Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 02-07-2013, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

They go through a big song and dance to explain how Jacob didn't know who he was sleeping with until morning.

Hey its ancient Hebrew porn, had to get a 'rise' out of the audience to keep 'em awake.
After listening to all that boring 'begatting', someone wants to hear a good tale 'bout how that begatting got it on.

They say that Rachel and Leah had similar voices and in the dark, etc. They also said that Rachel gave Leah advice on how to act - I'm sure that Rachel, being the fun loving girl she was, couldn't resist telling Leah to perform several weird sex acts with her new hubby.

Speaking of perverted, the hand maidens have always fascinated me. First they were previously owned by Laban and given as gifts to his daughters. Did Laban have a platonic relationship with them?.. seems unlikely. What exactly does a hand maiden do for her mistress? I can't think of many PG rated things.

semiopen · 02-08-2013, 08:20 AM

The porno element continues with Rachel's stealing of the

Teraphim although this is just part of the story which is one of the bible's most interesting.

Quote:

According to Genesis 31, Rachel takes the teraphim belonging to her father Laban when her husband Jacob escapes. She hides it in a saddle bag and sits on it when Laban comes looking for it, and claims that she cannot get up because she is menstruating. From this it can be deduced that they were small, perhaps 30–35 cm.[4]

The Rabbinic consensus is that it was a dead human head that moved it's lips to speak to answer questions put to it. So sitting on the head was one way to muffle the thing's voice while it was moving it's lips. This was my suggestion for funniest scene in the bible on here some time back. I had a theory that the dead head was Laban's first born son.

Prior to that is the Dudaim incident.

Vayetze

Quote:

Gen 30
14 And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah: 'Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes.'
15 And she said unto her: 'Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also?' And Rachel said: 'Therefore he shall lie with thee to-night for thy son's mandrakes.'

This is probably all normal man and multiple wives stuff. My Rabbi's son-in-law mentioned that Rachel's action was questionable as she forgoes the opportunity to sleep with such a major

Tzadik.

Note the difficulty that Onias had with this word in the Gen 15:6 thread.

Onias · 02-09-2013, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

The porno element continues with Rachel's stealing of the

Teraphim although this is just part of the story which is one of the bible's most interesting.

Quote:

According to Genesis 31, Rachel takes the teraphim belonging to her father Laban when her husband Jacob escapes. She hides it in a saddle bag and sits on it when Laban comes looking for it, and claims that she cannot get up because she is menstruating. From this it can be deduced that they were small, perhaps 30–35 cm.[4]

The Rabbinic consensus is that it was a dead human head that moved it's lips to speak to answer questions put to it. So sitting on the head was one way to muffle the thing's voice while it was moving it's lips. This was my suggestion for funniest scene in the bible on here some time back. I had a theory that the dead head was Laban's first born son.

Prior to that is the Dudaim incident.

Vayetze

Quote:

Gen 30
14 And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah: 'Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes.'
15 And she said unto her: 'Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also?' And Rachel said: 'Therefore he shall lie with thee to-night for thy son's mandrakes.'

This is probably all normal man and multiple wives stuff. My Rabbi's son-in-law mentioned that Rachel's action was questionable as she forgoes the opportunity to sleep with such a major

Tzadik.

Note the difficulty that Onias had with this word in the Gen 15:6 thread.

Semiopen wrote:

Quote:

Note the difficulty that Onias had with this word (Tzadik) in the Gen 15:6 thread.

I never had difficulties with that word (Tzadik) in that thread, and the fact that you think so shows you have been missing my point all along. Ramban's issue and mine was who was imputing righteousness to Whom.

semiopen · 02-10-2013, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Semiopen wrote:

Quote:

Note the difficulty that Onias had with this word (Tzadik) in the Gen 15:6 thread.

I never had difficulties with that word (Tzadik) in that thread, and the fact that you think so shows you have been missing my point all along. Ramban's issue and mine was who was imputing righteousness to Whom.

Except the actual word was

Tzedakah.

Quote:

literally meaning righteousness but commonly used to signify charity.[1] It is based on the Hebrew word (צדק, Tzedek) meaning righteousness, fairness or justice, and it is related to the Hebrew word Tzadik meaning righteous as an adjective (or righteous individual as a noun in the form of a substantive).

It's nice to side with Ramban, however he places his view as secondary to Rashi's. Ramban also is careful to define Tzedakah as benevolence, which you fail to consider even after it was pointed out several times.

Hence, you had difficulties.

Anyway, the story of Jacob has a different author than Abraham. This, presumably, would have been mind blowing to Yoshke.

semiopen · 02-10-2013, 09:09 AM

The utter moralistic pointlessness of the Jacob stories has probably led to more esoteric interpretations.

Partzufim

Quote:

are particular reconfigured arrangements of the 10 sephirot Divine attributes/emanations of Kabbalah into harmonised interactions in Creation. Their names derive from mystical discourses in the Zohar, the foundational text of Kabbalah, where they appear as synonymous manifestation terms for the sephirot. Their full doctrinal significance emerges only in 16th century Lurianic Kabbalah in relationship to the cosmic processes of Shevirah-"Shattering" and Tikun-"Rectification".

Jacob becomes

Zeir_Anpin

Quote:

Ze`ir Anpin (Aramaic: זְעֵיר אַנפִּין meaning "Lesser Countenance/Small Face", called Microprosopus in the Kabbala Denudata) is a revealed aspect of God in Kabbalah, comprising the emotional sephirot attributes: Chesed, Gevurah, Tiphereth, Netzach, Hod and Yesod.

It's simpler to consider this Tiferet.

From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala by Shaul Magid

Rachel and Leah are attached to the back of Zeir Anpin.

Page 29

Quote:

Leah's feet are juxtaposed to the chest cavity of zeir anpin, directly above Jacob's head. To unit with zeir anpin she must grow to encompass the length of his entire body (in order for their genitals to be aligned) and, in doing so, exiles Rachel to a lower realm (to the world of beria below the world of azilut) where she is alone or without a partner... Leah rarely descends from the highest world of azilut and thus is never the object of the adept's attention.

Rachel descends at midnight, which makes this a good time for sex.

The page 29 link briefly notes that the heels of Leah are embedded in part of Rachel's head, which is discussed on page 174.

This looks like a pretty good book, I just bought the Kindle edition. There are several references to Esau but the pages are not available on google.

Onias · 02-10-2013, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Semiopen wrote:

Quote:

Note the difficulty that Onias had with this word (Tzadik) in the Gen 15:6 thread.

I never had difficulties with that word (Tzadik) in that thread, and the fact that you think so shows you have been missing my point all along. Ramban's issue and mine was who was imputing righteousness to Whom.

Except the actual word was

Tzedakah.

Quote:

literally meaning righteousness but commonly used to signify charity.[1] It is based on the Hebrew word (צדק, Tzedek) meaning righteousness, fairness or justice, and it is related to the Hebrew word Tzadik meaning righteous as an adjective (or righteous individual as a noun in the form of a substantive).

It's nice to side with Ramban, however he places his view as secondary to Rashi's. Ramban also is careful to define Tzedakah as benevolence, which you fail to consider even after it was pointed out several times.

Hence, you had difficulties.

Anyway, the story of Jacob has a different author than Abraham. This, presumably, would have been mind blowing to Yoshke.

You continue to ignore that Ramban's central issue and mine was who was imputing righteousness or (if you wish, benevolence) to Whom. I actually agree 'benevolence' is the better term, i.e, Abram was imputing benevolence to God rather than the reverse.

If you wish to discuss this further, please do so on the Gen 15:6 thread as it is not relevant here.

semiopen · 02-10-2013, 05:12 PM

I learned quite a bit from the Gen 15:6 thread but doubt that there is much more opportunity there.

I referred to an article in the Gen 15:6 thread which dated Gen 15 to after the Babylonian exile.

Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis
Author: Joseph Blenkinsopp
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 128, No. 2 (Summer, 2009), pp. 225-241

Quote:

..A critical consensus now exists that the P History was composed after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 and subsequent deportations.

The article below discusses when the Genesis Esau account was written:

"YOU SHALL NOT ABHOR AN EDOMITE, FOR HE IS YOUR BROTHER": THE TRADITION OF ESAU AND THE EDOMITE GENEALOGIES FROM AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Dr. Tebes correctly points out that Esau actually got pretty decent treatment in Genesis.

Quote:

2.2 An analysis of the biblical references to these nations shows that Edom was viewed from varied and multifaceted perspectives, while the representations of Ammon and Moab were similar and always
hostile. Contrary to the short account of the origins of Ammon and
Moab (Gen 19:30-38), the Hebrew Bible concedes a lot of attention to
the story of Esau. Though historically the three peoples rivaled
politically and militarily with the Israelites, there is a tendency in the
Hebrew Bible (which probably reflects the authentic folklore of the
people of southern Judah) to perceive the Edomites from a more
favorable perspective. As we will see, this more favorable attitude
towards Edom is exceptionally particular, inasmuch as the story of
Esau, the alleged eponym of Edom, is intimately linked to that of his
brother Jacob, ancestor of the Israelites.

Below he explains why Esau is post exilic depending on whether Amos 1:11 is a later addition.

Quote:

2.5 Possibly the earliest datable reference to the Esau tradition comes from the book of the prophet Amos:

Quote:

Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because he pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity; he maintained his anger perpetually, and kept his wrath forever (Amos 1:11).

In view of the fact that Amos is traditionally dated to the eighth century B.C., and assuming the authenticity of this verse, this passage may reflect the continuous struggles that took place between the kingdoms of Judah and Edom ever since the latter's independence under the Judaean king Joram (ca. 848-841 B.C.) The genuineness of this oracle, however, has been rejected by several scholars who prefer to date it to a later period, maybe in reference to Edom's attitude in the face of the catastrophic events of 587/586 B.C. If Amos' allusion is a subsequent addition, then we cannot date the tradition of Esau prior to the early sixth century B.C.

Dr Tebes further points out the various references to Edom in Numbers and Deuteronomy

Quote:

2.12 The other Pentateuchal passages concerned with the
brotherhood of Edom are those that describe the dealings of the
Israelites with Edom during the Exodus. In Num 20:14-21, Moses
requests an unnamed Edomite king for permission to pass through his
country, beginning his speech with the statement "Thus says your
brother Israel" (Num 20:14). Similarly, Deut 2 has Yahweh saying to
Israel that "You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers
the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir" (v. 4), so as not to engage in
war with them; therefore, "we [the Israelites] passed beyond our
brethren, the descendants of Esau who dwell in Sei" (v. 8). In addition,
a short reference occurs in the descriptions of the Deuteronomic law:
"You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother" (Deut 23:8).
This statement contrasts strongly with what was previously said about
the Ammonites and Moabites, who were prohibited to enter in the
assemblage of Yahweh (Deut 23:3-6).

Depending on the Amos passage being an insertion, this suggests that these portions of Numbers and Deuteronomy are also post exilic.

Cheerful Charlie · 02-15-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montgomery Scott

To be brief and not go so deeply in the Bible story.

Esau coming back from hunting or whatnot all day and he returns hungry as a bear and his little brother went "I'll give you a bowl of my stew for your birthright" with dumbass Esau saying, "Ok, what do I care? Take it."
.......

So, in this story, God made the second son the birthright holder, but to do that required him and his mother to lie, and cheat the older brother. The Christians will say that Esau sold the birthright. Well, Jacob had no right to sell the birthright in the first place, except that God wrote this story of "Days of our Lives" and this is what happened. The story of Jacob wearing hairy arms is just a lie and deciet, can't say that, "oh well, this was before the 10 Commandments" about lying, since God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Lying, cheating and disseat is all I see how of this story. I never understood how this story can be taught as a "Bible story".

If I were to debate any Christian (or Jew really) I would bring up this tale. Discuss.

The point of this tall tale is, a promise is a promise even in face of cheating. Once a covenant is made it cannot be broken. This concept is taken up in the prophets. God has made his covenant with the Jews and Israelites and cannot abandon it, even in face of bad behavior from these peoples. God may punish them but not destroy them. They cannot as an entire people be utterly abandoned by God. God may punish them but in the end will relent because of his promise they shall be his chosen people.

As Jacob succeeds in his cheating because of this principle, the Jews will never be destroyed despite their backsliding. Once chosen, always chosen.

Its a major OT theme.

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie · 02-15-2013, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montgomery Scott

but in the end, Esau went to hell and Jake to heaven because God "Loved Esau from the womb, but Esau I hated. (Romans 9:13) This is a true example of the Bible that God doesn't love everyone, and He destined Esau for hell when he was concieved.

So Calvinists say. But that is not what Paul wrote. The clue is that, just as the foreknowledge of God was that he would come to earth to atone for sins for all, that foreknowledge also encompassed the knowledge of who would accept atonement; the elect. So, I hear you mutter, why did God need to create a world where sin would take place, if he already knew who were the elect, and, by elimination, who were the reprobate? Because even God cannot condemn or reward without evidence. He treats 'gods' with more respect. So, when there are complaints about sending some to heaven, God's angel will look out the video, and press 'Play'. No argument.

That does not mean that anyone else, including angels, knows who are the reprobate, and who the elect.

Only Calvinists.

No, Lutherans also. See Luther's "Bondage of the Will" There is no free will. All is predetermined by God. But if so, then if a man does evil, is that not God's fault? Yes. But doesn't that make God evil? Here Luther complains he wishes he had not been born a man to have to contemplate this issue. His solution, to describe God as inscrutable. Beyond reason.

Augustine also wrestled with these issues. If all is determined by God, prayer obviously is useless. Why does God allow some to become good Christians, and then fall away from the faith? Again, God is inscrutable and Augustine also wrestled with these issues. The Inscrutability of God is a major theme in Christianity and has been since Paul admitted God is inscrutable in Romans 11. Predestination leads directly to this.

Cheerful Charlie

Sheshbazzar · 02-16-2013, 01:15 AM

God makes defective people be defective because it fits his plan. But it is the peoples fault that they are defective.

I think some people have a defective and quite insane God.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-16-2013, 01:15 AM	#40
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	God makes defective people be defective because it fits his plan. But it is the peoples fault that they are defective. I think some people have a defective and quite insane God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.