posted
I think about the spot where Hari got into a bit of trouble was when he said
quote:You are exactly right. Christians are no longer beholden to the Mosaic law. Simply for the fact that they have been released from bondage to this law through Christs death and resurrection. Christ drank the cup of suffering for his people so that we might look to the cup of blessing. But nowhere does it say the law is to be thrown out or rejected. It remains a useful guide for all Christians. If it were not so, it would not be a part of God's infallible word to his people. As Christians, the Bible is not some outdated manual where we can chose what we would like to believe from one part and ignore other parts. It is all the word of God and as such must be taken as a whole. I hope that clarifies things for you a bit. I know that was a bit of a digression.
It seems like a contradiction: Christians are not to be held to the Law of Moses. However, the law is contained in the Bible, which is not outdated and contains God's unchanging infallible word to his people.
Hari, it seems that this dichotomy exists in either your understanding or in the way you have presented your arguments in this thread.
I like Hari. He has been sincere, thoughtful, willing to take criticism (constructive or not), and also admits when he was mistaken. Now that's rare here at Hatrack.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Yes, because clearly "thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thou shalt love thy neighbour" includes pigs. In fact, there is a lovely family of swine living next door to me and we recently had a roaring good game of bridge.
You do realize that God only commanded those things to the Jews, right? And if you want to extend those to non-Jews, why not also extend the prohibition of eating pork? It's a bit of a double standard, no?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Your understanding of the law appears incomplete.
Hari, please don't do that while I'm drinking. I almost ruined a perfectly good keyboard.
I hope you don't take offense, but honestly, you telling someone else that they lack understanding of the law is just a little giggle-inducing.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: And, since I'm quoting scripture and you appear so versed in it, may I remind you of Matthew 5:17-19 - Jesus is travelling through Galilee, and he has addressed a crowd, teaching the Beatitudes, and he says this: "Thnk not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
Ah, la. And yet, according to Acts, he abrogated the law. If kashrut, then why not the rest? Or have heaven and earth passed, and we just haven't noticed it?
That whole "Eat!" thing in Acts sounds like James (it was James, right?) would then be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but only because he listened to Jesus.
Also, I recall a parable in which Jesus said that you can know a tree by its fruit. That a good tree can't give bad fruit. If that's the case, wouldn't the Inquisition and the various other abuses committed by every other Christian denomination at one time or another turn this parable into one of self-condemnation?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, CT, etc... please don't take offense. I'm just irked at Mr. Seldon's self-righteousness, as well as his belief that he knows more than he actually does.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do realize that God only commanded those things to the Jews, right? And if you want to extend those to non-Jews, why not also extend the prohibition of eating pork? It's a bit of a double standard, no?
Because we believe that God himself extended those two things (and several others that were consistent with the Noachide laws which had already been "extended" to non-Jews.) It's not a double standard.
quote:I'm just irked at Mr. Seldon's self-righteousness, as well as his belief that he knows more than he actually does.
Luckily we have your self-righteousness to counter-balance his.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, I wonder, why does becoming open to perspective change mean giving up my beliefs? Have I asked anyone else here to give up their beliefs? I simply have stated mine. Apparently that is not a positive thing to do here, or am I not understanding you correctly?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes I find myself a bit frustrated by OSC's religions lecturing between the words of a lot of his stories. But I admire the integrity and morality of a lot of his characters just the same. Especially the message of taking care of your family.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Star Lisa, I will be the first to admit that my knowledge is limited at best, I was simply trying to clarify some misinterpretations that I had been noticing. If one is going to make an arguement quoting scripture, then it is important that it is being used correctly. Scripture you see, is meant to be taken as a whole, big picture, all of which points to the coming of Christ and his resurrection, so you see, when single passages are used out of context, they don't always make sense.
Now, when you responded to my comment of "thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thou shalt love thy neighbour" as a command that God only extended to the Jews, I had to respond back to you. On this point you could not be more mistaken. This command was made by Christ, not merely to the Jews, but to all who would listen.
As for your comment that Christ abrogated the law, that is also incorrect. In nowhere does it say that Christ cancelled the law. Yes he is the fulfillment of the law, but that does not mean he cancelled it.
And when I say Biblical standard, I hold it to mean the same thing as a Christian standard. But perhaps I'm being too hopeful.
And finally, the analogy of the good tree is also incorrect. When he speeks of the fruit tree, he speeks of the dead, gnarled, and unproductive branches being pruned, gathered, and burned, so that the tree may produce good fruit once more.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not trying to convert you, or anyone here, I am attempting to clarify misrepresentations of what I consider to be a holy work, and a piece of beauty. If I have offended you, please accept my apologies. I don't see my self as more righteous than you or anyone else here. Righteousness is something I will never attain in this life, I can only strive to be better, and yet usually I fail. If I have failed anyone in how I have represented my faith I apologize, I merely was trying to elucidate what to me is truth.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:TL, I wonder, why does becoming open to perspective change mean giving up my beliefs? Have I asked anyone else here to give up their beliefs? I simply have stated mine. Apparently that is not a positive thing to do here, or am I not understanding you correctly?
Since I didn't say anything remotely similar to what you're suggesting, I'd say not understanding me correctly would be a good guess.
posted
(Lisa, I'm not offended at all. The discussion appears to be staying productive, which is my clue to keep reading. *smile)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, please refrain from using Christs name in that way. It might not bother most, but to me it is much worse than some vulgar swear word. You wouldn't want me to start dropping the F word wherever I pleased would you?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I didn't know that, but thank you for the info. I have deep respect for your beliefs. I wasn't trying to force you to believe in what scripture says, my point was that some people use its verses out of context, and if we are going to have a discussion that is scripture based, then it is helpful to understand the context and the purpose of the book. But, if you're Jewish, then the 2nd section of the Bible doesn't really apply eh?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is starLisa that is Orthodox Jewish. Tom has his own story, and I'll let him tell you that one.
As for me, I was raised Catholic but do not practice the faith any longer.
----------
Edited to add: And I'm shamed to say that I don't recall whether I (or anyone else) ever welcomed you here to Hatrack, Hari. Welcome!
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Star Lisa, I will be the first to admit that my knowledge is limited at best, I was simply trying to clarify some misinterpretations that I had been noticing. If one is going to make an arguement quoting scripture, then it is important that it is being used correctly. Scripture you see, is meant to be taken as a whole, big picture, all of which points to the coming of Christ and his resurrection, so you see, when single passages are used out of context, they don't always make sense.
Aw... Hari. It's hard to get angry at you when you're so clearly out of your depth here.
There's nothing whatsoever in the Bible (and I use the term to denote what you would call the Hebrew Bible, or "Old" Testament) that points to Jesus. Except for the beginning of Psalms 146.
There is nothing in the Bible about a virgin giving birth. That's a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. In fact, all of the Christological references that are claimed to be in the Bible are misreadings. I'd be more than happy to explain them to you one by one, if you're interested. I'm not sure Hatrack is the right place, however.
If you're truly interested in knowing God and doing His will, there's a whole world of knowledge out there that you've shut yourself off from, because of a mistake that was made a couple of millenia ago. Don't get me wrong: It's good that you believe in God. It's good that you recognize Him as your Creator. It's good that you recognize the Bible as being something other than a bunch of patched together stories, as some modern scholars claim. All that is good.
What's not so good is the way in which you seem to see God as fallible. As lacking either omniscience or honesty. That troubles me.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Now, when you responded to my comment of "thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thou shalt love thy neighbour" as a command that God only extended to the Jews, I had to respond back to you. On this point you could not be more mistaken. This command was made by Christ, not merely to the Jews, but to all who would listen.
These commands were given to the Jews in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The fact that Jesus may have repeated them... well, he was (if he existed) a Jew, speaking to other Jews. He's hardly the only Jew who repeated those lines.
God labeled His commandments to the Jews as "eternal statutes" (too many places to cite them all). He said that choosing not to keep them was choosing death (Deut. 30:15,19, etc, etc.). Was James not a Jew (Acts 10)?
God told us that if a prophet comes in His name and tells us to depart from even a single one of his commandments, he is a false prophet, and has incurred the death penalty (Deut. 13, Deut. 18). Of course, the thing with James and the non-kosher food seems to have happened after Jesus died, so I'm not sure how you'd go about executing someone who is already dead.
And a prophet is not just someone who decides to preach. You can't be a false prophet unless you've first been determined to be a prophet, capable of discerning God's will. And there's no sign that Jesus ever fell into that category, so he never even really qualified to be a false prophet. Lucky break for him, I guess.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: As for your comment that Christ abrogated the law, that is also incorrect. In nowhere does it say that Christ cancelled the law.
He violated Shabbat and encouraged his students to do the same. In a vision, he told James to eat non-kosher food. Now, I don't actually think either of those things happened, but if they did, that's pretty much abrogating the laws of the Torah.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: Yes he is the fulfillment of the law, but that does not mean he cancelled it.
Hari, that doesn't even really mean anything. I've heard that phrase used over and over, and it still lacks meaning. Laws are laws. A person can't be a fulfillment of a code of laws. The fulfillment of a code of laws is keeping the laws. A person can keep them or not. He can teach others to keep them or not. But he can't just announce, "Hey, I'm here to replace them."
Think it through. God said they were eternal statutes. That means forever. And God knows everything. He isn't limited by past, present and future the way we are. If He says the laws are permanent and then later says, "Oops, not any more", then either he isn't omniscient, because he didn't know he was going to change his mind, or he isn't honest, because he never intended them to be permanent in the first place. Either way, that doesn't square with who God is.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: And when I say Biblical standard, I hold it to mean the same thing as a Christian standard. But perhaps I'm being too hopeful.
Not hopeful, Hari. Offensive. Truly. I get that you and your coreligionists have hijacked the Bible. And for a long time, it was dangerous for anyone to gainsay you:
Jew: Hey, that's our Bible! Christians: Kill the Jew!
Nowadays, we're lucky to be in a position where Christians have mostly stopped that kind of thing, but the underlying attitude seems to remain in your claim. The Christian Bible is the Christian Bible. It's not "The Bible". I am an Orthodox Jew, and I consider the Bible to be binding on me (and all Jews). That doesn't not include anything from your religion.
I could say that worshipping Jesus is biblically prohibited. And that'd be accurate, in its context. But if I were to say that in a group that wasn't exclusively made up of Jews, where there might be Christians present, then I'd be saying, "Screw the Christians; what they think makes no difference." That's what you're doing, Hari. Open your eyes, please, and realize that you aren't in the privileged position that Christians were in for centuries in Europe, where disagreements could be handled with fire and steel.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: TL, please refrain from using Christs name in that way. It might not bother most, but to me it is much worse than some vulgar swear word. You wouldn't want me to start dropping the F word wherever I pleased would you?
Hari, I don't mind you referring to your deity as "Jesus", but using the C word implies a connection to the Jewish concept of the Messiah. And it's deeply offensive to me to have such an important Jewish concept misused in a way that I see as idolatry.
On the other hand, I could decide to grin and bear it. I could decide that while your use of the C word is deeply offensive to me, you aren't using it with intent to offend. And that if I go on a forum where not everyone is of the same mind, I'm going to have to live with the dire prospect of not forcing others to abide by my standards.
The thing is, though, I'd want to see you recognizing that yourself, otherwise, there's no real reason why I should recognize it in your case. Right? You don't have a privileged position here, right? So how about if you don't like what TL writes, just... live with it. Don't be like the Muslims who insist that everyone else must abide by their taboos regarding the representation of Muhammed. Recognize that there are people here who don't believe in your Jesus, and others who don't even believe in God. Recognize that TL using "Jesus!" as an expletive is no more offensive to you than you using "biblical" as a synonym for "Christian" is to me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: I didn't know that, but thank you for the info. I have deep respect for your beliefs. I wasn't trying to force you to believe in what scripture says,
Dude, it's not Tom who is an Orthodox Jew. It's me. And I do believe in what scripture says. I contend that it is you who do not.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: my point was that some people use its verses out of context,
Hari. From my point of view, you've just described Christianity as a whole. You took a book of holiness and by taking verses out of context, have used it as an excuse for adopting idolatrous practices. And then killed us en masse when we protested.
quote:Originally posted by Hari Seldon: and if we are going to have a discussion that is scripture based, then it is helpful to understand the context and the purpose of the book. But, if you're Jewish, then the 2nd section of the Bible doesn't really apply eh?
As a Jew, the only "sections of the Bible" that exist are the three sections of what you think of as the "first section".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You took a book of holiness and by taking verses out of context, have used it as an excuse for adopting idolatrous practices. And then killed us en masse when we protested.
quote:You wouldn't want me to start dropping the F word wherever I pleased would you?
Actually, for what it's worth, I would be absolutely fine with that. I post on some fora where it's allowed and use it whenever I please in that environment.
Here, it isn't allowed, so I respect the rules. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You took a book of holiness and by taking verses out of context, have used it as an excuse for adopting idolatrous practices. And then killed us en masse when we protested.
Wow.
Gah. I apologize if anyone got caught in the crossfire. I'm referring to Hari and those of his mindset, specifically. He has a triumphalist attitude that's irking me. It's one that absolutely is responsible for the things I mentioned. Many Christians have moved beyond that. Hari, it seems, has not, at least in attitude.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:TL, please refrain from using Christs name in that way. It might not bother most, but to me it is much worse than some vulgar swear word.
To me it isn't.
*shrug*
The world is a wide, wild, and diverse place, full of people with many different kinds of beliefs and many different kinds of attitudes. To ask everyone to conform to *your* standards is ridiculous.
Are you one of those people who would ask a Catholic to remove a Crucifix because the image of Christ being killed is offensive to you?
posted
By the way, I *will* refrain from using Christ's name in a vulgar way. I have no problem showing a little courtesy to those whose beliefs are different from my own. I know you're not the only one around here who holds Jesus in high regard -- so.... Done.
But out of curiosity, Hari, what do you think is the more offensive act -- someone who doesn't believe in Jesus saying, "Jesus," or somebody else telling him what he should and shouldn't say.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:TL, please refrain from using Christs name in that way. It might not bother most, but to me it is much worse than some vulgar swear word.
To me it isn't.
*shrug*
The world is a wide, wild, and diverse place, full of people with many different kinds of beliefs and many different kinds of attitudes. To ask everyone to conform to *your* standards is ridiculous.
Are you one of those people who would ask a Catholic to remove a Crucifix because the image of Christ being killed is offensive to you?
*IS* the image of the Crucifix offensive to you?
Just curious.
It's offensive to me. But not so much that I'd demand that someone take it off.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Don't be like the Muslims who insist that everyone else must abide by their taboos regarding the representation of Muhammed. Recognize that there are people here who don't believe in your Jesus, and others who don't even believe in God.
That's a pretty large blanket statement starLisa Not all Muslims are as you seem to believe or describe here. So I'd ask that you too recognize the fact that Muslims, Christians, Atheists or Jews, we are all simply very fallible people all of whom display certain traits which are not laudable.
posted
Yep -- everybody's got faith. Even agnostics have faith that they don't need to resolve the questions they're agnostic about.
I don't think Asimov saw it that way. He thought of himself as a skeptic. But I study machine learning, and there's a kind of reasoning called "defeasible," meaning, "We'll stick with this assumption until we have reason to change it." It saves having to continually re-evaluate decisions, which is computationally intractable. People use this too, and it saves having to continually think about everything. When Asimov had surgery, he had faith that the doctors weren't all lying to him about the need for it.
And he had faith in his political and religious views, enough to promote them.
I don't see Asimov's characters as idealized; lots of them were cranky old poopheads. But they didn't agonize over moral decisions like OSC's often do. My impression is that for Asimov, all moral decisions were easy. And if you came up with a different answer than he did, you were an idiot.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I took Lisa's comment to be referring to a subset of Muslims, rather than all of Islam.
If she said "some of the Muslims", I would have agreed with you but since it said "Muslims" and I consider myself to be a Muslim but I certainly don't think anybody else has to abide by my belief systems. So, I guess I'm excluded from the "Muslims" she describes and so, that sounded a lot like a blanket statement to me
[Edited for clarity]
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She said "Don't be like the Muslims who insist...". If she had said "Don't be like the Muslims, who insist..." I'd interpret it the same way that you are. As it is, though, it reads more to me like she's talking about a subset of the population. If my interpretation is wrong and yours is right it's a vile, bigoted statement, no two ways about it. I'm hoping mine's right.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see your point Guess we'll have to leave it up to Lisa to clarify ... Of course, "vile and bigoted" is a bit too strong I'd have said a rather unenlightened perspective myself ... but then again, that's just me.
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I read it like Noemon did - as a subset of Muslims. Similar to "Don't be like those fathers who come home drunk and beat their kids". That's not equating "fathers" with "child abusers", it's describing a subset.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fahim: I see your point Guess we'll have to leave it up to Lisa to clarify ... Of course, "vile and bigoted" is a bit too strong I'd have said a rather unenlightened perspective myself ... but then again, that's just me.
Mmmm...okay, "vile" might be a bit much. I'd have to stick with bigoted though. Happily, it doesn't apply here, I'm pretty sure.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Don't be like the Muslims who insist that everyone else must abide by their taboos regarding the representation of Muhammed. Recognize that there are people here who don't believe in your Jesus, and others who don't even believe in God.
That's a pretty large blanket statement starLisa Not all Muslims are as you seem to believe or describe here.
Fahim, I had to read what I'd written a few times before I could understand what you were talking about.
I know you may not be willing to take my word for it, but I'm usually pretty careful with grammar, and with my use of commas. Had I been saying what you thought, I would definitely have put a comma after "Muslims", by way of setting off a descriptive clause about Muslims. "Muslims, who insist, etc." I didn't do that because I was referring specifically to the Muslims who have been claiming of late that non-Muslims are required to abide by the taboo against representations of Muhammed. "Muslims who insist, etc."
I'm aware that not all Muslims insist on that, even if they are the voices we most often hear.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's nothing whatsoever in the Bible (and I use the term to denote what you would call the Hebrew Bible, or "Old" Testament) that points to Jesus. Except for the beginning of Psalms 146.
Oh, Lisa... look, I'm sure you've got your view (and reasons for that view) of things, but do you really think that Messianic prophecies and the interpretation thereof are so easily and clearly interpreted?
I mean, not even the Jews all beleive the same thing about the subject. About the only thing that Reforms, Conservatives, and Orthodox Jews agree on (from my observations) is that he HASN'T come yet.
Christians have had 2000+ years to study the Old Testament and implement analogies and typifyings and symbologies that all point to Christ as the Messiah. (Moses raising the brass serpent in the wilderness for example) If you're going to address the question, you need to go a lot deeper than what you *think* you need to go; because Christianity has moved beyond mere verses. You have to sort out stories.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fahim: I see your point Guess we'll have to leave it up to Lisa to clarify ... Of course, "vile and bigoted" is a bit too strong I'd have said a rather unenlightened perspective myself ... but then again, that's just me.
Funny... I would have said the same as you. But it's moot, since I wasn't saying that. I very much had the recent cartoonapalooza on my mind.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I know you may not be willing to take my word for it, but I'm usually pretty careful with grammar, and with my use of commas.
Of course I'll take your word for it, there is no reason I shouldn't Put it also down to irritation (not directed at you mind you ) at the general habit of talking about "Muslims" generally instead of talking of specific cases and saying "some portion of the Muslim community" or something to that effect. Once Noemon pointed it out though, I could see that it could be interpreted in two different ways ... and yes, I don't pay that much of attention to commas as my wife keeps telling me Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, while this is not an argument I consider useful or fruitful, I do not feel I could let your statements go.
This is one of the few things that (to my knowledge) Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox do agree on.
And most (not all, agreed) of those 2000+ years have been spent examining translations. Not to mention coming from a bias that what was being looked for was there -- and not surprisingly, finding it.
To those of us with no reason to make those inferences and logical leaps, they are glaringly absent. (Of course, coming from a bias of our own.) Despite MORE than 2000 years of analysis, primarily in the original language.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, rivka-- I understand your point, I think.
The Christian view of Jesus-as-Messiah doesn't base itself on one or two verses of scripture (as I feel was sL's implication); or even a number of scriptures.
For example, sL pointed out that the verse in Isaiah 'A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel...': I agree that the verse was taken out of context, and that on the surface has no bearing on the Messiah (since, you know, it's talking about Syria and Ephraim's attempt to destroy Judah). As a Christian, though, I think the verse foreshadows Christ in the same way that I think that Moses raising the brass serpent in the wilderness foreshadows Christ.
So, it's not a matter of just saying "Oh, well, the word 'virgin' in that verse doesn't really mean 'girl-who's-never-had-sex-before,' it just means 'young woman.' Or 'that verse isn't referring to the Messiah, it's referring to a child born at the time of Ahaz.'
In anycase, like sL, I'm not particularly disposed to debating this here-- I note that your objections to Christian interpretation on Messianic verses ("Not to mention coming from a bias that what was being looked for was there -- and not surprisingly, finding it. ) are in fact, quite valid.
The fact that Christians found what they were looking for does not answer the question of whether or not Christ is actually the Messiah.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's nothing whatsoever in the Bible (and I use the term to denote what you would call the Hebrew Bible, or "Old" Testament) that points to Jesus. Except for the beginning of Psalms 146.
Oh, Lisa... look, I'm sure you've got your view (and reasons for that view) of things, but do you really think that Messianic prophecies and the interpretation thereof are so easily and clearly interpreted?
I think that the prophets said what they meant to say. What God meant them to say. I think that the prophets were part of an ongoing cultural/educational chain that stretched back to Sinai and has continued until today. And I think that they said what they did in that context.
Scott, when someone comes at a text outside of its context, anything can be found there. For example, in the beginning of Genesis, God commands us: "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and conquer it." The same word that means "to conquer" can also mean "to pickle". Strictly from the words as they appear, God could have been commanding us to pickle the earth.
That's an absurd example, because pickling the earth just doesn't make any sense. But if some cult existed that was devoted to soaking everything in vinegar or brine, they might feel otherwise.
When the prophets say something like "I will give you a new covenant", reading out of context could support the Christian idea of a "new covenant". But given a context in which God made it--literally--impossible for anyone, even Himself, to abrogate the "eternal covenant" He made, that's an inadmissible reading. You see?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I mean, not even the Jews all beleive the same thing about the subject. About the only thing that Reforms, Conservatives, and Orthodox Jews agree on (from my observations) is that he HASN'T come yet.
Well, bear in mind that the Reform and Conservative and suchlike have as their defining characteristic a rejection of the chain of knowledge and culture that reaches back to Sinai. And the reason for this is that it cramps their style. It gets in the way of being like everyone else. I feel badly for individual Jews who were raised in these movements (I'm one of them, incidentally), because they've been robbed of their heritage.
Don't make the mistake of seeing them as divergent traditions. Where they diverge is specifically in their rejection of Jewish traditions. And as such, bringing them as an example doesn't work.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Christians have had 2000+ years to study the Old Testament and implement analogies and typifyings and symbologies that all point to Christ as the Messiah.
<shrug> They were starting with their conclusion. Using ones conclusion as a premise is frowned upon. Further, these tend to be based on mistranslations, misunderstandings, and outright misstatements.
One missionary I ran into once (named Ron) pointed, for example, to the Binding of Isaac. When God tested Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice his son. During this story, Abraham tells Isaac, "God will see to the lamb, my son". And at the end of the story, God brings out a ram for Abraham to sacrifice in place of his son.
Ron's argument went like this. Abraham was a prophet of God. He said that God would produce a lamb to be sacrificed. The ram could not have been what he was talking about, because a ram isn't a lamb. Therefore, it was alluding to a lamb in the future.
Now, leaving aside the pagan idea of Jesus as a sacrifice for many or all people, where Ron went wrong was relying on translations. Abraham actually tells Isaac that God will prepare a seh. What's a seh? It's a small domesticated farm animal. A goat is a kind of seh. A sheep is a kind of seh. A large domesticated animal is called a shor (generally translated as "ox"). A cow is a kind of shor, as opposed to a seh. So is a zebu. So is a bison. Probably aurochs were as well.
But terminology as used in the Torah doesn't always translate directly into English. A beheima is a particular category of four-legged animal. Cows and sheep are in this category. A chaya is another category, which includes deer, for example. In English, what terms would you use for such categories? Well, in translations of the Bible, you often see beast and wild beast. I actually used "domesticated animal" in the previous paragraph when what I really meant was beheima. Wild bison are in that category, though, even though they aren't domesticated.
Ron didn't know this. And he was looking, hard, to find some sort of Christological reference he could use for missionizing Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: (Moses raising the brass serpent in the wilderness for example)
Hezekiah destroying that same serpent because it'd become the object of idolatrous worship?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If you're going to address the question, you need to go a lot deeper than what you *think* you need to go; because Christianity has moved beyond mere verses. You have to sort out stories.
I don't think so, Scott. Though I'm happy and willing to show you in every single case why the reference is unworkable. The fact is, Christianity never fulfilled its burden of proof. For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic. Nowadays, you want to use 2000+ years (which would take us back to Jesus in diapers, more or less) of existence as an indication that rational arguments had been made for all that time, and I'm sorry to tell you that history simply doesn't support you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic.
This is just so ironic, I had to quote it.
quote:Nowadays, you want to use 2000+ years (which would take us back to Jesus in diapers, more or less) of existence as an indication that rational arguments had been made for all that time, and I'm sorry to tell you that history simply doesn't support you.
:shrug:
Not the argument I was making at all. I'm saying that you can't clarify one or two scriptures and expect all Christendom to fall apart.
quote:Hezekiah destroying that same serpent because it'd become the object of idolatrous worship?
God is certainly capable of carrying the analogy out to this end. But if you're going to work along with it anyway, keep in mind that you first have to look to the serpent for salvation from death.
And if we want to get REALLY crazy with this idea, we could say that the idolatry shown by the Israelites toward the brass serpent was a type of the apostasy to take place after Christ's death. And that God would destroy the apostasy through the introduction of a prophet to restore true worship.
Oddly, that analogy probably works pretty well for both Jews and Mormons.
quote:The fact is, Christianity never fulfilled its burden of proof.
Like I said, I'm not disposed to debate whether or not Christ is the Messiah. I understand that you don't believe it; I don't blame you, even though I do believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah then, and will be the Messiah to come.
What I want to communicate to you is that your current tack of dismissing Christian intepretation of Old Testament stories and verse is not likely to be taken as valid by anyone that is not already an adherent to your point of view.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic.
Christianity was winning arguments long before Christians had the sharpened steel.
it's fine to disagree on scriptural interpretation. We'll find out who's right one day. But to claim that Christianity's spread was based on "sharpened steel" ignores 300 years of history. Christianity was well established when Constantine had his dream.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic.
This is just so ironic, I had to quote it.
I'm actually quite curious as to what irony you saw in the statement. I thought it was fairly straightforward and accurate.
From time to time over the past couple of millenia, we'd be called forward to "debate" the issue. Often against an apostate Jew. One of the most famous of these occasions involved King James I of Aragon, who forced Rabbi Moses ben Nachman to debate the apostate Pablo Christiani. This page has a translation of Rabbi Nachman's account of the event, which ended with King James saying "Let the dispute be suspended. For I have never seen a man whose case is wrong argue it as well as you have done."
Of course, it couldn't end there. Eventually, Rabbi Nachman had to flee for his life into exile.
When one person has logic and reason on his side and the other person has a deadly weapon and the support of the king on his... well, it doesn't all go according to logic and reason.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Nowadays, you want to use 2000+ years (which would take us back to Jesus in diapers, more or less) of existence as an indication that rational arguments had been made for all that time, and I'm sorry to tell you that history simply doesn't support you.
:shrug:
Not the argument I was making at all. I'm saying that you can't clarify one or two scriptures and expect all Christendom to fall apart.
Oh, I had no such thought. I was merely pointing out that it was never together in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Hezekiah destroying that same serpent because it'd become the object of idolatrous worship?
God is certainly capable of carrying the analogy out to this end. But if you're going to work along with it anyway, keep in mind that you first have to look to the serpent for salvation from death.
Only in the sense that I have to go to the doctor when I have strep throat. It doesn't mean that I'm forever after dependent upon that doctor for my health.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And if we want to get REALLY crazy with this idea, we could say that the idolatry shown by the Israelites toward the brass serpent was a type of the apostasy to take place after Christ's death.
There were only a few who treated the serpent in that way. And note that Hezekiah was a righteous king and dealt with those people and their folly as appropriate. Characterizing it as "idolatry shown by the Israelites" is the kind of rhetoric that's in line with the accusations of being Christ-killers that we've dealt with for the past couple of millenia. It's in poor taste, to say the least.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And that God would destroy the apostasy through the introduction of a prophet to restore true worship.
This apostasy was destroyed by a righteous Jewish king. He may have been influenced by his father-in-law, the prophet Isaiah, but he was the one who destroyed the apostasy.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The fact is, Christianity never fulfilled its burden of proof.
Like I said, I'm not disposed to debate whether or not Christ is the Messiah. I understand that you don't believe it; I don't blame you, even though I do believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah then, and will be the Messiah to come.
My issue is that you aren't satisfied to deem him the Messiah. Thinking that someone who died is the Messiah is strange, but it's not idolatry. Worshipping the Messiah -- turning the concept of Messiah into one of deity -- is the problem.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What I want to communicate to you is that your current tack of dismissing Christian intepretation of Old Testament stories and verse is not likely to be taken as valid by anyone that is not already an adherent to your point of view.
quote:For most of its history, it won its arguments with sharpened steel, rather than logic.
Christianity was winning arguments long before Christians had the sharpened steel.
it's fine to disagree on scriptural interpretation. We'll find out who's right one day. But to claim that Christianity's spread was based on "sharpened steel" ignores 300 years of history. Christianity was well established when Constantine had his dream.
Sadduceeism spread strongly and deeply for 2-3 centuries before the Second Temple was destroyed, and the main supporters of it were either killed or assimilated into gentile culture. Had the Sadducees taken over an empire and gone on to slash and burn their way into history, you'd be correct in saying that they spread even before they acquired the power to win arguments with extreme prejudice.
Same with those Jews who went astray after Baal and Astarte during the time of the monarchy in Israel. Sects happen. They come into being, and then they die out and we go on. There are a handful of Karaites left (a sect which started around th 600s CE) today. There are even remnants of the Samaritans, tribes brought into Israel by the Assyrians after they conquered the northern kingdom of Israel.
I'm not saying that no one would have ever fallen into this error had Christianity not become the state religion of the Roman empire. I'm just saying that they never would have been more than the Sadducees, the Karaites, the Samaritans and the rest.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not saying that no one would have ever fallen into this error had Christianity not become the state religion of the Roman empire. I'm just saying that they never would have been more than the Sadducees, the Karaites, the Samaritans and the rest.
I realize that's what you're saying. You're still wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In your opinion. And you're wrong in mine. How about that. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. It's not something that can be proven one way or another. All we do know is that there've been Jewish heretical sects before that have lasted a few centuries, and the only one that ever made it to the big time was the one that murdered those who disagreed by the hundreds of thousands. That's a fact. Whether it might have taken off the same way without the bullying is never going to be more than conjecture.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In your opinion. And you're wrong in mine. How about that.
Do you think you're telling me something I don't know here, Lisa? You seem to be taken aback every time I address you as directly as you address others.
quote:All we do know is that there've been Jewish heretical sects before that have lasted a few centuries, and the only one that ever made it to the big time was the one that murdered those who disagreed by the hundreds of thousands.
Perhaps the attempts at violent supression by some Jewish people in the days following the crucifixion actually helped. Again, who knows?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
StarLisa, you mistake my humililty for ignorance. I was not claiming that because I didn't know everything that I was "out of my league" as you implied. I was merely conceding the fact that as a human, I am constrained by my limited capacity to know everything. It would appear that you, are not constrained, and your ability to 'know-it-all' is only surpassed by your willingness to tell us all about it.
We obviously will never agree on Biblical interpretations, and we might as well admit that right now, because no matter how much you argue to the contrary, both of our views are faith based, and are very difficult to contradict. Nor would I want to sway you from your faith, as it obviously means a great deal to you. I don't think personal attacks are necessary on this forum. And that, almost always is what happens when people argue from a faith perspective. I respect your faith - its good, its more than many have. And just as I respect yours, I will stand by mine. I respectfully decline your offer to 'enlighten' me of my ignorance. If that is what you think of my views, then I don't see much need in continuing a conversation.
quote:I'm actually quite curious as to what irony you saw in the statement. I thought it was fairly straightforward and accurate.
Have you read the book of Joshua lately? Specifically, Joshua 6:21.
When was the last time you spoke with an Amalekite?
There's plenty of bloody hands to be shown. The irony is that you pretend that the Jewish history is squeaky clean and filled with a people who love logic and reasonable discourse, and would never deign to enforce their religion by force of arms.
That's not true, and you should know it. In fact, some of your recent discussions about the reign of the Messiah directly contradict this view.
Joshua's camp was not some random offshoot of the Jewish faith-- it was the whole kit-n-kaboodle. When Samuel and Saul and David and the Simeonites destroyed the Amalekites, down to the last squalling baby, they were acting as representatives of the Jewish god.
Is your vacillation contingent on the idea that Jewish atrocities were ordered by a real god?
Incidentally, the Book of Mormon is the only bit of scripture anywhere that explains WHY the inhabitants of Canaan were ripe to be destroyed. I don't expect you to take it as valid, but I've got an excuse for supporting the God that ordered all that destruction. I'm anxious to hear why YOU support a God that could order the death of children-- and what makes that god any better than say, Molech.
quote:Characterizing it as "idolatry shown by the Israelites" is the kind of rhetoric that's in line with the accusations of being Christ-killers that we've dealt with for the past couple of millenia. It's in poor taste, to say the least.
Don't cop a persecution complex with me. I'm a Mormon. We wrote the book on persecution complexes. I mean, it's a whole INDUSTRY in Utah, churning out books and pamphlets and raising money for the poor abused Saints in Cinncinnati or wherever.
You realize that if the Israelites had not been so idolatrous more than half of the Old Testament wouldn't exist, right? It's right there for everyone to read it; blame the prophets for being so darned honest about how often God had to call 'em in to correct His people.
So I don't understand why you're upset about me calling the Jews idolatrous. They were. And then they repented, and came clear. And then they discovered Ashteroth, or Ba'al, or Diana, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and screwed up again. Lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.
What's the big deal about a gentile bringing it up?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
