|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: randyrandy Date: Jan 16, 2008 01:08
> I don't find extensive discussions a "big problem." It is
> just an extensive discussion.
"Are you trying very hard to misconstrue my meaning? The
problem is
not the length, per se, but the fact that you are not
resolving
anything. You are both stuck in the same ruts that you were
before
you started."
Few arguments get resolved on the spot. Things usually have
to settle. At least that's true with me. Our pride and fear
of acting too quickly prevents us from "solving problems."
|
| Show full article (8.69Kb) |
|
| | 70 Comments |
|
|
Author: pjmutnickpjmutnick Date: Jan 16, 2008 02:33
On Jan 16, 1:08 am, "randy" wavecable.com> wrote:
> I don't know if Jews believe that. But if they do, they need
> to explain it to me, rather than have someone who disagrees
> with them tell me about it. However, according to Cindy,
> there are very few Jews who spend significant time on
> alt.messianic. So it may not be easy for me to just ask a
> Jew about these things.
> randy
My, you certainly are a trusting soul. What you need to do is to get
a hold of the writings of Moses Maimonides, which most serious Jews
take as Gospel. The Jews on this newsgroup are hardly Jews in...
|
| Show full article (4.65Kb) |
|
| | 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: randyrandy Date: Jan 17, 2008 10:28
> Yes, some believe that at least one "angel of the Lord"
> was
> a theophany, ie was the Lord God Himself. I've been
> arguing
> that God, though an infinite Being, can appear in any form
> He chooses to appear in. He can indeed appear in the form
> of
> an angel.
"No, no, that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that
Raphael
actually IS the LORD, whose Divine Name is JHVH."
Isn't Raphael supposed to be an archangel--not the Lord? I'm
a little confused about whether you're talking about gods or
angels.
|
| Show full article (5.60Kb) |
| 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: pjmutnickpjmutnick Date: Jan 17, 2008 10:37
On Jan 17, 10:28 am, "randy" wavecable.com> wrote:
blah, blah, blah
We need to start with something simple. Who is the LORD G-D of
Israel, according to you? Please give proof of your claim.
Let me just say one thing about angels. In the Jewish tradition,
angels are Lords or Gods. They are not the LORD. What I claim is
that the one the Jews take to be the LORD, namely JHVH, is not the
LORD, but merely one of the Lords or Gods, namely the one named
Archangel Raphael. I claim that the LORD is JHVSA, Jod He Vav Shin
Ayin, which is the Hebrew name of Jesus the Christ. What do you
claim?
It should be clear to you, that if you have this wrong, you have
everything else wrong as well. If you don't know who G-D is, then you
cannot obey Him or worship Him or know anything truly about Him.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: randyrandy Date: Jan 18, 2008 08:51
sbcglobal.net>
"randy"
"We need to start with something simple. Who is the LORD
G-D of
Israel, according to you? Please give proof of your claim."
God, the Creator of the universe.
"Let me just say one thing about angels. In the Jewish
tradition,
angels are Lords or Gods...."
Yes, Shmuel has raised the issue that Elohim refers to a
kind of "superbeing"--not just deity. In this sense "gods"
can be properly applied to mere representatives of God, such
as judges and kings who are ordained as representatives of
God. Angels, therefore, can be referred to as "gods," in a
sense, without inferring they are actual deity. And I don't
believe they are, either in Jewish or Christian theology (in
general).
|
| Show full article (2.71Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: pjmutnickpjmutnick Date: Jan 22, 2008 13:07
On Jan 18, 8:51 am, "randy" wavecable.com> wrote:> sbcglobal.net>
> "randy"
> "We need to start with something simple. Who is the LORD
> G-D of
> Israel, according to you? Please give proof of your claim."
>
> God, the Creator of the universe.
>
> "Let me just say one thing about angels. In the Jewish
> tradition,
> angels are Lords or Gods...."
>
> Yes, Shmuel has raised the issue that Elohim refers to a
> kind of "superbeing"--not just deity. In this sense "gods"
> can be properly applied to mere representatives of God, such
> as judges and kings who are ordained as representatives of
> God. Angels, therefore, can be referred to as "gods," in a
> sense, without inferring they are actual deity. And I don't
> believe they are, either in Jewish or Christian theology (in ...
|
| Show full article (3.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: randyrandy Date: Jan 23, 2008 00:32
> I'm one of those Christians who claim to have intimate
> personal contact with God. I'm just honest enough to admit
> that Christians often presume way too much about what God
> has revealed to them. We are very small beings in the
> sight
> of God. Though God has no problem taking an interest in
> puny
> creatures like us, we have no hope of manipulating such a
> great Being to our advantage. We can only follow Him the
> best we know how.
|
| Show full article (2.99Kb) |
| 10 Comments |
|
|
Author: pjmutnickpjmutnick Date: Jan 23, 2008 04:01
On Jan 23, 12:32 am, "randy" wavecable.com> wrote:> sbcglobal.net>
> "randy"
>>> I'm one of those Christians who claim to have intimate
>> personal contact with God. I'm just honest enough to admit
>> that Christians often presume way too much about what God
>> has revealed to them. We are very small beings in the
>> sight
>> of God. Though God has no problem taking an interest in
>> puny
>> creatures like us, we have no hope of manipulating such a
>> great Being to our advantage. We can only follow Him the
>> best we know how.
>
> "Well, on the other hand, if you sell yourself short, then
> you sell the
> LORD who created you short. Now, who created you? You
> make a
> presumption that I am looking at Judaism from the outside. ...
|
| Show full article (4.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: randyrandy Date: Jan 23, 2008 10:23
sbcglobal.net>
"randy"
"See, you play down some things that are essential to
understand
religion. One is direct experience of G-D and the other is
the goal
of mastery. It wasn't just the whole plan that Moses didn't
see,
although that is certainly true, it is the whole G-D that
Moses didn't
see...."
Moses had probably the closest relationship with God that
any man could've had in his day. They spoke directly on a
regular basis. The understanding Moses got from God was so
detailed that it was on the par with any human to human
conversation, such as we're having now. If Moses wasn't
allowed to see all of God, its significance has to be found
outside of the assumption of a problem with Moses'
"inferiority."
|
| Show full article (3.20Kb) |
| 6 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: pjmutnickpjmutnick Date: Jan 23, 2008 11:02
On Jan 23, 10:23 am, "randy" wavecable.com> wrote:> sbcglobal.net>
> "randy"
>
> "See, you play down some things that are essential to
> understand
> religion. One is direct experience of G-D and the other is
> the goal
> of mastery. It wasn't just the whole plan that Moses didn't
> see,
> although that is certainly true, it is the whole G-D that
> Moses didn't
> see...."
>
> Moses had probably the closest relationship with God that
> any man could've had in his day. They spoke directly on a
> regular basis. The understanding Moses got from God was so
> detailed that it was on the par with any human to human
> conversation, such as we're having now. If Moses wasn't
> allowed to see all of God, its significance has to be found ...
|
| Show full article (9.70Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
