In the book of Kings all you really see with King Ahaz (the father of Hezekiah) is that he found a nice altar in Damascus and then asked Uriah the Priest to build one like it in the Temple. But in Chronicles it took the priests and Levis two weeks to clean out the Temple when Hezekiah began his reign. That seems to indicate that the whole Temple area was completely unusable. Also you can see this from the fact that Hezekiah did not want to bring the Passover in uncleanliness as he could have if the Temple had been usable.[ Instead he made the 14 of Iyar the Passover as the Torah requires for people that did not manage to make the first one.
1.12.18
The problem that I see about the selling of Joseph is that in the very beginning of chapter 39 it says the Ishmael[s] sold him to Egypt.
The problem that I see about the selling of Joseph is that in the very beginning of chapter 39 it says the Ishmael[s] sold him to Egypt. But in the actual events it says the Tribe of Medyans in 37;36 sold him to Egypt. [Not one to the other and then to Egypt.]
But what I think is that the actual selling is attributed to the Mediyans indirectly.
But what I think is that the actual selling is attributed to the Mediyans indirectly.
29.11.18
The Trinity
In the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria] we find a few people whose souls were from Emanation--or what would be called "Divine".
But this only really works if you have a Neo-Platonic world view. In some sense this does not really fit with Aristotle.
[But even with Neo Platonic Thought in itself there are plenty of problems reconciling Christian beliefs. and that is the reason I think Aquinas went to Aristotle.]
In any case what prompted this blog entry is I saw this blog jesus-god-and-an-inconsistent-triad/
and I see that there is a great deal of debate about this.
A further way to deal with this is Kant-simply to say that when Reason ventures into the realm of the dinge an sich [the thing in itself] it gets caught in self contradictions.
In any case I have not thought that believing in the Trinity is in itself any great problem because of the Talmud about the Barber that gave a haircut to Sanherib [I forget the page but I think it is around pages from 98-101. But I might be wrong. In any case it is somewhere in that area] and also the Tosphot in Avoda Zara which deals with this exact issue. [Not that I understood Tosphot very well, but I made a point of learning it with my learning partner so that I at least get it as well as possible. From what I recall there were a few different ways that Tosphot deals with it.]
[I would normally not be writing on such a contentious issue if I would be having more time to learn Gemara and Rav Shach. But as you know things have been in chaos with me since May and especially my recent arrest. So I suppose it might take some time until I can get down to be doing any kind of serious learning of Gemara or the Avi Ezri for some time--until a miracle appears.]
It is a well known fact, amply borne out by the history of the discussion of the topic, that as soon as one goes beyond the automatic recital of traditional creedal phrases one inevitably leans either in the direction of modalism – the “persons” are simply the different aspects of the divine being and/or activity – or tritheism – there are really three Gods, albeit very intimately connected in some way. (“Swinburne and Christian Theology,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 41 (1997) , p. 54).
But this only really works if you have a Neo-Platonic world view. In some sense this does not really fit with Aristotle.
[But even with Neo Platonic Thought in itself there are plenty of problems reconciling Christian beliefs. and that is the reason I think Aquinas went to Aristotle.]
In any case what prompted this blog entry is I saw this blog jesus-god-and-an-inconsistent-triad/
and I see that there is a great deal of debate about this.
A further way to deal with this is Kant-simply to say that when Reason ventures into the realm of the dinge an sich [the thing in itself] it gets caught in self contradictions.
In any case I have not thought that believing in the Trinity is in itself any great problem because of the Talmud about the Barber that gave a haircut to Sanherib [I forget the page but I think it is around pages from 98-101. But I might be wrong. In any case it is somewhere in that area] and also the Tosphot in Avoda Zara which deals with this exact issue. [Not that I understood Tosphot very well, but I made a point of learning it with my learning partner so that I at least get it as well as possible. From what I recall there were a few different ways that Tosphot deals with it.]
[I would normally not be writing on such a contentious issue if I would be having more time to learn Gemara and Rav Shach. But as you know things have been in chaos with me since May and especially my recent arrest. So I suppose it might take some time until I can get down to be doing any kind of serious learning of Gemara or the Avi Ezri for some time--until a miracle appears.]
It is a well known fact, amply borne out by the history of the discussion of the topic, that as soon as one goes beyond the automatic recital of traditional creedal phrases one inevitably leans either in the direction of modalism – the “persons” are simply the different aspects of the divine being and/or activity – or tritheism – there are really three Gods, albeit very intimately connected in some way. (“Swinburne and Christian Theology,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 41 (1997) , p. 54).
St Augustine is the source of some great ideas
St Augustine is the source of some great ideas that got into the work of Jewish scholars during the Middle Ages. However when people borrow from him or any Christina source, the source of the idea is usually not given. But even more than specific idea there is his whole Neo Platonic approach which became part and parcel of approved Jewish thought--mainly starting with Saadia Gaon.
One of the well known ideas of Augustine is that time is a creation. But there are many more.
One of the well known ideas of Augustine is that time is a creation. But there are many more.
Torah scholars that are demons. Is there any solution to this problem?
Rav Nahman of Uman made a point about Torah scholars that are demons in a few places. But does not really give a reason for why they appear nor for how to avoid them. Though that is already a remarkable fact that he had the courage to pull the wool out of people's eyes about the problem.
[The idea of Rav Nahman is that the actual human soul of these people is slowly replaced by a demon. The cause of this is unclear, nor is it clear what to do about it.]
I have thought that the problem is that Torah has been made into a paying profession and that invites the demonic Torah scholars in the first place. But it is not so clear --that answer I mean. It was pointed out to me that the Keseph Mishna brings a defense for the practice of paying for a rav.
So one answer seems to be out, but then what is the trouble? From where does it come and what is possible to do about it? Just hide?
What a lot of secular Jews did at the beginning of the Reform Movement was in fact to simply get away from the religious world. They clearly say the problem so the majority of the Jewish people decided to get out and avoid the Torah Scholars that are demons.
Still that does not seem like the best solution either since we are all obligated to learn and keep Torah.
One other suggestion I have had is to pay attention to the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. I mean to treat it as valid in term of actual law. But I have not been totally convinced by that myself since even in the Litvak world which attempts to go with the Gra to some degree there also seems to be this same problem, although it is to a lesser degree.
And besides these two solutions nothing occurs to me.
[I have mentioned before the approach of just getting a few tractates of the Talmud and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and then just learning at home. In fact this seems to be the only possible solution to this problem. After all even in Israel the Dark Side is spreading rapidly -especially in religious areas, so there in fact is no where to escape from it. All one can do is learn Torah at home. And that was always what my learning partner in Uman was telling me, about how great it is to be in a place where there is no religious control.]
[The idea of Rav Nahman is that the actual human soul of these people is slowly replaced by a demon. The cause of this is unclear, nor is it clear what to do about it.]
I have thought that the problem is that Torah has been made into a paying profession and that invites the demonic Torah scholars in the first place. But it is not so clear --that answer I mean. It was pointed out to me that the Keseph Mishna brings a defense for the practice of paying for a rav.
So one answer seems to be out, but then what is the trouble? From where does it come and what is possible to do about it? Just hide?
What a lot of secular Jews did at the beginning of the Reform Movement was in fact to simply get away from the religious world. They clearly say the problem so the majority of the Jewish people decided to get out and avoid the Torah Scholars that are demons.
Still that does not seem like the best solution either since we are all obligated to learn and keep Torah.
One other suggestion I have had is to pay attention to the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. I mean to treat it as valid in term of actual law. But I have not been totally convinced by that myself since even in the Litvak world which attempts to go with the Gra to some degree there also seems to be this same problem, although it is to a lesser degree.
And besides these two solutions nothing occurs to me.
[I have mentioned before the approach of just getting a few tractates of the Talmud and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri and then just learning at home. In fact this seems to be the only possible solution to this problem. After all even in Israel the Dark Side is spreading rapidly -especially in religious areas, so there in fact is no where to escape from it. All one can do is learn Torah at home. And that was always what my learning partner in Uman was telling me, about how great it is to be in a place where there is no religious control.]
יאשיהו King Joshiyahu
יאשיהו King Joshiyahu from what I can see did the most thorough job of getting rid of idolatry throughout all Israel, but after him everything went downhill fast. He was the last of the good kings descended from David. The thing that made him unique was he went all through the Land of Israel, not just Judah.
The story of most of the kings of Judah that were descended from the house of David is a disappointing story, because it all seems to go downhill after Solomon,
The story of most of the kings of Judah that were descended from the house of David is a disappointing story, because it all seems to go downhill after Solomon,
28.11.18
modern progressivism is modern "regressivism."
Modern progressivism is modern "regressivism." So what can you do? The Litvak Yeshiva solution is simply to go back to the Middle Ages--and that in fact makes a lot of sense on one hand. But it does not answer the very questions that led to dissatisfaction with scholasticism and religion in the first place.
So my solution is more modest--to find a world view that works for me and helps me make sense of a confusing world.
So I try to hold to a kind of common sense approach of Reid towards philosophy-as are some modern day philosophers like Kelley Ross, Michael Huemer, maverick philosopher and others.
Common sense and balance and to be a mensch are definitely the values of my parents. So what that means in a practical sense is to learn from the greats of the Middle Ages,and also advances from the Enlightenment. How to make sense of the contradictions? Use common sense and balance.
Just to be clear, though I am no expert, I did the usual adolescent reading of Nietzsche, the Communist Manifesto, and all the usual progressive stuff. Being not so smart, I could not really see what was wrong with their arguments, but it all seemed way too shallow as compared to other reading I was doing, Plato, Spinoza, Dante, etc. [Now it would be fairly straightforward to see what was incorrect in Marx Freud, Nietzsche etc. But that is not the reason I did not go after them. The reason was they all seemed so "19th century like" obsolete and irrelevant. As if making revolution and sex free was going to solve all mankind's problems. They seemed -forgive the expression--naive.
Just the opposite with Plato and Dante etc. They seemed extremely relevant and deep and penetrating into the core of issues.
So my solution is more modest--to find a world view that works for me and helps me make sense of a confusing world.
So I try to hold to a kind of common sense approach of Reid towards philosophy-as are some modern day philosophers like Kelley Ross, Michael Huemer, maverick philosopher and others.
Common sense and balance and to be a mensch are definitely the values of my parents. So what that means in a practical sense is to learn from the greats of the Middle Ages,and also advances from the Enlightenment. How to make sense of the contradictions? Use common sense and balance.
Just to be clear, though I am no expert, I did the usual adolescent reading of Nietzsche, the Communist Manifesto, and all the usual progressive stuff. Being not so smart, I could not really see what was wrong with their arguments, but it all seemed way too shallow as compared to other reading I was doing, Plato, Spinoza, Dante, etc. [Now it would be fairly straightforward to see what was incorrect in Marx Freud, Nietzsche etc. But that is not the reason I did not go after them. The reason was they all seemed so "19th century like" obsolete and irrelevant. As if making revolution and sex free was going to solve all mankind's problems. They seemed -forgive the expression--naive.
Just the opposite with Plato and Dante etc. They seemed extremely relevant and deep and penetrating into the core of issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)