But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

[donnann]

I'm easily persuaded, but rather than confirming what you've said I was only repeating what you said, but I don't like Replacement theology either. Despite your not believing in physical resurrection or in reincarnation, Judaism doesn't appear to 'Not believe' in them. It seems more pensive about it. That is why its so easy to have a belief in it.

Scratch the words "One day God decided." Emphasis upon the progressive revelation. It still seems to me that Judaism entertains the idea of some kind of beyond experience (even if it stops short of suggesting it). That is why I quoted to you from This Is My God.

You do know that the true crucifixion wasnt what you see in movies but rather a union thing death of the sin not the sinner. Its the union of body with spirit and spirit soul. The ultimate union is marriage with ones own opposite which is infinite life and completeness which is prophecy fulfiillment not only for human beings but angelic ones as well.

 

[Dream]

Marriage is a dark and troublesome path full of stones jagged edges and mud. You see your way only because of the lightning strikes, and you can hear very little above the thunder and howling winds. There are countless stories about its terrors and pains. The only part that people seem to enjoy is the beginning of it right up until its too late for them to turn back. Everywhere you see couples pretending to be happy, but when you know them better you find out its not true. Marriage isn't about becoming complete but about having babies, and having babies is excruciating no matter what anybody tells you. And what if your spouse dies or becomes ill? Then its like a living death. You're so unhappy its like your life exists only to hurt you, and you question why you were born. In the midst of it people will come up to you and talk about how wonderful marriage is, and that of course is the final straw to break your back. I can tell you many stories of marriage, its difficulties and the failures of individuals to cope.

 

[donnann]

Marriage is a dark and troublesome path full of stones jagged edges and mud. You see your way only because of the lightning strikes, and you can hear very little above the thunder and howling winds. There are countless stories about its terrors and pains. The only part that people seem to enjoy is the beginning of it right up until its too late for them to turn back. Everywhere you see couples pretending to be happy, but when you know them better you find out its not true. Marriage isn't about becoming complete but about having babies, and having babies is excruciating no matter what anybody tells you. And what if your spouse dies or becomes ill? Then its like a living death. You're so unhappy its like your life exists only to hurt you, and you question why you were born. In the midst of it people will come up to you and talk about how wonderful marriage is, and that of course is the final straw to break your back. I can tell you many stories of marriage, its difficulties and the failures of individuals to cope.

Originally human beings were two halves literally that looked like a whole , an exact mirror image but one male and one female of each other. The fall caused a split. Each individuals other half because of the fall will no longer look exactly like it but will be different but also contain the characteristics of that exact mirror image. This marriage is perfect and there will be no arguements ect in it. Just because someone is of opposite gender doesnt mean its ones own opposite . The bible talks against marrying anyone you wish because each of us has only one. Make sense?

 

[bananabrain]

I dismiss nothing but what contradicts the Tanach.

to be precise: you dismiss nothing but what contradicts your interpretation of the Tanakh without reference to how the sages interpreted it. to me, that's quite different.

Be my guest and enlighten me with what you think I do not understand. I require only that you use the Scriptures.

i do not think you understand how the tradition is *derived from* the "scriptures" and, moreover, you are trying to interpret directly out of Tanakh without the benefit of the Oral Torah. this is the approach that was used by the karaites in the C10th-C11th, by protestants during the reformation and by certain elements in the haskalah. i am *not* saying there is no room for personal interpretation, quite the opposite. however, i think that ignoring the views (that's *plural*) informed by the sages, as experts in Oral Torah, you are putting yourself in much the same position as someone who prefers to trust his own intuition about his medical symptoms over the professional opinion of his doctor. he may very well be right and his doctor may very well be wrong - but he'd be a fool to ignore the doctor as a point of principle.

I am perfectly okay with our tradition only as long as it goes hand-in-hand with the Scriptures.

there is no point in our tradition when it does not, but you do not seem to recognise it!

If tradition dispenses with reason, I spew it. This idea is not Jewish at all.

er... it's not like the "scriptures" are entirely reason-based. i think you might be missing the point of faith here. if reason is your criteria, then you might have to chuck out rather a lot of "scripture"; i can't see how you can maintain an entirely rationalist view of judaism - certainly i do not consider rambam to be *entirely* rationalist, despite his strong attachment to it.

We are too rational a People to do without reason.

i agree - but nobody is saying we need to do without reason, only that we should avoid making reason into an idol.

In our day and age, traditions not in tune with the Scriptures are like old delapidated houses. They still stand but people of common sense no longer dwell in them.

you said this before and, frankly, there is a case to be made that "scripture" itself is one of these "old dilapidated houses" and i think you're on a hiding to nothing going down that road; all someone has to do is show you a non-rational position held in "scripture" and where does your common sense get you?

No wonder atheists laugh at theists who believe in talking serpents. I don't blame them.

a case in point, i'd have thought.

Absolutely not. The opposite would rather be true as lack of exercise would cause atrophy.

you're being all-or-nothing again. just because i don't idolise my own sense and rationality does not mean i don't exercise it! in fact, it is impossible to work within the tradition without doing so. i am simply saying that reason is not the only thing going on here, not undermining its importance.

I agree with you but, the last word on everything is the Tanach.

there is a terrible circularity in your reasoning. what good is it to say that the "last word" is the Tanakh if that "last word" is itself ambiguous or open to numerous different interpretations? it doesn't bother the sages and the tradition, but it paints you into a corner.

As I said above, I am ready to take all the help tradition can offer, as long as it does not go against the Scriptures.

i refer you to my comment above: there is no point in our tradition when that tradition "goes against" the "scriptures", but you do not seem to recognise this!

Paul was not a Rabbi.

i wasn't referring to paul, but to the rabbi that so violated your sense of pure reason by speaking of angels in non-maimonidean terms.

Paul was a former Hellenistic Jew.

umph - i thought his pre-damascus job was as an anti-christian enforcer? doesn't sound very hellenistic to me.

At the end of the exile, if you now read Ezekiel 37:12, the Lord opens those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. That's what resurrection means in Judaism. But perhaps because of the Christian influence on the unlearnt among the Jews, the literal idea of bodily resurrection has thrown roots in their minds. A Jew of common sense cannot adopt such foreign ideas.

what nonsense. the talmudic discussion about the resurrection takes place in a context in which christian, samaritan, sadducean, pagan and zoroastrian influences are all visible and discussed as they occur. the discussion ends up being about what those passages actually meant; now you may not consider many of the talmudic sages in those discussions "jews of common sense", but it is hard to argue that you are still arguing from a jewish point of view if it requires you to disown our tradition!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

Hi (patient) Bananabrain,


It’s been so long since we’ve talked that, when need be, I will quote the two of us.

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 ...

With a difference being, in this case, that, unlike the Mayans, it can be established that the Jews had direct contact with the Egyptians: ergo, the Exodus from Egypt.

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 …

I don’t think that’s horribly controversial either. Please recall that I was responding to Ben Masada’s polemical broadsides against Christianity and Islam. Against his “Jesus as Greek demi-god” doppelganger, for instance, I conjured, perhaps rather more in the manner of the sorcerer’s apprentice than the sorcerer himself, the specter of “Moses as Egyptian Magician.” In answer to his allegations of “ignorance” concerning Jewish history, I brought Sigmund Freud, Heinrich Graetz, Otto Rank and Maimonides into the discussion. Concerning the latter part of your statement (covered by the ellipses), I could not agree with you more.

… 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.

This is an excellent belief. I hold the same, or similar, beliefs concerning the study of Christianity and, to a lesser extent (because it is not my tradition), Islam.

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.

Thank you for your consistent desire to politely both educate and inform. Relatedly, I’ve had a go at Gershom Gorenberg’s End of Days. I think the Temple Mount is the dilated cervix of the planet and that, to use Yeats’s imagery, some rough beast is, as we speak, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born.

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 have it to hand, but, as I recall, Heinrich Graetz, granted a seriously flawed historian by many modern standards, corroborated Maimonides’ position that the rabbinic sages -or Sanhedrin- both tried and punished Jesus in his multi-volumed History of the Jews, but he also went on to bewail the cost, in innocent Jewish blood down through the centuries, for such a trial and conviction (and I agreed with his sentiment on that one, too).

Furthermore, and this, too, is a potentially flawed recollection on my part, Arnold J. Toynbee, sitting at Chatham House and writing England’s answer to Oswald Spengler (and the French-influenced Edward Gibbon), referred to the Talmud when stating the same thing. I do understand that he didn’t win any points with Jews by calling their religion a fossil, but that is a side issue.

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 ...

Bananabrain, were you a beatnik? But seriously, Hegel doesn’t matter. Maimonides is not an historian as such, but, when he wrote his Epistle to Yemen, the fact is he included an historical background to both Christianity and Islam. In other words, he wrote history and reflected upon some of its implications.

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.

I understand. As I see it, he was doing that as well.

“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!

It seems to me that, if Hegel’s paraphrase be trusted, Spinoza considered it unpleasant. He called the yoke a “punishment.” And that is said with keeping the historical context, to the extent possible, fully in mind.


Best regards,


Serv

 

[donnann]

Hi (patient) Bananabrain,


It’s been so long since we’ve talked that, when need be, I will quote the two of us.






With a difference being, in this case, that, unlike the Mayans, it can be established that the Jews had direct contact with the Egyptians: ergo, the Exodus from Egypt.






I don’t think that’s horribly controversial either. Please recall that I was responding to Ben Masada’s polemical broadsides against Christianity and Islam. Against his “Jesus as Greek demi-god” doppelganger, for instance, I conjured, perhaps rather more in the manner of the sorcerer’s apprentice than the sorcerer himself, the specter of “Moses as Egyptian Magician.” In answer to his allegations of “ignorance” concerning Jewish history, I brought Sigmund Freud, Heinrich Graetz, Otto Rank and Maimonides into the discussion. Concerning the latter part of your statement (covered by the ellipses), I could not agree with you more.





This is an excellent belief. I hold the same, or similar, beliefs concerning the study of Christianity and, to a lesser extent (because it is not my tradition), Islam.





Thank you for your consistent desire to politely both educate and inform. Relatedly, I’ve had a go at Gershom Gorenberg’s End of Days. I think the Temple Mount is the dilated cervix of the planet and that, to use Yeats’s imagery, some rough beast is, as we speak, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born.






I don’t have it to hand, but, as I recall, Heinrich Graetz, granted a seriously flawed historian by many modern standards, corroborated Maimonides’ position that the rabbinic sages -or Sanhedrin- both tried and punished Jesus in his multi-volumed History of the Jews, but he also went on to bewail the cost, in innocent Jewish blood down through the centuries, for such a trial and conviction (and I agreed with his sentiment on that one, too).

Furthermore, and this, too, is a potentially flawed recollection on my part, Arnold J. Toynbee, sitting at Chatham House and writing England’s answer to Oswald Spengler (and the French-influenced Edward Gibbon), referred to the Talmud when stating the same thing. I do understand that he didn’t win any points with Jews by calling their religion a fossil, but that is a side issue.





Bananabrain, were you a beatnik? But seriously, Hegel doesn’t matter. Maimonides is not an historian as such, but, when he wrote his Epistle to Yemen, the fact is he included an historical background to both Christianity and Islam. In other words, he wrote history and reflected upon some of its implications.





I understand. As I see it, he was doing that as well.







It seems to me that, if Hegel’s paraphrase be trusted, Spinoza considered it unpleasant. He called the yoke a “punishment.” And that is said with keeping the historical context, to the extent possible, fully in mind.


Best regards,


Serv

I dont believe in circumscision. I think its male mutilation.

 

[Dream]

Originally human beings were two halves literally that looked like a whole , an exact mirror image but one male and one female of each other. The fall caused a split. Each individuals other half because of the fall will no longer look exactly like it but will be different but also contain the characteristics of that exact mirror image. This marriage is perfect and there will be no arguements ect in it. Just because someone is of opposite gender doesnt mean its ones own opposite . The bible talks against marrying anyone you wish because each of us has only one. Make sense?

Let me think, Donnann. Ok so if we are saying that in Genesis people were half male & half female but then were deconstructed into other percentages after the fall: why were there only two judgments? I also have a problem with it, because going by it singles are no longer considered to be people. As they lack wholeness within themselves, they are less than human. I know that is not true -- that singles are people without adding an extra, so I cannot accept it.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm easily persuaded, but rather than confirming what you've said I was only repeating what you said, but I don't like Replacement theology either. Despite your not believing in physical resurrection or in reincarnation, Judaism doesn't appear to 'Not believe' in them. It seems more pensive about it. That is why its so easy to have a belief in it.

Scratch the words "One day God decided." Emphasis upon the progressive revelation. It still seems to me that Judaism entertains the idea of some kind of beyond experience (even if it stops short of suggesting it). That is why I quoted to you from This Is My God.

Those in Judaism who appear to you to belive in bodily resurrection and reincarnation, it is either perhaps because they are superstitious - oh, we have of that kind too - or because it is only in the eyes of the beholder. And, as you say above, it is indeed easy to believe anything. No one has to pay to believe. I mean... you can scratch that too. The faithfuls of Jim Jones did pay with their lives for believing.
Ben

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I dont believe in circumscision. I think its male mutilation.

Let us all live to the letter of our true values.

nOTHING PERSONAL TO donnann.
Just a reality check in semantics that crosses my mind.

 

[Ben Masada]

to be precise: you dismiss nothing but what contradicts your interpretation of the Tanakh without reference to how the sages interpreted it. to me, that's quite different.

As I told you before, I am okay with our tradition as long as it goes hand-in-hand with the Tanack.

you are putting yourself in much the same position as someone who prefers to trust his own intuition about his medical symptoms over the professional opinion of his doctor. he may very well be right and his doctor may very well be wrong - but he'd be a fool to ignore the doctor as a point of principle.

Since the establishment of the New Covenant with the return of our People from exile in Babylon, we no longer need any one to teach us how to know the Lord. All from least to greatest shall know Him, says the Lord.
(Jer. 31:34)

er... it's not like the "scriptures" are entirely reason-based. i can't see how you can maintain an entirely rationalist view of judaism - certainly i do not consider rambam to be *entirely* rationalist, despite his strong attachment to it.

By looking at things from the metaphorical side of reality. Of course, if you go literal with the Scriptures, there is no rationality.

there is a terrible circularity in your reasoning. what good is it to say that the "last word" is the Tanakh if that "last word" is itself ambiguous or open to numerous different interpretations? it doesn't bother the sages and the tradition, but it paints you into a corner.

Reason can never be painted into a corner. Try it with me. The same could not be said about faith, which foments ignorance.

umph - i thought his pre-damascus job was as an anti-christian enforcer? doesn't sound very hellenistic to me.

Paul never persecuted a single Christian in the whole of his life. One does not found a Church to persecute the adepts. He was the one who gave origin to Christianity in the city of Antioch, about 35 years after Jesus had been gone. Read Acts 11:26. Paul was indeed a former Hellenistic Jew. Former for the Jew, not the Hellenistic. This, he was till death.

the talmudic discussion about the resurrection takes place in a context in which christian, samaritan, sadducean, pagan and zoroastrian influences are all visible and discussed as they occur.

If you do want to discuss about bodily resurrection with me, be my guest to open the Scriptures anywhere you want.

Ben

 

[Dream]

Those in Judaism who appear to you to belive in bodily resurrection and reincarnation, it is either perhaps because they are superstitious - oh, we have of that kind too - or because it is only in the eyes of the beholder.

Believing in the future is also superstition, because it doesn't exist yet. That is something to think about, not that I'm trying to make you superstitious. Consider that in many inland areas in the USA (and other parts of the world) you can go to farmland with fertile unsalted soil, but if you start digging you find the fossils from salt sea creatures less than ten feet down. Conch shells and shark teeth are found beneath standing wheat and soy beans and even in the highlands. When I think about how I feel seeing those shells underneath of soy beans, it is like how I feel about Torah, like finding something unusual beneath the mundane. It is the feeling that anything may happen.

 

[bananabrain]

Relatedly, I’ve had a go at Gershom Gorenberg’s End of Days. I think the Temple Mount is the dilated cervix of the planet and that, to use Yeats’s imagery, some rough beast is, as we speak, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born.

hmmm. have a think about the anthropology of the typical synagogue layout and in particular the relation between the Torah scroll, the ark and the taking of one out of the other!

I don’t have it to hand, but, as I recall, Heinrich Graetz, granted a seriously flawed historian by many modern standards, corroborated Maimonides’ position that the rabbinic sages -or Sanhedrin- both tried and punished Jesus in his multi-volumed History of the Jews, but he also went on to bewail the cost, in innocent Jewish blood down through the centuries, for such a trial and conviction (and I agreed with his sentiment on that one, too).

sounds to me like you've described precisely how a seriously flawed historian might treat these statements.

Bananabrain, were you a beatnik?

i'm with cartman - no beatniks, no hippies, no new-age tree-hugging crap! respect my authoritaah. oh, hang on, he doesn't like jews either....

Maimonides is not an historian as such, but, when he wrote his Epistle to Yemen, the fact is he included an historical background to both Christianity and Islam. In other words, he wrote history and reflected upon some of its implications.

umph, i see what you mean but i think it's problematic to call it history.

It seems to me that, if Hegel’s paraphrase be trusted, Spinoza considered it unpleasant. He called the yoke a “punishment.” And that is said with keeping the historical context, to the extent possible, fully in mind.

oh, yes, spinoza would have done. as a community we were almost completely unprepared for re-integrating the iberian crypto-jews that gravitated to the intellectual freedom of holland, with tragic consequences.

I dont believe in circumscision. I think its male mutilation.

what. ever.

As I told you before, I am okay with our tradition as long as it goes hand-in-hand with the Tanakh.

hmm. that would still depend on how you define and interpret "hand-in-hand"; anyway, i think you are starting to understand how i explain and understand this stuff.

Since the establishment of the New Covenant with the return of our People from exile in Babylon, we no longer need any one to teach us how to know the Lord. All from least to greatest shall know Him, says the Lord.

gee whiz, you're starting to sound like a j-witness again. no, you don't "need" anyone to teach you, but one certainly needs to teach oneself to learn.

By looking at things from the metaphorical side of reality. Of course, if you go literal with the Scriptures, there is no rationality.

i'm really not sure what point this is trying to make, because it is surely not as clear as you appear to think it is.

Reason can never be painted into a corner. Try it with me.

i think you're doing it to yourself. reason should surely contain the seeds of its own flexibility. sa'adia ga'on once said "G!D Forbid there should be anything in the Torah that contradicts reason" - but i cannot agree with him and, frankly, reason in his day - and in maimonides' - was a lot more trammelled than it is nowadays, when nobody serious seriously contemplates "proofs of faith".

The same could not be said about faith, which foments ignorance.

are you seriously maintaining that your position is maimonidean? maimonides, the author of the "13 principles of FAITH" - the creator of the formulation "ANI Ma'AMiN Be-EMUNaH ShLeIMa" (i believe with perfect faith [trust] that)..? seriously?

If you do want to discuss about bodily resurrection with me, be my guest to open the Scriptures anywhere you want.

oh, get off your high horse. anything that is makes it into the thinking of the sages must necessarily have a scriptural source, as i have said several times. until you accept the first principles, you're simply demanding that everyone re-invent the wheel by reasoning from them for every single argument, which is both tedious, ahistorical and frankly karaite.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[donnann]

hmmm. have a think about the anthropology of the typical synagogue layout and in particular the relation between the Torah scroll, the ark and the taking of one out of the other!


sounds to me like you've described precisely how a seriously flawed historian might treat these statements.


i'm with cartman - no beatniks, no hippies, no new-age tree-hugging crap! respect my authoritaah. oh, hang on, he doesn't like jews either....


umph, i see what you mean but i think it's problematic to call it history.


oh, yes, spinoza would have done. as a community we were almost completely unprepared for re-integrating the iberian crypto-jews that gravitated to the intellectual freedom of holland, with tragic consequences.


what. ever.


hmm. that would still depend on how you define and interpret "hand-in-hand"; anyway, i think you are starting to understand how i explain and understand this stuff.


gee whiz, you're starting to sound like a j-witness again. no, you don't "need" anyone to teach you, but one certainly needs to teach oneself to learn.


i'm really not sure what point this is trying to make, because it is surely not as clear as you appear to think it is.


i think you're doing it to yourself. reason should surely contain the seeds of its own flexibility. sa'adia ga'on once said "G!D Forbid there should be anything in the Torah that contradicts reason" - but i cannot agree with him and, frankly, reason in his day - and in maimonides' - was a lot more trammelled than it is nowadays, when nobody serious seriously contemplates "proofs of faith".


are you seriously maintaining that your position is maimonidean? maimonides, the author of the "13 principles of FAITH" - the creator of the formulation "ANI Ma'AMiN Be-EMUNaH ShLeIMa" (i believe with perfect faith [trust] that)..? seriously?


oh, get off your high horse. anything that is makes it into the thinking of the sages must necessarily have a scriptural source, as i have said several times. until you accept the first principles, you're simply demanding that everyone re-invent the wheel by reasoning from them for every single argument, which is both tedious, ahistorical and frankly karaite.

b'shalom

bananabrain

You do know the body like the foreskin is like a skin for the whole aspect of your resurrected body. Dont you think circumscision shouldnt be done knowing that?

 

[Servetus]

Hi bananabrain,

sounds to me like you've described precisely how a seriously flawed historian might treat these statements.

To say nothing, in this case, of his (Graetz's) flawed editors and publisher, George Dobsavage and the Jewish Publication Society.

Serv

 

[Saltmeister]

i'm with cartman - no beatniks, no hippies, no new-age tree-hugging crap! respect my authoritaah. oh, hang on, he doesn't like jews either....

Who do you mean by Cartman? Do you mean the guy in South Park?

Southpark Cartman respect my authority - YouTube
A.W.E.S.O.M.-O is awesome HD - YouTube
The Real South Park (English) - YouTube

 

[bananabrain]

salty - yes. south park rules.

servetus - i dare say, but i'm no historian / philosopher either!

donnann - you really don't have the least idea what you're talking about and quoting entire posts is almost as unhelpful as bhaktajan's stupid graphic.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Servetus]

Hi Bananabrain,

servetus - i dare say, but i'm no historian / philosopher either!

Nor am I, but, on my days off, I do enjoy scrounging through the odd dust-bin (or, if in search of a good Bordeaux, the dusty Oddbins) of history now and then.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[donnann]

Let me think, Donnann. Ok so if we are saying that in Genesis people were half male & half female but then were deconstructed into other percentages after the fall: why were there only two judgments? I also have a problem with it, because going by it singles are no longer considered to be people. As they lack wholeness within themselves, they are less than human. I know that is not true -- that singles are people without adding an extra, so I cannot accept it.

The fall caused a split of that oneness. They went outside the pairs sexually. Before the fall the pairs literally looked like mirror images of each other. Now your other half will look different but still retain characteristics of that mirror image. Sex is sacred , the serpent represented it. They were too young to realize that you couldnt have SEX outside that paired oneness and were virgins prior to that . Knowledge of sex and why its so sacred is the key to infinite life and finding your true other half.

 

[Dream]

The fall caused a split of that oneness. They went outside the pairs sexually. Before the fall the pairs literally looked like mirror images of each other. Now your other half will look different but still retain characteristics of that mirror image. Sex is sacred , the serpent represented it. They were too young to realize that you couldnt have SEX outside that paired oneness and were virgins prior to that . Knowledge of sex and why its so sacred is the key to infinite life and finding your true other half.

It seems you have greatly overestimated me, Donnann; though I appreciate your attempt at communication. It is the trick and miracle that no one ever really can estimate me properly, and that is because I cannot estimate myself. As long as I don't think you're a bot I'll respect you as a fellow poster, but don't assume that I'm of the same mind. Maybe there is some way that you could dumb the information down a little bit more. Maybe then I could understand what you are trying to impart.

 

[bananabrain]

Maybe there is some way that you could dumb the information down a little bit more.

hah!

b'shalom

bananabrain