|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 31, 2010 1:28:03 GMT -8
And G-d said, let us make Man in our image in our likeness...The truth is that this is being spoken by G-d in the Heavenly Court. The audience is the Angels. I agree with that statement, and it has been taught by many of the Sages. The rest of your theory, however, is foreign to me. Where did you get these ideas if I may ask? Unfortunately, you can't change a trinitarians mind concerning this passage. If the original sin doctrine (which is the foundation for the trinity doctrine) crumbles, then Yeshua isn't forced to be G-d. They don't want any part of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 31, 2010 6:32:58 GMT -8
I tend to bristle, not at the misunderstandings concerning Trinity ( a term that truly has a broader definition than anyone would care to admit), but at the accomodation of evolutionary thinking- though I understand that Darwinian evolution and modern evolution are two completely distinct notions.
There is, by a critical interpretation of Genesis 1:1, a consider possibility of "the gap theory": a suggestion that an indefinite period of time takes place between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. "The earth was without form and void" may be translated as "the earth became desolate", suggesting that it had existed in a prior state of order. To this end, speculations abound, even suggesting the fall of haSatan occurred during this earlier creation. Some have even suggested that promagnum and dinosaurs were part of this earlier creation. It makes for interesting reading but has nothing to do with the message and purpose of the Bible: to demonstrate that Adonai created us with the intention of living in a love relationship with Him and set the stage to accomodate sin so as to enable Him to provide forgiveness, so that we might understand and respond to Him in love.
Even the doctrine of "Trinity" is somehow superflous to this basic thesis. Do we have to have a concrete understanding of the nature and fundamental characteristics of God in order to respond to His love? That's sort of like saying you have to understand the molecular construction of a grape in order to enjoy it. I bite it, it squashes and I'm happy. What's more to know?
I fear that we handicap ourselves in our desire to be knowledgable, or more right than the next guy, when the purpose of the Bible is to draw us closer to haShem.
That being said, I'm pleased and grateful for you taking the opportunity to join us. I think your thoughts are well-reasoned and insightful. I look forward to reading more!
|
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Jan 31, 2010 11:10:12 GMT -8
The description of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 dismisses any notion of angelic participation.
They are not mentioned.
Reading into Scripture things which are not there is, at the very least, not a wise thing to do.
Of course, man is free to believe or not believe the Word.
Frankly, I'm always bewildered at man's attempt to complicate that which is not complicated and to explain the unknowable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 31, 2010 12:16:45 GMT -8
Actually, it kind of reminded me of the movie Time Bandits
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 31, 2010 16:10:27 GMT -8
The description of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 dismisses any notion of angelic participation. They are not mentioned. Reading into Scripture things which are not there is, at the very least, not a wise thing to do. The Sages exegesis on the creation account goes beyond the P'shat, or simple meaning of the text in Bereshith 1&2. They draw conclusions from other passages in the Tanakh, concerning the creation. Which clearly indicate that the angelic host was indeed involved. I don't believe using the PaRDeS method of Biblical interpretation is akin to "Reading into Scripture things which are not there." To dismiss  masters such as the ancient Sages is not a wise thing to do, in my opinion. Have you ever read "Mysteries of the creation" by Dovid Brown, or "Derech HaShem" by the RaMCHaL? Great stuff concerning the creation account. |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Jan 31, 2010 20:36:43 GMT -8
No, I haven't read the authors you mention.
I do read the Tanakh and the Brit Chadashah and I see no indication that angels were consulted in the creation process; but I do see that all things were created through and for the Son, with no reference to angels (Colossians 1:16).
I don't consider the writings of "sages" to be equal with those of Moses or Paul but you apparently do, which is your privilege.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Feb 1, 2010 0:30:55 GMT -8
Once again, your putting words in my mouth (I'm sure it's not intentional though). I do not, nor did I ever say, that I value the Sages words above that of . However, they are authoritative to Judaism. So I take their writings very seriously, as anyone who studies should [Matt 23:2-3]. You said you read the Tanakh, and that's good, because that's exactly the source that the Sages draw upon. They don't come up with the conclusions they do out of thin air. They expound upon passages straight from the Tanakh. Would you like an example? |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Feb 3, 2010 17:14:31 GMT -8
Since I read the Tanakh, maybe I'm a sage, too. Did you ever think of that?  Now all I have to do is convert to rabbinic Judaism and I'll be a genuine Jewish Sage. Think of the possibilities! |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Feb 3, 2010 17:29:46 GMT -8
Shalom achim,
It is true that we shouldn't hold the writings found in the Mishnah, Talmud, ect. as an authority source for believers in Messiah or in Messianic Judaism. I believe such writings are valuable for several reasons (history, context, practice, ect.). We should consider much of the wisdom that the Sages of Yisrael taught. But, when something is taught that cannot even remotely be found in the scriptures, it is interesting to conjecture about, but we shouldn't assume that it is truth. Every truth must be tested by the canon of the TeNaKh.
Can we all agree about this and move forward accordingly?
Chen v'shalom aleychem,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Feb 3, 2010 20:48:39 GMT -8
Since I read the Tanakh, maybe I'm a sage, too. Did you ever think of that? Now all I have to do is convert to rabbinic Judaism and I'll be a genuine Jewish Sage. Think of the possibilities! There are no more Sages. Everyone who converts to Judaism doesn't become a Sage. I don't know where you got that idea. |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Feb 3, 2010 23:42:46 GMT -8
Were you brothers discussing a particular subject, or is this a rabbit trail? Also, let's continue to do our best to back up our claims with scripture.
Shalom,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Feb 4, 2010 7:27:01 GMT -8
Were you brothers discussing a particular subject, or is this a rabbit trail? Also, let's continue to do our best to back up our claims with scripture. Shalom, Reuel Probably both. I was discussing a particular subject. The statement was made that angels were involved in the creation process. I disagreed, using Scripture to make my point. The smiley in my last post might indicate that my answer was somewhat facetious. |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Feb 6, 2010 19:41:56 GMT -8
G-d addresses the Angels in the Heavenly Court and says 'Let us make Man in our image in our likeness' to give them their own portion of the task of making Man. Maybe I'm missing something, but that looks like you're saying angels were involved in making man, not maintenance. |
|
|
|
Post by Zardoz on Feb 6, 2010 23:00:47 GMT -8
... Here G-d takes over the creation process. G-d creates Adam personally... ...Genesis 1:26 just read the Rashi.... If you need me to translate the Rashi for you I can. |
|
|
|
Post by zionlion on Feb 7, 2010 18:27:38 GMT -8
Thanks, but since rashi wasn't there, I'll pass.
|
|
and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you. [Numbers 15:16]
