There is very little difference between what you describe and that of just about every human being’s model for life. Scientists live in a system that tells them where they came from (the big bang), where they are (just outside the milky way) and where they are going (unified field theory, evolution, et al), even after death (going nowhere). To quasi-quote you: ‘[The scientist’s] reading and understanding is approached the same way any of us read and understand an operator’s manual. Their refusal to see [metaphysically] isn’t because they can’t, but because to do so could force them into an open ended ambiguous existence where the [cosmos are not operating supersymmetrically].’ Even most atheists and mystics operate on some fundamental instructions on living, learning, and experiencing…
I think it was actually a warning against literalism.
Which is what Jesus was quoting. It’s clear that Isaiah was writing against the strict rules practiced for belief as well…
literal belief, made by men.
well, that may be true, but… we still can’t take it completely literally, as the “end has not come upon all the land” , “everywhere.”
I understand what you are saying, that we should apply filters where we know what they were talking about, but because they saw the world differently, we need to change the wording of. (or maybe I’m misinterpreting you?)
The end didn’t come did it?(or did I miss that part of history?)
----------> since the taxonomy subject is slightly off topic feel free not to respond.
Taxonomy isn’t that subjective… birds, by their very natur lay eggs and are warm blooded. Bats, are mammals and don’t lay eggs.
Of course, if you want to talk about a transitionary form which is subjective, look at the duck bill platypus or lungfish.
(1) It is common to use the phrase “four corners of the earth” to refer to the entire world: e.g., I have pretty much travelled the four corners of the earth.
(2) Importantly, the four corners of the land can imply the four corners of a specific region. That is, the four corners of the land, in reference to my country would be something along the lines of “from California, to the New York Island, from the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf Stream waters”
(3) Please note who Ezekiel was addressing: the land of Israel. Ezekiel 7:2
(4) It can be argued that the destruction of the land of Israel most certainly occured.
(5) Demonstrating how simple it is to misinterpret texts does not mean that a justified interpretation of the author’s intent is not possible.
My knowledge of midrash is very limited, my understanding is that midrash are fictional stories meant to convey a moral or spiritual lesson, like a fable, except that they use historic religious characters such as Moses, Abraham, and Adam, yes?
If that's basically accurate, I would say that they can be instructional for lay people with a casual interest, children, and other individuals not really concerned with credibility and the historical truth of a religion. In general, I feel that the practice of religion and the kinds of questions that we are likely to encounter here are two widely different things. Whatever use midrash has as an instructional/spiritual tool, I don't think it's [i]detrimental[/i] to what we're talking about here, so long as it's clearly identified for what it is. I would love to hear more about Jewish perspectives on midrash, and how they view historicism, for that matter.
I agree that much of the bible is obviously meant as allegory and metaphor. The question is to which and what degree and herein lies the rub. I’d hate to have to add up all the factions that have carved the bible into so many pieces. The same can be said for any major religious or philosophical movement. This is why I look behind to see if there isn’t a motive that explains why rather than to get lost in defining what is metaphor and what is literal. I have no issue with those who consciously read and make their own personal decisions. That is as it should be, what does concern me are the Robertson/Falwell followers who blindly accept the pronounciations of those ‘authorities’ whose interpretations aren’t just fallable, but border on ridiculous. Supposedly, we are thinking animals, and I am wary of any system that doesn’t encourage thinking for one’s self. Of course, this is only my POV, and I have exposed myself as one of those who values questioning - everything.
thirst,
Yes, of course all POV’s are culturally and linguistically dependent. We all start somewhere and no matter where we go, there we are. That said, there is always the option of asking questions about our assumptions. And this is back to my first post. Some will and some won’t. The difference may seem subtle, but for me there is a giant difference between asking the question and deciding for myself, and simply accepting the authoritative line. Does that make my understanding more valid? No. But it does make it MINE. I don’t care for second-hand anything.
4 and 1 contradict each other, you can’t redact the prophesy. He clearly said “four corners” which we’ve justified regardless of whether the earth was flat (in their minds, and it’s where that phrase comes from), we know he meant the “whole earth”.
then you downplay that, by simply stating “israel”. The downfall of Israel happened several times. If that’s what Ezekiel meant, he would’ve said Israel, and not “the four corners”.
because of this, I would argue that for (5) you are the one misinterpreting the texts.
I agree with JT, and think we should question everything. It’s clear that there are parts of the bible that:
don’t apply to us.
can’t apply to us.
prophecies that didn’t happen (and may never?)
the changing world and the changing people. Most people would find sin sacrifice disgusting now. In fact many jews don’t think that the temple will ever be rebuilt so they don’t even contemplate killing animals for sin.
But… that’s only one example. We could spend weeks discussing outmoded parts of the bible. and JT has another good point… where do you draw the line of literal and allegory?
I think it’s better to look to scholars, and I think Joseph Campbell’s interpretation of myth helps in this case alot.
I am not a semite or Israelite, but I would say you have a very good idea for broadening your understanding.
Midrash is what you stated, and as is often with eastern languages, it is used in another context as a culturally based understanding of constant interpretation within the language, dependent upon levels of knowledge and experience. This is the part of the Bible that never made it through translation.
Really Scythekain? Let’s test that by going to Ezekiel 6 (the whole chapter).
A few things to point out:
The audience is clearly identified as ISRAEL in vs. 2.
The audience is again clearly identified as ISRAEL in vs. 3
Again, in vs. 3, identified are the hills, mountains, valleys, of ISRAEL.
There will be remnants left (vs. 8 )
Who is god going to destroy? ISRAEL! (vs. 11)
Identified in blue is something that is important: he identifies a different area named Diblath (in vs. 14). The context suggests that the land of which god speaks is limited to a specific region.
The transition into Ezekiel 7 is SEAMLESS (let us read):
Do you see it yet? The four corners of the land… not the four corners of the Earth. Do you see it yet? The four corners are the borders of Israel. Maybe you should read more than a small segment of the bible before coming to a conclusion? Perhaps you should have more than a rudimentary education in theology before you speak with authority? Perhaps you need more than a few “god suxxors” internet links to comprehend complext text? Nah, why would you want to do that?
" Let them arise the same way in which they expired and after their awakening I shall heal them " (Midrash Rabbah 95; Zohar 3:9 1 ).
It explains in the Jewish scriptures that Elijah was the reincarnated soul of Phineas , son of Aaron , the first high preist .
Their are 613 mitzvot , commandments , in the Jewish bible . Jews generally believe that the soul of a person must reincarnate as many times as is necessary in order to become perfect , the pharisees believed this also , and it is the mitzvot they believe that makes the soul perfect .
And as you can see from the passage above taken from the midrash , it describes this evolution of the soul . Contrary to going into hell or heaven , it is said each shall arise as they died , that is to say , return to eath and live as a human again , until perfection has been reached .
This is what Jesus meant when he said " be therefore perfect as your father in heaven is perfect .
Its always been ridiculous that some christians do not believe in rebirth , because with only one life to live , a human would never become as perfect as God
Again , depends on how you wish to view things . Naturally you will find some Jews who deny reincarnation , as many christians and muslims do , this is to be expected . Many prominent rabbis believe in reincarnation , some who are prominent dont . But Again I believe its about what common sense tells you is right much of the time .
" In recent years, there has been an upsurge of interest in Kabbalah , which teaches the doctrine of reincarnation , and today it is commonly studied among Hasidic Jews , and among many nonÂ-Orthodox Jews who are part of the counterculture.
With regards to the skepticism, well, this is certainly not a new occurrence–it actually stems from generations of debate over this little known yet intriguing notion.
The debate over reincarnation was very much a controversy between the Kabbalists and philosophers. “Kabbalah” literally means “reception.” The traditions of Kabbalah were transferred from one generation to the next , an unbroken chain since the original knowledge was taught over 3,300 years ago on Mount Sinai.
Those who did not receive these well-guarded traditions argued against reincarnation based on their logical thought process "
" The study of the Torah must have as its primary motivation to attach the soul to its source through the Torah, in order to complete the supernal tree – the sephiroth , and to complete and perfect the supernal man. . . . If a person has not perfected himself by fulfilling all the 613 commandments in action, speech and thought, he will of necessity he subject to gilgul – reincarnation "
{Shulhan Arukh }
" Although some Rabbis initially opposed basing religious law on a summary code, rather than going back to the original legal sources, the Shulhan Arukh rapidly came to be accepted in almost all Jewish communities as the most authoritative statement of normative religious law. In recent generations, acceptance of the Shulhan Arukh has come to be regarded as a defining criterion of religious Orthodoxy and traditionalism.
Sha’ar HaGilgulim (Gate of Reincarnations) is a kabbalistic work on reincarnation. Based primarily on the Zohar (section Mishpatim), where gilgulim (reincarnations) are discussed, it also borrows heavily from the teachings of the prominent Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-1572, otherwise known as the Arizal). The book was composed by the Arizal’s main disciple Rabbi Chaim Vital and his son Shmuel "
In "Jewish tales of Reincarnation , Rabbi Yonassan Gershom has gathered some extraordinary stories and teachings about reincarnation found in Jewish literature
Yeah, but you're the "Church fathers were astrologers" guy, and the "Sphynx has the body of a bull and not a lion" guy, so I'd rather hear it right from the Jews' mouth, so to speak.
Actually , This is Jewish literature from Jewish people Im quoting , so you are hearing from them . Read some of the references and you will get an idea of whats going on
Saying that the Kabbalah is a representation of what Jews believe is a bit like saying Gnosticism is a representation of what Christians believe, innit?
Mainstream judaism doesn’t believe in reincarnation, DoL.
Now, that’s not to say no groups in the jewish circles believe that, it’s to say in the mainstream, that is not a belief. Among some of the more fringe scholarly ideas, it’s believed jesus was an essene, and that the essenes believed in the reincarnation teachings.
there is of course no real way to prove that, as they haven’t found any essene writings that refer to any great teacher beyond one called “the teacher of wisdom”.
There certainly is an ounce of reason, to the idea that reincarnation, came from these groups to christianity. It was just changed from a physical re-birth to a spiritual one.
" Reincarnation has been a belief for thousands of years for orthodox Jews. In the Talmud, “gilgul neshamot” (i.e., reincarnation) is constantly mentioned. The term literally means “the judgment of the revolutions of the souls.” Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel (1604-1657) , one of the most revered Rabbis in Israel , states in his book entitled Nishmat Hayyim:
I would challenge you to call your local Lubovitch rabbi and ask him if most orthodox Jews believe in reincarnation . I believe you will find Im right in saying they do .
There are many Jewish sources dealing with what is popularly called “reincarnation.” In Hebrew, it is called “gilgul ha’ne’shamot,” literally the recycling or transmigration of souls.
In the Bible itself, the idea is intimated in Deut. 25:5-10, Deut. 33:6 and Isaiah 22:14, 65:6.
And the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote that the Pharisees, the Jewish sect that founded rabbinic Judaism to which Paul once belonged , believed in reincarnation.
The belief in rebirth is not confined to Buddhism. The concept of rebirth exists in Judaism, where it is known as ‘gilgul’ or ‘ibur’. This raises the question : " If belief in reincarnation occurs in Judaism , why was it not carried forward into Christianity ?
In the Christian tradition , there are also number of references to past lives in the New Testament. It is likely that the early church , especially the Celtic Christians , believed in gilgul .
Unfortunately Celtic Christianity was suppressed by the authoritarian continental church at the Synod of Whitby in 664 , which confirmed the triumph of religion over spirituality.
Nevertheless, the idea of gilgul persisted in the Celtic lands of Western Britain for many centuries after (for example in the teachings of the Irish philosopher Johannes Scotus Erigena who taught that the ultimate destiny of all minds , animal and human, is to merge into the blissful state of Enlightenment.
Traces of early belief in rebirth can still be found in Celtic folklore. However, the last vestiges of belief in past and future lives were removed from Western European Christianity with the brutal extermination of the Cathars (Albigensians) in the 13th century.
However , The debate over reincarnation within Judaism was very much a controversy between the Kabbalists and philosophers.
“Kabbalah” literally means “reception.” The traditions of Kabbalah were transferred from one generation to the next, an unbroken chain since the original knowledge was taught over 3,300 years ago on Mount Sinai.
Those who did not receive these well-guarded traditions argued against reincarnation based on their logical thought process. It did not seem to make sense to them, and being that they had not received it as tradition, they felt that it did not exist.
With regards to the skepticism , well , this is certainly not a new occurrence–it actually stems from generations of debate over this little known yet intriguing notion .
A well-known 14th century philosopher , Rabbi Chisdai Cresces , spoke against reincarnation , yet he stated that if he were to have received it in his Kabbalah , he would have felt differently. Similarly, Rabbi Dan Yitzchak Abarbanel wrote that as the great Maimonides neared the end of his own life , he received Kabbalistic traditions which heretofore he had not known of. Upon receiving these traditions , Maimonides stated that had he known of these teachings earlier , he would have retracted many of his philosophical arguments.
Behold, all these things does God do – twice, even three times with a man – to bring his soul back from the pit that he may be enlightened with the light of the living. (Job 33:29)
As long as a person is unsuccessful in his purpose in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, uproots him and replants him over and over again. (Zohar I 186b)
The Zohar, written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai close to two thousand years ago, speaks frequently and at length about reincarnation.
The great Torah scholar, commentator and kabbalist, Nachmanides (Ramban 1195-1270), attributed Job’s suffering to reincarnation as hinted in Job’s saying “G-d does all these things twice or three times with a man, to bring back his soul from the pit to…the light of the living” (Job 33:29,30).
Rabbi Chaim Vital, the disciple of the Arizal (1534-1572), explains in detail the Jewish concept of reincarnation. The soul is placed in a body in order for a person to attain spiritual perfection by refraining from transgression and performing mitzvot. If one accrues too much spiritual damage, the soul must return to repair the damage.
The Bahir, attributed to the first century sage, Nechuniah ben Hakanah, used reincarnation to address the classic question of theodicy – why bad things happen to good people and vice versa:
Reincarnation is cited by authoritative classic biblical commentators, including Ramban , Genesis 38:8, Job 33:30 (Nachmanides), Menachem Recanti , E.g. commentary to Genesis 34:1; his Taamei HaMitzvos , says reincarnation is the secret underlying the ten Talmudic sages who were slaughtered by the Romans , and Rabbenu Bachya , Commentary to Genesis 4:25, Deuteronomy 33:6.
Among the many volumes of the holy Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, known as the "Ari " , most of which come down to us from the pen of his primary disciple , Rabbi Chaim Vital , are profound insights explaining issues related to reincarnation.
Indeed, his Shaar HaGilgulim, “The Gates of Reincarnation,” is a book devoted exclusively to the subject, including details regarding the soul-roots of many biblical personalities and who they reincarnated into from the times of the Bible down to the Ari.
In recent years, there has been an upsurge of interest in kabbalah, and today it is commonly studied among Hasidic Jews , and among many nonÂ-Orthodox Jews who are part of the counterculture.
The Lubovitcher Hasidim are very Orthodox Jews . I recommend the book , " Reincarnation in Judaism" .
The author himself is a Chabad-Lubovitch rabbi . It is an excellent presentation of Jewish teachings about rebirth , a modern book , as filtered through the 200-year-old Hasidic line of the seven saintly Lubovitcher Rebbes.
He begins with some Jewish sources on reincarnation which pre-date the Lubovitcher movement, taken from earlier kabbalistic works. He also points out that some of the classical Jewish sages, such as Saadia Gaon and Maimonides, rejected the idea of reincarnation, mostly because (A) it could not be proven based on intellectual logic, and (B) They did not have access to the kabbalah.
Although there are veiled hints in the Bible , one must rely on the kabbalah for further explanations , which have been received from the unbroken line of teachers reaching back to Moses at Mt. Sinai .
Buried beneath the abstruse jargon of this esoteric treatise lies a rabbi’s labored effort to explain reincarnation . Pinson , a follower of the Lubavitcher Rebbe , relies on Jewish mysticism to validate his view that Jewish thinkers who rejected reincarnation failed to follow the Kabbalah , Judaism’s central mystical text.
In supporting his thesis , Pinson displays remarkable erudition , citing many rabbis as well as Freud , Jung , Tolstoy , Shelley , Hawthorne , Plato , Pascal , Schopenhauer and Spinoza , among others "
Literalism is, it seems to me, most often invoked by people who want to use various passages in religious texts as justifications for things they want to do in the world, or religiously justify. The reasoning of the literalist is that their text is infallible, the very definition of what is true and false, and therefore it must be obeyed, regardless of the counterarguments.
If reason, evidence, or the situation in the world seems to point to the absurdity of a particular doctrine or movement, then reason, evidence, and the world are false, because they have been compared with the text and found wanting.
The literalists have essentially switched the basepoint of the definition of truth. Most people’s instinctive definition of truth/falsehood is whether a given model compares/does not compare with the world (things as they are). The literalists have redefined the situation so that “truth/falsehood” is whether any given model, or even the world itself compares with the authoritative text (things as they are written). People can really only have one basepoint for how they define truth and falsehood.
I personally go with the natural definition - that the world is the basepoint of truth, and that while a particular doctrine may be true or false, it isn’t infallibly true by definition. That is reserved for the actual state of the world.
No it’s not. Bats have many features in common with mammals. Birds have many features, both structural, in terms of their organs, and genetically with other birds. Both have much less similarity with each other. This is demonstratable and quantifiable.
This is precisely what I’m talking about. The bible being the “definition of truth”, who are you to say bats aren’t birds just based on your taxonomy, genetics, anatomy, ect? Literalism strikes again.
I think the author just threw bats in with birds because they both flew, not because there is some hidden kinship between them that should be observed by more precise modern taxonomy.
Your point? I didn't say there was no good reason to call bats mammals and not birds, I said it was a decision and not a discovery. If people back in the days of the Bible wanted to call every single creature that could fly, including bumblebees, a 'bird', there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Besides, they didn't call bats 'birds', they called them some word in Hebrew which [i]we[/i] have translated to mean 'bird'. Apparently, that word meant bats too, eh? You seem to be assuming that in old testament times, there was a word/classification that meant 'mammal' just like the word we have now, and a word/classification that meant 'bird' just like the word we have now, and that the author applied the wrong label to the wrong animal. I don't see any reason to believe that.
Assuming the author wasn't also [i]inventing the written word [/i]as he went along, I think he threw bats in with birds because that's how people of his time grouped those animals. Even assuming the author was all-knowing, if he would have included them in 'beasts of the field' or even among rodents, it wouldn't have made any sense at all to his audience.
