Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's kind of a moot point because I have no wish to eat reptiles or rodents. There is a canon of St John the Faster that says that if you drink water or wine from a vessel in which an "unclean" thing like a mouse has died, you must abstain from communion for three days. It wasn't clear from the text if it was because the animal itself was unclean, or because it died from drowning, i.e. with the blood still in it.
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mor Ephrem said:
Jonathan Gress said:
I have heard claims that some kinds of meat are considered "unclean", but I haven't been able to find any written evidence. Forbidden things would include flesh of reptiles and rodents. There was something in the Rudder that suggested dog flesh was considered unclean for Christians to eat, but that's the closest. Has anyone else ever come across this claim?
I'd be very surprised if these were not cultural standards being propped up by dubious religious authority.  

I don't remember anything in the Rudder about dog meat being unclean for Christians; the closest thing I can think of is the "requirement" to reconsecrate a church if a dog enters within.  
It was tucked away in a footnote I think. I can try to find it if you're interested.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,149
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Jonathan Gress said:
It was tucked away in a footnote I think. I can try to find it if you're interested.
Don't go through any trouble: if it's easy to find, I'm interested, but if not I'll take you at your word.  It's not unbelievable.  ;)
 

Cackles

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Canada
Mor Ephrem said:
Cackles said:
I had 2 McDonalds breakfast sausage and egg McMuffins in the fridge and fealt too guilty eating them when i found out I couldnt eat Pork. I actually have a smoker and used to make my own natural honey smoked bacon. It was GOOD too. But God knows best.
Yes, God knows best:

Acts 11

Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, 3 saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” 4 But Peter began and explained to them in order: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, something descending, like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down to me. 6 Looking at it closely I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘No, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ 10 This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. 11 At that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesare′a. 12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brethren also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”
If the above excuse was all it took, i wouldnt have entertained the idea. But I spent hours researching it and concluded that I must comply.

The above passage is about Peter associating himslef with gentiles. He was following a sect where Jews were not permitted to associate with gentiles because they were unclean. In the vision, God shows Peter the a tent with animals inside and tells him to kill. Peter takes it as OBVIOUS THAT HE COULDN'T MEAN TO EAT NON KOSHER. So the dream confused him. God says to not call something unclean that he has never made unclean. Then God tells peter right after that someone has come for him and to go. Peter ponders the vision and realizes it was about him not associating with the Gentile. He even admits it later on.

God doesnt change and go back on his word. I thought that this was rabinical created nonsense like Kosher. I had no idea that this was a direct commandment of God himself. So I had to comply after I read it because i am God fearing now and take it for real.

God's blessed me in my life since I attempted to walk with him.

When I went to St Josephs Auritory in montreal last Christmas eve, I acted like a tourist didnt pray, took pictures. Lit a candle asking my wife to take pictures. Looked at girls. Dissed the fact people were praying with their hamd touching themstatue of Mary.

On Christmas eve at 8pm or so, we went out to the parking lot and the car wouldnt start. God punished me for my disrespect. We were stranded in another town. I knew God punished us. My 2 year old in the car freezing while I'm trying my best to get it started. i tried for an hour straight with my cel phone lighting under the hood trying to pull fuses. Nothing worked. It was a nightmare.. We finally had to call our inlaws and it seriously put a damper on Christmas. We took a cab back and the trip was basically ruined because of that. I had no car and couldnt leave the house.. It was awful.

So if God knows, that i know the truth in the Bible and 'know better', then i have to comply.

I used to put my whole bacon in brine for a week woth nitrites, then put brown sugar and syrup and then colde smoke it. I put bacon on the pizzas and pasta with alfreado sauce.

But I got beef pepperoni and it actually tastes really good. The chicken bacon is still in the fridge but Im not holding high hopes :(

I knew if i ate those Egg Mcmuffins in the fridge, God would get me. I litterally couldnt touch the pork after doing my due diligence and research on the matter. At first I just wanted to stay ignorant, but my consience got the better of me and i realized that God was expecting me to do my research. So I did and wow it was pretty cut and dry. My wife also isnt going to be eating pork. She never ate it much anyhow.

If you know me you'd know i hate people who are vegetarians and dont eat pork. i used tho think it was for people of the far left, Athiests, and religious zealots that have issues. But wow I cant believe me out of all people is doing some 'dietary restriction' and not eating pork no less.

But God had this rule for a divine reason. I'll do as he says because I believe he's real (thanks to all the evolution research.). It was hard letting go, but women are expected to do it with their hair, so i should be expected to do it with Pork. Its not so bad though.. Oh yes and shellfish is included with that also so next time at the buffet, no delicious shrimp. :(
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Jonathan Gress said:
DeniseDenise said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Jonathan Gress said:
DeniseDenise said:
PeterTheAleut said:
While you eat kosher with the Jews, I will be eating bacon and ham with the folks at my church.
Only until Sunday my friend...so don't rub it in too much!    :D
Once at a church lunch I asked if the meat in the dish was pork and I was told that pork is never served at trapeza. Has anyone else ever heard of this unwritten rule?
No. For one wedding we had at my church a few years ago, the wedding party had a big pig roasting whole in a roaster.
We have had enough bacon roasting in the Church oven that the Fire Department made a spectacular Mother's Day visit, allowing all the kids to climb all over the truck. This is what happens when men cook the food.

The Fire Crew then enjoyed some bacon and other breakfast items..and got to chat with Father for a while...

So can't say that we avoid it at ours either.  ;D ;D
I have heard claims that some kinds of meat are considered "unclean", but I haven't been able to find any written evidence. Forbidden things would include flesh of reptiles and rodents. There was something in the Rudder that suggested dog flesh was considered unclean for Christians to eat, but that's the closest. Has anyone else ever come across this claim?
lol is this how legalistic the Genuine Orthodox are? Why don't we just institute levitical law?
That comment was uncalled for, even if you were just joking! I hope you plan to apologize to Jonathan for this.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Cackles said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Cackles said:
I had 2 McDonalds breakfast sausage and egg McMuffins in the fridge and fealt too guilty eating them when i found out I couldnt eat Pork. I actually have a smoker and used to make my own natural honey smoked bacon. It was GOOD too. But God knows best.
Yes, God knows best:

Acts 11

Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, 3 saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” 4 But Peter began and explained to them in order: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, something descending, like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down to me. 6 Looking at it closely I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘No, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ 10 This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. 11 At that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesare′a. 12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brethren also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”
If the above excuse was all it took, i wouldnt have entertained the idea. But I spent hours researching it and concluded that I must comply.

The above passage is about Peter associating himslef with gentiles. He was following a sect where Jews were not permitted to associate with gentiles because they were unclean. In the vision, God shows Peter the a tent with animals inside and tells him to kill. Peter takes it as OBVIOUS THAT HE COULDN'T MEAN TO EAT NON KOSHER. So the dream confused him. God says to not call something unclean that he has never made unclean. Then God tells peter right after that someone has come for him and to go. Peter ponders the vision and realizes it was about him not associating with the Gentile. He even admits it later on.

God doesnt change and go back on his word. I thought that this was rabinical created nonsense like Kosher. I had no idea that this was a direct commandment of God himself. So I had to comply after I read it because i am God fearing now and take it for real.

God's blessed me in my life since I attempted to walk with him.

When I went to St Josephs Auritory in montreal last Christmas eve, I acted like a tourist didnt pray, took pictures. Lit a candle asking my wife to take pictures. Looked at girls. Dissed the fact people were praying with their hamd touching themstatue of Mary.

On Christmas eve at 8pm or so, we went out to the parking lot and the car wouldnt start. God punished me for my disrespect. We were stranded in another town. I knew God punished us. My 2 year old in the car freezing while I'm trying my best to get it started. i tried for an hour straight with my cel phone lighting under the hood trying to pull fuses. Nothing worked. It was a nightmare.. We finally had to call our inlaws and it seriously put a damper on Christmas. We took a cab back and the trip was basically ruined because of that. I had no car and couldnt leave the house.. It was awful.

So if God knows, that i know the truth in the Bible and 'know better', then i have to comply.

I used to put my whole bacon in brine for a week woth nitrites, then put brown sugar and syrup and then colde smoke it. I put bacon on the pizzas and pasta with alfreado sauce.

But I got beef pepperoni and it actually tastes really good. The chicken bacon is still in the fridge but Im not holding high hopes :(

I knew if i ate those Egg Mcmuffins in the fridge, God would get me. I litterally couldnt touch the pork after doing my due diligence and research on the matter. At first I just wanted to stay ignorant, but my consience got the better of me and i realized that God was expecting me to do my research. So I did and wow it was pretty cut and dry. My wife also isnt going to be eating pork. She never ate it much anyhow.

If you know me you'd know i hate people who are vegetarians and dont eat pork. i used tho think it was for people of the far left, Athiests, and religious zealots that have issues. But wow I cant believe me out of all people is doing some 'dietary restriction' and not eating pork no less.

But God had this rule for a divine reason. I'll do as he says because I believe he's real (thanks to all the evolution research.). It was hard letting go, but women are expected to do it with their hair, so i should be expected to do it with Pork. Its not so bad though.. Oh yes and shellfish is included with that also so next time at the buffet, no delicious shrimp. :(
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
 

Cackles

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Canada
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
Doesn't the fabric thing dicuss wool mixing only? I'll have to look into it and comply. That one I have more leniency, but I'll be held responsible for now on if i knowingly buy something that is mixed.

As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.

Of course, when it comes to Santa Clause, fibbing to the kids is OK (which it should be noted that lying is not a sin in itself). But when the Bible dicusses stoning children from them misbehaving, all of a sudden thats not OK because in our modern enlightened society we know better.

My big issue that I really need to focus on is keeping the Sabath Day holy and getting out to Church each week and learning what is expected of us. Life is just so hectic. I know people say you dont technically dont have to go, but it's obviously expected of us if God said to remember him on the Sabath and keep it Holy. How do you do this? Easy. Go to Church.

Oh and i also made Canadian back bacon once. You smoke the bacon cold. Get an electric smoker. I have the Weber bullet with charcoal, but the electric is way better. You need to be able to set the temp digitally so you can set it at the lowest setting and keep it smoking for hours.

I also planned on making sausages and bought a sausage stuffer and such. Still in the box. Then to smoke them in the smoker and eat them in pizza and pasta with alfredo. There goes that.. No point now :(

I have to say though, I feel better since eliminating pork. More stamina and clear headed. Less brain fog.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Cackles said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
Doesn't the fabric thing dicuss wool mixing only? I'll have to look into it and comply. That one I have more leniency, but I'll be held responsible for now on if i knowingly buy something that is mixed.

As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.

Of course, when it comes to Santa Clause, fibbing to the kids is OK (which it should be noted that lying is not a sin in itself). But when the Bible dicusses stoning children from them misbehaving, all of a sudden thats not OK because in our modern enlightened society we know better.

My big issue that I really need to focus on is keeping the Sabath Day holy and getting out to Church each week and learning what is expected of us. Life is just so hectic. I know people say you dont technically dont have to go, but it's obviously expected of us if God said to remember him on the Sabath and keep it Holy. How do you do this? Easy. Go to Church.

Oh and i also made Canadian back bacon once. You smoke the bacon cold. Get an electric smoker. I have the Weber bullet with charcoal, but the electric is way better. You need to be able to set the temp digitally so you can set it at the lowest setting and keep it smoking for hours.

I also planned on making sausages and bought a sausage stuffer and such. Still in the box. Then to smoke them in the smoker and eat them in pizza and pasta with alfredo. There goes that.. No point now :(

I have to say though, I feel better since eliminating pork. More stamina and clear headed. Less brain fog.
Have you run your Judaizing by your priest to see what he thinks of it?
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Cackles said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.
So throwing rocks at one's children to just scare them is fine?   ???

The passages of Scripture that refer to stoning people, be they children, women or men, refer to death being the result such as Deuteronomy 24:24 or Leviticus 24:15.  In the Gospel the Adulteress isn't being threatened with stoning to "scare her"  The intent is to kill her.

What sources of rabbis or other persons have you read that you make this claim please?  Can you give names and titles or web sites to back up your idea?





 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
Asteriktos said:
As I was rereading Genesis tonight a question came to mind that I'd like to ask people of the young earth creationist approach.  Regarding part of the flood narratives mentioned, especially in Gen. 8:1-3, I'm curious about...

"And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated." - KJV

"But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down," - NIV
What was the purpose and result of the wind mentioned in verse one? If this is what caused the waters to recede, either as a primary or at least significant secondary cause, then how did this happen?
Any further thoughts?
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Asteriktos said:
Asteriktos said:
As I was rereading Genesis tonight a question came to mind that I'd like to ask people of the young earth creationist approach.  Regarding part of the flood narratives mentioned, especially in Gen. 8:1-3, I'm curious about...

"And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated." - KJV

"But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down," - NIV
What was the purpose and result of the wind mentioned in verse one? If this is what caused the waters to recede, either as a primary or at least significant secondary cause, then how did this happen?
Any further thoughts?
I did not see your reply above. Do the YEC's have to believe that it is both inhabited and uninhabited lands? Couldn't it just be inhabited lands? If it is uninhabited how could they even know that it is there? I am sure I am being too simplistic once again.
 

Cackles

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Canada
Ebor said:
Cackles said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.
So throwing rocks at one's children to just scare them is fine?   ???

The passages of Scripture that refer to stoning people, be they children, women or men, refer to death being the result such as Deuteronomy 24:24 or Leviticus 24:15.  In the Gospel the Adulteress isn't being threatened with stoning to "scare her"  The intent is to kill her.

What sources of rabbis or other persons have you read that you make this claim please?  Can you give names and titles or web sites to back up your idea
Actually I just found a better explanation. Wow the Bible is such a book of wisdom:

http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091108/torahSparingTheRebelliousSon.html
 

Cackles

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Canada
Asteriktos said:
Asteriktos said:
As I was rereading Genesis tonight a question came to mind that I'd like to ask people of the young earth creationist approach.  Regarding part of the flood narratives mentioned, especially in Gen. 8:1-3, I'm curious about...

"And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated." - KJV

"But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down," - NIV
What was the purpose and result of the wind mentioned in verse one? If this is what caused the waters to recede, either as a primary or at least significant secondary cause, then how did this happen?
Any further thoughts?
The wind evaporated the water.

If I remember this process shortened all human life after the flood and changed the ogygen/climate/atmosphere composition as well. It also made made past things extinct.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
Opus118 said:
I did not see your reply above. Do the YEC's have to believe that it is both inhabited and uninhabited lands? Couldn't it just be inhabited lands? If it is uninhabited how could they even know that it is there? I am sure I am being too simplistic once again.
I do not think it would be absolutely mandatory for them to believe that it was only a local event (or in a small region of 'inhabited lands'). However, this is only in theory. In actual practice/experience I cannot recall ever coming across a YEC who insisted that the Eden narratives be taken 'literally' but who then accepted anything other than a global flood in the passages a few chapters later. In any event, but I was mainly asking for the thoughts of those who insist that the flood was global, though I am certainly open to the thoughts of others on the matter (especially since no one is taking a crack at it at present).
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
Cackles said:
The wind evaporated the water.

If I remember this process shortened all human life after the flood and changed the ogygen/climate/atmosphere composition as well. It also made made past things extinct.
How long did that take to work? Or was it a special wind that worked faster than normal?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Cackles said:
Ebor said:
Cackles said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.
So throwing rocks at one's children to just scare them is fine?   ???

The passages of Scripture that refer to stoning people, be they children, women or men, refer to death being the result such as Deuteronomy 24:24 or Leviticus 24:15.  In the Gospel the Adulteress isn't being threatened with stoning to "scare her"  The intent is to kill her.

What sources of rabbis or other persons have you read that you make this claim please?  Can you give names and titles or web sites to back up your idea
Actually I just found a better explanation. Wow the Bible is such a book of wisdom:

http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091108/torahSparingTheRebelliousSon.html
We take our instruction from only one Jew at a time.
 

Rambam

High Elder
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Is there an Orthodox commentary as clear and cogent as this?

Cackles said:
Ebor said:
Cackles said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.
So throwing rocks at one's children to just scare them is fine?   ???

The passages of Scripture that refer to stoning people, be they children, women or men, refer to death being the result such as Deuteronomy 24:24 or Leviticus 24:15.  In the Gospel the Adulteress isn't being threatened with stoning to "scare her"  The intent is to kill her.

What sources of rabbis or other persons have you read that you make this claim please?  Can you give names and titles or web sites to back up your idea
Actually I just found a better explanation. Wow the Bible is such a book of wisdom:

http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091108/torahSparingTheRebelliousSon.html
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
Rambam said:
Is there an Orthodox commentary as clear and cogent as this?
Are you speaking of the writing style, or the content? Because the latter is completely unorthodox, is why I'm asking.
 

Rambam

High Elder
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Actually, I mean both. I'm interested in the Orthodox position on this, and was honestly asking if there was an useful commentary out there. Actually, if there was a nice Orthodox commentary on the OT, I'd go buy it right now. Just don't know if there is ... hence, the question.

Asteriktos said:
Rambam said:
Is there an Orthodox commentary as clear and cogent as this?
Are you speaking of the writing style, or the content? Because the latter is completely unorthodox, is why I'm asking.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
Of the stoning part, I (now) assume, not the thoughts/actions sin part in the article? Now that I look back I'm not sure that what I had in mind is applicable.
 

Rambam

High Elder
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Of either part. Is there an efficacious, easy-to-read Orthodox commentary on any of the OT?  Something I can go to Amazon and buy?

Something like the Artscroll OT commentaries -- that's the best comparison I could make -- I'd love a Christian version of these puppies.


Asteriktos said:
Of the stoning part, I (now) assume, not the thoughts/actions sin part in the article? Now that I look back I'm not sure that what I had in mind is applicable.
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rambam said:
Is there an Orthodox commentary as clear and cogent as this?

Cackles said:
Ebor said:
Cackles said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.
So throwing rocks at one's children to just scare them is fine?  ???

The passages of Scripture that refer to stoning people, be they children, women or men, refer to death being the result such as Deuteronomy 24:24 or Leviticus 24:15.  In the Gospel the Adulteress isn't being threatened with stoning to "scare her"  The intent is to kill her.

What sources of rabbis or other persons have you read that you make this claim please?  Can you give names and titles or web sites to back up your idea
Actually I just found a better explanation. Wow the Bible is such a book of wisdom:

http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091108/torahSparingTheRebelliousSon.html
It doesn't really matter. This Jewish interpretation is very late in history, since Rashi (11th century) was the first Rabbinic commentator.

St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom (4th-5th century) pre-date him by a good 700 years.
 

Rambam

High Elder
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Just wondering if there was a nice, contemporary (i.e., readable, understandable) Orthodox commentary available on the OT.

xOrthodox4Christx said:
Rambam said:
Is there an Orthodox commentary as clear and cogent as this?

Cackles said:
Ebor said:
Cackles said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.
So throwing rocks at one's children to just scare them is fine?   ???

The passages of Scripture that refer to stoning people, be they children, women or men, refer to death being the result such as Deuteronomy 24:24 or Leviticus 24:15.  In the Gospel the Adulteress isn't being threatened with stoning to "scare her"  The intent is to kill her.

What sources of rabbis or other persons have you read that you make this claim please?  Can you give names and titles or web sites to back up your idea
Actually I just found a better explanation. Wow the Bible is such a book of wisdom:

http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091108/torahSparingTheRebelliousSon.html
It doesn't really matter. This Jewish interpretation is very late in history, since Rashi (11th century) was the first Rabbinic commentator.

St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom (4th-5th century) pre-date him by a good 700 years.
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rambam said:
Just wondering if there was a nice, contemporary (i.e., readable, understandable) Orthodox commentary available on the OT.

xOrthodox4Christx said:
Rambam said:
Is there an Orthodox commentary as clear and cogent as this?

Cackles said:
Ebor said:
Cackles said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.
So throwing rocks at one's children to just scare them is fine?  ???

The passages of Scripture that refer to stoning people, be they children, women or men, refer to death being the result such as Deuteronomy 24:24 or Leviticus 24:15.  In the Gospel the Adulteress isn't being threatened with stoning to "scare her"  The intent is to kill her.

What sources of rabbis or other persons have you read that you make this claim please?  Can you give names and titles or web sites to back up your idea
Actually I just found a better explanation. Wow the Bible is such a book of wisdom:

http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091108/torahSparingTheRebelliousSon.html
It doesn't really matter. This Jewish interpretation is very late in history, since Rashi (11th century) was the first Rabbinic commentator.

St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom (4th-5th century) pre-date him by a good 700 years.
Oh. On the Old Testament? I heard Christ in the Psalms is good. I also found a commentary on Isaiah translated by Robert Charles Hill. Roman Catholics published St. Jerome's commentaries on the OT too.
 

Rambam

High Elder
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I guess what I mean is ... if I want to go look at was a piece of Bible means -- say, in this case, Genesis 1:5 -- the part where it says evening and morning were the first day -- then I could go to my Artscroll 2-volume Bereishis collected commentary, look up the verse, and I'll find a nice 2-3 page anthology of everything ever written about this verse and summarized in plain English.

Maybe a resource like this doesn't exist for the Orthodox -- a nice anthology of fathers' writings, organized by chapter and verse?  I guess I'll just have to win the lottery and commission something like this, then.
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rambam said:
I guess what I mean is ... if I want to go look at was a piece of Bible means -- say, in this case, Genesis 1:5 -- the part where it says evening and morning were the first day -- then I could go to my Artscroll 2-volume Bereishis collected commentary, look up the verse, and I'll find a nice 2-3 page anthology of everything ever written about this verse and summarized in plain English.

Maybe a resource like this doesn't exist for the Orthodox -- a nice anthology of fathers' writings, organized by chapter and verse?  I guess I'll just have to win the lottery and commission something like this, then.
You mean like the Orthodox Study Bible?
 

Rambam

High Elder
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Honestly, I don't know. Is that what an Orthodox Study Bible is like? Could you explain how it is, if so? 

xOrthodox4Christx said:
Rambam said:
I guess what I mean is ... if I want to go look at was a piece of Bible means -- say, in this case, Genesis 1:5 -- the part where it says evening and morning were the first day -- then I could go to my Artscroll 2-volume Bereishis collected commentary, look up the verse, and I'll find a nice 2-3 page anthology of everything ever written about this verse and summarized in plain English.

Maybe a resource like this doesn't exist for the Orthodox -- a nice anthology of fathers' writings, organized by chapter and verse?  I guess I'll just have to win the lottery and commission something like this, then.
You mean like the Orthodox Study Bible?
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rambam said:
Honestly, I don't know. Is that what an Orthodox Study Bible is like? Could you explain how it is, if so? 

xOrthodox4Christx said:
Rambam said:
I guess what I mean is ... if I want to go look at was a piece of Bible means -- say, in this case, Genesis 1:5 -- the part where it says evening and morning were the first day -- then I could go to my Artscroll 2-volume Bereishis collected commentary, look up the verse, and I'll find a nice 2-3 page anthology of everything ever written about this verse and summarized in plain English.

Maybe a resource like this doesn't exist for the Orthodox -- a nice anthology of fathers' writings, organized by chapter and verse?  I guess I'll just have to win the lottery and commission something like this, then.
You mean like the Orthodox Study Bible?
It's the text of the Scriptures with footnotes that explain the meaning of the verses, their role in the Church and at times cites the Fathers to provide the interpretation.

http://www.thomasnelson.com/the-orthodox-study-bible.html
http://orthodoxstudybible.com/
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Rambam said:
Honestly, I don't know. Is that what an Orthodox Study Bible is like? Could you explain how it is, if so? 

xOrthodox4Christx said:
Rambam said:
I guess what I mean is ... if I want to go look at was a piece of Bible means -- say, in this case, Genesis 1:5 -- the part where it says evening and morning were the first day -- then I could go to my Artscroll 2-volume Bereishis collected commentary, look up the verse, and I'll find a nice 2-3 page anthology of everything ever written about this verse and summarized in plain English.

Maybe a resource like this doesn't exist for the Orthodox -- a nice anthology of fathers' writings, organized by chapter and verse?  I guess I'll just have to win the lottery and commission something like this, then.
You mean like the Orthodox Study Bible?
It's the text of the Scriptures with footnotes that explain the meaning of the verses, their role in the Church and at times cites the Fathers to provide the interpretation.

http://www.thomasnelson.com/the-orthodox-study-bible.html
http://orthodoxstudybible.com/
For us laymen, the OSB may be a decent source of commentary on the Scriptures, but I've seen a number of people just on this forum who criticize it as borderline schlock and who recommend much better, much more patristic, much more scholarly, etc., Orthodox commentaries on the Scriptures.
 

Rambam

High Elder
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, I like action instead of talk -- so I'll get one of these Orthodox bibles and shut up about it for a while ... thanks folks for the help.

Still wish there was a nice, aggregate Orthodox OT commentary  ... but patience is a virtue. I'll stay tuned.
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rambam said:
Well, I like action instead of talk -- so I'll get one of these Orthodox bibles and shut up about it for a while ... thanks folks for the help.

Still wish there was a nice, aggregate Orthodox OT commentary  ... but patience is a virtue. I'll stay tuned.
I went to a Russian Orthodox Bookstore online and it seemed that they had voluminous collections of all sorts of things Orthodox. If you can read Russian, go for it.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
Rambam said:
Of either part. Is there an efficacious, easy-to-read Orthodox commentary on any of the OT?  Something I can go to Amazon and buy?

Something like the Artscroll OT commentaries -- that's the best comparison I could make -- I'd love a Christian version of these puppies.
There are the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture volumes (cheaper prices can usually be found on amazon); though that's not exhaustive, it's a start. I also remember a website that I used in the late 90s (and perhaps early 00s) that gave all sorts of links to commentaries on the passages of the Bible. I think this was a Protestant site, so it wasn't limited to Orthodox or Catholic resources, but covered many groups and centuries. Unfortunately at some point I lost the link and have never been able to find it again--whether it got taken down or is still out there I don't know.

I will say that I increasingly wonder about how helpful such collections are. Don't get me wrong, I am all for putting information into the hands of people, otherwise I wouldn't participate on threads like this and this and this. Nonetheless, while I think such resources can be helpful, I think sometimes they can also be harmful. I happen to love certain study bibles, for example, and I'm sure many people have been helped by them in studying issues, and learning how to apply what they learn in their lives. But how many people pursue such studies, go down the wrong path, and are then given a false sense of assurance because of the study? Not that this always applies, but if we just come across passages haphazardly we are perhaps a bit more humble about our possible gaps of understanding, but if we think we've seen most of what their is to see in the Bible (or Fathers) about this or that, then perhaps we overestimate how much we truly have grasped things. Plus, for all the increasing number of resources we now have available, we don't seem to be making any progress coming towards a mutually agreed-to understanding about theology.

Anyway, I will go on contributing to the type of threads above. And in fact just over the last couple weeks I compiled a list of the writers through the first 10 (or so) centuries, with the idea of a site something along the lines of a orthodoxwiki + St. Pachomius library + CCEL. Probably just a flirtation. I do like making lists and bibliographies. Maybe some day someone will complete something along those lines--in a more completest form I mean, not the spotty resources most places currently have. Until then, I guess like you said, we'll make due and stay tuned. I will add that as I find time I do also do searches along the lines of what you are asking about, such as in threads like this one. I may be able to look up passages and give quotes (along the lines of this last link) at some point... I can't make any promises in that regard though. I'm afraid I am quite fickle and the mood has to hit me.  :-\

Anyway, about the thoughts/actions thing, I'd like to start another thread on that, if I can locate the passages of different types of thoughts that I think I remember, one in St. Maximos and one somewhere in the Philokalia.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Cackles said:
Ebor said:
Cackles said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Is that sweater you're wearing woven out of two different fabrics? Do you stone your children for back talking you? These are also things God commanded us to do, but for obvious reasons we recognize that these laws are no longer enforceable. The apostles thought the same about God's command to Abraham and his posterity that the male children be circumcised at 8 days old. So why do you want to go back to being a Jew?
As far as the stoning thing I researched that in the past and am void of that because stoning is against the law. Also stoning was not done to death in nearly all cases. The Rabbi's say this was included to scare kids and was a common practice back then.
So throwing rocks at one's children to just scare them is fine?   ???

The passages of Scripture that refer to stoning people, be they children, women or men, refer to death being the result such as Deuteronomy 24:24 or Leviticus 24:15.  In the Gospel the Adulteress isn't being threatened with stoning to "scare her"  The intent is to kill her.

What sources of rabbis or other persons have you read that you make this claim please?  Can you give names and titles or web sites to back up your idea
Actually I just found a better explanation. Wow the Bible is such a book of wisdom:

http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091108/torahSparingTheRebelliousSon.html
You "just found" this?  So it's a new source for you? Why would you have gone looking for a new one?

I ask you again- what sources were you basing your interpretation on before you found this essay please?  Also, this addresses one case where stoning was to be done.  It does not address the other cases that are listed in the Old Testament.  Nor have you explained how or from whom you got the idea that stoning was not a death sentence. 

 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
Asteriktos said:
Anyway, about the thoughts/actions thing, I'd like to start another thread on that, if I can locate the passages of different types of thoughts that I think I remember, one in St. Maximos and one somewhere in the Philokalia.
I changed my mind, I'm just going to post what I was thinking of here, because I'm not sure that there is much to discuss tbh, such that a new thread would be needed; but I did want to post it somewhere.

'Put to death therefore whatever is earthly in you: unchastity, uncleanliness, passion, evil desire and greed'
(Col. 3:5). Earth is the name St Paul gives to the will of the flesh. Unchastity is his word for the actual committing of sin. Uncleanness is how he designates assent to sin. Passion is his term for impassioned thoughts. By evil desire he means the simple act of accepting the thought and the desire. And greed is his name for what generates and promotes passion. All these St Paul ordered us to mortify as 'aspects' expressing the will of the flesh. First the memory brings some passion-free thought into the intellect. By its lingering there, passion is aroused. When the passion is not eradicated, it persuades the intellect to assent to it. Once this assent is given, the actual sin is then committed. Therefore, when writing to converts from paganism, St Paul in his wisdom orders them first to eliminate the actual sin and then systematically to work back to the cause. The cause, as we have already said, is greed, which generates and promotes passion. I think that greed in this case means gluttony, because this is the mother and nurse of unchastity. For greed is a sin not only with regard to possessions hut also with regard to food, just as self-control likewise relates to both food and possessions. (1.83-84)

As much as it is easier to sin in thought than in deed, so is a war with thoughts more exacting than one with things. Things exist outside the mind while thoughts about them are put together inside. Therefore on it depends either their proper or improper use, for the abuse of things follows on the mistaken use of thoughts. The mind receives passionate thoughts from these three sources: sense experience, temperament, and memory. From the senses when things which are the source of passions impress them and move the mind to passionate thinking; from temperament, when because of intemperate living or the working of demons or some sickness, the bodily development is altered and it moves the mind again to passionate thinking or against Providence; finally from memory, when it recalls the thoughts of things that have aroused our passions and moves the mind once more to passionate thinking... Do not misuse thoughts, lest you necessarily misuse things as well. For unless anyone sins first in thought, he will never sin in deed. (2.72-74, 78)

Some thoughts are simple, others compound. The simple are without passion, but the compound are with passion, as composed of passion plus representation. In this case, one can see that many simple thoughts follow on the compound when they have begun to be moved to sin by the mind. Take money, for example. A passionate thought arises in someone's memory about gold In his mind he has the urge to steal and with his heart he accomplishes the sin. Now wiht the memory of the gold will come also the memory of the purse, the best, the room, and so forth. Now the memory of the gold is compound, for it displayed passion; but that of the purse, chest, and so forth is simple, for the mind had no passion toward them. And so it is with every thought, with vainglory, with women, and so on. For not all thoughts which accompny impassioned thoughts are themselves passionate, as the example has shown. Thus from this we can known what are impassioned representations and what are simple. (2.84)

As the world of the body consists of things, so the world of the intellect consists of conceptual images. And as the body fornicates with the body of a woman, so the intellect, forming a picture of its own body, fornicates with the conceptual image of a woman. For in the mind it sees the form of its own body having intercourse with the form of a woman. Similarly, through the form of its own body, it mentally attacks the form of someone who has given it offence. The same is true with respect to other sins. For what the body acts out in the world of things, the intellect also acts out in the world of conceptual images. (3.53)

-- St. Maximos the Confessor, The Four Hundred Chapters on Love
 

Incognito777

Elder
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
409
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If you still believe in evolution, read these books.

Darwin on Trial, by Johnson (Last edition where he answers critics of first edition)
Icons of Evolution, by Wells
Refuting Evolution (Two Volumes), by Sarfati
The Evolution Handbook, by Ferrell
Darwin's Black Box, by Behe
The Evolution Conspiracy, by Oakland and Matrisciana
Genesis, Creation and Early Man, by Father Seraphim Rose.
 

Cackles

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Canada
Rambam said:
Actually, I mean both. I'm interested in the Orthodox position on this, and was honestly asking if there was an useful commentary out there. Actually, if there was a nice Orthodox commentary on the OT, I'd go buy it right now. Just don't know if there is ... hence, the question.

Asteriktos said:
Rambam said:
Is there an Orthodox commentary as clear and cogent as this?
Are you speaking of the writing style, or the content? Because the latter is completely unorthodox, is why I'm asking.
That's exactly what i keep saying is wrong with Orthodoxy.

The Rabi's know our book so well. They have a wisdom that captures the origional intent of the book. They shed a light on it that is uncomparable anywhere else.

Its no surprise though that the Orthodox monk speaking on raising children agreed with the article. He blamed tha prents to be held responsible for their kids going astray.
 

xOrthodox4Christx

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
7,322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cackles said:
Rambam said:
Actually, I mean both. I'm interested in the Orthodox position on this, and was honestly asking if there was an useful commentary out there. Actually, if there was a nice Orthodox commentary on the OT, I'd go buy it right now. Just don't know if there is ... hence, the question.

Asteriktos said:
Rambam said:
Is there an Orthodox commentary as clear and cogent as this?
Are you speaking of the writing style, or the content? Because the latter is completely unorthodox, is why I'm asking.
That's exactly what i keep saying is wrong with Orthodoxy.

The Rabi's know our book so well. They have a wisdom that captures the origional intent of the book. They shed a light on it that is uncomparable anywhere else.

Its no surprise though that the Orthodox monk speaking on raising children agreed with the article. He blamed tha prents to be held responsible for their kids going astray.
No they don't. That's why they rejected Christ and the Holy Spirit. (c.f., Acts 7:51)

The Rabbis get their 'knowledge' beginning in the 11th century with Rashi. Not "original" by any means.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,149
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Cackles said:
That's exactly what i keep saying is wrong with Orthodoxy.

The Rabi's know our book so well. They have a wisdom that captures the origional intent of the book. They shed a light on it that is uncomparable anywhere else.
In other words, there's something wrong with Jesus. 
 

Rambam

High Elder
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Don't want to put words in Cackles mouth -- that's certainly a dangerous proposition! -- but my own two cents would be that I'd love love love to have an Orthodox perspective that could replace the Jewish perspective on very specific things:

- Such as, why is the first letter of the Bible a "Bet"?
- Such as, what does the "Aleph Tov" mean in the first sentence of Genesis?
- Such as, why does Leah have 'cow eyes' ?
- And what's the deal with Laban's shrunken heads that Rachael stole?

The Rebbis give awfully compelling answers to these things -- their answers to these questions, particularly the second one I listed above, is a huge reason I even have 'faith' -- and from what I can tell, nobody in Orthodoxy is even asking the questions.

I know, I know ... the 'mindset' is different. The Orthodox answer -- at least on this bulletin board -- seems to be "asking questions like that is the wrong approach to begin with." But still, people are going to have these questions -- or, if I have questions like this, I bet others do, too -- and I wish, earnestly wish, there was an Orthodox perspective to draw on.  

Mor Ephrem said:
Cackles said:
That's exactly what i keep saying is wrong with Orthodoxy.

The Rabi's know our book so well. They have a wisdom that captures the origional intent of the book. They shed a light on it that is uncomparable anywhere else.
In other words, there's something wrong with Jesus.  
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,149
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Age
39
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Rambam said:
Don't want to put words in Cackles mouth -- that's certainly a dangerous proposition! -- but my own two cents would be that I'd love love love to have an Orthodox perspective that could replace the Jewish perspective on very specific things:

- Such as, why is the first letter of the Bible a "Bet"?
- Such as, what does the "Aleph Tov" mean in the first sentence of Genesis?
- Such as, why does Leah have 'cow eyes' ?
- And what's the deal with Laban's shrunken heads that Rachael stole?

The Rebbis give awfully compelling answers to these things -- their answers to these questions, particularly the second one I listed above, is a huge reason I even have 'faith' -- and from what I can tell, nobody in Orthodoxy is even asking the questions.

I know, I know ... the 'mindset' is different. The Orthodox answer -- at least on this bulletin board -- seems to be "asking questions like that is the wrong approach to begin with." But still, people are going to have these questions -- or, if I have questions like this, I bet others do, too -- and I wish, earnestly wish, there was an Orthodox perspective to draw on.  
I don't know if "asking questions like that is the wrong approach to begin with".  Before I say that, I would want to know what the approach is.  For instance, "Why is the first letter of the Bible a 'bet'?"  To me, the question presumes that another letter might've been better.  Why presume that?  I think your post should've begun with "I" and not "D", but I can point to English grammar as my reason for that belief.  Is something similar going on with "bet"?  Or is it something more than that? 

Though I'm not sure what the other three questions refer to, I think my approach would be similar: it's not enough to ask a question, we must understand why it's being asked, and then we can ask whether Orthodoxy has or should have an opinion.  Why should we expect an Orthodox perspective on the Jewish questions you cited?  About what other questions should we expect an Orthodox perspective?  Once, I was invited to accompany friends shopping for furniture at IKEA, but they didn't ask me for an Orthodox perspective on dining room sets just because they had differing opinions on what to get--I'd simply never been to an IKEA before, and so I was there for the meatballs (and the only Orthodox position on those is that they can be eaten if it's not a fasting day).       
 
Top