'Man was created in the image of G-d'

[Ingledsva]

post two

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Let me remind you that such strange Jewish traditions did not come from illegitimate or strange sources, they came from the JEWISH TALMUD.

The respectful Jew Metis, ran a bit of interference for you and offered insight that was much more respectful and potentially helpful than your transparent taunt.

Still you have these questions that I asked that are still pending your answer. I admit that I have more. For example, since the Jewish Talmud tells us that Adam was created with a tail, where in the tanakh / Bible, does this tradition originate? Where in the bible does it tell us Adam lost his tail and how was it lost? If this Jewish tradition IS correct, then why do not the rest of us have tails like Adam had according to this Jewish tradition? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you really think such Jewish traditions and the Orthodox Jews hold to are more logical and reasonable than the early Judeo-Christian tradition that Adam was created in the image of God? Really?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clear [/FONT]

You obviously do not understand what Midrash is.


If there is a Midrash about Adam having a tail - perhaps someone had a clue about evolution?


Midrash tries to explain - and evolves over time.


What Is Midrash? (Definition of Midrash)

 

[Clear]

Forum members :

First of all, do not be simply sidetracked by the use of the word "midrash" (commentary) since we are talking about "MISHNA", which is part of the JEWISH TALMUD. Extremely important separate midrashs are part of the MISHNA, which is the first part of the JEWISH TALMUD (a central text in orthodox Judaism), though there are multiple midrash's, not all midrashim are of equal weight in Jewish tradition. (Google TALMUD and see that it is made up, of Mishna and Gemara). The Midrashim that make up those in the TALMUD / TORAH were very important as I will point out.

IF anyone wants to look of various links to the Jewish tradition that Adam was born with both sex organs, simply google “ mishna adam hermaphrodite “. If you want to look up the less well known Jewish tradition that Adam was born with a tail, then simply google “ mishna adam tail “. Mishna is more authoritative than midrash.


REGARDING THE EARLY JEWISH TRADITION THAT ADAM WAS BORN WITH BOTH SETS OF SEX ORGANS :

From THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
[FONT=&quot]
Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, "hermaphrodite," never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace[/FONT][FONT=&quot]…..

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In the Haggadah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bere**** Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I might point out that medically, a hermaphrodite is a single individual who has both sexual characteristics (e.g. they may have both sets of organs, male and female), whereas the “double-faced” Jewish version seems to have two individuals of different sexes, melded into in one body, but facing different directions (like the mythical Janus, whose face looks both forward and backward).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Thus, the Jewish encyclopedia explains that : according to Jeremiah's opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense….[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
This represents ADAM as a hermaphrodite since, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, “Eve was created later”, after Adam and not at the same time.

The midrash in Stones Chumash (a printed Torah. Not a scroll) elaborates regarding the creation of Eve as a “companion” to Adam. “God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Jewish encyclopedia further explains that “In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: 'Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, "Dict." s.v., p. 304, 1).[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil. Menens, "Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum," vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In the Halakah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In the halakic writings only "Androgynos" is used, never "duoprosopin" (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of "bisexual." In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the "ṭum-ṭum," an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him ("Historia Naturalis," vii. 34), and Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ," ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare "Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini," ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under "Androgynos," in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v., and Löw, "Lebensalter."[/FONT]

Obviously the early and widespread Jewish tradition that an "andro / gynus" (male / female) adam had organs of both sexes was a very widespread and deeply footed tradition in orthodox Judaism. However, it does not exist in any detail in the tanakh (Hebrew bible) but is simply exegetal speculation and irrationality run wild.

This sort of irrational and illogical speculation that creates a bisexual/two-bodied adam with a tail (the tail is in other Jewish literature) is similar to the same sort of irrational and illogic that creates similar strange metaphors out of simple words and seeks to contaminate the early judeo-christian traditions with Jewish mythology. The forced marriage of the two theologies historically will not work in this way and Jews should NOT try to create this artificial relationship between two, differing theologies simply because one or two words are shared between them.

For example, When Christians use the words "Adam was created in the image of God", early Christians did NOT adopt a widespread tradition that Adam had both sex organs and that Adam could, by use of both sets of sex organs together, create children without eve. This may be Jewish, but it is not represented in any widespread fashion in sacred early Christian texts and, as the Jewish encyclopedia admits, "[FONT=&quot]we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"[/FONT]

If you ever take the time to read through the mishna or ordered midrashim concerning Genesis (or any other book), perhaps you will understand why I have wondered if this insistent Jewish tendency not to take God at his obvious word, but, rather to change his word by mythologizing and spiritualizing and metaphorizing Gods word so as to not even recognize the basic and simple meanings of words, was part of what angered God against the Jews and contributed to God taking away the prophetic Gifts from the Jews transfering prophecy and revelation to the early Christian movement. Perhaps this Jewish insistence contributed to the reasons God took away their temple and it associated worship out of the midst of the Jews and left them with synagoges instead, or why he took away their priesthood associated with the temple worship and left them with teachers (rabbis) instead.

There are certain things which God said fairly clearly and which the early Christians took much more at face value than the Jews, they did not add nor subtract to the text nearly so much as the Jews did with the creation of their many traditions and rules (which were never part of the Old Testament / Tanakh in the first place).


This was simply one of the early jewish traditions I asked jayhawker soule to discuss and explain. How did such a tradition originate and become so detailed and ingrained in Jewish tradition in the context of Tanahk (i.e. the hebrew bible / Old Testament). Deut 12:32 tells the Jews regarding the Torah, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".

How does one create such detailed and deep-seated traditions like this without adding speculations and illogical conclusions and irrational considerations to the text? It's obvious, the Jews had to add to Tanakh to create such traditions.


Clear

δρδρφισιω

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jayhawker Soule said : Clear, if and when you find yourself both willing and able to address my comments (rather than treat us to yet another inchoate opinion dump) I'll be more than happy to engage you. I have little expectation of this happening.

If you remember JayHawker Soule, your contribution was simply a Jew, taunting a Christian ...

Absolute rubbish. (But I do appreciate its brevity.)

 

[Ingledsva]

Forum members :

First of all, do not be simply sidetracked by the use of the word "midrash" (commentary) since we are talking about "MISHNA", which is part of the JEWISH TALMUD. Extremely important separate midrashs are part of the TALMUD (a central text in orthodox Judaism), though there are multiple midrash's, not all midrashim are of equal weight in Jewish tradition. The Midrashim that make up those in the TALMUD / TORAH were very important as I will point out.

IF anyone wants to look of various links to the Jewish tradition that Adam was born with both sex organs, simply google “ mishna adam hermaphrodite “. If you want to look up the less well known Jewish tradition that Adam was born with a tail, then simply google “ mishna adam tail “. Mishna is more authoritative than midrash.


REGARDING THE EARLY JEWISH TRADITION THAT ADAM WAS BORN WITH BOTH SETS OF SEX ORGANS :

From THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
[FONT=&quot]
Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, "hermaphrodite," never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace[/FONT][FONT=&quot]…..

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In the Haggadah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bere**** Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I might point out that medically, a hermaphrodite is a single individual who has both sexual characteristics (e.g. they may have both sets of organs, male and female), whereas the “double-faced” Jewish version seems to have two individuals of different sexes, melded into in one body, but facing different directions (like the mythical Janus, whose face looks both forward and backward).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Thus, the Jewish encyclopedia explains that : according to Jeremiah's opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense….[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
This represents ADAM as a hermaphrodite since, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, “Eve was created later”, after Adam and not at the same time.

The midrash in Stones Chumash (a printed Torah. Not a scroll) elaborates regarding the creation of Eve as a “companion” to Adam. “God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Jewish encyclopedia further explains that “In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: 'Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, "Dict." s.v., p. 304, 1).[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil. Menens, "Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum," vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In the Halakah.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In the halakic writings only "Androgynos" is used, never "duoprosopin" (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of "bisexual." In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the "ṭum-ṭum," an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him ("Historia Naturalis," vii. 34), and Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ," ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare "Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini," ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under "Androgynos," in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v., and Löw, "Lebensalter."[/FONT]

Obviously the early and widespread Jewish tradition that "an andro / gynus" adam had organs of both sexes was a very widespread and deeply footed tradition in orthodox Judaism. However, it does not exist in any detail in the tanakh (Hebrew bible) but is simply exegetal speculation and irrationality run wild.

This sort of irrational and illogical speculation that creates a bisexual/two-bodied adam with a tail (the tail is in other Jewish literature) is similar to the same sort of irrational and illogic that creates similar strange metaphors out of simple words and seeks to contaminate the early judeo-christian traditions with Jewish mythology. The forced marriage of the two theologies historically will not work in this way and Jews should NOT try to create this artificial relationship between two, differing theologies simply because one or two words are shared between them.

For example, When Christians use the words "Adam was created in the image of God", they did NOT possess a widespread tradition that Adam had both sex organs and that Adam could, by use of both sets of sex organs together, create children without eve. This may be Jewish, but it is not represented in any widespread fashion in sacred early Christian texts and, as the Jewish encyclopedia admits, "[FONT=&quot]we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"[/FONT]

If you ever take the time to read through the mishna or ordered midrashim concerning Genesis (or any other book), perhaps you will understand why I have wondered if this insistent Jewish tendency not to take God at his obvious word, but, rather to mythologize and to spiritualize and to metaphorize so as to not even recognize the basic and simple meanings of words was part of what angered God against this Jewish insistence and contributed to God talking away the prophetic Gifts away from the Jews and their transfer to the early Christian movement. Perhaps it contributed to the reasons why why God took away their temple worship out of the midst of the Jews, and took away their priesthood associated with the temple worship.

There are certain things which God said fairly clearly and which the early Christians took much more at face value than the Jews, they did not add nor subtract to the text nearly so much as the Jews did with the creation of their many traditions and rules (which were never part of the Old Testament / Tanakh in the first place).


Clear

δρδρφισιω

Dude - YOU brought up Midrash - in # 279.


LOL! What are you trying to say?


It doesn't matter if we chose hermaphrodite, or decide they are two sides in one.


The discussion is "image" meaning - and you have made it plain that you believe there is only one meaning here.


If we use your meaning - YHVH is either hermaphrodite, androgynous, two sided, etc., which is just ridiculous, - and shows the extremes one has to go to when one limits a word which OBVIOUSLY is being used in a metaphoric sense.



John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.





*

 

[idav]

'Man was created in the image of G-d'.
The G-d that is the likeness of man is Jesus, not an "invisible' god.

Jesus is The Creator G-d.

Humans have aspects of the divine. Mainly freewill, otherwise there is no point in saying we have anything or can do anything other than is willed. The power to choose.

edit: I also think the power to pro-create is sorta divine. Not really able to create but life in general has that divine spark as well.

 

[Desert Snake]

Humans have aspects of the divine. Mainly freewill, otherwise there is no point in saying we have anything or can do anything other than is willed. The power to choose.

edit: I also think the power to pro-create is sorta divine. Not really create but life in general has that divine spark as well.

You mean like a cardboard halo that one might tape to their head. True.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Dude - YOU brought up Midrash - in # 279.


LOL! What are you trying to say?
*

Why concern oneself with scholarship when it's so much fun to quote mine a Judaic tradition about which one is completely ignorant?

 

[idav]

You mean like a cardboard halo that one might tape to their head. True.

Hardly. Power is just that, people use it for all sorts of things including for very selfish motives so it hardly makes you a saint.

 

[Ingledsva]

Why concern oneself with scholarship when it's so much fun to quote mine a Judaic tradition about which one is completely ignorant?

Too true! LOL!



*

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

Since we are simply being offered more taunts from the Jews who should be interested in teaching, rather than taunting, we might as well continue to look at the Jewish tradition of the creation of Adam as a comparison to the early Christian tradition to filter out the differences that explain why they developed in different directions.



1) GODS ANGER AGAINST THE JEWS AND THEIR PUNISHMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT “MEANINGS” AND TRADITIONS

As I explained in my last post, there was an underlying cause to God’s anger against the Jews which resulted in his taking away their prophets and prophetic gifts, leaving them only with texts and teachers, something which caused him to remove his temple from their midst, which left them with synagogues instead, and something which motivated him, in his anger, to remove the priesthood from their midst and leave them with rabbis (teachers without priesthood) instead.

Part of the source of Gods anger against the Jews was not just how they persecuted prophets he sent to them, but how they treated the words he sent to them. It is an early, tentative model that seems to arise when I look at how they developed their theology as a rabbi-derived model.

For example, Deut 12:32 warns the Jews regarding Gods words given them, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".

The problem created by Jewish theology and tradition created by Rabbis and then delivered to a Jewish population is that though this system did not alter the written word a great deal, the Jewish traditions created by this rabbinical system systematically added to and took away from the meanings of God’s word.

Through attempts at logic and reasoning, add to and elaborate upon very simple and fairly straight forward texts delivered from God, rather than as a tanakh-derived model. I think the Jewish traditions surrounding the creation of Man (Adam) is a good model regarding how a basic truth can be elaborated, twisted, changed to the point where the finished theology of the people is quite different than what God actually gave them. To be fair, this is similar to the problems created for Christians when they began to create theology through theologians (which theology was then delivered to and adopted by Christian populations in the later Christian movement).



2) ADAM CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD - THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION COMPARED TO THE JEWISH TRADITION

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him. Male and female created he them.

As you will see, the two theological models differ on whether this specific sentence “God created man in his own image” really meant “[a single man] in his own image” or if this sentence meant “God created man, and woman, and the rest of mankind in his own image”. (since other verses make clear all of mankind, are, in some way, created in his image)



3) INTERPRETATION OF A SINGLE WORD AS THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM

If the early Christian tradition is correct then this sentence refers specifically to ADAM who is created in the virtual image of his creator. If this is correct, then the sentence as given, and the rest of Genesis and the other early Judeo-Christian textual traditions regarding Adam appearance, make perfect sense without any elaboration, additional tradition, rationalizations, and an illogical hermaphrodite adam with two sets of sex organs (as are created in the Jewish tradition. The Second sentence “Male and female created he them” is simply referring to the later creation of Eve and other mankind which occurred later (since they were NOT created at the same time)

IF the Jewish model is correct that this specific sentence refers not only to ADAM as “mankind” , but to females and all other men as well, then it makes sense that the rabbis would feel the need to create tradition to add onto the text, in order to reconcile the problems created by such an interpretation. It would make sense that the Rabbis would add onto the biblical text, a traditions which could explain how “GOD” could make BOTH male and female and all other of mankind “in his image”. I think this theory of hermaphroditism was distasteful to them, especially given their moral stance towards sexual deviancy, but they did not see a way out of the quandary, their interpretation created.

More about translation later



4) THE EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION - MAN CREATED IN GOD’S IMAGE
The early Christian textual model was simple, Adam (man) is created in the image of God. Adam looked like God chose to appear (this does not mean God HAD to appear that way, but that he did).

Thus the Christian text says “ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw(Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal….(Cave of T) they were saying that adam’s image appeared like God appeared (or chose to appear). “In the image of God” has a visual context in this tradition.

When Adam is told “…your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God…. “ (A&E Vitae), it is a visual reference and an actual “countenance” that is spoken of.

When, in the Haggadic description when the Angel “took [adam] to be their creator”, it was his appearance made them think Adam was “the lord of all, ” (God). Visually he looked the same, however it was”when God caused sleep to fall upon [adam], and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.” (The Haggadah)

In the Christian model, the man ADAM is created in the image of God. The early textual writers are not talking about or making reference to anyone else who looks like God. All of these references are referring to the single man ADAM.

In such a model, there is no need to add either words or traditions or hermaphrodites, or traditions of how the hermaphrodite is then split (and how something like that would work in reality). It simply takes God at his word that Adam is created in God's image.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOW

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE

5) THE JEWISH TRADITION - MAN CREATED IN GOD’S “IMAGE“

I initially asked a Jewish forum member to explain and discuss this tradition, but no explanation was offered. So, I started with the Jewish Encyclopedia and it’s explanation of this Jewish Tradition in post # 282. Though other historical texts give better historical analysis, I think that to stay with Jewish sources, like the Jewish Encyclopedia and similar, will help us avoid any complaints that the information is intentionally slanted.

IF anyone wants to look of various links to the Jewish tradition that Adam was born with both sex organs, simply google “ mishna adam hermaphrodite “. If you want to look up the less well known Jewish tradition that Adam was born with a tail, then simply google “ mishna adam tail “. Mishna is more authoritative than midrash.


REGARDING THE EARLY JEWISH TRADITION THAT ADAM WAS BORN WITH BOTH SETS OF SEX ORGANS :

From THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, "hermaphrodite," never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace…..

In the Haggadah.

Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bere**** Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651).

I might point out that medically, a hermaphrodite is a single individual who has both sexual characteristics (e.g. they may have both sets of organs, male and female), whereas the “double-faced” Jewish version seems to have two individuals of different sexes, melded into in one body, but facing different directions (like the mythical Janus, whose face looks both forward and backward).

Thus, the Jewish encyclopedia explains that : according to Jeremiah's opinion, Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense….

This represents ADAM as a hermaphrodite since, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, “Eve was created later”, after Adam and not at the same time.

The midrash in Stones Chumash (a printed Torah. Not a scroll) elaborates regarding the creation of Eve as a “companion” to Adam. “God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”

The Jewish encyclopedia further explains that “In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: 'Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, "Dict." s.v., p. 304, 1).The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil. Menens, "Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum," vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.

In the Halakah.

In the halakic writings only "Androgynos" is used, never "duoprosopin" (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of "bisexual." In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the "ṭum-ṭum," an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him ("Historia Naturalis," vii. 34), and Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ," ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare "Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini," ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under "Androgynos," in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v., and Löw, "Lebensalter."

Obviously the early and widespread Jewish tradition that an "andro / gynus" (male / female) adam had organs of both sexes was a very widespread and deeply footed tradition in orthodox Judaism. However, it does not exist in any detail in the tanakh (Hebrew bible) but is simply exegetal speculation and irrationality run wild.

This sort of irrational and illogical speculation that creates a bisexual/two-bodied adam with a tail (the tail is in other Jewish literature) is similar to the same sort of irrational and illogic that creates similar strange metaphors out of simple words and seeks to contaminate the early judeo-christian traditions with Jewish mythology. The forced marriage of the two theologies historically will not work in this way and Jews should NOT try to create this artificial relationship between two, differing theologies simply because one or two words are shared between them.

For example, When Christians use the words "Adam was created in the image of God", early Christians did NOT adopt a widespread tradition that Adam had both sex organs and that Adam could, by use of both sets of sex organs together, create children without eve. This may be Jewish, but it is not represented in any widespread fashion in sacred early Christian texts and, as the Jewish encyclopedia admits, "we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"

If you ever take the time to read through the mishna or ordered midrashim concerning Genesis (or any other book), perhaps you will understand why I have wondered if this insistent Jewish tendency not to take God at his obvious word, but, rather to change his word by mythologizing and spiritualizing and metaphorizing Gods word so as to not even recognize the basic and simple meanings of words, was part of what angered God against the Jews and contributed to God taking away the prophetic Gifts from the Jews transfering prophecy and revelation to the early Christian movement. Perhaps this Jewish insistence contributed to the reasons God took away their temple and it associated worship out of the midst of the Jews and left them with synagoges instead, or why he took away their priesthood associated with the temple worship and left them with teachers (rabbis) instead.

There are certain things which God said fairly clearly and which the early Christians took much more at face value than the Jews, they did not add nor subtract to the text nearly so much as the Jews did with the creation of their many traditions and rules (which were never part of the Old Testament / Tanakh in the first place).

This was simply one of the early jewish traditions I asked jayhawker soule to discuss and explain. How did such a tradition originate and become so detailed and ingrained in Jewish tradition in the context of Tanahk (i.e. the hebrew bible / Old Testament). Deut 12:32 tells the Jews regarding the Torah, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".

How does one create such detailed and deep-seated traditions like this without adding speculations and illogical conclusions and irrational considerations to the text? It's obvious, the Jews had to add to Tanakh to create such traditions.


Clear

POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE

Instead of receiving clarification and information from Jewish forum members, posts # 287/ 289 were simply more taunting. We might as well continue looking at this tradition from other Jewish explanations and sources.

Legend of the Androgyne - The Biblical Story of Creation (from Judaism.about.com) explains regarding the origin of the two types of Adams with both types of sex organs.

This Jewish explanation also agrees that the traditions originated, not from Tanakh or the biblical text itself, but rather from the need of Rabbis who wanted to reconcile their interpretation of Creation with that which appeared in their book of Genesis.

This description tell us that the Rabbis interpreted the text Gen 1:26-27 as

“Let us make humanity in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the things that creep on earth.’ And God created humanity in the Divine image, in the image of God they were created, male and female God created them.”

In this passage, certain rabbis felt that male and female human beings were created simultaneously. The explanation by the Jews continues :

“However, another timeline is presented in Genesis 2. Known as the Yahwistic account, here God creates a man and places him in the Garden of Eden to tend it. Then God notices that the man is lonely and decides to create a “fitting helper for him” (Gen. 2:18). At this point all the animals are made as possible companions for the man. When none of them are appropriate, God causes a deep sleep to fall upon him:”

“So the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man, and while he slept, God took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the Lord fashioned the rib into a woman; and God brought her to the man.” (Genesis 2:21)

The Jews explain : “Thus we have two accounts of Creation, each appearing in the book of Genesis. But while the Priestly version maintains that man and woman were created simultaneously, the Yahwistic version claims that man was created first and that woman was only created after all of the animals were presented to Adam as potential partners. This presented ancient rabbis with a problem because they believed that the Torah was the Word of God and therefore it was not possible for the text to contradict itself. As a result, they came up with a few possible explanations to reconcile the apparent contradition. One of those explanations was the androgyne.”

The Androgyne and Creation

Rabbinic discussions about the two versions of Creation and the androgyne can be found in Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, which are collections of midrashim about the books of Genesis and Leviticus. In Genesis Rabbah the rabbis wonder whether a verse from Psalms offers insight into the first version of Creation, perhaps indicating that ‘adam was actually a hermaphrodite with two faces: “’You have formed me before and behind’ (Psalms 139:5)… R. Jeremiah b. Leazar said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created it with both male and female sexual organs, as it is written, ‘Male and female He created them, and He called their name ‘adam,’ (Genesis 5:2). R. Samuel b. Nahmani said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first ‘adam, He created him with two faces, then split him and made him two backs – a back for each side.” (Genesis Rabbah 8:1)

According to this discussion, the Priestly account in Genesis 1 actually tells us about the creation of a hermaphrodite with two faces. Then in Genesis 2 this primal androgyne (as the creature is commonly called in scholarly texts) is split in half and two separate beings are created – a man and a woman.

Some rabbis objected to this interpretation, noting that Genesis 2 says God took one of the man’s ribs to create the woman. To this, the following explanation is given:
“’He took one of his ribs (mi-tzalotav)’… [‘One of his ribs’ means] one of his sides, as you read [in an analogy from the similar use of the same word elsewhere], ‘And for the other side wall (tzel’a) of the Tabernacle’ (Exodus 26:20).”

What the rabbis mean here is that the phrase used to describe woman's creation from man's rib – mi-tzalotav – actually means an entire side of his body because the word “tzel’a” is used in the book of Exodus to refer to one side of the holy Tabernacle. A similar discussion can be found in Leviticus Rabbah 14:1 where R. Levi states: “When man was created, he was created with two body-fronts, and He [God] sawed him in two, so that two backs resulted, one back for the male and another for the female.”

In this way the concept of the androgyne allowed the rabbis to reconcile the two accounts of Creation. Some feminist scholars also contend that the creature solved another problem for patriarchal rabbinical society: it ruled out the possibility that man and woman were created equally in Genesis 1.

5) ENTYMOLOGY AND TEXTS

The Jewish translation of 300 b.c.
The Jews who, in 300 b.c. translated THEIR VERSION of Genesis 1:26-27 make it very clear that it is a single man who is being created (ανθροπον cannot BE plural in Gen 1:27 in this Jewish version). This text leaves NO room for the creation of plural for the word “man”. It must refer to Adam (or hypothetically to another single man&#8230 in this translation.

The Jewish Masoretic version of later years :
The later Jewish MASORETS with THEIR version of Genesis 1:26-27 could have had an obvious textual source for their preferred translation since Adam (Hebrew אָדָ&#1501 can be a proper name (it’s oldest usage), but it can also mean “human” (or “the human” if a definite article is present); as a masculine noun, can mean “man” or “mankind / humankind” if used in a collective context. It has other meanings as well. The rabbis chose another meaning besides the oldest and simplest meaning for their interpretation.

The point is, instead of using it’s earliest known usage as a name, the rabbis chose to interpret it in a collective sense. When They did this, they created the theological problem of having to reconcile the text with their interpretation. Rather than consider the older interpretation of “Adam” as a name, they then chose to add to the Biblical text, a set of traditions by which they hoped to reconcile the problem their interpretation created. Though it created a theological “stop-gap”, the traditions they created then produces OTHER problems which they did not reconcile (i.e. What happened to the adrogynus hermaphrodite of Adam, how were they separated, why didn’t others follow his genetic pattern, etc) other than to simply say “god did this or that”.




6) INTERPRETATION AS A SOURCE OF ERROR AND THEOLOGICAL / DOCTRINAL DEGREDATION

This type of adding to or taking away from the biblical text by creation of traditions made to cover up mistakes in interpretations (and other similar mechanisms as we continue this discussion) is, part of why I think God was angry with the Jews, to the point that he first warned them in Deut 12:32 "....do not add to it or take away from it."

One was not to change a text or it's meaning, either by writing extra words, or by taking away meaning or adding meanings and traditions to what God gave. As one looks at this cludgy inept Jewish tradition of a Hermaphrodite Adam, one can immediately see why God told them NOT to do this.

I hope this makes sense to both Christian and agnostic readers why such traditions became necessary and the terrible consequences of improper interpretation as well as the inadequacy of creating traditions which are made to cover up mistakes that men make, as well as explain a source of Gods anger at changing his simple and pure words into such strange theologies.


Clear
δρφιακφιω

 

[sojourner]

'Man was created in the image of G-d'.
The G-d that is the likeness of man is Jesus, not an "invisible' god.

Jesus is The Creator G-d.

: hamster :

(This is the closest I could find to a hamster running on a wheel. Round and round we go...) :thud:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

LOL!

True enough. Pages and pages trying to twist info, and saying nothing new.

These - several more posts - above, proving this. LOL!

And apparently he has an inability to admit when he is wrong.

Which does indeed make you correct in not bothering to debate with him. LOL.

*

I'm adding him to my ignore list. PM me if I miss anything of worth.

 

[Ingledsva]

POST ONE OF THREE

Since we are simply being offered more taunts from the Jews who should be interested in teaching, rather than taunting, we might as well continue to look at the Jewish tradition of the creation of Adam as a comparison to the early Christian tradition to filter out the differences that explain why they developed in different directions.



1) GODS ANGER AGAINST THE JEWS AND THEIR PUNISHMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT “MEANINGS” AND TRADITIONS

As I explained in my last post, there was an underlying cause to God’s anger against the Jews which resulted in his taking away their prophets and prophetic gifts, leaving them only with texts and teachers, something which caused him to remove his temple from their midst, which left them with synagogues instead, and something which motivated him, in his anger, to remove the priesthood from their midst and leave them with rabbis (teachers without priesthood) instead.

Part of the source of Gods anger against the Jews was not just how they persecuted prophets he sent to them, but how they treated the words he sent to them. It is an early, tentative model that seems to arise when I look at how they developed their theology as a rabbi-derived model.

For example, Deut 12:32 warns the Jews regarding Gods words given them, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".

The problem created by Jewish theology and tradition created by Rabbis and then delivered to a Jewish population is that though this system did not alter the written word a great deal, the Jewish traditions created by this rabbinical system systematically added to and took away from the meanings of God’s word.

Through attempts at logic and reasoning, add to and elaborate upon very simple and fairly straight forward texts delivered from God, rather than as a tanakh-derived model. I think the Jewish traditions surrounding the creation of Man (Adam) is a good model regarding how a basic truth can be elaborated, twisted, changed to the point where the finished theology of the people is quite different than what God actually gave them. To be fair, this is similar to the problems created for Christians when they began to create theology through theologians (which theology was then delivered to and adopted by Christian populations in the later Christian movement).



2) ADAM CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD - THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION COMPARED TO THE JEWISH TRADITION

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him. Male and female created he them.

As you will see, the two theological models differ on whether this specific sentence “God created man in his own image” really meant “[a single man] in his own image” or if this sentence meant “God created man, and woman, and the rest of mankind in his own image”. (since other verses make clear all of mankind, are, in some way, created in his image)



3) INTERPRETATION OF A SINGLE WORD AS THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM

If the early Christian tradition is correct then this sentence refers specifically to ADAM who is created in the virtual image of his creator. If this is correct, then the sentence as given, and the rest of Genesis and the other early Judeo-Christian textual traditions regarding Adam appearance, make perfect sense without any elaboration, additional tradition, rationalizations, and an illogical hermaphrodite adam with two sets of sex organs (as are created in the Jewish tradition. The Second sentence “Male and female created he them” is simply referring to the later creation of Eve and other mankind which occurred later (since they were NOT created at the same time)

IF the Jewish model is correct that this specific sentence refers not only to ADAM as “mankind” , but to females and all other men as well, then it makes sense that the rabbis would feel the need to create tradition to add onto the text, in order to reconcile the problems created by such an interpretation. It would make sense that the Rabbis would add onto the biblical text, a traditions which could explain how “GOD” could make BOTH male and female and all other of mankind “in his image”. I think this theory of hermaphroditism was distasteful to them, especially given their moral stance towards sexual deviancy, but they did not see a way out of the quandary, their interpretation created.

More about translation later



4) THE EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION - MAN CREATED IN GOD’S IMAGE
The early Christian textual model was simple, Adam (man) is created in the image of God. Adam looked like God chose to appear (this does not mean God HAD to appear that way, but that he did).

Thus the Christian text says “ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw(Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal….(Cave of T) they were saying that adam’s image appeared like God appeared (or chose to appear). “In the image of God” has a visual context in this tradition.

When Adam is told “…your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God…. “ (A&E Vitae), it is a visual reference and an actual “countenance” that is spoken of.

When, in the Haggadic description when the Angel “took [adam] to be their creator”, it was his appearance made them think Adam was “the lord of all, ” (God). Visually he looked the same, however it was”when God caused sleep to fall upon [adam], and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.” (The Haggadah)

In the Christian model, the man ADAM is created in the image of God. The early textual writers are not talking about or making reference to anyone else who looks like God. All of these references are referring to the single man ADAM.

In such a model, there is no need to add either words or traditions or hermaphrodites, or traditions of how the hermaphrodite is then split (and how something like that would work in reality). It simply takes God at his word that Adam is created in God's image.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOW

Adam WASN'T a SINGLE man.


Regardless of which Genesis verse you use, 1 or 2, - you end up with male and female.


Posting page after page changes nothing.


You are wrong on this one.


There is no need for hermaphrodites, etc, when one recognizes that "image" is being used in a metaphoric sense, (some essence, knowing right or wrong, or above the animals, etc., as many have told you.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

POST THREE OF THREE

Instead of receiving clarification and information from Jewish forum members, posts # 287/ 289 were simply more taunting. We might as well continue looking at this tradition from other Jewish explanations and sources.

Legend of the Androgyne - The Biblical Story of Creation (from Judaism.about.com) explains regarding the origin of the two types of Adams with both types of sex organs.

This Jewish explanation also agrees that the traditions originated, not from Tanakh or the biblical text itself, but rather from the need of Rabbis who wanted to reconcile their interpretation of Creation with that which appeared in their book of Genesis.

This description tell us that the Rabbis interpreted the text Gen 1:26-27 as In this passage, certain rabbis felt that male and female human beings were created simultaneously. The explanation by the Jews continues :

“However, another timeline is presented in Genesis 2. Known as the Yahwistic account, here God creates a man and places him in the Garden of Eden to tend it. Then God notices that the man is lonely and decides to create a “fitting helper for him” (Gen. 2:18). At this point all the animals are made as possible companions for the man. When none of them are appropriate, God causes a deep sleep to fall upon him:”



The Jews explain : “Thus we have two accounts of Creation, each appearing in the book of Genesis. But while the Priestly version maintains that man and woman were created simultaneously, the Yahwistic version claims that man was created first and that woman was only created after all of the animals were presented to Adam as potential partners. This presented ancient rabbis with a problem because they believed that the Torah was the Word of God and therefore it was not possible for the text to contradict itself. As a result, they came up with a few possible explanations to reconcile the apparent contradition. One of those explanations was the androgyne.”

5) ENTYMOLOGY AND TEXTS

The Jewish translation of 300 b.c.
The Jews who, in 300 b.c. translated THEIR VERSION of Genesis 1:26-27 make it very clear that it is a single man who is being created (ανθροπον cannot BE plural in Gen 1:27 in this Jewish version). This text leaves NO room for the creation of plural for the word “man”. It must refer to Adam (or hypothetically to another single man…) in this translation.

The Jewish Masoretic version of later years :
The later Jewish MASORETS with THEIR version of Genesis 1:26-27 could have had an obvious textual source for their preferred translation since Adam (Hebrew אָדָ&#1501 can be a proper name (it’s oldest usage), but it can also mean “human” (or “the human” if a definite article is present); as a masculine noun, can mean “man” or “mankind / humankind” if used in a collective context. It has other meanings as well. The rabbis chose another meaning besides the oldest and simplest meaning for their interpretation.

The point is, instead of using it’s earliest known usage as a name, the rabbis chose to interpret it in a collective sense. When They did this, they created the theological problem of having to reconcile the text with their interpretation. Rather than consider the older interpretation of “Adam” as a name, they then chose to add to the Biblical text, a set of traditions by which they hoped to reconcile the problem their interpretation created. Though it created a theological “stop-gap”, the traditions they created then produces OTHER problems which they did not reconcile (i.e. What happened to the adrogynus hermaphrodite of Adam, how were they separated, why didn’t others follow his genetic pattern, etc) other than to simply say “god did this or that”.




6) INTERPRETATION AS A SOURCE OF ERROR AND THEOLOGICAL / DOCTRINAL DEGREDATION

This type of adding to or taking away from the biblical text by creation of traditions made to cover up mistakes in interpretations (and other similar mechanisms as we continue this discussion) is, part of why I think God was angry with the Jews, to the point that he first warned them in Deut 12:32 "....do not add to it or take away from it."

One was not to change a text or it's meaning, either by writing extra words, or by taking away meaning or adding meanings and traditions to what God gave. As one looks at this cludgy inept Jewish tradition of a Hermaphrodite Adam, one can immediately see why God told them NOT to do this.

I hope this makes sense to both Christian and agnostic readers why such traditions became necessary and the terrible consequences of improper interpretation as well as the inadequacy of creating traditions which are made to cover up mistakes that men make, as well as explain a source of Gods anger at changing his simple and pure words into such strange theologies.


Clear
δρφιακφιω

Again - it does not matter what they came up with.


We have 2 version in the Bible - Gen 1 - and Gen 2.


In both versions we end up with male and female.



YOU are the only one with a problem here - as you insisted "image" had ONE meaning.


They are obviously using "image" in a metaphoric sense, - as I told you, and I specifically showed you another verse using "image" as metaphor, - to prove this usage.


You would not have had to paste all those pages and pages, that DO NOT prove your original assessment, - if YOU had just said, - "I WAS WRONG - it CAN be used as METAPHOR."



*

 

[Clear]

POST ONE

Ingledsva,
I am content with whatever judgments forum readers have already made concerning your claims versus mine. If you are dissatisfied with the judgments of forum readers, then that is simply “too bad”. Move on. Forum readers are tired of repetition and are now comparing the very simple early Christian textual traditions regarding of Adams’ creation and comparing it to the very complex early Jewish textual traditions regarding Adams’ creation.




FORUM READERS

Current discussion

POSTS 290, 291 AND 292
#1) explain how post Christian Jewish Rabbis made interpretational decisions which created such deep doctrinal problems and unneeded complexities to their Jewish Theology regarding the creation of Adam.

#2) discussed Rabbinic interpretations and inappropriate modifications of prophetic texts as possibly contributing to God’s anger against Israel and their loss of temple; priesthood; and their loss of prophets and prophetic gifts among the Jews.



1) HYPERSPIRITUALIZATION – HYPERMETAPHORIZATION OF THE BIBILCAL TEXT

Jewish Rabbis were not priests, but they were teachers and theologians who developed Jewish doctrines and then passed these doctrines which they created, onto the Jewish populace for popular consumption.
However, the tendency for these teachers was to spiritualize almost EVERYTHING. In the Talmud, there is spiritualization of almost every verse, and often down to individual letters INSIDE OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. I’ll give examples of several types.

For example : Genesis 1:22 says of the water creatures and fowl, “God blessed them, saying “Be fruitful and multiply…”.

A) The Rabbinic teaching regarding the words “God blessed them” is : “these creatures needed a special blessing because so many are intentionally reduced in number – hunted down and eaten. The land animals that were created on the sixth day needed such a blessing, too, but God did not confer one on them so as not to include the serpent, which was destined to be cursed.”

1) Such speculations regarding God’s intent on word choice do not come from any biblical text but is simply a speculation representing personal opinion of one or more influential rabbis.

2) There is no evidence that such discrete traditions existed before this dominant, surviving Judaism started writing wrote the Talmud 200-500 years after Christ died. Thus, such opinions and traditions are not even necessarily representative of the earliest Judaic traditions, but rather these personal speculations simply represent the type of Judaism that dominated after the loss of the Temple and the collapse of the Priestly order of Sadducees, and the subsequent domination of one or more types of Pharisaic Judaism.




Because such Rabbinic speculations are personal additions to biblical traditions, They often simply represent the rabbi s’ personal speculation on minutiae.

B) For example, consider the next four words in vs 22 are : “Be fruitful and multiply” .

The rabbis interpretation in the printed Talmud is that “Had the verse not added “and multiply”, each creature would produce only one offspring.”

Thus, the rabbi felt that God had to add the word “multiply”, since, as this tradition says the word multiply “adds multiple births to the blessing, so each would bring forth many.”.

Such discrete assignment to meanings of words is quite arbitrary and dependent upon the opinion of the rabbi.
Why does this tradition indicate God has to add “multiple”, otherwise, births will all be single? Because the rabbi (The great Rashi this case) interpreted it in this way.



Often such Talmudic traditions are created, not because they actually exist in Torah or Tanakh (Hebrew bible), but because the Rabbis wished to combat competing theologies of the time.

For example, regarding Gen 1:26 : “Let us make man in our Image, after our Likeness”.

the Targum Yonasan paraphrases the Talmud (midrash) thusly : “When Moses wrote the Torah and came to this verse (let us make), which is in the plural and implies that there is more than one Creator, he said : “Sovereign of the Universe! Why do you thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divinities?” “Write!” God replied. “Whoever wishes to err will err… “
Again, such a tradition clearly does not originate inside the tanakhs' (Hebrew bible) text, but was created to answer to a theological need of its day.


Such hyperspeculation and creation of inauthentic textual traditions are not merely abundant at the level of words, but rabbinic speculation and spiritualizing and imbibing of meaning is frequent on the level of putting meaning into individual LETTERS! Even if they had to re-arrange letters to create theological meaning!
For example, consider Hebrew Genesis 2:4 : “These are the products of the heaven and the earth when they were created…” (I can’t put any breathing marks into the Hebrew text from my computer in this example )

The Midrash says : “The letters of this word can be rearranged to spell [FONT=&quot]באבהם[/FONT], meaning that God created the world for the sake of Abraham (Midrash). Such transparent attempts to CREATE obscure and mysterious and secret “meanings” where none really, and truly exists becomes typical of rabbinic literature.

For example, Rabbi Avie Gold says of this same verse “it may be that the letter [FONT=&quot]ה[/FONT] of this word is small to symbolize that Abraham’s name Abraham had an [FONT=&quot]ה[/FONT] added to it”.

Such attempts to create spiritual meanings (even in individual letters) rather than to simply take the text at face value comes to characterize Rabbinic thought and actions. Reading the Talmud (mishna) feels as though the rabbis are trying to outdo each other in speculations and symbolism instead of authentic spirituality.



The addition of such speculations to Jewish theology creates a whole different biblical tradition. It is improper addition to theology that is taking place.

For example, in Genesis 4:8 says : “…Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.”
This specific text does not tell us HOW Abel is killed.
Yet the rabbinic tradition is as follows :
Gen 4:10 “…The voice of your brothers blood cries out to me…”(Literally “bloods”) The word is in the plural…” this teaches that he bled from many wounds. Not knowing which organs were vital to life, Cain stabbed him all over.” (Rashi: Sanhedrin 37a)
Where in the biblical text does such elaboration and discrete detail regarding Cains knowledge and motive and intent and actions exist? Though such speculations are common, they are not particularly accurate in terms of building our concept and models as to what actually happened in this story.

The creation of such silly speculations becomes part of the rabbinic creation of Judaic theology. It creates a very different virtual version of biblical stories. Entire textual traditions that didn’t ever really happen create a virtual “bible” that never existed.

As another example : the Hebrew text of Genesis 49:5 says : “”…For in their rage [Simeon and Levis’] they murdered people and at their whim they hamstrung an ox.”

Rashi tell us that this means that “Simeon and Levi sought to disable Joseph, who is figuratively likened to an Ox; (see Deut 33:17)” while Ramban “interprets ox literally, as a reference to the livestock of Shechem. “ In this virtual bible, “Not only did they kill the men of Shechem, they destroyed its cattle”.
Both of these virtual Jewish bibles that tell us incredibly different stories than the literal bible does, and it exists outside of the biblical text.



“DO NOT ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM IT”
This sort of systematic adding to and taking away from the biblical narrative was happening among a people who had already been told, not to do this very thing : Deut 12:32 tells the Jews regarding the Torah, "....do not add to it or take away from it.".

To the degree that there rabbis created a theology that no longer followed the intent of the biblical text, to that degree a separate and inconsistent religion was created. And, just as they created very strange and unusual traditions surrounding the concept of a hermaphrodite adam, they created a tradition surrounding a spiritualized God who did not have an image after which Adam was created.

 

[Clear]

POST TWO


To the degree that the rabbis created a theology which no longer reflected the ancient God, they created a textual idol and surrounding theological assumptions in the place of the early Jewish God.

Barnabas warns the Christians who are becoming proud : “..., do not continue to pile up your sins while claiming that your covenant is irrevocably yours, because in fact those people lost it completely in the following way, when Moses had just received it. ...But by turning to idols they lost it.. The Epistle of Barnabas 4:6.



In the context of the Jews losing their prophetic gifts and their transfer to the early Christians; in context of the Jews losing their temple with it’s priesthood worship and being left with synagoges instead; in the context of the Jews losing their priests and their being left with the necessity of turning to mere teachers (rabbis) instead, the texts tell us Israel was repeatedly warned that they were not maintaining authentic and pure religion :

The Prophet Ezra told his people : “Hear these words, O Israel. At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, 30 and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. hen land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32;

The Lord tells the prophet Moses, speaking of Israel : “And you, write for yourself all of these words which I shall cause you to know today, for I know their rebelliousness and their stubbornness before I cause them to enter the land which I swore to their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying , ‘I will give to your seed a land flowing with milk and honey.’ And they will eat and be satisfied, and they will turn to strange gods, to those who cannot save them from any of their affliction. And this testimony will be heard as a testimony against them, for they will forget all of my commandments, everything which I shall command them...” Jubilees (the book of division) 1:4-10;

Levi tells his sons that : “ When vengeance will have come upon them from the Lord, the priesthood will lapse. “ and be given to another.” and after relating that which will happen to Israel, he sternly tells his children : “And now, my children, you have heard everything. Choose for yourselves light or darkness, the Law of the Lord or the works of Beliar.” Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi ch 18 & 19:1;




It is not simply that the Jews were adding to the biblical tradition, but by the rabbinical tradition, they have kept their followers from learning truth.

For example, In Deuteronomy 4:32 the Hebrew translation reads :
“For inquire now regarding the early days that preceded you, from the day when God created man on the earth and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven:...”

In Gen Rabba, the rabbis teach the Jews : IT is forbidden to inquire what existed before creation, as Moses distinctly tells us (Deut. 4. 32): 'Ask now of the days that are past which were before thee, since the day God created man upon earth.' Thus the scope of inquiry is limited to the time since the Creation.–(Gen. Rabba 1)

Such prohibitions against inquiring regarding conditions that existed in heaven before the creation create barriers to learning many, many of the most profoundly important truths concerning God; concerning his plan and his motives and conditions that allow mortality to make much more sent.

It is no wonder then that the earliest textual traditions that discuss and describe conditions before creation are relatively unknown among Jews who inherited such prohibitions to knowledge about such themes. It is just such prohibitions to knowledge that reminds me of Jesus’ trying to teach the Jews regarding conditions leading to ignorance of God.



Jesus said : "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." Luke 11:52
This same tradition existed in other Christian traditions : The Gospel of Thomas also refers to this same condemnation of Jewish leaders, saying : “Jesus said, “The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to….” THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS vs 39;

Messianic Jews themselves were aware of this systematic problem and describe it in almost the same words : “They hold back the drink of knowledge from those that thirst, and for their thirst they give them vinegar to drink, that they might observe their error, behaving madly at their festivals and getting caught in their nets.” Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q Col. 12:10-11

In another textual tradition, Moses is told by God that “...when the times of exposure come near and punishment arises through kings who (though) sharing their crimes yet punish them, then they themselves will be divided as to the truth. Consequently the word was fulfilled that they will avoid justice and approach iniquity; and they will pollute the house of their worship with the customs of the nations; and they will play the harlot after foreign gods. For they will not follow the truth of God, (Testament of Moses 5:1-6)

It was not merely Jesus who described the Jewish temple as having become “a den of thieves."( Mark 11:17), but the reformation espoused by Qumran Jews themselves is quite scathing in its condemnation of the Jewish priestly faction that administered in the Corrupted Jewish temple before it was destroyed by the Romans.

“Hear these words, O Israel. 29 At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, 30 and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. 31 then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. 32 And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ V1 p 544 Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32;

These sorts of abuse and doctrinal changes by Sadducees and Pharisees and later by rabbis as they rose to greater power (and the jewish Priesthood declined after destruction of the temple) may be part of why Jesus railed against certain of the Jews who “hold the tradition of men” and “reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:7-9




IF, at some point, the Gospel of Salvation was contaminated by man-made traditions so that it could no longer be recognized and delivered to mankind in sufficient clarity among the Jewish traditions then it only makes sense that such truths would be cleaned up and delivered through another group (at least until the next group abuses and contaminates them in the same way the Jews did).

When Jesus prophesies to the Jews that “... The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Matthew 21:42-43) This prophecy was no different than that which the Prophet Ezra had predicted : “... You would not obey me, O Judah. I will turn to other nations and will give them my name, that they may keep my statutes. Because you have forsaken me, I also will forsake you. 25 When you beg mercy of me, I will show you no mercy. 26 When you call upon me, I will not listen to you; for you have defiled your hands with blood, and your feet are swift to commit murder. 27 It is not as though you had forsaken me; you have forsaken yourselves, ... (The Fourth Book of Ezra 1:24-37)

Again, I’ve been writing between appointment at work and so I’ve come to an end of my day. I’m going to stop here for now. I hope it makes sense just how the Rabbinical system creates theology that changes both the biblical texts meaning as well as the theology of Judaism itself.

Clear
δρσεφιφυω

 

[Ingledsva]

POST ONE

Ingledsva,
I am content with whatever judgments forum readers have already made concerning your claims versus mine. If you are dissatisfied with the judgments of forum readers, then that is simply “too bad”. Move on. Forum readers are tired of repetition and are now comparing the very simple early Christian textual traditions regarding of Adams’ creation and comparing it to the very complex early Jewish textual traditions regarding Adams’ creation.

...[/SIZE][/FONT]

LOL! Dude! You are hilarious.


Metaphor is metaphor - Not a thing you have posted changes the fact that they are using metaphor.


You keep bringing up the "forum readers" as if they agree with you. LOL!


I'm guessing most of them have had enough of you and your multi-page, round-and-round, say the same irrelevant things, posts, - that the vast majority don't even bother to read, let alone reply to.


*

 

[firedragon]

Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our Tzelem, in our demut, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, a and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Tzelem actually means photographed. Demut means Image.

Dont take everything literally. When God says he sent Moses as a God to the Pharaoh he does not mean he creates another God. When he calls Ephraim and Israel his first born sons, he does not mean they are his biological sons.

God does not look like anything that could be photographed or to create an image of.

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own Demut, in his own Tzelem; and he named him Seth. - Genesis 5:3

Does not mean Seth looked just like Adam.

Whoever sheds human blood, by human beings shall their blood be shed; for in the Tzelem of God has God made humankind - Genesis 9:6

What the bible means is that Humans are made to be intellectual and go by strategy and thinking, rather than going about life like animals. We have different laws and a way of life. That is why God says in Genesis 9:6 that humans are made in his image, that's why we cannot shed the blood of another human. The same word Tzelem or Picture.

When it comes to God it is not literal. Hope it is understood.

Peace.