Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas II · 01-02-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas II

Beautiful post! :thumbs:

And all this takes place inside a tent, The Holy of Holies, were they would keep the Ark of the Covenant...Is this significant?

Of course I am looking for natural causes, as supernatural causes would be considered *after* we have exhausted the natural ones.

Nadab and Abihu were:
1.Careless (possibly inebriated).
2.They were holding *metallic* incense burners...
3. Next to an object capable of powerful electrical charges, reactive to any kind of touch...
4. bump!...whu?...Zaaap!...

There is also the story of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6-7), were he touches the Ark so it would not fall, as the oxen pulling the cart carrying the Ark stumbled, and Zaaap!
Many other people died from being in contact with the Ark.
So what the heck was the Ark, or what the heck was *in* the Ark?
Was it a powerful generator, a capacitor, or something similar?

Glad to see you having an intelligent discussion of moral content.

Nice post Partick, it fails to mention the lack of children of the sons, perhaps they had girls though.

Moral content? What moral content? You already won that round.
Conclusion:no moral lessons in the OT.

I'm just trying to find what happened to these two and to Uzzah, and as far as I can see there is no supernatural being involved, but some sort of electrical devise capable of zaaaaping anyone who touched it or looked at it funny.

PS:Semiopen, maybe I did not explain myself.
What happened is that I thought there was some kind of moral content. Then you said that there were no moral lessons...What you perceived as me being upset(?) was actually that I realized that NOW i actually had to research it, and I was not really in the mood, but nevertheless I did,
and I found that I had to agree with you...
See, I don't have fixed ideas. If at any point during an argument I consider your point and I think it's better than mine, I just change my mind...:huh:

Patrick F · 01-02-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas II

Nadab and Abihu were:
1.Careless (possibly inebriated).
2.They were holding *metallic* incense burners...
3. Next to an object capable of powerful electrical charges, reactive to any kind of touch...
4. bump!...whu?...Zaaap!...

Yes, very much like the story of Yahweh killing the thousands of people ostensibly because the king counted his troops. I would wager that there was a terrible plague and the people struggled to understand why this would happen to them. In their primitive way, they assumed the gods were angry and looked for a reason. They found out that the king had recently had his troops counted and, like many Christians today, they tried to make a link: counting troops is not relying on God for victory; counting troops brings you closer to war; etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas II

There is also the story of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6-7), were he touches the Ark so it would not fall, as the oxen pulling the cart carrying the Ark stumbled, and Zaaap!
Many other people died from being in contact with the Ark.
So what the heck was the Ark, or what the heck was *in* the Ark?
Was it a powerful generator, a capacitor, or something similar?

I forgot about that story. Beauty. And it couples nicely with the one (from 1 Samuel near the beginning) where the men get excited to see the return of the Ark that some of them look inside, and Yahweh kills 50,000 of them for it (although the exact figure is in dispute as I recall)

Patrick F · 01-02-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Nice post Partick, it fails to mention the lack of children of the sons, perhaps they had girls though.

Sorry, semiopen, I'm not sure what point you're making. Is it important that they had no children?

Thomas II · 01-02-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Sorry, semiopen, I'm not sure what point you're making. Is it important that they had no children?

Careful, it looks like I wrote that, when in fact it was Semiopen

Thomas II · 01-03-2009, 05:14 AM

Thanks for correcting it.

Patrick F · 01-03-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas II

Thanks for correcting it.

Am I missing something, Thomas?

Thomas II · 01-03-2009, 06:41 PM

Yesterday there was a quote attributed to me when in fact it was written by "semiopen", but apparently someone corrected it.

semiopen · 01-04-2009, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick F

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Nice post Partick, it fails to mention the lack of children of the sons, perhaps they had girls though.

Sorry, semiopen, I'm not sure what point you're making. Is it important that they had no children?

Anything related to the the brothers is important to do a proper analysis.

The fact that the commentator leaves this out suggests a bias, especially since this person seems quite knowledgeable.

This link discusses a Kabbalistic interpretation of this incident...

http://www.kabbalaonline.org/WeeklyT...f_the_Soul.asp

Here is some of the text...

Quote:

" Aaron's sons...died two deaths...."

Rabbi Yitzchak said: It is written: After the death [of two of Aaron's sons]... and they died. (Lev. 16:1) Since the verse states, "...after the death of two of Aaron's sons," don't I know that "they died"? [In other words, why does the verse repeat that they died?] However, this is what we learned: They died two deaths - one "before G-d", [this is the death of the soul], and the other, that they had no children [this is the death of the body], for one who has no children is regarded as dead. (Nedarim 64b)

Rabbi Abba [disagreeing with the above opinions] said: What, then, is the meaning of this verse: "Nadab and Abihu died before G-d when they offered an alien [i.e. unauthorized] fire to G-d in the Sinai desert. They had no children, so Elazar and Itamar served as priests during their father Aaron's lifetime"?(Num. 3:4) What does one thing - that they had no children - have to do with the other, namely Elazar and Itamar serving as priests?

However, the secret is this: They died [the death of the body] because they did not have children, this is certain. But unlike other people [where a childless person is regarded as dead], even though they were unmarried [otherwise they could have been rectified through the process of levirate marriage, called "yibum" (See Zohar, parashat Mishpatim)], they nevertheless only experienced physical death, but not the death of their souls [which became impregnated in Pinchas, as we will see shortly].

From where do we know this? It is written: "Elazar, Aaron's son, married one of the daughters of Putiel, and she bore him Pinchas. These are the heads of the Levite clans according to their families". (Ex. 6:25) "These are"? The verse speaks only about Pinchas, and nevertheless it states, "These are the heads of the Levite clans!" This is because they [Nadab and Abihu] only underwent the death of the body but not of their souls.

These souls were impregnated into the soul of Pinchas in the secret of ibbur, an aspect of transmigration of souls. And this is why the verse "they had no children" is followed by "so Elazar served as priest...." (Ramak, Mikdash Melech )

" They had not yet taken wives and therefore they are regarded as incomplete..."

Rabbi Elazar added: The verse certainly implies this, since it states "these are" and "the heads" [both are in the plural]. And [another explanation is] this is why it is written "Pinchas the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron the Priest..."; (Num. 25:11) it would have been sufficient to say, "Pinchas the son of Elazar, the Priest." However, wherever Pinchas is mentioned [in the Five Books of Moses] he is always referred to as [the son of Elazar,] the son of Aaron the Priest. [1]

In other words, the Torah always explicitly identifies Pinchas as "the son of Aaron the priest", because he can be regarded as a son by virtue of the souls of Aaron's sons impregnated into his.

The reason for this is again because they only underwent the death of the body but not of their souls...

Rabbi Elazar asked his father [ Rebbe Shimon]: But they were two [Nadab and Abihu] so why were there not two [separate ibburs, one in Pinchas and one in someone else?] Rabbi Shimon replied: they were two parts of a single whole, for they had not yet taken wives and therefore they are regarded as incomplete. For this reason they are incorporated into only one person - Pinchas. This then is the secret of the verse: "she bore him Pinchas [in the singular]. These are the heads of the Levite clans [in the plural]."

They did not sin as such, and therefore their souls survived. They were, however, incomplete in terms of their bodies, since they had not married. Rabbi Yose goes even one step further: if there is any criticism of Nadab and Abihu at all, it has been completely atoned for.

" The death of Aaron's sons atones for Israel...."

Rabbi Yose taught: [The Sages] established the practice of reading this portion on Yom Kippur as atonement for the Jewish People in exile [since we do not have the Holy Temple and cannot bring sacrificial offerings as an atonement, as the Zohar explains in Vol. III:56b]. The reason for establishing this practice on Yom Kippur is because the death of Aaron's sons atones for Israel. From this we learn that any person who's Master sends him suffering - this suffering atones for his sins. In addition, anyone who is distressed by the suffering of the righteous has his sins removed from the world. Accordingly, we read about the deaths of Aaron's sons so that the people will hear and be distressed at the passing of the righteous, and this will atone for their sins. In fact, in regard to anyone who is distressed by the passing of a righteous person, or who sheds tears over them, the Holy Blessed One declares, "Your sin has been removed; your transgression has been atoned for". (Isaiah 6:7)

In other words, not only was their "sin" atoned for by their death, but their death takes the place of the sacrifice of atonement of Yom Kippur, and purges our sins as well.

This analysis is on a much higher level than the other commentator in my opinion, and the fact the guy didn't even mention this destroys any assumption of credibility.

I mentioned the intoxication issue previously, and pointed out that it is not strong. Hosever the Christian (wild guess) commentary says...

Quote:

A strong case can be made for the charge of drunkenness

Why is this dubious? How about this...

Quote:

“Then He said to Moses, ‘Come up to the Lord, with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, and bow low from afar” (Ex. 24:1), “Then Moses, and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel ascended” (Ex. 24:9).

These guys aren't Joe sixpacks, are they going to get drunk before making an offering to God for no good reason? Who knows, but not too likely. The commentator didn't see any need to mention this either.

As I suggested previously, the whole incident probably did not happen. The Jeroboam tale in Kings with the Golden Calves, two sons with the same names, etc is just too powerful.

Thomas II · 01-04-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

As I suggested previously, the whole incident probably did not happen. The Jeroboam tale in Kings with the Golden Calves, two sons with the same names, etc is just too powerful.

:constern01: Are you saying that it was figurative speaking?
Are you saying that they did not actually die?
And Uzzah?

semiopen · 01-04-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas II

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

As I suggested previously, the whole incident probably did not happen. The Jeroboam tale in Kings with the Golden Calves, two sons with the same names, etc is just too powerful.

:constern01: Are you saying that it was figurative speaking?
Are you saying that they did not actually die?
And Uzzah?

Just saying that the story itself is fictional... of course one could say that about much of the bible. This particular story though seems to have been added relatively recently. I'm not an expert in this area, but I suspect that the Golden Calf and Nadab/Abihu was added after the book of Kings was written, and/or both were heavily modified.

An important clue is in the Jeroboam story Kings 13:1-2

Quote:

[1] And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the Lord unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.

[2] And he cried against the altar in the word of the Lord, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

Jeroboam was king of Israel from 931-911 BCE. Josiah was king of Judah from 639-609 BCE. The anonymous prophet was either pretty sharp or more likely the stories (both Jeroboam and sons in Kings and Aaron and sons in Exodus etc) received serious editorial work during Josiah's reign.

A lot of the bible ws written around and after Josiah's time. The book of Deuteronomy was "found" in the temple during the his reign. This is at least 700 years after the Exodus.

This is more or less pretty unanimously accepted by Biblical Studies scholars. Fundamentalist Jews and Christians still interpret things literally but personally, I don't see how a sane person can believe that unless you're brought up that way.

The Zohar interpretation is very deep and interesting and I prefer it to the other writeup, however (as I've been trying mostly unsuccessfully to express) I tend to judge these things by the artistry, skill and knowledge of the interpreter as opposed to a moral lesson.

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

01-03-2009, 05:14 AM	#35
Thomas II Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 8,254	Thanks for correcting it.

01-03-2009, 06:41 PM	#37
Thomas II Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 8,254	Yesterday there was a quote attributed to me when in fact it was written by "semiopen", but apparently someone corrected it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.