Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
You will also find a notion in the Midrash Rabbah that the spirit that hovered over the world at creation was that of King Messiah. See Genesis Rabbah 2:4 where R. Shimon b. Laqish (3rd century CE) is quoted.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
John's christology and the Dead Sea Scrolls
- Thread starter Vouthon
- Start date
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
important information: who is abadon?, what is abadon? Note that it is related to *deception* The relevant entries are highlighted.
Comparative Dictionary of Geʻez (Classical Ethiopic)
Abah = "father" in Hebrew
Coincidence? I wonder if this is the "Father" that is being referenced. Certainly the Angel of Death would have power to grant eternal life as promised repeatedly in the Book of John.
Sources previously brought by @Clear twice in this thread reference this but do not clarify its significance.
Comparative Dictionary of Geʻez (Classical Ethiopic)
Abah = "father" in Hebrew
Coincidence? I wonder if this is the "Father" that is being referenced. Certainly the Angel of Death would have power to grant eternal life as promised repeatedly in the Book of John.
Sources previously brought by @Clear twice in this thread reference this but do not clarify its significance.
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
The Lord of Spirits is in Heaven. That means this scene is post creation, because the Lord of Spirits is present.
You won't be able to use this as evidence that anyone anything can even be suggested as identification with the 4 letter name except itself in Judaism
Similarly, the idea that the Moshiach is the spirit over the water is also, post creation. The 4 letter name is beyond all of that.
Try again...
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
@Clear, I'm sorry for offending you. My objection is to The Book of John as rendered by the NIV. I am not intending to say anything negative about your Messiah. I promise.
I invited you into the debate, you are free to direct our conversation. If you want to discuss the 7 transgressions, and not proceed beyond, that is 100% your choice. However, there does not appear to be any common ground between us when it relates to Halacha. You deem it silly, it's perfectly natural to feel that way. I have no reason to try to convince you otherwise.
Yes they are silly in a lot of ways, but that doesn't change whether or not they are sins. If "silly" is the benchmark, then you win, it's silly.
What more do you want discuss about the sins?
Maybe this is helpful, maybe not... I think it's safe, and non-offensive.
Glory. It seems to be important in the Book of John, and your post focuses on it as well.
What is the Christian definition of Glory? And then, is that version of Glory demonstrated by a distillation/reduction/concentration of Law, or would it be expansive, claiming additional territory, in the name of the Monarch?
In short is Glory expansive or reductive in Christian theology/philosophy? And then relate that to the discussion of Law and whether it should be more detailed and ornate, or more simple and pure.
Thoughts?
I invited you into the debate, you are free to direct our conversation. If you want to discuss the 7 transgressions, and not proceed beyond, that is 100% your choice. However, there does not appear to be any common ground between us when it relates to Halacha. You deem it silly, it's perfectly natural to feel that way. I have no reason to try to convince you otherwise.
Yes they are silly in a lot of ways, but that doesn't change whether or not they are sins. If "silly" is the benchmark, then you win, it's silly.
What more do you want discuss about the sins?
Maybe this is helpful, maybe not... I think it's safe, and non-offensive.
Glory. It seems to be important in the Book of John, and your post focuses on it as well.
What is the Christian definition of Glory? And then, is that version of Glory demonstrated by a distillation/reduction/concentration of Law, or would it be expansive, claiming additional territory, in the name of the Monarch?
In short is Glory expansive or reductive in Christian theology/philosophy? And then relate that to the discussion of Law and whether it should be more detailed and ornate, or more simple and pure.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The issue of "Torah observant" was, and still is, a rather contentious one since there was no agreement even within the Judaism of the day as to which approach is truly "observant", which is why there were so many branches of Judaism back then.
The "oral tradition" you needed to put in the plural as there was significant disagreement between the branches, and also even with the Pharisees themselves. And, as you're probably aware of, Jesus was operating within a Pharisee context.
Of course they would see themselves as being "Torah observant", but the devil's in the details. Even today, Reform Jews believe they're Torah observant, but the orthodox certainly don't think they are. And I experienced this personally, let me tell ya.
The Council needed to try and solve a serious problem, namely how can you mesh two different groups (Jews and "God-Fearers") under one "roof" when they operate under two different sets of rules? What about marriage between them, for example? keeping kosher?
The movement away from full observance of the Law was gradual, and this is quite clear as we see this in progress through the gospels. It's especially Paul who realizes what must be done to keep the Way from splintering into probable oblivion, as the Lutheran theologian Martin Marty believes almost happened at three different intervals.
Depends on how you define "close". Jesus' approach went much further than the Hillel camp, for example, because Hillel never taught that one could ignore the following of the Torah that includes the "Oral Law" of the Pharisees, only that one could be flexible at times with it.
In closing, as I gotta leave shortly, There is simply no way, imo, that the Apostles could have bought into Paul's ending of the full observance of the Law unless Jesus opened that door. Nor would the Apostles have even given Paul the time of day, especially with his past, unless Jesus' message was compatible with what Paul ended up teaching. And in no way would Peter's vision with the blanket have been acceptable without Jesus having said things that fed into that change that this brought.
Therefore, Jesus' "observance of the Law" simply cannot in any way be viewed as being conventional or normative because nothing else that happened afterwards would then make any sense. Jesus had to open that door, especially since it was a "Jesus cult" to begin with!
I wish I had more time to deal with this, but I am being rushed.
Take care, my friend.
Oh, btw, Happy Birthday!
When we both have more time, I would love to discuss this topic in greater depth as it is one of thee most important not only for believing Christians but in historical Jesus scholarship as a whole. My own opinion on the matter has developed over time.
Its such a contentious topic and has resulted in endless debate (even during the Apostolic era itself, apparently) and I like the fact that we both have somewhat different perspectives on it. I will admit that my view has been influenced by the "new perspective" scholarship.
Gives scope for an interesting future discussion in which I hope to learn more
If there was such a 'smoking gun', I think it might have been an 'explosive' saying attested independently by Mark, Luke and Paul in his letter to the Romans.
In Mark 7:14, 18-23 Jesus says, “There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile...Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated....What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts...All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man".
Luke's gospel and St. Paul (decades before Mark) attested to different, independent variations of this same teaching (making it one of the most authoritative and ancient Jesus sayings by multiple attestation):
"Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? Instead, give for alms those things that are within; and see! everything will be clean for you" (Luke 14:39-41)
“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean" (Romans 14:14)
It might interest you to read Dom Bernard Orchard's, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953), in terms of his comments with regards St. Paul’s views:
21 St Paul’s Attitude to the Law — In view of the false accusations against him St Paul was bold indeed to come to Jerusalem....
As long as Jewish Christians acknowledged that salvation came through faith in Christ, he had never forbidden them to observe the Law. It became for them something in the nature of a work of supererogation...
Thus when St Paul now acceded to the request of St James the Just [head of the Jerusalem church], he did not go against his principles. He was hardly the man to do that. He acknowledged a relative value in the Law, and he seems generally to have observed it himself; cf. 16:3; 18:18. He claimed to be a strict Pharisee, 23:6; 26:4–5.
He protested that he had not offended in anything against the Law or the temple, in which he had come ‘to adore’, 24:11; 25:8; 28:17. These things were not incompatible with the preaching of the new faith. They prepared the way for it, and found in it their fulfilment, 24:14; 26:22–23, cf. Rom 9–11, 1 Cor 7:18–20.
And thank you, I've had a nice birthday!!!As long as Jewish Christians acknowledged that salvation came through faith in Christ, he had never forbidden them to observe the Law. It became for them something in the nature of a work of supererogation...
Thus when St Paul now acceded to the request of St James the Just [head of the Jerusalem church], he did not go against his principles. He was hardly the man to do that. He acknowledged a relative value in the Law, and he seems generally to have observed it himself; cf. 16:3; 18:18. He claimed to be a strict Pharisee, 23:6; 26:4–5.
He protested that he had not offended in anything against the Law or the temple, in which he had come ‘to adore’, 24:11; 25:8; 28:17. These things were not incompatible with the preaching of the new faith. They prepared the way for it, and found in it their fulfilment, 24:14; 26:22–23, cf. Rom 9–11, 1 Cor 7:18–20.
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Please do. If there are explanations of these, I am interested in reading them, and I have no intention of debating or nit picking your replies, OK? *olive-branch*
The Lord of Spirits is in Heaven. That means this scene is post creation, because the Lord of Spirits is present.
You won't be able to use this as evidence that anyone anything can even be suggested as identification with the 4 letter name except itself in Judaism
Similarly, the idea that the Moshiach is the spirit over the water is also, post creation. The 4 letter name is beyond all of that.
Try again...
You're a hard taskmaster
In the passage, it seems to me that Enoch has a vision in which he learns from God that the Son of Man was "named" before creation itself (which would include heaven and earth?) and is then hidden in the presence of the Lord of Spirits to be unveiled at the time of his eschatological judgment, when he sits on the throne of glory (going by my own reading of the context and flow of the passages).
The author emphasises this pre-existence by writing: "In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days. Before the sun and the constellations were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits".
The 'pre-existence' theme seems designed to emulate Wisdom from Proverbs: "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth...When he established the heavens, I was there..." (Proverbs 8:22 - 27).
I suppose it depends upon how one interprets that later line, "Therefore the Elect and the Concealed One existed in his presence, before the world was created, and for ever".
Did this include 'heaven'? Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth..."
The so-called "Fragment Targum" - one of the oldest Palestinian targumim on the Torah - renders the verse Genesis 1:1 be-resh-it bara Elohim not as “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” but instead as “through/by means of wisdom (be-hokhmah) God created and perfected the heaven and the earth."
Wisdom says of herself in Proverbs 8:22 that she is the beginning (resh-it) of his way—that is, his act or tool of creation? The Targum appears to have picked up on this and transliterated the verse accordingly.
That isn't even touching upon the question of whether 'heaven' is thought to have existed before the creation of the earth or created simultaneously in the text.....(I believe Shammai and Hillel might have had some kind of exegetical debate over that order).
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Egypt reference noted, good sir..You're a hard taskmaster
This is the 3rd or 4th day of creation if I recall.
Look, you may be right about all of this...
It's a very interesting verse, thank you for bringing it.
What we need is the Hebrew for Concealed one, because it could mean several beings at this point.
Aha! Correction, we would need the Hebrew words for *both* "Concealed One" and "World" to tell.
If it is Ertetz, then I would expect it would be after creation. On the other hand, if it is Olam, you may have a point.
I can't help it, I gotta say it... always go to the Hebrew, without the Hebrew it is only a guess what the text is actually saying and one should default to convention as oppose to accepting a non-conventional view. Please remember that one of your sources falsely suggested that MelchiTzedek is identified as the four letter name, and examining the Hebrew revealed this flaw.
A mystery within a mystery....
"Is that his act or tool of creation?" Who's the 'his' in this verse, let's look at the Hebrew?
Am I looking at the correct verse?
Nothing about wisdom, Chochmah... it's not in 8:23-27 either....It appears that we are looking at two verses, right? Proverbs 1:7 and Proverbs 8:22. The idea of Chochmah being at the beginning comes from there, it think?
"the beginning of Wisdom”, in allusion to the Biblical verse "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". ( for more on this, you'll need to search wikipedia outside of RF. The link keeps getting botched because it spells Reishis with a 't' at the end of the url..., sorry )
Here's the Hebrew, of Proverbs 1:7
imho, this clears up the confusion about the fragment
I'm happy to discuss it if you wish
I'm not guaranteeing I have resources on this particular debate. But I'll read what ever you send on it ( Happy Birthday, Btw )
Last edited:
From what I know of ancient texts, the brackets are what is assumed to be written, though it's hard to make out because the text was corrupted. Three dots are when they have no idea what was written.
I don't see anything either. There's Elokim and E-l but nothing else. Also many references to verses in the Tanach.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
The ref turns out to be in line #25. malchi tzedek asher yud-tzaddik-yud m'mah, is how I'm reading it, yud-tzaddik-yud is a title m'mah is the place. The scholar in @Vouthon's book claims that "malchi tzedek asher yud-tzaddik-yud m'mah suggests that malchi tzedek is identified as the four letter name."
That's the claim that I disputed from the exegesis of the "MelchiTzedek Scroll" from Qumram (sp?). I think.
@Vouthon can correct me if I'm wrong. I disputed it on the grounds of the definition of the four letter name.
It's important for our discussion because this would be evidence of a belief of the elevation of a messiah to the status to G-d All-Mighty. Then there were further claims that this would have been a Jewish strain/fringe dual/multi/simultaneous G-d theology. And thus, would legitimize The Book of John.
That's the entire logical chain from beginning to end.
Last edited:
Hmm.
I'm reading it as: Malkitzedek who will save ("yatzil") something ("mah", something-anything) from thugs ("bliya'al") and will say etc.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Not the part highlighted, the part at the beginning of the line, the yud-taddik-yud is in brackets? Before B-lial... Am I reading this wrong?
I'm reading יציל yatzil with a lamed at the end. Which means (he) will save.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
I mis-remembered... Mem with Lamed... it would have been to mah, not from mah.... the bracket threw me off...
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Thanks, I guess it's a mystery....
The mah I believe doesn't refer to a place. It's a bit hard to explain, but mah refers to a miniscule amount of anything (but not an actual measurement). For example, if someone's house is burning down, he shouts to the firefighters: "please, save something, anything [even the tiniest amount]" - so too here - (he) will save mah - something, anything.I mis-remembered... Mem with Lamed... it would have been to mah, not from mah.... the bracket threw me off...
@dybmh now that I've thought about it some more, maybe I was wrong and it should be read: מלכי צדק אשר יצילמה מי בליעל. Malki Tzedek asher yatzilemah mi bliya'al. Malki Tzedek who will save them (Mi?) thug(s).
In the whole fragment it can be seen that the author's Hebrew is a bit different from Biblical Hebrew: the author keeps adding Mem and Heh at the end of words. Sometimes Mem suffices. Sometimes there's no need for either, but he adds both. I guess I was wrong and the Mah is the end of the Yatzil.
Also, it's a occurred to me that the mi can also be read as Mey, waters of, in this case, waters of bliya'al, but the build of the sentence still doesn't make sense.
In the whole fragment it can be seen that the author's Hebrew is a bit different from Biblical Hebrew: the author keeps adding Mem and Heh at the end of words. Sometimes Mem suffices. Sometimes there's no need for either, but he adds both. I guess I was wrong and the Mah is the end of the Yatzil.
Also, it's a occurred to me that the mi can also be read as Mey, waters of, in this case, waters of bliya'al, but the build of the sentence still doesn't make sense.