Dr millerman, thank you so much for this discussion. I’m reading “the beginnings of politics” right now, the Halbertal book you mention about Kings Saul and David. The AI discussion too is relevant, I think, and brought to mind the classic Phillip K Dick novel and Spielberg movie “Minority Report.” Enjoyed this.
This reminds me of the Inquisition chapter in the brothers Karamazov. The intervention of God can only derail the implementation of God's law. The institution created to be a bridge to the divine, becomes a gate locked shut for the good of the flock. For if they could comprehend God just a little they would be destroyed.
Michael, love the channel. One thing about Christian theology though that might be missing in your analysis, and this can be found right in the New Testament. The Law is not replaced by Christ, as if the Law was bad and Christ abrogates or invalidates the Law. Instead, it is better to see Christ as the fulfillment of the Law, which, as Paul points out "is good." (Romans 7). The idea that the Law (here, the Mosaic Law) was invalid, as well as the "Jewish God" who gave it, is part and parcel of the earliest Christian heresy, namely, of Marcionism. But Marcionism was rejected by the orthodox Church Fathers in his own day, most thoroughly by Irenaeus of Lyon in his 5-volume "Against Heresies." Moreover, Paul is clear that what accepting Christ as Lord and Messiah allows us to do is to be transformed in such a way that the Law no longer condemns us (because we are incapable of fulfilling it), but that the Law becomes fulfillable by us in that our desires, and our very being, are transformed by Christ so as to make the Law not "a law" above us, but literally a part of us. This actually fulfills the prophecy of Ezekiel 36:24-29 where God promises to change Israel's heart of stone, put His Spirit into the heart of man, and make the Law no longer cumbersome to us, but, again, make it part of our nature. What was once a divine command to a sinful and corrupt human being, is now grafted into the very ontology of the being of man. This solves the tension between voluntarism (legal positivism) and nature (physis); of will and being. As such, Jesus can say about those who will receive the Spirit, that those who perform the Law will, in the end, not even realize that they were performing it because it is in them and not external to them, cf. Matt 25:37 ff. They will act out the Law naturally, because there is no more distinction between will and being.
This is why it was so imprtant for Jesus to be a *fulfillment* of the Law. He had to root his message in the existing literature and extend it, rather than relying (only) on miracles as proof. Very good story. Thank you
which Greeks transposed over "Him" [if "He" was at all] after the "fact". per the Dionysian Mysteries that "He" would have trafficked in. [Phoenician Galileans were pirates who trafficked humans *not fish* Joshua & "His" his 14 yo boys *the "apostles all* were] Jesus was arrested in a public park at 3am w/a naked boy Mark 14: 51-2 etc What u say is so self absorbed and locally compared you miss the point [if there is one here to begin with] If thou art concerned w/Truth, God, and/or Human Grace = abandon this revisionist horse crap
I must admit, this is a concept of a higher power/Almighty/One above All that I can't imagine. To me, it's insanity and supreme human arrogance. Beyond pride or hubris of the Greeks. My opinion, and I'm perfectly open to what others would be kind enough to share with me. 🕊️
I’m reminded of St Faustina Kowalska’s diary in which she (a famously uneducated Polish nun and mystic who died in her 20’s) says that Jesus tells her that he gives sanction to the priest in confession to counsel her according to his prudence. So even in her mystical experiences, in which she received a mandate from Jesus to found a new religious order, she is ordered to obey ecclesiastical authorities even as they deny her permission to carry out Jesus’ mandate. She attributes this ultimately to God’s mercy, which accommodates His justice to human freedom as it is exercised by the visible authorities that receive His sanction. I think the profundity of her insights are themselves a stunning evidence for the truth of the Catholic faith. Thank you for sharing this piece of Talmudic wisdom with us Michael 🙏🏻
@@theonetruetim if you think the content of the talmudic parable Michael expounds exposes a profound problem or insight, then the story of St Faustina should be considered just as seriously.
To my mind using the law mechanistically up to a point of rejecting the divine wisdom behind the law, the soul of the law, is far closer to using a "truth machine" than accepting revelation. Miracle can't be a truth machine, as miracle isn't an everpresent mechanistic utility that you can demand answers of as you please. I mean, it's hard to not notice that miracles don't happen very often. And the logic of the story is indeed exactly the same as the one j-s used to reject Christ. You may disagree with Christians pointing that out, but to dismiss them without an argument and call them stupid is... Unimpressive to say the least.
If god is perfect and all knowing how can a person act freely. The story reminded me of argument for freedom of the will that went along the lines: If god is as suggested then he can't change anything he has done, and he has done it all. It would amount to a contradiction. If so, then we can freely do what ever we want, with no interventions.
What does it matter to your free will that G-d already knows what you will do? Your question validates the supremacy of G-d by illustrating His complete differentness from us.
If ithe law is given to us by a perfect being, that same being can't then change his law without contradicting his own perfection. I think this supports the majority rabbis claim and why they ignore the minority's claim.
@@philcava6265 You're correct that the moral law cannot change. Of course, fallible human beings can misinterpret the law. The law itself however remains and does not change, regardless if humans fail to uphold it or even understand it.
@@philcava6265 Probably worth specifying that while you're right about the moral law not being able to change, in the story God isn't changing the law. The rabbi in the majority is also simply wrong about what Exodus 23:2 is saying, as Scripture here says you *don't* follow the majority against the truth. God never gives over to mankind the ability to define truth itself. Humans can choose to try to know/understand truth, but they can't define it. A majority opinion doesn't change the underlying reality, as a majority opinion can simply be wrong.
Textualism, the authority of the sacred texts-law preserving continuity with reality through interpreting the text-law, imposing the text-law on reality _vs_ its negation: _the authority of reality_ contradicting or imposing itself on or against sacred texts-laws _vs_ reality as a reflection or emanation of the sacred texts-laws already there. Also a text-law which is necessary in the sense of universal-recurring, versus particularly necessary to a historical situation.
What's weird here is that while Exodus 23:2 has a lot of different translations, they all basically say you should NOT follow the majority into doing something wicked. That you should NOT give way to the majority if it means going against the truth. Which completely contradicts the argument being made by the rabbi who is holding the majority opinion against God (who is Truth, so obviously the majority is objectively wrong).
This debate made me think of Jack London's Iron Heel. There's a debate between two characters I cant quite recall but I remember this notion of holding the interlocutor to their initial position. Reminds me of this notion of the divine law, and it's interpretation. I could be skitz
That Dostojevski parable mentioned in another comment was my first thought also, along with the quote of some german that goes something like "he who knows how laws and sausages are made, do not sleep well at night". I think the same goes for he who knows how art is made. But on the other hand, the the rabbis are undoubtably great artists. I can see their point though, offcourse, but wether one agrees with it is I guess from a Nietzschean perspective a matter of taste, based on ones constitution. I'm sure there are other perspectives.
does this Jewish law only apply within the Jewish community? for example, in Deuteronomy 5, the Ten Commandments are given but merely in Deuteronomy 7 the order is given to genocide the tribes of Canaan to steal their land
If God is all knowing, and if God gave the law, then his authority would supercede the law he gave. However, I don't think this scenario is possible in the first place, not without stripping God of his omniscience. The law could not possibly explain every scenario; to do so would be an endless volume if books. Of course, my argument presupposes that God is all knowing. If God is not, and is merely a higher being, and flawed, then all bets are off. The other thing to consider is that a majority does not make Truth. The Truth isnt up to a vote of opinion, what is true is true regardless.
How was the ritual purity of the oven called into question in the first place? Was God like the framers of the constitution who avoided ruling clearly on some issues, left them to be decided at a future time or by some other legal mechanism or is the simple fact that even the most learned and pious of Rabbis and scholars cannot apprehend the full brilliance and majesty of God and his laws? They strain to see through darkened glass? Are we not confined, as Luther said, to apprehend God and His Laws as a matter of faith rather than knowledge or logical proofs, forsaken wretches that we are? 35:43
"You can not petition The Lord with prayer" [fitting that these rabbis act as a legal panel *and not as One* as that is how their oh so One God handled his Elohim [panel of gods]] i could go on. Love you, Mike. [but] Foundational [no less Historical] concerns shut all this contingent "Legal" mess down so hard so fast. Convalesce. Worship dat Ass. Wake up. [in that order] then, Do as Thou Wilt. amen [as good as we are gonna get]
The Story is a puzzle told by allegory. Which is the ultimate truth and guide to righteousness, Law (Words) or the Divine (that which needs no words but is) - the Light? Words are the realm of Man and are by that nature, corruptible. Can we be guided ultimately by the words of men (Laws) or by our gift of conscience (The Divine?) "God" in the story is our gift of Conscience, unless that gift is repressed, it functions to guide us toward the righteous path. Law in the story is the imperfect ideas of men who are corruptible and will set down their Laws for advantage and power. The story is still playing itself out among that tribe who are still arguing as to what is to be lived by; that which is written or by their conscience. Just as in the story, the majority justifies their agenda by quoting scriptures they deem "Law" but the minority wails and even disowns what scripture "promises" them as their just reward. It is not their reward they have taken, it is their punishment. They, by their greed and avarice have brought Hell to Earth and now they, like their Sampson of old, will bring down the Temple and destroy both the corrupt and the righteous. And guess what? The World will keep turning and soon forget and "God" smirks (in a godly manner) and says with irony; "My children have triumphed over me."
I suspect I've been Shadow Banned for criticism of Zionism. I used to respect Millerman (and Peterson) but they are frauds who base their beliefs on the irrational. The best way to deal with Narcissists is to cut off all connection; so that's what ill do now. Unsubscribed.
@@thescythian321I would not blame Millerman for this behavior. RUclips and AI is behind it. I agreed with your first post, but your second post was unhinged and accusatory without any real evidence that Peterson and Millerman are out to get you. By all accounts, they both are decent individuals.
@@SWTORDREKKIN The jury is still out for me with Millerman, though I suspect he is a charlatan as he is a self proclaimed Zionist, but "by all accounts" Peterson being a decent man is drawing a long bow indeed. Decency encompassing the advocation of Mass Murder is a new concept for me. I replied to my own post suspecting I'd been Shadow banned, obviously i was mistaken. But I have no "unhinged" ideas that either Millerman or Peterson are out to get me. I would be very surprised if either are aware of my existence. Thanks for your recognition of my initial thoughts about the story; they seemed pretty obvious to me; but then I don't believe any god enters into the crafting of words, thats a human idea.
Dr millerman, thank you so much for this discussion. I’m reading “the beginnings of politics” right now, the Halbertal book you mention about Kings Saul and David. The AI discussion too is relevant, I think, and brought to mind the classic Phillip K Dick novel and Spielberg movie “Minority Report.” Enjoyed this.
This reminds me of the Inquisition chapter in the brothers Karamazov. The intervention of God can only derail the implementation of God's law. The institution created to be a bridge to the divine, becomes a gate locked shut for the good of the flock. For if they could comprehend God just a little they would be destroyed.
Das u
Michael, love the channel. One thing about Christian theology though that might be missing in your analysis, and this can be found right in the New Testament. The Law is not replaced by Christ, as if the Law was bad and Christ abrogates or invalidates the Law. Instead, it is better to see Christ as the fulfillment of the Law, which, as Paul points out "is good." (Romans 7). The idea that the Law (here, the Mosaic Law) was invalid, as well as the "Jewish God" who gave it, is part and parcel of the earliest Christian heresy, namely, of Marcionism. But Marcionism was rejected by the orthodox Church Fathers in his own day, most thoroughly by Irenaeus of Lyon in his 5-volume "Against Heresies." Moreover, Paul is clear that what accepting Christ as Lord and Messiah allows us to do is to be transformed in such a way that the Law no longer condemns us (because we are incapable of fulfilling it), but that the Law becomes fulfillable by us in that our desires, and our very being, are transformed by Christ so as to make the Law not "a law" above us, but literally a part of us. This actually fulfills the prophecy of Ezekiel 36:24-29 where God promises to change Israel's heart of stone, put His Spirit into the heart of man, and make the Law no longer cumbersome to us, but, again, make it part of our nature. What was once a divine command to a sinful and corrupt human being, is now grafted into the very ontology of the being of man. This solves the tension between voluntarism (legal positivism) and nature (physis); of will and being. As such, Jesus can say about those who will receive the Spirit, that those who perform the Law will, in the end, not even realize that they were performing it because it is in them and not external to them, cf. Matt 25:37 ff. They will act out the Law naturally, because there is no more distinction between will and being.
Man this was amazing, thanks
This is why it was so imprtant for Jesus to be a *fulfillment* of the Law. He had to root his message in the existing literature and extend it, rather than relying (only) on miracles as proof. Very good story. Thank you
which Greeks transposed over "Him" [if "He" was at all] after the "fact".
per the Dionysian Mysteries that "He" would have trafficked in. [Phoenician Galileans were pirates who trafficked humans *not fish* Joshua & "His" his 14 yo boys *the "apostles all* were]
Jesus was arrested in a public park at 3am w/a naked boy Mark 14: 51-2
etc
What u say is so self absorbed and locally compared you miss the point [if there is one here to begin with]
If thou art concerned w/Truth, God, and/or Human Grace = abandon this revisionist horse crap
I must admit, this is a concept of a higher power/Almighty/One above All that I can't imagine. To me, it's insanity and supreme human arrogance. Beyond pride or hubris of the Greeks.
My opinion, and I'm perfectly open to what others would be kind enough to share with me. 🕊️
@@theonetruetim I don't know what that means.
I’m reminded of St Faustina Kowalska’s diary in which she (a famously uneducated Polish nun and mystic who died in her 20’s) says that Jesus tells her that he gives sanction to the priest in confession to counsel her according to his prudence. So even in her mystical experiences, in which she received a mandate from Jesus to found a new religious order, she is ordered to obey ecclesiastical authorities even as they deny her permission to carry out Jesus’ mandate.
She attributes this ultimately to God’s mercy, which accommodates His justice to human freedom as it is exercised by the visible authorities that receive His sanction.
I think the profundity of her insights are themselves a stunning evidence for the truth of the Catholic faith. Thank you for sharing this piece of Talmudic wisdom with us Michael 🙏🏻
proof of...lol [if i dont laugh...]
this is why we are all doomed, folks.
Reverence for convolution and false authority for absolution.
@@theonetruetim if you think the content of the talmudic parable Michael expounds exposes a profound problem or insight, then the story of St Faustina should be considered just as seriously.
To my mind using the law mechanistically up to a point of rejecting the divine wisdom behind the law, the soul of the law, is far closer to using a "truth machine" than accepting revelation. Miracle can't be a truth machine, as miracle isn't an everpresent mechanistic utility that you can demand answers of as you please. I mean, it's hard to not notice that miracles don't happen very often.
And the logic of the story is indeed exactly the same as the one j-s used to reject Christ. You may disagree with Christians pointing that out, but to dismiss them without an argument and call them stupid is... Unimpressive to say the least.
Very interesting!
If god is perfect and all knowing how can a person act freely. The story reminded me of argument for freedom of the will that went along the lines: If god is as suggested then he can't change anything he has done, and he has done it all. It would amount to a contradiction. If so, then we can freely do what ever we want, with no interventions.
What does it matter to your free will that G-d already knows what you will do? Your question validates the supremacy of G-d by illustrating His complete differentness from us.
If ithe law is given to us by a perfect being, that same being can't then change his law without contradicting his own perfection. I think this supports the majority rabbis claim and why they ignore the minority's claim.
@@philcava6265 You're correct that the moral law cannot change. Of course, fallible human beings can misinterpret the law. The law itself however remains and does not change, regardless if humans fail to uphold it or even understand it.
@@philcava6265 Probably worth specifying that while you're right about the moral law not being able to change, in the story God isn't changing the law. The rabbi in the majority is also simply wrong about what Exodus 23:2 is saying, as Scripture here says you *don't* follow the majority against the truth. God never gives over to mankind the ability to define truth itself. Humans can choose to try to know/understand truth, but they can't define it. A majority opinion doesn't change the underlying reality, as a majority opinion can simply be wrong.
Textualism, the authority of the sacred texts-law preserving continuity with reality through interpreting the text-law, imposing the text-law on reality _vs_ its negation: _the authority of reality_ contradicting or imposing itself on or against sacred texts-laws _vs_ reality as a reflection or emanation of the sacred texts-laws already there. Also a text-law which is necessary in the sense of universal-recurring, versus particularly necessary to a historical situation.
it’s like the story of benjamin franklin saying to the crowd at the constitutional convention …we have made a republic if you can keep it.
YES!!!
What's weird here is that while Exodus 23:2 has a lot of different translations, they all basically say you should NOT follow the majority into doing something wicked. That you should NOT give way to the majority if it means going against the truth. Which completely contradicts the argument being made by the rabbi who is holding the majority opinion against God (who is Truth, so obviously the majority is objectively wrong).
This debate made me think of Jack London's Iron Heel. There's a debate between two characters I cant quite recall but I remember this notion of holding the interlocutor to their initial position. Reminds me of this notion of the divine law, and it's interpretation. I could be skitz
That Dostojevski parable mentioned in another comment was my first thought also, along with the quote of some german that goes something like "he who knows how laws and sausages are made, do not sleep well at night". I think the same goes for he who knows how art is made. But on the other hand, the the rabbis are undoubtably great artists. I can see their point though, offcourse, but wether one agrees with it is I guess from a Nietzschean perspective a matter of taste, based on ones constitution. I'm sure there are other perspectives.
does this Jewish law only apply within the Jewish community? for example, in Deuteronomy 5, the Ten Commandments are given but merely in Deuteronomy 7 the order is given to genocide the tribes of Canaan to steal their land
now apply this rhetoric to the story of moses with the egyptians. hey man, majority rules.
If God is all knowing, and if God gave the law, then his authority would supercede the law he gave. However, I don't think this scenario is possible in the first place, not without stripping God of his omniscience. The law could not possibly explain every scenario; to do so would be an endless volume if books. Of course, my argument presupposes that God is all knowing. If God is not, and is merely a higher being, and flawed, then all bets are off. The other thing to consider is that a majority does not make Truth. The Truth isnt up to a vote of opinion, what is true is true regardless.
I am hoping we will soon have some talmud sessions?
How was the ritual purity of the oven called into question in the first place? Was God like the framers of the constitution who avoided ruling clearly on some issues, left them to be decided at a future time or by some other legal mechanism or is the simple fact that even the most learned and pious of Rabbis and scholars cannot apprehend the full brilliance and majesty of God and his laws? They strain to see through darkened glass? Are we not confined, as Luther said, to apprehend God and His Laws as a matter of faith rather than knowledge or logical proofs, forsaken wretches that we are? 35:43
"You can not petition The Lord with prayer"
[fitting that these rabbis act as a legal panel *and not as One* as that is how their oh so One God handled his Elohim [panel of gods]]
i could go on.
Love you, Mike.
[but] Foundational [no less Historical] concerns shut all this contingent "Legal" mess down so hard so fast.
Convalesce. Worship dat Ass. Wake up. [in that order]
then,
Do as Thou Wilt.
amen
[as good as we are gonna get]
The Story is a puzzle told by allegory. Which is the ultimate truth and guide to righteousness, Law (Words) or the Divine (that which needs no words but is) - the Light? Words are the realm of Man and are by that nature, corruptible. Can we be guided ultimately by the words of men (Laws) or by our gift of conscience (The Divine?) "God" in the story is our gift of Conscience, unless that gift is repressed, it functions to guide us toward the righteous path. Law in the story is the imperfect ideas of men who are corruptible and will set down their Laws for advantage and power. The story is still playing itself out among that tribe who are still arguing as to what is to be lived by; that which is written or by their conscience. Just as in the story, the majority justifies their agenda by quoting scriptures they deem "Law" but the minority wails and even disowns what scripture "promises" them as their just reward. It is not their reward they have taken, it is their punishment. They, by their greed and avarice have brought Hell to Earth and now they, like their Sampson of old, will bring down the Temple and destroy both the corrupt and the righteous. And guess what? The World will keep turning and soon forget and "God" smirks (in a godly manner) and says with irony; "My children have triumphed over me."
I suspect I've been Shadow Banned for criticism of Zionism. I used to respect Millerman (and Peterson) but they are frauds who base their beliefs on the irrational. The best way to deal with Narcissists is to cut off all connection; so that's what ill do now. Unsubscribed.
@@thescythian321I would not blame Millerman for this behavior. RUclips and AI is behind it. I agreed with your first post, but your second post was unhinged and accusatory without any real evidence that Peterson and Millerman are out to get you. By all accounts, they both are decent individuals.
@@SWTORDREKKIN The jury is still out for me with Millerman, though I suspect he is a charlatan as he is a self proclaimed Zionist, but "by all accounts" Peterson being a decent man is drawing a long bow indeed. Decency encompassing the advocation of Mass Murder is a new concept for me. I replied to my own post suspecting I'd been Shadow banned, obviously i was mistaken. But I have no "unhinged" ideas that either Millerman or Peterson are out to get me. I would be very surprised if either are aware of my existence. Thanks for your recognition of my initial thoughts about the story; they seemed pretty obvious to me; but then I don't believe any god enters into the crafting of words, thats a human idea.
Jesus is the Way. The Truth and the Life.
I like spinoza