But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

[Lunitik]

It is said that philosophy or the "love of wisdom" was an offshoot of the worship of Ahura Mazda the "Lord of Wisdom." And involving the ego is the American way.

Ego is the notion of "I" which is in all humans, the false self, although I am unsure exactly what Zarathustra would have called it. It is that which must be burned for the divine light to shine.

You have utterly missed my point, however, because you have insisted on pushing Zarathushtrianism further. I tell you no form matters, it is the state they are expressing which we must understand. The form is dead, as all form is transient, if Ahura Mazda is the non-transient then again we are discussing the same as Brahman, Dharmakaya, the Holy Spirit et al... names are human convention, truth is beyond that.

Seek truth, do not cling to your notions.

 

[mojobadshah]

Ego is the notion of "I" which is in all humans, the false self, although I am unsure exactly what Zarathustra would have called it. It is that which must be burned for the divine light to shine.

This processes sounds very Sufi like and Sufism was an offshoot of Zarathushtrianism. The closest thing I can think of to this destruction of the self or ego is the cosmic battle between good an evil, itself, described in the Zarathushtrian religion which draws parallels to the Ijtihad in Islam and Sufism. A sort of flushing out the lie or the bad. Could seeking the kingdom of heaven within described in Christianity be tied to the concept this destruction of the ego?

You have utterly missed my point, however, because you have insisted on pushing Zarathushtrianism further. I tell you no form matters, it is the state they are expressing which we must understand. The form is dead, as all form is transient, if Ahura Mazda is the non-transient then again we are discussing the same as Brahman, Dharmakaya, the Holy Spirit et al... names are human convention, truth is beyond that.

Seek truth, do not cling to your notions.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you that we are discussing the same thing as Brahman. Outside of the monotheistic context yes, but within the monotheistic context Ahura Mazda draws much closer parallels to the God of Christianity, Islam, and even Judaism. I don't know if I've utterly missed your point. I myself have been through several mental evolutions in my life and in the processes there is no doubt that a part of me died the more and more I learned about the Zarathushtrian religion and Aryan culture on the whole. I'm not the one with the ego. I'm the one who has walked the road less traveled and has come to accept a truth that the vast majority of the world has either not been exposed to or refuses to acknowledge because their egos are more important to them than what is true, just, and right.

 

[Ben Masada]

It's more or less what I had been talking about up to that post -- but perhaps I didn't make that clear.

The religion of Jesus (Christianity) has more or less been a religion for the Gentiles. Jesus' mission was to recruit followers among his own people who would then go out into the rest of the Roman Empire to preach to Gentiles.

Just like Jonah preached to the people of Nineveh, Jesus' followers would preach to the Gentiles in the rest of the Roman Empire. This is where Jesus' mission matches that of Jonah's -- his mission was to preach to a large group of Gentiles, tell them about the "God who made everything" and get them to repent of their sins. One difference, however, was the scale of the mission. Jesus' mission was to recruit people to preach to the whole world, rather than just one city.

This was the sign of Jonah. Just like the people of Nineveh repented, the Gentiles in the whole world have been repenting for 2,000 years.

I beg to disagree with you Saltmeister, the religion of Jesus was not Christianity. Jesus was a Jewish man whose Faith was Judaism. He really never had anything to do with Christianity which arose about 35 years after he had been gone. The founder of it was Paul in the city of Antioch, where, after a whole year preaching about Jesus as Christ, his followers started being called Christians for the first time. (Acts 11:26)

And if Jesus' mission was to recruit followers to preach his gospel to the Gentiles, why would he forbid them not to take the gospel to the Gentiles and not even enter a Samaritan town? That's odd to say the least. (Mat. 10:5,6)
Ben

 

[Princely]

Ego is the notion of "I" which is in all humans, the false self, although I am unsure exactly what Zarathustra would have called it. It is that which must be burned for the divine light to shine.

You have utterly missed my point, however, because you have insisted on pushing Zarathushtrianism further. I tell you no form matters, it is the state they are expressing which we must understand. The form is dead, as all form is transient, if Ahura Mazda is the non-transient then again we are discussing the same as Brahman, Dharmakaya, the Holy Spirit et al... names are human convention, truth is beyond that.

Seek truth, do not cling to your notions.

Yes, seek the Lord, and seek truth. The word of the Lord is truth.

"Speak the truth to one another, judge justly, and let honesty and peace be at your gate" says the Lord.

 

[Dream]

"Speak the truth to one another, judge justly, and let honesty and peace be at your gate" says the Lord.

To one another and in general, except when it is necessary not to do so, apparently. Sometimes one ethical dilemma trumps another, and to me it appears that even the 'Lord' recognizes this when he says

21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’

22“‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.

“‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’

So honesty and peace is one gate; but there are other gates, too. (According to an absolute fundamentalist interpretation of the above passage.) Often two things both appear to be the right thing to do, yet they conflict. Doing the right thing isn't always obvious and can require skill. Can you count upon the Lord being honest with you at all times? I guess you can't, not that the Lord is a liar but apparently the concept of honesty is more than just a matter of words. I believe that to get a better understanding of the whole picture of honesty in the Bible you need to stick closely to the original language and cultural idioms but also the purpose of goodness. While truth in words is admirable when its possible, it isn't the end goal of communication. On the other hand, there are probably other ways of looking at it.

 

[Princely]

To one another and in general, except when it is necessary not to do so, apparently. Sometimes one ethical dilemma trumps another, and to me it appears that even the 'Lord' recognizes this when he says So honesty and peace is one gate; but there are other gates, too. (According to an absolute fundamentalist interpretation of the above passage.) Often two things both appear to be the right thing to do, yet they conflict. Doing the right thing isn't always obvious and can require skill. Can you count upon the Lord being honest with you at all times? I guess you can't, not that the Lord is a liar but apparently the concept of honesty is more than just a matter of words. I believe that to get a better understanding of the whole picture of honesty in the Bible you need to stick closely to the original language and cultural idioms but also the purpose of goodness. While truth in words is admirable when its possible, it isn't the end goal of communication. On the other hand, there are probably other ways of looking at it.

The unfaithful will have no understanding but the wise will have it.

"They shall be my people and I shall be their God with faithfulness and justice" says the Lord

"Call upon me and I will answer you, I will show you great things beyond your knowledge".

"Who has stood in the council of the Lord to see Him and to hear His words, who has heeded His words so as to announce them?"

"The Lord God does nothing without revealing His plans to His servants the prophets."

 

[Dream]

The Lord does nothing without revealing his plans to his prophets? I can think of two examples right in the Bible. You must be quoting this outside of its context. Look at how the 'Lord' deceived Jacob upon his deathbed, how the 'Lord' hid from Elisha why the woman was coming to see him. Jesus himself is quoted as saying that he simply doesn't know certain things that only the Father knows.

Notice that when the Lord speaks it is with a purpose, rather than merely making sounds. If it causes someone to be deceived, then that was part of what it was sent to do. Hence, people have been deceived by the Lord at times. Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

"Who has stood in the council of the Lord to see Him and to hear His words, who has heeded His words so as to announce them?"

Its a rhetorical question. 'Nobody'.

"They shall be my people and I shall be their God with faithfulness and justice" says the Lord

Totally mangled it. In this verse faithfulness and justice are the Lord's co-rulers, like a triumvirate, roughly. Yes, there is honesty but of a higher variety. It is an honestly that people cannot obtain and goes beyond words. You can try to imitate it by speaking plainly, but you're still not honest in comparison. It isn't about words but about principles; and this would be more plain if you hadn't dragged the verse so far from home that its like a chicken in Antarctica.

 

[Princely]

The Lord does nothing without revealing his plans to his prophets? I can think of two examples right in the Bible. You must be quoting this outside of its context. Look at how the 'Lord' deceived Jacob upon his deathbed, how the 'Lord' hid from Elisha why the woman was coming to see him. Jesus himself is quoted as saying that he simply doesn't know certain things that only the Father knows.

Notice that when the Lord speaks it is with a purpose, rather than merely making sounds. If it causes someone to be deceived, then that was part of what it was sent to do. Hence, people have been deceived by the Lord at times. Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Its a rhetorical question. 'Nobody'.

Totally mangled it. In this verse faithfulness and justice are the Lord's co-rulers, like a triumvirate, roughly. Yes, there is honesty but of a higher variety. It is an honestly that people cannot obtain and goes beyond words. You can try to imitate it by speaking plainly, but you're still not honest in comparison. It isn't about words but about principles; and this would be more plain if you hadn't dragged the verse so far from home that its like a chicken in Antarctica.

Anyone who is not willing to pick up their cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.

You fail to understand scripture and the power of God because you do not believe in the One whom He has sent.

 

[Dream]

You fail to understand scripture and the power of God because you do not believe in the One whom He has sent.

I believe that I posted this post shortly before you appeared on the site to force feed it back to me. I do understand in the main, despite not believing you. I only hope to have informative conversations that my millions of fans can benefit from. You do not percieve all of my millions of fans because you have not received my claim that I have them.

Anyone who is not willing to pick up their cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.

The contrapositive of that says that anyone who is willing to pick up their cross and follow after you is worthy of you. Well, I am perfectly willing; but there are just other considerations holding me back. Hence I am worthy, so it isn't a matter of worth.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Lord does nothing without revealing his plans to his prophets? I can think of two examples right in the Bible. You must be quoting this outside of its context. Look at how the 'Lord' deceived Jacob upon his deathbed, how the 'Lord' hid from Elisha why the woman was coming to see him. Jesus himself is quoted as saying that he simply doesn't know certain things that only the Father knows.

Notice that when the Lord speaks it is with a purpose, rather than merely making sounds. If it causes someone to be deceived, then that was part of what it was sent to do. Hence, people have been deceived by the Lord at times. Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Its a rhetorical question. 'Nobody'.

Totally mangled it. In this verse faithfulness and justice are the Lord's co-rulers, like a triumvirate, roughly. Yes, there is honesty but of a higher variety. It is an honestly that people cannot obtain and goes beyond words. You can try to imitate it by speaking plainly, but you're still not honest in comparison. It isn't about words but about principles; and this would be more plain if you hadn't dragged the verse so far from home that its like a chicken in Antarctica.

And how does God reveal His plans to His prophets? It is in Numbers 12:6:
By means of dreams and visions. That's how.
Ben

 

[Dream]

Corrections: In the above posts it was not Jacob on his deathbed but Isaac near death who was deceived. Additionally I did not use the contra-positive properly. All of this is really moot.

 

[Ben Masada]

Corrections: In the above posts it was not Jacob on his deathbed but Isaac near death who was deceived. Additionally I did not use the contra-positive properly. All of this is really moot.

The Lord did not deceive Isaac. This was deceiving himself with his preference for Esau whom God had rejected and chosen Jacob. The deceit was indirectly done by Jacob on the instructions of his mother Rebeca who was trying to fix a mistake which was in the process to be made. Rebeca, by some kind of intuition, was aware that Jacob rather than Esau was the son of the promise. Isaac was neglecting that reality because of his partenal partiality. He loved Esau more.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

I would point out that Freud made the point that male circumcision was an Egyptian rite, or practice. He had read Herodotus on the subject and I should think that, even now, no Egyptologist worth his or her salt could be an Egyptologist without a working knowledge of Herodotus, one of Egypt’s eye-witnesses and a so called ‘father of history.’ I also notice that this point of circumcision as having been practiced by some Egyptians was, before Freud, made by Hegel in his Philosophy of History. Whatever else might be said of them, those Prussians and Germans were an inordinately erudite lot.

i'm not saying that the egyptians didn't circumcise, actually - but just because the egyptians did doesn't mean that we got it from them.

The question Freud tried to answer, even if not to everybody’s satisfaction, was why Moses had instituted an Egyptian practice of male circumcision among the Israelites. Being, as he was, a rationalist, I think the fact that the practice predated the Exodus was convincing enough to him that it did not originate with the Israelites. As I recall having heard, Freud’s friend, Otto Rank, was also busy observing the similarities between Moses and Sargon in his published works (which I have not read).

Anyway, all of that for the moment aside, the reason I brought Freud into this discussion was in response to Ben’s contention; I claim that what can be said of Christianity and Islam -that they draw from (or, less charitably, even despoil) Judaism can be and has been said of Judaism (vis-a-vis other religions) as well. It seems to me that most religions, when traced, are to some extent syncretic, Judaism not excepted.

If one is reluctant to accept Freud’s controversial theses, and this I understand, please consider that Maimonides, in his Guide, says something similar, but in this case about animal sacrifice rather than male circumcision. As I read him, he argues that the practice of ritual, blood sacrifice was “borrowed” from pagan, or neighboring, sources and that the God of Israel, not wanting to wean the Israelites too radically of their preferences, permitted the practice, modified it, and allowed it to continue until such time as a purer form of worship could be realized. (I am not quite sure when that is supposed to be, given that, according to many ultra-Orthodox, the Messiah of Judaism is going to reinstitute the practice once the Temple is rebuilt.)

He [Freud] may not have been dispassionate, but self-conscious, articulate and even passionate apostates from any given religion are sometimes well worth reading.

agreed - but ignorant ones are not.

In case you are implying it, I still do not associate the word ignorant with Sigmund Freud -mistaken, perhaps, but by no means ignorant.

With his [Maimonides’] reference to Esau, I think it is safe to conclude that Maimonides is relying upon Jewish rather than Christian historians for his information. Do you think that a safe conclusion?

not especially. the use of "esau" to denote the romans and, consequently, the succeeding christian roman empire is another generalised phrase. the first ever jewish "historian" per se was josephus, but he was not generally read by jewish religious sources; history would not have been of much interest.

Allow me, then, to rephrase the question. From Heinrich Graetz and backwards, I have not known Jewish historians recording Jewish history to rely upon Christians (or anybody else) for the record of events as they transpired. Therefore, given that Maimonides, a by definition reflective historian according to Hegel, says, in his Epistle, that Jewish sages first tried and then convicted Jesus (op cit), is it safe to conclude that, in writing this, he drew upon Jewish rather than Christian sources for his knowledge of the events?

spinoza is incorrect. you might want to consider his context as a recently-reconverted marrano discovering the "small print" for the first time.

Thank you. Be assured that I was considering the statement in context. That is why I find it in some ways as poignant as it is in others amusing. “My yoke is easy and my burden is light,” Jesus is said to have said, and, in contrast, I have an image of Spinoza, like Prometheus, being bound, but this time by phylacteries and the full weight of the Law –by the "small print," as it were.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Dream]

I now understand. The Lord was not implicated, but the conversation has outgrown itself.

 

[Ben Masada]

I now understand. The Lord was not implicated, but the conversation has outgrown itself.

I beg your pardon! I failed to understand what you mean above. I would appreciate if you made it a little clearer.
Ben

 

[Dream]

I would appreciate if you made it a little clearer.
Ben

I actually don't follow your reasoning about self deceit, but one consideration is that I was assuming some things. I haven't heard the traditional story. From what you have said, the Lord is not considered to have been in on the deceit, and that is good enough to stop arguing about it. Its not my book you know.

I got to thinking about what it would mean if the Lord were not in on the deceit. For some reason Isaac thought his blessing would stick like glue.(27:33) Originally I assumed that the Lord magically enforced the blessing -- otherwise what would keep Isaac from annulling it? That is why I thought the Lord was involved. Isaac thought that he was blessing Ishmael, so to my mind that made it an empty action without something else causing it to hold solidly. I have now imagined there could be something else making the blessing hold firm. Perhaps it was a public contract, and perhaps the kings in those days would go about killing contract breakers as part of their public service? The bottom line is that the Lord didn't deceive Isaac, and just because I don't know exactly how everything happened doesn't make it otherwise.

 

[bananabrain]

sorry, i've been too busy to respond to this, but:

See verse 16. "The Lord will save me from the power of sheol," which means death. Therefore, what I said stands.

no. no, i don't see that at all. you are taking a very narrow interpretation ("temporary escape from death") which is not at all warranted by psalms 49:15, nor can i agree that this backs up your argument about sheol='olam ha-ba, which i find strains credulity.

I don't know wherefrom you got "and afterwards among the dead."

seems to me that this is the significance of the hebrew "WeAHaRUW".

Only Christian sages disagree with me. I don't find disagreement in our sages. Unless you take them literally for what they say.

why should you imagine that they do not believe literally in 'olam ha-ba, when this belief has continued to this day unchallenged by the rishonim or aharonim? i am astonished that you think this is the position of the sages.

Are you suggesting that I should not listen to the Scriptures but to the midrashim of the sages? That's a no no.

i'm not suggesting that. i'm suggesting that the scriptures do not support your point of view and i'm suggesting that the sages also disagree with it; my point of view is in accord with theirs.

And I do agree with the sage's midrashim but not on a literal basis.

well that is what midrash is for, but it doesn't get past the fact that she'ol does not mean 'olam ha-ba and never has done according to any source i have seen to date.

The term "neshamah" for the breath of life which returns to God Who gave it is nothing more than an embellishment.

dude, *everything* to do with souls is speculative, which means that one is entitled to take any reasonable view. i'm simply pointing out one view of this which i find to be both logical and compelling.

Neshamah here means breath of life and nothing else.

again, you're being categorical when you have absolutely no reason to suppose this is possible.

And the idea to return for another gilgul is absolutely inappropriate. Even if you believe in the Christian resurrection of the dead you will be in trouble to explain it vis-a-vis gilgul.

who's talking about the christian resurrection of the dead? and how exactly is this "inappropriate"? are you an expert in soul transmigration theory? i don't claim that for myself, but i am certainly familiar with a number of possibilities.

Here you should wait till the fat lady sings before shouting vitory if you haven't yet read the Rambam's "Guide for the Perplexed". Good luck!

hah! i don't think *anyone* should claim victory based on the guide. i'm not unfamiliar with it, but you should hardly rush to it as a statement of normative jewish thought, even if you understand it extraordinarily well. it is a highly ambiguous text. if you want to bring me some sources from it, we can discuss it, but i think, once again, you are being awfully quick to dismiss any other possibility but your own point of view.

The most hurtful thing about all of this is that the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) were the first monotheists and they saved the Jews, and the were at war with the Romans, and thousands of years later both the Jews and the Romans in so many words stole their religion, and blah blah blah blah

aside from the fact that this is utter nonsense, do you have any other point, ever, to make, in any discussion? suppose for the sake of argument we all say, yes, mojobadshah, you're right, we all stole everything we know from the "aryans", do you have anything, at all, else to add? because you have flogged this idea to death and it's getting really, really boring, quite apart from the fact that i don't think anyone is convinced.

The question Freud tried to answer, even if not to everybody’s satisfaction, was why Moses had instituted an Egyptian practice of male circumcision among the Israelites. Being, as he was, a rationalist, I think the fact that the practice predated the Exodus was convincing enough to him that it did not originate with the Israelites.

but unfortunately, this is the same sort of approach that ends up concluding that because the mayans also had pyramids, they must have known the egyptians. convergent evolution, i think, explains it rather better. do the egyptians ever say *why* they circumcise? because we certainly do, although i think it's much later on.

Anyway, all of that for the moment aside, the reason I brought Freud into this discussion was in response to Ben’s contention; I claim that what can be said of Christianity and Islam -that they draw from (or, less charitably, even despoil) Judaism can be and has been said of Judaism (vis-a-vis other religions) as well. It seems to me that most religions, when traced, are to some extent syncretic, Judaism not excepted.

and, if you ask me, i don't think that's horribly controversial, except until one starts to be categorical about a) what definitely happened and b) what the significance of it is. for example, we are not especially disturbed by the idea that we picked various bits of stuff around concepts and practice up in egypt, mesopotamia, persia etc, but more by the implications of what we might conclude as a result. examples of the sort of things that are both unwarranted and over-the-top might include:

1. the jews nicked everything from the zoroastrians
2. the jews nicked everything from the egyptians
3. the jews nicked everything from the mesopotamians
4. the jews nicked everything from the local canaanites

we believe the real story is rather more complex and subtle, but attempts to shoehorn it into the above straitjackets are both unhelpful and untenable.

If one is reluctant to accept Freud’s controversial theses, and this I understand, please consider that Maimonides, in his Guide, says something similar, but in this case about animal sacrifice rather than male circumcision.

yes, i'm aware of that, that's one of the reasons i don't reject the idea of borrowing, but there's a big difference between mirroring behaviours for, say, reasons of market norms ("how's it proper religion if there aren't any sacrifices???" - see my conversation between a hypothetical mayan and an egyptian here: http://www.interfaith.org/forum/a-new-member-has-some-14096-3.html#post248572 ) and wholesale plundering with consequent "theft of IP" and misrepresentation.

As I read him, he argues that the practice of ritual, blood sacrifice was “borrowed” from pagan, or neighboring, sources and that the God of Israel, not wanting to wean the Israelites too radically of their preferences, permitted the practice, modified it, and allowed it to continue until such time as a purer form of worship could be realized.

but, as you are aware, circumcision has not gone down the same route...

(I am not quite sure when that is supposed to be, given that, according to many ultra-Orthodox, the Messiah of Judaism is going to reinstitute the practice once the Temple is rebuilt.)

not just "many ultra-orthodox". we're not entirely sure what form the rebuilt Temple is likely to be, but the literalists certainly expect animal sacrifice to resume.

Allow me, then, to rephrase the question. From Heinrich Graetz and backwards, I have not known Jewish historians recording Jewish history to rely upon Christians (or anybody else) for the record of events as they transpired. Therefore, given that Maimonides, a by definition reflective historian according to Hegel, says, in his Epistle, that Jewish sages first tried and then convicted Jesus (op cit), is it safe to conclude that, in writing this, he drew upon Jewish rather than Christian sources for his knowledge of the events?

i don't believe so, because there are no jewish sources that i am aware of that deal with these events. i think he's being anecdotal. i don't know what a hegelian "reflective historian" is, but i've never thought of maimonides as any kind of historian - that's just not his bag, baby. his comments on jesus, in the context, are simply, to me, an aside illustrating the ludicrousness from his PoV of the claim (of huge contemporary significance) that jesus qualified as a bona fide messiah.

“My yoke is easy and my burden is light,” Jesus is said to have said, and, in contrast, I have an image of Spinoza, like Prometheus, being bound, but this time by phylacteries and the full weight of the Law –by the "small print," as it were.

hah. we do have a phrase, "the yoke of the commandments", which jesus may be alluding to here, but it's typically used with significant irony; obviously we wouldn't consider it unpleasant!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

I actually don't follow your reasoning about self deceit, but one consideration is that I was assuming some things. I haven't heard the traditional story. From what you have said, the Lord is not considered to have been in on the deceit, and that is good enough to stop arguing about it. Its not my book you know.

I got to thinking about what it would mean if the Lord were not in on the deceit. For some reason Isaac thought his blessing would stick like glue.(27:33) Originally I assumed that the Lord magically enforced the blessing -- otherwise what would keep Isaac from annulling it? That is why I thought the Lord was involved. Isaac thought that he was blessing Ishmael, so to my mind that made it an empty action without something else causing it to hold solidly. I have now imagined there could be something else making the blessing hold firm. Perhaps it was a public contract, and perhaps the kings in those days would go about killing contract breakers as part of their public service? The bottom line is that the Lord didn't deceive Isaac, and just because I don't know exactly how everything happened doesn't make it otherwise.

How about brushing up a little on the reading of the book of Genesis? Why would Isaac need to bless Ishmael if he was not his son? And why would you take to debate in this book if you declare it not to be your book?
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

you are taking a very narrow interpretation ("temporary escape from death") which is not at all warranted by psalms 49:15, nor can i agree that this backs up your argument about sheol='olam ha-ba, which i find strains credulity.

Please BB you are reasoning as a Christian. What is all this paranoia about an afterlife? Is it what induces you to exercise your loyalty to God?

why should you imagine that they do not believe literally in 'olam ha-ba, when this belief has continued to this day unchallenged by the rishonim or aharonim? i am astonished that you think this is the position of the sages.

Do you know something? I can prove to you that the olam ha-ba is the grave. One has never returned from there. Now, can you disprove it?

i'm not suggesting that. i'm suggesting that the scriptures do not support your point of view and i'm suggesting that the sages also disagree with it; my point of view is in accord with theirs.

How is it that the Scriptures do not support my point of view if it is from the Scriptures that I have learned it? Read Job 10:21 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,6. The sages cannot disagree with it. If they are not speaking metaphorically they were not sages but fools.

well that is what midrash is for, but it doesn't get past the fact that she'ol does not mean 'olam ha-ba and never has done according to any source i have seen to date.

Have you checked Job 10:21 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 above?

dude, *everything* to do with souls is speculative, which means that one is entitled to take any reasonable view. i'm simply pointing out one view of this which i find to be both logical and compelling.

Not everything about soul is mere speculation. The Torah truth about soul is that we ARE souls, when, according to Genesis 2:7 we BECAME living souls when we were created. Therefore, soul is not something we have but what we are and that it is gone with death. Not gone somewhere but just out of existence.

again, you're being categorical when you have absolutely no reason to suppose this is possible.

Could it be that Solomon was rather a fool and not the wisest of all men to write Ecclesiastes 9:5,6? I doubt it.

who's talking about the christian resurrection of the dead? and how exactly is this "inappropriate"? are you an expert in soul transmigration theory? i don't claim that for myself, but i am certainly familiar with a number of possibilities.

Theories and religious doctrines are like old delapidated houses that still stand but no one with common sense lives in them anymore.

hah! i don't think *anyone* should claim victory based on the guide. i'm not unfamiliar with it, but you should hardly rush to it as a statement of normative jewish thought, even if you understand it extraordinarily well. it is a highly ambiguous text. if you want to bring me some sources from it, we can discuss it, but i think, once again, you are being awfully quick to dismiss any other possibility but your own point of view.

From your reaction to my views I don't believe you have ever read the whole of the "Guide for the Perplexed." Every thing is possible, even the things that one imagines. But I have the Scriptures to support those I adopt.

Ben

 

[Dream]

How about brushing up a little on the reading of the book of Genesis? Why would Isaac need to bless Ishmael if he was not his son? And why would you take to debate in this book if you declare it not to be your book?
Ben

Esau. I mean Esau not Ishmael; and though it is not my book its a central book to my culture. The story in Genesis is incomplete; but it is what people read. Discussing the missing bits happens naturally. Sorry about mixing up those names, but a book that is so central to my culture is game for discussion even if it didn't come from my culture.