's permanent end does come about because he is blotted out as a tribe. But, you shouldn't assume this applies to all of the other tribes and especially to Joseph's tribe that catches the repentant of Ephraim like a safety net so that they could maintain their standing if they were worthy.

Judah was never destroyed.

Phooey! God Himself said Judah should be stoned to death.

Babylon destroyed them in 587BC.

They went through their 280 years of judgment per Ezekiel 4 and were gathered again as a people (which is a type of resurrection) but they were destroyed again in 70AD by Rome. They have been dead ever since but are indeed showing signs of coming back to life again, which is extremely encouraging.

Judah cannot be destroyed.

I agree it cannot be utterly exterminated.

Of the other nations God will eventually make an end of them, including yours, but of Judah, God will only chatise as we deserve. That's in Jeremiah 46:28)

The promise in that passage is to Jacob, not just Judah.
There is another passage more like what you just said that applies to David, but this pertains to his seed who sit upon the throne of all Israel. This promise was with David and was not with Judah as a people or a tribe in a collective sense. The place of Zion shall be his habitation. See Psalm 132:11-13.

Why should I be open minded to the nonsense of Christian Mormonism? You must be kidding! Tell me something that I don't know, but that makes sense and we can talk. In the meantime we are only arguing.

I am offering you passages of holy writ that you are gainsaying. What more can I do?

Prove it! Show me in the Tamakh where resurrection is taught to work from the dead. Use quotations please.

I don't know if you noticed it, but in Ezekiel 23 God makes it very clear what He plans to do with the two adulterous kingdoms he called sister brides Aholah and Aholibah.

Ezekiel 23
36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations;
37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.
...
46 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled.
47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.
​

Both the northern and the southern kingdoms were guilty of adultery and were put to death via stoning. This severed both of them from their covenant with the Lord. Thus, their being scattered as a people represents a dead and decomposing body. Judah was DEAD as a people for at least 280 years and was not gathered (resurrected) again until some time after that. Just as Judah was gathered (resurrected) so too shall the people of the northern kingdom be gathered (resurrected) again.

Also, you need to consider, Aholibah who represented Judah was also given the cup of her sister Aholah to drink in addition to her own because she committed adultery more knowingly than the northern kingdom did. This is why the southern kingdom was put to death again in 70AD by Rome. She has to share in Aholah's cup.

Ezekiel 23
22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, ..., and I will bring them against thee on every side;
...
31 Thou hast walked in the way of thy sister; therefore will I give her cup into thine hand.
32 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou shalt drink of thy sister's cup deep and large: thou shalt be laughed to scorn and had in derision; it containeth much.
33 Thou shalt be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, with the cup of astonishment and desolation, with the cup of thy sister Samaria.
​

So, there you have it. Your fate has been sealed to that of your sister's and now you understand why it has been ALL these long 2,730 years that the promises of your Messiah and redemption are taking soooooo long. And, after you have been in a dead body for all these centuries you have the audacity to speak to me with such irreverence when I am teaching you your own scriptures?

Stop acting like a child and start behaving as a grown up!

I know I have not been perfectly composed and gentlemanly in our dialog, but I really don't think I merit this level of insult.

 

[LuisDantas]

LuisDantas! I can't believe you! Would you be able of that much? It would be the climax of deceit and hypocrisy.

No. It would be a nearly meaningless deception, Ben. Which is why perhaps hundreds of millions of people do it to themselves every day.

I don't remember saying that I would do it, however. Nor giving you reason to expect me to care if you approve, anyway. There are lots of things in me that you don't believe in.

And what for, for heaven's sake? Based on what kind of interest, to proselytize indefensible Theists into becoming one like you? What basis would he or she have to stand upon after the deceit was discovered? Tell me you are kidding. I still had you on a higher reputation than that.

Don't bother. I certainly don't. It is not healthy for you to care so much about your opinion about my beliefs, besides.

 

[kylixguru]

Whoever said that Jeroboam was Shiloh? Sorry if my English is not enough for you to understand what I mean. Shiloh was the event, the split, the fact that 10 Tribes were leaving Rehoboam. There was division and gathering. Division of Ephraim from Judah and gathering of Ephraim under Jeroboam. Shiloh happened already.

I promised I'd be patient...

Jacob considered Shiloh a HIM not an EVENT.

Shiloh is the one king and one shepherd who shall rule over the whole house of Jacob when they are all restored and gathered in. The gathering it speaks of is in the last days, which are now, after the judgment against the northern kingdom (which the southern kingdom was decreed to share in) becomes expired. Shiloh, the Messiah not just for the Jews but for the entire House of Israel, is now due anytime now because all the people as far as I can tell are fully eligible.

I believe if you really set about to take the scriptures seriously you would want not one little aspect of them to be missing from anything you claim to be a fulfilment. Every little detail of the landscape that God's Word outlines must be fulfilled in a coherent and non-contrived manner.

If God says Shiloh is a HIM, then I'm not going to accept any man's interpretation that it was actually an EVENT. Would you?

Let me get ready. I guess you are about to tell me that God spoke to Joseph Smith.

Of course He did.

Both went together, first, division of the Tribes and their gathering under another master.

That's a short circuit.

And with regards to the special place God has for my people, mine is not the idea but of the Prophets. You probably do not believe the Prophets, because I have documented the fact to you for more than several times and you resist to understand.

I do not accept your flawed interpretation of the Prophets.

We have been awaken from our slumber for over 60 years before your own blinded eyes, and back to the Land of Israel. (Ezek. 37:12)

For someone who refuses to believe in the resurrection, that's a bit of a strange passage to quote since it directly supports my understanding of Israel's resurrection being directly equated to their being gathered again as a people.

Ezekiel 37
11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.
​

This is the exact reversal of the process I pointed out earlier where the two adulterous sisters were guilty of adultery and they were BOTH put to death, which was manifested in them being scattered as a people. Thus, their gathering is their resurrection and BOTH of them shall be resurrected. You cannot refute this and keep integrity to the words of the Prophets.

I also pointed out how Judah would have to drink the same cup as the northern kingdom. Thus, Judah got put to death twice. This is why Ezekiel says at this time "the whole house of Israel" because it was both sisters in their dead and decomposed state that were awaiting resurrection.

I am the least bit blind about how the Jews have been gathering to their homeland for many years. An apostle named Orson Hyde from Ephraim dedicated and set apart your lands specially for this purpose. In October 24, 1841 he climbed up the Mount of Olives overlooking the city, then both wrote and recited a prayer, part of which reads:

"Now, O Lord! Thy servant has been obedient to the heavenly vision which Thou gavest him in his native land; and under the shadow of Thine outstretched arm, he has safely arrived in this place to dedicate and consecrate this land unto Thee, for the gathering together of Judah's scattered remnants, according to the predictions of the holy Prophets -- for the building up of Jerusalem again after it has been trodden down by the Gentiles so long, and for rearing a Temple in honor of Thy name. Everlasting thanks be ascribed unto Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast preserved Thy servant from the dangers of the seas, and from the plague and pestilence which have caused the land to mourn. The violence of man has also been restrained, and Thy providential care by night and by day has been exercised over Thine unworthy servant. Accept, therefore, O Lord, the tribute of a grateful heart for all past favors, and be pleased to continue Thy kindness and mercy towards a needy worm of the dust.” (See Wiki: Orson Hyde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
​

The entire account of the prayer can be found here:
Orson Hyde's prayer of dedication on the Mount of Olives

Another portion I very much liked:

"Thou, O Lord, did once move upon the heart of Cyrus to show favor unto Jerusalem and her children. Do Thou now also be pleased to inspire the hearts of kings and the powers of the earth to look with a friendly eye towards this place, and with a desire to see Thy righteous purposes executed in relation thereto. Let them know that it is Thy good pleasure to restore the kingdom unto Israel -- raise up Jerusalem as its capital, and constitute her people a distinct nation and government, with David Thy servant, even a descendant from the loins of ancient David to be their king.
​

About the Edomites you mention above, it is interesting that we have a tradition developed by our Tzadiking that the modern Edomites are represented by Christianity. Contrary to what you think of us, you should see an Edomite every time you look at yourself in the mirrow.

I know what I see when I look in the mirror.

And, it stands to reason they would appeal to your pride to create a blind spot to walk themselves into.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why would Jacob say "it wouldn't depart until..." if Judah never had it? Judah was given the scepter initially but in time it would go to another tribe. That is the only possible meaning I can see from Gen 49:10.

Right. It would not depart until Shiloh comes. Shiloh came and Ten of the Tribes departed to be under the hegemony of Jeroboam. What's so hard to understand?

Ezekiel 37, which I know you know, says the kingdoms would eventually be reunited under one king and one shepherd. He shall be of the offspring of David but the unification is under the birthright banner of Joseph. That's one reason why Jews are waiting for so long for their Messiah to come. The judgment against the northern people has to expire first before they would be fully eligible.[/quote]

We are no longer waiting for a Messiah to come. He has come already. We are back to the Land of Israel since 62 years ago. Where have you been? Listen to the news.

He carried all the sins of all of the 12 tribes, not just Judah. And, those sins were poured out upon the serpent, thus obtaining the victory and escaping ALIVE.

That's not what Isaiah says in 53:11,12. The Suffering Servat Israel has justified the "many" of Judah. It doesn't say "all" but "many." And that Israel bore the sins of "many" and not of "all." Read the text. It couldn't apply to Jesus whom Christians claim that he died for "all."

Again, I remind you, it's not all about Judah to the exclusion of the others. This offering is for all the children of all the tribes. Why are you so prone to exclude your brothers?

You are mistaken for not understanding me. I do not exclude the Israelites who used to be a kingdom in the North. A few thousands who had to join Judah in the South, they did it already during the moratorium of 100 years until Judah went for their temporary exile of 70 years. Now, they still can join but through conversion to Judaism just like any other Gentile.

None of which you can explicitly refute.

If you mean Mormon Mythology, how could I? I don't have the wisdom of an Egyptian effigy.

Why are you not paying attention to what Ezekiel said in chapter 4 and applying the 7x factor from Leviticus 26:24? That gives a period of 40x7=280 years for Judah and 390x7=2,730 years for the northern kingdom. This is really simple law and math here.

No, that's your way to make things complicated, which are very simple. You are working on Mormon pre-conceived notions.

That doesn't square with a lot of other passages. Nor do I see anything that is definitive that Israel's condition would persist without any end at anytime. I do believe Ephraim's permanent end does come about because he is blotted out as a tribe. But, you shouldn't assume this applies to all of the other tribes and especially to Joseph's tribe that catches the repentant of Ephraim like a safety net so that they could maintain their standing if they were worthy.

For heaven's sake the Tent of Joseph was forever rejected by the Lord, when He confirmed Judah for the sake of David. Read Psalm 78:67-69 and I Kings 11:36.

Phooey! God Himself said Judah should be stoned to death. Babylon destroyed them in 587BC.

Prove it. And Babylon destroyed the Temple and not Judah. After 70 years Judah returned and raised the nation again unto the clymax of glory with the Macabbees.

They went through their 280 years of judgment per Ezekiel 4 and were gathered again as a people (which is a type of resurrection) but they were destroyed again in 70AD by Rome. They have been dead ever since but are indeed showing signs of coming back to life again, which is extremely encouraging.

You are mistaken. They went through their 70 years of exile per Jeremiah 25:11 and were gathered again as a people, which was what we understand as resurrection, according to Ezekiel 37:12.

I agree it cannot be utterly exterminated. The promise in that passage is to Jacob, not just Judah.

Right, in fact, it has never been esterminated. Jacob and Judah are a synonym of each other, as Joseph and Ephraim had become.

There is another passage more like what you just said that applies to David, but this pertains to his seed who sit upon the throne of all Israel. This promise was with David and was not with Judah as a people or a tribe in a collective sense. The place of Zion shall be his habitation. See Psalm 132:11-13.

The seed of David, now, to sit upon his throne is Judah itself, as one nation in the Jewish People in charge of the Government in Zion, the Land of Israel. You have to use some metaphorical interpretation and see that by the children of David it is meant the whole Tribe of Judah, which for the sake of David was promised to remain in Zion as a Lamp forever. Children don't live forever; People do. (I Kings 11:36; Jer. 31:35-37)

I am offering you passages of holy writ that you are gainsaying. What more can I do?

Be accurate, though not necessarily literal. You cannot interpret the Scriptures under pre-conceived Mormon notions.

I don't know if you noticed it, but in Ezekiel 23 God makes it very clear what He plans to do with the two adulterous kingdoms he called sister brides Aholah and Aholibah.

He did already: By getting rid of one (Israel) and exiling the other (Judah) to a temporary captivity of 70 years. (Jer. 25:11)

Ezekiel 23
36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations; 37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them. ...46 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled.47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.

These were sins committed and already forgiven for thousands of years ago, and you keep digging the sins of Israel as if you don't agree with God to have forgiven our sins. What is this, an anty-Jewish policy?

Both the northern and the southern kingdoms were guilty of adultery and were put to death via stoning. This severed both of them from their covenant with the Lord. Thus, their being scattered as a people represents a dead and decomposing body. Judah was DEAD as a people for at least 280 years and was not gathered (resurrected) again until some time after that. Just as Judah was gathered (resurrected) so too shall the people of the northern kingdom be gathered (resurrected) again.

Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. Prove the death via stoning. You can't. Yes, about the Covenant, but a New Covenant was established with both Houses as one People, one nation only, the Jewish People. (Jer. 31:31; Ezek. 37:19,22) No, Judah was not dead but in exile for 70 years. Gosh! How patient do I have to be to keep repeating the same thing over and over again, and you return with the same old argument? The Northern kingdom will never return in resurrection for two reasons: First, the Tribal system is over forever and bodily resurrection is against the Scriptures.

Also, you need to consider, Aholibah who represented Judah was also given the cup of her sister Aholah to drink in addition to her own because she committed adultery more knowingly than the northern kingdom did. This is why the southern kingdom was put to death again in 70AD by Rome. She has to share in Aholah's cup.

The Southen kingdom was not put to death but exiled for 70 years, and not by Rome, but by Nabukkadnezar from Babylon. You are not thinking. But we are back, and Everlasting Righteousness has returne to us.(Dan. 9:24)

Ezekiel 23
22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, ..., and I will bring them against thee on every side;
...
31 Thou hast walked in the way of thy sister; therefore will I give her cup into thine hand.
32 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou shalt drink of thy sister's cup deep and large: thou shalt be laughed to scorn and had in derision; it containeth much.
33 Thou shalt be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, with the cup of astonishment and desolation, with the cup of thy sister Samaria.

This has happened already and we have paid for our sins. Why do you keep accusing Judah in the sight of God in the hope that He will get rid of us? Big mistake this of yours. The opposite is truth. "Of the other nations, including yours, God will eventually make an end of them; but of Israel He will only chastise as we deserve.That's in Jeremiah 46:28.
​

So, there you have it. Your fate has been sealed to that of your sister's and now you understand why it has been ALL these long 2,730 years that the promises of your Messiah and redemption are taking soooooo long. And, after you have been in a dead body for all these centuries you have the audacity to speak to me with such irreverence when I am teaching you your own scriptures?

You are the one who needs to understand how ridiculous is for a Gentile to pretend to teach Judaism to the Jew.

I know I have not been perfectly composed and gentlemanly in our dialog, but I really don't think I merit this level of insult.

All you have to do is to stop pretending that you as a reader of a book can use it to teach the writer of it in return. That's what does not make sense.

 

[Thief]

There is no eternal life for man, period. Eternity belongs with God only. According to the law of genesis and destruction, anyone who has experienced birth, must eventually die. Only God, Who had no beginning, will have no end.

What 'law' are you quoting?

Dying physically?...yes of course...we all do.

Dying spiritually?....

And God would have cause to create a terminal being?
Human life is a futile exercise?

 

[Ben Masada]

I promised I'd be patient...

Jacob considered Shiloh a HIM not an EVENT.

Moses considered Israel a HE and not a People, although he meant the People.(Exo. 4:22,23)

Shiloh is the one king and one shepherd who shall rule over the whole house of Jacob when they are all restored and gathered in. The gathering it speaks of is in the last days, which are now, after the judgment against the northern kingdom (which the southern kingdom was decreed to share in) becomes expired. Shiloh, the Messiah not just for the Jews but for the entire House of Israel, is now due anytime now because all the people as far as I can tell are fully eligible.

And how do they call "anytime"? A 2000 years long period of time?

I believe if you really set about to take the scriptures seriously you would want not one little aspect of them to be missing from anything you claim to be a fulfilment. Every little detail of the landscape that God's Word outlines must be fulfilled in a coherent and non-contrived manner.

According to whom, to the Mormons?

If God says Shiloh is a HIM, then I'm not going to accept any man's interpretation that it was actually an EVENT. Would you?

God referred to Israel as a "he" why do you have to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology by promoting Jesus instead of Israel?

I do not accept your flawed interpretation of the Prophets.

That's fair enough since I do not accept your flawed Mormon interpretations of anything in the Scriptures.

For someone who refuses to believe in the resurrection, that's a bit of a strange passage to quote since it directly supports my understanding of Israel's resurrection being directly equated to their being gathered again as a people.

I don't believe in bodily resurrection, but resurrection metaphorically understood as the return of Judah from the Diaspora, I agree. You are trying to distort my words.

This is the exact reversal of the process I pointed out earlier where the two adulterous sisters were guilty of adultery and they were BOTH put to death, which was manifested in them being scattered as a people. Thus, their gathering is their resurrection and BOTH of them shall be resurrected. You cannot refute this and keep integrity to the words of the Prophets.

I agree. My point is that there won't be any return within the Tribal system. No more 12 Tribes, but one single People under Judah as we have today.
​

I also pointed out how Judah would have to drink the same cup as the northern kingdom. Thus, Judah got put to death twice. This is why Ezekiel says at this time "the whole house of Israel" because it was both sisters in their dead and decomposed state that were awaiting resurrection.

There you are back again in the same bla bla bla. That's a metaphorical resurrection from the graves of the Gentiles back to the Land of Israel. (Ezek. 37:12) But as one
People; no more under the Tribal system. That's over forever. (Ezek. 37:19,22)