Leauki:

I think you missed the entire point of the Good Samaritan parable. Granted, this thread isn't really about the Good Samaritan parable, but this was so off the mark of what Jesus was telling the story for that it's ridiculous. See, he told the story in response to someone who knew the law, but wanted to bend the law. The man knew he was to love his neighbor, but he wanted to limit who he had to love. So he asked, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus then told the parable of the Good Samaritan, which involves a man who is robbed, and ignored by two of his own people, and then helped by the Samaritan, who everyone detested. So when the story is finished, Jesus asks the man, "Who would you say was his neighbor?" The answer being, of course, the Samaritan - which makes the point that the neighbor you are to love is whoever is there to be loved by you. There is no limit on this command that says you don't have to love Samaritans or non Christians or non-Jews or anybody. No, you are commanded to love your neighbor, whoever it is, and wherever you are. It's not talking about the person next door.

This was just a story. It wasn't to show that Samaritans were good - it was a fiction created by Jesus in order to make a point. It may have actually happened at some time, but just as likely that it never happened - it was just a story. So how does that show that Samaritans can be good? It only means that Samaritans, the highly detested, are your neighbor as much as anyone else is.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

The end of a thing is the purpose for which it was made. The end of a watch is to keep time. The end of a pen is to write, etc.

A thing is good only in proportion to the way if fulfills the end for which it was made.

What purpose was man created by God?

It's evident that everything in the world was made to serve something else..plants are higher than soil, animals are higher than plants, and man is higher than animals, therefore we must look for something higher than ourselves and there is nothing higher than man in this world so we must look beyond it and considering all things, we find that we were made for God...to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, by as you say, gathering together and working for common causes, to be with Him in the next.

As far as man and his life in the world...the world doesn't need us, never has and never will. Genesis 1 tells us that at creation all the world was made before man and that he was created last. If all these things could exist without man, we can't say he was made for them. The world existed before man and can exist without him and after him if God so chooses. the world goes along without man.

All mankind are alike and equal in that they all have natural bodies and souls that are immortal. They are all made for the same end....and that end is much more than life on this earth.

what Jews? Have you ever read the Psalms? Read Psalm 51 written by King DAvid. He even said himself:

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." V5.

David also said in a later Psalm 58:3

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Job said:

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." 14:4

Jeremiah said this in 17:9

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?"

So I'd say the OT prophets and Jewish believers believed in original sin because it is
the natural conditon of man.



because it was quite clear in the Torah... it did start with Adam.



it's a genetic trait passed on from our first parents so call it what you want but we are gravely ill with this sin and the reason we all die today.



I understand that NOW but it wasn't always so. Before Jesus came the Messiah was to be a King who would save the day and rescue them from bondage. Just read the Psalms like Psalm 2 or Daniel 9 or Zech 9-12. They had read and believed the promises by the Prophets. It was only AFTER the fact that the belief changed and where we see the prophecies pointing to Christ the Jewish leaders changed that way of thinking to be about the Nation itself. So, for instance, when we read Isaiah 53 we see Jesus as did the NT Christians who wrote about these things. But soon after the resurrection the man they were expecting in Isa 53 was changed to the nation Israel as the Savior.

Daniel 9:25 for instance says this:

"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks (69 weeks); the street shall be built again and the wall even in troublous times."

This happened exactly to the day. It's historical fact outside of scripture that the temple was built as Daniel predicted. It was exactly 483 years that has transpired so far (69x7). 49 years to build the temple. The next 62 weeks or 434 years would pass by before Christ entered Jerusalem on that donkey. This also was written in 9:26:

"And after threescore and two weeks (62 weeks) shall Messiah be cut off (crucified) but not for himself and the people of the prince (Romans) that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

This happened in AD 70 when Titus came in and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple.

It was exactly 49 years (seven weeks of years or 7x7) that it took to rebuild the temple after the Babylonian captivity. Cyrus had authorized the rebuilding of the Temple and in 445 BC under the commandment of Artaxerxes it was started. From that date until Jesus came into Jersualem on that donkey according to prophecy of Zechariah on April 6, 32 AD it was a total of 483 years or 69 weeks of years. (7x69). Exactly as Daniel predicted.

There is one week left for a total of seven years (70 weeks or 70x 7 years) to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins...Dan 9:24. Right now we are in a pause period before this last seven years starts up again because we are in the time of the Gentiles before God once more turns back to the Jews. But all thru Daniel we can see a Messiah or Prince would come. Read it yourself. It's right there.

No need to apologize. I'm not disappointed. They aren't my standards, they are Gods.



Try spending less time on Paul and more time on researching Jesus. You will be far better off in the long run.

By the way, you Lula are going to have a life shaking experience within the next couple of months. Instead of giving in and wallowing in self pity, pay attention. Be in the moment, and not of it.

As Sodaiho says be well.

That was how I understood the story in its historical context.

Don't call it ridiculous if you disagree with something. If Jesus meant something else, perhaps he should have made it clearer.

I happen to know what the Samaritans' status was and why and I know what they believe and where they are today and what their history was.

Perhaps with knowing all that I am able to understand a story about them better than you.

Have you ever seen a Samaritan or know anything about them?

I think what you are forgetting is that Jesus had ultimately two audiences. The first were the Jews who obviously knew about Samaritans and disliked them. The second are non-Jews all over the world who heard Jesus' message later (and had no idea what Samaritans were).

For the second group the story became about the idea that everyone, regardless of who they were, can be the "neighbour" referred to in the Bible. But for the first group it was specifically and most directly a story that confronted them with their specific and direct distrust and hatred for the Samaritans.

This was not about finding out who the neighbour was, it was, for the Jewish audience, about finding out that even a Samaritan could be that neighbour.

If you were to use the same trick today, you might have to confront a Muslim with a Jew helping the wounded (rather than two Muslims walking by before), and the point that "love thy neighbour" doesn't exclude Jews would not be lost on the Muslim.

If Jesus had told that same story about any other stranger (non-Jew), the impact wouldn't have been the same; although the second audience would get their part of the message still.

It depends on which parts of the Tora you pick and choose for literal reading.

You have obviously decided that Genesis is literal and that descriptions like "the hand of G-d" are not.

Judaism disagrees with that reading. The Talmud mentions that there were over 900 generations before Adam.

It is perhaps ironic that a message like that is "quite clear" to you but less clear to those who the message was for, who can read the language and understand it, and who still live according to that worldview (and have never been told that the old law doesn't apply any more).

My approach to any statement of the Bible is this:

1. Read it literally

2. If it directly contradicts evidence I have seen, try a different literal reading, taking into account historical context.

3. If that also contradicts evidence I have seen, assume it's not literal.

4. Figure out the symbolism.


Example 1:

"In the beginning created G-d the heavens and the earth."

Step 1: Done.

Step 2: I have no evidence that G-d didn't create this world and can safely assume that "the heaves and the earth" refers to this world.

Result.


Example 2:

"Noah was 600 year old."

Step 1: Done.

Step 2: I know from biology classes that no man can be that old. There are sound reasons for why the brain would stop working long before that age. Hence I go for a different literal reading. I know that the word translated as "year" is "shana" and I know that "shana" comes from the root WNT (W is /sh/) which means "change", "alter", "repeat". I also know that the legend is originally Sumerian and that Sumerians measured time differently. Plus "shana" has a basic meaning, derived from the root, which is "unit of time". Hence I try a literal reading with "shana" translated as a Sumerian unit of time (like a month). Suddenly Abraham is 50 years old and the statement doesn't contradict the evidence any more.

Result.


Example 3:

"The hand of G-d did [whatever]"

Step 1: Done.

Step 2: Cannot see a hand of G-d anywhere and the laws of physics I know would not allow for such a beast to exist.

Step 3: Statement is probably symbolic for something.

Step 4: I assume it means that [whatever] happened as if guided by G-d and was probably beneficial or should be understood as if it ultimately will be.

Result.


I don't know your algorithm for which parts to read literally, but I have found that the result surprise me. You read passages on angels literally but not passages about G-d. And you see symbolism for Jesus in everything, even if it literally just described mundame (and completely possible) situation in someone's life.


Perhaps you and I start with a different assumption of what the result be?

You seem to want the result to a) confirm that Jesus is a messiah, keep the world simple and in a state where a literal reading of Genesis puts you on par or above a smart biologist or physicist in understanding the universe, and c) find explanations for natural phenomena that don't require you to study physics or chemistry.

I want the result to a) allow for the greatest possible creation, be compatible with all findings of science, and c) fit nicely into a system of Semitic legends and a world where lots of different cultures can live together without one of them being "wrong" about something important.


A god who is a bad designer or vile enough to create diseases, 1000-year old men, a universe younger than many things in it, and a philosophy that believes that everybody else is wrong and that their findings must be replaced just doesn't fit into my view of G-d and His world.

I CANNOT accuse G-d of having created such a world. It's not my place.

And if Christianity would require me to do that, it's difficult to accept its founder as the messiah; especially considering that his appeance did not foreshadow a glorious time for Israel but the destruction of Israel and the dispersal of the Jews to everywhere in the world for 2000 years.

no I take it to mean the wicked are estranged directly from the womb because he says "in sin did my mother conceive me." Conception occurs in the womb and so doesn't wickedness because it's an inherited genetic trait. Even the best and brightest of us are considered wicked in the flesh because right from the get-go we strive against God. That's why Isaiah penned "our righteousness is as filthy rags." He's perfectly aligned with David who wrote hundreds of years before. Our righteousness is what and who we deem to be righteous but God says is filthy.....because of sin.

With palms toigether,

a little Teisho,

 

We are all manifestations of the One.  Jesus was God, Moses was God, Abraham was God, the Prophet was God. My teacup is God. His life is everything.  Our quest should be to be holy. To allow God within us to come out.  We practice to make God manifest, to make Him real both for ourselves and others. It is this that is tikkun olam which is our partnership with the Infinite.

God asks His People to get out.  He asked Abraham to leave his father, he asked Moses to lead the People out of Egypt.  Getting away from home, from what we know getting out into the wilderness is what we do. Why?  In the wilderness we have left everything behind.  We are on our own. We are in direct contact with the earth.  We must look inward. We do what Buddhists call taking "the backward step." 

When we think we know, when we rely on text, on a gospel, or a scripture, or a buddha, we abandon our relationship to God, our true self. We seek outside what is written on our heart and mind and thus miss it altogether.

This was Jesus' message.  This was Buddha's message.  This was the Prophet's message.  This was the Kabbalist and the Chasidic message. In short, it is God's message.

You folks so bound by scripture and church doctrine are today's Pharasees.  Set your books aside and go into your closet as your Jesus suggested.  There, be silent.  Sit in stillness. Let yourself open. He will be there.  He will speak to you.

 

Be well.

 

 

 

  

Much better signoff than "See ya!" It just makes your post seems that much more serious.

"Be well" was also the only part of #767 that I agreed with. Your teacup is God?

Why? Because it's different from yours?

You believe in a god who is a bad designer. I believe in a god who is perfect.

I think your understand of G-d is wanting; not because I interpret holy scripture differently, but because I interpret it in such a way as does not allow seeing G-d as an imperfect designer.

Whoever designed the human eye was a moron.

That's a fact of life, it has to do with how the human eye works.

Whoever designed HIV is evil.

That's a fact of life, it has to do with how innocent children can be infected because of what their mothers did.

I don't believe that G-d is directly responsible for either the human eye or HIV. It's impossible. G-d is perfect and good.

And if the Bible seems to claim that G-d is not perfect and good, I obviously misunderstand the Bible. So I better read again until I figure it out.

The sages came to similar conclusions when they codified the oral Torah.

Are you Nightshades' night shift?

Wherever evil (sin) is, God is not.