Attacks on churches on the rise

[Sojourner]

1 Sam 16 "The Lord sent an evil spirit to Saul. It gave Saul trouble and fear in his mind."

Sounds like depression. Regardless it isn't changing free will.

 1 Kings 22 "'I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.'

Yes, false prophets tell lies. Regardless it isn't changing free will.

Zech 3:1 Actually says "Satan", not a spirit.


Better?

That's fine. Just understand that I believe being influenced by malevolent spirits does not negate free will. A person can commit horrific acts when under the influence of drugs or alcohol that they would not ordinarily engage in. Yet, even though the substance is influencing the person's behavior, they are still exercising free will.

I understand that Judaism is so rigidly monotheistic the rabbis refrained from characterizing any being other than God as having authority--or even exercising free will. Also God creates both good and evil, and satan is a metaphor for the inclination to evil we struggle against. As I said, there are simply theological differences between Judaism and Christianity--which include the Devil, fallen angels, and demons.

One thing: regarding the passage in Zech 3, what's your understanding of Satan, seen standing there acting as an accuser, whom the Lord rebukes? Why rebuke Satan if he is acting in accordance with God's will?

[Fenris]

That's fine. Just understand that I believe being influenced by malevolent spirits does not negate free will.

Ok, good to hear.

I understand that Judaism is so rigidly monotheistic the rabbis refrained from characterizing any being other than God as having authority--or even exercising free will.

This is kind of a pejorative way of phrasing the idea. "Rigidly monotheistic"? No, that's what the bible says. You guys added on dozens of books that altered the existing theology. It doesn't mean that you're wrong, but at the very least, you have to admit that the bible is very different without them. And "the rabbis refrained"? Judaism comes from the bible, not "the rabbis". I can read it as well as they and come to the same conclusion.

One thing: regarding the passage in Zech 3, what's your understanding of Satan, seen standing there acting as an accuser, whom the Lord rebukes? Why rebuke Satan if he is acting in accordance with God's will?

The word "Satan" in Hebrew means "adversary" or "accuser". Think of God as holding court. Courts have a prosecutor. That doesn't mean that God's court isn't all according to His will, but it must have the elements of a court. There is also the idea that one's own deeds can be either "accusers" or "defenders" in God's court. God rebuking the "accuser" simply means that He's not interested in the person's bad deeds and is willing to overlook them, and He's allowed to do that.

In the instant case, Zechariah 1 begins with God expressing regret that Jerusalem has been conquered, even while acknowledging that Israel deserved it. It ends with the phrase "...so said the Lord of Hosts, 'My cities shall yet spread out with prosperity, and the Lord shall yet console Zion and shall yet choose Jerusalem.' "" Chapter 2 continues with this theme and ends with the prophet saying that "...he Lord shall inherit Judah as His share on the Holy Land, and He shall again choose Jerusalem." And so we come to chapter 3, which begins "And He showed me Joshua, the High Priest, standing before the angel of the Lord. And Satan was standing on his right, to accuse him." In other words, that Joshua too had sins. And God responds by saying "The Lord shall rebuke you, O Satan; and the Lord shall rebuke you, He who chose Jerusalem. Is this one not a brand plucked from fire?" In other words, that while he may have sin, he is also a survivor of the Jerusalem's destruction and the Babylonian exile. And since God does intend to "console Zion and choose Jerusalem", He is willing to overlook Joshua's sins, whatever they may be. Sure enough, two verses later God says "See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I have clad you with clean garments."

In a personal sense I see all the Jews alive today as "a brand plucked from fire". We have survived so many tragedies and yet we are still here.

[Sojourner]

This is kind of a pejorative way of phrasing the idea. "Rigidly monotheistic"? No, that's what the bible says. You guys added on dozens of books that altered the existing theology. It doesn't mean that you're wrong, but at the very least, you have to admit that the bible is very different without them. And "the rabbis refrained"? Judaism comes from the bible, not "the rabbis". I can read it as well as they and come to the same conclusion.

I apologize if my statement seemed pejorative. I only sought to underscore a superlative sense of monotheism as being the reason Judaism rejects the idea of angelic beings having free will. (And I do not question the integrity of your acumen regarding Judaism). But don't the collective rabbinic writings outside of scripture form the basis for much of what modern Jews believe? For instance, on the topic of angels:

The idea that angels are essentially "programmed" for specific tasks, rather than being eternally-existing creatures with personalities who obey God out of free will; that angels sing God's praises in "shifts," and the angel who wrestled with Jacob was in a hurry to leave at dawn because it was time for his shift; that some angels are created for one specific task, and then cease to exist upon the task's completion; that some angels are created as a result of either good or bad human deeds.

These and other ideas are not clearly delineated in the tanakh, but are derived from the teachings of rabbis and scholars, who seek to expound and elucidate. Their pervasive influence on Judaism was the reason I referenced them.

[Fenris]

I apologize if my statement seemed pejorative. I only sought to underscore a superlative sense of monotheism as being the reason Judaism rejects the idea of angelic beings having free will. (And I do not question the integrity of your acumen regarding Judaism).

Fair enough.

But don't the collective rabbinic writings outside of scripture form the basis for much of what modern Jews believe?

I think this is worthy of its own topic. I shall start one.

For instance, on the topic of angels:

...

These and other ideas are not clearly delineated in the tanakh,

It's sufficient to stop there. They're not clearly delineated. So the information was filled in. As it doesn't contradict anything stated in the bible, it should not be viewed in a negative way. You're free to accept it or reject it.

[Fenris]

The Vatican has put out some figures on the plight of Christians in Nigeria. And it's bad.

Since 2009, around 52,250 Christians have been murdered. So far this year more than 1,000 Christians have been murdered.

18,000 churches and 2,200 Christian schools have been set on fire.

At least 707 Christians have been kidnapped.

About 5 million Christians have been displaced and forced into DP camps.

[RabbiKnife]

It is quite remarkable.

We support a ministry called Voice if the Martyrs that track and works with Christians undergoing real persecution

They are having a simulcast event on the evening of March 8 to share some details of ways to help these folks.

Nigeria has just become an abattoir

[Sojourner]

It's no coincidence that Jews and Christians are both targeted by Muslims. They seem to hold the opinion that if you worship a god other than Allah, you don't deserve to live. In Nigeria, about half the population is Christian, and the other half is Muslim, so there's frequent victimization of Christians. I've read reports of Nigerian Christians who were kidnapped and tortured, and came back stronger in their faith. Inspiring. Those who are martyred will be rewarded in the coming kingdom, so either way there is victory.

[Fenris]

They seem to hold the opinion that if you worship a god other than Allah, you don't deserve to live.

Or if one worships the wrong flavor of Islam for that matter.

[Sojourner]

They seem to hold the opinion that if you worship a god other than Allah, you don't deserve to live.

Or if one worships the wrong flavor of Islam for that matter.

True dat. Sunni and Shia Muslims (among a few others brands), don't always play well together. I believe the differences originally stem from a dispute over Muhammad's rightful successor. Push come to shove though, they'd put aside their differences to unite against the "Great Satan and Little Satan".