posted
On one of the gay marriage threads I promised my response to the question of why Christians still consider the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) part of our sacred scripture. That thread moved on in other directions, so I decided to start a new thread. This topic is probably worth it’s own thread anyway.
First, disclaimers: I know that my understanding of the Bible is different than that of many other faithful religious people at Hatrack. We come from different traditions and have very different doctrines and teachings. I know many of you are going to disagree with parts of this. I’m trying to write it in a way that avoids disparaging other beliefs, but on areas where we strongly disagree, that may be difficult. I apologize in advance if I do a poor job. If any of you choose to add your perspectives on this topic, I’ll be delighted.
The post that I’m responding to is Bob’s:
quote: You know, protestations to the contrary, I find the Old and New Testaments to be completely different scriptures and irreconcilable except by the most tortured paths of human intellect.
Given that, I worry that so many Christian sects insist on keeping the Old Testament as part of their teachings, rather than just honoring it as part of a long-dead heritage.
It would seem that much nastiness was done in God's name by the Israelites. It could mean that God was on their side. Or it could mean that they survived to write the history.
No offense to our Jewish members here, by the way. I'm not much on the divine origins of ANY scripture, so please don't feel singled out.
I know that it often mystifies Jewish scholars when they hear the kinds of things that Christians do to their scriptures in order to make sense of a combined OT & NT tradition.
Basically, most Christians have to assert that they know more about Jewish scripture than the Jews do. And I find that claim to be entirely preposterous.
First point – reconciliation. I agree completely that human intellects have gone down some pretty tortured paths in Biblical interpretation. But I don’t think that any of those tortures were necessary merely to reconcile the two parts of the Christian Bible. The most tortured paths have had additional goal – usually to set up some form of “proof” either aimed at converting Jews by convincing them that Jesus was/is the messiah or aimed at atheists to convince them of the divine origin of scriptures by counting the number of prophecies that “came true.”
If the goal is neither of those but instead to see how the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament are a continuous tradition, it’s much simpler. Instead of trying to read the Hebrew Bible as a book about Jesus of Nazareth, recognize that Jesus of Nazareth is a book about the God of the Hebrew Bible.
I had the good fortune to study New Testament with a professor who got her Ph.D. from Hebrew Union Seminary, studying the NT as late second temple Jewish literature. It’s amazing how much easier it is to reconcile the two when you look at it that way. And when you look at it that way, you see why Christianity can’t give up the Scriptures that Jesus was steeped in without losing our foundations.
The central claim of Christianity is that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (and Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel & Leah), the God of Creation, the God who sent the prophets, is revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. God isn’t a god in general, God is God in particular. Theologians call it “the scandal of particularity.” I think of it as the genius of Christian theology, the blending of the headiness and universality of Greek philosophy with the embodied-ness and particularity of Hebrew storytelling. It’s a constant tension, but it’s a good place to be.
Second point – nastiness in Israelite history. Yep, it’s definitely in there. But I don’t think anyone who studies the Bible seriously could argue that sanctioning violence is the point of any of it. And there’s a lot more about ensuring justice, caring for the needs of the poor, and acting rightly toward your neighbors than there is about war. The conquest is, for me, the most troubling part of the whole Bible. But I’m not willing to lose the incredible socio-economic critique of the prophets just to get out of having to deal with Joshua. To paraphrase a book I was reading last night – we don’t read the Bible for an affirmation of what we already believe. If we pick and choose only the parts we agree with we aren’t learning and we aren’t listening. Now, obviously all Christians pick and choose how they interpret various scriptures and how they apply each to their lives. But I don’t think we get to simply dismiss any of them. From “In the beginning . . .” through the last “Amen,” we get to “hear them, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them.” Even the ones that give us a stomachache. Any other way leads to an ala carte religion, which quickly turns to a steady diet of cotton candy. And as fun as fluff can be, ultimately it’s not very nourishing.
Third point – Jewish-Christian dialogue. I think Christianity would benefit from a lot more of it. Bob’s point that Jewish scholars are often mystified by the ways Christians twist their scriptures is well taken. It’s almost funny how often Christians are baffled when Jews don’t see what is “obvious” to a Christian who doesn’t realize that she or he has interpreted a particular scripture in a way a Jew would never interpret it. Christianity has a sad history of casting the Jews as the villains of the New Testament (while ignoring the fact that the heroes were also Jews) and thus discounting any wisdom they might possess. To our great shame and loss.
Conclusion. The Bible is the story of God and the world and humanity in all our messy glory. The story starts with creation and looks forward to the fulfillment of God’s reign. Without the creation, you can’t get to the fulfillment. Without the understanding of justice taught by the prophets you can’t understand Jesus proclamation of the reign of God. Without the Hebrew Bible you might have something that calls itself Christianity but it would not (IMO) be what Jesus lived or taught.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason we Christians still use the OT is because without it, the NT is useless. The correlation is between the OT, in which prophecies are made, and the NT, in which prophecies are fulfilled. If we don't have the prophecies, then the things that Jesus did wouldn't have been worth a whole lot.
Posts: 113 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, that would be an example of "We come from different traditions and have very different doctrines and teachings." Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I'd be very interested to know what some other Christians think...I was under the impression that what I said was a pretty fundamental part of Christian beliefs.
(No, no matter how hard I try I cannot make that sound not-sarcastic. I SWEAR I'm not being sarcastic.)
posted
I pretty much agree with dkw's take right down the line... at least, on first face, I can't find anything I disagree with.
Speaking as "some other Christian"...
I think there is *much* more to the Old Testament than prophecy and also *much* more than a mere historical accounting. I think that those who view the OT scriptures as, primarily, a merely factual, typically western, accounting of what happened before Jesus came around are missing a great deal... but I have also been wrong before.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
No, you are very right. I didn't mean to imply that this is ALL that's important about the OT. It was more of a gut reaction, because I felt what I posted had been kind of glossed over and is very important.
posted
Paula, think about what you posted for a minute. Do you really think that nothing Jesus said or did “would have been worth a whole lot” without someone predicting it in advance?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, everything that Jesus did was worthwhile, but the acts of riding on an ass, being sold for 30 pieces of silver, etc, wouldn't have been specifically important to anyone. But they are, because they fulfilled prophecy. That's why each of the prophecies he fulfilled is such a special event. It means little enough to the rest of the world as it is, but without the prophecies, they would have just been random events. To the world. I have to emphasize that I'm trying to convey how the world looks at Jesus, not myself.
(Before someone can say it...NO I don't mean EVERYONE in the world.)
posted
dkw, I am delighted in general that you posted this, and a little miffed that you didn't ever post it in response to my stuff. What am I? Chopped liver?
quote: God isn’t a god in general, God is God in particular. Theologians call it “the scandal of particularity.” I think of it as the genius of Christian theology, the blending of the headiness and universality of Greek philosophy with the embodied-ness and particularity of Hebrew storytelling. It’s a constant tension, but it’s a good place to be.
I am not sure that I am getting this. Can you elaborate?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is actually a question that has been on my mind quite a bit recently.
I try to read a chapter in the Bible each day (there are days when I miss) and I am now working on my second trip through. (For those who are curious, it takes about 3 years to do this, give or take a few weeks.) My first read was with the Schofield Reference Bible, King James version. This time I'm reading a more modern translation, which has made the study a bit easier and more direct.
Currently, I'm working my way through Psalms and at about the one-third point, I really, really started getting discouraged. David, most blessed of God at that time, spent a huge amount of time basically whining and it just really got to me. Half praise and half pleas for help to destroy his enemy or just to say what they had done to him. It really was wearing on me and I began to wonder if I should just skip the Old Testament and concentrate instead on the New.
My reasoning was that since I'm a Christian, the lessons I need are all in the New Testament and that the Old Testament was history and the foundations. Once you had a grasp of it, you could work from the New Testament only.
I just couldn't work with that, however. I just couldn't make myself give up on the Old Testament. These were God's rules and judgements, God's advice and also the history of the people who were the mothers and fathers of Jesus.
I'm still conflicted, because I do feel I need reinforcement of what Jesus taught and that I need it now. I am also, however, aware that one doesn't jump into Algebra without studying arithmetic first, if you know what I mean.
Grace and salvation are given as free gifts at the asking, but wisdom, I guess is something that is only gained through hard work, instruction and introspection. So, I'm going to keep wading through Psalms which is proving even harder on me than Job did.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Job happens to be my favorite book in the Bible.
Psalms got to be a lot more meaningful when I started memorizing verses. I'd read them many many times before, but then I started memorizing them and they suddenly applied to me.
For several years, until I was thirteen or fourteen, I read the Old Testament, particularly Kings and Chronicles, almost exculsively. I found the New Testament too depressing. Even today I periodically go back to reading the Old Testament exclusively.
Sorry, this is just sort of rambling. About how the Old Testament is useful, my pastor keeps on saying that the book of Hebrews explains that. But I can't make heads or tails of Hebrews, so maybe it does, if you can wade through it and figure it out.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Storm. If it helps, I really like chopped liver. With mayonnaise. On a donut sandwich. If you bump the thread I promise to reply. (I don’t remember which one it was.)
Sopwith, some people alternate reading one chapter from each Testament, or read one from each every night. You could try that. You could also try reading the psalms out loud. It’s easier to pick up on the poetry that way.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't really like the book of Job either. I couldn't understand how someone who whined through 99% of the book was so faithful.
Posts: 113 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dead on Paula. We agree a lot of the time. You might want to change some of your opinions as not to be reffered to as a "dreg".
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, thank you for posting this. I come from a tradition that is historically prone to discount the old testament and focus more on the new testament. I have heard it said that a person can learn all he needs to know for salvation from any book of the new testament, that God is reveled in every page. To a point, I agree. But it's seems to me that God didn't do it that way because there was a better way. I think that a person can get a picture of God from the new testament alone, but I think it is a woefully incomplete picture.
"God is not a god in general; God is God in particular." I love that.
posted
I think that more important than prophecy-fulfillment is the fact that much of Christ's teachings are written as dialogues with the Jewish establishment, or as elaborations upon existing doctrine. Unless you have some basis for understanding the Jewish establishment and early Jewish doctrine, you have no idea where Christ is coming from, and are far more likely to misunderstand Him. The Old Testament provides Christians with Jesus Christ's background and traditions, which are key to understanding the man Himself.
Also, the prophecies that Christ fulfilled are basically all quoted by Matthew, so if that were the only reason, it wouldn't be a terribly good one Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow Ryan -- even when you agree with someone...
Anyway, dkw, thanks for posting this.
Sopwith, I'm impressed. I've read the Bible through 2x and never spent anything like 3 years on it (in total). I do admit that I got a lot more out of it on the 2nd read. I wonder (worry) what might happen on its 3rd time through the rotation.
Now, back to dkw's original post. I understand in the abstract everything you've said. In fact, in most of the fields that I study deeply (as, for example Psychology in which I finally earned a Ph.D.) I felt it very important to understand the history and read it in the original as much as possible. I was mostly alone in that idea as only the most dusty of my profs ever even pointed students to work older than the 1950's. But the short story is that I normally do find value in such study.
Here's what I find troubling about viewing the OT as anything but history, from a Christian perspective only mind you -- I think the rich tradition of Scriptural analysis in the Jewish faith has made what Christians call the "OLD" testament something that is living and vibrant unto the present. And we really could learn a lot from these scholars.
But I digress. here's what bugs me:
Jesus came out of that tradition, yes. But he transcended it by explaining some fairly simple things. If I'm not mistaken, most Christian sects treat God's original covenant as something that He had to enter into even though it fell short of the desired covenant mainly because of Man's slow-wittedness or orneryness. His Son came to explain that the rules didn't matter as much as what was in the heart, for example. So, in a very real sense, Jesus is telling us that the strict observance of laws was sort of a stop-gap until such time as God was able to come into the world and teach us Himself about the meaning behind those laws.
And, from that point, we were to figure it out based on the general guidelines represented by, for example, the two most important Commandments. (Love God with your whole heart... and Love your neighbor as yourself...).
Well, from those all else flows. And, again, it's more important to have it in your heart & mind than to show up and act like you've been taught to act for generations.
So...the patriarchs are relegated to "good example" status. Moses' example is more important than all the laws he laid down. Even the priesthood is not as important as it once was -- we are told we can work it out personally (with help from the Spirit, of course).
And then, what of the prophets?
Do they matter at all? If Jesus had asserted his claims and not fulfilled even one of the prophecies, would it have mattered? Maybe early in the church it would have, when the converts were familiar with Jewish Scripture. But that's actually been proposed as a concern for the authenticity of some events in the NT. Were the prophecy-fulfilment passages late additions by True Believers?
I notice that none of the accounts of people questioning Jesus ever make mention of the prophecies -- something one would assume they know a lot about. Herod (the one alive when Jesus was born) was supposed to have been obsessed with them. Could his descendants have forgotten so readily as to not know to question the man calling himself the messiah on the particulars of his claim?
Anyway, I'm not worried about the prophets or the prophecies. When I read them I see a lot of salve for the wounds suffered by the Israelites in times of deep loss and bewilderment. But I don't see that they necessarily point to a messiah in the sense that we know look upon Jesus. But that is personal reading, not sanctioned by any Christian sect that I know of, of course.
But when I say I'm not worried about the prophets or prophecies, what I mean by that is that I can read the NT and accept Jesus' history as the most important example for how to live a human life. I believe that He IS GOD, but I do that mostly not caring what the prophets had to say about the messiah. I believe it because He transcends anything and anyone I've heard of or met by such a wide margin that I seriously doubt his mere humanity.
Another thing most Christian sects would not endorse.
Then there are the other parts of the Christian Old Testament. These are the tortuous ones. The endless lists of begats. The Numbers of people in different tribes. The Psalms and the Proverbs. And so on. Some pieces instructive. Most of it either trivial to a modern person (e.g. Numbers) or often nonsensical. If David had not been king, would his boring songs have been recorded? He might've had 2, maybe 3 "hits" and the rest of it... Proverbs is another king's vanity piece, if you ask me. "Solomon is wise" therefore "we should write down his witty sayings as he passes judgement on his subjects"
There's a book out right now called "Bushisms" All I can say is thank God for freedom of the press so we can mock our leaders' silliest moments (and thus realize their essential humanity) versus treat them like infallible demi-gods with a direct line to THE GOD.
(If anyone else had written "Song of Solomon" would it have ended up as canon?)
This is not to say that there aren't good lessons to be gleaned from studying the Old Testament. What I'd rather say is that it is not a very efficient place to learn those lessons. And as such, I think there are better sources. Among them, the New Testament. More consistent. More directed to the message that I would HOPE God wants us all to hear. Etc.
And so I feel practically compelled to look upon the Old Testament as the lesser of two books. The prequel, perhaps. But one that the "author" suggests that all but the most dedicated scholars need not spend much time on.
Again, something that most Christian sects would find anathema.
Even though, to a one, I think they all believe that the OT is the lesser of two books. That the NT is the more nearly correct (perfect?) of the two.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was writing that while Geoffrey Card was posting.
Geoffrey, I think you are right about that. But one can pretty much read selections from the OT to get the context of Jesus' dialogues. Pick and choose in the extreme. No?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who's job should it be to decide which passages are the "right" ones to cite? I'd rather have the whole book in front of me, so I'm free to research for myself and disagree with the prevailing opinion Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was waiting for this. Unfortunately, I'm too tired right now to cover everything I want to say coherently. So, dkw, in lieu of that, and with all the respect that you know I have for you, I think you're wrong*, neener neener neener.
I promise to write a very long and boring post soon (hopefully tommorow) that goes over why I think the way I do.
---
*Ok, what I really mean is that I think my interpretation has stronger support, but that sounded so wussy when I put it up there. I felt like I'd be asking to get theological sand kicked in my eyes.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoffrey, I'm not saying you can't. But one could read all the stuff referred to directly by Jesus in an afternoon and have time left over to go door-to-door.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot speak for any other Christian denomination, but for JW's the Hebrew Scriptures are absolutely vital.
Because we believe that the Universal Sovereignty Issue (which I think I've explained, like, four billion times here so I'll spare another recounting) is the foremost issue and the key to understanding the entire Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures [which catalogues the original fall of man and, from the very first prophecy in Genesis 3:15, what Jehovah intended to do to repair the sinful state of mankind] illuminates many aspects of this issue in it's completion.
It also explains why blood is sacred (which I alluded to in a recent thread on why JW's don't accept blood transfusions), God’s covenant with Abraham, how Jehovah fought for his covenant people, and the history of the pictorial theocratic kingdom.
It's interesting that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted the Hebrew Scriptures hundreds of times, placing their own value on it. There are somewhere around 320 direct quotes from the Hebrew scriptures, quite a few by Jesus himself.
I found a fairly comprehensive listing of books and specific passages that Jesus quoted from in the Hebrew scriptures. There are more than a few:
quote:During the course of his ministry, he is known to have referred to or expressed thoughts that parallel passages from about half of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures—Genesis (2:24; Mt 19:5; Mr 10:7, 8), Exodus (3:6; Mt 22:32; Lu 20:37), Leviticus (14:2-32; Mt 8:4), Numbers (30:2; Mt 5:33), Deuteronomy (5:16; Mt 15:4; Mr 7:10), First Samuel (21:4-6; Mt 12:3, 4), First Kings (17:9; Lu 4:26), Job (42:2; Mt 19:26), Psalms (8:2; 110:1; Mt 21:16; 22:44), Proverbs (24:12; Mt 16:27), Isaiah (6:9, 10; Mt 13:14, 15; Joh 12:40), Jeremiah (7:11; Mt 21:13; Mr 11:17; Lu 19:45, 46), Lamentations (2:1; Mt 5:35), Daniel (9:27; Mt 24:15), Hosea (6:6; Mt 9:13), Jonah (1:17; Mt 12:40), Micah (7:6; Mt 10:21, 35, 36), Zechariah (13:7; Mt 26:31), and Malachi (3:1; Mt 11:10).
Of note is Luke 24:27, where it says (speaking of Jesus), "And commencing at Moses and all the Prophets he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures." (Italics mine.)
And when you think about it, the men that spent their lives - sometimes being killed for their efforts - perserving the translation of the Bible translated BOTH the Hebrew and the Greek scriptures. Tyndale, who was killed as a martyr for translating both the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures from their original languages, made it all the way to 2 Chronicals before he was finally strangled and burned at the stake. He obviously felt it was important, because he studied to learn Hebrew and continued his work despite the fact that his original translating work from the Hebrew Scriptures were lost in a shipwreck. He merely started over again.
Miles Coverdale felt it was important to complete Tyndale's work by finishing the Hebrew Scriptures after Tyndale's martyrdom, signing "W.T." out of respect for Tyndale when he finally finished Malachi.
Wycliffe, when translating the Latin Vulgate into the first English copy of the Bible felt it was important to translate the entire thing, not simply the Greek Scriptures.
A part of my personal foundation in the Scriptures is the Bible's amazing perseverance throughout the centuries, despite some pretty aggressive attempts to eradicate it from memory. So, the fact that those who did the preserving placed emphasis on the value of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures together is, in itself, a strong argument to it's value.
posted
Bob, Geoffery, Ralphie, thank you so much for posting each of those pieces.
While reading them, I struck on another idea of the difference between the Old and New Testaments: focus.
The Old Testament is a book for a people. The New Testament is written for a person.
Much of the Old Testament is the story of a people Chosen of God, the rules that were laid down for them and their constant falls from grace and returns to times of glory. If you read it, the people constantly strive, succeed and then backslide in the worst possible ways.
Working with Ralphie's post and God's plan to overcome the original sin issue, the New Testament shows, perhaps, that God had decided that as a people, (the encompassing) we would never get it. Only a rare few could ever be redeemed.
In the New Testament, Jesus teaches to crowds, but speaks to individuals. Sin, and its conquest, are done as individual endeavors. Instead of teaching a whole nations how to live and worship, it is one on one. The nation is acknowledged ("Render unto Caesar what is his"), but Christians are encouraged to exist within it while individually pursuing their salvations.
Individually pursuing might not be precise enough, for we were all asked to help our brothers and sisters along.
Sorry, this is early in the morning and that's the best I could come up with.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, in a very real sense, Jesus is telling us that the strict observance of laws was sort of a stop-gap until such time as God was able to come into the world and teach us Himself about the meaning behind those laws.
In my own opinion the law was not a stop gap, but, as you stated previously, was due to the unwillingness of man to live a higher law. Some LDS think that when Moses came down from the mountain the first time he had a copy of the laws that Christ taught, but when he saw the children of Israeli gettin' jiggy he smashed those tablets and came back later with the lower law. At any rate, I think it important to realize that one CANNOT live the law of Christ without first living the principle parts of the law of Moses. Christ taught this himself when he said:
quote:Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And of course he included in that sermon a number of the higher laws which do not replace the lower law, for the lower law must first be lived in order to get to the higher law.
quote: And then, what of the prophets?
Do they matter at all? If Jesus had asserted his claims and not fulfilled even one of the prophecies, would it have mattered? Maybe early in the church it would have, when the converts were familiar with Jewish Scripture. But that's actually been proposed as a concern for the authenticity of some events in the NT. Were the prophecy-fulfilment passages late additions by True Believers?
I notice that none of the accounts of people questioning Jesus ever make mention of the prophecies -- something one would assume they know a lot about.
I disagree strongly. Jesus asserted that he was the messiah- both to the Jews of his day and of course to everyone. What does his claim mean without the context of the messianic prophecies explaining exactly who he was? Jesus repeatedly cited the scriptures in asserting his divinity. Remeber when he read from Isaiah to the synogogue and they sought to kill him for blasphemy?
quote:And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture afulfilled in your ears.
22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son? ...
28And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
quote: Here's what I find troubling about viewing the OT as anything but history, from a Christian perspective only mind you -- I think the rich tradition of Scriptural analysis in the Jewish faith has made what Christians call the "OLD" testament something that is living and vibrant unto the present. And we really could learn a lot from these scholars.
I have a good friend who is a rabbi in a Christian Judaism type church that does use both sets of holy literature. So, there are some people who agree.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the part where I need to re-iterate that some other faithful Christians are going to disagree with me. Also to warn you that it’s long. Here goes:
quote:Jesus came out of that tradition, yes. But he transcended it by explaining some fairly simple things. If I'm not mistaken, most Christian sects treat God's original covenant as something that He had to enter into even though it fell short of the desired covenant mainly because of Man's slow-wittedness or orneryness. His Son came to explain that the rules didn't matter as much as what was in the heart, for example. So, in a very real sense, Jesus is telling us that the strict observance of laws was sort of a stop-gap until such time as God was able to come into the world and teach us Himself about the meaning behind those laws.
Um . . . no. Protestant views of Torah have been (IMO) somewhat corrupted by Luther’s obsession with Law vs. Gospel. The word would perhaps be better translated as “teachings.” This is a place where Christians definitely need to learn from Jews, who see Torah not as a burden but as a gift. If you read the Gospel of Matthew carefully, it takes pains to point out that Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew. The big deal in Paul’s letters was never whether Jewish Christians should continue to observe, but whether Gentile Christians should convert to Judaism and therefore observe Torah. There appear to have been some new Gentile Christian converts who were hung up on the outward forms of Judaism and Torah observance, but were missing the point of the Torah, which was and always had been love of God and neighbor. (Think of the more detailed parts as case studies to help with that central task.) Because of that, Paul was fairly harsh about the difference between external observance and “the real meaning behind the laws.” It doesn’t follow that Israel wasn’t already aware of the “real meaning.” See, for example, Micah 6:6-8.
“With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
The “inner spirit of the law” wasn’t new with Jesus. It’s imbedded in the Hebrew Scriptures and was taught by other rabbis of the time.
quote:And, from that point, we were to figure it out based on the general guidelines represented by, for example, the two most important Commandments. (Love God with your whole heart... and Love your neighbor as yourself...).
Well, from those all else flows. And, again, it's more important to have it in your heart & mind than to show up and act like you've been taught to act for generations.
To quote a rabbi who, according to tradition was asked if he could recited the entire Torah while standing on one leg, “Love God and love your neighbor. All else is commentary.”
quote:So...the patriarchs are relegated to "good example" status. Moses' example is more important than all the laws he laid down.
Well, good and bad example status. No, actually I don’t like the “example” idea here. Their stories are much too complicated to be relegated to that. I’ll quote from Donald Davis, “There are some good people in there and there are some rats. Just like in all family stories. We hear about the fall of Adam as well as his privilege in naming the animals. We hear about Noah building the ark as well as getting drunk and worse after it landed. We hear all the stories, because when we hear all the stories of the people from whom we have come, then we have the ability to spot the heroes and can decide to spend our energy preserving that which is heroic. We can [also] say some things about our story that we have frankly had enough of, some biblical stories are deliberately like that, to let us loose of pieces of our past. . . . You see there are two reasons for having biblical stories. One reason is that we find role models who pull us up. One reason is that we find role models that are way, way down under some of the places we sometimes (by the grace of God) come wandering out of in our lives – so that we will not live forever believing that we invented evil, but will come to know that it is as genetic as good is genetic. We all carry both genes.” (“Genetic” is being used metaphorically, not biologically, of course.) I have a sermon that I wrote addressing the question of why 2 Samuel 13 (the rape of Tamar) is included in our Bible and why I agree that it should be. It’s way too long to post, but if anyone wants to read it I can e-mail it to you.
quote: Even the priesthood is not as important as it once was -- we are told we can work it out personally (with help from the Spirit, of course).
Well, I don’t think it’s unimportant. But then, as a protestant I believe in the priesthood of all the baptized. So, I’d say it’s still vitally important, it’s just not a set-apart role anymore. Let me reiterate that, in case anyone missed it. If you were baptized as a protestant, you were ordained to the priesthood. Take it seriously.
quote:And then, what of the prophets?
Do they matter at all? If Jesus had asserted his claims and not fulfilled even one of the prophecies, would it have mattered? Maybe early in the church it would have, when the converts were familiar with Jewish Scripture. But that's actually been proposed as a concern for the authenticity of some events in the NT. Were the prophecy-fulfilment passages late additions by True Believers?
I notice that none of the accounts of people questioning Jesus ever make mention of the prophecies -- something one would assume they know a lot about. Herod (the one alive when Jesus was born) was supposed to have been obsessed with them. Could his descendants have forgotten so readily as to not know to question the man calling himself the messiah on the particulars of his claim?
Anyway, I'm not worried about the prophets or the prophecies. When I read them I see a lot of salve for the wounds suffered by the Israelites in times of deep loss and bewilderment. But I don't see that they necessarily point to a messiah in the sense that we know look upon Jesus. But that is personal reading, not sanctioned by any Christian sect that I know of, of course.
It’s sanctioned by just about every liberal protestant seminary I know of. To avoid possible misunderstanding, I’ll speak only for myself – The prophets matter greatly, but not because they predict Jesus of Nazareth. They are about calling the nation to live justly, to care for the poor, to love God and neighbor. People who read them looking for predictions are missing the point. Here is an excerpt from an article by Walter Brueggemann that talks about the relevance of the prophets for today.
quote: The same losses threaten us today, and they spring from the same root: commoditization. In our greed we have commoditized the poor, with whom we are in relationship. Because they have no market value, because they produce nothing, they are assigned no value and get nothing. What's more, they are the first to feel the impact of our eagerness to "cost out" education and healthcare. Though this might be prudent in the short run, in the long run it precludes the generosity of neighborliness upon which human community finally depends. The prophets endlessly protest Israel's commoditization of cult and citizenry. Whether it's Amos and Hosea in the north or Isaiah and Jeremiah in the south; whether the times are prosperous or perilous; whether the fault lies with kingly domination or wealthy exploitation-- the message rings out again and again: Do not treat my people like things. But the problem runs deeper, as the description of Solomon's temple demonstrates. Even in the best of circumstances--when cult and code are observed in a way that acknowledges personal validity and mutual dependence--there is still all that gold, all that glitter, all that gloating. Perhaps no prophet sees this more clearly and attacks it more vigorously than Jeremiah. Called to stand at the temple gate as the worshippers file in, he quotes their entrance hymn, proclaiming: "Do not trust in these deceptive words, 'This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord'" (Jer. 7:4). The people think that by honoring this thing, the temple, they ensure that their status and security will remain intact--even though they violate the covenant it symbolizes and the community it creates. Jeremiah condemns such faith as deceptive. In the place of commoditization, the prophets proclaim a costly alternative--love of neighbor. Jeremiah puts it in concrete terms: "Act justly one with another . . . do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood" (Jer. 7:6).
quote:But when I say I'm not worried about the prophets or prophecies, what I mean by that is that I can read the NT and accept Jesus' history as the most important example for how to live a human life. I believe that He IS GOD, but I do that mostly not caring what the prophets had to say about the messiah. I believe it because He transcends anything and anyone I've heard of or met by such a wide margin that I seriously doubt his mere humanity.
Another thing most Christian sects would not endorse.
I don’t particularly care what the prophets had to say about the messiah and the third largest denomination in the US managed to endorse me.
I should elaborate on that. I believe that the “coming true” of those predictions (which I don’t believe were predictions in the first place) happened because Jesus and the gospel writers knew the scriptures, not because the prophets knew about Jesus. I believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy because he is part of God’s promise to redeem the world, not because trivial details of his actions lined up with trivial details of scriptures written hundreds of years before his birth.
quote:Then there are the other parts of the Christian Old Testament. These are the tortuous ones. The endless lists of begats. The Numbers of people in different tribes. The Psalms and the Proverbs. And so on. Some pieces instructive. Most of it either trivial to a modern person (e.g. Numbers) or often nonsensical. If David had not been king, would his boring songs have been recorded? He might've had 2, maybe 3 "hits" and the rest of it... Proverbs is another king's vanity piece, if you ask me. "Solomon is wise" therefore "we should write down his witty sayings as he passes judgement on his subjects"
No argument except on Psalms. The psalms are marvelous. Many of the translations are sucky, but if you dig into them, or learn enough about Hebrew poetry to appreciate them, they’re great. Even as they are, they’re a God-send (literally!) for pastoral care. The laments in particular are helpful for people who are grieving major loss, or dealing with anger. Just by being there they help some people to express those emotions, let them know that God won’t hate them if they get upset. Same thing with Job. Very important scripture.
quote:There's a book out right now called "Bushisms" All I can say is thank God for freedom of the press so we can mock our leaders' silliest moments (and thus realize their essential humanity) versus treat them like infallible demi-gods with a direct line to THE GOD.
(If anyone else had written "Song of Solomon" would it have ended up as canon?)
The fact that it’s there would seem to indicate, yes. Without wanting to offend those Hatrackers who reject historical criticism of the Bible – I accept the scholarly work that dates the Song of Songs to six centuries after King Solomon and concludes that it (and other wisdom writings) were attributed to him because he was a known patron of wisdom. The same, incidentally, with David and the Psalms. And Moses and the Pentateuch. And five of the thirteen Pauline letters. Okay, now that’s out on the table. And here’s the thing – most of us who accept historical criticism don’t lose one bit of our faith because of it. In most cases the authorship of biblical books is nowhere in the books themselves, but only in titles or inscriptions added later. Who actually wrote them really doesn’t matter much.
quote:This is not to say that there aren't good lessons to be gleaned from studying the Old Testament. What I'd rather say is that it is not a very efficient place to learn those lessons. And as such, I think there are better sources. Among them, the New Testament. More consistent. More directed to the message that I would HOPE God wants us all to hear. Etc.
And so I feel practically compelled to look upon the Old Testament as the lesser of two books. The prequel, perhaps. But one that the "author" suggests that all but the most dedicated scholars need not spend much time on.
Again, something that most Christian sects would find anathema.
Even though, to a one, I think they all believe that the OT is the lesser of two books. That the NT is the more nearly correct (perfect?) of the two.
I think most Christian sects don’t find that view nearly anathema enough. As you so rightly point out, there is an unofficial prejudice against the OT, whatever the official position of the various churches. And, as you may have noticed, it’s a pet peeve of mine. (no, really? ) What it really boils down to, despite my efforts to be all scholarly and objective, is that I love the Hebrew Bible. Passionately. If I had decided to be primarily a biblical scholar, rather than a theologian, I would have specialized in Hebrew Bible. As it was, I used all my biblical studies electives in grad school on Old Testament Theology, tutored for OT 101, was a TA for OT 102, and chose to study Hebrew rather than Greek when I couldn’t fit both of them into my course schedule. So objective I’m not. I hate the way the OT is dismissed in many Christian settings and I see red when I hear someone say, “Oh, that’s the God of the Old Testament, we believe in the God of the New Testament." One God, folks. Creator Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible.
Ooo, look at that. I got all confessional. self
I hesitate to open another can of worms, but I think that at least part of modern western Christianity’s distaste for the Hebrew Bible is that it is harder to individualize and spiritualize. If we take it seriously then we have to admit that Christianity is not just about a personal relationship with Jesus in our hearts, but also affects our wallets and our politics. It might mean that the Old Testament, and by extension the New Testament, has a lot to say about how we run our nation. And that scares us. Imaging what would happen if we took seriously the idea that the whole nation is judged by how we treat the poorest among us? Or that accumulating land and assets while others are starving is murder? It’s dangerous stuff, to take the Bible seriously. It might actually change your life.
posted
dkw...you make me want to go back to school!
Really! That was amazing.
By the way, is there value in the begats and the lists of the number of people in each tribe?
I've heard some people try to use the numbers stuff to point out that the Hebrews did or did not increase in number over the 40 years of wandering in the desert. And that is then said to indicate God's favor or disfavor, accordingly.
The begats are important for Chronicling a king's dynasty, but for little else, IMHO. I've seen people, of course, make the point that without the begats we couldn't have traced Jesus' lineage.
Although one of the things about the lineage in the NT is that it doesn't actually line up precisely with the one given in the OT (there's an extra person in the NT version).
Oh well. I loved what you had to say about the prophets. It makes them more important to today (as teachers) than the pointing out of God's Son (which really is trivial to my faith in Jesus).
One point that was missed. I never said that Jesus didn't claim to be the messiah. What I claimed was that none of the people accusing Jesus ever went to him and asked for specifics -- which prophecies did he fulfil, etc.
I find that odd. I mean, if someone came to Earth today claiming to be Jesus, I'm pretty sure he'd be subjected to a battery of questions about which he'd better have the Scripturally correct answer every time. No?
Okay, maybe the Hebrews of his day were more prone to just judge someone a blasphemer on the say-so of the Pharisees or the Saducees. I don't know. But it seems like a thorough examination of the case would be in order, no?
Oh well. I think a lot of that stuff was added in later.
Or is the problem that Jesus refused to answer their questions when He was asked?
As for Song of Solomon -- I figured someone would say thatit was written a long time later and just attributed to Solomon, so my point was moot. But I still think it is a weird book to have in the canon of Scripture.
But I like the stuff about grapes.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that many Christians suffer from the mistaken notion that the Bible as it stands was pretty much formulated and standardized at the very beginning of Christianity. This belief often seems to be accompanied by another untruth, that the earliest Christianity was a unified entity. Neither of these assumptions is tenable given a rudimentary knowledge of the history of this time.
During the first couple of centuries, there were a multitude of sects of Christ-believers and hundred of gospels purporting to record important information about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. One of the fundamental questions of Christianity – Was Jesus a man, god, or some combination of these two – was not settled as a canonical issue until the contentious and violent Council of Nicea, called and presided over by the non-Christian Emperor Constantine, who had his own agenda, in 312. One of the reasons why we only have four (or rather really 2) gospels today is that throughout Christianity’s history, starting at least as early as the 120’s, powerful sects made it a practice to kill the followers of other sects and burn their scriptures.
One of the many varying interpretations of Christ’s message was how much his teachings and followers were to be tied to Judaism. Certainly the Jewish Jesus followers felt that he was the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies and thus a direct continuation of the Jewish faith. Many, many others, however, disagreed. In the interests of not making this incredibly long and boring, I’m going to focus on two.
First, and perhaps most vividly, were certain sects of the Gnostic Christians. These Gnostics actually did hold that the Old Testament was a valid description of the actions of the god, Jehovah. However, their interpretation was that Jehovah was an evil god, who stole power from the supreme god, called the demi-urge, and used it to create a trap and prison for other spirits. The first prison was the Garden of Eden, where Jehovah tried to make these spirits his unthinking slaves. In the Gnostic view, the snake was the hero of the Garden story. He guided the humans to the Tree of Knowledge that Jehovah sought to keep from them and told them the truth. He said, “Jehovah doesn’t want you to eat this because he is afraid if you did, you’d become like him.” Interestingly enough, this is the exact reason - that Jehovah was afraid of them now that they had eaten from the tree - given for why Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden. Another interesting fact is that, in the Indo-European mythic area, of which Judaism was a part, the snake – most likely because of its practice of shedding its skin - was very often the symbol or incarnation of the dying-rising divinity. Thus, certain Gnostic sects identified Jesus as an incarnation of the dying-rising snake from the Garden of Eden, coming to free them from the new prison of Jewish laws.
The second example comes from much closer to the mainstream of Christianity. Paul of Tarsus is often referred to, with good reason, as the Apostle to the Gentiles. As I talked about on another thread, the Jewish Christians wanted to restrict the definition of Christianity to a continuation of Judaism. Paul wasn’t having this. As pretty much the first evangelical, he saw his mission to bring Jesus’ message to the non-Jews.
Most of these non-Jews had no use for the Jewish religion. They regarded it, rightly so in my opinion, as a tribal religion that had little relevance to them. They found little sense of identity in the tales of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh. Instead, they preferred the myths, proverbs, and philosophies that came from their own culture. Paul met these needs by incorporating their cultural and religions beliefs and icons into his description Christianity, a practice we now call syncretism. In doing so, Paul set part of the tradition by which Christianity has since dealt with expanding by conversion. Because of this, Christianity now has the probably highest number of authentic “pagan” elements of any contemporary religion.
Paul’s audience was also made up of more cosmopolitan and educated people than the Jewish Christians. These people were both amused and horrified at some of the things that they were being told that they’d have to believe. Some went so far as to go from not believing the Tanakh to saying that it should be considered in opposition to Jesus’ message. As you could imagine, the Jewish Christians were not all that happy about this. To deal with the imminent split between two large and central parts of Christianity, the Apostolic Council called the Council of Jerusalem, that came to the decision that Mosaic law could no longer be considered binding on all Christians, except for certain specified parts. However, those who wished to follow it were also Christians and their adherence to these laws were worthy of respect.
I want to return to a specific aspect of that last. As I said, the Gentile Christians didn’t consider the Tanakh as speaking to their identity. I’d argue that the same goes for most contemporary Christians.
To do this, I’d like to test it as a hypothesis. It is possible that the Old Testament is studied because people really do see a link between the Jews of Jesus’ time and themselves and wish to explore this to get a better sense of identity. I’d argue that, if this were their concern, they would also be interested in other aspects of Jewish life around then and, more importantly, be interested in the Jewish perspectives of the Tanakh. I find evidence of this interest almost completely absent. Even you, dkw, have been incorrectly using the word Torah to indicate the entire Tanakh. It’s been my experience that very, very few Christians even know what the Midrash and the Talmud even are, let alone have studied them. And yet, these documents contain the thinking and discussions of the Jews of around Jesus’ time as they directly relate to the very Old Testament that people claim helps them explore their identity. When the 13-year old Jesus was talking with the elders in the temple, he was most likely discussing the ideas contained in the Midrash and Talmud. Thus, it is very hard for me, in light of this ignorance, to take Christian claims of searching for a sense of identity in the Old Testament as valid.
If you want to really get a sense of identity, I would suggest rather looking at Greek culture and philosophy. Many of defining aspects of Christianity are distinctly Greek. Certainly, two of the loudest voices (excepting Constantine’s fiddling with the religion) in the development Christianity, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, were speaking much more from a Greek perspective than a Hebrew one. The celebration of the Mass very likely owes much to Greek and Persian influences and represents a clean break from the Jewish celebration of the Sabbath.
I also don't think that an objective comparison of the text, especially as relating to the literal character of God, yields much stronger evidence that they are of different natures. I have a lot of sympathy with the Gnostic description of Jehovah as an immature, insecure, autocratic type of god. I believe that god is portrayed as henotheistic, not monotheistic. I believe that he is a god who gleefully hardened Pharoh's heart so that he could get to kill innocent children. I believe that he is the childish being who made a bet with Satan and then unjustly visited punishment on Job so that he could win the bet. I believe that he is a god who primarly wants to be worshipped. I believe that he is a god who thinks that it is a good thing that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son just because god told him to. I believe that he is a god of punishment and reward, not right and wrong.
I believe that the picture we get in the New Testament is a product of much more than the Jewish tradition (although the Jews of Jesus' time have moved far beyond the view that I described above). Christianity incorporates elements from the Indo-European myth complex that were not present in Judaism. Also, I believe that the character of god is vastly different. He no longer promotes the in-group/out-group thinking and rule based morality that were the foundation of the Tanakh. Jesus explicitly states that the second greatest commandment, which supercedes all others, is "Love your neighbor as yourself". and then goes on to identify your neighbor as the a person just about as far in the out-group as you can get. I see Jesus teaching through parables, rather than issuing autocratic statements.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, now, looking over it. I tried so hard to not be offensive that I feel like I didn't strike my points home. Oh well, hopefully people get what I'm saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even you, dkw, have been incorrectly using the word Torah to indicate the entire Tanakh.
Actually, depending on context, "Torah" is used to refer to the Five Books, the entire Tanach, or the Oral and Written Law combined. It merely means "that which is taught" -- same root as "moreh/morah," teacher.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, it could simply come down to a person having already developed enough faith in the Bible that they take literally the words in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."
While I am not offended, I find this paragraph heartbreaking, Squick:
quote:I have a lot of sympathy with the Gnostic description of Jehovah as an immature, insecure, autocratic type of god. I believe that god is portrayed as henotheistic, not monotheistic. I believe that he is a god who gleefully hardened Pharoh's heart so that he could get to kill innocent children. I believe that he is the childish being who made a bet with Satan and then unjustly visited punishment on Job so that he could win the bet. I believe that he is a god who primarly wants to be worshipped. I believe that he is a god who thinks that it is a good thing that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son just because god told him to. I believe that he is a god of punishment and reward, not right and wrong.
Not because "I know something you don't know" or because "you're so deceived," but because seeing that description combined with the name of the god I worship is actually painful to me.
Of course, please don't think I feel that means you shouldn't have written it to explain your position.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, I bow to your superior knowledge and withdraw my complaint. As I say almost daily, there are so many things that I should know much more about.
Ralphie, You know I mean no offense. I can only hope that your experience of Jehovah is much different than mine and it's not that we have different labels for good and evil.
It is also difficult for me. Many of the people I care about are members of religions that I feel have bad effects and have been a bad influence on humanity throughout their history. I see them do and believe things that I really believe from my study of social psychology are very harmful. It's a case of hate the religion, not the religious person.
To soften that, I also see a lot of good in all religions I know of, and this often comes out in the religious experiences of those I care about. I just wish that I could help them see the good from the bad, if I even really knew what they were myself.
edit: It hurts to have to tell people, when they try to convert me to their religion, that, if my understanding of their god is correct, I'd rather be in hell fighting him than in heaven serving him, but I've done it. The thing that really gets me is that, oftentimes, it seems to me that the things that horrify me are the very things that draw them to it.
posted
I think that perhaps a goodly part of the change in perspectives on God between the OT and NT is due to a change in the culture and mindset of the people writing. The original Israelites lived in a tough time and place. Just surviving and having children was a pretty big accomplishment.
Living in what we would consider barbaric times would give one a certain perspective on motive that those in a more civilized era would disagree with. Hence, when motives are described to explain a given act of God I think it natural that we should see God's ascribed motives change as the people change- after all, while a given action may be an established fact to the author of a given biblical book, the motives behind those actions must be the result of editorializing on the part of the author (unless of course one believes in biblical infallibility, which I don't).
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sheesh! Now I feel like the lead character in Pilgrim's Progress. Everyone is making sense.
I think Mr.Squicky has made some very interesting points. From a PR perspective, the OT God really does have a few problems that don't seem to be faced by the NT God, if you separate the two.
Depends on how you interpret the Scriptures though, doesn't it?
For example, the Abraham story and the Job story. If you look at it from the perspective of judging God's actions, they are pretty darned awful. So was the lie about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. (or rather the use of a "conceptual truth" when talking to two simpletons like Adam and Eve.)
But, and this is important, if you view it from another perspective -- that there's a lesson in there for us, then those tales are all important and worth studying. Abraham displayed great faith and God rewarded him for it. That doesn't mean you should offer to sacrifice your first-born child. But we can all take a lesson from Abraham towards obedience to God's will, if we know it.
Job wasn't bothered that God was testing him. His faith remained strong even when things went from bad, to worse, to impossible. Another valuable example of faith.
Adam and Eve and the Tree -- well, God didn't spell it out for them, but should He have had to? He IS God, afterall. It's His tree. The snake didn't tell the whole truth either.
I've heard it said that the tales in the Torah, starting as oral tradition and later codified, were intended for a specific audience that would've understood them implicitly, just as we understand simple tales set in our own cultural milieu. I believe that to be the case. And I also believe that the stories have lasting value as history and instruction.
I just don't believe God wrote or dictated a word of it. And to me, it doesn't matter.
Also maybe there's another deeper lesson in all of this. That Scripture is everything Paul said of it in his letter to Timothy. But it is also a double-edged sword. It can be used for ill-purposes (despite what Paul said).
Then it all comes down to the constant question of "what to do?" Should read and understand what I can of scripture? Sure -- it's a great book even if you don't believe it is God-breathed.
Should I stay away from people who use Scripture to try to convince me of things. Maybe. It all depends. If their advice is for your own good, what's the harm. But maybe we all need a bit of a filter on what we believe of what others say when they use Scripture. Just like we would when we listen to any proposition.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I agree that the law of moses was a lesser law encapulated in the two great commandments, the old rules should give insight into how to apply those great commandments.
So, old ideas about homosexuals and adultery etc.(not to drag the conversation there) should be taken as authoritative definitions about love neighbor and love God, since they were given by Him.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
popatr, If you explain that view in light of the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem (and you all be quiet, it's my shibboleth), I'll take you seriously. Otherwise, I'm going to regard you as woefully ignorant of your own religion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that Lesson 45 in how to Win Enemies and Alienate People?
You can pull the authority stance when, well, when you're an authority. Considering this thread is about questioning God, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks rivka. I was indeed using Torah to mean “that which is taught.” When I meant the specific books I used “Pentateuch” for the first five or “Hebrew Bible” for the whole thing, mostly because I wasn’t sure how many people would understand “Tanakh.”
Squick, I do read Midrash and the Talmud. And I’m quite familiar with the Gnostics, as well as the Greek philosophy of the time. (In fact, I was also a TA for historical theology, so when I’m not defending Deuteronomy I’m defending Augustine. Go figure.) The part that you might be glossing over is that the Gnostics were declared heretics by what became the orthodox church in large part because of their views on the Old Testament and the material world. Because the other part of their beliefs you didn’t mention was their strict spirit-matter dualism. They didn’t believe that the God of the OT was evil because of God’s actions (although they used those as supporting arguments) but because they believed that the material world was intrinsically evil, and so no god who created matter could be good. Jesus was, to the Gnostics, not truly human but a spirit creature pretending to be human, come to give us the hidden knowledge we need to escape the prison of the material world and become pure spirit.
You also didn’t mention that for all the groups wanting to keep that messy Hebrew stuff out of the new thing that was becoming the Christian church, there were just as many groups trying to keep the “polluting” influence of Greek philosophy out. The orthodox position became a fusion of both. I like it that way. I’m very happy to be embodied, I believe our bodies were created by God and called good. That’s also why I like the Song of Songs. Human sexuality is a good gift from God, and I think it’s cool that we have a book in our scripture that celebrates it.
posted
dkw, knowing that I come from an ultra conservative background I appreciate you explanation, about how not taking everything literally does not destroy your faith at all.
Would be willing to go into a bit more depth on the difference between the "liberal" Protestant Christian interpretation philosophy and the more "conservative Christian" literal interpretations?
posted
dkw, I left out a lot about the Gnostics. I left all of their, to me, bizarre and disturbing beliefs and practices, like the baby eating. I left out that most weren't defeated by argument, but by the sword and the flame. I refuse to discount their beliefs because they weren't as assiduous in their defense as the people who disagreed with them were in their attack. Truth by overwhelming force has never been a compelling argument for me.
I wasn't trying to single any one out, especially not you (oh, and sorry about the Torah thing. I've always been bothered by that and now I find out it's because of my own ignorance.). However, do you really think that my assessment doesn't fit the vast majority of Christians, both past and present? Or do you disagree when I say that I don't see how someone can have a full understanding of the Torah without studying the Midrash? I know that you also can read Hebrew and Greek, which I would consider necessary for me to believe that someone thinks that studying the Bible is one of most important things that they can do. Again, I doubt that these are skills that the vast majority of Christians have.
I do think that the focus on Hebrew myths leads to the treating of other myths as invalid or threatening and thus to the destruction or perversion of the wisdom and folklore of entire cultures that was one of the hallmarks of Chrstian expansion. When I'm searching for my identity, I like to consider the whole spectrum of human wisdom, not excepting the myths and folklore of my ancestors that sprung up after the writing or the Old Testament. I think that placing the Jewish and Christian myths in relation to those of other myths opens up a whole new world of wisdom and understanding.
edit: Also, I think that Christian development makes a lot more sense if you understand its Greek roots, instead of trying to force it to conform from an only Hebrew perspective. I'm not accusing anyone of doing this, just saying that it would be a mistake.
posted
Just wanted to say that I am reading and learning. Thank you, one and all. DKW, I would be very interested in reading that sermon. Lewisfamily@triad.rr.com
I'm just struggling with living up to my faith, but with each lurch, hitch and wriggle, I'm getting a little stronger. Hopefully, I can get better as well.
posted
Squick, I didn't mean to bite your head off, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. The Gnostics are a hot button for me, because they've been so trendy lately among people who've read bits of the gospel of Thomas and think they’ve discovered suppressed truth.
And, lest anyone get too high an opinion of me, I don’t read more than a few words of Greek and I don’t read Hebrew fluently. I wish I had more time to keep studying languages, but pastoral care and preaching, teaching, and administrative stuff take up a lot of time. I’d love to be a full-time scholar, but right now I can’t be. But I do have more time and access than most of my parishioners. That is, in fact, part of my job, to be a resource for them in their own theological and biblical exploration. Just as I lean on the full time scholars.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Well I'd be very interested to know what some other Christians think...I was under the impression that what I said was a pretty fundamental part of Christian beliefs.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
self![[Frown]](frown.gif)
