Judaism

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Since you quoted exclusively verses from the Tanakh, why would I think you were looking to convert anyone to Christianity .

Because I am aware of some people/groups who do have discussions like this for the sole reason of converting Jews-- and, although love is in there somewhere, they also specifically do this for selfish reasons with the intention of hastening the second coming of Jesus. More often than not, however, once they realize that the Jewish person is not going to convert, they seem to ignore them and move on to the next potential Jewish convert to Christianity.

I tend to find their approach deplorable-- it’s almost like filling a quota by selling used vacuum cleaners. These are the same kinds of people who seem to think there is a kind of quasi-sacramental nature to the fine-art of firmly inserting their nose into a Jewish man’s rear-end.

I’ll have no part of that.

What I will have a part of, however, is the fair exchange of ideas on Judaism-- specifically a reasonble discussion on the nature of truth and the nature of forgiveness. And, even though we will both probably leave this exchange holding our own distinct beliefs, I just want to make it clear that I respect your thoughts on this matter regardless of whether you accept my thoughts of not.

Now let’s get back to the discussion at hand…

Valke2:

The concept of forgivness is not alien to Judiasm. As you have pointed out, a great deal of our scripture addresses it. However, this does not negate the concept of hatred. It is not morally wrong to hate one’s enemies and, in fact, it may be morally wrong to forgive them under certain circumstances. What right do I have to forgive Hitler and the Nazis for the crimes they committed against my people? Who am I to speak for the dead?

I always took this on the old stand-by of hate the sin and love the sinner.

But I’ll assume for a moment that the Hebrew Scriptures do in fact stress for us to hate the sinner as well as the sin.

Does this necessarilly mean that an expression of hatred implies a valid response to destroy them?

Certainly, the Lord has expressed an intense hatred of idol worship. No one would disagree with this on either side of the discussion.

And the Lord did specifically instruct the Israelites to destroy these idols if I recall correctly.

In fact, the bronze serpent that God instructed Moses to build (for a good reason) was inevitably, over the generations, turned into a idol associated with a pagan god-- and it was subsequently destroyed (for a good reason) because of this evil that had become associated with it.

Bearing this in mind, in regards to hatred and destroying that which is hated, what happens when God himself says something like the following?

Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.

Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.

When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood…

Admittedly, this appears to be a low point in the Israelite’s history.

But if the Lord once considered these new moons, sabbaths and convocations to be nothing more than an evil assembly, then does this necessarilly imply that he will totally destroy them and never bring them back again?

Or if the Lord himself once said that he hates these new moon festivals and these appointed feasts, does this necessarilly imply that he will totally ‘blot’ them out with boos and hisses along the way?

More to the point, it seems obvious to me that God most certainly did not intend to wipe these things out forever. Rather, he desired to reform these practices so that people would have a right heart before him-- which it seems to me exactly what God is trying to do with his own people throughout the Israelite’s history .

 

[Valke2]

Because I am aware of some people/groups who do have discussions like this for the sole reason of converting Jews-- and, although love is in there somewhere, they also specifically do this for selfish reasons with the intention of hastening the second coming of Jesus. More often than not, however, once they realize that the Jewish person is not going to convert, they seem to ignore them and move on to the next potential Jewish convert to Christianity.

I tend to find their approach deplorable-- it’s almost like filling a quota by selling used vacuum cleaners. These are the same kinds of people who seem to think there is a kind of quasi-sacramental nature to the fine-art of firmly inserting their nose into a Jewish man’s rear-end.

I’ll have no part of that.

What I will have a part of, however, is the fair exchange of ideas on Judaism-- specifically a reasonble discussion on the nature of truth and the nature of forgiveness. And, even though we will both probably leave this exchange holding our own distinct beliefs, I just want to make it clear that I respect your thoughts on this matter regardless of whether you accept my thoughts of not.

Now let’s get back to the discussion at hand…

I always took this on the old stand-by of hate the sin and love the sinner.

But I’ll assume for a moment that the Hebrew Scriptures do in fact stress for us to hate the sinner as well as the sin.

Does this necessarilly mean that an expression of hatred implies a valid response to destroy them?

Certainly, the Lord has expressed an intense hatred of idol worship. No one would disagree with this on either side of the discussion.

And the Lord did specifically instruct the Israelites to destroy these idols if I recall correctly.

In fact, the bronze serpent that God instructed Moses to build (for a good reason) was inevitably, over the generations, turned into a idol associated with a pagan god-- and it was subsequently destroyed (for a good reason) because of this evil that had become associated with it.

Bearing this in mind, in regards to hatred and destroying that which is hated, what happens when God himself says something like the following?

Admittedly, this appears to be a low point in the Israelite’s history.

But if the Lord once considered these new moons, sabbaths and convocations to be nothing more than an evil assembly, then does this necessarilly imply that he will totally destroy them and never bring them back again?

Or if the Lord himself once said that he hates these new moon festivals and these appointed feasts, does this necessarilly imply that he will totally ‘blot’ them out with boos and hisses along the way?

More to the point, it seems obvious to me that God most certainly did not intend to wipe these things out forever. Rather, he desired to reform these practices so that people would have a right heart before him-- which it seems to me exactly what God is trying to do with his own people throughout the Israelite’s history .

It was not the sacrifices and shabbat’s that were despised by God. It was offering them while at the same time engaging in hyprocisy expressed in the mistreatement of people, failure to help others, etc.

 

[Valke2]

And you are not differentiating between the common wickedness of man (i.e., ignoring others, greed, etc.) and the wickedness of those like Hitler and other enemies of an entire people.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

And you are not differentiating between the common wickedness of man (i.e., ignoring others, greed, etc.) and the wickedness of those like Hitler and other enemies of an entire people.

Then what about King Solomon?

King Solomon certainly appears to have endorsed an abominable practice when he allowed the shrines of Molech to be placed up around the kingdom.

In fact, much like Hitler but perhaps even worse, he appears to have allowed children to be sacrificed to a pagan god when they ‘passed through the fire’.

I’m not making this stuff up Valke2. I’m also not trying to berate Judaism. I know the Church itself has many terrible attrocities in her own past. I won’t even try to deny them.

But if indeed Hitler were considered someone beyond redemption when he directly caused the Holocaust of 6,000,000 innocent Jews, then how is one to reconcile this with the King of Israel effectively enticing his own people to engage in a pagan holocaust which likewise caused innocent Israelite babies to be scortched to death for a pagan idol?

Certainly, King Solomon of all people should have understood this was wrong. And yet, to my knolwedge, he never repented of this either.

So, I’ll ask again, what is Judaism’s view of King Solomon?

 

[Valke2]

Certainly, King Solomon of all people should have understood this was wrong. And yet, to my knolwedge, he never repented of this either.

So, I’ll ask again, what is Judaism’s view of King Solomon?

Sorry. Wasn’t focusing on the portion of the post regarding King Solomon.
We believe Solomon was a great man and that his practice of allowing his wives to worship Idols was the cause of much grief. But he himself was not wicked, certainly not beyond redemption. But I’ll do a bit of research and get back to you with a more detailed answer.

 

[Valke2]

I think we have a different view of Solomon. Generally, his weakness is considered to have been allowing his wives to worship pagan gods, not actually doing anything like that himself. He married many foriegn wives for whatever reasons and this is why, I think, Jewish law today prohibits marrying a non-jew.
The Talmud also criticizes Solomon’s weakness in this instance as contributing to the moral decay of Israel.

We even have writings that blame the creation of Rome (as a kind of punishment) for his actions. But all this arises out of his permissivness with his wives, not on any evil action he took and certainly nothing that would rise to the level of a Hitler (may his name be erased forever).

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I think we have a different view of Solomon. Generally, his weakness is considered to have been allowing his wives to worship pagan gods, not actually doing anything like that himself. He married many foriegn wives for whatever reasons and this is why, I think, Jewish law today prohibits marrying a non-jew.

The Talmud also criticizes Solomon’s weakness in this instance as contributing to the moral decay of Israel.

We even have writings that blame the creation of Rome (as a kind of punishment) for his actions. But all this arises out of his permissivness with his wives, not on any evil action he took and certainly nothing that would rise to the level of a Hitler (may his name be erased forever).

Again, to be clear, I’m not trying to point fingers at Judaism or any other religion. I know that people within the Church have done their share of things wrong, just as Muslims have done things wrong from their own religious perspective too.

But, seriously, how can King Solomon not be held accountable for what he did?

Maybe it’s a matter of translation, so I’m not sure what you’re translation says. But it seems to me that King Solomin did evil in God’s eyes-- the Hebrew Scriptures are plain on this too as far as I can tell.

So this doesn’t seem to be merely a case of his weakness for allowing his wives to worship pagan gods. King Solomon allowed this to happen, and he built these altars, and he did set a powerful precedent for later generations to follow– and these pagan sacrifices lasted for, on and off, hundreds of years within Israel’s history.

That’s a holocaust in itself Valke2.

Me personally-- I don’t think King Solomon actually directly participated in the sacrifices, but it’s hard to say for sure since God was really displeased with him. And even if he did not actually engage in any sacrifice himself, he still nonetheless did have these altars built, and he did allow his wives to do these things, and he himself did nothing to stop them, and he never repented.

In addition to all this, it was Israelite babies that were being slaughtered before a pagan god.

I don’t get it.

Does this mean that someone can allow sin to happen, build the means by which the sin will happen, and do nothing to stop the sin from happening – and they can still be considered not guilty?

Maybe Judaism tends to view King Solomon as not having done any evil actions, but I think it’s clear that his failure to act in order to save those children who were sacrificed to pagan gods was **evil – **and the Hebrew Scriptures are clear that his actions were evil and that the kingdom would be taken from his son because of his evil.

To be fair, when one observes that King Solomon himself actually had the altars built, I don’t understand how anyone could think that King Solomon was innocent of the blood shed at the alter of the pagan god Moloch. This isn’t making any sense.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It was not the sacrifices and shabbat’s that were despised by God. It was offering them while at the same time engaging in hyprocisy expressed in the mistreatement of people, failure to help others, etc.

Yes, but then someone can just as easilly say it was not the sinners that were despised by God. It was the sinful things they were doing at the same time, engaging in hyprocisy expressed in the mistreetment of people, failure to help others, etc.

See what I mean?

I suppose at some point if just keeps going on and on and on.

Is there any kind of codex to Judaism which indicates when something should be read allegorically or literally, and when there may be more than one meaning to the same text?

 

[Valke2]

Again, to be clear, I’m not trying to point fingers at Judaism or any other religion. I know that people within the Church have done their share of things wrong, just as Muslims have done things wrong from their own religious perspective too.

But, seriously, how can King Solomon not be held accountable for what he did?

Maybe it’s a matter of translation, so I’m not sure what you’re translation says. But it seems to me that King Solomin did evil in God’s eyes-- the Hebrew Scriptures are plain on this too as far as I can tell.

So this doesn’t seem to be merely a case of his weakness for allowing his wives to worship pagan gods. King Solomon allowed this to happen, and he built these altars, and he did set a powerful precedent for later generations to follow– and these pagan sacrifices lasted for, on and off, hundreds of years within Israel’s history.

That’s a holocaust in itself Valke2.

Me personally-- I don’t think King Solomon actually directly participated in the sacrifices, but it’s hard to say for sure since God was really displeased with him. And even if he did not actually engage in any sacrifice himself, he still nonetheless did have these altars built, and he did allow his wives to do these things, and he himself did nothing to stop them, and he never repented.

In addition to all this, it was Israelite babies that were being slaughtered before a pagan god.

I don’t get it.

Does this mean that someone can allow sin to happen, build the means by which the sin will happen, and do nothing to stop the sin from happening – and they can still be considered not guilty?

Maybe Judaism tends to view King Solomon as not having done any evil actions, but I think it’s clear that his failure to act in order to save those children who were sacrificed to pagan gods was **evil – **and the Hebrew Scriptures are clear that his actions were evil and that the kingdom would be taken from his son because of his evil.

To be fair, when one observes that King Solomon himself actually had the altars built, I don’t understand how anyone could think that King Solomon was innocent of the blood shed at the alter of the pagan god Moloch. This isn’t making any sense.

Did I say he wasn’t guilty? I thought I listed rabbinic sources that were highly critical of him. But his actions cannot be compared to those of a Hitler when discussing whether or not Solomon is entitled to redemption. Jews pay for their sins in this world and the next. But such payment is generally fininte. It ends and we are then given a share in the world to come (a/k/a heaven). A Hitler would not be given such a share. His punishment would not be finite.

 

[Valke2]

Yes, but then someone can just as easilly say it was not the sinners that were despised by God. It was the sinful things they were doing at the same time, engaging in hyprocisy expressed in the mistreetment of people, failure to help others, etc.

See what I mean?

I suppose at some point if just keeps going on and on and on.

Is there any kind of codex to Judaism which indicates when something should be read allegorically or literally, and when there may be more than one meaning to the same text?

We look to the Talmud and to our communities rabbis for how to apply commandments to our lives. FOr interpertations of scripture.

 

[Karin]

We look to the Talmud and to our communities rabbis for how to apply commandments to our lives. FOr interpertations of scripture.

But since each community has a different Rabbi…hence you can have 15 different interpertations of the same passages…who is right?

 

[Valke2]

But since each community has a different Rabbi…hence you can have 15 different interpertations of the same passages…who is right?

The Rabbis are free to interepet, within the boundaries of halacaha (jewish law) how to apply that Jewish law. But there is 2,000 + years of written tradition and commentary that guide them.

 

[Belcanto]

I’m not sure if you follow Catholic-Protestant disputes at all, but we have a disagreement as to whether it is permissible to venerate saints and images. My question is, is there a law one way or another about whether images are permitted in congregations/temples, and do Jews have any practice of venerating them (i.e., bowing) in a way that is distinct from the worship due to God alone? I know that in the first temple, there were 2 cherubims, as well as some images. What role, if any, did they play in worship?

Pax Tecum,
Jay

Jews can’t agree amongst themselves about many things, so it is no surprise that non-jews have many misconceptions about the religion. I’m starting this thread to address any questions that people may have about Judaism. It is not about proving that one religion is better than another. Any review of my past posts should show that I don’t attempt to show that my religion is better than yours, or that Christians need judaism, etc.

However, if there are basic concepts or questions about Judaism that anyone wants to discuss, I’d be happy to.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Did I say he wasn’t guilty?

You didn’t say he wasn’t guilty.

You just said he wasn’t directly guilty of allowing these pagan practices to be introduced into the Israelite society-- and I disagree with that that.

King Solomon didn’t just let it happen. King Solomon himself built the temples…
1 Kings 11:7:

On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.

So the Rabbis can’t put all the blame on his pagan wives Valke2. King Solomon could have stopped these abominable practices from happening-- and he did nothing to stop it. In fact, King Solomon actually built these temples for them. And he never repented of it either.

Valke2:

I thought I listed rabbinic sources that were highly critical of him.

Yes. But, in all honesty, the rabbinical sources seem to do intellectual back-flips in order to avoid accusing Solomon himself of participating in this. I’m not sure how else to say this. But it seems to me that the rabbinical writings are embellishing Solomon’s flaws a little bit too much.

Valke2:

But his actions cannot be compared to those of a Hitler when discussing whether or not Solomon is entitled to redemption.

Why not?

Seriously, why not???

Hitler was a deluded catholic who did not really know God that well-- and, in the end, he thought of himself as a messiah and tried to destroy Jew and Gentiles nationwide in his bid to conquer the world. His methods were certainly the most evil to date and I think Hitler was kind of a fore-runner of anti-Christ in some ways.

This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.

Unlike Hitler, King Solomon really did know God very, very well, was gifted by God with wisdom surpassing all other people, was given riches and honor and prestige beyond any other king – the weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was well over 650 talents – and yet he sits back and indulges in exotic pleasures and acquisition of knowledge while his pagan wives lead the nation into child sacrifice, Israelite children sacrificed before a pagan god on a pagan temple that King Solomon himself built for them?

How many innocent Israelite babies died because King Solomon failed to act?

Based on how close they were to God, unless the rabbis are saying that Hilter knew better than King Solomon himself, I would say that King Solomon was just as guilty as Hitler was. Perhaps even a little bit worse since he was the King of Israel.

Valke2:

Jews pay for their sins in this world and the next. But such payment is generally fininte. It ends and we are then given a share in the world to come (a/k/a heaven). A Hitler would not be given such a share. His punishment would not be finite.

I thought Jews didn’t have a concept of salvation?

 

[Valke2]

I’m not sure if you follow Catholic-Protestant disputes at all, but we have a disagreement as to whether it is permissible to venerate saints and images. My question is, is there a law one way or another about whether images are permitted in congregations/temples, and do Jews have any practice of venerating them (i.e., bowing) in a way that is distinct from the worship due to God alone? I know that in the first temple, there were 2 cherubims, as well as some images. What role, if any, did they play in worship?

Pax Tecum,
Jay

There are no graven images in a shul. I’m trying to remember if I’ve ever seen pictures of people in stained glass at the shuls I’ve been too. I don’t think I have. We do mention the patriarchs (and matriarchs) in our prayers although we don’t have a method of asking them to intercede on our behalf (that I’m aware of). As for th Cheribums, other than being there to “guard the ark” I don’t think they played any particular role. God told us t put them there and we did. I don’t belive there were ever prayers directed toward them.

We will at times ask God to take note of the merits of the patriarchs and consider them when judging us. But we don’t pray to anyone except God.

 

[Valke2]

You didn’t say he wasn’t guilty.

You just said he wasn’t directly guilty of allowing these pagan practices to be introduced into the Israelite society-- and I disagree with that that.

King Solomon didn’t just let it happen. King Solomon himself built the temples…

So the Rabbis can’t put all the blame on his pagan wives Valke2. King Solomon could have stopped these abominable practices from happening-- and he did nothing to stop it. In fact, King Solomon actually built these temples for them. And he never repented of it either.

Yes. But, in all honesty, the rabbinical sources seem to do intellectual back-flips in order to avoid accusing Solomon himself of participating in this. I’m not sure how else to say this. But it seems to me that the rabbinical writings are embellishing Solomon’s flaws a little bit too much.

Why not?

Seriously, why not???

Hitler was a deluded catholic who did not really know God that well-- and, in the end, he thought of himself as a messiah and tried to destroy Jew and Gentiles nationwide in his bid to conquer the world. His methods were certainly the most evil to date and I think Hitler was kind of a fore-runner of anti-Christ in some ways.

Unlike Hitler, King Solomon really did know God very, very well, was gifted by God with wisdom surpassing all other people, was given riches and honor and prestige beyond any other king – the weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was well over 650 talents – and yet he sits back and indulges in exotic pleasures and acquisition of knowledge while his pagan wives lead the nation into child sacrifice, Israelite children sacrificed before a pagan god on a pagan temple that King Solomon himself built for them?

How many innocent Israelite babies died because King Solomon failed to act?

Based on how close they were to God, unless the rabbis are saying that Hilter knew better than King Solomon himself, I would say that King Solomon was just as guilty as Hitler was. Perhaps even a little bit worse since he was the King of Israel.

I thought Jews didn’t have a concept of salvation?

Solomon did not engage in the practice of idolatry itself. He did not engage in a policy of genocide, although you argue that his actions permitted murder, that was not his intent. His intent was to please his wives.
That he knew God better than Hitler isn’ relevent.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Solomon did not engage in the practice of idolatry itself.

But King Solomon did build the temple to Molech, didn’t he?

In fact, the King of Israel built the temple to Molech so that his wives could engage in pagan worship and have Israelite babies sacrificed on this alter as they ‘passed through the fire’ to a pagan god.

If I recall correctly, it wasn’t until king Josia that we see someone bringing about the reforms to eradicate this abominable practice-- abominable practices which King Solomon brought into the Israeli nation.

How many innocent Israelite babies died during this time?

]
He did not engage in a policy of genocide, although you argue that his actions permitted murder, that was not his intent.

So the wisest of all of Israel’s kings was not aware of the fact that these pagan wives were going to kill innocent Israelite babies on a pagan god’s alter by scortching them to death?

Seriously?

Valke2:

His intent was to please his wives.

Yes, but how was he intending to please his wives?

Are you seriously telling me that the wisest of all of Israel’s kings was honestly not aware of the fact that these pagan wives were going to kill innocent Israelite babies on a pagan god’s alter by scortching them to death?

That’s nonsense Valke2.

I’ve been pretty honest with my own Catholic faith. I’m more than willing to admit that there’s been blatent and violent anti-semitism within the church’s history. But I guess I’m not interested in this discussion anymore if someone’s just going to powder-puff King Solomon’s actions to make him look like a great hero. He wasn’t.

King David was a great man in God’s eyes. A very great man after the Lord’s own heart.

King Solomon, on the other hand, got lost in his own glory and utterly decimated his own kingdom nine-fold due to his sins before God.

Valke2:

That he knew God better than Hitler isn’ relevent.

Why not?

It seems to me that, since King Solomon knew God better than Hitler, then King Solomon would also be judged more harshly than Hitler was.

Does this come back to my other questions before?

If someone does not have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in hypocrisy – but if someone does have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in something holy.

That’s actually the opposite of my view.

People who know better are judged more strictly-- so people who know God and lie are judged more harshly than those who don’t know God.

People who know less are judged less strictly-- so people who don’t know God and lie are judged less harshly than those who know God.

Pretty simple.

But if the opposite is the case, and one can arbitrarilly asign blame or innocence based on the capricious whims of whoever comments at the time based on their knowledge or lack of knowledge of God, then there really isn’t any central authority and nothing to hold it together either.

Anyway, I’m not sure what else we can discuss on this matter. I’d rather stay away fropm the Jewish idea of forgiveness-- it doesn’t really appeal to me. In fact, it kind of irks me that people would be claming these things in God’s name.

I would like to come back to the concept of water as gentiles if possible. Is it alright if we change the topic back to the waters?

 

[Valke2]

But King Solomon did build the temple to Molech, didn’t he?

In fact, the King of Israel built the temple to Molech so that his wives could engage in pagan worship and have Israelite babies sacrificed on this alter as they ‘passed through the fire’ to a pagan god.

If I recall correctly, it wasn’t until king Josia that we see someone bringing about the reforms to eradicate this abominable practice-- abominable practices which King Solomon brought into the Israeli nation.

How many innocent Israelite babies died during this time?

So the wisest of all of Israel’s kings was not aware of the fact that these pagan wives were going to kill innocent Israelite babies on a pagan god’s alter by scortching them to death?

Seriously?

Yes, but how was he intending to please his wives?

Are you seriously telling me that the wisest of all of Israel’s kings was honestly not aware of the fact that these pagan wives were going to kill innocent Israelite babies on a pagan god’s alter by scortching them to death?

That’s nonsense Valke2.

I’ve been pretty honest with my own Catholic faith. I’m more than willing to admit that there’s been blatent and violent anti-semitism within the church’s history. But I guess I’m not interested in this discussion anymore if someone’s just going to powder-puff King Solomon’s actions to make him look like a great hero. He wasn’t.

King David was a great man in God’s eyes. A very great man after the Lord’s own heart.

King Solomon, on the other hand, got lost in his own glory and utterly decimated his own kingdom nine-fold due to his sins before God.

Why not?

It seems to me that, since King Solomon knew God better than Hitler, then King Solomon would also be judged more harshly than Hitler was.

Does this come back to my other questions before?

If someone does not have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in hypocrisy – but if someone does have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in something holy.

That’s actually the opposite of my view.

People who know better are judged more strictly-- so people who know God and lie are judged more harshly than those who don’t know God.

People who know less are judged less strictly-- so people who don’t know God and lie are judged less harshly than those who know God.

Pretty simple.

But if the opposite is the case, and one can arbitrarilly asign blame or innocence based on the capricious whims of whoever comments at the time based on their knowledge or lack of knowledge of God, then there really isn’t any central authority and nothing to hold it together either.

Anyway, I’m not sure what else we can discuss on this matter. I’d rather stay away fropm the Jewish idea of forgiveness-- it doesn’t really appeal to me. In fact, it kind of irks me that people would be claming these things in God’s name.

I would like to come back to the concept of water as gentiles if possible. Is it alright if we change the topic back to the waters?

Keep in mind that passing through fire for Molech did not mean (necessarily according to jewish commentary) that the children were sacrificed. Rather it was a pagan ritual where the child was carried between two fires. Truthfully, I’ve exhausted my knowledge of Solomon on this matter. I’ll only close in saying Judaism does not downplay his actions, that we believe Israel suffered for them, etc.

Back to water as Gentiles. Again, I don’t really see that as a theme in Judaism. Themes that have to do with water in Judaism that I’m aware of:

It can be a symbol for Torah. The river of Torah constantly nourishes us.

It can be a symbol for Chaos, as when the vaults are broken and the floods released.

It can be a symbol for order, as when God sets boundaries for how high the water shall rise and no higher…

I’m not saying it can’t be a symbol for Gentiles. Symbols are nothing if not flexible. But it is not something that Judaism has traditionally viewed as symbolizing Gentiles.

Regarding the Mikva and its use in the conversion process. While it obviously is symbolic, its use is more of a purification of the convert, similar to the purifcation ritual women go through each month with the mikvah.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Keep in mind that passing through fire for Molech did not mean (necessarily according to jewish commentary) that the children were sacrificed. Rather it was a pagan ritual where the child was carried between two fires.

That may be so.

But, if I recall correctly, archaeologists have at least pieced together enough information to verify that this pagan ritual did indeed involve human sacrifice-- so it wasn’t merely relagated to a dualistic scorch due to exposure passing between the fires.

Consequently, what is one to think when Rabbinical writings do not match up with the secular historical knowledge of these pagan rituals?

It seems to me that either one or the other is correct.

Valke2:

Truthfully, I’ve exhausted my knowledge of Solomon on this matter. I’ll only close in saying Judaism does not downplay his actions, that we believe Israel suffered for them, etc.

Fair enough. And, again, I’m not looking to put down Judaism.

When I look to Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, Daniel and so many other ancient heroes, prophets, priests and kings within Israel’s past, I am more than convinced that the Israelites were truly indeed a holy nation/people called specifically before God in a unque way that no other nation in the word can match.

One of my personal favorite’s was Elijah’s companion Elisha.

So, to be fair, my low opinion of King Solomon is an exception to the rule when compared to other ancient heroes, prophets, priests and kings within Israel’s past.

I just don’t see how Solomon’s kingly status can be used to justify his failure to properly lead the Israelites away from idolatry. His failure before God, in my own opinion, stands out as being one of the most serious transgressions against God throughout Israel’s history-- an initial transgression which seems to have inevitably increased and reached its culmination with Manasseh I think. And, even then, King Solomon never actually repented-- but was only saved because of God’s promise to honor the promises to Solomon’s father, King David.

Indeed, if King Solomon were not King and were just a commoner, I suspect he would have been thrown to the dogs or else stoned to death and left for the vultures to eat.

Valke2:

Back to water as Gentiles. Again, I don’t really see that as a theme in Judaism. Themes that have to do with water in Judaism that I’m aware of:

It can be a symbol for Torah. The river of Torah constantly nourishes us.

It can be a symbol for Chaos, as when the vaults are broken and the floods released.

It can be a symbol for order, as when God sets boundaries for how high the water shall rise and no higher…

I’m not saying it can’t be a symbol for Gentiles. Symbols are nothing if not flexible. But it is not something that Judaism has traditionally viewed as symbolizing Gentiles.

Regarding the Mikva and its use in the conversion process. While it obviously is symbolic, its use is more of a purification of the convert, similar to the purifcation ritual women go through each month with the mikvah.

I’m come back to this later.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Just to be clear, archaeological findings regarding the abominable practices of those who worshipped Molech are quite numerous and verifiable in history.

And, as is well known now, they included within the Canaanite practices the abomination of child sacrifice, described in the Scriptures as having children to “pass through the fire to Molech” as recorded in Jeremiah 32:35.

The Ras Shamra tablets desribes the god Molech. And, indeed, some unrighteous kings in Israel instituted the practice of sacrificing infants to Molech too.

God, through the prophet Jeremiah, denounced this ghastly ritual:

“For the children of Judah have done evil in My sight,” and “they have built the high places of Tophet [which is related to Molech worship] . . . to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart”

Jeremiah 7:30-31

In the ancient Phoenician city of Carthage—part of the Canaanite culture—some 20,000 urns containing the remains of sacrificed children were found. The archaeologists at the site apprise us that…

…the Carthaginian Tophet is the largest of these Phoenician sites and indeed is the largest cemetery of sacrificed humans ever discovered. Child sacrifice took place there almost continuously for a period of nearly 600 years"

Lawrence Stager and Samuel Wolff,
Biblical Archaeological Review,
January-February 1984, p. 32

Kleitarchos, a Greek from the third century B.C., actually described this sacrifice as the heating up of a bronze statue with outstretched arms. There is no doubt that infants placed into these red-hot arms quickly perished.

Similarly, the 12th century rabbi Rashi, commenting on Jeremiah 7.31 stated:

Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.

A different rabbinical tradition says that the idol was hollow and was divided into seven compartments, in one of which they put flour, in the second turtle-doves, in the third a ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a child, which were all burnt together by heating the statue inside.

Even still, later commentators have compared these accounts with similar ones from Greek and Latin sources speaking of the offering of children by fire as sacrifices in the Punic city of Carthage, which was a Phoenician colony. Kleitarchos (noted above), Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch all mention the burning of children as an offering to the chief god of Carthage.

Nonetheless, as the article notes, some might think the prophets were overly harsh in condemning the Canaanite religion. Some even try to downplay what was done to the innocent children by saying they were merely scorched yet allowed to live. Yet now, with detailed evidence of Canaanite practices found by archaeologists in this century, it is clear why the prophets were uncompromising.

In Judah such offerings were made in the Hinnom valley outside Jerusalem, and the location was known as “tophet”. This unholu aberration is particularly associated with the reigns of Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6)-- but it all began with King Solomon building these temples and allowing his pagan wives to engage in these rituals long ago.

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.

The time from King Solomon to King Josiah was around 400 years by the way-- and I’m sure that, on and off over this time-frame, perhaps millions of infants perished during this time.

I dunno.

When one looks at the potential deadly long range effects of King Solomon’s permissiveness and actions in the Israelites society, I fail to see how anyone could consider this man great by any definition of the word.