U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Judaism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2018, 05:18 AM
 
Location: NJ
1,741 posts, read 571,163 times
Reputation: 713

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post

Thanks again for your help and for that link. If I can ask: Would you prefer I call you rosends, Rabbi or something else?
rosends is fine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post
1) In the Hebrew language, is the original word "Ben" plural or singular? Is it "sons of God" or is it a singular "son of God" that is then used in a plural sense?
Ben means "son" and "son of" but is also used to mean "child of" and "one of the family". It is used as a singular on its own, but in a phrase can refer to a much larger group (ben adam can be "human"). The plural, bnei (sonS of) when used in the phrase bnei adam can refer to humanity, people or even "a person" (Daniel 10:16) even though the word bnei is in the plural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post
2) Adam means man, but so does enosh, right? If so, where exactly is the connection between man and the word God that was used in its place in some (all?) translations?
I'd have to look up the difference between Adam and Enosh. In translation, both phrases identify their word as "man." The phrase "son of God" uses a different word -- in Job 1:6, to refer to the angels, the text reads "bnei ha'elo-him".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post

1) Do Jews believe in enlightenment that can take place in this world? Meaning, not knowing God in the world to come, but to some degree, knowing Him here and now, on an experiential level? Or will it always be intellectual, until one passes on?
We don't believe in "knowing" God in any real sense. While mystics try to fathom the eternal and infinite, they know they do so in a human (and therefore limited and finite way, not really dealing with what God truly is, because that true nature is beyond human understanding. We can experience and recognize God's effect in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post
2) Going back to the son of God reference, can you tell me what it was about the way Jesus used the term "Son of God", that made the Pharisees so angry? If every person is a son of God, why would they accuse Him of blasphemy? Does someone have the ability to use that term in a way that would imply that they were suggesting that they were God? I think this might take us right back to the Ben Adam/Enosh question.
You are asking about the way a Christian text tries to present Jews. I can't speak to that. I can say that there seems to have been a negative reaction to what he taught about Jewish law, if the gospel texts can be trusted at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2018, 12:27 PM
 
31 posts, read 5,137 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
rosends is fine
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
Ben means "son" and "son of" but is also used to mean "child of" and "one of the family". It is used as a singular on its own, but in a phrase can refer to a much larger group (ben adam can be "human"). The plural, bnei (sonS of) when used in the phrase bnei adam can refer to humanity, people or even "a person" (Daniel 10:16) even though the word bnei is in the plural.
Got it! Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
I'd have to look up the difference between Adam and Enosh. In translation, both phrases identify their word as "man." The phrase "son of God" uses a different word -- in Job 1:6, to refer to the angels, the text reads "bnei ha'elo-him".
In all honesty, I would absolutely love to hear back from you on this. You can bump this thread or PM me if you'd like, but I'm very interested to know the difference between the two words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
We don't believe in "knowing" God in any real sense. While mystics try to fathom the eternal and infinite, they know they do so in a human (and therefore limited and finite way, not really dealing with what God truly is, because that true nature is beyond human understanding. We can experience and recognize God's effect in the world.
The view is not necessarily that they know God in full (they admit that His fullness cannot be grasped), but rather that they sense His "energies" in a way that most people don't. I wasn't sure if Judasim held to such a belief or not.

Which, if you don't mind, brings to mind another question just now. Jews believe that we're created in God's image, right? If so, what exactly is that image? Is it within us? If so, can this image not be sensed in any way whatsoever (in the here and now) according to Judaism? Is it locked? Is it hidden? Will the political figure that is to be called the Messiah reveal this to you? When will you become aware of this image, if ever, by any means?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
You are asking about the way a Christian text tries to present Jews. I can't speak to that. I can say that there seems to have been a negative reaction to what he taught about Jewish law, if the gospel texts can be trusted at all.
Well, I honestly only used the part about their anger because it's an essential part of the bigger picture, but my question was more general, I think, and still remains on topic. Their anger was very specifically about His use of the term Son of God. Look here to John 19:7:
"The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
This, as you can see, is strange to someone like me who has been told that Jews 1) do not believe in a divine being called Son of God and 2) that son of God is a term used with regard to all humans.

That said, does such a law surrounding the term son of God exist? Knowing that the Pharisees were experts in the Law and that these experts claimed that Jesus had broken this law, I don't quite understand why, if everyone is considered a son of God and if this term can be applied to all, would they have such an issue with Jesus calling Himself the Son of God. Again, it wasn't against the law to say that, right? So the only way around this, as far as I can see (though I'm open to hearing objections), is to pass off this story as being untrue or to suggest that Jesus must have used that term in a way that they deemed absolutely offensive, blasphemous and worthy of death, which obviously would not have been the case had any other person used the term in the way that you suggest it's generally been used. Any thoughts on this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 01:18 PM
 
Location: NJ
1,741 posts, read 571,163 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post

In all honesty, I would absolutely love to hear back from you on this. You can bump this thread or PM me if you'd like, but I'm very interested to know the difference between the two words.
The internet version seems to be the difference between "human" and "man" (or between humanity on its own vs. man in relation to God).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post

Jews believe that we're created in God's image, right? If so, what exactly is that image? Is it within us? If so, can this image not be sensed in any way whatsoever (in the here and now) according to Judaism? Is it locked? Is it hidden? Will the political figure that is to be called the Messiah reveal this to you? When will you become aware of this image, if ever, by any means?
I am always reminded of Hamlet's understanding of the phrase: "in apprehension, how like a god."
But the commentators add to that:
Rashi writes, "IN OUR IMAGE — in our type.
AFTER OUR LIKENESS — with the power to comprehend and to discern. "

the Sforno writes, "IN OUR IMAGE -- a species designed to live forever seeing that it is predominantly intellectual. By doing this, G’d provided an opening by means of His Torah to acquire an understanding of the nature of purely spiritual, disembodied beings such as angels. Our soul has been given the key to understand something about the nature of such beings.
AFTER OUR LIKENESS -- acting intelligently like the angels, though from free choice, not like the angels who act under Divine compulsion. "

The Chizkuni writes, "“like the image of the angels.”This comparison of the human species to that of angels is going to stand man in good stead when exercising his authority (superiority) over all the other creatures on earth G-d had created. A different exegesis of the word: כדמותנו: seeing that it is impossible to compare human beings to the Creator, seeing that Isaiah 40,8 has already stated that this is impossible, (Isaiah 40,18) but on the other hand, it is also impossible to compare human beings to the creatures G-d had created before He created the human species, as in that case what advantage would this species have over the beasts created before him, there was no other way to describe our superiority except by comparing it to Divinity in some degree, i.e. as “a shadow of our essence,” בצלמנו כדמותנו; [just as a shadow is only a two dimensional likeness of the person or object it reflects, so the human beings are lacking in some dimension possessed only by their Creator. My words, Ed.] The common denominator between G-d and man on the one hand, and man and beast on the other, is that just as G-d is our ruler, so we rule over the other creatures in the universe."

The Ohr Hachayim says, "And [about] its stating, "in our image, in our likeness," it is possible that the intention is to say that there should be a side of mercy and a side of judgment in [man], to implement the ways of judgment and the ways of mercy in what they set up; and understand [it]. And that is the secret in its stating (Genesis 2:7), "And the Lord, God formed, etc." And its stating, "and let them have dominion" is in agreement with our explanation: given that the creation resembles the Creator with respect to the attributes of mercy and judgment, it follows logically that [man] should rule [over] the creations, since he has the attribute of mercy for that which it is fitting and for those that require it, and the [capability] to kill those that are guilty in judgment. And He made him govern everything; and even if it does not mention governance over the waters, it is hinted by its stating, "over the fish of the sea" - behold, it mentions the sea among those governed."

And there are many other comments and explanations around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post


That said, does such a law surrounding the term son of God exist? Knowing that the Pharisees were experts in the Law and that these experts claimed that Jesus had broken this law, I don't quite understand why, if everyone is considered a son of God and if this term can be applied to all, would they have such an issue with Jesus calling Himself the Son of God. Again, it wasn't against the law to say that, right? So the only way around this, as far as I can see (though I'm open to hearing objections), is to pass off this story as being untrue or to suggest that Jesus must have used that term in a way that they deemed absolutely offensive, blasphemous and worthy of death, which obviously would not have been the case had any other person used the term in the way that you suggest it's generally been used. Any thoughts on this?
You are asking, though, about how the gospels portray a (n illogical) response. Since it is the Christian representation of Jews and not an actual response by Jews it is hard to fathom what generates it. We don't use the phrase to apply to ourselves in conversation but not because it sounds like we are taking God's job, but because it simply isn't how we talk about ourselves. So Jesus' use of it AND the reported response both make no sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 01:37 PM
 
31 posts, read 5,137 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
The internet version seems to be the difference between "human" and "man" (or between humanity on its own vs. man in relation to God).
So Adam is "man" and Enosh refers to humanity? Or the other way around?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
I am always reminded of Hamlet's understanding of the phrase: "in apprehension, how like a god."
But the commentators add to that:
Rashi writes, "IN OUR IMAGE — in our type.
AFTER OUR LIKENESS — with the power to comprehend and to discern. "

the Sforno writes, "IN OUR IMAGE -- a species designed to live forever seeing that it is predominantly intellectual. By doing this, G’d provided an opening by means of His Torah to acquire an understanding of the nature of purely spiritual, disembodied beings such as angels. Our soul has been given the key to understand something about the nature of such beings.
AFTER OUR LIKENESS -- acting intelligently like the angels, though from free choice, not like the angels who act under Divine compulsion.
Ah, I see. So it's mainly an intellectual thing. For some reason, that's surprising to me. Thanks much for breaking it down in detail like that, though. Really appreciate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
So Jesus' use of it AND the reported response both make no sense.

Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to know: whether or not it made sense from a Jewish perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 01:54 PM
 
Location: NJ
1,741 posts, read 571,163 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post
So Adam is "man" and Enosh refers to humanity? Or the other way around?
It seems that adam is man in his role as Godly creation while enosh refers to humanity as a whole (or human being) in a less spiritual sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 01:57 PM
 
31 posts, read 5,137 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
It seems that adam is man in his role as Godly creation while enosh refers to humanity as a whole (or human being) in a less spiritual sense.

Perfect. Thanks again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 06:49 PM
 
13,736 posts, read 14,100,497 times
Reputation: 9696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post
...In all honesty, I would absolutely love to hear back from you on this. You can bump this thread or PM me if you'd like, but I'm very interested to know

please keep the conversation on line for everyone to see, so we can all learn.
thank you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 06:54 PM
 
31 posts, read 5,137 times
Reputation: 10
Well, he's already answered the question for me. Here it is again:

Quote:
It seems that adam is man in his role as Godly creation while enosh refers to humanity as a whole (or human being) in a less spiritual sense.

However, if he'd like to elaborate even further, I'm totally fine with him doing that here and I, as well, am all ears.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2018, 06:59 PM
 
31 posts, read 5,137 times
Reputation: 10
Forgive me for asking so many questions, but this one really threw me for a loop.The reason I asked whether or not the Book of Enoch was canonical was because of how often it referenced the Son of Man. I didn't realize (or maybe I'd forgotten) that the Book of Daniel pretty much says the same thing the Book of Enoch says - at least with regard to the verse I wanted to quote to you.

Daniel 7:13-14:
"13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
Aside from there being a dualistic nature at hand (not just God the Father, but the Son as well), tell me: If the Messiah (the political figure you are expecting) is not God and if he will not be worshiped, who then is this Son of Man in Daniel 7 that will rule over all nations and all peoples and one who actually will be worshiped?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2018, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Long Island
1,754 posts, read 1,454,346 times
Reputation: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker0101 View Post
Forgive me for asking so many questions, but this one really threw me for a loop.The reason I asked whether or not the Book of Enoch was canonical was because of how often it referenced the Son of Man. I didn't realize (or maybe I'd forgotten) that the Book of Daniel pretty much says the same thing the Book of Enoch says - at least with regard to the verse I wanted to quote to you.

Daniel 7:13-14:
"13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
Aside from there being a dualistic nature at hand (not just God the Father, but the Son as well), tell me: If the Messiah (the political figure you are expecting) is not God and if he will not be worshiped, who then is this Son of Man in Daniel 7 that will rule over all nations and all peoples and one who actually will be worshiped?
Here's the translation for the same portion from a Jewish site:

13. I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him.

14. And He gave him dominion and glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and tongues shall serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion, which will not be removed, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16490#



Christian translation try to shoehorn Jesus into everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Judaism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top