Magisterium will NEVER replace the higher teaching of the HOLY SPIRIT

The she-ass that spoke was one of the wondrous things created in the twilight between the first Sixth Day and the first Shabbat.

You mean to tell me the ass survived the Flood and lived how many centuries? But, anyway, that detail is not accessible through Christian scriptures.

Personally I feel terrible that an intelligent being who could speak, but trapped in a donkey's body, was forced to live the rest of her life with braying asses just for that one moment in the Tanakh! Seems a little cruel, don't you think?

There's an Oral Torah too, you know

And what does the Oral Torah say on that subject?

You mean to tell me the ass survived the Flood and lived how many centuries? But, anyway, that detail is not accessible through Christian scriptures.

I'm afraid you haven't quite yet gotten into the spirit of this.

As I understand it, the problem is the idea of G-d being caught by surprise by something and having to react on the spur of the moment and "interfere." The solution is that G-d always knew exactly what would happen, when it would happen, and what would be needed to deal with it, so he (as it were) programmed certain things into the universe in the beginning so that exactly at the proper time the solution would appear. These are the things created "in the twilight" between the first Sixth Day and the first Shabbat. The ten are as follows:

1)The mouth of the earth (which swallowed Qorach and his company,)
2)The mouth of the well (the rock that followed the Israelites in the Wilderness in the merit of Miryam, from which they drew water),
3)The mouth of the Balaam's she-ass,
4)The bow (the rainbow),
5)The manna,
6)Moses' staff,
7)The shamir (the worm used to cut the stones for the Temple, on which iron implements were forbidden),
8)The script (of the Ten Commandments),
9)The inscription (of the Ten Commandments),
10)And the tablets (of the Ten Commandments).

The section goes on to "some say also the demons, the grave of Moses, the ram of Abraham, and [my personal favorite] tongs, which are made with tongs."

You know, you Easterners being all mystically and everything, it's kind of strange that you would ask respond to the quote about her being created "in the twilight" by asking if she survived the Flood (though she very well may have).

Personally I feel terrible that an intelligent being who could speak, but trapped in a donkey's body, was forced to live the rest of her life with braying asses just for that one moment in the Tanakh! Seems a little cruel, don't you think?

Since she was killed by the angel who rebuked Balaam (as is stated indirectly in the text), that wasn't very long. As for her prior life, the text explicitly says that it wasn't until she was struck for the third time that HaShem "opened her mouth."

Parenthetically, I'll tell you something I read once, though my memory may be very faulty here (I invite correction). As you doubtless know, there are some commentators who regard the episode of the donkey as occurring in a vision--not because G-d couldn't make a donkey talk, but for other reasons in the text (for example, Balaam and the donkey take off with their companions after being given permission by G-d to do so, but then the companions disappear, and then after the episode [in which the angel rebukes Balaam for doing what G-d told him to go ahead and do] they seem to begin their trip again from square one, almost as if the first beginning of the trip took place in a vision). But one Sage gives another reason:

According to this latter Sage, an angel is naturally invisible unless it assumes a physical form. However, if it is in its natural invisible state it is invisible to all, and when it assumes a physical form it is visible to all, therefore, since the angel in this chapter was simultaneously visible to the she-ass but invisible to Balaam, it must have occurred in a vision.

And what does the Oral Torah say on that subject [the serpent]?

I have a book with the first seventeen chapters of Genesis printed along with many of the classic rabbinic commentaries. Unfortunately, I can't read Rabbinic Hebrew (especially unpointed Rabbinic Hebrew). I have read Rashi's commentary, but it has been a long time and I don't remember what he said on that subject (I could check later if you want). I can tell you this much: the commentary in Stone TaNa"KH, which is based on the classic commentaries, says that most of the commentators agree that the serpent was an actual serpent. Of course he had legs at first (which I believe are alluded to in one of the Prophets as having been chopped off by four angels with axes). I know there is some sort of mystical idea of HaSatan riding the Serpent's back "like a camel," but I don't know much about it. You know, there are plenty of Orthodox Jewish FReepers who know much more than I ever will on these subjects.

I have even read that according to some of the Sages Adam did not actually sin because he had (at that time) no evil inclination (he would have acquired it by eating the fruit), so he knew exactly what would happen. Rather, he intentionally ate of the fruit because, exalted as his state was, he could progress no further, so that his fall was a "descent for the sake of a later ascent." This is what the Latins call the felix culpa. And certainly the sin of Adam was written and recorded in the Torah before the world was created.

::Whew!::

I'm afraid you haven't quite yet gotten into the spirit of this

I'll be the first to admit, ZC. I was also being, well, fot eh lack of a better word, myself, kosta. :)

As I understand it, the problem is the idea of G-d being caught by surprise by something and having to react on the spur of the moment and "interfere."

So, according to the Oral Torah, God "pre-manufactured" the ten things (needed for the right moment) between The Sixth Day and the First Shabbat, and one of them was the mouth of the Balaam's she-ass? Fascinating.

You know, you Easterners being all mystically and everything, it's kind of strange that you would ask respond to the quote about her being created "in the twilight" by asking if she survived the Flood (though she very well may have)

Well, I was never very good at being a mystic, and besides, Eastern Christianity is really not mystical. What is called mysteria in the East is known as the "sacraments" in the West, essentially secrets by which God accomplishes things. God himself is seen as darkness to our minds, as we can neither see him no comprehend him, ergo a supreme mystery, or secret. But there is none of Jewish mysticism in any of that.

Since she was killed by the angel who rebuked Balaam (as is stated indirectly in the text), that wasn't very long

How much time elapsed from the Sixth Day and the First Shabbat and Balaam's encounter with he angel?

they seem to begin their trip again from square one, almost as if the first beginning of the trip took place in a vision)... However, if it is in its natural invisible state it is invisible to all, and when it assumes a physical form it is visible to all, therefore, since the angel in this chapter was simultaneously visible to the she-ass but invisible to Balaam, it must have occurred in a vision

Interesting. I wonder how many Christians know this?

I can tell you this much: the commentary in Stone TaNa"KH, which is based on the classic commentaries, says that most of the commentators agree that the serpent was an actual serpent.

That was my impression.

I know there is some sort of mystical idea of HaSatan riding the Serpent's back "like a camel,"

Never heard that one before!

I have even read that according to some of the Sages Adam did not actually sin because he had (at that time) no evil inclination (he would have acquired it by eating the fruit), so he knew exactly what would happen.

Wouldn't have Paul, (Christians claim he was a Hebrew scholar) know this? Yet he claimed that trough Adam all have sinned?!?

Rather, he intentionally ate of the fruit because, exalted as his state was, he could progress no further, so that his fall was a "descent for the sake of a later ascent."

Are they saying it's good to disobey and resist God so that later one can obey him?

And certainly the sin of Adam was written and recorded in the Torah before the world was created.

Love it! Thanks ZC.

The Gospels were not originally identified as to the author.

How do you know that?

Does it matter who penned it?

Only to the extent that it was or was not penned with Apostolic imprimatur.

Do you reject Daniel?

No. Why would I? Are you going to tell me that the LORD Jesus Christ was mistaken when he referred to the visions of Daniel as true prophecies and explicitly named Daniel as their writer?

Cordially,

RE life in Himself. Being given to have life in Himself can refer to a function as the Son, and the Son being in the bosom of the Father would share the same uncreated nature, even if not being given to exercise all the attributes. Yet all do things flow from the Father, and even if one does not have all the same attributes then that does not make one of a different nature, or “kind.”

While the women is not the same as the man, they both have a human nature, and are distinct in nature from animals, part of which is that the former have a tripartite nature, of body, soul and spirit. (1Ths. 5:23)

Jesus as the word of God functionally gives the Father expression, while He always was in the bosom of the Father, and the issue is that the one God of the Bible would not be so without the Son, and Spirit.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Satan says that:

In Christianity, the concept of Satan is the amalgamation of both Jewish and Greek descriptions of evil. In the Christian understanding of the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament), Satan is understood as an angel who rebelled against God. Before his insurrection, Satan was the highest of all angels, and the "brightest in the sky," referring to his connection (made in Isaiah 14:12-14) with what was called the "Morning Star" in Roman astrology, the planet Venus. However, he sought to rule heaven himself, and his pride kept him from bowing to God as all other angels did. God promptly cast him out of heaven along with one third of the angels, who became demons under his charge. The majority of Christians also believe it was Satan who spoke through the Serpent and seduced Eve into disobeying God. This connection was first made in the Christian tradition by Paul in Romans 16:20, though it was largely dispelled by early church fathers who maintained the traditional Hebrew understanding that Satan fell after Adam. However, in the 3rd Century B.C.E. Origen argued that Satan fell before Adam had even been created, and therefore could have appeared in the Garden.

Satan is commonly referred to in the New Testament text by the Greek term Diabolos, from which the word devil derives. This term means by "accuser" and "obstructor" for the Devil is described as hating humankind, and intent on impeding it's spiritual progression by providing temptation to sin. By the 2nd century C.E., the concept of Satan had inherited the characteristics of many ancient destructive nature spirits and ghosts, and became the unequivocal personification of evil. Satan's power was said to extend over the entire physical world as well as a legion of evil demons. However, he was also said to lack the omniscience and omnipotence of the one true God, and therefore relied upon demons to possess human beings and then torment them. Various New Testament stories provide accounts of exorcisms Jesus performed upon possessed individuals, such as Mark 16:9. The New Testament makes the suggestion that Satan does indeed possess his own will, as it has been argued that Satan entered Judas so that the Son of Man could be delivered over to Roman officials for his execution (as in Luke 22:3). However, all throughout the New Testament, the inevitable fall of Satan's rule is prescribed again and again, as in 2 Peter 2:4, and culminates in Revelation 20:2, 7-10 where Satan is defeated by Christ, thrown forever into the "lake of fire."

As well, we have the passage from Matthew 4 in which satan tries to tempt/seduce Jesus.

I appreciate your response but in order to clarify just where we see differently I wonder what your thoughts are these questions I asked. I don't expect long essays but since you cited these verses,,,well, may I ask:

But which one is Father and which one is Son if both are definite, “the” God? in John 1:1

You refer to Isaiah 9:6 where the term (gibbowr ‘el, mighty God) is used. Does this verse speak of the Son or the Father?

Psalms 50:1 uses the term (’el ‘elohiym, mighty God). Does that verse speak of the Father or the Son?

Thank you for kind attention.

It is not clear what you are arguing as re Jn. 1:1. It seems you cannot accept both being referred to as God, and want to make one "a" god, but which creates problems which the links describe. If we keep reading John, it seems clear to me that He is revealing the Son as being Divine in nature, and is the same LORD whom Isaiah saw in Is. 6, as the response to the question, "who is this Son of Man" (Jn. 12:34b) reveals, and hence the attributing of Thomas to the Son, "my Lord and my God." "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. " (1 John 5:20) And the reality is that uniquely Divine attributes (if not all), titles and glory as ascribed to the Son. As regards Ps. 50:1, that was in response to the WTC argument that attempted to make a Jesus "s" god by distinguishing btwn Him as the "mighty God" versus the Almighty. But i do hold that Is. 9:6 refers to the Son, as does Rev. 1:8. As re Mic. 5:2 (from of old, from everlasting), the AV is not simply translating "yome" but there actually 3 words involved here, that of H6924: qedem qêdmâh = "old," in "from of old," which in Hab. 1:12 denotes eternity past (Art thou no from everlasting,H4480 [from] H6924 O LORD), and then "yome" (days) and then ‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm, ("everlasting.") Used together these two normally mean a limited time as regards the realm on earth, but ‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm clearly denotes eternity in many or most cases, and its use with qedem qêdmâh can also denote this.

I will divide my repsonse in several secitons for brevity and clarity.

The majority of Christians also believe it was Satan who spoke through the Serpent and seduced Eve into disobeying God. This connection was first made in the Christian tradition by Paul in Romans 16:20

Bingo! More "Paulinaity", Mark. The more you dig the more you will find how the whole thing choreographed, ex post facto!

though it [Paul's innovation] was largely dispelled by early church fathers who maintained the traditional Hebrew understanding that Satan fell after Adam

Of course this indicates that the Church was divided between the Pauline and Petrine camps, and that Christian beliefs were not held "everywhere and always" (i.e. catholic) from the Pentecost, as the official Church claims.

More importantly, the early Christian disagreement with Paul's innovations indicates that the Church did not hold to Paul's preaching as something "inspired" and infallible. However, in the 3rd Century B.C.E. [sic] Origen argued that Satan fell before Adam had even been created, and therefore could have appeared in the Garden

Not 3rd century BCE, but CE (AD)! I wish they would go back to the old deisngation (AD/BC), to avoid such errors; but political correctness rules, because idiots decided it is the right thing to do, so a snot to "offend" anyone!

Anyway, the rest of it is correct. And who was Origen? First, he was Greek. Second, he is one of the most influential late 2nd century Christian apologetics. In fact he is largely responsible for the "orthodox doctrine" in the early Church. It was him who insisted Mary is the Ever-Virgin Theotokos.

Yet, he was disgraced as a heretic. His canon contained many Gnostic works, which he considered "inspired". His triniatrianism is subordinaitonalist. He taught universal salvation, and the pre-existence of the souls, both of which are officially heretical. In the second half of his life, he embraced Gnosticism.

So, the Church basically cherry-picked a little here and a little there of that what was desirable and rejected the rest.

Satan is commonly referred to in the New Testament text by the Greek term Diabolos, from which the word devil derives. This term means by "accuser" and "obstructor"

The Greek word is a translation of the Hebrew sawtawn, which comes form the Hebrew word sawtan, to "resist" or "oppose". The Greek word διαβολος (diabolos) means "slanderer", hence [false] accuser.

However, the Greek word "hinderer" is διακωλυω (diakoluo), from dia (through, by means of) and koluo (hinder, resist).

Somehow, it was more fitting the Christian doctrine to choose the former which is the meaning it never had in Hebrew! Just as some scribe in 1 Tim 3:16 changed the word ΟΣ (he) to ΘΣ (a ligature for Theos, God)! Close enough for doctrinal manipulation. We know this was done deliberately because whoever did it did so in a slightly contrasting ink.

So, the deeper you dig, the more you see the manipulating work that was taking place in the development of early Christianity, which remains largely unknown by your average Joe. These are not slanders, but facts, and some people just can't handle the truth.

As well, we have the passage from Matthew 4 in which satan tries to tempt/seduce Jesus.

Yes, Mark, but think about it, what is the earliest copy of Matthew 4? The oldest known Papyrus, P102, dated at end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century AD. The famous Chester-Beatry collection (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century AD) contains only Matthew's chapters 20, 21, 25, and 26. Then other ealry collection, the Bodmer Papyri, specifically Bodmer XIX contains a section of Matthew'as Gospel 14:28-28:20 only.

So, the earliest copy of Matthew 4 is rather late. Thre copies of Mark 1 and Luke 1 fair no better than the 3rd century. This leaves plenty of room for the story to fit the already developed and established beliefs. In absence of earlier copies and/or originals, we can't say for sure.

The nest best approach is to search what the early Christian apologetics and Church Fathers wrote on the temptation of Jesus referencing the earlier copies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke the way Eusebius references the earlier copy of the Great Commission without the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost (no less than 17 times before Nicene 1)!

I don't have time to look for them right now, but the story itself seems to be based on 'tradition' by some accounts.

It is notable to mention that the Gospel accounts differ, as to what happened before and after. And John's Gospel omits it altogether.

It is also worth mentioning that the source, if any, trying to link it to the OT is based on the Septuagint and not the Hebrew Bible.

Yes, in the hands of the Catholic Church, and its clergy; not in every Tom, Dick and Harry's hands.

Or Luther.

“It is not clear what you are arguing as re Jn. 1:1. It seems you cannot accept both being referred to as God....”

It is a quite simple question based upon your quote. If it is a question you don't care to deal with, o.k., so be it, but if so at least make that clear.

The same with Ps. 50:1. A simple question about who you believe it is referring to. What others say or think is not really germane.

I know you've thought about the subject a good deal as your work at that link you gave shows and I'm trying to get a bit more into your thinking if you will.

I haven't asked anything too deep or esoteric have I?

Or Luther

Well, that's different. Luther was a theologian. He was good enough to be appointed as such by the Church. He was not exactly your average Joe Bible reader. Which only confirms that no matter how much education one has, it is not the glue that brings everyone to the same conclusion, or to be of one mind.

In extremis, a belief is a personal choice one makes based on factors unique to each individual for reasons that are obviously "good enough" for that individual. It's just that the learned ones try to "prove" their belief to be true, whereas a simple man just believes or disbelieves and can be swayed (even deceived) either way more easily. The fact that there is no proof speaks for itself.

So, according to the Oral Torah, God "pre-manufactured" the ten things (needed for the right moment) between The Sixth Day and the First Shabbat, and one of them was the mouth of the Balaam's she-ass? Fascinating.

I'm just glad you didn't go all smart-mouth Kosta on me about the shamir and the "tongs, which are made with tongs!"

Well, I was never very good at being a mystic, and besides, Eastern Christianity is really not mystical.

Coulda fooled me. From what everyone else seems to be saying, the illiterate eastern peasant reads (yeah, I know, a contradiction) about Adam in the Garden and his mind begins creating all these profound concepts, whereas the Dumb Trailer Park Redneck (yours truly) reads about Adam in the Garden and is so foolish as to believe he is reading history!

How much time elapsed from the Sixth Day and the First Shabbat and Balaam's encounter with he angel?

I don't know when exactly during the forty years the incident with Balaam occurred. But the exodus occurred in the 2448th year of creation and the conquest forty years later, so it would have to be between those two dates.

Interesting. I wonder how many Christians know this?

I would ordinarily say something smart-alecky and cruel here, but seeing as how I myself am being all-but branded an ignoramus on another thread, I shall refrain from doing so.

Wouldn't have Paul, (Christians claim he was a Hebrew scholar) know this? Yet he claimed that trough Adam all have sinned?!?

You know something? I don't know what Paul teaches. There was a time I thought I knew (everyone's born damned, don't try to do anything about it, git SAVED! through the vicarious damnation of a divine scapegoat and just drift into heaven), but everyone tells me I was wrong. Everyone tells me what he actually said was count your rosary beads, observe all the chr*stian holidays, pray to a "savior" who hasn't saved you, and just maybe when you die you won't fry in hell for all eternity (though you probably will). Darn if I see that in there, but many people do. Then you Orthodox folks say that there's nothing wrong with us at all, there's no difference at all between us and Adam in the Garden, and that it isn't sin that causes death but death that causes sin (but J*sus took care of that by fixing it so that no one dies any more, so now no one has to sin). I didn't even know folks had stopped dying! Coulda fooled me with the two funeral home visitations I've made within the past few months. Anyway, I've decided a poor simple-minded redneck can't understand Paul. I'll let you profound peasants have him!

Are they saying it's good to disobey and resist God so that later one can obey him?

What's the difference between that and "O happy fault, O truly necessary sin of Adam, because it gained for us so glorious a savior?"

To post 1269:

Mark: Wow. You're a lot more higher critical than I realized.

Kosta and Mark: Satan never "fell." He's just doing his job (assigned him by G-d).

I'm just glad you didn't go all smart-mouth Kosta on me about the shamir and the "tongs, which are made with tongs!"

Oh, CZ, you know that's way above my pay grade. :) I know nothing of Oral Torah and the thinking that went into it.

Coulda fooled me. From what everyone else seems to be saying, the illiterate eastern peasant reads (yeah, I know, a contradiction) about Adam in the Garden and his mind begins creating all these profound concepts, whereas the Dumb Trailer Park Redneck (yours truly) reads about Adam in the Garden and is so foolish as to believe he is reading history!

Funny how that works, isn't it? You see, Christians really believe that their Lord and God, Jesus Christ, did rise from the dead as a matter of historical fact. Now, as to how that was possible, I would say it's about the same as tongs making tons. To them and to you it may make perfect sense, but to me, either belief is a mystery.

I don't know when exactly during the forty years the incident with Balaam occurred. But the exodus occurred in the 2448th year of creation and the conquest forty years later, so it would have to be between those two dates.

So, in other words, the Balaam's she-ass lived some 2800 years?

I would ordinarily say something smart-alecky and cruel here, but seeing as how I myself am being all-but branded an ignoramus

You are not an ignoramus, and you know that. Besides, no amount of education guarantees there will be oneness of mind when it comes to faith.

Then you Orthodox folks say that there's nothing wrong with us at all, there's no difference at all between us and Adam in the Garden

You must have the EOs confused with someone else, CZ. The Greeks read Paul's ef ho pantes hemarton differently from most Western Christians because Paul's choice of words is ambiguous and both interpretations are valid. So, the EOs see the Adam's sin as his personal guilt, not everyone's personal guilt.

What's the difference between that and "O happy fault, O truly necessary sin of Adam, because it gained for us so glorious a savior?"

Choreography? :)

Kosta and Mark: Satan never "fell." He's just doing his job (assigned him by G-d)

My comment had to do with how the encyclopedia portrayed Origen's explanation. I never suggested ythat Satan "fell" from grace. The serpent in the Garden can not be Satan given that the serpent in the Garden is "eternally cursed", and Satan is alive and well in Job, and is counted among the "sons of God"!

So, in other words, the Balaam's she-ass lived some 2800 years?

::Smacking forehead:: No, Balaam's she-ass was programmed to appear at exactly the right moment some 2400 plus years after Creation.

Funny how that works, isn't it? You see, Christians really believe that their Lord and God, Jesus Christ, did rise from the dead as a matter of historical fact. Now, as to how that was possible, I would say it's about the same as tongs making tons. To them and to you it may make perfect sense, but to me, either belief is a mystery.

The "mystery" isn't "tongs making tongs." The thing is, in order to make tongs (which are forged in hot iron), one must already have a pair of tongs in order to pull them from the fire. How then were the first pair made without a prior pair? G-d made them Himself. After that people could make their own tongs.

You are not an ignoramus, and you know that.

Thank you. I was not referring to any arguments with Catholics and Orthodox but rather to an argument about Judaism I am having with a poster on this thread (you may want to peruse it at your leisure). As to "knowing" I am not an ignoramus, I must tell you something in all sincerity, Kosta . . . no matter how much I know that I know, and no matter my own personal experiences and education, the fact is that my particular ethno-culture is held to be congenitally stupid, and that stereotype, and the fact that it is reiterated over and over and over by people who otherwise are against all forms of "bigotry and stereotyping" cannot but fill one with doubt. Just as Jews cannot help but wonder if the universal hatred of them does not indeed have some factual basis, so does the constant invocation of the "inbred Southern hick" create doubts in my mind about my own intelligence. There's no getting away from it. Even a Southern accent is taken as a sign of a low intelligence (despite the fact that a Southern accent is very similar to the standard African-American accent, and no one is going to call them congenitally stupid!).

I honestly believe that all the various nations of the world do indeed have certain G-d-instilled characteristics. The focus of Jews is the laws. That of classical chr*stians is doctrine and dogma. The focus of white Southerners is the stories. Everyone else may laugh at us, but the facticity of the stories is wired into our very DNA. And so is our passion. I don't know why, but our feelings about our religious beliefs is strong--much stronger than those of anyone else. I don't know why everyone else is so blase. I can't help but feel strongly about my beliefs. My posts may read like those of a cold-blooded, calm, reflective type, but many times while I'm typing these posts I'm gritting my teeth and trying for all the world not to have a screaming fit. Why are we this way? I mean, I'm not your typical Southern Baptist, but I have the same passion and the same dedication to the facticity of the stories as a Southern Baptist. It's just who we are. When the entire rest of the world, from liturgical chr*stians to Jews to moslems to hindus to the beautiful "indigenous pipples" has relegated its religious stories to didactic mythology and created one vast monochrome humanity whose views of reality are those of Voltaire and Darwin, we (if we still exist) will still believe that our stories are true. Right or wrong, wise or foolish, this is how G-d made us. And our continued loyalty to our stories in the face of a world of people who have given up on theirs will simply confirm once again how "inbred" and stupid we are.

You must have the EOs confused with someone else, CZ. The Greeks read Paul's ef ho pantes hemarton differently from most Western Christians because Paul's choice of words is ambiguous and both interpretations are valid. So, the EOs see the Adam's sin as his personal guilt, not everyone's personal guilt.

I once met with an Orthodox priest during my religious search. As we sat there, every nerve in my body buzzing with concupiscence and the vile passions, every neuron pushing me to do commit a zillion and one sins, this expert on authentic chr*stianity was going on and on about how gloomy Augustinianism (Catholicism and Protestantism) are and how wonderful it is to realize that there's nothing wrong with us and we are free. If that is so, I asked him, then what was the difference between the two of us sitting there in his attic office conversing and Adam in the Garden of Eden. None, he said.

Maybe the vile passions are a Southern thing as well? I guess that's why we tend to believe in "total depravity" and letting G-d do all the work!

Thank you so much for your kind words.

No, Balaam's she-ass was programmed to appear at exactly the right moment some 2400 plus years after Creation.

Okay, but you wrote "These are the things created [not programmed to appear!] 'in the twilight' between the first Sixth Day and the first Shabbat". So, where was the she-ass all this time since her creation and the moment when she was supposed to appear?

Are you saying God pre-created everything that is to appear, including the souls of all humans who have lived or will live? Now, that (the pre-existence of the souls) is mostly definitely not an Orthodox/Catholic belief.

The belief in the pre-existence of the souls was held by Gnostics (Origen being one of them), and was declared a heresy by the Catholic Church early on.

The "mystery" isn't "tongs making tongs." The thing is, in order to make tongs (which are forged in hot iron), one must already have a pair of tongs in order to pull them from the fire. How then were the first pair made without a prior pair? G-d made them Himself. After that people could make their own tongs

Before iron they used bronze and before bronze they used sheet rocks or wet wood, or tongs made of wooden spoons filled with rocks, etc. Improvise, and overcome. I mean in order to make a lathe you need a lathe! Whence came the first lathe? No one says God made it himself, CZ. :)

I was not referring to any arguments with Catholics and Orthodox but rather to an argument about Judaism I am having with a poster on this thread (you may want to peruse it at your leisure).

Yes, interesting exchange. I don't think he is calling your an ignoramus, CZ. To the contrary, I think he was impressed with your knowledge. But he also drew a line, namely that you as a Noachide have no business in judging who is orthodox and who is apostate. That is to be expected. You are simply not one of them, no matter how much you know.

As to "knowing" I am not an ignoramus, I must tell you something in all sincerity, Kosta . . . no matter how much I know that I know, and no matter my own personal experiences and education, the fact is that my particular ethno-culture is held to be congenitally stupid

First, no one knows your ethno-culure unless you tell them what it is. You write well, and in proper English, and have obviously a great deal of knowledge of things. Only someone truly congenitally stupid would come to a conclusion that you are!

As for me, I go by what people have to say. I couldn't care less what they look like or what ethno-cultural background they carry in their genes.

Just as Jews cannot help but wonder if the universal hatred of them does not indeed have some factual basis, so does the constant invocation of the "inbred Southern hick" create doubts in my mind about my own intelligence. There's no getting away from it.

Some people hate Catholics simply for being Catholic, CZ. Others hate atheists for being atheists (for what they believe!). Muslims are universally hated as well. Most of the world actually hates America. Does that mean there are no nasty Jews, mean Catholics, obnoxious atheists, fanatical Muslims, ugly Americas, or ignorant Redneck Southerners? Of course not. Again, it's by far more important what you have to say than where your genes are from, and on the Internet, unless you divulge your background, no one will ever know who or what you are, least of all congenitally stupid, unless your words betray you as bieng one! :)

I don't know why, but our feelings about our religious beliefs is strong--much stronger than those of anyone else.

CZ, Greeks are 99% Christians. Their faith matters to them really a great deal. That's more than any other country in Europe, perhaps save for Malta. Does that make them "Redneck Southerners"? :) I don't know if you know many Greeks, but many are as "redneck" as it gets. And they are wonderful people, if you were born on the right side of divide. They just don't like everybody (come to think of it—most people, especially the Turks!). :)

Right or wrong, wise or foolish, this is how G-d made us. And our continued loyalty to our stories in the face of a world of people who have given up on theirs will simply confirm once again how "inbred" and stupid we are.

It's just a culture, CZ. To a Greek, it doesn't matter if the story is true or not, it is part of their faith and it's good and necessary in their minds to give such stories their proper place, to use them as guides and for edification, whether factual or symbolic.

Greeks treat the "pillars" of the Faith as facts—the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Holy Trinity, the Theotokos, etc. To an Orthodox the Eucharist is "true Body and true Blood" and he or she doesn't even entertain the idea how the Holy Ghost changed the ordinary bread and wine into himself, or whether it makes any sense#151;they believe it happened, it's true and factual!

To them the mysteria (sacraments) are things accomplished by the Holy Ghost. They believe that the saints in heaven hear they prayers and pray with them and that angles sing along with the people of God in the church during the Divine Liturgy. How is that different from your (plural your) beliefs in stories being factual?