Discourse between wives, Christian and ex-Christian, now Sinaite

Image from www.whatshot.inc

Image from www.whatshot.inc

[This is the 3rd time we’re reposting this discourse; part of our ‘looking back’ where we started and departed from Christian friends or rather, who departed from our company,  in our journey of faith. —Admin1].

 

If you have had the time to follow the discourses we have posted here, you will have experienced a virtual debate between staunch Christians defending their faith, and Sinaites who are not so much defending but more so, explaining why they have taken a different path from Christianity, the religion of their birth and inheritance from parents that they have embraced for half a century of their time on earth.

 

You might also have noticed there is no meeting of minds and one simply gives up on the other; guess who gives up first . . . .

 

Sinaites do not explain ourselves to former Christian colleagues in order to “convert” them; no, not at all . . . we feel it is simply our duty to inform all we have “converted” to or worked side by side with in  the Christian faith that we are no longer on the same page, so to speak, with them.  Christianity might have been the first chapter, if not Part I comprising many chapters in our Book of Life but we have progressed from there to follow a different direction, toward the Revelation on Sinai as recorded in the Torah of the Hebrew Bible or the TNK.

 

 

Hereunder is a series comprising 24 back-and-forth discourse between the wives of two Christian ministers who not only worked together but became close friends such that the Christian couple were among the few invited guests in a surprise golden wedding anniversary of the former Christian couple who have since turned Sinaites.

 

The love and respect one has for the other come across the sincere friendly greeting and calm discussion of point by point, issue by issue, in this series.  This is not always the case as you will discover in other discourses between Sinaite/Christian, when antipathy eventually shows through on the part of the disappointed Christian who never expected one who has been ‘saved’ by Jesus Christ to reject the Christian Savior after almost a lifetime of serving and evangelizing and ministering together.

 

So, to save you the trouble of going to the SITE MAP for this particular Discourse between two women—just click the posts in their order, starting from the bottom up:

 

For a wrap-up, read this:

Admin1

logo

Discourse/Christian-Sinaite: How differing faith choices affect friendship

Image from Pinterest

Image from Pinterest

[First posted in  2015.  This is yet another discourse between two friends formerly belonging to the same household of  Christ-centered faith.  One leaves the faith and follows the way of Sinai 6000 and predictably, as it happens in such friendships, there is a rift, understandably.  The pattern is much the same as you should expect by now, if you have followed the posts under the category DISCOURSE.  We share these exchanges to enlighten those who are in transition from Christ-centered faith to a Christ-less one such as ours, or perhaps we should say  Jesus-centered faith and Jesus-less faith, since “christ” is simply  Greek for the English word “messiah” or the Hebrew “maschiach”.  There really seems to be no meeting of minds when one side disengages from Christianity while the other remains.  Relationships are affected even if there is half-hearted effort to continue in friendship.  Still, there is much to learn from reading exchanges between individuals whose faith convictions are strong and clearly expressed.  The ‘eavesdroppers’ or ‘outsiders listening/looking in’ probably agree with one side or another or remain objective, not swayed by views expressed; whatever, we encourage you to  add your opinion in the boxes provided below every post in this website.  In fact, we wish there were more visitors leaving messages, negative or positive, all welcome; that’s how we learn from one another.

The writers here are identified only as ‘Sinaite’ and ‘Christian’ and the originals are edited where information is not relevant to the discussion indicated by [square parenthesis]. This is long, several emails compiled in one post; there is purpose for not serializing this particular discourse.—Admin1.]
———————————–
Christian:  I caught this guy on t.v. one day months ago. He was on for HOURS on end. All the congregants in the audience were dressed in white. 

His whole message was on the “Kingdom of Jesus Christ.” He is from Davao City and his church is the Jesus Christ Cathedral. 

 

They had an 800 number on the t.v. screen that people could call for more info. I ended up talking to a nice lady from the Bay Area for about 1/2 hr.  

 

The crux of this “ministry” is that Jesus is God. They don’t

believe in the Triune God evident in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I disagreed with what she told me, but I found her very dedicated to the message this “pastor” was preaching.

 

Like I said, the program went on for hours of him talking without a break. About 3 hrs.

 
Sinaite:    This guy  is one of the many religious charismatic leaders here; they all own TV networks and have expanded to USA. Even the Catholic Church here now have Hollywood-like productions for their worship services; the idea, I guess is, their flock can stay right at home, watch televised worship, if that’s their idea of worship.
 
All this make me sick! In fact, and I hope you’re not a Joel Osteen fan, he and his ilk (that Hindu looking guy with diamond pin on his necktie) and all the other TV evangelists, superrich jet-setters — enough, enough, enough!
 
This is why I have lost interest in Christianity and did a lot of soul-searching 4 years ago. The result will surprise you. I left Christ-centered religion after I decided to check out the roots of that faith and discovered too many things that made me go further back to what it claims as its ‘foundation’.
 
I have a proposal for you:  instead of our wasting our precious time further on ​[talking about ​things we can’t do anything about except fret over— dead ends​] ​ let us write our differing thoughts about our faith.  ​[The faith community I belong to] has started ​[writing about our transition] ​ 4 years ago, on a website which is now being hosted for free by a friend.  
 
I know you are strongly convicted in Christian doctrine as I was for most of my life, until 4 years ago. So you are the voice (among others) who will counter the teachings that my group and I have put out on the website. This will give you an outlet, another cause to take up if you care to, perhaps add meaning in your life at this point, etc.  You are articulate, express yourself clearly, (talking to seniors is a great training for teaching and communicating); you write fast etc.  –these are all compliments.
 
Add to the Christian apologetics we feature on the website for balance (we have many of them, former Christian colleagues with whom we have running discourses) all for web visitors to be exposed to all sides, and learn, and decide for themselves.  If you just start reading enough of the website to get a grasp of what we are all about, then you can react in writing (email to nsbsinai6000@gmail.com). I will post every article you send, in opposition or in agreement. 
 
Just for starters though, ​here is an introduction I wrote when we first started the website February 2012:   https://sinai6000.net/life-is-a-pilgrimage/.  Read, then check out the rest of the posts.
 

You and I have been independent worshippers of the God we are convinced we know at any point in our lives.

​ ​

We’re God-seekers, but we also have to be Truth-seekers. . .  and Truth has been mishandled by religions for centuries as we well know.  We both think ‘out of the box’ and that’s good, that puts us in a category of people who don’t have to get stuck and just like the turtle, gotta get out of comfort-turtle-shell to get to the next point in the destination going where?  Well for me, I’ve always loved God at any point in my life and much of my strivings since 27, have ​moved​  toward knowing ​more about ​ Him. But got stuck in Christianity almost ​like forever​—​the website explains.

 
This is not to convert you or anyone else, it is an outlet for us to share what we’ve learned. 
 
Write dear friend!  And be one of the challengers we publish on the web. Think of a pseudonym, we simply use our initials.
 
1st reaction:
 
Christian:   With all due respect, I sensed you had changed and turned your back on Bibllical Christianity when I met with you. I got a very cold feeling in that regard and it has concerned me. I am not sure this adventure is for me. 
 

But I will tell you right off the bat, I have found SBN (Jimmy Swaggart Ministries) to be preaching the message that I most embrace: i.e. that all that we have need of is found in the Cross of Christ. My faith is very simple in reality: I am a sinner; Jesus is my Savior.

 

The music and preaching ministry of Jimmy Swaggart and his son Donnie really tell it like it is. I find the music most comforting and uplifting and leads me into praise and worship. I watch their live services on Sun. a.m. and p.m. and Wed. nite, as well as re-runs. 

As a matter of fact, if I don’t have FOX news channel on, I have SBN on. I leave SBN on all night and wake up several times to watch and listen. I love listening to the old Crusades. Jimmy Swaggart was the first and only minister that I am aware of that exposed the Catholic church for the false religion that it is. 

 

I watch his wife’s program every morning from  7-9 a.m. and it is a talk/call-in discussion/answer type program. She covers political issues, education issues like Common Core that has been foisted on the public schools here in the U.S.and all manner of spiritual issues. And of course, everything is Bible-based and Christ-centered when addressed.

 

The only thing that I am in disagreement with is JSM’s take on Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. They are proponents of the Gap Theory, even though they say it is a “theory.” I take Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis viewpoint on a young earth, 6 literal days of creation, no death before Adam sinned and a global flood.

 

And no, I am not a fan of Joel Osteen, the Daystar gang (Marcus and Joni Lamb, founders), the TBN gang (Paul Crouch died a year ago) but his son, Matt and giddy wife, Laurie are head of the ministry now. Nor am I fan of the Purpose Driven church/life guy, Rick Warren. They are all preaching another gospel. Many of them are Word of Faith, like the Copelands, Creflo Dollar andthose oddities that are into the Hebraic movement like Larry and Tiz Huch. And no, I can’t stand Benny Hinn either. All wolves in sheep’s clothing IMO. God will have to be the judge, and HE WILL JUDGE. The Bible says judgment will begin at the household of faith.

 

I believe the Lord has gifted me to preach and teach, and that is what I have done and continue to do. He has given me spiritual gifts like prophecy, word of wisdom, word of knowledge and discernment of spirits. I cannot deny these things. Therefore, I am secure in my faith. I am fully trusting the Lord in my life. I am not seeking another way. 

 

I do fear that you and I are not on the same page as pertains to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, the Bible. 

 

I will look into the things you have shared, but I cannot promise my involvement in any of it…unless the Lord changes my mind and I can serve Him by being part of it. For now, I think it’s another foray into something that will turn out like your foray into the Hebraic movement, which I wanted to discuss with you when we met, but I knew it was a moot point when I sensed you were into something else.

 

Thank you for letting me know about this, and I am glad I asked about [the preacher in Davao], as I was most curious if you knew anything about him.

 

I did mention that I also get a lot from the Hal Lindsey Report and Irvin Baxter Endtime teachings. Both have made it clear to me what the Revelation is about and endtime events. We are witnessing the unfolding of Bible prophecy unfolding right before our very eyes. We’re headed to a one-world religion and one-world government. There isn’t much one can do to argue with what we see and what the Bible says.​

 

 
2nd reaction:  
 
 
Christian:  What about the great old hymns? I have used my hymn history books to preach and teach many times. As a matter of fact I am thinking of incorporating Hymn Histories in my Music Appreciation programs this year. It’s all right there and can’t be denied those hymn writers were moved on by the Holy Spirit, many times in the midst of great trials and tribulations. If one didn’t have access to the Bible and only had a hymnal (which I have several) one could maintain their study of and understanding of the Bible just by reading the hymns.

 

Sinaite:   All religions that believe in a God, any God of their conviction, produce inspired writings, music, etc.  Some of the most beautiful of classical music have been centered on the Virgin Mary. Inspired hymnodists compose and write their lyrics out of love for the God they know. I seriously studied hymnody, the background of every hymn, I love the music and use it with revised lyrics, with the apology that “imitation is the best compliment”.  Christian lyricists teach the flock through the hymns; it’s a great teaching tool because words set to music are better remembered than memorizing verses.
 
What is the issue?  There is a universal God who created the universe and humanity. How does one know Him and what He is like and what He requires of humankind?  The source of truth is the issue with religions.  Where do we base our faith, on what ‘truth?  This has been the focus of the ‘journey’ or the ‘pilgrimage’ of every God-seeker/Truth-seeker.  Is the map we’ve been given the right one, will it lead us to the knowledge of the One True God? 
 
As former Christians, we all reacted to any deviation from Christian theology/dogma/doctrine, particularly about the Trinitarian Godhead.  Your reaction is exactly the same as all our other Christian colleagues/friends, we’re never surprised, we reacted the same way when we were there. 
 
We have been Christians, active in bible study, taught, evangelized, miinistered — nothing anyone can tell us anymore about what the religion is all about. Been there done that.  When you read the running discourses between our members and their Christian-counterparts, the same arguments come up! Nothing new, and that is why I thought that as a strongly convicted Christian who is more eloquent and a better writer than all the others we have posted (you should read the apologetics of both sides), you could add a lot to the exchange.
 
We are not out to “convert”  anyone — we don’t evangelize — but when we meet opposition and are accused of apostasy, or being deluded, or are not ‘saved’ and will ‘go to hell’, etc. we defend the stand we have taken, as anyone would, as Christians do all the time.  
 
We all love the God we have come to know . . . the source of truth about Him is available, accessible. That is the point of the post: https://sinai6000.net/revelation-in-a-nutshell/
If you read it, you will better understand how each individual decides what is truth for him, where is the source, how much of it can he access, etc. I figured that out and wrote that post for others to consider — or refute and debate.  
 
I love God as much as you do, He is big enough to handle our differing beliefs about him. I look at all people in any religion as God-seekers, on the way to knowing Him, if they don’t stop at any point in their journey of faith. Yes, going to the Hebraic roots of the Christian faith was worth it. God loves all seekers of Him and the best part of knowing more about Him is loving Him all the more, a blessing every step of the way.
 

If our not being on the ‘same page’ is a problem for you, we can go the same way we did last time we connected by email.  I wish you well in your walk with Him.

 
Christian:   Wow, you’ve written off our relationship already. And I wish you well in your walk with the Universal God you describe. Fits well with the one-world religion that is coming about.
 
Sinaite:   Correction, I did not write off our relationship.  I meant IF our not being on the same page faith-wise is a problem for you (because it is not a problem for me as i do value you as a friend and our relationship of course), then we can go the same way we did before, stop email communication, but have another reunion when I do go visit my sons next trip.
 
God is a universal God, not exclusive . . . religions are exclusive, the 3 monotheistic religions that claim their roots from Abraham—Judaism, Christianity, Islam.    All I did was read the history of the religion I was born in . . . – councils of men made decisions about God’s nature.
 

Anyway, we can switch to other topics since, as they say, two taboo topics to avoid if you want to continue in any relationship: religion and politics. . . . unless we are open-minded and tolerant enough ​in​ listening to views we don’t agree with.

​1st reaction:
 
Christian:   Oh, in answer to the question you posed to me: The issue is the hymns (and you know which ones I am referring to) lead to faith and trust in Christ. 
 
Once one finds Jesus Christ, God’s Only Begotten Son, the Saviour of the world who died for our sins and that is the purpose He came to the earth and was planned way back in Genesis, one should not have to continue seeking the One True God; they have already found Him if they were truly born again and believe Who He Is and What and Why He died on the Cross. 
 
That’s the ISSUE, dear friend. I don’t hear you mentioning Jesus Christ and that is the ISSUE for me.
 
2nd reaction: 
 

Christian:  It seems that I am the one who has rekindled our communication now and in the past. I did not hear from you since you left for San Francisco. So it would not be that different to have broken fellowship/communication.

I don’t think any subject should be off limits, but I do think because you and I are on different pages now in our belief and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we should not continue to barrage one another with our respective belief systems. You know where I am coming from and I now know where you are coming from, as I sensed there was something very different about your spirituality when we were together. 

 

You have sent quite a voluminous amount of what you believe and are involved in, most of which I have not any interest in reading.   

 

Now you know I am diametrically opposed to what you have written and your concept of God being Universal, and don’t care to be the “bait” for the readers of your website. To me it would be akin to casting my pearls before swine and giving what is sacred to the dogs.


So if we can continue on in a respectful manner towards one, we can remain in touch for whatever reason or whatever purpose we would chose to communicate with one another.

 

I will always treasure our times together and consider you a valued friend. We do have a history and once one is a part of one’s life, it is a loss when that ends.
 

 

Sinaite:    Understood. 
 
We are women of conviction, I think that’s a good thing; our strong faith in the God we know and love and serve— keeps our sanity amidst the problems we face. 
 
May God continue to bless the work you do for Him, and particularly your unique ministry for the seniors to whom you bring much joy.
 
Praying for peace in mind and heart and family circumstances,
we’ll catch up maybe . . . when I come to US to visit my sons.
 

 

Christian:  I honestly do not see why our email contact has to be all or nothing. If we have nothing that we can connect about by way of the written word, which is like writing a letter to one another, what is the use of even planning to get together when you come here in person.

I am dismayed by your response to my not wanting to be involved in your website chats, or to be indoctrinated in the way you believe about God. Universalism is nothing new, btw. I certainly do not feel you respect my decision and are taking it as rejection.

 

My thoughts have gone back to the beautiful fellowship you and I had around our mutual love of the Lord and how we shared it not only with one another, but with the residents and staff at  [Senior retirement facilities]. We were truly ministers of the gospel in those facilities.

 

We stood against [former boss] and her ungodly philosophy and how she tried to limit or do away with anything Christian. You discipled [an activity provider] the piano player who was involved in occultism, if memory serves me correctly. You held Bible studies with the Miranda lady. I could go on with the precious memories of how the gospel of Jesus Christ played such a role in our relationship as well as our work.

 

I want to clarify and correct some things I said about some of the t.v. ministries. While many of them do not preach and teach that with which I agree, TBN and Daystar do provide air time (at a cost I’m sure) to some great ministries that I do find biblically sound. 

 

I actually watched a couple of programs on each of those networks late into the night and found myself raising my hands in praise and agreement with what was being said.

 

It’s really up to the Lord to judge the hearts of men, especially those who put themselves in the role of preacher/teacher. They/we will be held to a higher standard of accountability. And although you say you don’t evangelize, you are definitely influencing people with what you believe about God.

 

Let’s not forget a couple of scriptures, one from John 1:1:
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
And the scripture where Jesus Himself said,
“I am the Way the TRUTH and the life, no man comes to the Father, except by Me.”
To me those are very succinct and powerful scriptures that I am sure you are well aware of. Once one finds God through Jesus Christ, there should be no further search for God or Truth, but rather how to live for Him. His Word is truth and is unfolding all around us in this world.

 

And by the way, Christianity is not a religion, but rather based on a relationship with Jesus Christ. If men have perverted the gospel and made it a religion, that’s where we get “churchism” and  they will be judged.

 

I’m sure not going to let t.v. evangelists and liberal so-called churches and pastors derail my personal relationship with Christ.
“I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto Him against that day.”
(I wrote this w/o getting my Bible out to note scripture references so forgive me for not citing them with book, chapter and verse.)

 

So, I guess the ball is in your court as to whether you would like to continue sharing in our friendship by way of email, one of the blessings of God that people all over the world can connect when they are far apart. But somehow I get the sense that you are relieved to not continue emailing with me. For some unknown reason, it has always seemed to have been a somewhat burdensome thing for you. 

 

Maybe you do better over a meal for a short period of time that you have control over, years apart. We shall see. I am leaving it all in the Lord’s Hands.

 

May He continue to watch over you and keep you. Until we meet again.
Love in Christ and for His sake.

 

Sinaite:  I was not trying to convince you to my faith; if you misread my intentions, allow me to clarify.  

You communicate very well, verbally and in writing.  You could use an outlet at this time when you’re feeling frustrated about a few things — home/family situation for one, and you expressed losing interest in senior activities because seniors are far gone and what is the point.  
Your energy and zeal to serve God could be put to better use through speaking up for your faith.  I thought, why not involve you in Christian apologetics since you do a better job than what I have read from the pastors and pastors wives and my former messianic teacher — all of whom are not writers and don’t express themselves as logically and as clearly as you do; in short, you are a notch above them.  You would also have a blog for yourself to talk as much as you like about your faith and the God your believe in.
That is all I had in mind.  It is not to use you as “bait” for website readers; it is to provide yet another voice in Christian apologetics, something you do very well.  Why waste your defense of the faith on me, I was there all my life, I used to mouth the same; I’ve left the faith. Jesus to me now is not God Himself, he was a historical figure,  Jew who taught Torah, loved Israel’s God.  Councils of men in the 4th century made decisions and voted on the nature of God and the nature of the historical Jesus.
The website explains much of it –that is why I sent you two articles to read to begin to refute, not meant to “barrage” you to convince you to think as I do.  It was intended to challenge you to defend Christianity.  You will not waste your pearls on swine, dear friend, the web visitors come from all over the world. Let me paste a sample of what I see on my administrators page to give you an idea of what posts these web visitors click,  [scan the visitor’s online at the bottom of the page].

My colleagues and I who all came from Christianity— know better than to ‘evangelize’ our former Christian colleagues.  All of you have exactly the same reaction, the same arguments—sound like us when we were still staunchly defending our Christian faith.  What we offer at the website

are​ opinions of all kinds — Noachides, Karaites, Christians in particular, because there are many souls out there hungry for God and His Truth and we provide a balance of opinions, particularly from Christians.
You can continue serving God in your own private way,  nothing wrong with that, but why waste a talent and gift you’ve been given. You have the zeal, combined with the gift of expressing that zeal for your God.  Why not use it? It’s much like going to any website, reading something there, leaving a comment or critique, nothing more, nothing less. Meanwhile website readers might find you super interesting and follow your blogs, if they’re not satisfied with what they’ve read so far in the discourses we have posted featuring Christian colleagues who have successful huge church fellowships but are not as good writers as they are preachers in the pulpit.  You will be in good company, and it will give meaning to time you spend by yourself.  
My time is consumed during lulls at the university involvement, in administering the website—I write posts, feature books and articles from other websites, reformatting articles of our members, etc.  Carrying on a discourse with you about our faith choices on email is better shared with others who might agree or disagree with you or me.
Really, what else are we going to email each other about that we can’t take up as friends catching up when I visit?  We are both lovers of the God we serve; what better service can we give than to indulge in apologetics for what we believe in?
Give it a thought.   Start with reading the two articles (sorry if you considered 2 articles a ‘barrage’), but you need a springboard to start writing a defense of your faith. If after a look-see of the website you still feel you’re ‘throwing pearls to swine’, then just say ‘No’ again.  I was not out to ‘use’ you as ‘bait’, I was out to give you a direction that well uses your gift and zeal for the God you love so much, just as I love the God I have come to know and embrace.  
Yes, we could continue emailing, and if we do, we’ll keep off the faith topic because I’ve expressed myself enough on the website and I know Christianity enough from over 5 decades of believing, living, teaching, discussing it.  Let us focus on other topics if we continue our email exchange. I think that’s fair enough, since we are, as you clearly stated,  in diametric opposition now in the paths we have taken, why indulge further in fruitless discussion? I will never return to Christianity and you will never leave it — so let’s talk about everything else.  I think that’s wise.

 

Christian:  Well, so good to hear back from you. And thank you for your kind words as pertains to my ability to express myself. Yes, I’ve been told many times about how articulate I am both in speaking and in writing. I think that is part of the gifting the Lord has given to me.

I will take some time to look over and read that which you’ve attached (which made this email stretch way out all wonky). I’m still not sure how I would add something to the blog. I probably misunderstood what you said in that regard. It was my understanding that I would email anything I wanted to post to you first. Maybe you could run the procedure by me again.

 

Also, I am in perfect agreement that we should not discuss our own personal faith in a way that we are espousing a belief system.  But I believe we should be able to share things in a way that would benignly acknowledge what we would believe is the Hand of God in our lives as pertains to various issues going on in our lives at any given time. I would find it very difficult to never mention the way I feel the Lord is working in my life. That is just as much apart of who I am as the air I breathe. I would not be offended in any way if you were to share from the same perspective. 

 

I do have to admit that right now my spirit is grieved to hear you say what you believe about Jesus Christ. Would it be safe to assume that you no longer believe the whole of the Bible either, particularly the New Testament. If that is true, I understand why you have turned your back on Jesus as Savior and Lord and are seeking God based on the Torah alone.  Basically that is much like where the Jews are in their understanding of Who Jesus is. He is not the Messiah and He is not God to the Jews. And yes, according to the Bible and Christian doctrine, the Jews are considered lost, except those who have put their faith in the coming Savior the first time and the returning King of Kings and Lord of Lords the second time.

 

Just trying to get my mind around your belief system. Thinking out  loud again, or in print. No need to answer unless you want to let me know if I got it.

Thanks again for responding. I look forward to staying in touch with you and vice versa, although it may not be daily . Believe it or not, I do manage to keep myself very busy every day, so spending time on a blog defending my faith might take awhile for me to get into.

 

 

And as far as the residents at [senior facility] go, I know I am making an impact on their lives if only for an hour 3x/week. The sweet little voices that thank me for coming as I head out the door make it all worthwhile. And each day is different with them. I have had a great week with them so far. Many of them are very sick with a bad cold right now, so if they aren’t coughing up a lung, they are sleeping. It’s a blessing from the Lord to be able to get up and put on an attractive outfit with a great jewelry ensemble and my planned activity resources in my trunk. I wouldn’t want to not go there.

 

O.K. this is enough for now. 

———————————-
Last 2 emails:   Final decision to blog or not to blog on this website.

 

Christian:  Thought I’d look this up just to refresh my mind on where and when it originated. As you will note from the last sentence that I cut and pasted, there are a number of universalists in the Philippines.

 

Here’s some of the text I got off the internet:

 

Unitarian Universalism [2][3][4] is a liberal religion of Christian background characterized by a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning“.[5] Unitarian Universalists do not share acreed but are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. The roots of Unitarian Universalism (UU) are in liberal Christianity, specifically Unitarianism and Universalism. Unitarian Universalist’s state, from these traditions, comes a deep regard for intellectual freedom and inclusive love, so that congregations and members seek inspiration and derive insight from all major world religions.[6]

The theology of individual Unitarian Universalists ranges widely, with the majority beingHumanist,[7] but also having members that follow atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism,Judaism, Christianity, neopaganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many more.

The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) was formed in 1961, a consolidation of theAmerican Unitarian Association, established in 1825, and the Universalist Church of America,[8]established in 1866. It is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, and serves churches mostly in the United States. A group of thirty Philippine congregations is represented as a sole member within the UUA.

 2nd email:
Christian:  I have not taken the time to read the posts you attached to the last email. I guess I see no purpose to enter into a dialogue on a blog where one has rejected Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. 

 

It would be akin to me finding blogs where Mormons, or Catholics, or maybe even Jews, blog about their respective belief systems that do not accept Jesus as God or salvation through His finished work on the cross, but rather salvation by works, and post comments on there refuting their belief system(s).

 

 

I was born into a home where my mother was raised Catholic and my father was raised Lutheran. I converted to Mormonism when I was 14 after the young couple who lived across the street took me to the LDS church. I was their baby-sitter for their adopted first child, a son.

 

I embraced Mormonism until I had my first son and began to question their beliefs about Jesus, and man becoming like God. Their mantra is “As man is God once was, and as God is man may become.”

 

 

We were also struggling with laying up a year’s supply of food. Our long hallway linen closet was full of flour, sugar, canned soup, jello, etc. But of course, we weren’t allowed to drink coffee or tea or other caffeinated beverages, so none of that there.

 

I’ll never forget the day I was ironing and I started asking the Lord to lead me to the truth. I went over to my book case and reached for the white leather KJV Bible my grandparents had sent to me for Christmas in 1960. It fell open to Matt. 6:19 at the top of the right page. My eyes went to the scripture about not laying up treasures on earth… and to the end of the chapter. From then on, every time I opened my Bible, it opened to a scripture that refuted Mormonism.

 

 

I remember gasping when I found the scripture about Satan disguising himself as an angel of light, as that’s how the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith.

 

Long story short, I (we) left the Mormon church and we started attending an Assembly of God church. Ferrol is from a “jack Mormon” (inactive) family, but they were very upset when we left the LDS church. We have a long church history and you pretty much know my feelings about “churchism”  better known as “denominationalism.” However, my faith, trust and belief in Jesus Christ has only grown over all these many years.

 

As you said, “you will never return to Christianity, and I will never leave.” So we have both drawn lines in the sand when it comes to our respective “paths.” For that reason, I will not be posting on your blog. To me it would be like the scripture says: “do not cast your pearls before swine, or give what is sacred to the dogs, or else they will turn and tear you to pieces.” That is the way I see it, even if that was not your intent to have me be “bait” or see it as me casting my pearls…

 

I think we can still be friends, but if it means waiting until you get back to the U.S. to catch up,  so be it.

 

Love in Christ.

 

 

 

Sinaite:  I perfectly understand; in fact I did not expect anything different. We are who we are, and that’s good . . . God allows us that much.  Freedom of the will is His precious gift to humankind; one He will never interfere with or invade.  I respect your staying with the faith you have chosen, and as you have sincerely stated, you respect my deviation from the faith.

May God bless our efforts to serve Him in our chosen directions. See you on my next trip, for sure I will be playing for the seniors at [facility] and join you at [facility].  Let you know when I’m there.
PostScripts . . . 
 
Christian:  Please indulge me as I have one more curiosity that I would love to ask you about. Did you share your “new path” with [2 friends]  when you were here? I would think that since they and the others you met with also, would be surprised to find that you left the Christian faith since you were such a strong witness for the Lord while you worked at [senior retirement facility]. I’m thinking [former boss]  would have especially met your news with great interest, unless of course, it was not expedient for you to share that part of your life with her/them.
 
 

Sinaite:  My reunion with [friends]  was purely a social one. We caught up with each other in the 7 years we had not seen each other.  I had never discussed my Christian faith with them even when I was at [senior retirement facility]; I simply led Sunday hymn-singing as an activity for the Christian seniors who could not go to church. And in general, the only people I’ve informed re: the different path I’ve taken are individuals I’ve connected with because they’re Christian, like you, and others I have brought to belief in Jesus Christ as God ( a lot of them in fact, right here in [in the city where I live]). 

 
 

Christian:  O.K. I understand about you not bringing this up in your time with them in a group social setting. I want to remind you that you did not bring it up with me either in the two times we were together in person. But I knew something was different about you when you referred to “your faith” as pertains to MY faith. Something was just off. Now that I know you have rejected faith in Jesus Christ and even rejected Him as God, it only confirms to me the gift of discernment of spirits that God has blessed me with.

I disagree with your comment about God giving us the “gift of free will and that He will not invade or interfere in it.” The Bible makes it very clear in various places that God sent a “lying spirit” “sent strong delusion” or “gave them over to a reprobate mind”  when those have opposed Him or rejected His great salvation. Adam and Eve ran from God even after He gave them many chances to repent. They never repented or accepted His covering and died lost. First example in the Bible..in great sequential detail.

The Hound of Heaven is forever pursuing us, and we can only come to Him when drawn by the Holy Spirit. The freewill was given to us so that we can chose to accept or reject “the Way, the Truth and the Life.” The Lord is testing us and we are in a precarious dangerous place once we come to saving grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and then outright reject and deny Who He is and what He has done for us. Our place is no longer secure in God except in Jesus Christ.

I also don’t “respect” the direction you are going. I accept it, but I don’t respect it. It has been very troubling to me, but has only drawn me closer to the God of the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit that leads us into all Truth.

Praise God and bless His Holy Name, that Name above all names!

 

Sinaite: Got it, [name]  I expected no less from you.

 

Christian:  I’ll take that as a positive [name].

 

Genesis/Bere’shith 1: "At the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth"

[A new year, a time when mindful individuals make resolutions, one of which might just include reading the Bible from the beginning.  And so we will feature the Torah, chapter by chapter every Sabbath, the perfect day to rest from everything so one could focus on the Instructions and Guidelines for Living, issued by the Revelator on Sinai Himself, YHWH.

 

Sinaites have greatly benefitted from the best minds — Jewish and non-Jewish — who have shared their perspectives in commentaries which have become valuable resource books in our library.

 

We are featuring the same commentaries here, namely:

  • Pentateuch and Haftorahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz (unbracketed commentary) 
  • We have updated our translation of choice by using Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses; “EF” indicates additional commentary is from him;
  • Additional  commentary is from Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses, indicated as “RA”. AND, at the end of this post is the STRAIGHT TEXT, of Alter’s translation in prose, no commentary.

The more we learn from diffferent commentators, the better, sometimes they supplement one another, other times they contradict.  The final verdict is up to you, reader; we are merely sharing what might appear as a ‘Sinaite’s Notes on Torah Study’.   Posted the first time in 2013. —Admin1.]

 

Image from mindmappingsoftwareblog.com

I.  BERESHITH

 

ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUMAN RACE

CREATION OF THE WORLD

 

1   At the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth.

 

In the beginning.  Verse 1 is a majestic summary of the story of Creation:  God is the beginning, nay, the Cause of all things.  The remainder of the chapter gives details of the successive acts of creation.  Ages untold may have elapsed between the calling of matter into being and the reduction of chaos to ordered arrangement.

God. Heb. Elohim.  The existence of the Deity is throughout Scripture assumed: it is not a matter for argument or doubt.  Elohim is the general designation of the Divine Being in the Bible, as the fountain and source of all things.  Elohim is a plural form, which is often used in Hebrew to denoted plenitude or might.  Here it indicates that God comprehends and unifies all the forces of eternity and infinity.

created.  The Heb. word is in the singular, thus precluding any idea that its subject, Elophim, is to be understood in a plural sense.  The term ‘create’ is used exclusively for Divine activity.  Man is spoken of as ‘making’ or ‘forming’, but never as ‘creating’, i.e. producing something out of nothing.

the heaven and the earth.  The visible world; that which is above (heaven), and that which is below (earth).

 

[EF] At the beginning . . .:  This phrase, which has long been the focus of debate among grammarians, is traditionally read:  “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” . . . I have followed several medieval commentators, and most moderns, in my rendition.  creating: Indicative of God’s power and not used in reference to humans, although later in the chapter such words as “make” and “form” do appear.  the heavens and the earthProbably a merism—an inclusive idiom meaning “everything” or “everywhere”—such as Hamlet’s “There are more things in heaven and earth . . . “

 

2. when the earth was wild and waste,
darkness over the face of the Ocean,
rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters—

 

the earth.  The material out of which the universe is formed.

the deep.  Heb. tehom, the abyss.

spirit of God. The mysterious, unseen, and irresistible presence of the Divine Being.

Image from www.topofart.com

hovered. The Heb. word occurs again only in Deut. II,11, where it is descriptive of the eagle hovering over the young to care for them and protect them.  Matter in itself is lifeless.  The Spirit of God quickens it and transforms it into material for a living world.  The Jerusalem Targum translates this verse: ‘And the earth was vacancy and desolation, solitary of the sons of men and void of every animal, and darkness was upon the face of the abyss; and the Spirit of Mercies from before the LORD breathed upon the face of the waters.’

 

[EF] when the earth . . .: Gen. I describes God’s bringing order out of chaos, not creation from nothingness.  wild and waste: Heb. tohu va-vohu, indicating “emptiness.” Ocean: The primeval waters, a common (and unusually divine) image in ancient Near Eastern mythology.  rushing-spirit: Others, “wind.”  The Hebrew word ruah can mean both “spirit” and “wind.”  See Ps. 33:6. hovering: Or “flitting.” The image suggested by the word (see Deut. 32:11) is that of an eagle protecting its young.

 

[RA] welter and waste.  The Hebrew tohu wabohu occurs only here and in two alter biblical texts that are clearly alluding to this one.  The second word of the pair looks like a nonce term coined to rhyme with the first and to reinforce it, an effect I have tried to approximate in English by alliteration.  Tohu by itself means “emptiness” or “futility,” and in some contexts is associated with the trackless vacancy of the desert.

hovering. The verb attached to God’s breath-wind-spirit (rua) elsewhere describes an eagle fluttering over its young and so might have a connotation of parturition or nurture as well as rapid back-and-forth movement.

 

3-5.  FIRST DAY.  CREATION OF LIGHT

 

3. God said:  Let there be light! And there was light.

 

And God said.  By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,’ Psalm XXXII,6. One of the names for God in later Jewish literature is ‘He who spake and the world came into existence’ (Authorized Prayer Book, p. 16).  ‘The phrase God said must be taken as a figurative equivalent of “God willed”‘ (Saadyah).

let there be light. A sublimely simple phrase to express a sublime fact. This light, which is distinct from that radiated later on from the sun, disperses the darkness that enshrouded the Deep, (v. 2).  The old question, Whence did the light issue before the sun was made, is answered by the nebular theory! The great astronomer Halley wrote:  ‘These nebulae reply fully to the difficulty which has been raised against the Mosaic description of creation, in asserting that light could not be generated without the sun.’

 

[EF] 3-5.  God said . . . God saw . . . God separated . . . God called:  Here, from the outset of the story, the principle of order is stressed, through the rhythmic structure of “God” plus verb, four times.

 

4. God saw the light: that it was good.  
God separated the light from the darkness.

 

that it was good. i.e. fulfills the will of the Creator.  Repeated v. 10,12,18,21,25,31.

 

[EF] God saw . . . that it was good: The syntax is emphatic; others use “God saw how good it was.”  The phrase is reminiscent of ancient Near Eastern descriptions of a craftsman being pleased with his work. separated: The verb occurs four more times early in the chapter (vv. 6,7,14,18), and further points to the motif of order.

 

5. God called the light: Day! and the darkness he called: Night!  
There was setting, there was dawning: one day.

Image from 0lem.wordpress.com

called. In calling the light Day, God defines the significance of light in human life.  In the Bible account of Creation, everything centers around man and is viewed from his angle.

And there was evening.  The day, according to the Scriptural reckoning of time, begins with the preceding evening.  Thus, the observance of the Day of Atonement is to be ‘from even unto even’ (Lev. XXIII,32); and similarly of the Sabbath and Festivals.

one day. Not an ordinary day but a Day of God, an age.  With Him a thousand years, nay a thousand thousand ages, are but as a day that is past; Psalm XC,4. ‘Earthly and human measurement of time, by a clock of human manufacture, cannot apply to the first three days, as the sun was not then in existence.  The beginning of each period of creation is called morning; its close, evening’ (Delitzsch); in the same way, we speak of the morning and evening of life.

 

[EF] setting . . . dawning:  The Heb. terms erv and boker are rather more specific than the usual “evening” and “morning.”  Elsewhere I have used “sunset” and “daybreak”; the latter would have clashed with “day” in these lines.

 

[RA] first day.  Unusually, the Hebrew uses a cardinal, not ordinal number.  As with all the six days except the sixth, the expected definite article is omitted.

 

6-8. SECOND DAY. THE FIRMAMENT

 

6. God said:
Let there be a dome amid the waters,
and let it separate waters from waters!

 

firmament. Sky, arch of heaven.

waters from the waters. i.e. the waters above the firmament (the mists and clouds that come down to earth in the shape of rain), from the waters on earth (rivers and seas).

 

[EF] dome: Heb. raki’a, literally a beaten sheet of metal.

 

[RA] vault.  The Hebrew raki’a suggests a hammered-out slab, not necessarily arched, but the English architectural term with its celestial associations created by poetic tradition is otherwise appropriate.

 

7. God made the dome
and separated the waters that were below the dome from the waters that were above the dome.
It was so.

 

and it was so.  Fulfilment follows immediately upon the Divine fiat.  ‘For He spoke, and it was; He commanded, and it stood’ (Psalm XXXIII,9).

 

8. ‘God called the dome: Heaven!
There was setting, there was dawning: second day.

Image from www.wikipaintings.org

Heaven.  In the Bible (shamayim) is represented as the habitation of God, in the figurative sense in which the Temple is similarly described: ‘Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee: how much less this house that I have builded!’ (I Kings VIII,27).

and there was evening. On the second day the usual formula, ‘And God saw that it was good,’ is omitted.  The work begun on that day did not terminate until the middle of the third day.  Hence, an uncompleted piece of work could not properly be proclaimed ‘good’ (Rashi).

a second day. Or, ‘the second day’; similarly, v. 13, 19, and 23.

 

[EF] Heaven!: The sky.

 

9-13.  THIRD DAY.  SEA, LAND, AND VEGETATION

 

9. God said:  
Let the waters under the heavens be gathered to one place,
 and let the dry land be seen!  
It was so.

 

be gathered together.  As long as the face of the earth was covered by the ‘deep’ (v.2), life was impossible for man or beast.  God therefore decreed boundaries for the waters;  Psalm CIV,6-8.

 

10. ‘God called the dry land: Earth! and the gathering of the waters he called: Seas!  
God saw that it was good.

 

Earth. Here it signifies that part of the terrestrial surface which was to be the abode of man and the scene of his activity.

that it was good. i.e. a fitting stage for the drama of human history.

 

11. God said:  
Let the earth sprout forth with sprouting-growth,
plants that seed forth seeds, fruit trees that yield fruit, after their kind, (and) in which is their seed, upon the earth!  
It was so.

 

put forth. In creating the earth, God implanted in it the forces that at His command produced the vegetation.

 

[EF] sprout forth with sprouting-growth . . . seed forth seeds . . . fruit trees . . . fruit:  The three sound doublets create a poetic effect in God’s pronouncement.  Note that they are not repeated by the narrator in verse 12.  See also v.20, “. . . swarm with a swarm . . .” after their kind: Here as in number of passages in the translation I have shifted some words that occur in the singular (especially collectives) for the sake of clarity. See, for example: 6:3,5.

 

12. The earth brought forth sprouting-growth, 
plants that seed forth seeds, after their kind, 
trees that yield fruit, in which is their seed, after their kind.  
God saw that it was good.

Image from altpick.com

that it was good. As food for man and beast (v. 29).

 

13. There was setting, there was dawning:  third day.

 

14-19. FOURTH DAY. CREATION OF HEAVENLY BODIES

 

14. God said:  
Let there be lights in the dome of the heavens, to separate the day from the night,
that they may be for signs—for set-times, for days and years, 

 

lights.  The Heb. word signifies sources of light; hence, ‘luminaries’ would be a better translation.

Other ancient peoples ascribed to the sun, moon and stars a beneficent or malevolent potency over the lives of men and nations.  Here, however, all idolatry and superstition are swept away.  These lights are works of one Almighty God, and are created for His appointed purposes; see Jer. X,2.

for signs. To help man locate his position when moving over the surface of the earth: they were primitive man’s compass.

for seasons. To regulate the calendar.  The ‘seasons’ are spring, summer, autumn, and winter’ also seed-time and harvest.  The Heb. word for ‘seasons’ later acquired the meaning of ‘festivals’, since these were fixed by the year’s seasons.

 

[EF] lights: In the sense of “lamps.” for signs—for set-times . . .Heb. difficult.

 

15. and let them be for lights in the dome of the heavens, to provide light upon the earth!
 It was so.

 

light upon the earth. Without which life and growth are impossible.

 

16. god made the two great lights,
the greater light for ruling the day and the smaller light for ruling the night,
and the stars.

 

and the stars. They are mentioned last and without explanation, because they play a subordinate part in the life of man, as compared with the sun and moon.

 

17. ‘God placed them in the dome of the heavens

18. to provide light upon the earth, to rule the day and the night, to separate the light from the darkness.  
God saw that it was good.
19. There was setting, there was dawning: fourth day.

20-23.  FIFTH DAY.  FISHES AND BIRDS

 

20. God said:  
Let the waters swarm with a swarm of living things, and let fowl fly above the earth, across the dome of the heavens!

 

swarm.  Or, ‘teem.’  Heb. sharatz. Movement as well as fecundity is implied.  It is used in connection with fishes and aquatic animals, rodents and insects.

fowl.  Collective noun, meaning winged things.

in the open firmament.  In mid-air; in the face of, or over against, the firmament.

 

21. God created the great sea-serpents
and all living beings that crawl about, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind,
and all winged fowl after their kind.  
God saw that it was good.

 

creature.  lit. ‘soul.’  In Hebrew, soul is used more widely than in English, often denoting, as here, merely a living being.

 

[EF] great sea-serpents: The rebellious primeval monster of Ps. 74-13 (and common in ancient Near Eastern myth) is here depicted as merely another one of God’s many creations.

 

22. And God blessed them saying:  
Bear fruit and be many and fill the waters in the seas,
and let the fowl be many on earth!

 

God blessed them.  No blessing was bestowed upon the vegetation, as its growth is dependent upon sun and rain, and not upon its own volition.

 

[EF] And God blessed them: The first occurrence in Genesis of the key motif of blessing, which recurs especially throughout the Patriarchal stories.  Bear fruit and be many and fill: Heb. peru u-revu u-mil’u.

 

23. There was setting, there was dawning: fifth day.

Image from fineartamerica.com

 

24-31.  SIXTH DAY.  LAND ANIMALS AND MAN

 

24. God said:  
Let the earth bring forth living beings after their kind, herd-animals, crawling things, and the wildlife of the earth after their kind!  
It was so.

 

earth bring forth. The seeds and possibility of life implanted within her on the first day of Creation (Rashi).

cattle.  All domestic animals.

creeping thing.  Reptiles.

beast of the earth.  Wild animals.

 

[RA] wild beasts. Literally, the phrase would mean “beast of the earth,” but the archaic construct form for “beasts of,” ayto, elsewhere regularly occurs in collocations that denote wild beasts.  In verse 25, the archaic form is not used, but given the close proximity of ayat ha’arets there to ayto ‘erets here, it seems likely that the meaning is the same.

 

25. God made the wildlife of the earth after their kind, and the herd-animals after their kind, and all crawling things of the soil after their kind.  
God saw that it was good. 
 
26. God said:  
Let us make humankind, in our image, according to our likeness!  
Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the heaens, animals, all the earth, and all crawling things that crawl about upon the earth!

 

let us make man.  Mankind is described as in a special sense created by God Himself.  To enhance the dignity of this last work and to mark the fact that man differs in kind from the animals, Scripture represents God as deliberating over the making of the human species (Abarbanel).  It is not ‘let man be created’ or ‘let man be made’, but ‘let us make man’.  The use of the plural, ‘let us make man,’ is the Heb. idiomatic way of expressing deliberation, as in XI,7; or it is the plural of Majesty, royal commands being conveyed in the first person plural, as in Ezra IV,18.

man. Heb. ‘Adam.’ The word is used here, as frequently in the Bible, in the sense of human being’.  It is derived from adamah ‘earth’, to signify that man is earth-born; see II,7.

in our image, after our likeness.  Man is made in the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God:  his character is potentially Divine.  ‘God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of His own eternity’ (Wisdom of Solomon, II,23).  Man alone among living creatures is gifted, like his Creator, with moral freedom and will.  He is capable of knowing and loving God, and of holding spiritual communion with Him; and man alone can guide his actions in accordance with Reason.  ‘On this account he is said to have been made in the form and likeness of the Almighty’ (Maimonides).  Because man is endowed with Reason, he can subdue his impulses in the service of moral and religious ideals, and is born to bear rule over Nature.  Psalm VIII says of man, ‘O LORD . . . Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.  Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands.’

 

[EF] in our image: The “our” is an old problem. Some take it to refer to the heavenly court (although, not surprisingly, no angels are mentioned here).

 

[RA] a human. The term ‘adam, afterward consistently with a definite article, which is used both here and in the second account of the origins of humankind, is a generic term for human beings, not a proper noun.  It also does not automatically suggest maleness, especially not without the prefix ben, “son of,” and so the traditional rendering “man” is misleading, and an exclusively male ‘adam would make nonsense of the last clause of verse 27.

hold sway. The verb radah is not the normal Hebrew verb for “rule” (the latter is reflected in “dominion” of verse 16), and in most of the contexts in which it occurs it seems to suggest an absolute or even fierce exercise of mastery.

the wild beasts. The Masoretic Text reads “all the earth,” bekhol ha’arets, but since the term occurs in the middle of a catalogue of living creatures over which humanity will hold sway, the reading of the Syriac Version, ayat ha’arets, “wild beasts,” seems preferable.

 

27. So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God did he create it,
male and female he created them.

 

male and female.  A general statement; man and woman, both alike, are in their spiritual nature akin to God.

 

[EF] God created humankind: The narrative breaks into verse, stressing the importance of human beings. “Humankind” (Heb. adam) does not specify sex, as is clear from the last line of the poem.

 

[RA]  In the middle clause of this verse, “him,” as in the Hebrew, is grammatically but not anatomically masculine.  Feminist critics have raised the question as to whether here and in the second account of human origins, in Chapter 2, ‘adam is to be imagined as sexually undifferentiated until the fashioning of woman, though that proposal leads to certain dizzying paradoxes in following the story.

 

28. God blessed them,
God said to them:  
Bear fruit and be many and fill the earth and subdue it!  
Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the heavens, and all living things that crawl about upon the earth!

 

and God blessed them. CF. v. 22.  Here the words, ‘And God said unto them,’ are added, ‘indicating a more intimate relationship between Him and human beings.

be fruitful and multiply. This is the first precept (mitzvah) given to man.  The duty of building a home and rearing a family figures in the rabbinic Codes as the first of the 613 mitzvoth (commandments) of the Torah.

and subdue it. ‘The secret of all modern science is in the first chapter of Genesis.  Belief in the dominion of spirit over matter, of mind over nature, of man over the physical and the animal creation, was essential to the possession of that dominion’ (Lyman Abbott).  ‘What we call the will or volition of Man . . . has become a power in nature, an imperium in imperio, which has profoundly modified not only Man’s own history, but that of the whole living world, and the face of the planet on which he lives’ (Ray Lankester).

 

29. God said:  
Here, I give you 

all the plants that bear seeds that are upon the face of all the earth,
and all trees in which there is tree fruit that bears seeds,
for you shall they be, for eating;

Image from www.crcna.org

In the primitive ideal age (as also in the Messianic future, see Isaiah XI,7), the animals were not to prey on one another.

 

[EF] I give you: “You” in the plural.

 

30. and also for all the living things of the earth, for all the fowl of the heavens, for all that crawls about upon the earth in which there is living being—
all green plants for eating.  
It was so.

 

[EF] all green plants for eating: Human beings in their original state were not meat-eaters.  For the change, see 9:3.

 

31. Now God saw all that he had made,
and here: it was exceedingly good!  
There was setting, there was dawning: the sixth day.

 

very good.  Each created thing is ‘good’ in itself; but when combined and united, the totality is proclaimed ‘very good’.  Everything in the universe was as the Creator willed it—nothing superfluous, nothing lacking—a harmony.  ‘This harmony bears witness to the unity of God who planned this unity of Nature’ (Luzzatto).

 

[EF] exceedingly good . . . the sixth day: The two qualifiers “exceedingly” and “the” are deviations from the previous expressions in the story, and underscore the sixth day (when humankind was created) as the crowning achievement of creation (or else serve as a summary to the whole).

 

Image from mindmappingsoftwareblog.com

 

 

[Prose Version/Straight Text/No Commentary]

ROBERT ALTER’S THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES: GENESIS

CHAPTER 1
 
 
When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And it was evening and it was morning, first day. And god said, “Let there be a vault in the midst of the waters, and let it divided water from water.” And God made the vault and it divided the water beneath the vault  from the water above the vault, and so it was. And God called the vault Heavens, and it was evening and it was morning, second day. And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered in one place so that the dry land will appear .: and so it was. And God called the dry land Earth and the gathering of waters He called Seas, and God saw that it was good. And God said, “ Let the earth grow grass, plants yielding seed of each kind and trees bearing fruit of each kind, that has its seed within it upon the earth.” And so it was of each kind, that has its seed within it upon the earth.” And so it was.
And the earth put forth grass, plants yielding seed, and trees bearing fruit of each kind, and God saw that it was good. And it was evening and it was morning. Third day. And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of heavens to divided the day from the night, and they shall be signs for the fixed times and for days from the night, and they shall be signs for the fixed times and for days and years, and they shall be lights in the vault of the heavens to light up the earth. “And so it was. And God made the the two great lights, the great light for dominion of day and the small light for dominion of night, and the stars. And God place them in the vault of the heavens to light up the earth and to have dominion over day and night and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And it was evening and it was morning, fourth day. And God said, “Let the waters swarm with the with the swarm of living creatures and let fowl fly over the earth across the vault of the heavens.” And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that crawls, which the water had swarmed forth of each kind, and the winged fowl of each kind, and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas and let the fowl multiply in the earth.” And it was evening and it was morning, fifth day. And God sad, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of each kind, cattle and crawling thins and wild beast of each kind. And so it was. And God made wild beast of each kind and cattle of every kind and all crawling things on the ground of each king, and God saw that it was good. And God said, “Let us make a human in our image, by our likeness, to hold sway over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the heavens and the cattle and the beasts and all the crawling things that crawl upon the earth.
 
And God created the human in his image,
In the image of God He created him,
            male and female He created them.
And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and fill the earth and conquer it, and hold sway over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the heavens and every beast that crawls upon the earth.” And God said, “Looks, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the face of all the earth and every tree that has fruit bearing seed, yours they will be for food. And to all the beasts of the earth, which has the breath of life within it , the green plants for food.” And so it was. And God saw all that He had done, and, look, it was very good. And it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

IN HIS NAME: What’s in a name? – 1

Image from www.behindthename.com

Image from www.behindthename.com

[This starts series IN HIS NAME, first posted 2012, reposted 2015.  Sequels if you care to check out are:

Admin1]

 

———————————

 

Who would you be if you didn’t know your name?” is the first line of a song my youngest son wrote.  I had to think about that . . . Really, what’s in a name?  Identity, character, personal history, reputation, achievement, legacy, to name a few. 

 

 How important is it to get a name right? To function in this world, absolutely necessary! It figures in employment, drivers license, company/school ID, citizenship, social security, bank transactions, property rights, routine matters, death certificates, relational issues such as paternity, inheritance, royalty blue blood claims to the throne.

 

Reputation —whether honor or shame—is likewise carried in the name, whether persons lived well or badly.  And fortunately as well as unfortunately, such good or ill repute spill over to progenitors; hence proverbs such as ‘the apple does not fall far from the apple tree’.  Drop a name and it either opens or closes doors of opportunity.  

 

We are named at birth, and unless it is changed in marriage and for legal reasons, that name spells out our very existence. It ends up etched on a gravestone, but mention the name of a deceased and that alone evokes specific images and thoughts associated with that name.  

 

Talk show hosts occasionally play an interesting name game with their guests who are asked to give in an instant, a word that best characterizes the person named, at least in that guest’s viewpoint.  Think about what one word would characterize you? Or does that word depend on the perceiver? Do people see the real you or do you have a public face different from private?  Are you an open book or a closed one? Does your essence fit the name you bear, if it was not your choice?

 

In this day and age of unbelievable scams perpetrated on personal information relating to a name, it is all the more urgent to take precautionary measures protecting one’s name, identity, and personal information. Just as ruinous is gossip or false accusation as well as scandal broadsheets that proliferate which blow out of proportion the slightest rumor whether baseless or not, which are so easily taken for truth, simply because they are spread around even by disreputable media.

 

You would think identity theft is a new phenomenon but no, it is as old as the need to impersonate someone for any reason at all. In the field of literature, forgeries proliferated all through the centuries.  Unfortunately we do live in a world of deceptions and forgeries and it is becoming more difficult to ferret out the truth, though science has developed enough technology to unmask counterfeits.

Bart D. Ehrman, Christian scholar turned atheist, wrote a fascinating book about this with a simple title FORGED:  

  

“When I give public lectures on forgery, I am often asked, “Who would do such a thing?”  The answer is, “Lots of people!”  And for lots of different reasons.  The most common reason today, of course, is to make money . . . . The forgery trade continues to thrive; forgeries in the names of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Byron, Robert Frost, an many, many others continue to flood the market, as recent literature on modern forgery so aptly attests.  These forgeries are almost always produced in order to be sold as authentic.  There was a good deal of that kind of activity in the ancient world as well (and far fewer forgery experts who could detect a forgery if they saw one), although it was not a major factor within early Christianity.  This was for a simple reason:  Christian books were not, by and large, for sale.”

 

From this book, you learn a few new words to add to your vocabulary, such as:

 

  • “Orthonymous” (literally, “rightly named”), writing is one that really is written by the person who claims to be writing it.  Seven of Paul’s 13 epistles are orthonymous, so he claims.
  • “Homonymous” (literally, “same named”) is writing that is written by someone who happens to have the same name as someone else.    

 

In the days of antiquity, specially when the Christian scriptures were being put together, many people were named John, James, Jude, and Mary.  In the case of Mary, you have to be mindful when that name is mentioned in the gospels because there are actually five Marys.

 

  • “Anonymous” we know about, literally it means “having no name.”  These are authors who choose not to identify themselves.  Ehrman claims that technically speaking, anonymity is true of 1/3 of the New Testament books, that none of the four gospels actually tell us the name of its author and only later did Christians assign names. He adds that the “anonymous” author of the book of Hebrews would like readers to think it was authored by Paul even if it wasn’t.  
  • “Pseudonymous” (literally, “falsely named”) refers to any book that appears under the name of someone other than the author.

 

Ehrman says there are two kinds of pseudonymous writings:  one is that the author simply takes a pen name and he gives the example of Samuel Clemens—who chose the name ‘Mark Twain’ of Tom Sawyer/Huckleberry Finn fame.  Think of George Elliott who was actually a woman writing under a man’s name during a time women might not have been published.

 

In this website, in case you haven’t noticed, contributors have opted to use 3 initials appended to “@S6K” to consistently project that the author is a Sinaite and is identifiable in person only to this small community.  We decided this because we are dealing with unknown visitors on the internet and have resorted to maintaining some privacy, specially since the ‘crusade’ we’ve specifically embraced is, to put it mildly, hardly a popular one. 

 

The second type of pseudonymous writing, explains Ehrman, involves a book that is circulated under the name of someone else, usually some kind of authority figure who is presumed to be well known to the reading audience.  For this type, he uses the technical term “pseudepigraphy” (literally, “written under a false name”). To elaborate, pseudepigraphical writing is one that is claimed to be written by a famous, well-known, or authoritative person who did not in fact write it.  

 

To complicate matters further, there are two kinds of this—one where the readers presume who the author is and ascribe the writing to that person and that is called “mistaken ascription.”  The other pseudonymous pseudepigraphical writing is one where the author himself chooses to fool his readers and ascribes his writing to another famous person.  

 

If this is all getting to be very confusing, it is vital to try to understand because all this is dealing with a book that is probably the most printed and reprinted, the most translated and retranslated, the top-selling book worldwide, but  relegated to private bookshelves and casually read, perhaps not as well understood, but thankfully scrutinized by biblical scholars non-stop over centuries.  The reason for this is only one:  it claims to be authored by God Himself.  Skeptics, atheists and agnostics would challenge that authorship claim, but few believers do.

 

Who authored the “Bible”?  If it is “God”,  what is His Name?

 

 Sig-4_16colors

logo

 

 

 

Oy Searchers, need help? – January 2017

Image from www.stlucasucc.org

Image from www.stlucasucc.org

[This post is intended to help web-visitors find articles that address their search entry terms/phrases.

 

 If we do not have a post on the exact topic, we refer the searcher to one of  the sites on our links.  The first recourse is of course the SITEMAP, click the upper-right most box above the scroll; and 2nd recourse is the UPDATED SITE CONTENTS.  

 

We have resorted to extra aids such as this because of many difficulties our web-searchers have encountered in navigating our website. Admin1]

 

———————-

 

01/23/17 – “JOHN DOE – Click the search term, but better yet,  scroll down this post and read the 01/18/17 entry.

01/22/17 – “quotes about god and finding love” – Hmmm, not sure how to direct this searcher. We have over 800 posts about finding God, knowing God, loving God . . . please go to SITEMAP, the rightmost box above the scroll.

 

01/18/17 – “john doe” —What is this searcher looking for?  Apparently he/she had read a post that talked about the general designation in US of an anonymous individual and comparing that with the designation used for Deity, simply “God”.  Here’s the post and other related articles in the series IN HIS NAME: JOHN DOE 

01/18/17 – “glittering Shabbat shalom” – Surprisingly, many of our search terms are about images we have used specifically in our category A SINAITE’s SABBATH LITURGY.  Indeed, we spend much time and care in choosing the best image that reflects the text, whether in our liturgy or regular post.  Here’s the specific image for this searcher:

 

01/15/17 – “sacrificial lamb jonathan sacks” 

01/14/17 – “exodus chapter 1” –

01/14/17 – We are thrilled when searchers like the images we choose to grace our posts; particularly our Sabbath liturgy, the choice photos of which are specifically selected to reflect the divine blessedness of the 7th day.  This Sabbath, 3 images landed in the ‘search terms’:

 

  “aSabbathBlessingd”  – aSabbathBlessingd

Image from www.adventistonline.com

Image from www.adventistonline.com

 

 A-Shabbat_Shalom” – A-Shabbat_Shalom

Image from christiandiscussionsmsn.yuku.com

Image from christiandiscussionsmsn.yuku.com

 “Cascade” – Cascade

Image from certainsoundministry.com

Image from certainsoundministry.com

 

01/09/17 “stephen the levite beauty and the beast rapgenius” –  Hmmm, how this entry ended up here is because of one word—“levite”. Sorry, we have no post about this rap genius and the lyrics of this particular song, but we do have a whole section on the book of Leviticus; click Site Map and scroll down through TORAH STUDY, we’ll make it easy for you, here’s the whole category listed below for other searchers interested:

Leviticus/Waiqrah

01/07/17 –  Q:  How does sinai 6000 view lucifers introduction in the old testament? Isaiah I think it is, I could be wrong. Is this not to be taken literally and if so, what is the relevance? Kindly direct me to your understanding of this if already written and posted in the site or just respond directly. —[L3]

 

A.  “lucifer” – This Latin word, mistaken for the name of the ‘Christian devil’ actually means “bright morning star”.  It is used in Isaiah 14:12-15 to refer to the king of Babylonia, and in the New Testament book of Revelation, strangely,  to Jesus Christ.  How can that be?

Here’s a post that explains the mis-application of  ‘lucifer’ when taken out of context:

 

01/02/17  “joshua 1:8-9” – 

[A timely new year reminder for all, not only for the searcher:  The scroll hangs on the foyer entry to the Sanctuary of the University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City, Philippines/ ]

UC Sanctuary - Joshua 1:8-9

UC Sanctuary – Joshua 1:8-9

 

 

Revisit: AMEN – Prayers and Blessings from Around the World

[First posted in 2013. The original introduction:

 

There was a time as close-minded Christians, Sinaites would not venture outside our church boundaries to read anything other than Christian literature;  and certainly not ‘prayers’ or expressions of faith unless they ended “in Jesus’ name.”  And yet, in our Sinaite library, we have a coffee table book featuring beautiful photography by Kulbir Thandi, used to illustrate the phases of life and prayers relating to the images of children,  of rites of passage in various phases of life:  for marriage, recovery and renewal, for peace, and ‘in memoriam.’  Since our whole perspective has changed since we left Christianity and we learned to embrace and be more understanding of world religions,  it would be a pity not to share the contents of this collection of prayers. So as part of our “Worship Aids” section, we are featuring selected prayers in this series that carry the simple one-word book title  – “AMEN”. 

 

May the true Elohim who revealed His name as YHWH be praised by these expressions of worship inspired by the simple awareness of people of faith that He exists,  that He desires to be honored, by His crown of creation— humanity,  even more so by and especially coming from  “uncircumcised lips“.  Expect the prayers to be posted in a series, this post is simply the Introduction.–Admin1].

 

 

———————————————–

 

 

Inside Cover Text:

 

Throughout the ages, and all over the world, prayer has enriched the universal moments in the human experience.  In a vibrant muticultural tapestry,  AMEN: PRAYERS AND BLESSINGS FROM AROUND THE WORLD brings together some of the best-known and most powerful prayers that have sustained people of all kinds throughout their lives.  Though they come from different religions—Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, Confucian, and Native American—these prayers all carry the same timeless message of faith, hope, and love.  They highlight the most important rites of passage:  the birth and coming of age of children, marriage and commitment, healing and recovery and death and remembrance.  Here, too are prayers for guidance, for peace, for the earth.  From traditional Protestant marriage vows to the rich and wonderful Song of Solomon and the oft-repeated Serenity Prayer — these are some of the ancient rituals of the spirit.

 

Vivid color and dramatic design combine traditional images and motifs with haunting contemporary and historical photographs, whose warmth and humanity spring off the page to live forever in the heart.  And inside each chapter is part of a unique hidden mini-prayer book, and a book-within-a-book that you can turn to create four alternative tableaux.

 

A rare source of spiritual solace and inspiration, and a treasure to share with friends and family or to give as a marker of the milestones of life.  AMEN is also a brilliant celebration of today’s spirit of diversity.

 

Compiled by SUZANNE SLESIN and EMILY GWATHMEYdesigned by STAFFORD CLIFF, photography by KULBIR THANDI.

 

—————————————-

 

I N T R O D U C T I O N

 

In AMEN: Prayers and Blessings from Around the World, we have tried to gather together some of the best-known and most powerful prayers that have sustained people throughout their lives, prayers that present a universal message of faith, hope and love in a spirit of inclusion and tolerance.

 

In Primary Speech, a book on the psychology of prayer, scholars of religion Ann and Barry Ulanov write,

“Everybody prays.  People pray whether or not they call it prayer.  We pray every time we ask for help, understanding, or strength, in or out of religion.  Then, who and what we are speak out of us whether we know it or not.  Our movements, our stillness, the expressions on our faces, our tone of voice, our actions, what we dream and daydream, as well as, what we actually put into words say who and what we are.”

 

The godforce to which we pray has been called by a hundred different names:  Shiva, Buddha ,Jehovah, Mother Nature, a sunset, the wind.  Yet the intent of all prayer is much the same.  We pray for faith and hope, for children and their coming of age, for union and commitment, for renewal and peace and remembrance.  These are all universal points in the human journey, points at which we find ourselves desiring and searching for ways to talk to God in the hope of drawing nearer.

 

But we also have the need to find appropriate and moving words for the situations that arise in a world of increasing diversity and multiculturalism.  The pull of wanting to be connected to each other in these difficult modern times has fostered a re-emergence of spirituality.  Interfaith marriages as well as same-sex unions suggest a need for prayers and blessings that can both honor individual traditions and serve as ceremonies of celebration and depth of feeling.  These are unique and symbolic of our new age.

 

No matter the culture or country, all important rites of passage in the human journey are marked by prayer.  The formalities are as diverse as the world itself.  Prayer may be a daily ritual or an occasional act of spontaneity, a song, a poem, a gift of love.  We may kneel to worship or fling up our arms in a dance of exaltation.  Prayer may be a cry of jubilation at the birth of a child or sorrowful appeal uttered at the death of a loved one.  The works and forms of prayer may vary, but the thoughts remain the same.  Help me.  Forgive me.  Increase my strength. Make me wise.  Heal me.  Inspire me.  Restoreth my soul.

 

Some of our selections — the Lord’s Prayer the 23rd Psalm, the Beatitudes, St. Francis’ Humble Plea — are well known, traditional works of devotion and have been uttered for centuries around the world during times of joy and times of sorrow.  Others we have chosen are more contemporary in nature, relating to the metaphysical new age, such as blessing for a same-sex union or Paramahansa Yogananda’s prayer for a United World.  The prayers, poems, and blessings have been selected from various religions:  Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, Shinto and Native American.  We believe they acquire new meaning when gathered together and combined with a more modern inclusive view of spirituality.

 

The need to find an inner pathway to the Spirit is as old as time.  

“Prayer is the contemplation of the facts of life from the highest point of view”  Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote.

 “It is the soliloquy of a beholding and jubilant soul.  It is the Spirit of God pronouncing his works good.”  

 

A gospel hymn in a fundamentalist church.  A prayer chanted at a Tibetan monastery.  The sound of “OUM” in solo or group mediation.  The call to the Torah.  A Native American drumming ceremony.  A simple wedding vow.  The muezzin calling from the minaret of a mosque. A moment of silence in the glow of the setting sun.  The Serenity Prayer spoken in unison at the close of a 12-step meeting.

 

According to the Dalai Lama,

 

“Every major religion of the world has similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefitting humanity through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers into better human beings.”  

 

Prayer is a luminous and self-generating kind of energy, a powerful act of honesty and imagination, a rising up and drawing near to God in mind, heart, and spirit, a place where wisdom finds a special dwelling place.  Prayer releases an inner power that heals and strengthens.  In Amenwe offer a pathway to the benefits of prayer in a spirit of peace ,openness, and understanding.

 

Susan Slesin, New York.

Emily Gwathmey, Santa Monica.

Stafford Cliff, London

February 1995

————————-

 

A Sinaite’s Musical Liturgy – 2nd Sabbath of December

Image from jp.depositphotos.com

Image from jp.depositphotos.com

[Singing the Sabbath liturgy is a Sinaite’s ‘prayerful tribute in music’ to the God we love and worship.  We take our cue from 

 Christian hymnologists who were inspired not only to pay tribute to the Christian God but to teach the flock through the lyrics of simple tunes. That is why they wrote 4 or more stanzas; it was a good way to let doctrine sink into the hearts and minds of the faithful.  Unfortunately at church, song leaders do not appear to know this effective ‘teaching tool’ or perhaps the one-hour ‘service’ is running out of time and so they would sing only the first stanza or the first and the last, not realizing the intent of lyricists.  

Preaching through songs is effective, somehow the memory better retains words set to music.  We are following their lead and hope you are familiar with the music; lyrics have been revised according to Torah teaching.   Again, our apologies to the lyricists for replacing their original words but as we keep justifying it, we’ve been familiar with the tunes as former Christians but no longer agree with the original message; still, imitation is the best compliment.

And since we have attached the instrumental accompaniment to the hymns, there is no more reason NOT to sing our Sabbath liturgy.  May our God YAHUWAH be pleased with our efforts to glorify Him through our Sabbath liturgy. —Admin1.]

——————————–

 

 
KINDLE THE SABBATH LIGHTS

Image271[Original Tune:  “Come thou long expected Jesus” or “Alleluia Sing to Jesus”/Revised Lyrics according to Sinaite creed]

 

 

1.  Let us kindle the Sabbath candles

to bring their glow right into our eyes,

Like the gleam from the Light of Torah

which reaches deep in heart and in mind.

CHO:  When the darkness fades in the distance

as kindled lights move to replace its space,

Shadow and dimness that darken the heart and mind of man 

brighten up when His Word is heard.

2. Let us kindle the Light of Torah,

allow its glow to brighten our lives.

Let our minds be enlightened daily

by words of life,from the Giver of Life.

CHO: Sabbath lights in our hearth and home 

keep on glowing long after sunset has come,

Torah continues to light up each day and everyday

through the week till next Shabbat comes.

3.   Israel, you’re the servant light glowing

through the world’s dark days and dark nights;

 suffering servant, firstborn of Yahuwah

 who survives through good times and bad.

Cho:  May your lamp always shine so brightly

that all humanity won’t miss the sight,

Servanthood, sonship is yours, truly yours and yours alone,

till we get to the end of days.

4.  Lord Yahuwah, You’re Lord of Sabbath,

Creator God, You’re Sovereign and King.

Primal LIGHT Who illuminated this world—

You give us reason to sing:

 Cho:  Hallelu Yah, praise Lord Yahuwah,

Our God of LIGHT and of LOVE and of LIFE,

How can we serve You and love You and share Your TRUTH and LIGHT,

Live Your WAY and just do what’s RIGHT!

 

 

BLESSINGS

[Original Tune:  Oh how He loves you and me, Revised Lyrics]

Image from ourdailyblessinglife-amyb.blogspot.com

Image from ourdailyblessinglife-amyb.blogspot.com

1.  For all the joys of our days,

For untold blessings always,

This wine we drink symbolizes our joy,

Thank You, dear Father, thank one another,

for joy we share on this day.

2.  Thank You for bread that we share,

for Your provisions and care,

We bless You back for the blessings You give,

How can we love You, just as You love us,

Oh how He loves you and me!

 

[Pray specific blessings upon family and other loved ones.]

 

 

  SHABBAT MEAL

Image from curtis.loftinnc.com

Image from curtis.loftinnc.com

Image from www.beitsimcha.com

Image from www.beitsimcha.com

 

 

HAVDALAH 

[Original Tune:  Lead me to Calvary, Revised Lyrics]

 

Image from discoversinai.net

Image from discoversinai.net

 

 

1.  Lord of my life, please light my way, 

all through the darkness be,

Lest I get lost, can’t find my way, 

over my life, please be!

2.  Thou art my Shepherd, lead me to

pastures of green to feed.

Call out my name that I may hear 

warnings that I should heed.

CHO:  Lest I forget Thy voice I heard,

Lest I remember not Thy word,

Lest I forsake the True Path I’ve tread,

lead me back, LORD, to Thee.

3.  Teach me just like the Israelites, 

all that I need to be,

Show me just how to sacrifice, 

show me what pleases Thee.

4.  Best of all that I own and have, 

unworthy tho’ they be,

Best of my mind and soul and will, 

all are reserved for Thee.

CHO:  Lest I fall short of Thy command,

Lest I let go of Thy precious Hand,

Light up my path, my eyes, my life,

Lead me back, Lord, to Thee. 

 

 

Image from Edzzy Quotes

Image from Edzzy Quotes

 

Shabbat shalom

from the Sinai 6000 Core Community,

Sig-4_16colors

AIbEiAIAAABDCNPkvrXuucmdeSILdmNhcmRfcGhvdG8qKGJkZTc0YTk3NmUxMGM4OTAzZjk5MDhkMjdkZDI2ODQ3OTliYmQ2MDkwAe5UdNp0lvYvCf8bjAFEJOY_fdsj

Oy Searchers, need help? – December 2016

Image from www.stlucasucc.org

Image from www.stlucasucc.org

[This post is intended to help web-visitors find articles that address their search entry terms/phrases.  If we do not have a post on the exact topic, we refer the searcher to one of  the sites on our links.  The first recourse is of course the SITEMAP, click the upper-right most box above the scroll; and 2nd recourse is the UPDATED SITE CONTENTS.  We have resorted to extra aids such as this because of many difficulties our web-searchers have encountered in navigating our website. Admin1]

 

———————-

 

12/30/16 – “cascade” –  https://sinai6000.net/cascade/

12/16/16 – “happy sabbath day images” – We go to the web for the images we use on our Sabbath liturgy and posts, none are original.  If any of our visitors wish to use these images, just make sure the source indicated on the image is acknowledged, credit must given where credit is due—not us, but the original source.

 

12/10/16 –  “sabbath greeting messages, happy sabbath picture messages” – We have a whole category called “Sabbath Liturgy” where you can find both greetings/picture.

 

12/06/16  – “mordecai alfandari” – We don’t have a post about this person but since he’s associated with Karaism, we do have one post on this:

Google does yield an entry on exactly this person:

lightofisrael.typepad.com/home/about-mordecaialfandari.html

Mordecai Alfandari (1929-1999) Mordecai Avraham Alfandari, the restorer of Karaism and a great teacher to the nations, may he find rest in Eden, died on …

 

12/03/16  Cascade“, “A-Shabbat_Shalom“, “aSabbathBlessingd“,  “Beit Tikvah – Purim March 18, 2011 054 –  What are these? Searcher[s] clicked these from images we have featured in different posts. We choose our images just like everyone else, from the web where collections of anything and everything provide so many to choose from.  You just have to be patient and look-see until you find the exact image suited to your topic.  Just as we do, don’t forget to add the source in your caption, it is only fair to give credit where it’s due.  It’s enough that these sources make their images available on the web.

12/01/16  “jacob meet esau” –  Here’s a series of posts on the biblical twin brothers but the last on the list is what this searcher is specifically looking for:

 

A Karaite’s Perspective on the faith he left behind

[A visitor to this website clicked this article first posted in 2014; gives us reason to repost for readers who might have missed it in our over 800 posts.

 

Just like the word “Sinaite”, most people don’t have the foggiest idea about this word “Karaism” or its adherent “Karaite”. We have featured one book that introduces its system of beliefs in Ever heard of KARAISM? which features the book As It is Written co-authored by Shawn Lichaa, Nehemiah Gordon and Meir Rekhavi.  Here is another book that is written from the perspective of a former Christian turned Karaite who offers an apologetics of sorts, not so much by defending his new-found faith but explaining why he left his former faith. As we do in MUST READ or MUST OWN posts, there is enough here to give you an idea of the book for you to decide whether or not to buy a copy of its kindle edition downloadable from amazon.com.–Admin1.]

—————————————————–

Title:  Christianity: a Karaite’s Perspective

Author:  Daniel Lefebvre                                            Publication Date: April 23, 2011

image from amazon.com

This book is an explanation of the major fallacies that I found as a result of years of digging deeper into the Christian religion. These same fallacies that, eventually, led me to leave the Christian religion.

This book is not intended to convert you. This book is not intended to disprove Christianity.

If you have come into contact with Christianity, this book is intended to spark your desire to thoroughly understand your own beliefs because of the research that you have done, and not simply believe something because it was told to you from a pulpit by someone who makes a living by convincing you that their beliefs are truth.
——————————————–
 4.0 out of 5 stars
A Heartfelt Challenge to Christians…, January 17, 2013  – By  – See all my reviews
This review is from: Christianity: A Karaite’s Perspective (Kindle Edition)
If you are a Christian and you are looking for a book to challenge your faith then this is it. This book does not bash Jesus, in fact, I believe that Daniel is fond of the real Jesus; Jesus the Jew.Author, Daniel Lefebvre, a former Christian, set on a life altering journey to discover the roots of Christianity. In doing so he discovered much more than expected. While this book does not document his journey, it is merely a portion of some of the evidence he discovered on his way. This book attempts to answer common questions he has been asked by Christian friends.
Daniel digs into the politics of the 1st century Roman Empire and how the early persecuted Christian church was used to gain political power. He also challenges the reader to not rely on him or any religious figure for truth. Daniel consistently requests the reader do their own search for truth. Is it possible that what you believe as a Christian could be the result of ancient political powering rather than following the one true God? Keep an open mind and do not be discouraged if your beliefs are challenged, because it is in challenges God causes us to truly grow!
תודה רבה
EXCERPTS from the CONTENTS
PREFACE
As a former Christian who has since converted to Karaite Judaism, a religion that most people have no idea even exists, it isn’t much of a surprise that I am often asked “Why?”  The simple answer is that I came to a realization that in order to be truly open-minded I would have to be willing to accept that everything I have believed my entire life might not be correct.  With that in mind, I then began to do extensive research starting with the foundations of the religion I believed in:  Christianity.  It didn’t take long for me to find the religion of Christianity to be riddled with falsehoods and inconsistencies that lead away from following God and more to following a corrupt church led power-hungry men with a very human agenda . . . . If you are a person who is easily offended then I would not recommend you read this book.
CHAPTER ONE
If the “Old Testament” doesn’t count, why is it still included in the Bible?
. . . many Christians I’ve talked to have claimed that the Old Testament is the base on which the New Testament stands.  They insist that the New Testament does nothing but collaborate and fulfill everything that is in the Old Testament.  So then why does the New Testament contradict the Old Testament on many levels? . . . Why am I picking on the New Testament?  Well, it’s quite simple.  Both the Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible begin with the same scriptures – the Torah.  There is a fundamental faith that both Christians and Jews alike have that God indeed gave the commandments in the Torah to Moses, who wrote them down in the books we know as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. . . .the Old Testament (a Christian term), or Tanakh as Jews call it, do nothing but support the original laws and commandments found in the Torah.  The New Testament is where the actual contradictions pop up.  Because of this, the New Testament is the book that should be thrown out as inaccurate as it is contradicting the original laws given by God to Moses.
CHAPTER TWO
When God says not to eat pork, He means it
You cannot pick and choose which laws you would like to follow. Sadly, most Christians fall into the category of those who try to find an excuse why they can eat pork.  This, I have determined, is primarily because pork is a flavor that many people naturally enjoy the taste of, but also it is everywhere in today’s society that it can become quite a burden to try to avoid it. . . . Many Christians also assume that science has determined pork to be alright to eat now and that the reason the law in Leviticus 11:2 was in place was only because they didn’t have refrigeration. . . . To assume that pork was unhealthy and is now healthy to eat simply because technology has advanced is saying that God’s commandments are no longer relevant today.
CHAPTER THREE
Smoking, drinking, swearing: Fabricated sins
CHAPTER FOUR
God’s position on marriage and divorce is very different than the Church says it isCHAPTER FIVE
Church: The first social networking site
A Brief Timeline of Christianity
4 BC THE BIRTH OF JESUS
29 AD  JESUS BEGINS HIS MINISTRY
33 AD  JESUS IS CRUCIFIED
36 AD  JEWISH PHARISEE SAUL HAS A VISION AND BECOMES THE WORLD’S FIRST “CHRISTIAN”. RENAMED PAUL.
45 AD.  PAUL BEGINS SPREADING THE WORD OF CHRISTIANITY.
60 AD  FIRST GOSPEL PUBLISHED (MARK)
68 AD  PAUL BEHEADED ON ORDERS FROM EMPEROR NERO
70 AD  TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM DESTROYED
90 AD  FINAL BOOK OF THE BIBLE, REVELATIONS IS WRITTEN
325 AD THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA DETERMINES CHURCH DOCTRINE AND DIVINITY OF CHRIST
451 AD  COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON AFFIRMS DOCTRINE OF TWO NATURES IN CHRIST
589  “AND THE SON” ADDED TO NICENE CREED
1054  AD  THE GREAT SCHISM – EASTERN ORTHODOX AND WESTERN CATHOLIC DIVIDES INTO SEPARATE RELIGIONS
1095  AD  THE POPE AUTHORIZES THE FIRST OF THE CRUSADES
1380  JOHN WYCLIFFE TRANSLATES THE FIRST COMPLETE BIBLE INTO ENGLISH
1517 AD  MARTIN LUTHER STARTS THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION
1545-1463 AD  THE CATHOLIC CHURCH COUNTERS REFORMATION AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
1611 AD  KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE TRANSLATED
1730-60 AD  “THE GREAT AWAKENING” IN THE U.S.A.
1854 AD  ROME ESTABLISHES THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION DOGMA
1870 AD  ROME ESTABLISHES THE PAPAL INFALLIBILITY DOGMA
1885 AD  ALL APOCRYPHA OFFICIALLY REMOVED FROM KJV BIBLE BY ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
1933 AD PAPACY ENTERS INTO RELIGIOUS AGREEMENT WITH NAZI GERMANY
CHAPTER SIX
The Divinity of the Man Commonly Known as “Jesus Christ”
. . . . remember that I used to be just like you. I used to be a Christian. If anyone tried to debunk my faith in Jesus as Messiah, I would turn a deaf ear and recite defenses that I had been taught to recite.  After all, non-Christians obviously just haven’t seen the light of Jesus yet.  1 Exodus 7:13 says, And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.”  Like Pharaoh, non-Christians that refuse to believe in Jesus simply have had their hardened hearts to the love of Jesus Christ.  And so the Church teaches that it is the duty of Christians to spread the love of Christ to all non-believers.
What many Christians refuse to believe is that a “hardened heart” can happen to Christians as well.  What if it’s your heart that has been hardened to the actual truth that God has written in His laws?
Whether or ot you continue reading this chapter is completely up to you. But bear in mind that I am not some non-believer who has randomly decided to write this book about Christianity.  I was like you – a believer in the divinity of Jesus.  But I realized that i was hardened to the possibility that the church could be susceptible to corruption.  And so I would ask that you look at the evidence I provide and continue to do your own research to come to your own conclusion.  It is not wise to let beliefs or anyone else determine your eternal fate.
Conclusion
In the words of Mordecai Avraham Alfandari
“Shall a man make himself gods that are no-gods?”—Jeremiah 16:20.
Christian missionary literature is beside the point.  The real issue for today’s truth seeker, faced with the conflicting claims of organized religion is not whether Jesus or someone else “fulfilled” this or that scripture, was a “messiah” or not, is coming again or had already returned in 70 A.D., etc. etc.  The fact that the faithful of Christendom are hopelessly divided into warring camps of:  Unitarians, Trinitarians, fundamentalists; liberals; Mormons; “Witnesses”; Catholics; Protestants; Orthodox; monophysites; First Day keepers; Seventh Day keepers; Quakers; Rollers; infant sprinklers; adult immersers; Sacred Namers, etc. ad infinitum, proves that Christians in general have NO clear picture of what the Bible is all about.  The real, burning issue for every believer in a Divine Creator and King of the universe is whether, as such, he is sinning against and BETRAYING this SOLE  Supreme King by calling upon and praying to Jesus or any other being, mythical or real, as the case may be.  The true Scriptures (Hebrew) are unequivocal on this issue:  “and you shall love YHHVH your almighty with ALL your heart and with ALL your soul, and with ALL your might!”–Deuteronomy 6:5.  This commandment is extremely clear.  YHVH (as He identifies Himself) the Creator and King claims 100% of our love and devotion.  There is NOTHING LEFT OVER for ANY other person, divine, semi-divine, or a human claiming to be divine!  Thus, when someone says he loves Jesus or Krishna, he is BETRAYING YHVH his Maker and Redeemer!  YHVH says:  “I am YHVH, that is My Name; and My Glory I won’t give to another, nor My Praise to idols!”  — Isaiah 42:8.  An idol is not necessarily a graven image.  It can be a mental image too!  (see Ezekiel 14:3).  It can be an imaginary god other than YHVH. Hear YHVH’s Word!  “I, yes I, am YHVH and beside me there isn’t any savior!”–Isaiah 43:11.
ALL BOOKS, TEACHINGS AND WRITINGS MUST BE CHECKED AGAINST THE TORAH
Both Christians and Jews alike believe in the authenticity of the Torah as God’s law as given to Moses.  There is no doubt amongst Christians and/or Jews that the Torah is the written law of God given to Moses.  If you doubt this, then you are neither Christian nor Jewish.  This was the first written law given to us.  As such, the Torah is what we must first check every other writing and teaching against to see if they “pass the test!” of being in compliance or in disobedience of the written law.  The Church’s teachings, which are founded upon the teachings of the New Testament, disobey the Torah time and time again.  Because of this they cannot be trusted.  I’m not saying there still can’t be wisdom in the teachings of the Church or in the New Testament.  But as these writings and teachings have proven themselves to be untrustworthy due to attempting to further a human agenda, one must be very careful when attempting to glean wisdom from these sources.
No man-made interpretations or laws can make breaking God’s laws acceptable. Period.
As I have urged throughout this entire book, I would highly recommend you begin researching things like Church history, the history of how the New Testament came into being, and other such things that most Christians simply take as “fact” on your own. . . . Actually once you begin you’ll find that it never really ends.  While you’re researching things, always remember to check and double-check. Do you know what the best source to check things against is?  I can tell you.  In fact I already did.  Do you remember?  That’s right, the Torah.
————————————————

P.S.   FYI from Admin1:  

For the truly interested who wish to know more about Karaite Judaism, here are titles of two other publications,unfortunately they are not available in ebook form:

1. An Introduction to Karaite Judaism: History, Theology, Practice, and Culture by Yosef El-Gamil
2. “Karaism: Its Doctrines and History,” – by Simon Szyszman, the greatest Karaite scholar of the twentieth century, which is due to be published this year.

If and when S6K is able to obtain our copy of these books for our RESOURCES, they will be featured in MUST READ/MUST OWN.

The Afterlife – A Sober Look – 4

[Continuing the final chapter of Neil Gillman’s book The Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought; this is an ebook downloadable on the kindle app from amazon.com, it is worth adding to your personal library; reformatted for posting; highlights ours–Admin1.]

 

 

———————-

 

 

THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTHROPOLOGY – I: MY BODY

 

 

The death of death is the ultimate eschatological promise.  Judaism came to affirm that expectation because, certainly beginning with the middle of the 2nd century BCE and possibly somewhat earlier, some Jews believed that in the foreseeable future, at least some of the dead would live again.  Eventually, that promise was expanded to include all Jews who had ever lived.  That doctrine soon achieved quasi-dogmatic status in the Jewish system of beliefs.  Begin with that premise and the inevitable conclusion is that in such an age, death itself would be no more.

 

 

But what are we to make of that premise?

 

 

What does it mean to say that God has the power to bring the dead to life?

 

 

We saw that this doctrine began as two separate doctrines that later merged.

 

 

  • The first teaches that, at the end time, bodies will be resurrected from their graves.
  • The second, that there is a non-material “something” in every human called the “soul” which never dies, which departs the body at death and returns to God.

 

 

The later conflation of the two doctrines led to the belief that, at the time of resurrection, the soul would be restored to the resurrected body, and that each individual human, with body and soul united as they were on earth, would come before God for judgment.

 

 

This scenario is profoundly true.  Even more, it is indispensable for us if we are to make sense of our lives here on earth–as long as we accept it, not as crude biology, but as classic Jewish religious myth.

 

 

To characterize this phase of my argument as “anthropological” is to suggest that it stems from the Jewish view of the human person as a psycho-physical unity.  The “psycho” part of that entity is what I call my “soul”; the “physical,” my body.

 

 

To speak of “my body” is to capture a relationship that is totally unique, a relationship between something that is “me” and something else that is a “body.”  But what is that relationship?  In what way is it unique?

 

 

One possible way of construing that relationship is to suggest that my body is something that I “have” much as I “have” a watch.  But surely the relationship with my body is far more intimate than my relationship with my watch.  What I “have” I can dispose of.  I can give you my watch and I remain myself, just as I was when I wore it on my wrist.  But I cannot give you my body (except in some crude, sexual sense) without disposing of myself, of “me.” When my body is born, I am born; when my body gets sick, I am sick; when my body dies, I die.  I can dispose of my body by committing suicide, but I can only do that once.  When I do that, I have also disposed of my “self,” of me in my totality.  To say that I simply “have” my body, then, is to miss that dimension of my relationship with my body which makes it a unique relationship.

 

 

A much more accurate way of capturing that relationship between me and my body is to claim that “I am my body.”  That formulation captures the felt relationship between whatever it is that “I” am and my body.  It affirms the indissolubility of that bond, the fact that without my body, I am no longer me.  I feel quite differently toward “my” body than I do toward “a” body.  Were I a surgeon, the patient’s body that lies before me on the operating table is simply “a” body; it could be “any” body, and after completing the surgery on this body, I will move on to another body.

In fact, medical ethics insists that the body on which a surgeon operates must be simply “a” body, certainly not his own body nor even the body of someone the surgeon feels particularly close to.  Similarly, the mortician embalms “a” body.  Even in the most intense of interpersonal, sexual relationships, what I feel toward the body that lies next to me is qualitatively different than what I feel toward my own body.  The latter relationship is even infinitely more intimate than the former.  I can divorce my wife and move on to a new, intimate relationship with someone else and with that person’s body.  But I cannot divorce my body.

 

 

That comparison is suggestive.  We can posit a range of relationships between me and someone or something else which reveal a progressively diminishing sense of intimacy: Between me and my body, me and my wife, lover and children, me and my cat, me and the superintendent of my building, me and the people who share my bus trip, me and my watch, etc., etc., etc. . . . To use Buberian terminology, this range of relationships takes me progressively from the realm of the I-Thou to that of the I-It, from intimacy to detachment.  My relationship with my body is the paradigmatic I-Thou relationship.  I can enter into other I-Thou relationships because of the paradigmatic I-Thou relationship I have with my body.

 

 

Even more, it is because of my body that I am inserted into time and space, into history and society.  If I were not embodied, I would not be sitting at my word-processor on this very day.  Nor would I be teaching my class or playing with my children.  My body is the landmark which connects me with everything else that exists physically, specifically with all of history and society.

 

 

The thrust of these reflections is to suggest,

 

 

  • first, that my body is indispensable to my sense of self.
    • Without my body, there is no “me.”
    • Whatever my ultimate destiny, then, whatever God has in store for me at the end, must include my body.
    • That is why any doctrine of the afterlife must deal with my body as well.
    • Belief in bodily resurrection is, then, indispensable to any doctrine of the afterlife.
  • It is indispensable for another reason.
    • If my body inserts me into history and society, then the affirmation of bodily resurrection is also an affirmation of history and society.
    • If my bodily existence is insignificant, then so are history and society.
    • To affirm that God has the power to reconstitute me in my bodily existence is to affirm that God also cares deeply about history and society.

 

But we know that God does care deeply about history and society.  Will Herberg is one of many thinkers who claim that it is Judaism that contributed “the sense of history” to Western culture.  Every people and nation had their historians, but only in the Bible is history viewed, not as a series of random events, nor as an endless cycle without an ultimate goal, but rather as “a great and meaningful process.”  Herberg quotes the biblical scholar, J.P. Hyatt, as contending that the prophets conceived of God as a God of history, manifesting himself on the stage of time and controlling the destiny of men and nations.

 

 

History, in Judaism, has a beginning, an end, and a purpose.  History is linear, and it understands the past as manifesting promises which would be fulfilled in the future.

 

 

Biblical historiography also takes time seriously.  Herberg writes:

 

 

God’s ends are effected with time, in and through history; the salvation that is promised as the ultimate validation of life lies indeed beyond history but it lies beyond it as its fulfillment and consummation . . . . From this point of view, earthly history takes on a meaning and seriousness that are completely absent where the Hebraic influence has not been felt.

 

 

To take time seriously is to take the mundane events of everyday life seriously.  Among the Greeks, Herberg notes, humanity had no destiny.  “The strivings and doings of men, their enterprises, conflicts and achievements, led nowhere.  All, all would be swallowed up in the cycle of eternal recurrence that was the law of the cosmos.”

 

 

To shape “the strivings and doings of men” in minutest detail is the central purpose of biblical legislation, and in biblical prophecy, Israel’s loyalty to God’s moral law becomes the decisive factor in its national history.  The purpose of the whole is to create a distinctive social structure, a unique community, an “am kadosh,” a “people” that is “holy” or “set apart.”

 

 

Torah is suffused with this concern for Israel’s social polity.  It is implicit in every piece of legislation in the Torah affecting interpersonal relationships, but it is explicit in Leviticus 25, an entire chapter devoted to regulating the social life of the community.  The legislative details pertain to the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, and to the redemption of land, of indentured servants and of slaves.  In each case, the text begins with the phrase, “If your kinsman is in straits . . . .”  The whole chapter is permeated with such admonitions as “fear your God,” or “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt” or “for they [the indentured servants] are My servants . . . ; they may not give themsleves over into servitude.”

 

 

The repeated emphasis on God’s redemption of Israel from Egyptian servitude provides the equally explicit grounding for this legislation.  Indeed, why were our ancestors enslaved in Egypt for 400 years if not to provide them with an object lesson about the evils of social oppression, if not to teach them how to create a social structure in which no one will be oppressed?

 

 

In the writings of the prophets, this emphasis on the primacy of morality reaches its apogee.  Witness Amos’ cry to  . . .let justice well up like water, Righteousness like an unfailing stream. (5:24) or Isaiah’s Learn to do good, Devote yourself to justice; Aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan; Defend the cause of the widow. (1:17)

 

 

Yehezkel Kaufmann, the noted Israeli biblical scholar emphasizes that it is precisely—

 

the commonplace ‘venial’ sins that offend the prophets: bribe-taking, biased justice, false scales, extortion from the poor and defenseless, raising prices, and the like.  For such sins they prophesy destruction and exile . . . . God made Himself known to Israel, made with it a moral-religious Covenant, intended it to be a holy nation dedicated to do His will.  But a people perverting justice, practicing violence, drunken and debauched, is no people of God! For the prophets, justice and righteousness are not a private affair.  The entire nation is responsible for the moral state that prevails in it. Hence it will be judged as a whole both for idol worship and for moral sin on the day of reckoning.

 

 

God’s engagement both with human history and with Israel’s social polity come together in prophetic eschatology.  The prophets do more than rebuke and call for repentance.  They also envision a future age when paganism will end and monotheism will become the heritage of all peoples, when war will be no more, and when all humankind will recognize God’s moral law as absolute.

 

 

To affirm that vision is effectively to affirm the value to God of human history and society as we participate in them during our lifetime.  But that participation demands our embodied existence here on earth.  That is why any Jewish doctrine of the afterlife must also affirm the significance of that dimension of my being.

 

 

II.  MY SOUL

 

 

But as clear as it is that “I am my body,” it is also clear that “I am not only my body.”  The impulse behind all theories of the human soul is the sense that there are dimensions of my self that resist being reduced to mere bodily functions.

 

 

  • First there is my self-consciousness.
    • I am aware of my “self,” of some overarching dimension of my being that unifies the various pieces of my life, that organizes my thoughts, feelings and experiences and identifies them as mine.
    • Much of the work of this part of me operates within the range of my consciousness; I feel or am aware of this part of me doing its work.
    • I am even aware of the fact that I am related to my body, and I ponder the nature of that relationship.
  • I am also aware of myself as a thinking being, and I can think about my thinking and wonder about my thoughts and about the nature of thought itself.  I also have feelings, values, hopes, visions of what I can accomplish in my lifetime.
    •  I have, in short a personal myth, an overarching image of who I am and where I belong in the world.
    • If asked, I can articulate what this larger image looks like and, thereby, tell you who I, distinctively, am.

 

It is this sense of an “inner” life that has led philosophers from antiquity onward to speak of human beings as possessing a “soul.”  Plato understood the human soul as a distinct ontological entity which pre-exists its insertion into the body and will continue to exist after the death of the body.  We saw that this view of the soul leads to a sharply dualistic understanding of the human person as a composite of two distinct elements, body and soul.  Ultimately it also leads to the doctrine of the immortality of the human soul which, as we have also seen, persists in philosophical and theological thinking to this day.  Souls are immortal because they are non-material and, thus, indestructible.  That’s just the way souls are.

 

 

The problem with this sharp body/soul dualism is that it is counter-intuitive, that having created this sharp distinction between the body and the soul, we are at a loss to connect them again.  Yet we feel that connection.  We feel ourselves to be a single, indivisible psycho/physical individual.  We feel an intimate relationship between our inner lives and our bodily functions.  We are aware that each affects the other, that our feelings and thoughts influence our bodily functions; we feel tension and we perspire.  We know that aspects of our bodily faculties, such as our ability to see and hear, generate feelings and thoughts.  We also feel, intuitively, that these two dimensions of our being from one concrete individuality.  But once they are separated from each other, how can they be reunited?

 

 

The further implications of Platonic thinking are equally problematic.  Plato identifies the soul as the “real” me, as that which makes me distinctly human and unique.  The development of my soul is redemptive.  It is my uniquely human mandate, my ultimate accomplishment.  Plato understands my bodily existence to be an obstacle to that fulfillment, the “prison” in which my soul is incarcerated and from which I must try to liberate myself by philosophical reflection.

 

 

These implications of Platonic dualism pose insurmountable obstacles to any thinker who speaks out of the Jewish tradition.

 

 

  • First, Judaism has never demeaned the body and its functions.
    • Jewish liturgy speaks of the body as a miraculous piece of God’s creation.
    • Judaism has never affirmed the religious value of sexual abstinence.  Indeed, the very first commandment to Adam and Eve is to procreate, and the value of sexual fulfillment has never been questioned by Jews.  We celebrate all significant ritual moments with food and drink.  Before burial, we wash and purify the body as we recite prayers that affirm the glory and the beauty of the human body.

 

One of the most striking affirmations of the value of the human body is a liturgical passage recited daily, together with the passage that praises God for having created and preserved my soul, in the early morning worship service.  This passage, also of Talmudic origin (Bab. Talmud, B’rakhot 60b), reads:

 

 

Blessed are You, Lord our God, Sovereign of the universe, who has fashioned the human being with wisdom and created within him many openings and cavities.  It is obvious to You  . . that should one of them be ruptured or one of them be blocked, it would be impossible to survive and stand before You.  Blessed are You, God, Who heals all flesh and acts wondrously.

 

 

The human body is of ultimate value and significance because it too is a manifestation of God’s wondrous power.  Would you discover God’s presence?  Look at the human body!

 

 

As we saw earlier, the Bible knows nothing of a Platonic entity called the soul.  It understood the Hebrew terms nefesh or neshamah as a way of speaking of the living human person, or as the spark of life that vivifies the clod of earth out of which God formed the first human.  Eventually, Greek thought did shape later Jewish thinking on the nature of the soul, but even then, Jewish tradition rejected its more extreme dualistic implications.  For example, it saw the soul as created by God, and its immortality as a gift from God Who rules even over the world of human souls.  At least until modernity, Judaism continued to insist that at the end of days, human bodies too would live again.

 

 

John Hick sharply rejects any sense of the soul as a distinct metaphysical entity and dualistic implications of that view. He understands the soul as “an indicator of value.”  In his view, the soul—–

 

 

will express that sense of the sacredness of human personality and of the inalienable rights of the human individual which we have . . . seen to be the moral and political content of the western idea of the soul . . . . To speak of man as a soul is to speak mythologically, but in a way which is bound up with important practical attitudes and practices.  The myth of the soul expresses a faith in the intrinsic value of the human individual as an end in itself.

 

 

Hick, here, echoes one interpretation of the biblical claim that human beings were created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:26-27). The literal meaning of that claim is not at all clear, but to some later Jewish thinkers, preeminently Maimonides, it establishes the unique value of the human being among all of creation.  It leads Maimonides to insist that true human perfection is intellectual.

 

 

This is in reality the ultimate end; this is what gives the individual true perfection, a perfection belonging to him alone; and it gives him permanent perdurance; through it man is man.

 

 

It also leads him to insist that ultimate human immortality is for the soul alone.  But of all Jewish thinkers, Maimonides espouses the sharpest body/soul dualism.

 

 

Note that, for Hick, to speak of a human soul is to speak mythically.  It refers to one more “beyond.”  This time, it is the various manifestations of what we call our “inner” life and which elude direct, overt apprehension.  Another way of saying this is to view the soul as a construct, an imaginative unification of the dimensions of that inner life which pulls together all the dimensions of our awareness that do not explicitly reflect our bodily functioning.  This, we identify as “soul.”

 

 

In this view, the term “soul” is similar to the term “mind” with which it is often confused.  But to speak of my mind is not to speak of a distinct entity buried deeply in my brain.  I can hold a brain in my hand, but I cannot hold a mind.  Though “mind” is a noun, it really functions as an adverb, a term which qualifies or describes modes of behavior.  When I behave intelligently, when I deliberate what to do or not to do, when I think, I say that I am “using” my mind.  But again, a mind is not something I “have” or “use.”  I cannot dispose of or surrender my mind, except in a metaphorical sense.  “Mind,” too, is a construct which unifies and identifies one dimension of my behavior.

 

 

The precise relationship between the mind and the body (or the brain) is one of the perennial problems of philosophy.  It raises many of the same issues suggested by the relationship between body and soul.  Is the distinction between the two a valid one?  Are there existing entities to which we can apply each of these terms?  If yes, what is the relationship between the two?

 

 

Philosophers’ answers to these questions fall into two groups.  One set of theories tend to reduce one reality to the other: Either there is only body, and references to mind are covert references to bodily functions.  This view is called materialism.  Its alternative, idealism, reduces all bodily references to mental events.  In contrast, dualistic theories maintain not only that the distinction is a valid one, but that there are two distinct realities.  All dualist theories are then forced to explain how body and mind are related to each other.

 

 

There has been no satisfactory resolution of that issue throughout the history of philosophy.  But it remains clear that what precipitates the issue in the first place is the intuition that we function in these two distinctive ways, and that somehow or other, each affects the other.

 

 

When I affirm that “I am not only my body” I affirm that apart from my sense of my bodily existence, I am also aware of a dimension of my self which eludes identification with my bodily functions, but which remains as intrinsic to my identity as is my body.

 

 

In what sense is this soul immortal?  For me, not in any Platonic sense, not as a distinct entity which survives my death and the burial of my body.  If I am a psycho/physical entity, then when I die, all of me dies, my body together with my inner life.

 

 

The notion that the soul enjoys an intrinsic immortality denied to my body is also troubling because it takes God out of the eschatological picture.  If the soul is intrinsically immortal, then God has nothing to do with my soul at the end of days, other than reuniting it with my body.  But the whole point of Jewish thinking on the afterlife is that it affirms God’s ultimate power, the final manifestation of God’s unfettered sovereignty.  The doctrine of bodily resurrection preserves that affirmation.  the doctrine of the intrinsic immortality of the soul does not.  When the Gevurot benediction affirms that God is mehaye hametim, that God “revives the dead,” I believe it means the entire scenario:  God gives new life to the dead, to the totality of me, to my body together with my soul.

 

 

This is the ultimate meaning of the Talmudic doctrine that at the end of days, God will bring my body and my soul together again and that I will be reconstituted as I was during my life on earth.  The mythic thrust of this doctrine is that it is this totality in tis concrete individuality, as manifest during my lifetime, that God treasures and that God will therefore preserve for all time.

 

 

I insist that my resurrection must affect all of me in my concrete individuality because i understand the central thrust of the doctrine of the afterlife as establishing the everlasting preciousness to God of the life I led here on earth.  I lived that life as a concrete individual.  A doctrine of the afterlife that has my soul merging into some cosmic soul after my death would defeat the entire purpose of the myth.  The mishnah that records the court’s admonition to witnesses in a case of capital punishment reminds me that God created but one single person from whom all of mankind descended.

 

 

Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if anyone has caused a single soul to perish from Israel, Scripture imputes to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any person saves a single soul from Israel, Scripture imputes to him as though he had saved a whole world. (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5)

 

 

Again, why did God create one single person?

 

 

To proclaim the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He; for a person stamps many coins with the one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, has stamped every person with the seal of the first person, yet not one of them is like the other.  Therefore every one must say, “For my sake was the world created.”

 

 

There is no more powerful testimony to Judaism’s insistence that it is precisely the single human being in all his or her individuality that is most precious to God.  It is that individuality that God will preserve forever.

 

 

I insist, as well, that God’s economy of salvation knows no religious distinctions.  We are all descendants of “one single person,” and it is precisely our individual “person-hood” that makes each of us worthy of God’s ultimate concern.  Judaism has always had its partisan nationalists and its generous universalists, but it is invariably the latter group, with its opinions on the place of the non-Jew in God’s salvational plans, that has triumphed.  I am proud to appropriate that tradition.

 

 

The one distinction that Judaism does make in this regard pertains to that between the righteous and the evil-doer.  The Jewish doctrine of the afterlife did originate, as we have seen, in the need for some notion of ultimate divine retribution beyond whatever transpires during human life on earth.  Though in time, the emphasis passed from life after death as a manifestation of God’s justice to one of God’s power, the notion that we are all ultimately accountable for the lives we live on earth never totally disappeared from Jewish teachings on the afterlife.  That dimension of Jewish eschatology remains important for me.  It teaches me that the moral quality of life I lead here on earth is of importance to God, and that God will hold me responsible for that life.  But moral issues are complex, and human motivations are obscure.  I then forego my right to pass judgment on my fellow human beings.  That judgment I am prepared to leave in God’s hands, convinced as I am that, in the words of the liturgical formula I recite upon hearing of a death, God’s judgment is always true.

 

 

That is my hope.  That is my expectation.