IN God's Image

[Tumah]

Hmm, how interesting.
Really makes me realize how similar Christians and Jews really are, that we all interpret the bible to suit our personal biases.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean and I suspect you are missing some information about how Jewish commentaries work. But I hear you anyway.

Thank you for answering, It was important to me because I believed it to be more constructive than you complaining about how Christians stole your God.

Personally, I see benefit to reminding people that its a Jewish Book.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Elohim evolved from belief in El the father god.

""Is ra El"" Belief in El is how the people probably were first named.

They were named as people before a literal nation. At which time they were polytheistic and multicultural for the most part being from displaced Canaanites after the Bronze age collapse.

El was not Yahweh early on. The bible was redacted after king Josiahs reforms, during this redaction probably over political reasons so they could be exiled from, their Babylonian captors. All text was redacted to the one god concept.

Elohim takes a few ,pages to explain the details of such, showing all sides of all the debates and knowledge.

Thanks!

 

[Thana]

Personally, I see benefit to reminding people that its a Jewish Book.

As do I.
But then I don't begrude Jews our God, I can't say the same for them though.
But I digress.

 

[Tumah]

As do I.
But then I don't begrude Jews our God, I can't say the same for them though.
But I digress.

No, no. Jews don't mind sharing worship of G-d.
Only it needs to actually be G-d.
Its sharing the Bible that's the problem.

 

[Eileen]

I believe HaShem was speaking to that which He had already created -in this case the soil and water which humans are comprised of. All along Hashem was speaking to each thing He created as He created or brought into order the next thing. When it came time to make man He used the dirt that could be formed and so was not simply dry earth. That is why I believe, at this time , HaShem used us and we.

 

[outhouse]

I believe HaShem was speaking to that which He had already created -in this case the soil and water which humans are comprised of. All along Hashem was speaking to each thing He created as He created or brought into order the next thing. When it came time to make man He used the dirt that could be formed and so was not simply dry earth. That is why I believe, at this time , HaShem used us and we.

Sorry long before the term hashem was even used in these cultures the primary deities were El and Yahweh and Asherah and Baal

Not up for debate.

 

[Eileen]

Sorry long before the term hashem was even used in these cultures the primary deities were El and Yahweh and Asherah and Baal

Not up for debate.

No debate- you call your Creator what you want, I will call Him what I believe is most respectful for me. (although I am not sure you believe in a Creator)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Because there's more than one Demiurge.

 

[metis]

They're all correct, why would we want to narrow it down? The more the opinions, the more we learn about the subject.

There is absolutely no way possible that anyone could confirm that they're all correct, nor does it make a difference. The commentaries are attempts to clarify and/or express opinions on various narratives, and they typically do not agree with each other. As not only did the schools vary, but also those individuals may vary. We can cite as an example the Hillel v Shammai debates, whereas even their basic approaches varied at times.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why did the Christian God say let us create man in our Image rather then In my Image.

Maybe it is apotheosis. This could be a relatively new interpretation, one of many. I say it could be not definitely because about 400 years ago Christianity underwent a huge schism which came to be called the Reformation. Out of that came many groups all reassessing theology, including the Catholics, and ever since brand new splinter groups have been forming. All of the scripture verses get re-examined whenever a new denomination forms, and sometimes unusual ideas appear as a result as well as rediscovery of old ones. Apotheosis is one of the ideas that have appeared, but its problematic to prove which ideas are original. Apotheosis is an idea that has appeared from time to time.

Imagine that you are seeking to embody wisdom. You are writing the US constitution, and you begin with "We the people...in order to form a more perfect union..." Ok, well you aren't actually 'The people'. You are one fellow writing a document, but you are writing something about the ideal. In so doing you are practising or representing the divine nature. You are (I suggest) practising apotheosis. The opening of Genesis seems similar to the opening of the US Constitution. Genesis has the 'We' in it, and it has a progressive creation rather than one that happens instantly just as the Constitution has laws laid out and amendments. It is as if the creation is improving gradually with each stage providing a basis for the next. If Genesis contains apotheosis what it means is that the 'We' indicates a resolve among early Jews to represent God, perhaps seeking God's nature. There is a very clear indication in Jewish writings that they are obsessed with finding and perfecting justice, and what is a search for justice if not a search for the divine nature?

There is reason to think this is how some early Christians thought of Genesis. Consider the way that the Christian gospel John is written. It begins to mimic Genesis. It then puts forth Christ as a creator, yet we know that the church of all Christians is referred to as the body of Christ. So if the church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the creator in John's gospel; then perhaps John is also talking about apotheosis. In this line of thinking the Logos comes into the church progressively over the centuries, ideally bringing it towards a state of eventual perfection.

 

[outhouse]

No debate- you call your Creator what you want, I will call Him what I believe is most respectful for me. (although I am not sure you believe in a Creator)

Creator is mythology.

You can believe what you will but these events all took place in the real world not in a religious book.

Israelites early polytheism is not up for debate.

 

[psychoslice]

In my truth God has no image, he animates through all, all that seems to be an image to us, because of our senses, but take away our senses, and where is the image of God, but even the illusion of images are from God, because all is God, there is nothing outside of God, only the illusion makes it seem to be outside.

 

[Tumah]

There is absolutely no way possible that anyone could confirm that they're all correct, nor does it make a difference. The commentaries are attempts to clarify and/or express opinions on various narratives, and they typically do not agree with each other. As not only did the schools vary, but also those individuals may vary. We can cite as an example the Hillel v Shammai debates, whereas even their basic approaches varied at times.

I understand that you would see it that way. Because you are both secular and have very little exposure to Jewish literature.
The commentaries are not creating their own opinions out of nowhere. They're explaining things based on earlier sources.
Your example of Hillel and Shammai also proves my point. They are both right, but because we can't do both opinions as a practical matter, we follow whichever one has more people. That's why even though Shammai's students were known to be sharper, it doesn't affect our decision to choose Hillel as the majority. The rule is we choose the majority. That's called 'these and these are the words of the living G-d.'

 

[arthra]

I did find some references in the Baha'i writings on the topic... such as:


"It is self-evident that the image and likeness mentioned do not apply to the form and semblance of a human being because the reality of divinity is not limited to any form or figure. Nay, rather the attributes and characteristics of God are intended. Even as God is pronounced to be just, man must likewise be just. As God is loving and kind to all men, man must likewise manifest loving-kindness to all humanity. As God is loyal and truthful, man must show forth the same attributes in the human world. Even as God exercises mercy toward all, man must prove himself to be the manifestation of mercy. In a word, the "image and likeness of God" constitute the virtues of God, and man is intended to become the recipient of the effulgences of divine attributes."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 92)

 

[metis]

I understand that you would see it that way. Because you are both secular and have very little exposure to Jewish literature.
The commentaries are not creating their own opinions out of nowhere. They're explaining things based on earlier sources.
Your example of Hillel and Shammai also proves my point. They are both right, but because we can't do both opinions as a practical matter, we follow whichever one has more people. That's why even though Shammai's students were known to be sharper, it doesn't affect our decision to choose Hillel as the majority. The rule is we choose the majority. That's called 'these and these are the words of the living G-d.'

I'm hardly illiterate on these matters as I've been involved for 50 years in theological studies, and as an anthropologist I'm much more concerned what objective evidence there is versus politically-correct beliefs.

I've also been involved with Torah study at our shul for about 20 years now on a weekly basis, and when do that, we sit down in our library whereas we have access and regularly use commentaries. To say that these sages somehow all agree is terrible wrong and for several reasons.

One is that it is virtually impossible to know exactly what was on the author's mind when he wrote what he did, which is one reason why the sages often disagreed with each other, even though they do use a building-block approach, no doubt. That stands to common sense because if the sages totally agreed with each other, why in the world would they write their own commentary to begin with? They're not exactly parroting each other.

Secondly, the history of the composition of the Talmud was hardly neat and tidy. Have you ever read "The Essential Talmud" by Adin Steinsaltz, who I think might know a thing or two about the Talmud? In the early chapters of that book, he gets into these variations amongst the sages with their commentaries.

Thirdly, why would anyone who makes any serious attempt to study Torah/Talmud assume that there are no differences of opinions? Some historians have cited that the Hillel and Shammai schools got so irritated with each other that at least one physical fight broke out between them, and I betcha it wasn't over whose wife make the best kugel.

As an anthropologist, I have spent enormous amounts of time studying both the ancient culture through archaeology, including being involved in a dig myself, plus studying the early history of the area. For you to imply that somehow because I'm more secular in my approach that I don't know what I'm talking about is nothing short of condescending clap-trap. I certainly do not ever claim I'm right, as I am a master of "I don't know", but I base what I do know, or at least what I think I may know, on research and not on politically-correct beliefs from my branch.


Added: BTW, your appeal to "majority opinion" only makes sense when it comes to the application of the Law in areas where decisions have to be made. Even amongst the orthodox there can be and often are differences of opinions, and I well know this from many personal experiences along this line. As Jews, we often agree to disagree, and such is our history. Taking a conformist approach ignores both our history, our written words, and even common sense. One simply cannot be a serious scholar if one goes through with conformist blinders on.

 

[Tumah]

I'm hardly illiterate on these matters as I've been involved for 50 years in theological studies, and as an anthropologist I'm much more concerned what objective evidence there is versus politically-correct beliefs.

But you remain an un-involved third party. And the outsider is never going to grasp the nuance that the initiate intuitively understands. Imagine the difference between someone who makes a study of Maimonide' works for a couple years for the sake of writing a report versus someone who lives and breathes Maimonides' works over a lifetime for the sake of studying Maimonde's works. Which one knows Maimonides?

I've also been involved with Torah study at our shul for about 20 years now on a weekly basis, and when do that, we sit down in our library whereas we have access and regularly use commentaries. To say that these sages somehow all agree is terrible wrong and for several reasons.

You understand that compared to the average Orthodox student, that's almost a joke, right? I mean we're talking about 8-10 hours a day of study six days a week - and that's only for the average student. I'm sure that your getting some measure of satisfaction from your studies, but in my circles, people would be embarrassed to say that.

One is that it is virtually impossible to know exactly what was on the author's mind when he wrote what he did, which is one reason why the sages often disagreed with each other, even though they do use a building-block approach, no doubt. That stands to common sense because if the sages totally agreed with each other, why in the world would they write their own commentary to begin with? They're not exactly parroting each other.

Its not hard at all. They more often than not come with an introduction to their works. They write their own commentaries to teach new facets and approaches to an idea. This is basic. There are seventy facets to every Torah concept. The commentaries are not arguing. They're complimenting.

Secondly, the history of the composition of the Talmud was hardly neat and tidy. Have you ever read "The Essential Talmud" by Adin Steinsaltz, who I think might know a thing or two about the Talmud? In the early chapters of that book, he gets into these variations amongst the sages with their commentaries.

No. Adin Steinsaltz is persona non grata in the ultra-Orthodox world....because of his approach.

Thirdly, why would anyone who makes any serious attempt to study Torah/Talmud assume that there are no differences of opinions? Some historians have cited that the Hillel and Shammai schools got so irritated with each other that at least one physical fight broke out between them, and I betcha it wasn't over whose wife make the best kugel.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying there is no difference of opinion in the Talmud. There is clearly numerous arguments in the Talmud. But the argument is not about who is right and who is wrong. Its about which approach we should practice as a practical matter. If this were not true, the Talmud wouldn't look like the Talmud, it would look like the Shulchan Aruch: a list of all the things you need to practice. But the Talmud doesn't do that. It lists every argument or gives 4 different ways to approach something and then more often than not, doesn't even tell you what the final arbitration is. Not only that, but whenever the Mishnah writes which opinion is the Law, the Talmud ignores it completely. Why would the editors and redactors put all that information in there, if it believed that only one set of opinions is true? The list of rules for deciding whose opinion to follow is wholly not dependent on which side makes the most sense. That directly contradicts the suggestion that the anyone believed one of the opinions is wrong.

As an anthropologist, I have spent enormous amounts of time studying both the ancient culture through archaeology, including being involved in a dig myself, plus studying the early history of the area. For you to imply that somehow because I'm more secular in my approach that I don't know what I'm talking about is nothing short of condescending clap-trap. I certainly do not ever claim I'm right, as I am a master of "I don't know", but I base what I do know, or at least what I think I may know, on research and not on politically-correct beliefs from my branch.

And yet, although I've dedicated myself as intently to study of Jewish literature as you have to studying ancient culture, you still believe that you should be more knowledgeable than me in both ancient culture and Judaism. And I'm the one who's condescending?

Added: BTW, your appeal to "majority opinion" only makes sense when it comes to the application of the Law in areas where decisions have to be made. Even amongst the orthodox there can be and often are differences of opinions, and I well know this from many personal experiences along this line. As Jews, we often agree to disagree, and such is our history. Taking a conformist approach ignores both our history, our written words, and even common sense. One simply cannot be a serious scholar if one goes through with conformist blinders on.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The "majority opinion" is how most of the Law the was decided in the Talmud. Its also how the author of the Shulchan Aruch decided the Law. That's not something you can argue about. That's just what it says.

 

[metis]

But you remain an un-involved third party. And the outsider is never going to grasp the nuance that the initiate intuitively understands.

Oh ya, that's like someone in another religion making the same claim that you can't know it unless your in it, and how often have we seen that here. It's utter nonsense, and I have seen you on many occasion correcting a Christian, for example, wheres (s)he could have rather easily used you same exact tactic and say that you couldn't know cause "you ain't one of us".

Imagine the difference between someone who makes a study of Maimonide' works for a couple years for the sake of writing a report versus someone who lives and breathes Maimonides' works over a lifetime for the sake of studying Maimonde's works. Which one knows Maimonides?

I have a couple of books on Maimonides in my personal library that I've read, so why would you jump to the conclusion that I'm unfamiliar with him? Oh ya, since I'm mostly secular, I certainly couldn't know such things.

You understand that compared to the average Orthodox student, that's almost a joke, right? I mean we're talking about 8-10 hours a day of study six days a week - and that's only for the average student. I'm sure that your getting some measure of satisfaction from your studies, but in my circles, people would be embarrassed to say that.

And I believe it's both "embarassing" and anti-scholarly for one who claims to know Talmud to exclude whatever information that is out there that can be useful to maybe help and understand it better. It's not just how many hours one may study that may determine knowledge but also exactly what they are studying. As one who has a science background, I cannot afford the luxury of ignoring other sources.

They write their own commentaries to teach new facets and approaches to an idea. This is basic...The commentaries are not arguing. They're complimenting.

But "complimenting" in this case logically implies they must be different to at least some extent. And if they're different, then they simply aren't parroting each other, therefore they must differ. And if they differ, then one or more items within a given commentary probably is either partially or maybe even entirely incorrect.

No. Adin Steinsaltz is persona non grata in the ultra-Orthodox world....because of his approach.

No surprise. Again, this is just more evidence that you're cutting off other sources of information and going with a narrow politically-correct approach, which is not serious theological scholarship.

And yet, although I've dedicated myself as intently to study of Jewish literature as you have to studying ancient culture, you still believe that you should be more knowledgeable than me in both ancient culture and Judaism. And I'm the one who's condescending?

It is you who claimed that you know that all the "answers" to the issue of the use of the plural in "Eloheim" was correct-- not I. It is you who have repeatedly claimed, such as anyone can read in the above, that one can't know the truth here unless they're one of ya, and it's you who has stated that I don't spend enough time just studying your source.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The "majority opinion" is how most of the Law the was decided in the Talmud. Its also how the author of the Shulchan Aruch decided the Law. That's not something you can argue about. That's just what it says.

The Law was never monolithic in regards to how we as Jews looked at it, then or now. The Sadducees, Essenes, Kariates, and Samaritans, for examples, disagreed with "Oral Law" and had their own "Oral Traditions". Nor even those of us who are descendants from the Pharisees agree on how parts of the Oral Law and how it should be applied should be rendered, and some of those disagreements still are alive today. For some reason, all you seem to see is conformity where there simply isn't any.

But let me end this with one last point, namely that you are the one who stated that all the commentaries on Eloheim are correct, and yet you cannot provide one shred of evidence to support your opinion-- not one. And how could you? In order to do so you would have to know exactly what was on the authors' minds in terms of why they used that name in that manner. Common sense should tell you that there is no way that we can do that thousands of years later when we simply cannot ask them.

You can have an opinion, and you most certainly do, but opinions are not necessarily facts. Just because one may believe that the world is coming to and end tomorrow doesn't mean that the world is coming to an end tomorrow.

With this post, I'll end my conversation on this thread with you, but it's not out of any anger on my part but because of the realization that we're simply are not going to agree on much of anything on this.

shalom

 

[Tumah]

Oh ya, that's like someone in another religion making the same claim that you can't know it unless your in it, and how often have we seen that here. It's utter nonsense, and I have seen you on many occasion correcting a Christian, for example, wheres (s)he could have rather easily used you same exact tactic and say that you couldn't know cause "you ain't one of us".

No. That's not the same at all. Christians use it because they think they have special magical insight. I am referring to understanding that is bred naturally with greater familiarity.

I have a couple of books on Maimonides in my personal library that I've read, so why would you jump to the conclusion that I'm unfamiliar with him? Oh ya, since I'm mostly secular, I certainly couldn't know such things.

No, its because you only have two books about him that I think you're unfamiliar. I have 16 books from him. You see the there's that third party knowledge.

And I believe it's both "embarassing" and anti-scholarly for one who claims to know Talmud to exclude whatever information that is out there that can be useful to maybe help and understand it better. It's not just how many hours one may study that may determine knowledge but also exactly what they are studying. As one who has a science background, I cannot afford the luxury of ignoring other sources.

I am not a scholar. I'm a Jew that abides by the Talmud. Nothing more. Here is a quote from the Talmud:
Why did Acher [become an heretic]?
[Because] Greek songs didn't cease from his house.
They said about Acher, when he stood up [to leave the] study house, many heretic books dropped from his lap.
-Talmud Chagigah

But "complimenting" in this case logically implies they must be different to at least some extent. And if they're different, then they simply aren't parroting each other, therefore they must differ. And if they differ, then one or more items within a given commentary probably is either partially or maybe even entirely incorrect.

They are different in respect to the approach they are giving to the subject. You find it even in how they write their commentaries. Its very common for a given commentary to first quote another commentator and then say "and to me it seems". I don't think I've ever seen a Biblical commentator say "this is wrong".

No surprise. Again, this is just more evidence that you're cutting off other sources of information and going with a narrow politically-correct approach, which is not serious theological scholarship.

Right. Because we're not looking for theological scholarship. We're discussing Jewish scholarship.

It is you who claimed that you know that all the "answers" to the issue of the use of the plural in "Eloheim" was correct-- not I. It is you who have repeatedly claimed, such as anyone can read in the above, that one can't know the truth here unless they're one of ya, and it's you who has stated that I don't spend enough time just studying your source.

So you're saying, because I said what I said, you didn't say what you did?

The Law was never monolithic in regards to how we as Jews looked at it, then or now. The Sadducees, Essenes, Kariates, and Samaritans, for examples, disagreed with "Oral Law" and had their own "Oral Traditions". Nor even those of us who are descendants from the Pharisees agree on how parts of the Oral Law and how it should be applied should be rendered, and some of those disagreements still are alive today. For some reason, all you seem to see is conformity where there simply isn't any.

Yes. The Law was for a long time, not monolithic in how Jews looked at it. But we are not discussing inter-sect perception. The Pharisees created celebratory days when they beat the Sadducees in debate. They did not throw parties when they beat each other in debate. Because we believe that Sadducees are wrong and we are right, even when we disagree.

But let me end this with one last point, namely that you are the one who stated that all the commentaries on Eloheim are correct, and yet you cannot provide one shred of evidence to support your opinion-- not one. And how could you? In order to do so you would have to know exactly what was on the authors' minds in terms of why they used that name in that manner. Common sense should tell you that there is no way that we can do that thousands of years later when we simply cannot ask them.

We don't need to do that. We already know what they believed. They believe that there are seventy facets to Torah and they are all valid. This is brought in a number of sources.

You can have an opinion, and you most certainly do, but opinions are not necessarily facts. Just because one may believe that the world is coming to and end tomorrow doesn't mean that the world is coming to an end tomorrow.

With this post, I'll end my conversation on this thread with you, but it's not out of any anger on my part but because of the realization that we're simply are not going to agree on much of anything on this.

shalom

Of course not. You are discussing a dead culture and I am discussing a vibrant religion.

 

[outhouse]

And the outsider is never going to grasp the nuance that the initiate intuitively understands.

Factually not true.


I think most Jews view you as the outsider. Many claim orthodox are not real Jews. I don't go that far, but you worship differently, and as far as I have seen, the bias in orthodox Judaism is not a credible means of study of the religion.

 

[outhouse]

We're discussing Jewish scholarship.

No you are.

And that's biased apologetic rhetoric, not credible scholarship.