Loomis

Excuse my off topic question, but where do the Jews go in threads like this?

Do they just hide and sit on the sidelines?

Where’s JoeWallack?

Watching VHS recordings of Columbo and planning strategies for his next counter-attack against “Liars for Jesus?”

(You’ll show those bastards some day Joe )

Loomis

And what about Roger Pearse?Look Roger! I said “Mithras.”

Mithras! Mithras! Mithras! Mithras! Mithras! Mithras!

Come and get me!

All the best,

Loomis

Denis Giron

Greetings. I was invited by a usenet post to contribute to this thread, so I just wanted to make some minor comments on a single post by Diogenes.

The relevant word is yiflchoon, from the Aramaic verb falach. Franz Rosenthal's grammar of Biblical Aramaic, as well as one of the Aramaic dictionaries of Michael Sokoloff, Reuven AlQalay's Hebrew dictionary (which contains words on Aramaic), and Marcus Jastrow's dictionary, give "worship" as a possible meaning (for an analogy, note that the Talmudic phrase falach `avodah zarah, though literally translated "he served foreign service/work," actually means "he worshipped idolatry").

It is worth noting that I saw this very subject come up in the comments in an entry on the "Failed Messiah" blog. For those who don't know, this blog is primarily the home of a polemical stance against a recent strain of Jewish messianism. A cross-section of the Lubavitcher Chasidic community (quite possibly a majority) believes that their deceased Rebbe (i.e. head Rabbi) is the Messiah, and a smaller subset of that cohort believes he is God. The "Failed Messiah" blog critiques these overlapping beliefs.

In the particular entry I was reading, there was debate, amongst those commenting, on the subject of "Elokism" - the belief that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was not merely the Messiah, but God as well. The proponents of this view take it for granted that he was the Messiah, and simply attempt to demonstrate that the belief that the Messiah is God is a part of Jewish belief (which, by the way, has obvious implications for Jewish polemics against Christianity). One comment attempting to offer argument in favor of this position which I found quite interesting was the following:

go read daniel 7:13 and 14. on the bar enosh rashi simply said hu melekh hamoshiach. so this is referring to melekh hamoshiach and even there it says moshiach will be worshipped (leh yiflchoon). he will be served the way g-d is served in a service.

In short, this person who considers themself a practitioner of Orthodox Judaism is claiming that Daniel 7:13-14 is a Biblical prooftext in favor of the position that the Messiah is also God. Interestingly, I don't believe I had previously seen a Christian employ this verse as a prooftext for Jesus' divinity.

The text of this Biblical passage (which is in Aramaic) refers to one who is like a bar enash ("son of man"). While in Christian theology the son of man is Jesus, I was not familiar with Jewish interpretations of who this person was. The commentator makes reference to Rashi, a medieval Jewish exegete who is considered one of the most authoritative sources of proper doctrine and hermeneutics in Judaism. Well, I checked Rashi's commentary on Daniel 7:13, and sure enough, regarding the "son of man" he wrote simply three words: hu melekh ha-mashiach ("he is the King Messiah"). So while Christians and Jews may not be able to agree on precisely who the Messiah is, they can agree that Daniel 7:13 is referring to this figure (in fact, it seems it is pretty much an article of faith for both religions).

But the meat of this discussion revolves around verse 14. The Aramaic text speaks of kol `ammayaa umayaa w'lishanayaa ("all peoples, nations and linguistic groups"), and then it has two potentially controversial words: leh yiflchoon ("him they will worship/serve"). But many translations, both Jewish (e.g. JPS) and Christian (e.g. KJV), translate the verb not as "worship," but rather as "serve" (as alluded to by Diogenes). Anticipating such an objection, the commentator interpreted this as meaning that the Messiah "will be served the way g-d is served in a service" (i.e. "served" in the sense of worship). So let's examine the instances where this Aramaic verb appears in the Biblical Aramaic texts of the Hebrew Bible.

Daniel 3:12, 3:14, 3:17, 3:18, and 3:28 all have the verb referring to the service/worship of a deity. Daniel 6:16 and 6:20 also have the verb referring to the service/worship of a deity. There are only four Aramic passages left which employ derivatives of the root:

Daniel 7:14 - The one who is like a Bar Enash, who comes with the clouds of heaven, and has an everlasting kingdom/sultanate/reign, is served by men from all nations, ethnicities and language groups.

Daniel 7:27 - A masculine singular subject (I think it is the Most High, while others have plausibly argued that it is the people of Israel) is seemingly conflated with the Bar Enash figure in verse 14 in that the same description is given to him: his kingdom/reign/authority/sultanate is everlasting, the people will serve/worship "him" (leh yiflchoon, the exact same phrase in Dan 7:14).

Ezra 7:24 - The root is rendered in a plural noun form, as falchei beyt Elahaa, "servants/worshippers" of the House of God. Whom should we believe those "servants" serve in the house of God? It seems to be another clear example of people serving a deity.

Ezra 7:19 - The verb is rendered in a derivative noun form: falchan, which refers to a form of worship, a religious service, or even a cult (cf. various dictionaries). Whom should we think people taking part in such a "service" in the Beyt Elahaa are serving? Again, an apparent example of "serving" a deity.

So, of the eleven verses examined, nine seem to obviously refer to the serving of a deity, one has the serving of a figure like a bar enash, and one is disputable as either serving God or the nation of Israel. So how is the verb used in Biblical Aramaic? It is not wholly unreasonable to answer in the sense of serving one the way a deity is served in a service (falchan). That's worship.

I would note what the JPS/Oxford Jewish Study Bible states, regarding the bar enash figure in Daniel 7:13-14:

"the celestial being is like a human being, i.e., has a human countenace"
(SOURCE: Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (eds.), The Jewish Study Bible, (Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 1656-1657)

In other words, the text is in no way explicit that this being who is "like a son of man" is in fact a mere mortal. Verse 27 becomes particularly relevant here, as the text seems to conflate the bar enash figure with the masculine singular subject of service/worship there. So one might argue that the bar enash is conflated with (or represents) Israel, or one could argue the bar enash is conflated with the Most High.

In short, it is not entirely unreasonable to think that the text is stating that the bar enash will be worshipped. It is not only possible, but plausible as well. (And in case anyone is wondering, I am neither Jewish nor Christian - I'm just offering some food for thought on the verse).

Loomis

That’s a permutation of El (aka “the Most High” aka “Ancient of Days”) hanging out in his divine council. Psalm 89:7 says, "El is dreaded in the council of the holy ones."

The author was probably unaware of El’s polytheistic background. He didn’t care. He was making shit up, and he was just borrowing older imagery.

Loomis

The key players are the Ancient of Days and the Rider of the Clouds.

Yahweh and Baal were both Riders of the Clouds.

It says a transaction occurred. It says something was given.

It says authority, honor, and sovereignty, was given.

The text is ambiguous as to who the ‘giver’ was and who the ‘taker’ was, but I bet we all agree that the taker was the Rider of the Clouds.

It’s telling the story of how Yahweh/Baal took the baton from El. It’s a monotheistic version where Yahweh/Baal is human or angelic.

The fact (in the story) that El gave Yahweh/Baal authority, honor, and sovereignty, did not negate the fact (in the story) that El’s kingdom was an eternal kingdom. That’s why 7:27 says that the Most High’s kingdom is an eternal kingdom.

In this episode Yahweh/Baal was not the Most High.

Loomis

Yam did the same thing in the Baal Epic.

Eventually Yahweh/Baal kicked Yam’s ass. Yam was a punk - no one liked him except his father El. When Yahweh/Baal finally conquered Yam El (the Most High) was so impressed with him that he adopted him and gave him authority, honor, and sovereignty.

All the best,

Loomis

pharoah

Take a look at these verses from Mark 1:

There was absolutely no precedent in the Old Testament for someone baptizing people for the remission of sins. There is no prophecy in the OT that someone would come along and baptize people for any reason. There is no commandment or law in the OT that said that baptism was or would become an alternative or primary means for the remission of sins.

Do you see the problem here? Here is a guy that literally came out of the blue claiming that if you repented, and if he (or possibly one of his disciples) immersed you in water, you would be forgiven of your sins. And he made this claim with no scriptural backing whatsoever. How is this any less audacious a claim than Jesus's saying that someone's sins are forgiven?

dzim77

Here's the context of the Psalm you are quoting...

5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

The psalmist is saying the false Canaanite gods will be destroyed like mere men. So, if you're saying that the Bible at times refers to the Canaanite gods - including the god 'el', in reference to God's superiority, or to Israel's idolatry, then Yes I agree. If you're implying that the God of Israel is one and the same as the Canaanite god, 'el' (which you are implying), then i say No he is not.

Loomis

Your lower-case “e” will get you nowhere.

Christian Bible scholars assure us that El was a proper name for a Canaanite god. They assure us that he was also called the “Most High.”

Do you agree with this? (Y/N)

Or is it time for you to diverge with a creative exercise? :snooze:

Don’t be frightened. Christian Bible scholars use an upper-case “E” and so can you!

Loomis

Where?

You can’t fool us! You’re making the “false” stuff up.

You can’t support your claim without inventing text that isn’t there.

I can.

Doesn’t this support my claim that I am even more honest, decent, and clear thinking, than you are?

Then this would involve turning an imaginary god into a real human. Right?

All the best,

Loomis