Comments on Ambassador Watch: Wicked, wicked Bart!

Byker, you say, "A part of me is curious about thi...

2009-03-21T10:03:00.000+13:00

Byker, you say, "A part of me is curious about this Torah thing." A healthy curiosity, in my opinion.

David said, "The Torah is perfect, converting the soul." And Jesus more than corroborated with, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (Torah), till all be fulfilled."

"Till all be fulfilled" refers to a time in the distant future when everything will have been united through Torah. For Jesus to have fulfilled the Torah is good, but should be understood in terms of his Jewishness. It is the goal of every Jew to fulfill the Torah -- to become a walking, talking, living Torah. Very few, especially in terms of Israel's mass-defection from Torah in the time of Jeroboam, have embraced Torah as completely as we promised at Sinai. This still remains the untimate goal of all Israel, and, according to the writer of Hebrews 8, quoting Jeremiah 31, Torah will be the heart of the New Covenant, which in fact is a renewal of the only covenant between G-d and Israel. (Greek substitutes Law for Torah, from the LXX, nomos.)

Rabbis have always insisted, arguing from the Torah (certain heretical movements excluded), that non-Jews are not obligated to embrace the Israelite culture. This is essentially corroborated in Acts 15 and throughout Paul's writings. Judaism contains nothing that would make a righteous Jew better than a righteous Gentile.

"Concerning Torah study in general, I think, “Try ...

2009-03-21T09:08:00.000+13:00

"Concerning Torah study in general, I think, “Try it, you’ll like it,” may apply here."

I read comparison passages from the NKJV and an "authorized" English Torah once, and I read all the books that didn't make the cut for the Brits in the 1600s.

I have to admit, other than the Jewish version being a lot more liberal than the British-Israelite version, it didn't give me any great insights, personally.

(Though I did find the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon to share a lot of themes with gnosticism and the main Gnostic allegories of a feminized Wisdom goddess.)

The one thing I did take away from glancing through it, is that a lot more New Testament Christians ought to try reading an "authorized" modern English Torah. Maybe then they wouldn't be so systematically and individually anti-Semitic.

(And pigs might fly, but I ain't holding my breath on that one, either.)

Byker Bob, I know what you mean - and so a healthy...

2009-03-21T04:25:00.000+13:00

Byker Bob, I know what you mean - and so a healthy skepticism is really the only way to go.

Many are those who make bold claims and assertions, but few are they who can actually rigorously present their case with verifiable and legitimate evidence - no matter how many academic degrees follow their names.

A lot of the religiously inclined, as well as conspiracy buffs in general, have made an obsessive fetish out of possessing "special inside information" that the rest of us don't have - and this appears to be that perennial human motivation that groups like the old WCG appeal to.

It seems to me that so many folks desperately make fantastical claims regarding whatever holy books (or assertions) they hold as inspired by a god. Muslims do the same thing with the Quran. And thus far all of the claims I've looked into are rarely more than that: mere assertions that people WANT to be true. I call this the "if-I-WANT-it-to-be-true-then-it-IS-true" method of nonthinking.

I've had a lot of experience with conspiracy folks (claims that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxes, JFK conspiracies, etc.). But having studied into the Kennedy assassination pretty thoroughly - and being very familiar with all the various claims that are made about that particular historical event, it seems that all conspiracists go to the same school to learn about conspiracies, and hence keep making the same nonsensical claims repeatedly, because that's what they've been taught. The specific subjects of conspiracy claims change, but the same methods, assertions and muddled reasoning which are then overlaid on top of the ever-changing subjects virtually all remain the same.

I think the same thing is true with regard to the "claims to fantastical transcendent knowledge" school as well. In essence, once you’ve seen and seriously looked into a few, you’ve basically seen them all.

Torah? Well, I may check this material out, or no...

2009-03-20T20:09:00.000+13:00

Torah? Well, I may check this material out, or not. Having spent my entire life investigating all of the dead ends to our communal maze, I've learned to be very skeptical when anyone professes to have transcendent knowledge. And, it usually starts out just like this, with someone hinting, or outright claiming that they have the answers sought by those of us who are seeker types.

A part of me is curious about this Torah thing. But another says, why would we even need to bother, since it was all fulfilled and done away 2,000 years ago, and we're now under a New Covenant. Still, I know that the Old Testament is often used as a fulcrum by non-believers. The thinking is that if you can somehow invalidate it, the New falls right along with it. To me, the Torah is simply a history lesson, documenting all of the reasons why a Messiah was necessary. You have to know where we, the human race, have been in order to know where we are presently, and more importantly where we are going in the future. If I do any further investigation, it will be from that perspective. I already spent enough years as a Pseudo-Jewish person as a member of WCG.

BB

I goofed. Gerald Schroeder's main commentary sour...

2009-03-20T18:36:00.000+13:00

I goofed. Gerald Schroeder's main commentary sources are Rashi, Ramban (Nachmanides) and the Talmud. I mistakenly substituted Maimonides (Rambam) for Rashi.

OK, smilinjacksprat, fair is fair: since you've ta...

2009-03-20T04:56:00.000+13:00

OK, smilinjacksprat, fair is fair: since you've taken the time to respond in some degree of detail, I'll go out on the Internet and do some study into Gerald Schroeder's work.

I don't have a problem whatsoever with those attempting to integrate what you would call spirituality with science. Recently I've been following some of the writings of former Apollo astronaut and moonwalker Edgar Mitchel, who also has a doctorate from M.I.T. as well, and he is very much interested in integrating spiritual experiences with science. I just recently ordered a copy of his book "The Way of the Explorer: An Apollo Astronaut's Journey Through the Material and Mystical Worlds" - yet haven't received it yet.

But, though open-minded, I do have my doubts about this endeavor. Yet I think it only fair and wise to always remain open to concepts and ideas that may ultimately prove true - yet which may not initially fit in with our current (and obviously incomplete) views of reality.

Science has limitations - acknowledged - but thus far I know of no other legitimate method of knowing that has as tangibly demonstrated such real-world results as science. Plus, it has shown itself willing, with few exceptions, to revise it's views as new evidence presents itself, something religion tends to resist, and often to embarrasing lengths, in order to stay true to "the faith once delivered."

But taking the large, wide-angle view that I do, I also know that modern science itself is still in a relatively early stage, even though it's been around now for about 400 years.

I appreciate your providing this information about Gerald Schroeder.

Leonardo, my personal introduction to Genesis 1 in...

2009-03-19T16:49:00.000+13:00

Leonardo, my personal introduction to Genesis 1 in terms of Big Bang theory, was given to me by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a very bright MIT trained Israeli nuclear physicist and oceanographer. His Torah cosmogony is developed from Hebrew Genesis and writings of great Jewish Torah scholars who lived not later than the 13th century, to ensure that their understanding came from the Bible, long before modern scientific discovery might have colored interpretation. Schroeder’s chief sources are Maimonides, Nachmanides and the Talmud. Nachmanides' commentary corroborates, in meticulous detail, the Genesis translation I provided. I quoted it verbatim from "In the Beginning," by H. Moose. Nachmanides (Ramban) died in 1270.

As for ancient creation myths beginning in darkness and chaos, why wouldn’t they? People were closer to ancient knowledge when those myths were imbedded in human memory. We all come from a common source, and would logically retain stories of creation told by patriarchs and poets.

You commented on my assertion that Torah studies can easily occupy a lifetime: “And, as is also typical, it requires a lifetime to fully understand the depths of this nonsense. And then folks like you wonder why what you promote isn't taken seriously by the level-headed.” I can’t agree with you, Leonardo.

What respectable discipline doesn’t require a lifetime of study and application? History? Mathematics? Physics? Philosophy? Astronomy? Music? Architecture? Literature? Economics? Medicine? Political Science? War? I can’t think of any. Torah is at least as worthy as these. I would not seriously undertake any discipline that could not promise a lifetime of challenge.

My warnings about Kabala derive primarily from a famous experience of Rabbi Akiva, the celebrated 2nd century sage and Torah scholar, with three other Rabbis. Only Akiva returned from the experience unscathed. One died, one lost his mind, one became apostate. Paul mentions heavenly ascent – but this kind of knowledge is either lost or perhaps shared by invitation only. Serious problems can develop when people immerse themselves in mystical practices without adequate preparation and guidance. Like learning to fly, it’s good to have competent instruction; how else does one learn to manage safe ascent, descent and landings?

Concerning Torah study in general, I think, “Try it, you’ll like it,” may apply here.

2009-03-18T09:45:00.000+13:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

SmilinJackSprat, thanks for your typical esoteric ...

2009-03-18T05:57:00.000+13:00

SmilinJackSprat, thanks for your typical esoteric non-answer.

I really don't need to point out that the "introduction" you've provided HARDLY constitutes intelligible evidence or even BEGINS to make the case for your assertion that the Torah is a work of genius.

And, as is also typical, it requires a lifetime to fully understand the depths of this nonsense.

And then folks like you wonder why what you promote isn't taken seriously by the level-headed.

Many mythologies of cosmic origins from antiquity begin in much the same way the Genesis account does - with darkness and chaos. How come these - along with some extremely creative interpretations of the original languages they were written in - aren't considered by you to be early versions anticipating the more modern Big Bang cosmologies, and thus evidence that they too are inspired by a god?

Your SJSV (Smilin Jack Sprat Version) translation of Genesis 1:1 is, well, creative, I guess, to say the least, but I know of no serious Hebrew scholar who would translate the original words of Genesis 1 in that way. I think you’ll have to admit, it’s quite a linguistic stretch, don’t you think?

I suppose it comes down to that old saying "The Bible can be made to say ANYTHING people WANT it to say."

And I notice, just like in the days of the old WCG, the absolute requirement for a religious guru is still a must, as you wrote "Kabbalistic practice should be undertaken only with competent guidance from a well-balanced, observant Rabbinical authority on both Torah AND Kabala."

You also wrote "People have become disoriented, some have gone mad..." apparently while attempting to gain this kind of mystic understanding. Are you speaking from personal experience here? It seems to me you are.

Once again, like a broken record, I must repeat my observation that religion and mental illness appear to make wonderfully compatible dance partners.

Byker Bob, Leonardo, I wrote as Anon 12:07 the oth...

2009-03-17T21:52:00.000+13:00

Byker Bob, Leonardo, I wrote as Anon 12:07 the other day. Just didn't take time to drag up the other handle. I hope the above material at least raises the possibility that Torah is a work of genius.

It is said that everyone has his or her portion in the Torah. Is the quest worth the time and effort? I wish you great success, whatever you choose to do, and loads of fun in the process.

"People have become disoriented, some have gone ma...

2009-03-17T21:41:00.000+13:00

"People have become disoriented, some have gone mad and even died while attempting heavenly ascents apart from a perfected Torah lifestyle...."

Pictures or it didn't happen.

"Christians should know that Jesus was no stranger to Kabala."

Yes, the Infancy gospel mentions how he one-ups the teacher he's sent to by telling the elder all about the aleph-beta.

"He talked in Kabalistic terms when he spoke of someone coming to a wedding feast without a wedding garment. This refers, if obliquely here, to attending weekly Sabbath meals, and all that they symbolize, with shoddy preparation."

Incorrect. This was a reference to the gnostic (Valentinian if I don't miss my guess) concept of the bridal chamber, wherein the syzygy of Wisdom (Sophia) and the Christos (christ-mind) join together. It is not a legalistically-binding requirement, nor does it have anything to do with the sunset-to-sunset worship of the Judaic religion.

The Kabbalah was much later than the Torah, anyway, and the Torah was only canonized around the same time as the loose canon for the Christian texts were coming together.

Byker Bob, Leonardo, CONCERNING "CODES" CONCEALED ...

2009-03-17T10:56:00.000+13:00

Byker Bob, Leonardo,

CONCERNING "CODES" CONCEALED IN TORAH: No part of the following is so arcane that it can’t be found in libraries.

The Big Bang was known from the Torah alone centuries ago, shared with non-Jews, and generally treated as a Jewish curiosity until science found evidence that made it the central theory of cosmic origins. Only recently have we begun to realize that understanding Genesis requires Relativity. And where do you suppose Einstein got the concept of a unified field theory, if not from the Sh’ma that tells Israel that G-d – and all G-d has made – is or is aimed toward Unity? Mark says that Jesus considered the Sh’ma to be the ultimate core value. These are not just nice commandments, but core principles, the DNA and blueprints of Creation itself. G-d gave Moses a Torah whose Creation story was predicated upon Relativity almost 3,500 years before Einstein discovered it.

A Torah scroll (Sefer Torah) is written with biodegradable ink on high quality animal skin. Everything about it is meaningful. Therefore the loss of a letter, or even a crown on a letter, makes it unfit for synagogue use. Thousands of laws and the better part of a year are required for a scribe to make one kosher Torah scroll. The rules governing its production make errors virtually impossible, and the tropes (melodies) by which it is read (sung) in synagogues have indicated syntax and grammar for millennia. Words are occasionally spelled with extra or deleted letters. All these supports and details are “codes” for understanding Torah, including decorative marks on letters. Learning it all is more that most of us can accomplish in a lifetime – but all of it is open to Torah students. Like Math, Torah students begin with fundamentals and continue as far as time and intellect allow, always building on preceding levels, including practice in daily life. Popular translations skim awkwardly along the bottom level of literal meaning, so error is unavoidable. Torah is too rich and deep for literal translation. Nonsense like the “gap theory” can be crafted logically only by working from bad premises, the erroneous products of “literal” translation.

King James has, “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the waters.” But G-d is a generic term, and each Hebrew term for G-d has its own emphasis.

A better translation, still not exhaustive, would say, “The beginning was created by the G-dly spirit of law and order; it was a fiery-liquid mass (gaseous vapor) to be formed into stellar bodies and an earth. And the part potentially to become the earth was primal matter, all earthly raw within it; the deep all around the mass was darkness, and a forceful wind fronting the volume of the liquid stuff on all its faces was carrying and revolving it very swiftly.”

With a minimum of Kabalistic interpretation, which is profound logic, not mysticism, one finds that B’reshit (In beginning) also means “with wisdom,” a reference to Torah, which is Israel’s wisdom – and it also indicates that G-d has given the universe a wisdom of its own, a capacity to function wisely. In a sense the universe lives; it responds to humanity. The earth is empowered to bring forth life. This can be found in commentaries dealing with deeper levels of Torah interpretation, including RAMBAN.

Genesis opens with "B’reshit bara Elohim et hashamayim v’et haaretz." Bara is used only of G-d and refers to creating from nothing, something only G-d can do. The fourth word, et, isn’t translated because it is a grammatical device to indicate that the next word, hashamayim, “the heavens,” is bara’s direct object. But Kabalistically it indicates that before the heavens, G-d created wisdom – Torah. It is spelled with the first and last letters of the Hebrew alefbet, which is the raw material of the Torah, and of Creation itself. This tells us that Torah/Wisdom was brought into existence before the heavens and the earth, and is corroborated, probably by interpreting this verse, in Proverbs 8. One might say, from all of this, that our mysterious universe is animated by, composed of and endowed with wisdom.

There is nothing to fear in kabbalistic writings per se. Kabala simply means “receiving.” The Friday night service is called Kabalat Shabbat, or Receiving Sabbath. But Kabala does not belong at the core of one’s studies. It should be studied as a Torah supplement. Otherwise it can be dangerous; it is not a spiritual plaything. People have become disoriented, some have gone mad and even died while attempting heavenly ascents apart from a perfected Torah lifestyle – which for non-Jews is based on the Rainbow covenant and Noahide laws, not the Sinai covenant.

Kabbalistic practice should be undertaken only with competent guidance from a well-balanced, observant Rabbinical authority on both Torah AND Kabala. Trendy “New Age” Kabala studies should be left to themselves. When a student is ready the teacher will appear.

Christians should know that Jesus was no stranger to Kabala. He talked in Kabalistic terms when he spoke of someone coming to a wedding feast without a wedding garment. This refers, if obliquely here, to attending weekly Sabbath meals, and all that they symbolize, with shoddy preparation. In Judaism each day is viewed as preparation for receiving the Sabbath as a bride. Each such feast is a wedding feast; each begins with consecration over wine and bread; the food is eaten with salt. The table is reminiscent of the altar in the Temple, and each Jew is one member of the Israelite Kingdom of Priests. Non-Jewish guests are more than welcome. But when a Jew ignores the first, second, third, etc. days of the Sabbath, known on Roman calendars as Sunday, Moonday, Tuesday, etc., by shirking Torah study, daily prayer, hard work and wholesome living, he or she is said to lack a wedding garment. One is ill prepared to receive the Sabbath bride, and does not experience the neshama sheni or second soul – the extra spiritual infusion or “wedding garment” that Sabbath keepers should enjoy every Sabbath day.

So there you have a miniscule introduction to some of the “codes” and devices available to Torah scholars, including the ancient language itself, its rich vocabulary and subtle spelling variations, the vowels and tropes, the genuine translations using the full potential of ancient Hebrew and Kabalistic insights, and brilliant commentary. Gematria is valid, but bypassed here. Main reference works here have included the “ArtScroll Siddur: Ashkenaz,” the RAMBAN by Shilo commentary on Genesis, a University of Judaism class in Mysticism taught by Rabbi Steve Robbins, conversations with the noted Israeli author and physicist, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, and an amazing Torah primer called, “In the Beginning: The Bible, Unauthorized,” by H. Moose, available from thirtysevenbooks.com.

Ex-android,Yes, I did notice that Rand's official ...

2009-03-17T10:50:00.000+13:00

Ex-android,

Yes, I did notice that Rand's official cause of death was actually congestive heart failure.

Nonetheless, she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1974, and stopped smoking at that time.

I have a number of video interviews she conducted (with Phil Donahue, Tom Snyder, Mike Wallace, and others) and if you notice she always seemed rather short of breath - so smoking did take a toll on her respiratory health, no doubt.

You wrote "I've also wondered about our Christian culture. Gee, why do we in America have a high rate of believers along side such high murder rates? Could it be that Christianity isn't good for a society?"

For a very insightful yet brief analysis of that general topic, read Sam Harris' wondeful little book "Letter to a Christian Nation." For example, it seems evangelical Christians, for all their talk of family values, actually have a HIGHER divorce rate than do atheists. Imagine that!

OK, you talked me into it - I'm going to have to buy a used copy on Amazon of Branden's "My Years with Ayn Rand"!

I still occasionally go through seasons of my life where I read or listen to the most recent Objectivist material because, in spite of some of its shortcomings, on the whole I find many of their views very illuminating.

Hey, what happened to Anonymous 12:07's promise to give us his "best insights" with respect to the "scientific genius" hidden within the original Hebrew scriptures? I sincerely would like to know what they are.

I sure hope he will fulfil his written intentions, and not be like the many others on this site who chest-puff a great deal, but when the time comes for them to actually give us their specific proofs, just seem to somehow vanish away into another blog topic.

Leo-Thank you for the Rand website. I have to admi...

2009-03-17T04:05:00.000+13:00

Leo-

Thank you for the Rand website. I have to admit that I rarely seek out such things. I've read enough to satisfy myself as far as my recovery is concerned and I have no one with whom I may discuss my thoughts. So I have moved on to other things.

(Did you note that the website said that Rand died of a heart problem, not lung cancer?)

I particularly found interesting Rand's comments about our illegal drug culture. I have to acquire now a copy of "The New Left" in order to catch up on some understanding. I've often wondered about the madness of destroying one's life with drugs.

I've also wondered about our Christian culture. Gee, why do we in America have a high rate of believers along side such high murder rates? Could it be that Christianity isn't good for a society?

I've wondered about crime among our youth in America. Are children really helped by drumming into their helpless little minds all the claptrap about the gods? Then they grow up to learn that the world works as if there are no gods and parents are frequently liars.

BTW--Branden's latter book is quite good in the sense of "The Rest Of The Story," to borrow a phrase.

Anon, I'm still waiting for you to fulfill your st...

2009-03-17T03:22:00.000+13:00

Anon, I'm still waiting for you to fulfill your stated intention to the effect that "I'll give you my best insights, which obviously will not include anything even remotely approaching dogma."

And remember to include a specific and intelligible example of “the scientific genius hidden within the inspired shorthand of the Hebrew Torah” you claimed in one of your comments.

I always keep hearing these and similar assertions, but nothing specific or intelligible ever seems to be forthcoming. You're not going to dissappoint me with yet another version of that old standard "You've just got to have faith" argument, are you?

Pursuant to the "my bible is more inerrant than yo...

2009-03-16T02:51:00.000+13:00

Pursuant to the "my bible is more inerrant than your bible n00bs" discussion that is ongoing, might I recommend the excellent (and recently-resurrected) websites Early Christian Writings and Early Jewish Writings.

Neither site is (by any definition of the word) exhaustive, but they both try and provide an unbiased overview of the debates surrounding the provenance, authorship, and contents, of the religious texts of the Jewish and Christian which have survived down to the present day.

"Primarily, the ones making such a claim have to p...

2009-03-16T02:42:00.000+13:00

"Primarily, the ones making such a claim have to prove there is one or more of the gods who does, indeed, do the inspiring."

"Men create gods. That is the way it is in the world. Men create gods, and worship their creations. It would be better for the gods to worship men!" Gospel of Philip

A brief note, for the "Read it in the original la...

2009-03-16T02:34:00.000+13:00

A brief note, for the "Read it in the original language!" anonymous evangelical (!!) Jewish believer (Smilin' Jack Sprat, is that you?) in our midst:

Funny, I was under the impression the Muslims say the same thing about the Koran.......Religious Gnostics say the same of the Coptic Bible.....

Are you sensing a pattern here anon?

Anonymous 12:07, you asked "Did AC ever offer in d...

2009-03-15T07:32:00.000+13:00

Anonymous 12:07, you asked "Did AC ever offer in depth courses in Torah to give its students a foundation for judging the rest of "the Bible"?...and also "Did AC's Theology classes give you anything approaching even the layman's background of Jesus' generation?

I can only answer from the time frame I was a student out there in Pasadena from 1976-80...NO, certainly nothing exhaustive by any means, just extremely general overviews.

The aspects you mention - an in-depth study of the Torah, and thorough study of the cultural/religious background to the upbringing and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth - was basically glossed over, and never in any kind of useful detail.

The classes I refer to were "Survey of the Old Testament" (a two semester overview course sweeping over the entire OT) and "Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ" (a one-semester course, followed by another one-semester course entitled "Early Christian History"), but all of them essentially glossed over such historical background materal very quickly, and the classes most definately had a WCG-bias.

Other higher-level classes did go into certain areas of both the OT and NT in greater detail, but as I mentioned above, never really covering a lot of the cultural background exhaustively: Minor Prophets, Epistles of Paul, General Epistles, etc.

I've never been an academician, but I would think such technical and highly-detailed material would probably be considered more appropriate for post-graduate studies. All I know is that we never even remotely got close to being taught the kind of material you refered to - although I personally think it would have been quite interesting, but probably not by most young adults in their late teens or early 20's.

Just another quick comment: often the very same classes would be very differently taught by differing teachers. For instance, Dr. George Geiss was an excellent instructor, his "General Epistles" class (a junior-year, 300 level course) probably being the most insightful and thought-provoking class I ever took at AC. I remember getting an "A" in that class, and boy did I have to earn it! Dr. Geiss really made you think, his exams were hard, but you finished the course feeling like you had really learned a LOT of deep, relevant and practical material. To this day, over 32 years later, I STILL am mining the things Dr. Geiss taught me in that outstanding class. He was truly a first-class educator. But obviously the same class would have had a very different slant had it been taught, for example, by Rod Meredith.

So the actual quality of the course content, the text books used, and how it was presented, had a great deal to do with WHO specifically taught a given course. I suppose the same thing can be said about virtually any course taught in any college or university around the world.

Anon 12:07,I'm looking forward to Sunday! As for ...

2009-03-14T15:07:00.000+13:00

Anon 12:07,

I'm looking forward to Sunday!

As for AC theology courses, I only completed first, second, and third year Bible. Obviously, there was quite a bit of denominational bias. However, at the time, to a young person who had grown up in WCG, they certainly seemed to expand upon what we learned as church members from weekly sabbath services. But, in retrospect, at that young age, I really had no idea what true scholarship even was.

I attended high school in a predominantly Jewish area. It was awesome, because as a young WCG boy, this meant that I was no longer a pariah. It was from one of my Jewish buddies that I even learned the word "Torah". Jews are just so cool! I guess I became a Judeophile my last two years in high school. My friends thought I was "Orthodox", which was very peculiar. I mean, a blue eyed Anglo-Saxon gentile white boy being mistaken for an Orthodox Jew!

Anyhoo, since you obviously keep the sabbath, make it a good one!
See ya Sunday!

BB

Byker Bob & Leonardo, I'll do my best to g...

2009-03-14T13:23:00.000+13:00

Byker Bob & Leonardo, I'll do my best to get back to you Sunday. I'll give you my best insights, which obviously will not include anything even remotely approaching dogma.

For the record, I'm certain that the inerrancy of the Bible cannot be proved; it's not inerrant. The Mosaic books achieve that level of perfection, but proving that can absorb a lifetime. The rest of the Hebrew canon supports Moses, with problems, and the Greek writings are dangerously flawed -- or so it appears to me, and I would presume Bart Ehrman.

Isaiah 8:20, at least in the KJV and its derivatives, quotes God saying that anything contrary to Torah and "the testimony," whatever that is, is darkness. Deuteronomy 13 corroborates.

Did AC ever offer in depth courses in Torah to give its students a foundation for judging the rest of "the Bible"?

During Jesus' lifetime, all observant Jews went through the entire written Torah every three years, with fearless discussions of the texts every week of their lives. We look into some of those heated arguments in the gospels, mainly on application of oral law, and they still rage in Orthodox synagogues. It's normal. Any Jew who saw in Jesus the messiah of that generation would have reached that conclusion by means of Torah benchmarks and others established later through David and Solomon.

Did AC's Theology classes give you anything approaching even the layman's background of Jesus' generation? Mind you, the Rabbis of the Sanhedrin were men of great intellect. They often knew the Torah of Moses by heart long before the accountable age of 13, and the oral law, also by heart, by their mid teens -- all in Hebrew and Aramaic, no slanted translations, several layers removed from their pristine sources.

At any rate, I'll get back to you Sunday, God willing. Thanks for caring, and for having the guts to think.

Anon. 12:07

Ex-android, I just read your 4:27 comment, in whic...

2009-03-14T11:11:00.000+13:00

Ex-android, I just read your 4:27 comment, in which you referred to your “childish Armstrongist phase of life.”

You know, I can’t speak for anyone but myself here – but my intense involvement with HWA and the WCG can be directly traced to the general ignorance and naïveté of my teen years – which, though I would have never acknowledged it at the time, was indeed a childish phase of my life, especially when it came to ultimate philosophical issues such as metaphysics and epistemology (I first came in contact with the WCG when I was 18 years old back in 1974).

I agree with your observation that Tkach Jr. is an effective business man, though I’m not sure I would use the word “good” – as in my view he "earns" a very lucrative living milking a lot of genuine though very gullible folks who still are connected up with the new WCG. Just my opinion.

Back in 1992 I recall reading “Judgment Day” a little at a time as I was working on the stage-lighting crew (part-time at nights) for performances at the Auditorium. I very much enjoyed reading it, though I never did read the subsequently revised version of it that was published about a decade later. I understand the second one is a toned-down version of the initial publication.

Thank you for your kind offer to make a CD of Branden’s “The Concept of God” lecture for me, but the old cassette version I have still suffices. I just heard it again about a year ago. It is good, though I would love to ask him certain questions about it, now that both he and I hopefully are more mature now than when he first recorded the lecture almost 50 years ago, and I first heard it about 30 years ago.

Rand’s definition of mysticism that you provided, at least to me, strikes at the very core of all things: epistemology, the nature of knowledge, most simply expressed as “How do you KNOW your assertion is true?” This is the most foundational facet of reality in my view, because HOW, the methods by which, we claim to actually KNOW something is where it all begins. And yet how many people ever even remotely consider this bedrock issue?

Yes, I agree with you that “The Ayn Rand Lexicon” is a wonderful resource, and it’s on-line at http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/

Being a self-confessed “hero worshipper” Rand would tend to shy away from issues of human nature. But as Branden pointed out in his lecture on “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand” what is considered “the rational” often changes from one historical era to another, or from one culture to another within the same general era. As a simple example from an earlier comment I made, Rand considered smoking rational, I would not – and we were immersed in essentially the same general culture and era of time, although she was about 50 years older than me.

I must correct myself in citing Branden’s book: it was published in 1999, and the actual title is “The Art of Living Consciously: The Power of Awareness to Transform Everyday Life.” It is quite good.

The mention of your cigar-smoking reminded me of a time back in 1979 when me and another fellow AC student were driving to the Feast from Pasadena to Tucson in a beat-up old Volkswagen beetle, and I picked up a cigar at a restaurant. The guy and I passed the cigar back and forth, enjoying it immensely, but I’m afraid we shocked the sweet young AC coeds we were traveling with at the time, and I later apologized profusely for succumbing to my craving for a cigar after the good meal we all had enjoyed. That was the last time I ever indulged, but I'm afraid those AC coeds never quite saw me in the same positive light I had previously enjoyed with them!

As an atheist, that is one who does not believe in...

2009-03-14T09:51:00.000+13:00

As an atheist, that is one who does not believe in any of the gods, the whole subject of "inspired" scripture is a waste of time. It is only of a secondary importance.

Primarily, the ones making such a claim have to prove there is one or more of the gods who does, indeed, do the inspiring. The Judeo-Christian Bible fails miserably on this point which brings us back to heroic Bart Ehrman, the original subject of this very interesting thread.

The Christian jury is still out on this troublesome matter of proof.

Yeah, I know, ya gotta have faith.

Ex-Android, you might find this Ayn Rand link of i...

2009-03-14T05:32:00.000+13:00

Ex-Android, you might find this Ayn Rand link of interest:

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q6.10

Anonymous 12:07 wrote:"I mention these things resp...

2009-03-14T05:12:00.000+13:00

Anonymous 12:07 wrote:
"I mention these things respectfully, to try to ward off concluding that Bart Ehrman's relentlessly honest studies of the Jesus phenomenon have proved that "the Bible" is uninspired. I would counter that there is significant truth buried in the NT writings..."

Well, Anonymous 12:07, I think you would agree that within the works of Shakespeare (or many other great writings of classic literature) lie many “significant truths” that we could wholeheartedly agree with, and would be wise to live our lives by - though we wouldn’t necessarily claim therefore that such works thus comprise the “infallible word of God” would we?

Many eastern religious texts such as Buddhism’s Dhammapada, or various scriptures of Hinduism, or even Islam’s Quran contain such insights, as do the works of Charles Dickens, for instance, but Jews or Christians would not consider these facts evidence of the “inspiration” of such writings.

Part of the problem here, as you pointed out earlier in your posted comment, is what exactly do people MEAN when they make the claim "The Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God." For this assertion to be intelligible, we have to agree on clear definitions, such as what is "The Bible," and what specifically do we mean when we assert that it is "inerrant and inspired."

The crucial topic of biblical inspiration and the history of it’s canonization is virtually unknown to fundamentalist Christianity. I know it was quickly glossed over in the WCG, and also at AC, at least when I attended. HWA’s embarrassing booklet “Proof of the Bible” was pulled several years after it was published as a result of all the incredibly ignorant historical claims and statements made in it, which Armstrong essentially plagiarized without question from previous Seventh Day Adventist literature.

To me this seems a very important and foundational issue in order to proceed with any reasonably and meaningful analysis of whether we can conclude one way or the other if the Bible is the truly inspired word of God on one hand, or on the other, a remarkable collection of ancient writings that no doubt contain accurate insights about life and the human condition, though not necessarily inerrant in everything it makes claim to.

Yesterday I finished reading John Morgan’s book “Flying Free” (mentioned on this blogsite) – a memoir of his experiences being raised in the WCG, holding it’s worldview well into his adult life, and his eventual abandonment of it, along with the current views he now holds with respect to the Bible – and though he presently claims to have a relationship with Jesus, he does not hold to the view that all sections of the Old and New Testaments are inerrant and without significant errors.

Please believe me when I say that I have been, and currently still am, extremely open-minded to various proposed arguments made in favor of the inspiration of the Bible, and am familiar with many of them. But thus far the FACTS have always been that ultimately they simply cannot stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of even the most rudimentary of rational analysis.

For centuries now Bible-believers have made many attempts to “prove” the Bible’s inspiration, but ultimately they have ALWAYS – if we are bone HONEST with the historical record - been forced to fall back on wholly subjective statements, such as the “Well, you’ve just got to have faith” rationale, or “I know the Bible is inspired because God has worked in my life and through experience has shown me it’s truth,” or even your “even the best of popular translations cannot convey the scientific genius hidden within the inspired shorthand of the Hebrew Torah” - which to me are no arguments whatsoever, but rather a blatant confession that the Bible’s inspiration cannot be plainly demonstrated.

I say this because, after wholeheartedly devoting over 30 years of my adult life to living by the teachings of the WCG, after having gone through 4 years of AC, after having worked out at Pasadena Headquarters for almost 13 years, I desperately WANTED the Bible to be proven as God’s inerrant book, I DESIRED that the WCG’s view of reality be true and absolute.

Reinforcing (rather than contradicting) these comforting conclusions would have been so much easier for me, I assure you.

But I would have had to delude myself, and I simply wasn’t willing to do that anymore, and decided to go with the demonstrable FACTS that can be clearly known and grasped in combination with intellectual HONESTY instead.

As a veteran of many Spokesman Clubs, this is my "heart-to-heart" speech to you, and to all reading these words.

I do have one question of you, Anonymous 12:07: can you give me (and the rest of us following this particular blog) a specific and intelligible example of “the scientific genius hidden within the inspired shorthand of the Hebrew Torah.” I ask sincerely, and am open to considering what you would have to say.