Why are you making that point? Jews don't believe that one religion possesses the truth. Jews believe that G-d gave specific laws to Jews, and might or might not have different plans for other peoples. Zoroastrians believed that the Jewish religion and their own was the same. Islam believes that any religion that acknowledges one god and a beginning and end of time is "true" and true enough to allow its adherents to go to heaven.

Christians believe that their religion is the only true religion, but we are already talking to them and telling them that we don't believe that.

So what exactly is your role in this? Do you think you make that same point better than Sodaiho and myself, despite the fact that the Christians, as you said yourself, ignore you?

Let each of them make their own decisions. If there are specific roles (and I believe there are), both will gravitate towards their respective roles, simply because they will find that they are better at it than others.

Feminists are trying to tell us that that constitutes sexism. Feminists are wrong. Sexism is treating people differently because of their gender. Sexism is not treating people differently because of the role they chose for themselves based on what they felt was right.

There is a lot of confusion and propaganda out there mixing up women's rights with women's decisions. I don't think you are against women's rights at all. You are against changing established role models and our perception of those role models.




There are more male rabbis than female rabbis. I think that men gravitate towards the role more than women. However, some women want to be rabbis, and if G-d had something else in mind for them, how could they feel a calling?

Also note, and I am sure KFC knows this, a rabbi is not a priest. It's more of a legal than a religious position, really.

Yes. I know. You just tried to make them mean something they don't mean, by taking out the part about the husband being the head as Christ was.

That is not the reaaon of my being here. That was the point of the two stories behind Gilgamesh and Noah and the fact that different events and the truth are quite often perceived differently by different people. That only THE I AM, holds the true meaning of anything, and since only THE I AM does, that is where one must go to find the truth, not to a book or any man. I've already told you why I'm here to deliver the message that it is possible for ALL MEN TO ACCESS THE I AM, no matter who they are, or what they have done.

Your remark that I'm here to show you up is quite pompous, and you are giving yourself more airs than you are entitled to. What makes you think that you are important enough to be "shown up" besides yourself? It's not about you. Not everything in the universe is about you. Whether the "christians" or anyone else ignores me or not is also not the point either. Nor am I of the slightest importance. The message that I bring is the only thing that carries the weight of importance. It doesn't matter who ignores me, or doesn't. I don't do this in expectation of anything at all. It is simply the act of bringing this meassage that has importance to me. Do you not understand that there is not always a self reward for everything we do? No, you probably don't. I'm guessing that you don't do anything that doesn't some how benefit and/or reinforce your own sense of self importance. It's that very same sense of self importance that you feel is threatened by me and my words. Why? Why do you feel threatened? Do you know?

KFC, let me return to Abraham for a moment.



I consider the Biblical account of Abraham as extremely important and, in fact, as the most important part of the Bible that is not specifically by law defined as such.

Abraham's life story is the first story in the Bible that I understand as a literal description of events, if shrouded in mystery a bit. There really was a man called "Abraham" who had a wife Sarah and both were Aramaeans. And that man really did have a servant concubine named Hagar who was Egyptian. And he had two sons Ishmael and Isaac and they are the ancestors of arabised Arabs (i.e. Ishmaelis who migrated from Canaan to Arabia) and Jews.

The names of these people are what we cannot confirm, but the description of the ancestry can be confirmed genetically and via legends of other Semitic peoples.

(Incidentally, there is a clan in Somaliland called "Isaaq" with links to the Banu Hashim who are a clan of the Meccan Quraish tribe and Muhammed's family. The Isaaq clan in Somaliland acknowledges its descent from Ishmael and is friendly towards Jews and Israel.)

And at this point I guess we need some etymology and location names:

We differentiate between Canaan, Aram, and Arabia.

"Aram" (Aleph Resh Mem) derives from "ram" ("high", Resh Mem) and means "high land".

"Canaan" (Kaf Nun Ayin Nun) derives from "can" ("low", Kaf Nun) and means "low land".

"Arab" (Ayin Resh Bet) derives from "Erev" ("evening", same spelling) and means "west" or "southwest" (where the sun goes down). (Today in Arabic "maghreb" means "the west". The /gh/ sound is the fricative of an Ayin as would typically follow a vowel.)

"Mitzraim" (Mem Tsadi Resh Yud Mem) derives from "two [whatever a mitzr is]" (it is a dual-only word with no regular plural), i.e. "the two Egyptian kingdoms", upper and lower Egypt. (Today's Arabic word for Egypt is "misr", spelt the same as "mitzr".) Egypt ruled Canaan at the time.

All words are (ancient) Aramaic.

Canaan was (is) the low lands, i.e. Israel and Lebanon. Aram was the high lands, i.e. Iraq (with mountains and away from the sea). Arabia is the land southwest of Aram (where the sun goes down as seen from Aram). The name Canaan has nothing to do with the Biblical Canaan except that he was named after the location. He is not the ancestor of everyone living in Canaan at any time.

The languages spoken in Canaan (Hebrew and Phoenician) and the languages spoken in Aram (Aramaic) were probably still the same language 4000 years ago, when Abraham lived; definitely very similar. The languages spoken in Arabia (Arabic dialects) were related but already different.

Abraham came from Aram and settled in Canaan. Of Abraham's descendants those that stayed in Canaan then came to speak Hebrew (one of the two Canaite languages) whereas those that moved to Arabia continued to speak the Aramaic of Abraham and later Aramaic as it changed and at some point Arabic, but probably never exclusively. Aramaic was at the time and until 1000 CE _the_ language spoken among traders in the big cities, including Mecca and Medina.

Ishmael's descendants spoke Aramaic and Arabic when they adopted the language of those whom they joined in Arabia. Isaac's descendants spoke Hebrew and later adopted Aramaic when Aramaic became the dominant language. At Jesus' time Jews spoke mainly Aramaic (and Greek).

The Phoenician language died out over 2000 years ago but was always very close to Hebrew (the only differences I ever saw were some /y/ sounds that became vowels (or zero) and many /t/ sounds at the end of female words that became /a/ sounds in Hebrew (and Arabic!) but still appear as /ath/ when another noun follows.

For example the term "new city" is "qiryat hadasha" in Hebrew and "qart hadasht" in Phoenician. Spelling is the same except for a Tav at the end of "hadasht" instead of a He at the end of "hadasha(h)". (But if another noun would follow the "hadashah", the "h" would become a "t", like in Phoenician. "Qart hadasht" is whence we derive the word "Carthage" for the city in North-Africa.)

Now let's revisit your statement.



Long story, short end: G-d made Sarah's and not Hagar's son stay in Canaan (and finally Egypt). But He did have plans for both and wanted one to stay in Canaan and one to go to Arabia. (What about Aram? I don't know. Perhaps Aram was too polytheistic and unconvincible at the time. Jesus would later get Aram for monotheism.)

The Jews were, according to this story, G-d's chosen people; but only starting with the liberation from Egyptian rule, a process Ishmael's people never had to go through since they were rulers in Arabia, not ruled.

Why the sons of an Egyptian woman were supposed to go Arabia and the sons of an Aramaic woman were supposed to go to Canaan/Egypt is anybody's guess.

However, Sarah was the first Israelite (in a sense) and the line goes through the mother ever since. (The same is not true for Egyptians and Ishmael and his descendants are not Egyptians.)

If man is to be the head as Paul of Tarsus states, tell me then why did Jesus himself first appear to his women disciples, and not the men?

Some religious scholars feel that Paul of Tarsus usurped Peter's authority as leader of the apostles, and the spreading of the gospel. That Peter himself tried to correct this in some of his letters (don't ask me which ones, because I don't remember). I personally agree with this. There is archeological evidence that it was women, not men, that conducted the religious rites in the home, and spread the gospel in addition to men, prior to the appearance of Paul of Tarsus. The practice seems to have disappeared shortly after Paul's rise to power.

Jesus himself stated that "satan" would follow soon after him. Satan is nothing more than "self importance". Paul of Tarsus did arrive on the scene shortly afterwards, and he was filled with self importance. It shouldn't have mattered to him whether he was accepted as one of the apostles or not, if he had truly seen Christ and received his message in his heart. He wouldn't have fought for this recognition if he had. It just plain pure and simple wouldn't have mattered to him. When he was to be tried in Israel for heresy, he sought refuge under Roman law, and claimed his rights as a citizen of Rome so that be could be tried there instead. Indicating that his life was indeed very important to him. Jesus said that he who would save his own life would forfeit it. He didn't behave at all as Jesus did and would have behaved. Jesus did not seek to save his own life. I am of the mind that Paul of Tarsus found a better and easier way of persecuting Jesus's apostles and stopping the spread of the gospels, he simply subverted Jesus's message under the guise of being converted, and set himself up as leader and a knower of the truth.

I also posted the Abraham comment on my blog:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/319137/Abraham

Maybe Abraham-related comments should go there.

Irrelevant, given that our disagreement was not about the "truth" but about simple reading.

You claimed a given word was there and I corrected you.

It has NOTHING to do with "perceiving differently" or "truth" (as in "revealed truth").

If you misquoted an Enid Blyton book (perhaps you have a faulty translation) I might correct you too (if I had the original English text here), and it would have nothing to do with how we "perceive the truth" or anything like that.

The "point" of the two stories, Noah and Gilgamesh, here was simply your inability to grasp that certain mistakes are simply mistakes and not a different view of the truth in an epic battle between fundamentalists and those more open to other interpretations. You brought up Noah and Gilgamesh to pretend that your mistake is an issue of interpretation. It isn't. You were simply wrong.

Will the world never run out of prophets?

I am not a prophet. If I were I'd have said so. I am simply a messenger and have not claimed to be anything other than that. Your argument with me was not about the correct reading of anything nor about a misquote. I quoted the bible I have exactly. It was about whether or not the commandment said "kill" or "murder". I said specifically that I knew it was wrong to kill, no matter what the reason, and not because this particular bible says so, but because I knew it from MY OWN KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE. Why do you have such a hard time comprehending this? What don't you understand about someone having their own knowledge and experiences?


I said what the point was that I was making about Noah and Gilgamesh. Who are you to tell me what point I was trying to make? You don't exist within me, and have no idea of what I do or do not think about anything unless I tell you. It is presumptuous of you to think that you do.

Would you feel better Leauki if I scanned the bible that I have and sent it to you so that you could see it for yourself?

Lula, this can't be true because it's been 2,000 years, not 1,000 since he's been gone. Think about it and go back and read Rev 20. Just read it, without CC interpretation.



Jay's absolutely right saying it in a nutshell but you know me, I get into the technical and will do so with the scripture you gave me Sodaiho.



ha! I guess it would be correct they didn't listen to the NT command to "do all things without complaining."

What for? I already told you that I am aware of the translation you have and that newer translations are more correct. (You called them "newer Bibles".)

What would be the point of sending me a copy of a translation I already know?

The word "kill" goes back to the Luther Bible were the German word "toeten" is used (it goes back further to earlier Catholic translations into Latin, in German "toeten" means "to kill", "morden" means "to murder"). I have a copy of Luther's German translation. Protestant English translations are probably based on Luther's and carried on his original error. But newer translations generally corrected it.

...and...



Are you fully convinced that an argument about whether or not a given text says X or Y is not an argument about the correct reading of that text?

Agreed. Yet roles are not individual, they are social constructs.  Religion has had a historic role in creating or certainly influencing (and perhaps legislating) these constructs. Its like women were free to decide who they would become, but only amongst a set of prescribed roles based on what the Church said was appropriate. I see this as sexist, pure and simple.

 

But see, I don't see Christ as the head of anything, nor do I see the husband as the head.  I see marriage as a partnership where roles are decided internally, not externally.

Be well.

Do you not understand the difference of the use of the term "newer" as being indicative of the fact that one was printed after another? Or about the fact that I specifically stated that knowledge never ever comes from a book, not even the bible? You wish to split hairs because somehow you seem to think that it will change something. It doesn't. I didn't get my knowledge of whether or not killing is right from the bible, newer or older translations nor from any book or man, I got it from the all knowing source, which seems to be something else that you don't understand. I have not said that the source is available only to myself, but that the source that knows the truth and gave it to all mankind is available to all, and that "all" includes yourself. I also stated that one shouldn't take my word for it either, but to find out for oneself, because that is the only way that one can posess knowledge.

What would be the point of sending it to you? Because you keep on insisting that I've misquoted. I haven't. You may disagree with my saying that killing is wrong for whatever reason it is done for, and even tell me that the original texts say murder, but the original source THE I AM, says otherwise. Don't believe me however, ask THE I AM yourself.

Now I'm not familiar with this. You are saying Abraham came from Aram? Scripture clearly says he came from Ur of the Chaldees which later was called Mesopotamia which we know and recognize as modern day Iraq. What is Aram?



It doesn't matter what I or you believe. It matters what Christ taught and preached. So we have to go back and investigate him and his claims first. Did he do what he said he'd do? Did he prove that he was sent from God? If he did, how? Was there something diff about him that drew people to his person? Did he make an impact on the world? Could he have been God in the flesh to show mankind the way?



exactly...see Leauki we do agree on some things.

 

Nightshades, it has nothing to do with whether or not your copy of the bible says what you say it says.  It has to do with what the original Hebrew says.  The original Hebrew text from which all bibles are translated, uses the Hebrew word for "murder" not "kill". 

 

See ya.

I'm sure that what you say is correct Sodaiho. But my knowledge doesn't come from any text, not the hebrew or christian, it comes directly from the source of all truth. Murder and killing are the same things, they both mean the end of life, whether it be mans life or the life of an animal. The reason for the ending of life makes no difference. The Lord God will demand the blood of any who do either for whatever reason whether it be from selfish reasons such as sustenance or from man's own judgment of anothers crime. Reasons have nothing to do with it. Reasons are the posession of man, the justification and permission that he gives himself for committing the acts that he commits. He has mistaken the Lord Gods words thinking that because a man has committed murder he is given the right to judge and take the offenders life as punishment. It is not his right to judge or to do so. He usurps the right of God in this matter, and God will not tolerate it. Only God judges and metes out punishment or retribution.

Sodaiho, back to those passages you gave me. I can't even remotely go into each and every verse. You gave me not a verse to expound on but a section with each verse there for a specific purpose and I could easily take all day talking about just one passage forget about the three you put here. So I'm going to be as brief as I can and give you an overview and if you wish to concentrate on just one aspect of a certain passage let me know and I'll zero in on that.

1 Tim 2:8-12

The role of women in the church is a hot topic. Unfortunately the debate has left the scriptures for answers. Traditional doctrines are being swept away by feminism. Churches, Temples, schools and even seminaries are abandoning truths they've held since their beginnings. What we're seeing today is biblical doctine is being done away with in favor of the culture. The bibical passages concerning women's roles are being reinterpreted because they are deemed anti-female bias by biblical authors such as Paul which is not true.

The source of these attacks is Satan who is the archenemy of God. His goal is to overthrow God's plan and corrupt his design. It's not any wonder he went right to Eve in the garden is it? He is behind the effort to entice women away from their creator's roles for them in society the family and the church. It's not new and we can see evidence of it right here in this letter to Timothy. This was an issue in the church at Ephesus. The church was being plagued with false doctrine and leaders so it's not surprising to find them struggling over gender roles.

In this passage some women were leading impure lives (5:6, 11-15, 2 Tim 3:6) and their indecency carried over into the worship service. Under the pretense of gathering to worship God they were flaunting themselves and becoming serious distractins from worship. This was not honoring to God nor was it a mark of a Godly woman so Paul turns to the subject of woman in worship as we see here in this passage. He addresses their appearance, attitude, testimony, and their role.

If you notice by looking at v11-12 you'd see that Paul defines their roles as learners rather than teachers during public worship. Notice he says "let a woman...receive instruction". He's commanding this. While it may seem obvious that women should be taught scripture snce they are spiritually equal in Christ it was not at all obvious to those who came from a Jewish background especially in the first century. They did not hold women in high esteem and they were not at all encouraged to learn. In fact, most rabbis refused to teach women. So in fact, Paul here elevates the status of women when it comes to their instruction.

At the end here Paul brings up the fact that it was Eve not Adam who was deceived. How did this happen? It happened when Adam and Eve switched roles. Paul is using this event as further corroboration of God's intention in the first place. Eve was not suited by nature to assume the headship or the ultimate one to carry the responsibiity and leadership. Adam violated his leadership role and followed Eve and the Fall resulted from violating God's appointed roles for the sexes. They both disobeyed God. As the designated head of their relationship he bore ultimate responsibility and is the reason why the NT blames this sin on Adam not Eve. This awful experience in the garden with Satan confirms the wisdom of God's design in the first place.

"Canaan was (is) the low lands, i.e. Israel and Lebanon. Aram was the high lands, i.e. Iraq (with mountains and away from the sea)."

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

"Ur" was a politial entity and a city in the high lands (i.e. in Aram). Chaldaeans are Aramaeans. The word "Ur" (Aleph Vav Resh) is not Semitic (i.e. not Hebrew or Aramaic) but Sumerian, which is a completely unrelated language. Ur predates Semitic settlement of Mesopotamia.

What the Sumerians called I-don't-know-what in Sumerian the Semites called "Aram" (= high location) as opposed to "Canaan" (= low land) because it had mountains.

(A Semitic word "ir" (Ayin Resh) meaning "city" is a completely different word starting with a different consonant and has nothing to do with Sumerian "Ur".)

"Mesopotamia" is a Greek word meaning "between the rivers", I think; like "Mesoamerica" (between the Americas).

No 1,000 year reign with him on earth?

No this is a slightly different context. That verse you are referring to (Phil 2:14) speaks more from a servant-hood perspective.

The context of kvetching is closer to manipulation?

Mother asks son to do something.
Son doesn't want to.
Mother responds in a guilt trip like manner to get the son to do it.

Same goes for husband.

Classic example is the scene in fiddler where