JESUS CHRIST is he GOD?

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:42:46 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> No problem, actually quite content that life is so grand ..... now too
>> bad that we can't all help one another instead of scaring one another
>> with tales of preternatural teleology.
>
>Who's scared?

REPLY:

Ever hear the expression, "God-fearing ....."


>>
>> I do not go along with, "It is written, therefore it must happen," as
>> we must remember that the Palestinians are people too!
>
>And maybe you should remind the Palestinians that Israelis are people too.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>
>

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

Yup, short pants, short man, small hat, loves the woods .......


On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:40:32 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> How is it possible? The future has not yet occurred!
>
>Because the information comes from God who is omniscient. And yes, I know
>you're a troll.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:13:56 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >> So you are saying that some people have been informed about what will
>> >> happen in the future while others like me, well we just have to wait
>> >> and see ..... OR TRUST the others?
>> >
>> >What do you mean *some people have been informed?* The requirements for
>the
>> >messiah are part of normative Judaism. They're not a secret.
>> >Best regards,
>> >---Cindy S.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:42:49 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The issue is that Jesus did not
>> >> >fulfill any of the messianic prophecies
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
>> >> Philadelphia PA
>> >>
>> >> STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
>> >> no one has seen the tooth or
>> >> teeth in question so take
>> >> this advice within its proper
>> >> context ~ this is the internet!
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
>> Philadelphia PA
>>
>> STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
>> no one has seen the tooth or
>> teeth in question so take
>> this advice within its proper
>> context ~ this is the internet!
>

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

Of course there is blame enough to go around ....... but I am for
sharing the land ..........


On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:42:46 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> No problem, actually quite content that life is so grand ..... now too
>> bad that we can't all help one another instead of scaring one another
>> with tales of preternatural teleology.
>
>Who's scared?
>>
>> I do not go along with, "It is written, therefore it must happen," as
>> we must remember that the Palestinians are people too!
>
>And maybe you should remind the Palestinians that Israelis are people too.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>
>

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

MY QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THS HAVE TO DO WITH WOODWORKING GO TO SOME
RELIGIOUS GROUP

Roy Jose Lorr <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I see I'm going to have to spell it out for you. If you'd been following
> the articles, the question would make sense. William Graham asked:
> "How could there be an earth before the sun was created?" Well,
> the simple answer would have been: Planets don't need suns to exist.

This is not true.....There are no planets wandering around in the universe
without suns to orbit......The very definition of "planets" involves the
fact that they are a part of some star's family of orbiting objects.

Not me! Those PETA people are
too fierce. No more animal sacrifices ..........


On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:16:00 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>First of all, you pulled this out of context, which is a typical missionary
>tactic. Putting it back in context, the subject at hand is that *when* we
>offer an animal sacrifice, we may not eat the blood, and this verse is an
>explanation for why not (because the life of the creature is in the blood).

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

cindys wrote:
>>Well if you believe the world was created in six 24 hour periods
>>around 4004 B.C.,
>
>
> No, I don't believe that. Nor do most Orthodox Jews. How could there have
> been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created? This is
> understood to be a metaphor and the issue is dealt with and reconciled very
> nicely in _Genesis and the Big Bang_ by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a physicist
> and an Orthodox Jew.

What other kind of day would have been known to man? Who
decides which parts of the Torah are "metaphor"?

--
M2

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> How could there be a universe before anything was created?

The "universe" is, of course, a collective reference to all
existents, not something apart from them. In any case, what
is the relevance of the question?

--
M2

Michael Moore wrote:

> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > How could there be a universe before anything was created?
>
> The "universe" is, of course, a collective reference to all
> existents, not something apart from them.

What is "them"?

> In any case, what
> is the relevance of the question?

The context is there for your inspection. All you need do is
keep up with the articles in the thread.

Michael Moore wrote:

> cindys wrote:
> >>Well if you believe the world was created in six 24 hour periods
> >>around 4004 B.C.,
> >
> >
> > No, I don't believe that. Nor do most Orthodox Jews. How could there have
> > been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created? This is
> > understood to be a metaphor and the issue is dealt with and reconciled very
> > nicely in _Genesis and the Big Bang_ by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a physicist
> > and an Orthodox Jew.
>
> What other kind of day would have been known to man?

The idea is to show that God's clock is unknowable to man.


> Who
> decides which parts of the Torah are "metaphor"?

You do. Its called using your brain.

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> Michael Moore wrote:
>
>
>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>
>>>How could there be a universe before anything was created?
>>
>>The "universe" is, of course, a collective reference to all
>>existents, not something apart from them.
>
>
> What is "them"?

The existents.




>> In any case, what
>>is the relevance of the question?
>
>
> The context is there for your inspection. All you need do is
> keep up with the articles in the thread.

???


--
M2

Michael Moore wrote:

> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> > Michael Moore wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >>
> >>>How could there be a universe before anything was created?
> >>
> >>The "universe" is, of course, a collective reference to all
> >>existents, not something apart from them.
> >
> >
> > What is "them"?
>
> The existents.

What does the universe being real (a given) have to
do with the question I posed?

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> Michael Moore wrote:
>
>
>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Moore wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How could there be a universe before anything was created?
>>>>
>>>>The "universe" is, of course, a collective reference to all
>>>>existents, not something apart from them.
>>>
>>>
>>>What is "them"?
>>
>>The existents.
>
>
> What does the universe being real (a given) have to
> do with the question I posed?

Perhaps you didn't understand. The term "universe" is
just a collective term for everything (i.e. existents) in
it; it is not
something separate and apart from these things. Therefore,
that makes your question absurd.

--
M2

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> Michael Moore wrote:
>
>
>>cindys wrote:
>>
>>>>Well if you believe the world was created in six 24 hour periods
>>>>around 4004 B.C.,
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I don't believe that. Nor do most Orthodox Jews. How could there have
>>>been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created? This is
>>>understood to be a metaphor and the issue is dealt with and reconciled very
>>>nicely in _Genesis and the Big Bang_ by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a physicist
>>>and an Orthodox Jew.
>>
>>What other kind of day would have been known to man?
>
>
> The idea is to show that God's clock is unknowable to man.

In some circles it's called rationalization. Doesn't it
strike you as odd that God's words to man would involve a
reference to something which is claimed to be unknowable by man?

>>Who
>>decides which parts of the Torah are "metaphor"?
>
>
> You do. Its called using your brain.

In that case, Reason dictates that I reject the entire works.

--
M2

Michael Moore wrote:

> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> > Michael Moore wrote:
> >
> >
> >>cindys wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Well if you believe the world was created in six 24 hour periods
> >>>>around 4004 B.C.,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No, I don't believe that. Nor do most Orthodox Jews. How could there have
> >>>been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created? This is
> >>>understood to be a metaphor and the issue is dealt with and reconciled very
> >>>nicely in _Genesis and the Big Bang_ by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a physicist
> >>>and an Orthodox Jew.
> >>
> >>What other kind of day would have been known to man?
> >
> >
> > The idea is to show that God's clock is unknowable to man.
>
> In some circles it's called rationalization. Doesn't it
> strike you as odd that God's words to man would involve a
> reference to something which is claimed to be unknowable by man?
>
> >>Who
> >>decides which parts of the Torah are "metaphor"?
> >
> >
> > You do. Its called using your brain.
>
> In that case, Reason dictates that I reject the entire works.

So be it. The trouble is: reason lies.

Michael Moore wrote:

> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> > Michael Moore wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >>
> >>>Michael Moore wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>How could there be a universe before anything was created?
> >>>>
> >>>>The "universe" is, of course, a collective reference to all
> >>>>existents, not something apart from them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What is "them"?
> >>
> >>The existents.
> >
> >
> > What does the universe being real (a given) have to
> > do with the question I posed?
>
> Perhaps you didn't understand. The term "universe" is
> just a collective term for everything (i.e. existents) in
> it; it is not
> something separate and apart from these things. Therefore,
> that makes your question absurd.

If you don't understand the question, say so and I'll
spell it out for you. What's absurd is you making
a statement that has no connection to my question
other than the word "universe".

William Graham wrote:

> Roy Jose Lorr <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I see I'm going to have to spell it out for you. If you'd been following
> > the articles, the question would make sense. William Graham asked:
> > "How could there be an earth before the sun was created?" Well,
> > the simple answer would have been: Planets don't need suns to exist.
>
> This is not true.....There are no planets wandering around in the universe
> without suns to orbit......The very definition of "planets" involves the
> fact that they are a part of some star's family of orbiting objects.

I assume when you say "sun" you mean an object radiating light and heat.
The moon is a planet orbiting a cold body. There are cold suns with
planets orbiting, we just don't see them due to lack of light. Because our
planet prior to its association with our sun did not orbit a sun means it
had no orbit?... impossible. Definitions are not cut in stone. They are
not little gems stored in vaults for eternal preservation. Science would
be mute if they were.

"Michael Moore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cindys wrote:
> >>Well if you believe the world was created in six 24 hour periods
> >>around 4004 B.C.,
> >
> >
> > No, I don't believe that. Nor do most Orthodox Jews. How could there
have
> > been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created? This is
> > understood to be a metaphor and the issue is dealt with and reconciled
very
> > nicely in _Genesis and the Big Bang_ by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a
physicist
> > and an Orthodox Jew.
>
> What other kind of day would have been known to man?

So when people say "Back in my day..." they are refering to one single 24
hour day?

> Who
> decides which parts of the Torah are "metaphor"?

Peope who devote their lives to studying it.

Susan
>
> --
> M2
>

"Michael Moore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BJR%[email protected]...
> Susan Cohen wrote:
> > "Michael Moore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>cindys wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Well if you believe the world was created in six 24 hour periods
> >>>>around 4004 B.C.,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No, I don't believe that. Nor do most Orthodox Jews. How could there
> >
> > have
> >
> >>>been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created? This is
> >>>understood to be a metaphor and the issue is dealt with and reconciled
> >
> > very
> >
> >>>nicely in _Genesis and the Big Bang_ by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a
> >
> > physicist
> >
> >>>and an Orthodox Jew.
> >>
> >>What other kind of day would have been known to man?
> >
> >
> > So when people say "Back in my day..." they are refering to one single
24
> > hour day?
>
> That's an idiom and it's clearly unrated to what's written
> in Genesis.

Clearly? Oh? And you know this....how?
>
>
>
> >> Who
> >>decides which parts of the Torah are "metaphor"?
> >
> >
> > Peope who devote their lives to studying it.
>
> LOL. Study it all you like, short of rewriting it, you
> cannot change the obscene stories, the voluptuous
> debaucheries, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more
> than half the Torah is filled;

And I see that you have no clue as to what is really in there and why.

Susan

it would be more consistent
> that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God.
> And how "perfect" is the word of God, that it cannot be
> understood by the common man?
>
> --
> M2
>

Please see the history of the Karaites ........


On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:48:19 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>I completely missed the second part of the post.
>
>>
>> Leviticus 4:13-21
>> 'If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally
>
>*Unintentionally* is the key word. *Intentional* sins require teshuva.
>
>
>>and does what is
>> forbidden in ANY of the LORD's commands, even though the community is
>> unaware of the matter, they are guilty. 14 When they become aware of the
>sin
>> they committed, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and
>> present it before the Tent of Meeting. 15 The elders of the community are
>to
>> lay their hands on the bull's head before the LORD , and the bull shall be
>> slaughtered before the LORD . 16 Then the anointed priest is to take some
>of
>> the bull's blood into the Tent of Meeting. 17 He shall dip his finger into
>> the blood and sprinkle it before the LORD seven times in front of the
>> curtain. 18 He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that
>is
>> before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. The rest of the blood he shall
>pour
>> out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the Tent
>> of Meeting. 19 He shall remove all the fat from it and burn it on the
>altar,
>> 20 and do with this bull just as he did with the bull for the sin
>offering.
>> In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be
>> forgiven. 21 Then he shall take the bull outside the camp and burn it as
>he
>> burned the first bull. This is the sin offering for the community.
>>
>> How does one determine what was passed orally to Moses?
>
>Anything that is not in the written torah is oral.
>
> >Since most of the
>> first five books was written by Moses
>
>No, they were *written* by God and Moses received them and wrote them down.
>
>> if Talmud contradicts what was
>> written by him
>
> It doesn't. The talmud adds to and explains the written law. It never
>contradicts it.
>
>>could it possibly be wrong?
>
>No, because both the written and the oral laws are equally the word of God.
>
> Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

Susan Cohen wrote:
> "Michael Moore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>cindys wrote:
>>
>>>>Well if you believe the world was created in six 24 hour periods
>>>>around 4004 B.C.,
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I don't believe that. Nor do most Orthodox Jews. How could there
>
> have
>
>>>been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created? This is
>>>understood to be a metaphor and the issue is dealt with and reconciled
>
> very
>
>>>nicely in _Genesis and the Big Bang_ by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a
>
> physicist
>
>>>and an Orthodox Jew.
>>
>>What other kind of day would have been known to man?
>
>
> So when people say "Back in my day..." they are refering to one single 24
> hour day?

That's an idiom and it's clearly unrated to what's written
in Genesis.



>> Who
>>decides which parts of the Torah are "metaphor"?
>
>
> Peope who devote their lives to studying it.

LOL. Study it all you like, short of rewriting it, you
cannot change the obscene stories, the voluptuous
debaucheries, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more
than half the Torah is filled; it would be more consistent
that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God.
And how "perfect" is the word of God, that it cannot be
understood by the common man?

--
M2

cindys <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
How could there have
> been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created?

How could there be an earth before the sun was created?

"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ?
>
> What you have written is not grounded in history. Just look at the
> various languages .......
>
> Example: The Babylonian Talmud is written in what language?
-------------------
Aramaic. The Yerushalmi was also written in Aramaic, but a somewhat
different dialect. What is your point, that God didn't give us the oral law?
First of all the oral law is a system of laws, not a literal, dictated law
like the written torah. Secondly, the operative term here is *oral." When
the oral law was ultimately written down, it was written in the vernacular.
Best regards,
----Cindy S.

Susan Cohen wrote:
> "Michael Moore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BJR%[email protected]...
>
>>Susan Cohen wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Moore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>cindys wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Well if you believe the world was created in six 24 hour periods
>>>>>>around 4004 B.C.,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I don't believe that. Nor do most Orthodox Jews. How could there
>>>
>>>have
>>>
>>>
>>>>>been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created? This is
>>>>>understood to be a metaphor and the issue is dealt with and reconciled
>>>
>>>very
>>>
>>>
>>>>>nicely in _Genesis and the Big Bang_ by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a
>>>
>>>physicist
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and an Orthodox Jew.
>>>>
>>>>What other kind of day would have been known to man?
>>>
>>>
>>>So when people say "Back in my day..." they are refering to one single
>
> 24
>
>>>hour day?
>>
>>That's an idiom and it's clearly unrated to what's written
>>in Genesis.
>
>
> Clearly? Oh? And you know this....how?

Many people believe that the Hebrew word "yome" translated
'day' allows for a figurative interpretation;
they base this idea on the fact that the first three days of
creation passed without the prescence of the sun.
Therefore, we will first examine the definition of the
Hebrew word, pronounced "yome". It is used several
different ways throughout the Old Testament, and has the
following allowable definitions:

* day in contrast to night
* day as a 24-hour lapse of time (beginning at dusk)
* a lifetime ("Back in my day...")
* a general period of time defined solely by context

The word "yome" is often said to represent "an indefinite
period of time"; this is almost a proper use of the word.
The problem with this is that the days of Genesis were
definite periods of time, marked by "evening and morning".
If the word "yome" has any contextual restrictions of any
kind, then such a figurative interpretation is never allowable.

Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament the word
'yom' never means 'period' (i.e., it is never used
to refer to a definite long period of time with specific
beginning and end points). The word which means a
long period of time in Hebrew is 'olam.' Furthermore, it is
important to note that even when the word 'yom'
is used in the indefinite sense, it is clearly indicated by
the context that the literal meaning of the word
'day' is not intended.

However, even if the word "yome" were to be interpreted in
terms of a general period of time defined solely by context,
a literal meaning emerges because the context of day is
"evening and morning". The words denote, quite literally,
the fall
and rise of the sun, or at the very least an alternation
between light and darkness. The only way the phrase
"evening and morning" could be interpreted as figurative is
if they are context-dependent. However, this is possible
only if the word "day" is taken literally, for if both are
deemed context-dependent then the terms become circularly
defined.

Similarly, to interpret "evening and morning" as figurative
(and, thus, dependent on context for their meaning) implies that
the context, the word "yome", is taken literally, for the
word has no context other than "evening and morning". To
consider
both as context-dependent and figurative is to define them
circularly and sacrifice any meaning, even that desired.

And so, even though the sun was created on the fourth day,
it is impossible to interpret the days as figurative based on
language because the word that would be expected to be
written here is "olam" and not "yome" if a figurative
meaning were
the truth of the matter.

The Ten Commandments are certainly literal in nature, as
they were part of the law of the ancient Jewish government.
The second of those ten commandments clearly states that
every seventh day is to be a day of rest. The word for "day"
used
here is, as would be expected, "yome" and not "olam", as is
used in the part following: "In six days the LORD made heaven
and earth...." And, remember, the Ten Commandments are
recorded to have been "written with the finger of God". So then,
it is suggested that just as the law of the sabbath day is
literal, so are the creation days of Genesis.

After all, the six days of Creation followed by the seventh
day of rest are the basis of the second commandment. If God's
creation days are figurative, then does this not allow us
the liberty to work for six figurative days (representing the
amount of time it takes us to tire of work) and then rest
for one period of time (until we regain our energy)? This is not
what God intended; thus concludes my arguments for literal
days based on language.


--
M2

"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please see the history of the Karaites ........

------------
Who interpret the written torah literally and are not Jews.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.




>
>
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:48:19 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >I completely missed the second part of the post.
> >
> >>
> >> Leviticus 4:13-21
> >> 'If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally
> >
> >*Unintentionally* is the key word. *Intentional* sins require teshuva.
> >
> >
> >>and does what is
> >> forbidden in ANY of the LORD's commands, even though the community is
> >> unaware of the matter, they are guilty. 14 When they become aware of
the
> >sin
> >> they committed, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering
and
> >> present it before the Tent of Meeting. 15 The elders of the community
are
> >to
> >> lay their hands on the bull's head before the LORD , and the bull shall
be
> >> slaughtered before the LORD . 16 Then the anointed priest is to take
some
> >of
> >> the bull's blood into the Tent of Meeting. 17 He shall dip his finger
into
> >> the blood and sprinkle it before the LORD seven times in front of the
> >> curtain. 18 He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar
that
> >is
> >> before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. The rest of the blood he shall
> >pour
> >> out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the
Tent
> >> of Meeting. 19 He shall remove all the fat from it and burn it on the
> >altar,
> >> 20 and do with this bull just as he did with the bull for the sin
> >offering.
> >> In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be
> >> forgiven. 21 Then he shall take the bull outside the camp and burn it
as
> >he
> >> burned the first bull. This is the sin offering for the community.
> >>
> >> How does one determine what was passed orally to Moses?
> >
> >Anything that is not in the written torah is oral.
> >
> > >Since most of the
> >> first five books was written by Moses
> >
> >No, they were *written* by God and Moses received them and wrote them
down.
> >
> >> if Talmud contradicts what was
> >> written by him
> >
> > It doesn't. The talmud adds to and explains the written law. It never
> >contradicts it.
> >
> >>could it possibly be wrong?
> >
> >No, because both the written and the oral laws are equally the word of
God.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >---Cindy S.
> >
>
> --
> Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
> Philadelphia PA
>
> STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
> no one has seen the tooth or
> teeth in question so take
> this advice within its proper
> context ~ this is the internet!

So how or what would you say to the Islam who believe that their God
speaks to them with a different message?


On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:10:48 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry Cindy, if we are to reject the supernatural in others we must
>> reject it in ourselves. How could Moses be handed Deuteronomy which of
>> course makes great detail of Moses' death a number of years before the
>> event?
>
>He knew because God dictated it. What sort of god
>would it be that did not know future events?

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

Yup, in fact the Chick-Fil-A billboard cows are pushing that animal
sacrifice should never be used .......


<<eat more Chikken>>

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:16:00 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Second, nowhere does this verse imply that animal sacrifice is the *only*
>means for atonement.

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

True!

Got to give the rabbis some wiggle room!


***


On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:16:00 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The laws
>of Judaism are not based on a literal reading of the written torah (and
>never have been).

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

This custom was not practiced
in Transylvania of course .......

(There they DO eat the blood).


On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:16:00 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>First of all, you pulled this out of context, which is a typical missionary
>tactic. Putting it back in context, the subject at hand is that *when* we
>offer an animal sacrifice, we may not eat the blood, and this verse is an
>explanation for why not (because the life of the creature is in the blood).

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

There is the third branch, the "thinking Torah....."


On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:48:19 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Anything that is not in the written torah is oral.

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

?

What you have written is not grounded in history. Just look at the
various languages .......

Example: The Babylonian Talmud is written in what language?

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:48:19 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>I completely missed the second part of the post.
>
>>
>> Leviticus 4:13-21
>> 'If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally
>
>*Unintentionally* is the key word. *Intentional* sins require teshuva.
>
>
>>and does what is
>> forbidden in ANY of the LORD's commands, even though the community is
>> unaware of the matter, they are guilty. 14 When they become aware of the
>sin
>> they committed, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and
>> present it before the Tent of Meeting. 15 The elders of the community are
>to
>> lay their hands on the bull's head before the LORD , and the bull shall be
>> slaughtered before the LORD . 16 Then the anointed priest is to take some
>of
>> the bull's blood into the Tent of Meeting. 17 He shall dip his finger into
>> the blood and sprinkle it before the LORD seven times in front of the
>> curtain. 18 He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that
>is
>> before the LORD in the Tent of Meeting. The rest of the blood he shall
>pour
>> out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the Tent
>> of Meeting. 19 He shall remove all the fat from it and burn it on the
>altar,
>> 20 and do with this bull just as he did with the bull for the sin
>offering.
>> In this way the priest will make atonement for them, and they will be
>> forgiven. 21 Then he shall take the bull outside the camp and burn it as
>he
>> burned the first bull. This is the sin offering for the community.
>>
>> How does one determine what was passed orally to Moses?
>
>Anything that is not in the written torah is oral.
>
> >Since most of the
>> first five books was written by Moses
>
>No, they were *written* by God and Moses received them and wrote them down.
>
>> if Talmud contradicts what was
>> written by him
>
> It doesn't. The talmud adds to and explains the written law. It never
>contradicts it.
>
>>could it possibly be wrong?
>
>No, because both the written and the oral laws are equally the word of God.
>
> Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So how or what would you say to the Islam who believe that their God
> speaks to them with a different message?

I know not what others would do, but I would lend them my tape
recorder.......

"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:59:54 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:17:21 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> Sorry Cindy, if we are to reject the supernatural in others we must
> >> reject it in ourselves.
> >
> >Who said we have to reject it?
> >
>
> Well if you believe the world was created in six 24 hour periods
> around 4004 B.C.,

No, I don't believe that. Nor do most Orthodox Jews. How could there have
been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created? This is
understood to be a metaphor and the issue is dealt with and reconciled very
nicely in _Genesis and the Big Bang_ by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., a physicist
and an Orthodox Jew.

>then anything is possible, including the
> Resurrection .........

Where have I said that resurrection was "impossible?" I have said that
Christianity holds no validity for Jews, which it does not, but the issue is
not one of a resurrection being impossible. The issue is that Jesus did not
fulfill any of the messianic prophecies. Also, Jewish belief is that the
messiah will be a living man, not a dead man resurrected. This is quite
different from saying that resurrection is impossible.

>
> Would that be fair to say?
>
> >
> >>How could Moses be handed Deuteronomy which of
> >> course makes great detail of Moses' death a number of years before the
> >> event?
> >
> >Because God is omniscient. Joshua wrote the last 8 pasukim, if it makes
you
> >feel better.
>
> In fact, if you study the subject you will find that many of the books
> were written over hundreds and thousands of years, contain different
> literary styles and different historical references .........

Which proves nothing. It is called the documentary *hypothesis* for a
reason.
>
> This omnicient God that you speak of, He also speaks to the Islam with
> a far different message ....... but they believe in their message as
> surely as you do yours!

So good. I am not a Muslim, and their religious beliefs are of no concern to
me.
>
> What WOULD make me feel better would be an end to jingoism

Judaism is not the least bit jingoistic. If it were, we would be insisting
that ours is the only way to God. In fact, we acknowledge that there are
many paths to God. Unlike the Christians.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

This is the anatomy of a power structure. The regular guy working nine
to five and beyond to feed and clothe his family has little time for
studying all of this stuff. No problem. There will always be a ruling
class to interpret and hand down decisions.

One of the first interperetations is always how much to contribute "to
God" who by the way has little use for cold hard cash anyway!


Joel

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:16:00 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The oral law was given in conjunction with the written
>law. The oral law explains the system of law and explains the detail of how
>the written law is to be practiced.

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:F0RZa.121704$o%2.53620@sccrnsc02...
>
> cindys <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> How could there have
> > been a concept of a 24-hour day before the sun was created?
>
> How could there be an earth before the sun was created?
>
-------------
Maybe they were created at the same time.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

Mike wrote:

> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:mIXZa.124317$YN5.85640@sccrnsc01...
> >
> > >
> > Yes.....You'd think he'd have better things to do.....Like cleaning up his
> > whole act....Fixing all the screw-ups he left when he went traipsing off
> to
> > start another universe somewhere else several billion years ago.......I am
> > tempted to begin listing them, but I could spend the rest of my life
> > writing........
> >
> >
> The universe was not created, it has always existed.

You have evidence to back up this assertion?

"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." wrote:

> No problem, actually quite content that life is so grand ..... now too
> bad that we can't all help one another instead of scaring one another
> with tales of preternatural teleology.
>
> I do not go along with, "It is written, therefore it must happen," as
> we must remember that the Palestinians are people too!

Yep, as the drinks go down, the truth comes out.

Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:19:41 GMT, "William Graham" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>So there were no actual dinosaurs? God simply created dinosaur fossils
>>>and buried them to fool guys like me?
>>
>>Yes......They would have me believe that the creator of the whole universe,
>>with more galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on
>>earth, buried some bones in my back yard, and took the trouble to sprinkle
>>just enough carbon 14 in them to sucker me into thinking that they are 60
>>million years old, instead of the 4000 odd years old that they actually
>>are. -
>
>
> Yup, suckered both of us ........ wait a minute I gotta write a check
> for my dues .........
>
>
>
>>And for what? - So He could toss me into Hell for excersing good
>>judgement instead of believing some sad text that is 2000 years old? And why
>>does He need any reason at all? - Who is watching to make sure He is
>>following the, "rules of the game"?
>
>
> The Religion Police are watching .......
>
>
>>Is there some greater God somewhere that
>>he has to please? - Give me a break!
>>
>
>
> Yup, sad that an omnipotent God would bother with such stuff ........

Yes. An omnipotent and omniscient God would need only ever
perform one act, from which everything would follow. From
this I note, that the existence of this God beyond this act
appears superfluous. In any case, I cannot help but wonder,
why such a God, should there be one, would even bother with
that one act in the first place.

--
M2

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
>
>
>>"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:mIXZa.124317$YN5.85640@sccrnsc01...
>>
>>>Yes.....You'd think he'd have better things to do.....Like cleaning up his
>>>whole act....Fixing all the screw-ups he left when he went traipsing off
>>
>>to
>>
>>>start another universe somewhere else several billion years ago.......I am
>>>tempted to begin listing them, but I could spend the rest of my life
>>>writing........
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The universe was not created, it has always existed.
>
>
> You have evidence to back up this assertion?

If you're going to start asking for evidence, then ...

--
M2

Michael Moore wrote:

> Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:19:41 GMT, "William Graham" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>So there were no actual dinosaurs? God simply created dinosaur fossils
> >>>and buried them to fool guys like me?
> >>
> >>Yes......They would have me believe that the creator of the whole universe,
> >>with more galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on
> >>earth, buried some bones in my back yard, and took the trouble to sprinkle
> >>just enough carbon 14 in them to sucker me into thinking that they are 60
> >>million years old, instead of the 4000 odd years old that they actually
> >>are. -
> >
> >
> > Yup, suckered both of us ........ wait a minute I gotta write a check
> > for my dues .........
> >
> >
> >
> >>And for what? - So He could toss me into Hell for excersing good
> >>judgement instead of believing some sad text that is 2000 years old? And why
> >>does He need any reason at all? - Who is watching to make sure He is
> >>following the, "rules of the game"?
> >
> >
> > The Religion Police are watching .......
> >
> >
> >>Is there some greater God somewhere that
> >>he has to please? - Give me a break!
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yup, sad that an omnipotent God would bother with such stuff ........
>
> Yes. An omnipotent and omniscient God would need only ever
> perform one act, from which everything would follow. From
> this I note, that the existence of this God beyond this act
> appears superfluous. In any case, I cannot help but wonder,
> why such a God, should there be one, would even bother with
> that one act in the first place.

Ask Him.

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> Michael Moore wrote:
>
>
>>Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:19:41 GMT, "William Graham" <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there were no actual dinosaurs? God simply created dinosaur fossils
>>>>>and buried them to fool guys like me?
>>>>
>>>>Yes......They would have me believe that the creator of the whole universe,
>>>>with more galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on
>>>>earth, buried some bones in my back yard, and took the trouble to sprinkle
>>>>just enough carbon 14 in them to sucker me into thinking that they are 60
>>>>million years old, instead of the 4000 odd years old that they actually
>>>>are. -
>>>
>>>
>>>Yup, suckered both of us ........ wait a minute I gotta write a check
>>>for my dues .........
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And for what? - So He could toss me into Hell for excersing good
>>>>judgement instead of believing some sad text that is 2000 years old? And why
>>>>does He need any reason at all? - Who is watching to make sure He is
>>>>following the, "rules of the game"?
>>>
>>>
>>>The Religion Police are watching .......
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is there some greater God somewhere that
>>>>he has to please? - Give me a break!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yup, sad that an omnipotent God would bother with such stuff ........
>>
>>Yes. An omnipotent and omniscient God would need only ever
>>perform one act, from which everything would follow. From
>>this I note, that the existence of this God beyond this act
>>appears superfluous. In any case, I cannot help but wonder,
>>why such a God, should there be one, would even bother with
>>that one act in the first place.
>
>
> Ask Him.

No reply.

--
M2

Michael Moore wrote:

> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> > Michael Moore wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:19:41 GMT, "William Graham" <[email protected]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>So there were no actual dinosaurs? God simply created dinosaur fossils
> >>>>>and buried them to fool guys like me?
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes......They would have me believe that the creator of the whole universe,
> >>>>with more galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on
> >>>>earth, buried some bones in my back yard, and took the trouble to sprinkle
> >>>>just enough carbon 14 in them to sucker me into thinking that they are 60
> >>>>million years old, instead of the 4000 odd years old that they actually
> >>>>are. -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yup, suckered both of us ........ wait a minute I gotta write a check
> >>>for my dues .........
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And for what? - So He could toss me into Hell for excersing good
> >>>>judgement instead of believing some sad text that is 2000 years old? And why
> >>>>does He need any reason at all? - Who is watching to make sure He is
> >>>>following the, "rules of the game"?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The Religion Police are watching .......
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Is there some greater God somewhere that
> >>>>he has to please? - Give me a break!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yup, sad that an omnipotent God would bother with such stuff ........
> >>
> >>Yes. An omnipotent and omniscient God would need only ever
> >>perform one act, from which everything would follow. From
> >>this I note, that the existence of this God beyond this act
> >>appears superfluous. In any case, I cannot help but wonder,
> >>why such a God, should there be one, would even bother with
> >>that one act in the first place.
> >
> >
> > Ask Him.
>
> No reply.

Can't say I blame Him.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:40:32 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> How is it possible? The future has not yet occurred!
>
>Because the information comes from God who is omniscient. And yes, I know
>you're a troll.

Do you think God knows he's a troll?

>>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:13:56 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >> So you are saying that some people have been informed about what will
>> >> happen in the future while others like me, well we just have to wait
>> >> and see ..... OR TRUST the others?
>> >
>> >What do you mean *some people have been informed?* The requirements for
>the
>> >messiah are part of normative Judaism. They're not a secret.
>> >Best regards,
>> >---Cindy S.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:42:49 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The issue is that Jesus did not
>> >> >fulfill any of the messianic prophecies
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
>> >> Philadelphia PA
>> >>
>> >> STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
>> >> no one has seen the tooth or
>> >> teeth in question so take
>> >> this advice within its proper
>> >> context ~ this is the internet!
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
>> Philadelphia PA
>>
>> STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
>> no one has seen the tooth or
>> teeth in question so take
>> this advice within its proper
>> context ~ this is the internet!
>
>

--
"I have often been called a Nazi, and although it is unfair, I
don't let it bother me. I don't let it bother me for one simple
reason. No one has _ever_ had a fantasy about being tied to a
bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal."
- P.J. O'Rourke (American author)

How is it possible? The future has not yet occurred!

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:13:56 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> So you are saying that some people have been informed about what will
>> happen in the future while others like me, well we just have to wait
>> and see ..... OR TRUST the others?
>
>What do you mean *some people have been informed?* The requirements for the
>messiah are part of normative Judaism. They're not a secret.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:42:49 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The issue is that Jesus did not
>> >fulfill any of the messianic prophecies
>>
>> --
>> Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
>> Philadelphia PA
>>
>> STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
>> no one has seen the tooth or
>> teeth in question so take
>> this advice within its proper
>> context ~ this is the internet!
>

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

No problem, actually quite content that life is so grand ..... now too
bad that we can't all help one another instead of scaring one another
with tales of preternatural teleology.

I do not go along with, "It is written, therefore it must happen," as
we must remember that the Palestinians are people too!



>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:15:34 GMT, "cindys" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> So there were no actual dinosaurs? God simply created dinosaur fossils
>> and buried them to fool guys like me?
>>
>>
>> Is that it?
>
>Who said that? I agree that the earth is billions of years old, and I also
>stated this idea does not contradict the torah. What is your problem?
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>
>
>
>

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!

"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No problem, actually quite content that life is so grand ..... now too
> bad that we can't all help one another instead of scaring one another
> with tales of preternatural teleology.

Who's scared?
>
> I do not go along with, "It is written, therefore it must happen," as
> we must remember that the Palestinians are people too!

And maybe you should remind the Palestinians that Israelis are people too.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:19:41 GMT, "William Graham" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Joel M. Eichen D.D.S. <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> So there were no actual dinosaurs? God simply created dinosaur fossils
> >> and buried them to fool guys like me?
> >
> >Yes......They would have me believe that the creator of the whole
universe,
> >with more galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on all the beaches
on
> >earth, buried some bones in my back yard, and took the trouble to
sprinkle
> >just enough carbon 14 in them to sucker me into thinking that they are 60
> >million years old, instead of the 4000 odd years old that they actually
> >are. -
>
> Yup, suckered both of us ........ wait a minute I gotta write a check
> for my dues .........
>
>
> > And for what? - So He could toss me into Hell for excersing good
> >judgement instead of believing some sad text that is 2000 years old? And
why
> >does He need any reason at all? - Who is watching to make sure He is
> >following the, "rules of the game"?
>
> The Religion Police are watching .......
>
> > Is there some greater God somewhere that
> >he has to please? - Give me a break!
> >
>
> Yup, sad that an omnipotent God would bother with such stuff ........
>
Yes.....You'd think he'd have better things to do.....Like cleaning up his
whole act....Fixing all the screw-ups he left when he went traipsing off to
start another universe somewhere else several billion years ago.......I am
tempted to begin listing them, but I could spend the rest of my life
writing........

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mIXZa.124317$YN5.85640@sccrnsc01...
>
> >
> Yes.....You'd think he'd have better things to do.....Like cleaning up his
> whole act....Fixing all the screw-ups he left when he went traipsing off
to
> start another universe somewhere else several billion years ago.......I am
> tempted to begin listing them, but I could spend the rest of my life
> writing........
>
>
The universe was not created, it has always existed.

Why is this still being forwarded to the photography groups, for gods
sake (whichever you happen to worship) take us out of it!

Michael Moore wrote:

> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
>>
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:mIXZa.124317$YN5.85640@sccrnsc01...
>>>
>>>> Yes.....You'd think he'd have better things to do.....Like cleaning
>>>> up his
>>>> whole act....Fixing all the screw-ups he left when he went traipsing
>>>> off
>>>
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>> start another universe somewhere else several billion years
>>>> ago.......I am
>>>> tempted to begin listing them, but I could spend the rest of my life
>>>> writing........
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The universe was not created, it has always existed.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have evidence to back up this assertion?
>
>
> If you're going to start asking for evidence, then ...
>
> --
> M2
>
>
>

"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:53:55 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." wrote:
> >
> >> So how or what would you say to the Islam who believe that their God
> >> speaks to them with a different message?
> >
> >Go to your god.
>
> REPLY:
>
> Is this a response or is it practicing for a Revival Meetin'?

What's this supposed to mean?

"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." wrote:

> Okay I will go along with that!

All of it?

>
>
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:22:57 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:49:25 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 05:40:11 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The Question I have for Cindy S. is, If the only provision for the Jew in
> >> >> >the old testament for the forgiveness of sin, is the blood sacrifice in the
> >> >> >temple by the high priest, Then according to scripture, what has happened
> >> >> >to all the Jews that have died since the temple was destroyed?
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a great point. This religion, all religions evolve ...... rhe
> >> >> ones that do not are fossils in the dungheap of history ......
> >> >
> >> >Written Torah does not evolve. It is the same today as it was then.
> >> >Tools change, absolute morals and men do not.
> >>
> >> REPLY:
> >>
> >> The literary style and the etymological context shows that the many
> >> books were written over time.
> >
> >It just shows that the copyists were human. Which has nothing to do
> >with: 'Tools change, absolute morals and men do not.' A gradual
> >change in style does not necessarily indicate an evolution in content.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> A guy from a couple of thousand years ago would have no idea what
> >> >> today's religion is all about .......
> >> >
> >> >Nonsense.
> >>
> >> That is fact!
> >>
> >> Gather around a central meeting place called, "Synagogue."
> >> Interestingly its a Greek word!
> >>
> >> Go back into the Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses) and show me where
> >> there are references to synagogues.
> >>
> >> Lots of thel iergy is in Aramaic, the lingua franca fro mthe time of
> >> Jesus. Now go to Genesis. Any Aramaic there? Of course not!
> >
> >What does any of this have to do with your: "A guy from
> >a couple of thousand years ago would have no idea what
> >today's religion is all about"? Humans have the capacity
> >to learn... fast. People who convert to religions they
> >know absolutely nothing about do so with ease.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Joel
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Talmud is a
> >> >> >commentary on the scriptures. They are not scripture. Therefore, would it
> >> >> >not stand to reason that there has been no forgiveness of sin? I can't find
> >> >> >fasting in the old testament as a substitute....
> >> >>
> >> >> Correct .......
> >> >>
> >> >> A literal translation is "afflicting one's soul ........
> >> >
> >> >Your saying that the definition for "afflict" is "fast"?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Modern day translations (of Scripture) are way off base! One must read
> >> >> the original, not someone's interpretation of the original .......
> >> >
> >> >Is your interpretation to be taken for granted?
> >>
> >> No but if you study for yourself rather than parrot what others tell
> >> you, you will find it to be so!
> >
> >Ah, so I'm a parrot. And that's your excuse for incorrectly
> >defining "afflict" as "fast"?

Okay I will go along with that!

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:22:57 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:49:25 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Joel M. Eichen D.D.S." wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 05:40:11 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The Question I have for Cindy S. is, If the only provision for the Jew in
>> >> >the old testament for the forgiveness of sin, is the blood sacrifice in the
>> >> >temple by the high priest, Then according to scripture, what has happened
>> >> >to all the Jews that have died since the temple was destroyed?
>> >>
>> >> That's a great point. This religion, all religions evolve ...... rhe
>> >> ones that do not are fossils in the dungheap of history ......
>> >
>> >Written Torah does not evolve. It is the same today as it was then.
>> >Tools change, absolute morals and men do not.
>>
>> REPLY:
>>
>> The literary style and the etymological context shows that the many
>> books were written over time.
>
>It just shows that the copyists were human. Which has nothing to do
>with: 'Tools change, absolute morals and men do not.' A gradual
>change in style does not necessarily indicate an evolution in content.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A guy from a couple of thousand years ago would have no idea what
>> >> today's religion is all about .......
>> >
>> >Nonsense.
>>
>> That is fact!
>>
>> Gather around a central meeting place called, "Synagogue."
>> Interestingly its a Greek word!
>>
>> Go back into the Pentateuch (Five Books of Moses) and show me where
>> there are references to synagogues.
>>
>> Lots of thel iergy is in Aramaic, the lingua franca fro mthe time of
>> Jesus. Now go to Genesis. Any Aramaic there? Of course not!
>
>What does any of this have to do with your: "A guy from
>a couple of thousand years ago would have no idea what
>today's religion is all about"? Humans have the capacity
>to learn... fast. People who convert to religions they
>know absolutely nothing about do so with ease.
>
>>
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Talmud is a
>> >> >commentary on the scriptures. They are not scripture. Therefore, would it
>> >> >not stand to reason that there has been no forgiveness of sin? I can't find
>> >> >fasting in the old testament as a substitute....
>> >>
>> >> Correct .......
>> >>
>> >> A literal translation is "afflicting one's soul ........
>> >
>> >Your saying that the definition for "afflict" is "fast"?
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Modern day translations (of Scripture) are way off base! One must read
>> >> the original, not someone's interpretation of the original .......
>> >
>> >Is your interpretation to be taken for granted?
>>
>> No but if you study for yourself rather than parrot what others tell
>> you, you will find it to be so!
>
>Ah, so I'm a parrot. And that's your excuse for incorrectly
>defining "afflict" as "fast"?

--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA

STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies:
no one has seen the tooth or
teeth in question so take
this advice within its proper
context ~ this is the internet!