I am not going to apologize for not falling for the myth of Satan like other people have.
You are certainly entitled to believe all you deem fit. However, I would caution you that the demonic is very real and is quite evident in our
rapidly disintegrating culture. When you see some of the strange degeneracy and lunacy happening in our culture, I wouldn't chalk it all up to
humanity. There are much, much stronger spiritual forces at play.
So Rambam is not considered one of the great Jewish Scholars?
No, he is considered a Jewish Sage. He is well-revered in Chabad circles, but not in all of Orthodox Judaism. As I said before, he is quite a
controversial figure - In fact, his books were banned because they diverged from the more mystical approach to theology and delved into more
rationalist approaches. Yes - He's considered by some to be the greatest Sage - as in Chabad, but Rashi is considered by most to be his superior in
Considering there is zero substantiating evidence for angels I would tend to think it is more than just my opinion.
There is evidence of angels in the Bible. Heck, even in the King James Masonic Bible there are angels.
I already threw most of it out a long time before I became a Mason. I decided my life was not going to revolve around unfounded religious guilt and
Strange, considering that Masonry centers around the building of Solomon's Temple - a very biblical account.
Forgive me if I do not believe in the ludicrousness of demon casting and other unproveable supernatural nonesense. The preposterousness of the
premise is perpetrated by the pusillanimous to protect themselves from personal responsibility.
There is demonstrable proof. Just as any Vatican exorcist. Or read their books.
Considering I do not believe in either Satan or angels I would be really curious as to where I stated Satan was anything at all. Considering I made it
clear earlier that good and evil are part of God I think you are quite mistaken.
The story goes that Satan's greatest invention and trick was to convince humanity that he doesn't exist. I guess he was successful in your case.
Because he was asked to do so by our little CookieMonster, who considers the Talmud more important than the actual Torah
Never gave precedence to one over the other. Nice try.
By the time 100 CE rolled around (and I'm being generous by about a century here) the game of Chinese whispers was long over, and hence we are left
with the remnants of that game. Let's try and stick with the original material (Torah) for the purposes of your discussion with me, OK?
The oral tradition was passed down from Moses to the rabbis long before 100 CE. What exactly did you think Moses was doing for 40 days and nights up
on a mountain? It was only when the Jews were threatened with decimation that it was determined that the oral tradition should be put into writing -
hence, the Talmud.
The analogy used is that if you stick with the Torah only, you miss the whole lecture. The Torah is just the notes from the lecture. It's the
difference between reading abbreviated Cliff Notes, or reading the actual text itself.
And, there are plenty of examples. The Torah gives many instructions and many varied rules. The oral tradition examines these carefully, and gives
further explanation and commentary. Example: How do you bind tefillin? You are commanded to do so in the Torah, but the Torah doesn't tell you how.
How do you keep the Sabbath? The Torah doesn't go into too much detail, so what are the rules and guidelines? What constitutes "work" on the
Sabbath? It is only through the oral tradition that these answers are codified and explained.
So, no, I won't just "stick with the Torah", because it is the long-standing Jewish tradition that there are 2 laws - the written, and the oral
Let's also try and drop the emotional reaction you are hiding behind a wall of very thin sarcasm?
No emotions. You and your cohort raise a hissy fit when confronted with facts, then cry wolf. It's quite comical.
Now, I didn't ask you for the orthodox interpretation of the word Israel. I asked you, quite clearly, to tell me what those morphemes actualy
translate to, given the context of the story. Indulge me, and answer?
I have already given you my answer in an earlier post. Re-read it, and comment on it as much as you like.
edit on 19-9-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)