Faith and belief + BKB babbling about free will (Split from "Mormon Church" thread)

[muffler dragon]

I know Muffler disagrees with me, but I see no contradiction in the concept of a triune G-d who is also echad. In fact, I pray/sing the Shema every Saturday that proclaims G-d is echad.Now because of this understanding, my conception of a triune G-d is different than many other Christians. I don't see the "persons" of the trinity as holding different values, natures, or characteristics. Nor do I see them as different manifistations of G-d. Rather, the completeness and wholeness of G-d exists simultaneously in all three "persons" (I actually don't like that word for explaining the trinity, but every other word I've seen suggested--natures, modes, forms--fails to explain the concept as well). This view leads me to understanding many verses of the New Testament differently than many of my Christian brothers, but I believe it represents the view of those first century Jews who wrote the New Testament, who would have also held that G-d is echad.

Of course, I disagree.

So as to not make this the focal point, I would like to ask a question about the last statement in your paragraph.

From where/what would first century Jews have concocted the trinity idea?

 

[JCOSU86]

Just to make sure I understand: Calvin while peeing on the Michigan "M" is having a religious/faith conversation with Dwight Shrute.

OK, got it.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Did Jesus rise from the dead in the same body He died in?

Am I just not paying attention? I thought only posts ago you were making the suggestion that Jesus was in some different body.

Actually, the Christian conception of resurrection holds that it will not re-animate the SAME BODY. While it will certainly be similiar, in that it will hold the natural form of man in both physical and spiritual contexts, it will also be different. How so? I can't say as that has not yet been revealed, but the promise exists.

Yes, Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in. In John 2:19-20, Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews therefore said, 'It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But He was speaking of the temple of his body." Jesus prophesied that He would rise from the dead in the very body that He died in.

If you're now arguing it's the same body, then your original metaphor fails as I have previously outlined.

Yes, there are differences between the examples, but I was trying to highlight the fact that much of what we hold as true is because we believe someone else's account of what is true. I was trying to discern why believe some accounts and not anothers. I know you allow for the possibility of resurrection in that it may be something we simply cannot yet explain "physically" or "scientifically. If this is so, why not believe this particular one is the realization of that possibility? Is it because you don't trust the people giving the reports? If so, why? Or is it something else?

I think I've been clear on this, both here and over the course of our debates over the last few years. I have 1 - no expirience with resurrections. 2 - I see nothing in nature which supports that they occur in this reality 3 - the stories of those who say it did occur are biased to say that it did occur 3a) These "witnesses" weren't actual witnesses at all 4 - forgiving even all that, Jesus, whatever he was, was not the Messiah, in my best estimation. 5- To the extent that Jesus is what I've been taught in Christianity (Various churches, including Catholic, Luthern and Methodist) he is useless as it relates to my relationship with G-d and my acceptance of personal responsibility for my own actions.

I know Muffler disagrees with me, but I see no contradiction in the concept of a triune G-d who is also echad. In fact, I pray/sing the Shema every Saturday that proclaims G-d is echad.Now because of this understanding, my conception of a triune G-d is different than many other Christians. I don't see the "persons" of the trinity as holding different values, natures, or characteristics. Nor do I see them as different manifistations of G-d. Rather, the completeness and wholeness of G-d exists simultaneously in all three "persons" (I actually don't like that word for explaining the trinity, but every other word I've seen suggested--natures, modes, forms--fails to explain the concept as well). This view leads me to understanding many verses of the New Testament differently than many of my Christian brothers, but I believe it represents the view of those first century Jews who wrote the New Testament, who would have also held that G-d is echad.

I would only note that in this respect, you appear to admit to the worship of an ASPECT of G-d, even if you acknowledge echad. In other words, even if we accept that Jesus is an aspect of G-d, you don't appear to worship, for example, Elohim separately and distinctly and so I wonder how you reconcile that? I appreciate that your understanding is apparently different than the 'typical Christian' but I'm confused as to how setting... if you will.. the Jesus Aspect so far apart and "above" any other aspect you are not committing yourself to pray to an "expression" of G-d rather than G-d Himself.

It's not that they are incapable of goodness; rather, it is that we are inclined to choose, through the free will G-d has given us, our "evil" inclination--yetzer ra. By "evil" though, I don't mean the opposite of good as typically understood in western civilization. Rather, it is a desire of selfishness, to seek what we want, rather than to submit to G-d's authority. (Why I have always argued that "evil" expresses an absence rather than an opposite.) This inclination to choose what we want over what G-d commands is what separate us from Him and requires an intercessor.

yetzer ra is not "evil." The "absence of G-d" is impossible, but you have agreed that your idea of Him is not infinite, thus I can now see how such a definition works for you.

The inclination to choose what we want over what G-d commands is what makes us require an intercessor.... How so? Sorry, that statement does not follow. Likewise, selfishness is not 'G-dless' as you assert. How am I failing to "submit to G-d's authority" when I act on the yetzer ra impulse of sheltering myself?

So then, we agree that there is something other than infinity. We simply disagree what that other is.

Kabbalistic definition of G-d (according to Wiki):

Mainstream Orthodox Judaism teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. They teach that God is the creator of both, but is himself neither. But if God is so different from his creation, how can there be any interaction between the Creator and the created? This question prompted early Kabbalists (Jewish mystics) to envision two aspects of God, (a) God himself, who in the end is unknowable, and (b) the revealed aspect of God, His "light," which created the universe, preserves the universe, and interacts with mankind in a personal way. Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but complement one another, similar to a creation inside a person's mind.

You appear to believe the non bold section, whereas my conception is much more akin to the bold. I don't like using links to explain what I mean when I speak, but I'm hopeful that these terms above help you understand me better.

To be a literalist simply means that one accepts what the Bible says as absolute truth. It does not mean that you use the plain language of the Bible in translation as the absolute truth (e.g. just because it says the disciples were in one accord in Acts 1, does not mean they were driving around the streets of Jerusalem in a Honda). So, the question for the literalist becomes what is the text actually saying? In order to answer this, you have to go to its original language and you have to go to the original context to which it was written (understanding that the revelation would have had to speak to the original recipients for them to understand it). In my own studies, over 95% of the surface contradictions I have found are cleared up once you look at original languag and context.

95% eh? Well... I guess the Bible is almost inerrant then.

In regards to instances like Judas' suicide, it is true that the harmonizing of the two accounts requires speculation on behalf of the reader. As such, the literalist should not elevate his/her interpretation to the level of inerrency (this is an error made by many) and admit that other explanations are also possible. For example, if I was teaching on Judas' suicide at my church's Wednedsay night Yeshiva/Bible Study (interestingly enough I will be doing just this in about 4-6 weeks as we will begin the book of Acts in January), I would be sure to state that this is my interpretation/speculation and should not be regarded as fact. What should be regarded as fact is that both accounts are true, but that how I have harmonized them, may or may not be true. However, what is important about the role of the speculation is that it shows that the two statements are not mutually exclusive of each other (which is really the claim being made by those who claim we have a contradiction) as a surface reading might suggest (again, the disciples are not driving Hondas around Jerusalem).

Explain how the following are both true:

and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

compared with

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli

and in light of Jesus' "Father" being "G-d" and not Joseph at all anyway. This, as I'm sure you know, is only one glaring error in Jesus' alleged genealogy.

Triangulation, at least as it is used in qualitative research, does not assume that two varying accounts of the same event will produce a greater description of reality that is somewhere in the middle of the two. It is not a process of compromise. Rather it holds that it gives a richer, more deep, description of the event. This is what I meant by using triangulation.

As for the traffic light example, it does not work as a parallel. Green and red assume the two descriptions are mutually exclusive of one another. There is no other possibility. The two descriptions of Judas' suicide are not restricted to being mutually exclusive of each other.

Ok... I won't argue the point except to say that, as you appear to admit in the preceding paragraph this "rich understanding" is pure conjecture. Might as well read language in to the Constitution while we're at it

Yes it should be clear by now, I do not see G-d as being infinite. That is a pagan idea of what the divine should be, and I find the concept too limiting. (Interestingly enough, it has been these on-and-off discussions with you that have made me realize that I was limiting my understanding of G-d by trying to define Him as eternal or infinite.

Ironic you'd mention peganism in light of Jesus' parallels with pagan ideas (My link is not meant to be authoritative, but illustrative of pagan links to the story of Jesus, most of which I'm sure you are already aware). Needless to say, I do not consider Kabbalistic Jews (to whom my ideas draw a parallel) pagan, but I'm not really worried about it. I realize you'd object on the idea of Orthodoxy, and here we would reach impasse because you ascribe to the idea that man has some idea of what Orthodoxy is, whereas I would maintain at the end of the day, it is still just a human decision.

The best answer to this is read chapters 1-8 of Romans as Paul explains the "why" better than I could ever imagine to. However, the short of it is that just because it is on our hearts does not mean we listen to it. Rather there is something blocking what is written upon our hearts from what we do on a daily basis. This is why Paul spoke of needing to have a circumcized heart (not an original idea of Paul's as Moses spoke of such a thing); the blockage must be cut away.

Have you ever considered that Paul might be wrong, and that there is no such blockage after all? Millions of Jews, atheists, and myself, seem to be able to follow what is written on our hearts without much trouble at all.

I've posted this before, but here you go: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" -- What Does It Mean?

I have no particular quarrel with that.

You're speculation on how G-d might be present reminds me of Genesis 50, where Joseph tells his brothers that although they intended evil against him (i.e. selling him into slavery in order to do away with him) G-d used it for good (placing Joseph in a position to save his family from famine). However, this should not conclude that G-d was present in the evil act. Only that despite our selfish desires, G-d still works all things toward a greater good. In other words, G-d would still have saved Joseph's family by some other means and the suffering Joseph had to endure, in addition to the grief it caused Jacob, did not have to occur. But, because of the "evil" act of his brothers, those negatives also played themselves out. Interesting enough, you asked if Star Wars could be used to display some of these concepts I hold as truth. Here is such a place as the Anakin Skywalker's fulfillment of the prophesy to bring balance to the Force did not have to include the suffering it did, but because he chose to follow his selfish desires instead of the guidance of the force, the sufferings became attached to the fulfillment.

Well, again, in as much as you've confessed to a non-infinite G-d, I'm hard pressed to argue with you. I believe in an infinite G-d. Incidentally, I'm beginning to wonder if I might better conceptualize the idea not as Infinity+1 is "G-d" but the universe is infinity(minus)1. I remember years ago when this idea hit me, it was framed as infinity minus one, but I settled on +1 for reasons which seemed sensible to me then, but escape me now.

I don't see the ha'satan in the act. Rather I see the triumph of selfishness, self-love, yetzer ra. I see the absence of G-d and G-d's Will. My view of ha-satan is not as an advesary, but rather a proactive accusser (read the first couple chapters of Job to understand the conception).

Again, in my view ALL things are G-d, even impulses born of HaSatan.... even yetzer ra. G-d IS. The is nothing else.

Been here before. 1) Not interfering with free will. 2) The problem of seeing only one instance of time versus the whole of time, where we see G-d putting an end to it.

Meanwhile, raped 7 year olds are made to suffer while G-d takes his sweet time....

Divine Revelation (i.e. Bible).

No.... you mean, your subjective understanding of it.

Which is? Seriously, you have lost me on this one. You accuse me of avoiding an issue, but I really don't know what issue you are addressing--my fault being too slow, I guess. I am contending you are setting a false premise, which I refuse to enter. As for you cousin, I never said he did not exist. I said (assuming from your comment that he did not know G-d) he was not righteous.

right?eous (r

ch

s)adj.1. Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
2. In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
3. Morally justifiable: righteous anger. See Synonyms at moral.

I realize you don't believe in real people who are guiltess or without sin. It's part of the Christian belief. I get that. But, humor me... My Cousin is without guilt, is morally upright, and has not breached any commandment. He is also an atheist.
So, I repeat:
Question: What fate is in store for a purely righteous man who does not believe in G-d (and/or Jesus)? Is moral behavior alone enough? If "no," why the fixation on morality?

Is moral behavior enough? Clearly your answer is no. So... why the fixation on it?

I would never say the literalist approach is simplistic. I acknowledge it is complicated and difficult. In fact, that is why I believe constant study and reflection of what one holds as the literalist view is necessary. A constant engagement of the text, re-reading verses and stories over and over, having the ability to doubt your conclusions (important emphasis on one's conclusions, not the text itself) they are all necessary. And even at the end of all this, I still believe it is not enough. Only through the Holy Spirit, and opening onself to the Holy Spirit, can the voice of the Bible speak on its own foundation.

Or, if you can trust yourself, your own inherent goodness... why... you could just talk to G-d.. He won't hide from you that which you seek if you just ask.

Yes! Remember my argument that 1+1 can sometimes equal a larger 1 in the example of adding to balls of clay together to make a single, larger ball of clay. When we are saying 1+1=2, there are a lot of unspoken assumptions being made about the nature of "1" and "2". But what if another culture doesn't hold those same assumptions?

Yeah, I liked that one. It's a good way to get people to think outside the box. However, let's speak the assumptions.... If I seek a grouping of things composed of 1 solid object with another solid object equaling 1, can I be assured that I have 2 things, or am I just guessing?

Like I said above, I admit that G-d is not infinity or even a part of it. I have found that expression to be too limiting (ironically thanks to you). I hold that He is the creator of infinity. I hold that He is expressed in the concept of +1.

Well, this would be more important to me if I was of the mind that G-d was "just" infinity, as I think by now is more than clear I do not believe. I have to insist, however, that a thing which is not everything fails even the infinity part of the "equation" and thus whatever lies behind it is irrelevant. In order to be truly ALL.. He has to be ALL. Failure of that necessarily means he, whomever it is you speak of, is not the ONE true G-d. Does calling the universe (for me, the metaverse) Infinity (Minus) one help at all? (Where G-d would be considered infinity for purposes of the expression)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Just to make sure I understand: Calvin while peeing on the Michigan "M" is having a religious/faith conversation with Dwight Shrute.

OK, got it.

No, it means G-d hates Michigan. :p

 

[muffler dragon]

It's not that they are incapable of goodness; rather, it is that we are inclined to choose, through the free will G-d has given us, our "evil" inclination--yetzer ra. By "evil" though, I don't mean the opposite of good as typically understood in western civilization. Rather, it is a desire of selfishness, to seek what we want, rather than to submit to G-d's authority. (Why I have always argued that "evil" expresses an absence rather than an opposite.) This inclination to choose what we want over what G-d commands is what separate us from Him and requires an intercessor.

I'm ashamed that I didn't read more of your post, bgrad, and latch on to this paragraph.

Your description of the yetzer ra (evil inclination) is not quite on par. Nonetheless, the part I would like to address is your last statement once again.

I can dispel this consideration of yours from within the first few chapters of Genesis.

Genesis 4
1. Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, and she said, "I have acquired a man with the Lord."
2. And she continued to bear his brother Abel, and Abel was a shepherd of flocks, and Cain was a tiller of the soil.
3. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord.
4. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.
6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?
7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

This situation depicts the activity of the yetzer ra in Cain's life prior to the murder of his brother. Rashi alludes to the basis of this "longing" when the following comment is made:

and to you is it?s longing [The longing] of sin- i.e., the evil inclination-which constantly longs and lusts to cause you to stumble.

Thus, G-d shows first that IF one happens to sin; then that person can "improve" (repent, perform teshuvah) and it will be forgiven of them. Moreover, before it even gets to the step, G-d tells Cain that he can rule over this longing (this yetzer ra):

but you can rule over it If you wish, you will overpower it. ? [from Sifrei Ekev 45, Kidd. 30b]

There is nothing here about needing a mediator to overcome the temptation to the wrong thing or an evil deed.

 

[muffler dragon]

yetzer ra is not "evil." The "absence of G-d" is impossible, but you have agreed that your idea of Him is not infinite, thus I can now see how such a definition works for you.

The inclination to choose what we want over what G-d commands is what makes us require an intercessor.... How so? Sorry, that statement does not follow. Likewise, selfishness is not 'G-dless' as you assert. How am I failing to "submit to G-d's authority" when I act on the yetzer ra impulse of sheltering myself?

I like that last question.

and in light of Jesus' "Father" being "G-d" and not Joseph at all anyway. This, as I'm sure you know, is only one glaring error in Jesus' alleged genealogy.

Ahhhhh....NOOOOOOOOOO! Not the geneology!!! Don't even get me started.

Have you ever considered that Paul might be wrong, and that there is no such blockage after all? Millions of Jews, atheists, and myself, seem to be able to follow what is written on our hearts without much trouble at all.

Count me in.

Well, again, in as much as you've confessed to a non-infinite G-d, I'm hard pressed to argue with you. I believe in an infinite G-d. Incidentally, I'm beginning to wonder if I might better conceptualize the idea not as Infinity+1 is "G-d" but the universe is infinity(minus)1. I remember years ago when this idea hit me, it was framed as infinity minus one, but I settled on +1 for reasons which seemed sensible to me then, but escape me now.

Very interesting.

I realize you don't believe in real people who are guiltess or without sin. It's part of the Christian belief. I get that. But, humor me... My Cousin is without guilt, is morally upright, and has not breached any commandment. He is also an atheist.

Here is something for you to look into:

Tzaddik Gamur

This is a summation statement that I've read before:

Everyone is born sinless. The tzaddik gamur continues in that state throughout his/her life, and actually succeeds in even eliminating his/her yetzer ha-ra? completely.

From the little that I have researched this, it appears that there are a handfull of Tzaddik Gamur in each generation.

This dispels the concept that Jesus was somehow the only one who never sinned during his life.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I'm ashamed that I didn't read more of your post, bgrad, and latch on to this paragraph.

Your description of the yetzer ra (evil inclination) is not quite on par. Nonetheless, the part I would like to address is your last statement once again.

I can dispel this consideration of yours from within the first few chapters of Genesis.

Genesis 4
1. Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, and she said, "I have acquired a man with the Lord."
2. And she continued to bear his brother Abel, and Abel was a shepherd of flocks, and Cain was a tiller of the soil.
3. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord.
4. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.
6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?
7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

I remember you stating this before and I said I would address it. I apologize for not doing so.

My first question is what translation of the Hebrew are you using? I looked at around 10 different translations and none of them said "it will be forgiven". So, I decided to look up what the actual Hebrew being used is in this case. The word is seeth, which means elevate, rise up, or swell. Giving, the benefit of the doubt, I then looked to see where else in the Tanakh the word is used to see if the meaning of "forgiveness" can actually be derived anywhere in its usage. Turns out there are 13 instances of seeth and none of them even suggest the idea of forgiveness. Half of the references refer to skin problems likes scabs. The other half refer to one's position of power or authority. So, I have no idea where the idea of forgiveness is being stated here. Rather it seems to be saying that Cain would receive a position of dignity or loftiness.

Next, I looked up what Hebrew word is being used for your translation "if you improve". Here, the word is yatab, which typically means do/be well, good, or pleasing. I did find four instance of yatab, where the idea of amending one's ways could be applied, but the idea of doing well also worked in the context of the passages. Interestingly, all four of these instances were in Jeremiah. All instances of yatab in Torah appear to give the meaning of do well/good.

Hence, the RSV translation of Genesis 4:7 appears to give the more correct understanding of the verse in English:

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

This situation depicts the activity of the yetzer ra in Cain's life prior to the murder of his brother. Rashi alludes to the basis of this "longing" when the following comment is made:

and to you is it?s longing [The longing] of sin- i.e., the evil inclination-which constantly longs and lusts to cause you to stumble.

I can see no problem at this point.

Thus, G-d shows first that IF one happens to sin; then that person can "improve" (repent, perform teshuvah) and it will be forgiven of them. Moreover, before it even gets to the step, G-d tells Cain that he can rule over this longing (this yetzer ra):

As I show above, I don't see where the Hebrew actually says what is being asserted here. There is very little reason to accept the translation of "improve" or "amend"; and there is no reason to accept the idea of "forgiveness" being asserted here.

but you can rule over it If you wish, you will overpower it. ? [from Sifrei Ekev 45, Kidd. 30b]

Yes, I agree that Cain, and all humans, have the potential to master or rule over it; but I hold that potential is never realized. We know from the rest of the story that Cain did not master yetzer ra; and interestingly, it is in the rest of the story where we find that an mediator was necessary.

There is nothing here about needing a mediator to overcome the temptation to the wrong thing or an evil deed.

The absence of needing a mediator to overcome temptation from this specific passage is irrelevant to that question. I would never claim this verse does suggest such a thing, so you have only knocked over a strawman, not the actual argument of the Christian, which relies on other verses.

However, it is interesting that Cain needed G-d to act as mediator forbearing his punishment. What I mean is that Cain complains to G-d that his punishment for killing Abel is too great in that it leaves his life in jeapordy. Therefore, G-d acts as mediator by marking him and promising an even greater punishment for anyone who would kill Cain and thus make his punishment greater than that placed upon him by G-d.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Tzaddik Gamur

This is a summation statement that I've read before:

From the little that I have researched this, it appears that there are a handfull of Tzaddik Gamur in each generation.

This dispels the concept that Jesus was somehow the only one who never sinned during his life.

Can you please cite passages in the Old Testament that give evidence to Tzaddik Gamur? I would like one example of a person who was one.

 

[buckeyegrad]

No, it means G-d hates Michigan. :p

Finally, we have found common ground!

 

[buckeyegrad]

Am I just not paying attention? I thought only posts ago you were making the suggestion that Jesus was in some different body.

Did you miss this part of the link?

Though He was raised physically, His body was a glorified body. It was the same body, but it was different.

I perhaps did not state things well enough earlier. The body was the same, though there were qualitative differences about it. What were they? I don't know, as I don't know the differences of a glorified body versus a non-glorified body.

If you're now arguing it's the same body, then your original metaphor fails as I have previously outlined.

How? Same body/spirit in substance, but qualitatively different is what I am arguing. In the plant analogy, does not the same DNA, the same molecular componds, and same protiens exist? In other words, same substance. The difference is merely qualitative.

I would only note that in this respect, you appear to admit to the worship of an ASPECT of G-d, even if you acknowledge echad. In other words, even if we accept that Jesus is an aspect of G-d, you don't appear to worship, for example, Elohim separately and distinctly and so I wonder how you reconcile that? I appreciate that your understanding is apparently different than the 'typical Christian' but I'm confused as to how setting... if you will.. the Jesus Aspect so far apart and "above" any other aspect you are not committing yourself to pray to an "expression" of G-d rather than G-d Himself.

No, I did not say Jesus only represents or is an aspect of G-d. I thought I was pretty clear that I said G-d in His wholeness is present in Jesus. This is why I said my understanding of a triune G-d is very different than most Christians. Often Christians (especially Catholics and mainline Protestants) do assign different attributes to the "persons" of the trinity, which in turns leads them away form the understanding of echad, and I would say in error.

The inclination to choose what we want over what G-d commands is what makes us require an intercessor.... How so? Sorry, that statement does not follow. Likewise, selfishness is not 'G-dless' as you assert. How am I failing to "submit to G-d's authority" when I act on the yetzer ra impulse of sheltering myself?

Why would it be assumed that G-d's commands would not have you shelter your life in order to preserve it (assuming you are not intentionally taking anyone else's life with malice in order to preserve your own)? To preserve one's own life is always a selfish act? That is your assumption (at least in the question asked), not mine.

95% eh? Well... I guess the Bible is almost inerrant then.

The 95% refers to my abilities/perceptions, not the text.

Ok... I won't argue the point except to say that, as you appear to admit in the preceding paragraph this "rich understanding" is pure conjecture.

As I also stated, or at least intended to, was that the more important principle is that most contradictions that people claim to see is the result of them assigning the assumption of two events, facts, ideas being mutually exclusive of each other; whereas the "conjucture", even if incorrect, shows that such an assumption is not valid.

Have you ever considered that Paul might be wrong, and that there is no such blockage after all? Millions of Jews, atheists, and myself, seem to be able to follow what is written on our hearts without much trouble at all.

You know that I hold that Paul was directed by the spirit of G-d, so know, I don't consider that he was wrong.

As for you being able to follow what is objectively written on your heart, well you can't really claim that as you only think you are following what is written on your heart. For example, we can both agree on murder, fine. However, what about the fact that I would say that it is also written on our hearts that pre-marital sex is wrong. You would likely disagree that this is not written on our hearts, or at least not yours, but rather cultural imposition. But if that is the case, how can you say prohibited murder is on the heart, but prohibited pre-marital sex is merely cultural? The other option of different things being written on different hearts, how does that reconcile with G-d being infinite? Wouldn't it be the same through creation if this is so?

I

realize you don't believe in real people who are guiltess or without sin. It's part of the Christian belief. I get that. But, humor me... My Cousin is without guilt, is morally upright, and has not breached any commandment. He is also an atheist.
So, I repeat:
Question: What fate is in store for a purely righteous man who does not believe in G-d (and/or Jesus)?

What is his fate? Non-existence.

Is moral behavior alone enough? If "no," why the fixation on morality?

Is moral behavior enough? Clearly your answer is no. So... why the fixation on it?

Now if this is the question you are trying to get at through the hypothetical, then I can answer. Moral behavior (which I assume to be the commands of G-d) is enough if we can adhere to it. However, we all fail at it. It is in our nature, which is not to say we have original sin, but that we sin originally.

However, the reason it remains important is two fold: a) as G-d is love, then it is to reason that there is a benefit to obeying what He commands; b) because I love G-d, I have a desire to do what He commands (just as I have a desire to do what my wife asks of me because I love her--it is only when I am being selfish that I resent doing what she asks). Both of these reasons boil down to a greater reason: because G-d's commands lead us to a greater relationship between G-d and man.

Yeah, I liked that one. It's a good way to get people to think outside the box. However, let's speak the assumptions.... If I seek a grouping of things composed of 1 solid object with another solid object equaling 1, can I be assured that I have 2 things, or am I just guessing?

Yes, that is true, unless there are other assumption you and I are making that we are not aware of and would not be aware of unless someone else pointed them out to us. On this subject regarding the understanding of pi, I am reminded of a tribe I once read about that had no concept of numbers beyond 3. I wonder how they would reconcile the principle of pi? (if you are interested in what tribe this is, I will look it up when I get home this evening.)

Does calling the universe (for me, the metaverse) Infinity (Minus) one help at all? (Where G-d would be considered infinity for purposes of the expression)

Not really. Because now you have said that the universe is greater than G-d, which would also mean that the -1 is something other than G-d, which now leaves us at the problem of there being something beyond or other than G-d (which ironically is what I contend exists and what I call infinity). Either that, or I'm not following.

 

[muffler dragon]

I remember you stating this before and I said I would address it. I apologize for not doing so.

My first question is what translation of the Hebrew are you using?

This one.

Given the chance tonight, I'll try to see what my ArtScroll Stone Edition Tanakh says (it's not available online).

I looked at around 10 different translations and none of them said "it will be forgiven". So, I decided to look up what the actual Hebrew being used is in this case. The word is seeth, which means elevate, rise up, or swell. Giving, the benefit of the doubt, I then looked to see where else in the Tanakh the word is used to see if the meaning of "forgiveness" can actually be derived anywhere in its usage. Turns out there are 13 instances of seeth and none of them even suggest the idea of forgiveness. Half of the references refer to skin problems likes scabs. The other half refer to one's position of power or authority. So, I have no idea where the idea of forgiveness is being stated here. Rather it seems to be saying that Cain would receive a position of dignity or loftiness.

I don't know if I can find out what the translational bases are for the Judaica Press Tanakh. However, I will say this: sin can be perceived as a lowering of one's position spiritually. Repentance is the step taken by the sinner to absolve said sin. Forgiveness is granted by G-d. When forgiveness is granted, metaphorically one rises back to their place of righteousness.

Next, I looked up what Hebrew word is being used for your translation "if you improve". Here, the word is yatab, which typically means do/be well, good, or pleasing. I did find four instance of yatab, where the idea of amending one's ways could be applied, but the idea of doing well also worked in the context of the passages. Interestingly, all four of these instances were in Jeremiah. All instances of yatab in Torah appear to give the meaning of do well/good.

As I'm sure you know, Judaism is a religion of doing.

Hence, the RSV translation of Genesis 4:7 appears to give the more correct understanding of the verse in English:

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

As I understand it, the RSV is from wiki:

an English translation of the Bible published in the mid-20th century. It traces its history all the way back to William Tyndale's New Testament translation of 1525 and the King James Version of 1611. The RSV is a comprehensive revision of the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Version (RV) of 1881-85, and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, with the ASV being the primary basis for the revision.

I don't know that I would take this over a translation from Jewish scholars, but that's another thread.

As I show above, I don't see where the Hebrew actually says what is being asserted here. There is very little reason to accept the translation of "improve" or "amend"; and there is no reason to accept the idea of "forgiveness" being asserted here.

I have just sent word to some people that I know who are fluent in the Hebrew. Hopefully, they'll be able to get back to me, and I will post the response(s).

Yes, I agree that Cain, and all humans, have the potential to master or rule over it; but I hold that potential is never realized. We know from the rest of the story that Cain did not master yetzer ra; and interestingly, it is in the rest of the story where we find that an mediator was necessary.

It's fine that you "hold" that that potential is "never realized"; however, that doesn't stand up to Jewish tradition nor modern day times.

The absence of needing a mediator to overcome temptation from this specific passage is irrelevant to that question. I would never claim this verse does suggest such a thing, so you have only knocked over a strawman, not the actual argument of the Christian, which relies on other verses.

So, you don't agree with Paul then? As I recall he writes about his futility in attempting to do right. He still tries, but yet, he can't.

My point is not a strawman in the slightest. You've, thus far, attempted to refute my point by sticking with Christian Bibles. I have already stated that I will reach out to those who are fluent in Hebrew and idioms to see what they have to say. IF they substantiate what I've written thus far; then it's most definitely NOT a strawman. Until then, it's an argument that I have not thoroughly substantiated (and I concede that point).

However, it is interesting that Cain needed G-d to act as mediator forbearing his punishment. What I mean is that Cain complains to G-d that his punishment for killing Abel is too great in that it leaves his life in jeapordy. Therefore, G-d acts as mediator by marking him and promising an even greater punishment for anyone who would kill Cain and thus make his punishment greater than that placed upon him by G-d.

And if we take your thought further, G-d could have provided another human being to be offered up for Cain's sin right then and there. But G-d didn't.

 

[muffler dragon]

Can you please cite passages in the Old Testament that give evidence to Tzaddik Gamur? I would like one example of a person who was one.

Here's a link you might find interesting in this regard:

About Joseph

Joseph in rabbinical literature

Joseph occupies a very important place in Rabbinical literature , and no patriarch was the subject of so many Midrash ic traditional narratives. As Rachel was visited by the Lord on Rosh ha-Shanah (Talmud, Tractate Rosh Hashana. 10b), Joseph was born in due course on the 1st of Tammuz , 2199 ( Book of Jubilees , xxviii. 32). Joseph is represented as a perfectly righteous man (tzadik gamur) and as the counterpart of his father; not only did Joseph resemble his father in appearance and in having been born circumcised , but the main incidents of their lives were parallel. Both were born after their mothers had been barren for a long time; and both were hated by their brothers; both were met by angel s at various times (Gen. R. lxxxiv. 6; Num. R. xiv. 16). Joseph is extolled by the Rabbis for being well versed in the Torah , for being a prophet , and for supporting his brothers (Tan., Wayesheb, 20). According to R. Phinehas , the Holy Spirit dwelt in Joseph from his childhood until his death (Pirke R. El. xxxviii.). Jacob's other children came into the world only for Joseph's sake; the Red Sea and the River Jordan were passed dry-shod by the children of Israel through the virtue of Joseph (Gen. R. lxxxiv. 4; Le?a? ?ob to Gen. xxxvii. 2). When Joseph and his mother bowed to Esau (Gen. xxxiii. 7), Joseph shielded his mother with his figure (Targ. pseudo-Jonathan, ad loc.), protecting her from the lascivious eyes of Esau, for which he was rewarded through the exemption of his descendants from the spell of the evil eye (Gen. R. lxxviii. 13; comp. Ber. 20a; So?ah 36b). When Joseph reported to his father the evil doings of his brothers (Gen. xxxvii. 2), his design was merely that his father might correct them (Le?a? ?ob, ad loc.). The nature of the "evil report" is variously given by the Rabbis. According to Pirke R. El. xxxviii., Joseph spoke only against the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah , that they ate meat which they had not slaughtered in accordance with the Law (comp. Targ. pseudo-Jonathan, ad loc.). According to R. Judah, Joseph reported that the sons of Leah slighted the sons of the concubines by calling them slaves. R. Simeon's opinion was that Joseph spoke against them all, accusing them of "looking at the daughters of the land" (Gen. R. lxxxiv. 7). The reason for Jacob's special love toward Joseph was, according to R. Judah, that Joseph resembled Jacob in appearance; but according to R. Nehemiah it was that he transmitted to Joseph all the Halakha he had studied in the school of Shem and Eber (ib. lxxxiv. 8).

Btw, modern times are also a consideration. Here are some links to stories:

The Nazir

They both returned to Israel after the war and David Cohen took an oath of nezirus (to become a nazir) to atone for his previous behavior. As a nazir, he never cut his hair nor drank wine, and he was known as "The Nazir" and was reputed to be a tzaddik gamur (a perfected individual).

Seraphic Secret: Links to the Past

Ariel's concern for others was deep and genuine. Ariel had no pretenses; there was not a dishonest bone in his body. This absolute goodness is why people loved and respected Ariel. I was not the first person to call Ariel a Tzaddik Gamur, an Authentic Saint. No, I left that to others. Karen and I knew that it was true, but Ariel's deep sense of modesty prevented us from ever saying it out loud.

 

[muffler dragon]

Genesis 4:7 Update

According to my ArtScroll Stone Edition Chumash, verse 7 says:

7. Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, sin rests at your door. Its desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it.

Here is the commentary that starts at v. 3 and continues through v.7:

3-5. From the subtle contrast between the simple description of Cain's offering and the more specific description of Abel's offering - from the firstlings of his flock and from the choicest - the Sages derive that Cain's offering was from the inferior portions of the crop, while Abel chose only the finest of his flock. Therefore, Abel's sacrifice was accepted, but not Cain's (Ibn Ezra; Radak).
6-7. G-d wished to teach Cain how to repent: A sinner can atone for his sins if he will but repent sincerely (Radak).
7. Sin rests at your door. At the entrance to your grave, your sin will be kept (Rashi), i.e., punishment will await you in the future world unless you repent. If you succumb to your Evil Inclination, punishment and evil will be as everpresent as if they lived in the doorway of your house (Sforno).
It's desire... The Evil Inclination desires continually to entice you, yet you can conquer it - you can prevail over it if you wish (Rashi), for you can mend your ways and cast off your sin. Thus G-d taught Cain that Man can always repent and G-d will forgive him (Rambam).

As for the translation, this is the introduction to the Chumash that describes how these scholars went about translating:

The new translation in this volume attempts to render the text as our Sages understood it. Where there are differing interpretations, we follow Rashi, the "Father of Commentators," because the study of Chumash has been synonymous with Chumash-Rashi for nine centuries. <snip> In this translation, we attempt to follow the Hebrew as closely as possible and to avoid paraphrase, but, occasionally, English syntax or idiom forces us to deviate somewhat.

This is the introduction from the Tanakh by ArtScroll Stone Edition which has the same translation as the Chumash:

The first goal of a translation must be accuracy; no effort was spared in the successful quest of that goal. Scriptural Hebrew is laden with nuance and meaning. The language is replete with allusion. The scholars involved in this task were consumed with the sense of mission - that they were dealing with the sacred and eternal word of G-d, not mere "literature"; that their task was not to rewrite the text, but to convey its meaning faithfully. The translation balances the lofty beauty of the Hebrew text with the need to provide a literate and comprehensible English rendering. Where a choice has to be made, we preferred fidelity to the text over inaccurate simplicity, but occasionally we had to stray from the literal translation or Hebrew syntax in order to capture the essence of a phrase or to make it intelligible in English. We feel that the translators have succeeded admirably.
The reader will note that this translation very often varies from other ArtScroll translations of Scripture. This was necessitated by the nature of this work. In standard ArtScroll works, whenever the Hebrew was obscure, the extensive commentary would clarify and give varying opinions on its meaning; consequently, the translation would remain close to the Hebrew and rely on the commentary. For this edition, however, the translation had to stand on its own and be clear withuut resort to the notes, wherever possible.

Thus, it should be noted that this translation is a matter of staying true to the Hebrew while incorporating the vast amount of commentary so as to give a clear picture of what the words, verses, passages are trying to convey.

As you can see from the commentary on the Chumash, there are two phrases that I would like to emphasize:

1) 6-7. G-d wished to teach Cain how to repent: A sinner can atone for his sins if he will but repent sincerely (Radak).
2) Thus G-d taught Cain that Man can always repent and G-d will forgive him (Rambam).

These two commentaries of the Sages show that my original contention is correct. Thus, your claim that my argument was a strawman is incorrect, and my original point stands.

 

[muffler dragon]

I have just received a response from a Rabbi acquaintance regarding the passage in question.

Here is what I wrote:

Dear Rabbi:

Bereishis 4 (according to the Judaica Press Tanakh) states the following:

1. Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, and she said, "I have acquired a man with the Lord."
2. And she continued to bear his brother Abel, and Abel was a shepherd of flocks, and Cain was a tiller of the soil.
3. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord.
4. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.
6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?
7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

I am having a discussion with someone right now about v. 7. I am attempting to explain the usage of "forgiven" by the translators. Unfortunately, (and I do realize this is recommendation #1), I don't know Hebrew nor the idiosyncracies that would promote the idea of forgiveness instead of "elevation" as the word is used elsewhere.

I appreciate any assistance you can give.
Regards.

And this was his response:

Simple.

Because the second half of the verse says, "If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying."

So what's the opposite of not improving and falling into more sin? Improving and being forgiven.

And...

There are those who say verse 7 concludes the thought of verse 6, "Kayin, why has you countenance fallen? If you improve, it [your countenance] will be elevated."

 

[buckeyegrad]

I don't know if I can find out what the translational bases are for the Judaica Press Tanakh. However, I will say this: sin can be perceived as a lowering of one's position spiritually. Repentance is the step taken by the sinner to absolve said sin. Forgiveness is granted by G-d. When forgiveness is granted, metaphorically one rises back to their place of righteousness.

I agree with this concept, but I don't see it being said in the Genesis 4 verse(s) we are discussing. I have looked at the Hebrew words and do not see the issue of forgiveness being spoken of here. Only a warning to Cain.

As I understand it, the RSV is from wiki:

an English translation of the Bible published in the mid-20th century. It traces its history all the way back to William Tyndale's New Testament translation of 1525 and the King James Version of 1611. The RSV is a comprehensive revision of the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Version (RV) of 1881-85, and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, with the ASV being the primary basis for the revision.

I don't know that I would take this over a translation from Jewish scholars, but that's another thread.

Don't put too much emphasis on my use of the RSV. That is not on what I am basing my understanding. Rather, I went to the Hebrew words, where again, I do not find repentence or forgiveness being discussed; rather doing what is righteous and one's position if they do so.

It's fine that you "hold" that that potential is "never realized"; however, that doesn't stand up to Jewish tradition nor modern day times.

And there is the problem of our disagreements and why we will never agree. Jewish tradition, like all other traditions, comes from the origin of men's minds, not that of G-d's. You have decided to accept that that tradition is priveleged, but I see zero reason from the Tanakh or the teachings of Yeshua and his disciples to assume that it is.

So, you don't agree with Paul then? As I recall he writes about his futility in attempting to do right. He still tries, but yet, he can't.

Where do you conclude this from what I said? I didn't say I disagree with Paul or his futility in attempting to do right when he did not have the Holy Spirit. I specifically said that I see no reason to accept the opposite of what Paul taught from the specific verses of Genesis 4 that we are discussing. (I must be honest, I find it frustrating to discuss these topics with you as I constantly feel you are adding and subtracting things from what I actually state. Perhaps, the problem is that I am not clear enough, but when I go back to what I wrote, I'm not sure where the problem is. This is part of the reason I ended our discussion several weeks ago.)

My point is not a strawman in the slightest. You've, thus far, attempted to refute my point by sticking with Christian Bibles. I have already stated that I will reach out to those who are fluent in Hebrew and idioms to see what they have to say. IF they substantiate what I've written thus far; then it's most definitely NOT a strawman. Until then, it's an argument that I have not thoroughly substantiated (and I concede that point).

Christian Bibles? How is looking at the Hebrew words actually present in the text using "Christian Bibles". I referenced one to say it gave a more accurate representation of the Hebrew in English translation, that is all.

As for the strawman, the point is that you are using Genesis 4 to reject a claim made by Christians as if they are making an incorrect conclusion from the text. However, Christians don't use that passage to derive or support their position that a mediator is necessary between us and G-d. once we have sinned.

And if we take your thought further, G-d could have provided another human being to be offered up for Cain's sin right then and there. But G-d didn't.

Ah, but He did! Well not right then and there in the sense of linear time. But, Yeshua is the mediator for those who came both before and after him (this is the argument being made in Hebrews 11). Of course, Cain never did repent of his sin, so the mediator and the sacrfice would mean nothing.