Jews For Judaism. Christians for... what?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
weboh		#61	[-]
Posts: 57 (10/24/09 15:51:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Then God making Adam is pagan! And I doubt you would agree with that statement. And is it also pagan to believe the messengers of the G-d are also the "sons" (*aka benei) of the God? Where did they come from if not from the G-d? Did these non-human lifeforms have their own Adam and Eve?
Northland	Synagogue in the Philippines	#62	[-]
Posts: 1 (10/26/09 03:19:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	jji, There is a synagogue in Makati, my sons go there when they are in PI. Due to security issues you need to call in advance if you want to visit.
Sophiee1		#63	[-]
Posts: 12846 (10/26/09 06:03:34) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Weboh, G-d created everything from man to tsetse fly. Do you consider the tsetse fly to be the "sons of G-d"? Just curious. We are all G-d's creation, but G-d has no literal children. G-d is one, unique. "So said HaShem, the King of Israel and his Redeemer HaShem of Hosts, "I am first and I am last, and besides Me there is no G-d." סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#64	[-]
Posts: 2534 (10/26/09 07:53:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	weboh wrote: is it also pagan to believe the messengers of the G-d are also the "sons" (aka benei) of the God? How many times do we have to repeat that THERE ARE NO "SONS OF [THE] GOD" in the Torah? http://mordochai.tripod.com* - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
weboh		#65	[-]
Posts: 58 (10/26/09 08:57:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	When I speak of messengers of the G-d and sons of the G-d, usually it is not something human. And with Adam, Jman, and Eve, they are an exception (in my opinion). They were humans uniquely begotten by the G-d, and thus were 'sons' in that way; though (in my opinion) this would no longer be the case, since their human form is dead. Now since a tsetse fly is not smart enough to have a god, and is definitely made by the messengers of the G-d (in my opinion).; I would have to say no (in my opinion).. (Isn't it true that) nowhere did the HaShem say anything like or exactly wording, "Let me make tetse fly in my image own image and my own likeness"? (If my thinking is correct) humans beings are only the image of the G-d is as much as that was a plan, model or image that God had in his mind. As for being no "god" being beside him, the "greek text" doesn't say this, but agrees that he is unique and the only authenticating G-d. It agrees with a writing now a psalm that some sons of the Most High (aka sons of the most relevent thing in the universe) will die like men. Supposedly, (in my opinion). still praying to the Jman is like saying the same to God, and that he is still an intercessor. I don't agree with this, and tend to think any form of prayer tends towards idolatry by supposing the G-d as doing something which he doesn't. Prayer solves nothing. As for the greek text calling people children of the G-d, the word used is tekna which could mean any adopted children or distant relatives. Uios, then, is a singular greek word similar to the hebrew ben which means a single progeny by cause. Only Adam, Eve, and the Jman could make this claim according the Xian version of scriptures (in my opinion). (kindly remember to phrase things in the form of a question. S.) Last Edited By: Sophiee1 10/26/09 09:18:37. Edited 1 times.
Sophiee1		#66	[-]
Posts: 12847 (10/26/09 09:33:06) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	weboh wrote: When I speak of messengers of the G-d and sons of the G-d, usually it is not something human. Kindly remember to phrase things in the form of a question when discussing the T'nach (Jewish teachings). The word mal'ach (messenger) in the T'nach is used to speak of humans and non-humans, thus your interpretation that "usually it is not something human" is incorrect. A mal'ach (angel / messenger) can be a human or a non-human. weboh wrote: Adam, Jman, and Eve, they are an exception (in my opinion). They were humans uniquely begotten by the G-d, and thus were 'sons' in that way; though (in my opinion) this would no longer be the case, since their human form is dead. G-d created man (adam) from the earth -- the dirt. Man was a created being. G-d then breathed an eternal soul into man, but the form of man is a created "thing" made by G-d. How does this fit the definition of a physical child who is created from sperm and ova? I have no clue what you mean when you write "since their human form is dead." If you are speaking of the body that shows again that people are not "sons of G-d" since G-d is eternal. The physical body of man does indeed die because it is made of "dirt" or "earth" (physical. weboh wrote: Now since a tsetse fly is not smart enough to have a god, and is definitely made by the messengers of the G-d (in my opinion). G-d created everything, including the tsetse fly. He is as much the G-d of the tsetse fly as He is the G-d of man. Messengers (human or angelic) did not create the tsetse fly. I have no idea why you so definitively think messengers made anything! weboh wrote: (Isn't it true that) nowhere did the HaShem say anything like or exactly wording, "Let me make tetse fly in my image own image and my own likeness"? (If my thinking is correct) humans beings are only the image of the G-d. . What do you suppose "in the image of G-d" MEANS? weboh wrote: Prayer solves nothing. Tefillah, teshuva, and tsedaqah solve everything. Prayer, not so much. weboh wrote: As for the greek text calling people children of the G-d, the word used is tekna which could mean any adopted children or distant relatives. Uios, then, is a singular greek word similar to the hebrew ben which means a single progeny by cause. Only Adam, Eve, and the Jman could make this claim according the Xian version of scriptures (in my opinion). I'm sure you already know that we really don't care WHAT the GT says. The Torah makes it clear that G-d is unique and one, and that we are His creation. Every human being ever born (or created as in the case of Adam and Chava) are His creation, whether by sexual creation from generation to generation or as He created the first man. We're all the same. Each of us, in that sense, are the sons and daughters of G-d, but none of us are his biological (for want of a better term) children. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: UriYosef 10/27/09 21:48:24. Edited 2 times.
ProfBenTziyyon		#67	[-]
Posts: 2535 (10/26/09 10:55:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	weboh wrote: with Adam, Jman, and Eve, they are an exception.... How does the J-man come to be interposed between the אָדָם (Adam) and חַוָּה (Ḥavvah)? Almost 4,000 years intervene between them and him (if he even existed, which is a very BIG "if"). http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
weboh		#68	[-]
Posts: 59 (10/26/09 14:51:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee1 wrote: weboh wrote: When I speak of messengers of the G-d and sons of the G-d, usually it is not something human. Kindly remember to phrase things in the form of a question when discussing the T'nach (Jewish teachings). The word mal'ach (messenger) in the T'nach is used to speak of humans and non-humans, thus your interpretation that "usually it is not something human" is incorrect. A mal'ach (angel / messenger) can be a human or a non-human. (To the best of my knowledge) I have not seen an instance where messenger of the G-d and human are synomous. And the greek word means the same thing. weboh wrote: Adam, Jman, and Eve, they are an exception (in my opinion). They were humans uniquely begotten by the G-d, and thus were 'sons' in that way; though (in my opinion) this would no longer be the case, since their human form is dead. G-d created man (adam) from the earth -- the dirt. Man was a created being. G-d then breathed an eternal soul into man, but the form of man is a created "thing" made by G-d. How does this fit the definition of a physical child who is created from sperm and ova? (If) adam is a son of God, (then why would it be) idolatry for the G-d to have a greek word uios, or heb. ben, or aramaic sing. bar. I have no clue what you mean when you write "since their human form is dead." If you are speaking of the body that shows again that people are not "sons of G-d" since G-d is eternal. The physical body of man does indeed die because it is made of "dirt" or "earth" (physical. No spirit/mind survives without body or without God's effort. weboh wrote: Now since a tsetse fly is not smart enough to have a god, and is definitely made by the messengers of the G-d (in my opinion). G-d created everything, including the tsetse fly. He is as much the G-d of the tsetse fly as He is the G-d of man. (To the best of my knowledge) the definition of heb. ben probably doesn't include lower life forms. Messengers (human or angelic) did not create the tsetse fly. I have no idea why you so definitively think messengers made anything! The implication of their involvement is there, but isn't as strong as I thought, and only the beasts of the field are said to have been made after the Adam. My memory was bad. weboh wrote: (Isn't it true that) nowhere did the HaShem say anything like or exactly wording, "Let me make tetse fly in my image own image and my own likeness"? (If my thinking is correct) humans beings are only the image of the G-d. . What do you suppose "in the image of G-d" MEANS? An image that G-d had in mind. ?? weboh wrote: Prayer solves nothing. Tefillah, teshuva, and tsedaqah solve everything. Prayer, not so much. (In my opinion) Prayer solves nothing; and it is up to any theist to prove that it does. weboh wrote: As for the greek text calling people children of the G-d, the word used is tekna which could mean any adopted children or distant relatives. Uios, then, is a singular greek word similar to the hebrew ben which means a single progeny by cause. Only Adam, Eve, and the Jman could make this claim according the Xian version of scriptures (in my opinion). I'm sure you already know that we really don't care WHAT the GT says. The Torah makes it clear that G-d is unique and one, and that we are His creation. Every human being ever born (or created as in the case of Adam and Chava) are His creation, whether by sexual creation from generation to generation or as He created the first man. We're all the same. Each of us, in that sense, are the sons and daughters of G-d, but none of us are his biological (for want of a better term) children. I would only think that only Muslims are afraid of it being biological. Trinitarians/Binatarians(aka "Oneness") imagine a supernatural substance which does not exist. ProfBenTziyyon: How does the J-man come to be interposed between the אָדָם (Adam) and חַוָּה (Ḥavvah)? Almost 4,000 years intervene between them and him (if he even existed, which is a very BIG "if"). Weboh: No big ifs, here, if the G-d is the direct cause of all three human beings. Then there are 3 (heb. benei). And as for there being sons of the G-d. Gen_6:2 ; Gen_6:4; Job_1:6; Job_2:1; Job_38:7 and Psalm 82:6. I don't see any need to persist here. Weboh: Remember that Messiah Truth is not a religious debate forum. We are a teaching forum. You are entitled to your erroneous ideas, but not entitled to present them as "factual" to others here. I have edited this post to reflect that your answers are your opinion I will release the post and then respond to it. I will no longer edit future posts that don't comply with the forum rules This post also violated the forum rules of showing respect to others. If you want to have your posts released then follow the forum rules. Hope you understand the rules of the forum. Last Edited By: UriYosef 10/27/09 21:50:24. Edited 2 times.
jji		#69	[-]
Posts: 7 (10/26/09 20:11:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Northland wrote: jji, There is a synagogue in Makati, my sons go there when they are in PI. Due to security issues you need to call in advance if you want to visit. how do i contact them through email, I am from Cebu City. If my memory serves me right, I did seem some Jews here but that was years ago I do not know if they have a synagogue here in Cebu, hmmm.... that which reminds me my friend's boss is a Jew and their office is also in Makati and so is the Israeli Emabassy in the same building, I'll give him a call later tonight after work maybe he can get some info. Thanks.
Sophiee1		#70	[-]
Posts: 12850 (10/26/09 21:27:35) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	weboh wrote: Sophiee1 wrote: The word mal'ach (messenger) in the T'nach is used to speak of humans and non-humans, thus your interpretation that "usually it is not something human" is incorrect. A mal'ach (angel / messenger) can be a human or a non-human. (To the best of my knowledge) I have not seen an instance where messenger of the G-d and human are synomous. And the greek word means the same thing. This is why we have the rule about non-Jews not teaching Judaism. Your understanding is incorrect. There are many instances where מַלְאָךְ (ma'alach) is used to describe a human messenger in the T'nach. Try 1 Kings 19:2, 1 Kings 19:5, and over 200 other times in the T'nach. And again: we don't CARE what hte Greek word means. As I explained in my last response to you we are all the children of G-d. G-d created us (he did not give birth to us as pagan gods gave birth to demi-gods, generally by having sex with human women -- gee where have I heard a story like that before? ) G-d created Adam: Let us make man (Genesis 1:26) Make. Not "give birth." G-d formed man out of dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils a ruach (breath / soul) of life. Genesis 2:7 Your theology of Adam, Chava and Jsus as being somehow different from the rest of mankind and somehow being the physical offspring of G-d have absolutely no foundation in the Jewish bible and is pagan. I take it you are somehow fixated on misreading Genesis 3:15 (although you haven't mentioned it). Feel free to ask questions about it because your concept is incorrect and unsupported by the T'nach. Man, like all other animal life forms, has a life force (nefesh) which keeps the physical body alive. This is what G-d made out of the dust, out of earth. It dies and it is not eternal. בצלמנו is what is generally translated as "in our image" it really means a shape or design (think pattern). This again harkens to creating something (like using a dress pattern to help cut out a design for a dress -- the pattern is used to create but it isn't the creator, someone had to make the pattern). So one wouldn't call a pattern, or the thing created from that pattern, as a child of the designer would they? Weboh wrote: No spirit/mind survives without body Wrong. Man has an eternal soul and the soul lives on after the body dies. Again your theology has no basis in the Jewish bible. Weboh wrote: (In my opinion) Prayer solves nothing; and it is up to any theist to prove that it does. Tefillah, Teshuva (communicating with G-d and turning to G-d), and Tsedaqah (charitable deeds) are shown throughout the T'nach to be the way to atone for sins and to move closer to G-d. The term "son of man" (ben adam and ben enosh) are often used to speak of human beings -- including Adam and every other human male every born. Adam, BTW, is never referred to as a "son of man" or a "son of G-d." You are projecting your theology without supporting it. The references you gave the Professor are based on mistranslations BTW. Genesis 6:2 doesn't say "sons of G-d" - this is a mistranslation. The text says "sons of elohim" which should translate to "sons of noble humans" (as in lords or masters). From Judaica Press: That the sons of the nobles Genesis 6:2 Genesis 6:4 isn't speaking of G-d either, but rather of the Nephilim who were very large humans who were on the earth "in those days." Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer , ch.22 and Targum Yonathan. There is zero reason for you to "persist" as you are totally incorrect. If you have questions ask them. As I mentioned when I edited your last post there are rules on this forum against non-Jews teaching Judaism. I have now edited two of your posts. I won't do it a third time. Feel free to ask questions, but if you insist on posting your own theology as if it were fact here at Messiah Truth I will not release your posts. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: UriYosef 10/27/09 21:52:17. Edited 1 times.
jji		#71	[-]
Posts: 8 (10/26/09 21:48:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee1 wrote: Let us make man (Genesis 1:26) A quick question the word 'us'; why was it said that way, because that word alone makes Xians think that G-d is more than one?
ProfBenTziyyon		#72	[-]
Posts: 2538 (10/26/09 22:14:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	weboh wrote: as for there being sons of the G-d. Gen_6:2 Once again a christian makes the mistake of quoting "Genesis" and thinking that a pagan translation can accurately reflect what the Hebrew original says.... the word הָאֱלֹהִים ha'elohim no more means "God" in B'réshιt 6:2 and 6:4 than it does in Sh'mot 21:6 and 22:7. א. וַֽיְּהִי֙ כִּֽי־הֵחֵ֣ל הָֽאָדָ֔ם לָרֹ֖ב עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וּבָנ֖וֹת יֻלְּד֥וּ לָהֶֽם׃ ב. וַיִּרְא֤וּ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֥י טֹבֹ֖ת הֵ֑נָּה וַיִּקְח֤וּ לָהֶם֙ נָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּחָֽרוּ׃ ג. וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְיָ֗ לֹֽא־יָד֨וֹן רוּחִ֤י בָֽאָדָם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ם בְּשַׁגַּ֖ם הוּא בָשָׂ֑ר וְהָי֣וּ יָמָ֔יו מֵאָ֥ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים שָׁנָֽה׃ ד. הַנְּפִלִ֞ים הָי֣וּ בָאָ֘רֶץ֘ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵם֒ וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָֽלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵֽעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם׃ ¹When Mankind began to increase in numbers and spread throughout the World, daughters were born to them; ²and when the sons of the rulers saw that the daughters of the common people were real cute, they took [by force] whichever of them they wanted as their wives. ³Then Adonai said, "I will not allow My Nature to struggle within Me indefinitely because of Mankind − after all, he is mortal − I will allow him another 120 years". ⁴(There were n'filim in the world at that time, and also afterwards.) So the sons of the rulers slept with with the daughters of the common people and they gave birth to their children; these were the famous mighty men of old [or, "ancient mighty ones, the men of devastation"]. (B'réshιt 6:1-4) http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל Last Edited By: ProfBenTziyyon 10/26/09 23:35:43. Edited 2 times.
Sophiee1		#73	[-]
Posts: 12851 (10/27/09 05:44:53) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	jji wrote: Sophiee1 wrote: Let us make man (Genesis 1:26) A quick question the word 'us'; why was it said that way, because that word alone makes Xians think that G-d is more than one? There are two schools of thought. G-d was either including the heavenly court in the "conversation" when He says 'us' or He was using the royal "we (similar to when Queen Elizabeth II speaks of herself as "we" because she stands for the United Kingdom). The very next line (1:27) makes it clear that G-d is singular: Genesis 1:27. And G-d created man in His image; in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them. His not "ours." סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
Sophiee1		#74	[-]
Posts: 12852 (10/27/09 05:47:27) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	ProfBenTziyyon wrote: Sh'mot 21:6 and 22:7. א. וַֽיְּהִי֙ כִּֽי־הֵחֵ֣ל הָֽאָדָ֔ם לָרֹ֖ב עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וּבָנ֖וֹת יֻלְּד֥וּ לָהֶֽם׃ ב. וַיִּרְא֤וּ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֥י טֹבֹ֖ת הֵ֑נָּה וַיִּקְח֤וּ לָהֶם֙ נָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּחָֽרוּ׃ ג. וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְיָ֗ לֹֽא־יָד֨וֹן רוּחִ֤י בָֽאָדָם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ם בְּשַׁגַּ֖ם הוּא בָשָׂ֑ר וְהָי֣וּ יָמָ֔יו מֵאָ֥ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים שָׁנָֽה׃ ד. הַנְּפִלִ֞ים הָי֣וּ בָאָ֘רֶץ֘ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵם֒ וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָֽלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵֽעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם׃ ¹When Mankind began to increase in numbers and spread throughout the World, daughters were born to them; ²and when the sons of the rulers saw that the daughters of the common people were real cute, they took [by force] whichever of them they wanted as their wives. ³Then Adonai said, "I will not allow My Nature to struggle within Me indefinitely because of Mankind − after all, he is mortal − I will allow him another 120 years". ⁴(There were n'filim in the world at that time, and also afterwards.) So the sons of the rulers slept with with the daughters of the common people and they gave birth to their children; these were the famous mighty men of old [or, "ancient mighty ones, the men of devastation"]. (B'réshιt 6:1-4) It was the custom in many countries that the "ruling class" (e.g., lords, dukes, princes, etc.) had the right to deflower a bride on her wedding night -- against the wishes of her husband (her own wishes were not important). I'm sure Mordochai is familiar with history, but hopefully that is edification for others. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#75	[-]
Posts: 2542 (10/27/09 07:35:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee1 wrote: It was the custom in many countries that the "ruling class" (e.g., lords, dukes, princes, etc.) had the right to deflower a bride on her wedding night.... This practice was known as the jus primae noctis (Latin, "right of the first night"), or the droit du seigneur (French, "the lord's right"). Totally barbaric; it forms the basis of Mozart's comic opera The Marriage of Figaro. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Netanel		#76	[-]
Posts: 1811 (10/27/09 08:48:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	weboh, How do you arrive at your belief that the bnei elohim mentioned in B'reshit 6:2 are "sons of God," when B'reshit 6:5 explicitly, unambiguously places blame for the aforementioned atrocities on ha-adam (mankind)? How is it that mal'achim (angels) descend to earth, have their way with whomever they please among mankind, and yet in none of the verses that follow does God makes mention of them having committed any crime, let alone punishing them for their crimes? In response to the crimes of the bnei elohim referenced in the first two verses we immediately see that it is mankind who is blamed. It is because of mankind that God resolves to destroy the world and everything in it. From man to cattle to creeping thing to fowl of the sky save those chosen to survive in the ark. After all, it is man who was given rule over all of these things (B'reshit 1:29-31) But no angels. Not even a passing mention of a punishment for angels for their heinous deeds. The only conclusion is that the bnei elohim referenced here are men themselves. Men who used their powerful positions for corruption. You have heard the phrase, "with great power comes great responsibility," correct? This "chapter" epitomizes that statement. These men had great power, and rather than use it for justice, they used it to commit crimes against their fellow man, and to perpetrate lawlessness to their benefit. Otherwise what you have is mankind being destroyed for the crimes of angels. This interpretation completely tears those two references to bnei elohim out of their context. Such an interpretation is completely disconnected from the context these two references appear in.
weboh		#77	[-]
Posts: 61 (10/27/09 14:26:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Netanel wrote: Otherwise what you have is mankind being destroyed for the crimes of angels. Following the nefilim was punishable by death, because all the nefilim ever taught mankind was violence. And strangely, I read their punishment to be 2000 years later as in Psalm 82:6 and only verses of 5-8 of the psalm mentions the disobedient sons of the G-d. BTW, I think my posts need to be put in a different thread in the counter-missionary discussion forum. This is a forum I do not usually use. Jewish (being non-Israelite) tradition seems not to agree with me. I doubt the verses in the beginning of Job those about the sons of the G-d have affected other Jewish denominations. So basicly, I can't divulge anything else without consulting and quoting the greek text.
jji		#78	[-]
Posts: 9 (10/27/09 19:18:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	thanks Sophiee1, just wanted to clarify that, and this should also help me arm myself when I start telling people why I left xianity.
Sophiee1		#79	[-]
Posts: 12857 (10/27/09 19:25:48) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Netanel, if you wish I'll release the post as it is directed to you, but Weboh continues to post in violation of the rules. The rules are simple enough. Weboh has the option of editing his posts and is choosing not to do so. I have released Weboh's post out of consideration for you. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 10/27/09 19:44:32. Edited 1 times.
Netanel		#80	[-]
Posts: 1813 (10/27/09 22:10:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Following the nefilim was punishable by death, because all the nefilim ever taught mankind was violence. Where is this claim supported? Certainly not in the Torah where this account is written. And for the record, the actual account makes clear that the n'filim were already on the earth in those days, when the crimes commited by the bnei elohim are described as taking place. And strangely, I read their punishment to be 2000 years later as in Psalm 82:6 and only verses of 5-8 of the psalm mentions the disobedient sons of the G-d. BTW, I think my posts need to be put in a different thread in the counter-missionary discussion forum. This is a forum I do not usually use. There is no basis for that claim, much as there is no basis for the claim regarding B'reshit 6. Psalm 82 is not disconnected. Yet you seem to be implying that it is about one thing for various verses, then suddenly becomes about "fallen angels" in two verses. The Psalm clearly speaks of humans subject to human frailties. Jewish (being non-Israelite) tradition seems not to agree with me. I doubt the verses in the beginning of Job those about the sons of the G-d have affected other Jewish denominations. So basicly, I can't divulge anything else without consulting and quoting the greek text. Non-Israelite? We've never ceased being Bnei Yisraél. What a foolish thing to say. The fallen angel thing is not unique, and it certain is no ancient Israelite tradition. Such stories were made up during the Greek occupation of Eretz Yisraél before the common era. You can't support your beliefs with the Torah, because they are foreign to the Torah. The same goes for concepts such as the virgin birth. Never in 2,000 years of Jewish history preceding the Greek occupation did virgin birth via a god ever show up in Jewish belief. Only under the influence of the Hellenistic Greeks and Romans did this get falsely projected onto our scriptures. There is no point for you to bother responding to me if it does not actually answer my questions. Man is explicitly blamed and punished for the crimes attributed to the bnei elohim. Mal'achim are never once mentioned, nor accused of a crime, nor punished for them. Only by reading into the text what is not actually there do you come to those conclusions. So I will ask one more time, and if your response does not contain an answer then you perhaps might consider not wasting any more of your or our time. How do you justify transferring what is clearly human crimes to otherwise un-mentioned angels, in contradiction to the Torah's explicit account of the matter?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Jews For Judaism. Christians for... what?

Quick Reply