Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Judaism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 22-03-2012, 03:58 AM
Honza Honza is offline
Master
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: God's House
Posts: 12,206
  Honza's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychoslice
As you said, a need to be satisfied, and this is the problem, where there are needs to be satisfied, there is always going to be trouble.

You seem to be talking about utopia. A being with no needs or no beliefs. Such people don't exist.
__________________

The Humility, the Pride and the Humiliation.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 22-03-2012, 04:03 AM
sbjazzman
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychoslice
As you said, a need to be satisfied, and this is the problem, where there are needs to be satisfied, there is always going to be trouble.

So are you a Buddhist? Do you believe that attachment to anything material is degenerating? This is a belief system too. And it's also an unrealistic belief system since it denies our needy physical existence.

Detachment is a goal to strive for in that we all want to transcend ego-driven needs but we all must eat, we all must have shelter and we all must have a way to make sense of our life - whatever and however that is actioned.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 22-03-2012, 04:04 AM
psychoslice psychoslice is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,462
  psychoslice's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honza
You seem to be talking about utopia. A being with no needs or no beliefs. Such people don't exist.
That is true, you wont ever find any one that could ever be satisfied or in complete so called Utopia, that is far beyond the mind body, even beyond what you call I AM.
__________________
A belief system is nothing but poison to your capacity to understand. Good words are used to hide ugly things. – Osho
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 22-03-2012, 04:07 AM
psychoslice psychoslice is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,462
  psychoslice's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbjazzman
So are you a Buddhist? Do you believe that attachment to anything material is degenerating? This is a belief system too. And it's also an unrealistic belief system since it denies our needy physical existence.

Detachment is a goal to strive for in that we all want to transcend ego-driven needs but we all must eat, we all must have shelter and we all must have a way to make sense of our life - whatever and however that is actioned.
No I am no religion, I only speak from my own inner Being, but those who cannot see, will always try to label all they hear, find the answer from your true inner being for your SELF.
__________________
A belief system is nothing but poison to your capacity to understand. Good words are used to hide ugly things. – Osho
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 22-03-2012, 09:10 AM
Yamah
Posts: n/a
 
4
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbjazzman
Jeremiah does not mention the work Meshiach which Isaiah clearly does. It means "anointed one" I can't post links since I'm a newbie but look at Jewish Messianism in Wikipedia for the extensive use of the term in the Talmud. It is not a nickname. If you reference my book you will see why I attribute Messiah to Cyrus who's Hebrew name is Koresh.

A debate on Orthodox points of view on obligation is beyond the scope of this thread and can only end in a circular argument as my opinion strongly supports the notion of Jesus as the first Reform Jew we can actually point to (although he firmly states his adherence to the 10 Commandments and to what he perceives to truly be Jewish Law (perhaps referencing the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law - which we all know is impossible due to absence of vowels in the Torah which opens up all text to interpretation) - specifically Rabbinical interpretation.

Isaiah 45 doesn't talk about The Messiah though... it talks about Cyrus, the king of Persia. Any King is called messiah but that is the process of becoming a king - being annointed. You may have room to say 'this is ALSO a prophecy for the coming of the messiah' but that would be a secondary interpretation which not everyone would agree with and it is precisely those types of prophecies I have attempted to avoid in my essay.

The verses I quoted above are all those which, through Pshat (the simplest reading using traditional vowelization) refer to The Messiah They all, in context, point to a righteous person existing in the future who will basically save the world. There are many other verses that can be used through manipulation of meaning and taking things out of context to refer to the messiah but their strength will never be anywhere close to that of a Pshat prophecy.

The argument about eating Kosher is not circular. It is straightforward. Read Leviticus 11. It is stated clearly, several times, what a Jew may or may not eat. You don't need interpretation. You don't to jump through hoops. The words are written right there and they are clear. I don't know how much more I can stress this point. After reading Leviticus 11 there should be two possible conclusions that can be arrive at: (1) The Torah is 100% true, therefore Jews are obligated to keep dietary restrictions, (2) The Torah is not 100% true, therefore Jews are not necessarily obligated to keep dietary restrictions.

Regarding revowelization to change the meaning - you know that argument is ruminent excrement, right? Let me deconstruct the argument:

1) You can place any vowelization into the Torah to arrive at a new meaning
2) Therefore, there is no set meaning to the Torah
3) Therefore, the Torah can mean anything you want
4) Therefore, the Torah cannot be used as proof for anything.

Every step of this argument is false. I will explain.

1) I don't know how familiar you are with the Hebrew language, but it isn't like English. Changing a vowel doesn't make a whole new word. The Hebrew Language is set up so that consonant roots already have a meaning while the vowels set up the context for that meaning. For example, the root CNS is 'gather'. 'Kenes' is a gathering, 'Lekanes' is 'to enter' (to gather one's self into something), 'Miknasaim' is pants (tool for gathering), k'neset is 'gathering place'.

Furthermore, given a set of consonants there are only a few different possible vowel structures to go along with it. Even using the same root, you can see that several additional consonants are placed around it to alter its meaning. The root itself, CNS, could be 'Kenes' (gathering), 'Kanas' (he gathered), and I believe that's it. Two possible interpretations. Given the context there is usually only one interpretation that fits any given word. Only very rarely can you find a word whose meaning is entirely uncertain due to lack of vowelization.

2) There is certainly a set meaning to the Torah. The scroll was also given with an Oral Tradition on how to read it. This tradition is called 'Pshat', the simplest understanding of the Torah.

3) No matter what methods you use to reinterpret the Torah, including changing vowelizations, gematria, letter shifting, word reconstructing, etc. the Torah can only ever be made to include new information, not to reinterpret, replace or contradict the Pshat.

4) Even if all of these things were not true, if there were hundreds of possible interpretations for each consonant structure, if there were no tradition to reading the Torah and if alterations to the reading of the Torah could be accepted at face value, you would still be able to use the simple reading as proof. This is because, in this argument (on Christianity and the Messiah) we are speaking from within a framework which bases all of its beliefs on the Torah. In fact, it bases all of its beliefs upon a poor translation of the Torah which sets its basic interpretation in stone, and wrongly in a few locations where it strays from the Jewish Pshat (through mistranslation, not simple revowelization).

Last edited by Yamah : 22-03-2012 at 11:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 22-03-2012, 09:11 AM
Yamah
Posts: n/a
 
Thank you for defending me but please don't respond to psychoslice any more, you're just playing into his game of thread derailing.

Psycho: if you want to complain about religion please start your own thread instead of hijacking every single other thread posted in any religious forum.

Last edited by Yamah : 22-03-2012 at 11:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 22-03-2012, 12:51 PM
sbjazzman
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamah
4

Isaiah 45 doesn't talk about The Messiah though... it talks about Cyrus, the king of Persia. Any King is called messiah but that is the process of becoming a king - being annointed. You may have room to say 'this is ALSO a prophecy for the coming of the messiah' but that would be a secondary interpretation which not everyone would agree with and it is precisely those types of prophecies I have attempted to avoid in my essay.

The verses I quoted above are all those which, through Pshat (the simplest reading using traditional vowelization) refer to The Messiah They all, in context, point to a righteous person existing in the future who will basically save the world. There are many other verses that can be used through manipulation of meaning and taking things out of context to refer to the messiah but their strength will never be anywhere close to that of a Pshat prophecy.

The argument about eating Kosher is not circular. It is straightforward. Read Leviticus 11. It is stated clearly, several times, what a Jew may or may not eat. You don't need interpretation. You don't to jump through hoops. The words are written right there and they are clear. I don't know how much more I can stress this point. After reading Leviticus 11 there should be two possible conclusions that can be arrive at: (1) The Torah is 100% true, therefore Jews are obligated to keep dietary restrictions, (2) The Torah is not 100% true, therefore Jews are not necessarily obligated to keep dietary restrictions.

Regarding revowelization to change the meaning - you know that argument is ruminent excrement, right? Let me deconstruct the argument:

1) You can place any vowelization into the Torah to arrive at a new meaning
2) Therefore, there is no set meaning to the Torah
3) Therefore, the Torah can mean anything you want
4) Therefore, the Torah cannot be used as proof for anything.

Every step of this argument is false. I will explain.

1) I don't know how familiar you are with the Hebrew language, but it isn't like English. Changing a vowel doesn't make a whole new word. The Hebrew Language is set up so that consonant roots already have a meaning while the vowels set up the context for that meaning. For example, the root CNS is 'gather'. 'Kenes' is a gathering, 'Lekanes' is 'to enter' (to gather one's self into something), 'Miknasaim' is pants (tool for gathering), k'neset is 'gathering place'.

Furthermore, given a set of consonants there are only a few different possible vowel structures to go along with it. Even using the same root, you can see that several additional consonants are placed around it to alter its meaning. The root itself, CNS, could be 'Kenes' (gathering), 'Kanas' (he gathered), and I believe that's it. Two possible interpretations. Given the context there is usually only one interpretation that fits any given word. Only very rarely can you find a word whose meaning is entirely uncertain due to lack of vowelization.

You can't take the Pshat approach and ignore Cyrus as the only person referenced as God's appointed Messiah in the entire Torah. It has a very important purpose - please see my book at oracle of the phoenix dotcom and you will see why.

Using just the Pshat approach limits/restricts the ability to gain the hint, metaphor and actual foundational meaning that makes up the PaRDeS entirety. Perhaps you are superstitious and believe you need to wait until you are 40 years old to study Kabbalah but this is a misnomer and restriction put on due to a nasty experience in the past with a couple of messianic figures that misled their communities (Sabbatai Zevi being one of them). Luria died before he was 40.

The saving grace of having no vowels is that the torah can change with the times. Dr. Sanford Drob - see his site New Kabbalah which can find on my links page on my site. He said the following:

"According to the Kabbalists, it is the Torah which mediates the creative power of the holy letters, and the Torah itself is understood to be a changing organism whose very structure is transformed in response to alterations in the cosmos and the life of man.”

It is said that the worst thing ever done to the Jewish people was to have the torah translated into the Septuagint as it put it into a frozen narrative. The entire Zohar is put forth to unfreeze it and bring out the Kabbalistic meaning.

While your arguments may hold up in fundamentalist circles, they hold no water for those who approach its study with the entire PaRDes lens.

Fundamentalism is the scourge of our time imo. For those not familiar with the term Pshat - it is based on the letter Pei which mean Face - therefore this level only deals with the surface level of Torah. Google PaRDes.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 22-03-2012, 03:52 PM
sbjazzman
Posts: n/a
 
Also please see the post Infinite Torah in the Forum at my site.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 22-03-2012, 03:54 PM
sbjazzman
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychoslice
No I am no religion, I only speak from my own inner Being, but those who cannot see, will always try to label all they hear, find the answer from your true inner being for your SELF.

Please enlighten me on how you would know whether I've found answers from my true inner being or not?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 22-03-2012, 04:11 PM
Reverend Keith Reverend Keith is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 310
  Reverend Keith's Avatar
Pardon my butting in late...

Quote:

PREMISES:
A) The Torah (Old Testament) is 100% true according to christian belief.
B) yeshka is claimed to have been the Messiah prophesied in The Torah.
C) yeshka is claimed to have been the son of/an incarnation of God.
D) the teachings of yeshka are claimed to apply to all of humanity.


The premises really only apply to orthodox Christianity, and only to a rather fundamentalist strain of it at that.

Most mainline denominations would not agree with A and some would have issues with B and C. (Count me in on objections to all three)

Some Gnostics would not only regard A as false, but would say that the "God" of the Old Testament is actually evil, and that Jesus came to liberate us from his tyrannical dominion.
__________________
"If you bring forth that which is within you,
that which is within you will save you.
If you don't bring forth that which is within you,
that which is within you will destroy you."


- The Gospel of Thomas (70)

http://pathstoknowledge.com
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums