Find me a home (now focusing on biblical Israel & the talmud)

[KarlXII]

that is debatable.

Go ahead, I have my Bible right here.

[Hooahguy]

thats the thing.
the talmud is rarely to be taken at face value. imagine it like a burger. to take the bible as it is without the commentary of the rabbis is like eating the bun and not the meat part.
ready to start pouring over countless pages of difficult Aramaic texts?

[KarlXII]

thats the thing.
the talmud is rarely to be taken at face value. imagine it like a burger. to take the bible as it is without the commentary of the rabbis is like eating the bun and not the meat part.

I am awaiting the casus belli, I am awaiting the great offensive tooken by Jericho and Ai to destroy the Israelites, and not the other way around.

Please don't avoid the question.

[Hooahguy]

i will quote myself.

i learned a very interesting piece on the 7 nations issue.
the rambam answers that G-d needed a monotheistic society in Israel. he offered to the 7 nations that if they would believe in him they could stay, but if not, they had to be expelled.

bear in mind that "the great offensive" doesnt need to be a military attack. could be societal or something.
also, what are you trying to prove?

[KarlXII]

i will quote myself.

Your quote simply shows that the Israelites were religious zealots that wished no more than to spread their religion across Canaan, no matter how many men, women and children they killed to get their.

bear in mind that "the great offensive" doesnt need to be a military attack. could be societal or something.

Ok. Can you prove that Jericho and Ai made any attack on the Israelites, military, economic, societal, that gave the Israelites the right to destroy them and massacre the populations?

[Hooahguy]

before i go furthur, what exactly are you trying to prove? that judasim is a violent, evil religion?

[KarlXII]

before i go furthur, what exactly are you trying to prove? that judasim is a violent, evil religion?

No, that the Israelites were not these poor souls that had to defend against the evil women of Jericho, and that the Canaanite conquest was simply a crusade that killed mercilessly. (I do like hearing about how Islam was a religion spread by the sword, UH OH I DOG GONE DID IT.)

Still awaiting the evidence.

[Hooahguy]

ah. i never said that the israelites were defending. one could argue about the crusade part, though we werent spreading judasim. in fact to this day there arent many (if any at all) jewish missionaries, since it is so hard to convert in the first place (at least to orthodox judasim).

and about before, i do not have the exact citing right now, im sure since you have the bible with you you could look it up.
when Lavan chases after Yaakov and they make a pact with the stones and the deal with the idols and that whole mess, the rabbis translate that as an attempt to destroy jacobs heritage. you can tell my the pact with the rocks. jacob had one rock, which signified one people with one culture and one identity. Lavan had multiple rocks, which meant that his descendants would be many nations and cultures. Lavan wanted their descendants to intermarry, thus destroying the identity of Jacob and judasim. according to some, the 7 nations, including Ai and jerico, were the decedents of Lavan, and had to go.
there we go.

[Tribesman]

So we have death to the unbelievers in the name of god and don't have sex with the locals because your blood won't be pure .
oh and people trying to destroy you by not attacking you so they had to be ethnicly cleansed
You shoulda let it rest Hooah

[Hooahguy]

theres more than one way to attack others. doesnt have to be militarily.

[KarlXII]

theres more than one way to attack others. doesnt have to be militarily.

And yet, your answer proves Jericho and Ai did nothing to provoke an Israeli attack, and the whole conquest was simply war in the name of God.

[Hooahguy]

what? maybe you didnt read my answer carefully.
also, its not israeli- its Israelite.

[KarlXII]

when Lavan chases after Yaakov and they make a pact with the stones and the deal with the idols and that whole mess, the rabbis translate that as an attempt to destroy jacobs heritage. you can tell my the pact with the rocks.

Following.

jacob had one rock, which signified one people with one culture and one identity. Lavan had multiple rocks, which meant that his descendants would be many nations and cultures.

Still following.

Lavan wanted their descendants to intermarry, thus destroying the identity of Jacob and judasim.

God forbid! Time to kill some women and children! Intermarriage is somehow this great offensive of which you speak? By God! I say we kill all Gentiles that wish to destroy Judaism through intermarriage!

according to some, the 7 nations, including Ai and jerico, were the decedents of Lavan, and had to go.

I see, guilt by association.

Pretty weak casus belli if you ask me.

[Hooahguy]

well intermarriage in judasim is a sin, so.....

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

[Tribesman]

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

Death to the unbelievers

[Incongruous]

well intermarriage in judasim is a sin, so.....

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

I'm a Catholic, and yet this talk of Godly war rests uneasy with me (go figure), why would God need the Israelites to destroy an aspect of his own creation? Why not send an angel of death?

Any Christian wish to enlighten me about Christ's ultimate say so on "Godly" war? Surely he would condemn it as fallacy.

[Hooahguy]

G-d only does things himself that he absolutely has to do. like the death of the firstborn. why did he send the Angle of Death (or, as some will argue, G-d himself)? because the Israelites couldnt do it themselves. but with the 7 nations, they could fulfill his will.

[KarlXII]

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

God does not, but mortals do. I'm questioning the "Great Defense" against those evil people that the Israelites had probably never even met and decided to slaughter.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm a Catholic, and yet this talk of Godly war rests uneasy with me (go figure), why would God need the Israelites to destroy an aspect of his own creation? Why not send an angel of death?

Any Christian wish to enlighten me about Christ's ultimate say so on "Godly" war? Surely he would condemn it as fallacy.

His creation had rejected him, all of it. God could have left us to it, let humanity live out its existence without Him. But instead he chose a nation, and a lowly one at that, and lifted them out of slavery to the promised land. And all those nations which were well established, rooted in the world and wealthy - God tossed them aside to give his chosen people their inheritance. It's like the Christian story with a nation. Lifting up the lowly, breaking down the strong. The Canaanites, Moabites etc were God's creation, but this is a fallen world, they don't deserve God's protection.

[Incongruous]

His creation had rejected him, all of it. God could have left us to it, let humanity live out its existence without Him. But instead he chose a nation, and a lowly one at that, and lifted them out of slavery to the promised land. And all those nations which were well established, rooted in the world and wealthy - God tossed them aside to give his chosen people their inheritance. It's like the Christian story with a nation. Lifting up the lowly, breaking down the strong. The Canaanites, Moabites etc were God's creation, but this is a fallen world, they don't deserve God's protection.

According to Christ, the covenenat was with with all men, thus his talks with publicans and sinners, men whom were considered outcasts of Israel, no?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

because we no longer had the Temple in Jerusalem. the concept of altars besides th eones in the Mishkan and the Beit Hamikdash was, and still is, looked down upon. if there is no holy temple for G-ds spirit to reside in, we clearly are not worthy of offering sacrifices. but our substitue is daily prayer, which we do 3 times a day, to replace the 3 daily sacrifices: at morning, afternoon, evening.

That makes perfect sense, though I have a question of clarification:

Is it the loss of the Temple or the Ark? Surely in the time of the Judges (up to Saul) the Ark was fairly mobile and sacrifices were offered in multiple places?

A purer form of christianity yes, but not a purer past form of the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, why would they not establish their own Papacy?

To ask that question is to fundamentally misunderstand the Medieval Papacy. The Pope is the Senior Bishop in the West, and his Primacy dates back to before Nicaea, where it was confirmed. It is therefore as old as the Creeds, the declaration of the Holy Trinity, the formalisation of the Church hierarchy and virtually every major tenet of Christian belief.

It is therefore older than Biblical Canon, which was not fixed until around 400 AD.

While I'm on the topic:

Hax, although Nicaea was important it didn't have much to do with Scripture, that was a generation later under Jerome and Augustine in N. Africa. Having said that, the Greek texts of the NT are all dated to the 1st Century; the Old Latin Bible, which started the process of canonisation, to the 2nd Century AD.

Overall though, the idea of the Bible as a "book", rather than a collection of writings, is a post-printing concept (possibly borrowed from Isalm), prior to this individual books and collections were more often copied by scribes, as were pseudo-Gospels and other Apothrycal texts.

Yes he wanted to sort out some of the corruptions which had emerged such as indulgences and some funny doctrines, but he was quite disillusioned with the whole Papal-style church system by the end of his life, not just its incarnation during his time. And Luther only represents the first phase of the Reformation, Calvin could harldy be said to be looking backward to a mythic past church, his doctrines were all new, even if he was influenced somewhat by Augustine.

There's nothing wrong with looking back to Islam's golden age. If Christians and Muslims could get on in Andalusia a millenia ago, you would think they could do it nowadays. There's nothing wrong with Christians or Muslims looking back to such times, at least not from a secular point of view.

I hate to tell you this but Episcopal Lutheranism is Catholicism circa 1000 AD, so is Anglicanism. In fact the differances between national Protestant Churches ape the pre-Gregorian National Churches. This is even true of the Scots Episcopalians, who have no Archbishop but are not ruled by York.

The "Reformation" makes the news because unlike previous Reform Movements it resulted in schism and excomunication. This seems to have cause Luthor, Huss and Wyclif nervous breakdowns.

The most interesting thing about Calvin is that he seems to have sought Apostacy from the putset, not reform from within.

well intermarriage in judasim is a sin, so.....

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

The question is whether everything done in his name, is really his will.

"Oh sure, we had to kill the women and Children because "I am" said so.

I'm a Catholic, and yet this talk of Godly war rests uneasy with me (go figure), why would God need the Israelites to destroy an aspect of his own creation? Why not send an angel of death?

Any Christian wish to enlighten me about Christ's ultimate say so on "Godly" war? Surely he would condemn it as fallacy.

"Those who live by the Sword Die by the Sword". Context being a bit fuzzy for interpretation the two swords might not both be temporal. Godly War is right out I would say.

That doesn't mean that War is out all over though, you just have to accept the consequences of your actions. Jesus was quite big on responsibility.

His creation had rejected him, all of it. God could have left us to it, let humanity live out its existence without Him. But instead he chose a nation, and a lowly one at that, and lifted them out of slavery to the promised land. And all those nations which were well established, rooted in the world and wealthy - God tossed them aside to give his chosen people their inheritance. It's like the Christian story with a nation. Lifting up the lowly, breaking down the strong. The Canaanites, Moabites etc were God's creation, but this is a fallen world, they don't deserve God's protection.

Not a reasoned arguement, really, is it?

See what I said to Hooah above.

[Hooahguy]

ignore

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

well jesus isnt my savior, is it?

Careful there. You've leave yourself open to the charge of Deicide if you start that debate.

In any case, the same questions apply.

God sent Jonah to a non-Jewish people to convert them because he was merciful, yet you have suggested that he set Israel among their own Kinsmen like Rabid Dogs.

We might not question God's motives, but we can queation whether a given action was truely his will; especially if it makes God seem inconsistant.

[Hooahguy]

That makes perfect sense, though I have a question of clarification:

Is it the loss of the Temple or the Ark? Surely in the time of the Judges (up to Saul) the Ark was fairly mobile and sacrifices were offered in multiple places?

its the temple. the ark was just followed the temple around and went to war with the Israelites.
before Solomon, when the Mishkan (the portable version of the temple) was around, it was in multiple places. but because of this people thought it was ok to build altars in their backyards, but it wasnt ok to do that, and they were eventually punished.

God does not, but mortals do. I'm questioning the "Great Defense" against those evil people that the Israelites had probably never even met and decided to slaughter.

well firs tof all, the israelites would have met the 7 nations, b/c they were int he areas the israelites were promised to get. plus the 7 nations were evil immoral people.

[Hooahguy]

Careful there. You've leave yourself open to the charge of Deicide if you start that debate.

In any case, the same questions apply.

God sent Jonah to a non-Jewish people to convert them because he was merciful, yet you have suggested that he set Israel among their own Kinsmen like Rabid Dogs.

We might not question God's motives, but we can queation whether a given action was truely his will; especially if it makes God seem inconsistant.

Deicide? how is it Deicide? im just saying that jesus isnt my god, like the rest of you say that my god isnt your god.
also, g-d is unpredictable. he does what he sees fit.

now that we are getting into more complex things, i may have to leave this argument, because i am afraid i will say something wrong and cause a Chillul Hashem (desecration of G-d), hence why i am opposed to this thread discussing the talmud. something as complex as the Talmud should not be discussed by people who have no idea what its really about, including me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Deicide? how is it Deicide? im just saying that jesus isnt my god, like the rest of you say that my god isnt your god.

Well, actually I say my God is your God. So from your perspective I'm a heretic, just like the self-styled prophet and messiah I follow.

I feel it's unhelpful to point these things out, it will only get in the way of the discussion, and it might result in someone making the classic claim against Jews for the classic reasons.

As an aside, I think that particular arguement is simultaniously one of the most clever and non-sensical in theology.

[KarlXII]

well jesus isnt my savior, is it?

First off, Jesus is not "it".

Second off, Judaism is not my religion, is your argument now invalid automatically?

[Hooahguy]

alright, ill erase my thought, and ill be appreciative if yall erase it from your posts as well. no need to obstruct the conversation.
and i meant "he" not it. sorry bout that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think it should be left as a monument to us not loosing our heads.

I have another question:

Why the "G-D". I know you're not supposed to say His name, but God is not his name, any more than Allah or Elohim (or however it is transcribed.)

[KarlXII]

Why the "G-D". I know you're not supposed to say His name, but God is not his name, any more than Allah or Elohim (or however it is transcribed.)

I never realized you weren't allowed to . I always refer to God as God, Him, etc.