> tony: HAHA I took that directly from a website on Judaism. -Have no idea who these folks are. It doesn't matter. i believe what I believe. There are Jewish liberal nuts here who want us to abandon Israel and voted for Obama.

If you are using Christian scholar's versions of the OT, it is the opinion of some Jewish scholars that those interpretations are twisted to foretell the NT and add force to it. I don't have the scholarship to judge these comments which I have read. I'll stick to my Masoretic text and current Jewish teachings as I understand them.-HAHA I took that directly from a website on Judaism.

Tony: Yes, even in Judaism: "For on this day shall atonement be made for you... from all your sins" (Lev. 16:30). -You have to remember I know what interpretations I was taught. Your research has found material that is not used today, in my experience. Lev. 16:30 is in my Bible and yours is a true quote. It simply says we can be cleaned and have atonement. It doesn't prove your point.-> Tony: For a graver sin, punishable by death or extirpation, repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend the punishment and suffering completes the atonement (cf. Ps. 89:33). -Not in my Bible. Psalms 89:33 talks only of beating with a rod. It is a discussion of God's covenant with David. I don't know what you are quoting.-> Tony:If one has been guilty of profaning the Divine Name, however, penitence, the Day of Atonement, and suffering merely suspend punishment, and death procures the final atonement: "The Lord of hosts revealed Himself in my ears; surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till ye die" (Isa. 22:4; Yoma 86a).[/i]-To my eye your presentation here is way off the mark. Isaiah is lamenting a battle in the invasion of Judah. Your quote is 22:14 in my Bible. You and I are discussing individuals sins, not battling armies. -I do not have the erudition you have in studying commentaries. I don't know your references, but I do know the quote from Hillel: The whole Torah teaching is to treat others as you would treat yourself. This about 50 years before Jesus was born. -And I have a prejudice: I believe Torah, Mishna, and other commentaries override all others. I know what I was taught. -If you are using Christian scholar's versions of the OT, it is the opinion of some Jewish scholars that those interpretations are twisted to foretell the NT and add force to it. I don't have the scholarship to judge these comments which I have read. I'll stick to my Masoretic text and current Jewish teachings as I understand them.


> Tony: Also, penance for sins is not simply a Christian concept. In virtually every spiritual belief system death is the price you pay for your sins.-It is not in Judaism to the best of my knowledge. If we honestly admit our sins and transgressions durng the High Holy Days, we stqrt the next year clean again.

DHW: Presumably this will be when all life on earth has been extinguished, or else there would be an ongoing intermingling of the living and the resurrected. Therefore it will be when God has got rid of the old earth and built the new earth. On this there will be no meat-eating, but I note that the new earth will also be without seas. I can't help feeling this will lead to a bit of a water shortage, not to mention the difficulty of growing fruit and veg. Does the bible give us any indication of what we're going to eat and drink?
> -All life extinguished? No oceans? Where did that come from? Well for food, it states quite clearly all seed bearing plants and animals get the leafy vegetation. Not sure where some of your other stuff came from.
 
> TONY: There is supposed to be a time after the 1000 year reign of Christ where Satan is let loose again.
> 
>DWH: It's not clear to me when this 1000 year reign is to happen in relation to the ongoing resurrection, but you say that after it "we will have had the opportunity to learn the standard 100%." Would it then be right to assume that this is the period on new earth during which all of us will undergo our resurrection, including all pre-Christians and all Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Waga-Waga tribesmen, who will be taught the one and only truth, which is Christianity? What else could it be, if Christ is the ruler?) -I do not think it will be Christianity as we know it, no. Religion as we think of it is a purely human concept. One thing I want to re-emphasize is that even though I do take a lot from the bible, and take it seriously, I am not professing to a given religion. Rather, I think what we will be taught is what amounts to universal truth. i.e. This is the way reality REALLY is, this is how you can exist in harmony with it, and these are the consequences if you don't. It is not religion in the sense of all the pomp, dogma, doctrine, and all that other fluff.-Christianity only exists, CAN ONLY exist, in the context of the current world system, or this current incarnation if that floats your boat better. If you have died, and paid the price for your sins, and have been resurrected, and have not sinned, then you are no longer in need of a ransom sacrifice. At that point, Christianity as we know it could no longer apply.-Similarly, faith at that point would gradually be replaced by accurate knowledge, something the Bible actually states directly. '[For this means everlasting life, taking in the accurate knowledge of you and the one whom you sent forth..'-
>Would it also be right to assume that capital crimes committed by our resurrected bodies, such as fornication, murder and agnosticism, will continue throughout the 1000 years? If not, when will they take place, and when exactly will we sinners be "immediately cut off"? -The implication is that the possibility for them will exist, but that something will forestall it from happening. While this is only a guess, I think the example of Abraham points the right direction. When the act is committed too in the heart and mind of the person, that point of no return, that is when I think they would be cut off. Abraham was tested right up to the split second before he would have plunged the knife, and then stopped. -Agnosticism would actually be non-existent at that point. Not because it is wrong, but simply because presented with direct evidence it would not be possible. :P ->Before and/or after the arrival of Satan? (I'm surprised you believe in him, but that's a different subject.)-Satan is a title, not a name. It means the opposer. Likewise for devil, which means deceiver or accuser. Call it the spirit of the world, or an attitude shared by many, or an individual, it matters little. Whether it was an actual entity or not is rather irrelevant. Sometimes I am just as torn by the personification of Satan as I am by other things. According to the Bible, he was a beautiful angel. If I believe in god, I see no reason not to be believe in one or more other spirit creatures. But wouldn't you say that sums up the attitude of the world nicely? Opposed to the rules God set forth, accusing him of everything in the book? Even the Original Adam and Eve story was about opposing the rules and accusing God of keeping something good from his children. -> 
> TONY: YHWH's laws are laws of freedom, not restraint.
> 
> "Thou shalt not etc." = freedom, but I like your rider to this statement: "treat everyone/everything with perfect love and respect." That's practically all we need, isn't it?-".. and the greatest of these is love.' Yes, it is all we need. Look at the thou shalt nots... they can all be summed up by that one golden rule. It is the one rule that grants perfect freedom to everyone, without letting anyone impugn the freedom or happiness another. -
There were many, many holes in your last paragraph, but unfortunately, for me to address them would take more time than I have at the moment. All I can tell you is that even a very cursory reading of the bible would pretty much demolish that entire last paragraph. Hell, even a cursory reading of Genesis and Revelation along would demolish it.

Like energy + awareness + thought = form? Or do you think God purposely became (or created) this spiritual form to relate to the next creation he planned to create? Of course I know you don't KNOW but maybe you have an opinion with what you gathered from what you feel is so and what you have read. Thanks again!
> 
> That is an interesting question, and I certainly do not have any definite answers, as you said. My initial reaction is to point out the obvious that 'form' would have a totally different meaning for God than for us. Take away the physical aspect of form, and what is left? The shape of the thoughts? The totality of the awareness?-That's a mind bender for sure to try and imagine the shape of thought and awareness without form. But isn't that what consciousness is? When people experience NDE's, they experience [being] consciousness without form. Maybe that's also why some NDE'rs say they felt like they were wrapped in God's warmth of complete love and peace, because they were within that state of consciousness without form, [what humans think of as] the dwelling place of God.
 
> There are a lot of things I think of when I consider YHWH, but I don't tend to think of Him in terms of physical imagery like a big man with a beard and a stick or some such. Primarily I think of Him in terms of his attributes: wisdom, love, justice, power, etc. I think of Him in terms of his actions as well, what he does or has done in the past. To my way of thinking, this is his 'form'. The sum unified whole of all of his attributes, and even then my mind is only scratching the surface of something vastly beyond my comprehension.-I think we may have a bit of a similar perspective in imagery. Being raised a Christian, it was difficult for me to wean myself from the image of the "big man with a beard". It was only after my experience's of knocking on heavens door, so to speak, and looking over the edge, that I began to let go of that image. I still pray, but it's different, in that I no longer feel I am speaking to an "entity" called God. I now feel more like I am expressing my hopes, wishes, thankfulness, etc., into the energetic flow of the fabric of What Is, which, I could just as easily call God if the name wasn't so tainted with the old imagery. But when speaking with Christians, I do just call it God. 
 
> This forum actually presents a wonderful analogy for this discussion. To my knowledge, you have never met David, DHW, myself, or any of the others that post here. Yet, you know that we exist, and every time you read one of our posts I suspect that your mental image of our 'form' changes subtly. Barring having seen a photograph of us, you have no idea about our physical attributes, and thus are forced to focus on the essence of who we are as witnessed from our writings and the descriptions of things from our pasts. This is the way I view God.-I completely understand exactly what you are saying. For years, that was the only way for me to get a peek of God was through the scriptures. I would pour over the Bible and many historical study books and concordances, seeking to grasp the Greek, Hebrew and even the elusive Armaic for endless hours trying to grasp the essence of God through those writings. In my last attempt to do so, before my illness, I dramatically came to a final conclusion. I could sum up God in totality with one word - Love. I think it was that final conclusion that allowed me to free myself from my search for God thru the scriptures. My mind was satisfied that the God of the scriptures, in totality, is Love. And having an obsessive mind, I began my search to find love in all things, which is where I believed God had his dwelling place, within all things. And then my illness suddenly came up in the midst of my search. Actually, just thereafter. Because I did finally see love in all things. It did take some acrobatic mind bending - which eventually brought me to the unlikely conclusion of reincarnation. And that's another story. lol. 
> 
> To relate more directly to your question, I am not even entirely certain what it means to have a 'spiritual' form, other than that it implies a different level of existence. From my readings, I can say some things about it. It is NOT 100% separate from physical reality, but it IS different in kind. A purer form of energy would fit that criteria, as it exists both within the physical realm and outside of it at the same time.-Again, it's as if you are describing consciousness in its energetic space between all that is - or what I call, All That Is.


> b bella: To relate more directly to your question, I am not even entirely certain what it means to have a 'spiritual' form, other than that it implies a different level of existence. From my readings, I can say some things about it. It is NOT 100% separate from physical reality, but it IS different in kind. A purer form of energy would fit that criteria, as it exists both within the physical realm and outside of it at the same time.-This is exactly my position. God is a form that we cannot fully imagine and exists within and without our reality. Panentheism. dhw, take note.

Like energy + awareness + thought = form? Or do you think God purposely became (or created) this spiritual form to relate to the next creation he planned to create? Of course I know you don't KNOW but maybe you have an opinion with what you gathered from what you feel is so and what you have read. Thanks again!-That is an interesting question, and I certainly do not have any definite answers, as you said. My initial reaction is to point out the obvious that 'form' would have a totally different meaning for God than for us. Take away the physical aspect of form, and what is left? The shape of the thoughts? The totality of the awareness? -There are a lot of things I think of when I consider YHWH, but I don't tend to think of Him in terms of physical imagery like a big man with a beard and a stick or some such. Primarily I think of Him in terms of his attributes: wisdom, love, justice, power, etc. I think of Him in terms of his actions as well, what he does or has done in the past. To my way of thinking, this is his 'form'. The sum unified whole of all of his attributes, and even then my mind is only scratching the surface of something vastly beyond my comprehension. -This forum actually presents a wonderful analogy for this discussion. To my knowledge, you have never met David, DHW, myself, or any of the others that post here. Yet, you know that we exist, and every time you read one of our posts I suspect that your mental image of our 'form' changes subtly. Barring having seen a photograph of us, you have no idea about our physical attributes, and thus are forced to focus on the essence of who we are as witnessed from our writings and the descriptions of things from our pasts. This is the way I view God. -To relate more directly to your question, I am not even entirely certain what it means to have a 'spiritual' form, other than that it implies a different level of existence. From my readings, I can say some things about it. It is NOT 100% separate from physical reality, but it IS different in kind. A purer form of energy would fit that criteria, as it exists both within the physical realm and outside of it at the same time.

Bella: Then this creator God created a form (YHWH) for which he would use to communicate with the rest of the beings he would later create....
>.. I wondered if you think it is saying that YHWH was the embodiment of the creator - in the sense that the creator created himself a body with all remembrance of who he himself is so to relate with his soon to be created beings? ->Tony: Becoming YHWH was, as David says, energy organizing into thought, and thought becoming form. (If that makes sense at all. Hard to explain what I see in my own head.) I believe YHWH is a spiritual creature, not a physical one in any sense that we understand. You could conceive of it as shaping his spiritual being, I suppose, but that does not quite fit the meaning I am trying to convey.-Thank you, Tony, for your very precise answer (which I think you are doing better than you think in relating) and your patience with my questions. And, yes, it actually does make sense, the way you explained it. But, if I may, I'd like to ask another quest-ion about your opinion about the (spiritual) form God organized into. Do you think it was a spontaneous thing that happened, God becoming a spiritual form? Like energy + awareness + thought = form? Or do you think God purposely became (or created) this spiritual form to relate to the next creation he planned to create? Of course I know you don't KNOW but maybe you have an opinion with what you gathered from what you feel is so and what you have read. Thanks again!


> > >Tony: ..In that depiction, what you refer to as 'All That Is' is nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable. God, Ain Soph, was the the product of self-realization, awakening to awareness, the prime movement, first thought, or first emination. In short, it is not so much that nothing was prior to God as much as it is that it is impossible to speculate upon it. Again, this is according to the Qabala and specifically to the Zohar Tradition. 
> > > 
> > > The Zohar explains the term "Ein Sof" as follows:
> > > "	Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . .But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.[1]
> > 
> >Bella: Then this creator God created a form (YHWH) for which he would use to communicate with the rest of the beings he would later create. Was this YHWH a being he communicates to or through? Is this similar to what this is saying?
> 
> .. I wondered if you think it is saying that YHWH was the embodiment of the creator - in the sense that the creator created himself a body with all remembrance of who he himself is so to relate with his soon to be created beings? Or, do you think it is saying that when the creator created YHWH, the heavenly being awakened as a clean vessel (like Adam) and the creator spoke to him and communicated to him his wishes? 
> 
>-
I think of it in terms of becoming self aware, and the effect that self awareness has on reality. Let's put it this way: If a human's self awareness shapes their personal perspective of reality, what affect would self-awareness have on a being that is one with reality. Becoming YHWH was, as David says, energy organizing into thought, and thought becoming form. (If that makes sense at all. Hard to explain what I see in my own head.) I believe YHWH is a spiritual creature, not a physical one in any sense that we understand. You could conceive of it as shaping his spiritual being, I suppose, but that does not quite fit the meaning I am trying to convey.

Bella: If there are beings that created us, and if they have been watching over us as our God/s, guiding us as children in some sense, and they too, being a much older race of beings than we, evolved, then who is to say they are speaking for creation (The All That Is)? Why would creation itself have to even come from a God or have a creator in the first place? Maybe creation has always been and always will be, and is made up of such a malleable fabric that evolution and What Is and has become, is a natural product of it. 
> > > 
> > 
> > I *think* I understand where you are coming with this. The Sephirothic Tree of Life in the Qabala details something very similar in it's depiction of the Ain and Ain Soph. In that depiction, what you refer to as 'All That Is' is nebulous, having no form, purpose, intelligence, personality, infinite and unknowable. God, Ain Soph, was the the product of self-realization, awakening to awareness, the prime movement, first thought, or first emination. In short, it is not so much that nothing was prior to God as much as it is that it is impossible to speculate upon it. Again, this is according to the Qabala and specifically to the Zohar Tradition. 
> > 
> > The Zohar explains the term "Ein Sof" as follows:
> > "	Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point. . . .But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name 'YHWH'.[1]
> 
> I've heard/read the names Ain/Ein Soph a number of times before in different books I've read through the years but I haven't read the Zohar or the Qabalah but maybe it's time I look further into them. Nonetheless, let me see if I can get this straight: What this is saying is supposedly similar to what I've said - Energy before any being was made was unawakened energy without form or purpose yet full of potential for all that is now. Then this unawakened energy awakened with a first thought and movement, which then eventually became what most think of as God the creator. Then this creator God created a form (YHWH) for which he would use to communicate with the rest of the beings he would later create. Was this YHWH a being he communicates to or through? Is this similar to what this is saying?-Sorry to have quoted the whole last post, Tony, but thought it was needed to refresh where we left off. Altho I've not had a moment to check out the Zohar or Qabalah, I've been digesting your last post, as I frequently do after a response with new to me information/perspective (besides having so little time, it's another reason I often do not respond quickly as I am a slow processor. I like to feel new information instead of thinking on it). -I noticed the last question I asked you wasn't answered - for whatever reason, I was truly seeking your opinion on what you thought it was saying. I wondered if you think it is saying that YHWH was the embodiment of the creator - in the sense that the creator created himself a body with all remembrance of who he himself is so to relate with his soon to be created beings? Or, do you think it is saying that when the creator created YHWH, the heavenly being awakened as a clean vessel (like Adam) and the creator spoke to him and communicated to him his wishes? -Just curious what you think since I can't tell by the info given which one it is saying.


> >DT: You have quoted Kaballah before. What is wrong with those proposed stages as being the after life? Since none of us really know, and we Jews don't believe in Hell, there are alternative theories.
> 
> BM: Nothing at all, really. I just find that the Kaballah tends to be a bit heavy on the mystical/astrological side. I don't disagree with everything that it says by any means, I just approach those things with caution. I've seen too much freaky stuff in my life to not have a sense of caution about mysticism, demonology, magic, etc etc.-Fair enough. I think I'll make it past the limbo possibility.


> > BM: As for your comments regarding the burning hell and what not, I have not ignored it. I presented scriptural evidence that explained that the 'lake of fire' concept simply meant a second death from which there is no return, which also falls in line with the use of 'fire' throughout the book which is used to reference complete destruction and/or total annihilation, not some eternal torment. After you rejected that evidence, I left it alone because we wind up in the position where no matter what I show you from the text you will take dogma over what is written, so there is no point in hounding on it. 
> 
> You have quoted Kaballah before. What is wrong with those proposed stages as being the after life? Since none of us really know, and we Jews don't believe in Hell, there are alternative theories.-Nothing at all, really. I just find that the Kaballah tends to be a bit heavy on the mystical/astrological side. I don't disagree with everything that it says by any means, I just approach those things with caution. I've seen too much freaky stuff in my life to not have a sense of caution about mysticism, demonology, magic, etc etc.