Posted on 02/12/2002 9:11:10 AM PST by LarryLied
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:18:27 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You yourself are evidence of God. You are a wonderful, beautiful creaure with dignity and purpose made in the image of God. You are not a higher animal. You are more than physiological impulses.
Regarding utilitarianism, do you really wish to construct a system of reality based on pleasure and pain? Consider the consequences of a world lived along those lines. Perhaps I consider it pleasurable to have an affair with a girl at the office because my wife will never know. Perhaps I consider it pleasurable to beat someone half to death.
You may say, "Well, that causes someone else pain, so I wouldn't do it." But what if I decide that I really don't care what pain it causes others? What if I decide that the pain it may cause me later is nothing compared to the pleasure it gives me now? What if I don't? Can you speak a word against me? On what basis? With what evidence?
No, since you seem a decent fellow, and I am confident that you are not writing me from the confines of a mental institution, I must say that you do not live out your worldview.
Consider that you do not because somewhere within you there is a yearning for the eternal.
angelo: The problem I have with this interpretation is that the light is created:
And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)
You must then posit that God existed before His glory, that His glory was not eternal, was not an inherent quality of His being.
You are correct on this one. My position would have been better stated that the light is the visible manefestation of His glory. We refer to this as the Shekinah. I did not mean to imply that His glory did not exist with Him for all time, but that there was no visible manefestation until there was a material universe in which such a thing would make sense. When He created the physical realm we call the universe, the first thing He did was create the physical (visible) manefestation of His glory. Thanks for the correction.
ArGee: As you know, G-d actually offered the Hebrews to live with them in their presence
angelo: And I will dwell among the people of Israel, and will be their God.
And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God. (Exodus 29:45-46)
Are you saying that this didn't happen? Please explain.
Exodus 25:8 (ESV)
And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.
G-d did not dwell directly with them. G-d was separated from them behind the veil of the sanctuary. He did this because they asked Him to stay apart from Him.
Exodus 20:18-19 (ESV)
Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off [19] and said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die."
Therefore, G-d set up the Aaronic priesthood and only the High Priest could come into the Holy of Holies to represent the people to G-d, and G-d to the people.
Leviticus 16:2 (ESV)
and the Lord said to Moses, "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.
So, the full context of your quote above makes it more clear:
Exodus 29:43-45 (ESV)
There I will meet with the people of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by my glory. [44] I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar. Aaron also and his sons I will consecrate to serve me as priests. [45] I will dwell among the people of Israel and will be their God.
G-d wanted to dwell with them, but because of their sinfulness they could not dwell there. Therefore G-d had Moses create the Tabernacle with the holy place so that He could dwell in their midst.
I do not suggest that G-d "changed His mind." Rather, He allowed Israel to understand the consequences of their unrighteousness before He gave them the Tabernacle.
angelo: Moses spoke on their behalf, but they did hear God speak to them:
Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. (Deuteronomy 4:12)
According to my reading of this passage, this is the original event of the Sounding, where the people realized their unrighteousness and asked G-d to remain separate from them. Do you suggest that this was always the case? That there was never a time when the Priests or the Prophets heard the voice of G-d, but not everyone?
angelo: God's presence was with them continually, by day and by night. Furthermore, you wouldn't suggest that Moses was without sin? And yet God knew Moses "face to face".
I would not suggest that Moses was without sin. Yet Moses was not allowed to see G-d's face.
Exodus 33:20 (ESV)
But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."
Exodus 33:23 (ESV)
Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen."
Yet, you are correct that Moses spoke with G-d "face to face."
Exodus 33:11 (ESV)
Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
Not only Moses, but other men as well. So, is this a contradiction, or is something different meant in the two passages? angelo: God is Omnipresent. He is everywhere on Earth as much as He is in Heaven.
While I accept this theologically, do you posit that it is impossible for G-d to create a place where He is not?
angelo: Deuteronomy lists the curses that the people would undergo. These were temporal punishments. But God also said that when Israel repented and turned back to Him, He would restore the blessings He promised to their fathers.
And, as I said in another post, these are blessings and cursings on nations. Are you not familiar with the fact that individuals can, indeed, flout the law and not suffer? Have you read Habakkuk? Individuals died unpunished, yet Israel was punished.
angelo: So you are saying that men choose hell. In a nutshell, yes. With a full understanding of what they are choosing.
angelo: Do you believe then that God does not literally judge us, in the manner of Matthew 25?
I find it odd that you, who reject eternal punishment, would ask me about a passage which supports eternal punishment. However, as I said in another post, I believe these passages represent people receiving the consequences of their choice to be G-d's or not to be G-d's people.
Now I have a question for you.
G-d made it clear that no one was righteous and that the only way to atone for sin was with blood. Since the destruction of the temple the observance of Yam Kippur has replaced blood sacrifice to atone for sin. Was this change given by the mouth of G-d?
Shalom.
I think that this reality already exist. The activities of our lives are planned around the possible, or known, effects of pleasure or pain from a given cause.
Perhaps I consider it pleasurable to have an affair with a girl at the office because my wife will never know. Perhaps I consider it pleasurable to beat someone half to death.
You may find them pleasurable, but does that make them right? Pleasure and pain are not purely subjective materials, but they are things that, to some reasonable extent, can be measured. If you cause more pain than pleasure, as in the instance of adultery or beatings, then you have committed a wrong, regardless of whether you, personally, find it pleasurable, because the sum total of difference between pleasure and pain weighs more heavily on the side of pain.
But what if I decide that I really don't care what pain it causes others? What if I decide that the pain it may cause me later is nothing compared to the pleasure it gives me now? What if I don't? Can you speak a word against me? On what basis? With what evidence?
If I commit those same acts and do not show care for others, can you speak a word against me, on what basis and with what evidence? Will you use the Bible? What if I do not believe the Bible?
Utilitarianism does not assume that people will always choose to bring pleasure to others; it is realistic in that it assumes people will miscalculate, as in you scenario, believing that some temporary pleasure is greater than lasting pain. We all do this, everyday; we act on some temporary pleasure, sometimes knowing full well that the end result will be greater pain or discomfort. One of the aims of utilitarianism is the inculcation, through some type of moral education, of a caring for others. It is not necessary that it be utilitarianism specifically that is taught. This same moral education of caring for others can be taught through the Christian religion and various other religions.
Can I speak a word against you; on what basis? Most certainly, as you have done harm to another human being, by maximizing their amount of pain. It is premised on the basis of the principle of utility - "...that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is on question." With what evidence? The emprirical evidence which is before us; that pain which has been caused by you and the pleasure that you may have received.
If you have not already read about this theory, you can go to my profile site, where I have links to Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation and Mill's Utilitarianism.
Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification.
G-d did not dwell directly with them. G-d was separated from them behind the veil of the sanctuary. He did this because they asked Him to stay apart from Him.
IMO, you are reading too much into Exodus 20:18-19. I just don't see this passage as referring to anything other than the revelation of the Law. It is subsequent to this, after all, in Chapter 29, that God says he will "dwell among them".
Do you suggest that this was always the case? That there was never a time when the Priests or the Prophets heard the voice of G-d, but not everyone?
Of course not. God speaks to whom He pleases.
So, is this a contradiction, or is something different meant in the two passages?
I think something different is meant, which is why I put "face to face" in quotes. I think it is a way of expressing the intimacy with which God communicated with Moses, rather than a literal description of their communication. God communicated with Moses in this way, despite the fact that Moses was a sinner.
The question of whether or not God has a literal 'face' that can be 'seen' is an entirely different issue.
While I accept this theologically, do you posit that it is impossible for G-d to create a place where He is not?
Yes, I do. God's existence is necessary. The existence of any created thing is contingent upon God's sustaining it in existence. Otherwise, you must believe that something could exist, on its own, separately from God. To me, the question "can God create a place where He is not" is a logical impossibility on par with "can God create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it".
I find it odd that you, who reject eternal punishment, would ask me about a passage which supports eternal punishment.
I ask in order to try to understand your viewpoint.
Are you not familiar with the fact that individuals can, indeed, flout the law and not suffer? Have you read Habakkuk? Individuals died unpunished, yet Israel was punished.
Sure, which is why traditional Jewish belief is that they must atone for their sins in Gehinnom.
angelo: So you are saying that men choose hell.
ArGee: In a nutshell, yes. With a full understanding of what they are choosing.
I doubt that we ever have full understanding of anything that we do, let alone of choosing eternal damnation. In my belief, this is where God's mercy intervenes.
G-d made it clear that no one was righteous
Au contraire. There are many passages in the Tanakh where men are described as righteous. All men sin. Those who are righteous are those who repent of their sin and ask forgiveness.
and that the only way to atone for sin was with blood
Also incorrect. There are many other means of atoning for sin besides blood sacrifice. If you don't mind, I'm going to repost something I wrote and originally posted over on The Neverending Story thread about a month ago:
| . Sacrifice and Atonement in the Tanakh We are in agreement that there were a variety of different sacrifices that were made for different purposes. The question then is whether or not blood is required for atonement.
If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock...and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.(Leviticus 1:2,4) This does not refer to a required sacrifice; the phrase begins conditionally: "IF...you bring an offering..." So here we see that contrary to your conclusion, the blood is not required for atonement. Rather, the blood sacrifice was acceptable for atonement, which is quite a different thing. Leviticus Chapters 4 and 5 discuss sin offerings. You will note that it is repeated that this sort of sacrifice was for unintentional sins, that is, sins done through ignorance of the Law. As you yourself point out, 5:11states that an offering of flour may be offered if the person is not able to provide the appropriate animal offering. So, while blood sacrifice may be normative for this sort of offering, it is not absolutely required. Chapter 6:1-7 deals with intentional sin. The sinner is expected to make restitution and then an animal offering. Chapter 16 discusses Yom Kippur. It is true that these passages do not mention alternative means of atonement. However, such means are discussed elsewhere in scripture. More on that later. Not every intentional sin, though, could be atoned for by sacrifice. Some were to be punished, without sacrifice, sometimes even by death:
Moreover you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death; but he shall be put to death. (Numbers 35:31) Before I discuss alternative means of atonement, I would like to address the passage that confuses Christians, Leviticus 17:11. This is the verse that people ordinarily cite for the notion that blood is required:
For the soul of the flesh is in the blood and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to provide atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that atones for the soul. But the passage that this verse comes from is not about atonement; it is about dietary laws, and the passage says only that blood is used to obtain atonement; not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement. Leviticus 17:10-12 could be paraphrased as "Don't eat blood, because blood is used in atonement rituals; therefore, don't eat blood." When the laws of sacrifice were laid down in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes.
Take heed that you do not offer your burnt offerings at every place that you see; Now, the last place that God authorized as the location for sacrifices was the Temple in Jerusalem.
The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the LORD. (1 Kings 3:2) As you noted, God established Yom Kippur and the atonement of that day "for ever", as "an everlasting statute". Now, with the building of the Temple it became the only authorized place to offer sacrifice. And with the Law stating that atonement was to be made on Yom Kippur "for ever", what was to be done when the Temple was destroyed? As scripture demonstrates, God offers alternative means. Charity can provide atonement
And you shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting; that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for yourselves. (Exodus 30:16) Prayer can make atonement
Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now." Other offerings of value can make atonement
And we have brought the LORD's offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD. (Numbers 31:50) Turning from evil can make atonement
It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I intend to do to them, so that every one may turn from his evil way, and that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. (Jeremiah 36:3) Obedience can make atonement
For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; As this last example shows, not only did God say that the other methods were acceptable, but that the blood sacrifices were not necessary. Man's sincere repentance did not require that he sacrifice when not able to do so.
If you offer Me burnt offerings--or your meal offerings-- The 'offering of our lips', prayer, is now the only sacrifice, and one of the primary means of atonement, that Jews now make to God. In addition to Hosea 14:3 and Numbers 14:19-20, we find:
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, |
You believe that Jesus was was the fulfillment of the Law, and the perfect sacrifice for man's sins. Did Jesus's sacrifice fulfill the sacrificial law of the Torah?
OK. I don't believe I am reading too much into it. I believe that G-d's plan from the beginning was the relationship He had with Adam before Adam (man) ate of the forbidden fruit. He has been redeeming creation to the point where that can be again. It was His will, and I don't believe His will changes. Obviously I am bringing a Christian viewpoint to what I read, but that is always the way with a later revelation, isn't it? We understand what we can based on what has been revealed. However, when more has been revealed we revisit what we thought we knew and reinterpret it. Science does this. So does theology.
Yes, I do. God's existence is necessary. The existence of any created thing is contingent upon God's sustaining it in existence. Otherwise, you must believe that something could exist, on its own, separately from God. To me, the question "can God create a place where He is not" is a logical impossibility on par with "can God create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it".
I think it is a different thing. But I will accept your rebuke and modify the question. Do you think it is impossible for G-d to create a place where His physical manifestation is not? That is, He would still be there, but a physical humanity would never be able to know, to detect Him, to interact with Him, etc.
Sure, which is why traditional Jewish belief is that they must atone for their sins in Gehinnom.
Sounds like the Christian concept of purgetory. But why not? Christianity is a Jewish sect, and the early fathers were Jews.
Once again, though, I have a different interpretation.
I doubt that we ever have full understanding of anything that we do, let alone of choosing eternal damnation. In my belief, this is where God's mercy intervenes.
Deut. 30:19 (ESV)
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,
So, Moses (or G-d) were being unfair?
Au contraire. There are many passages in the Tanakh where men are described as righteous. All men sin. Those who are righteous are those who repent of their sin and ask forgiveness.
Psalm 143:2 (ESV)
Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.
I think this is an issue of a temporary state of righteousness, immediately after atonement, and a permanent state of righteousness.
Also incorrect. There are many other means of atoning for sin besides blood sacrifice. If you don't mind, I'm going to repost something I wrote and originally posted over on The Neverending Story thread about a month ago:
Thank you for sharing that, but there is no indication that any of these methods are effective alone, of themselves.
It's interesting, really, because so often you'll hear a Christian claim, "we're not under the Law" and then point to the Law to explain why Yeshua had to do what He did to free us from sin.
But we do presume that G-d created a universe with metaphysical rules as well as physical ones. Therefore, if one of those metaphysical rules is that blood is required before atonement can be made, that's just as binding as the law of gravity.
But the Christian recognizes that the atonement of Yeshua is eternal and, therefore, applies backward and forward in our time. Therefore, men could have been established as righteous by an event that had not happened yet. That may be the case with Moses, for example. Yet, it would not have been the case if the sacrifice had not been made.
Shalom.
Torah is a reflection of G-d. Therefore it is but a shadow of the Reality of Him. It is a tree of life to Him who takes hold of it, but it is not G-d Himself.
Yeshua is not the fulfillment of Torah. Yeshua is G-d Himself, His reality in substance not in shadow. I know this is blasphemy to a Jew, but I presume you've heard it before.
So, my answer would be no, Yeshua is not the fulfillment of the sacrificial system of Torah. The sacrificial system of Torah is another pointer to Yeshua.
I hope that answers your question.
Shalom.
OK, I can conceive of God creating a place where He sustains it and its inhabitants' existence, but has no further interaction or contact with them.
Sounds like the Christian concept of purgetory.
Yes, it does.
Deut. 30:19 (ESV) I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, So, Moses (or G-d) were being unfair?
Nope. This passage follows the description of the blessings and curses that Israel is subject to as terms of the Covenant. These are temporal rewards and punishments. Reward and punishment after death exists, of course, but I don't think this passage is talking about that.
angelo: Au contraire. There are many passages in the Tanakh where men are described as righteous. All men sin. Those who are righteous are those who repent of their sin and ask forgiveness.
ArGee: Psalm 143:2 (ESV) Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.
I think this is an issue of a temporary state of righteousness, immediately after atonement, and a permanent state of righteousness.
The psalms are poetry, and they do make use of figures of speech. "No one" may not literally mean "no one" in this context. Or, you could read it to mean that no living person at the time of the writing of the psalm was righteous. Doesn't mean that man is incapable of righteousness. I favor the first interpretation I offered.
Yes, righteousness is temporary in that it can be lost through further sin. But then it can be regained through further repentence and atonement.
Thank you for sharing that, but there is no indication that any of these methods are effective alone, of themselves.
Sacrifice alone, without repentence, was equally inefficacious. You may understand these passages differently, but I read them to mean that, when we repent and ask forgiveness for our sins, God forgives us. We offer our prayer as "the sacrifice our our lips".
Really? That was not the answer I was expecting. How, then, do you understand:
Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)and
For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. (1 Corinthians 5:7)
and
But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (Hebrews 10:12-14)
I've had these passages cited to me as evidence that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice acceptable to God to atone for all of our sins. You are the first Christian who has not claimed to me that in Jesus was fulfilled all of the Law.
You and I are in complete agreement up to your last sentence. Again, I am not surprised. Yeshua taught what all the Rabbis taught. He was thoroughly Jewish. Christianity is a thoroughly Jewish religion which has made a way for the goyim to enter in as the royal priesthood of G-d that He called the Jews to be.
But I read your last sentence to say that the sacrifice of our lips obviates the need for the sacrifice of blood. Both are required, the sacrifice and repentence. That has always been the Christian message as well. We just accept that the sacrifice has been made once for all time. But I'll get to that when I answer your next post. To make things simpler, let's deal with any objections you have to this paragraph in your response to that one.
Shalom.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)
Seems to me to be saying that Jesus thought he was fulfilling the Law (by which I take to mean ALL the Law, including the sacrificial law). How do you understand this?
Yeshua told us in no uncertain terms.
Matthew 5:18 (ESV)
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Matthew 5:17 (ESV)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Interestingly, many Christians will go on to say that Messiah's fulfillment of the Law made the Law unnecessary, and so He abolished it. They do this because they do not understand that Yeshua was a Jew speaking to Jews. Yeshua was Torah observant, as were the Jewish leaders of His Talmudim.
In the idiom of the time, to abolish Scripture meant to incorrectly interpret it. To fulfill Scripture meant to interpret it correctly. Yeshua did precisely that. He reminded the other Pharisees (for the evidence is that Yeshua was a Pharisee) that the relationship of G-d to His people, and His people to Him, is a heart relationship from which behavior flows. We do not become the holy priesthood by following Torah, but by dedicating ourselves to G-d. It is natural that the dedication would cause Torah observance, for Torah is G-d's wisdom and instruction.
What does this mean for the sacrifice? I thought I put this into the previous post, but if it wasn't clear, Yeshua's sacrifice was the Reality of which all the sacrifices called for in Torah were but shadow. The bulls, rams, turtle-doves, etc, could never atone for all sin for all time. They could only atone for specific sins in the past. They were a foretaste of what G-d had in mind from the foundation of the world.
Did Yeshua abolish (in our modern understanding) or fulfill them? He did not abolish them and did much more than fulfill them. He fulfilled what they could never be.
Does that mean that Messianic Jews will have to perform the sacrifices if the Temple is ever rebuilt? I will defer a definitive answer to a Messianic Jew. However, I would believe not. Yeshua has shed all the blood that must be shed for any sin that has been comitted or will be comitted.
But not because He fulfilled Torah. He fulfilled something much more real.
I'm sure this didn't help much, but you did ask.
Shalom.
How can you judge what is right or wrong? In the end, it all comes down to your subjective opinion.
With what evidence? The emprirical evidence which is before us; that pain which has been caused by you and the pleasure that you may have received.
Those that fostered the violence of the Inquisition were convinced, absolutely, that they gave mankind the greatest possible spiritual and eternal pleasure by torturing to death alleged "heretics", and wiping them out.
In ancient Rome, a family that gave birth to a baby girl often took that baby out into the wilderness and let it die of exposure. It was simple utility - girls cost much more money than they brought in, and families would be put in tremendous financial pain by allowing a girl to grow up and be married. Families were expected to provide a dowry when their daughter was to be married. The pleasure of a family outweighs the pain of one. That does not erase the horrendous nature of this deed.
Please understand, I am not saying that you would do any of these terrible things. I am simply pointing out where this reasoning can lead. You need an unchanging standard that is right at all times, in all cases, and in all eras. God is that unchanging standard.
You ask, "What if I don't believe in the Bible?" You can't have it both ways. You can't insist that a morality (in this case, the Bible) does not apply to you if you choose for it not to, while on the other hand insisting that you can measure what is ultimately good or evil for others in the world through utilitarianism. If someone else chooses to reject your premise and destroy someone else without regard to pain, you still really have no case to refute them, because in the end it comes down to your opinion.
I enjoy speaking (writing) with you. Be safe.
With regard to the Roman family, I would argue that their action may have made practical sense, but it does not necessarily increase happiness. The birth of the daughter may cause financial stress, but should we be solely concerned with hedonistic pleasures, such as those connected with pecuniary valuations? I think not, and when we see that emotional and intellectual pleasures and pains are more extensive and longerlasting than physical pleasures, one can argue that the family which does this has ultimately caused themselves greater pain by sacrificing their daughter. [Granted some utilitarians, such as, Peter Singer, place greater value on the physical pleasure, but as John Stuart Mill says, it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied, better to be a man dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. (I rather see Singer as that foolish pig.)]
People may missuse utilitarianism, just as they missuse all ethical theories, but that does not negate the validity of it. The sandard by which actions are judged is an objective one, since they are able to be measured, more so with the present advancement of science.
You need an unchanging standard that is right at all times, in all cases, and in all eras. God is that unchanging standard.
I completely agree that we need an unchanging standard, and I regard utilitarianism as that standard. It is my own opinion that our conception of God is more subjective than it is objective, because even if we acknowledge that there is objective evidence, through observation of Nature, for the existence of God, or a Creator, our knowledge of his character and commands is less objective, but is instead based upon the subjectivity of the men to whom God supposedly speaks.
The standard of utilitarianism, when appplied correctly, is analogous to a ruler or balance.
I enjoy speaking (writing) with you. Be safe.
Likewise.
Reason tells me that the question will be ... "What have you done with what I gave you; what did you achieve with that singular gift, from me to you, that elevates humans above all animals?
And my answer will be; "I did'nt use it to deny your existence, but to seek it, and when you showed me who you are, I did'nt argue about how strange your gift was, but accepted you with tears and gratitude".
Interesting. Do you have a source for this? I don't find 'abolish' anywhere in the Hebrew canon. The other references in the Christian scriptures include
by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances... (Ephesians 2:15)
Then I said, `Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,' as it is written of me in the roll of the book." When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:7-10)
That is, he abolishes the sacrifices offered according to the law in order to do God's will. The passage from Hebrews might make sense with the interpretation you offer, but the one from Ephesians is questionable--"'correctly interpreting' in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances"?
Now let's look at "fulfil".
So Solomon expelled Abi'athar from being priest to the LORD, thus fulfilling the word of the LORD which he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. (1 Kings 2:27)
Seems to me to be saying that Solomon carried out or accomplished the word of the Lord, not that he correctly interpreted it. Likewise
He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. (2 Chronicles 36:20-21)
While the words were still in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, "O King Nebuchadnez'zar, to you it is spoken: The kingdom has departed from you, and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; and you shall be made to eat grass like an ox; and seven times shall pass over you, until you have learned that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will." Immediately the word was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnez'zar (Daniel 4:31-33)
I don't see any evidence from the Hebrew scriptures of "fulfil" being used in the sense you suggest. Matthew uses it the same way repeatedly, to mean the carrying out or accomplishment of some prophecy, not the correct interpretation thereof.
He reminded the other Pharisees (for the evidence is that Yeshua was a Pharisee) that the relationship of G-d to His people, and His people to Him, is a heart relationship from which behavior flows.
I have no problem with this.
We do not become the holy priesthood by following Torah, but by dedicating ourselves to G-d.
I don't think a Jew can separate the two. You cannot dedicate yourself to God without being obedient to Him. Likewise, you cannot truly be obedient to God without dedicating yourself to Him (remember that loving God with your whole heart, soul and might is itself one of the commandments - Deuteronomy 6:5).
Yeshua's sacrifice was the Reality of which all the sacrifices called for in Torah were but shadow.
And this is where you and I fundamentally cease to agree. Human sacrifice is not an acceptable sacrifice, and no one else can atone for your sins (Ezekiel 18:20).
I will be in meetings most of the day tomorrow, and then I will be observing the Sabbath, so I probably won't be able to reply back to you until sometime on Sunday. Shalom.
And God's justice will place you in some heavenly section other than the Elysian Fields. With Sisyphus, perhaps?
My source is Dwight Pryor of the Center for Judaic-Christian Studies. I gave you the URL before, but could do it again. Dwight used many sources, primarily from a school in Jerusalem in which Christians and Jews study first century Judaism. Dr. Flusser, Dr. Young, those two names come to mind as being associated with the school. But I'm sure Dwight can give you a citation.
by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances... (Ephesians 2:15)
Yeshua was speaking in Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic, but Dwight's sources believe He primarily spoke Hebrew) to Jews. Shaul was speaking in Greek to goyim. When we read "law" in the letters of Shaul we need to be careful to be certain whether he is talking about Torah or simply a set of codes and rules. As you pointed out, many of the goyim were used to sacrifices. I don't believe this passage was speaking of Torah - which was not for the goyim anyway - but of the metaphysical reality. Until Yeshua's death you had to sacrifice for sin. Now, Yeshua is that sacrifice.
It might be as if G-d did some act by which He made the law of gravity null and void. Any Torah requirement to put things on the floor would not necessarily be abolished. Does that help or confuse?
Then I said, `Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,' as it is written of me in the roll of the book." When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:7-10)
I think you have already agreed with me that this is not a unique Christian understanding. The writer of Hebrews was pointing out that in our personal relationship G-d is interested in the heart issue. Therefore, our willingness to obey (whether carried out well or not) is more important than the rule book. Our willingness to obey didn't overcome the metaphysical principle that a sacrifice had to be made and our flesh had to be circumcised. Yeshua's death overcame that metaphysical principle so that the circumcision of our hearts could be the sole issue between G-d and us.
Now let's look at "fulfil".
I don't see any evidence from the Hebrew scriptures of "fulfil" being used in the sense you suggest. Matthew uses it the same way repeatedly, to mean the carrying out or accomplishment of some prophecy, not the correct interpretation thereof.
According to Dwight, this a uniquely first century construct that was used by the Rabbis when discussing Torah. It is not a generic understanding of the words but a very specific one. I was intending for this reality to be conveyed when comparing Yeshua's and Shaul's words.
I have no problem with this [that our obedience to G-d is a heart matter].
Neither did King David, if I read the Psalms he wrote correctly.
I don't think a Jew can separate the two [being a part of the holy priesthood and being Torah obedient]. You cannot dedicate yourself to God without being obedient to Him. Likewise, you cannot truly be obedient to God without dedicating yourself to Him (remember that loving God with your whole heart, soul and might is itself one of the commandments - Deuteronomy 6:5).
(I hope you knew that by the holy priesthood, I didn't mean the Aaronic Priesthood, but the priesthood of all believers to which G-d called Israel from Sinai).
I would agree wholeheartedly. Yeshua supported this. If you would ask, which came first, your salvation or your works, the Christians would argue for centuries. The Jew would answer as Ya'acov answered, "Show me your faith, and I'll show you my works that you may see my faith." (Loosely paraphrased James 2:18) Or as Yeshua said, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in Heaven." (Matthew 5:16 KJV)
And this is where you and I fundamentally cease to agree.
I knew we would.
Human sacrifice is not an acceptable sacrifice, and no one else can atone for your sins (Ezekiel 18:20).
In addition, Yeshua was not without blemish. There is no way Yeshua could physically satisfy the physical requirements of the physical sacrifice called for in Torah. But it is my belief that everything G-d established in the physical is but an image of the reality which is in the spiritual realm. C.S. Lewis said that we are in the unreal shadowlands.
Unless Yeshua was who He claimed to be - that is very G-d in the flesh, I am a fool for believing that His death meant anything than the end of another Jewish Messianic movement. If Yeshua was who He clamed to be, then G-d finally fulfilled Himself what he asked Avraham to do, but then was unwilling to allow Avraham to do. If Yeshua was who He claimed to be, then His sacrifice could indeed suffice for all the spiritual results the Christians claim.
I am satisfied as to His claim. I know you are not, so I knew you would not be able to accept that part. But you did ask what I believed.
When you get back from your rest, you might ask yourself the following question on my behalf. "If ArGee believes that Yeshua is G-d in substance, then how would ArGee explain Yeshua calling out from the cross, 'My G-d, My G-d, why have you forsaken me?'"
Shabbat Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.