OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[buckeyegrad]

Point of clarification: I understand that you're describing prophesy from a Christian POV; however, this is not the same understanding of prophesy from a Judaic POV. Taking the book of Daniel, for instance: Daniel may or may not have been a prophet as he did not communicate with G-d directly nor did he speak/write of events that were going to happen to his immediate generation. In Judaism, a Navi (prophet) is a mouthpiece for G-d via direct communication that speaks to his immediate generation. As you may note, in the Jewish Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings)), Daniel is NOT a part of the Nevi'im, but instead, the Ketuvim.

Just some info to pass on.

Thanks for the information, I appreciate you joining the conversation and adding your knowledge.

However, I do have to ask, how does what you state conflict with what I stated? I was simply stating that biblical prophesy should not be limited to predictions of the future, which is the common understanding of the word today. As I said, it is any instance of God speaking through a person. How does this differ from "a Navi is a mouthpiece of G-d via direct communication that speaks to his immediate generation" other than I am talking about the message and you are talking about the messenger.

I must admit that you stated it more eloquently than I, but I think we are saying the same thing--please correct me if I am wrong.

One other question, what is the Jewish view on the Ketuvim in terms of prophecy? Although they may or may not have been spoken/written by prophets, can it not be said that they still contain prophetic messages in the sense of God is speaking through them to his people or individual people? If not, then what is their value?

 

[buckeyegrad]

I don't see anything in that quote to disprove a claim that it is the essence of his teachings, and that "trust in God" and his son can be seen as a reminder to trust the veracity of the teachings, not to proclaim him Lord or else you are toast.

The burden of proof on interpreting the text is on the person claiming that something exists in the words, not on the one who says it does not exist. The one who wants to claim that Jesus is talking about the Golden Rule must show that is what the context shows as being the case. Simply saying it doesn't disprove it, means nothing.

To take this principle to the absurd to highlight the problem with such a reading, nothing in John 14 disproves that Ohio State is the number one team in the nation, but that doesn't mean the text is saying Ohio State is the number one team in the nation.

The point of this absurdity is that whether or not it disproves an interpretation is irrelevant. Instead, one must prove what the context does suggest. Unless something in the surrounding verses, chapters, or within the book proves that the Golden Rule is being referred to by Jesus in this instance, it cannot be said to be there unless one simply wants to allow Scripture to be interpreted however one desires and in essence making it meaningless.

 

[muffler dragon]

There is a big problem with that interpretation--it is based upon horrible exegesis.

No offense intended when I say that the entire "way/truth/life" lends itself to poor interpretation anyway. When one realizes that Jews came to the Father for millenia prior to Jesus; then there is no way that the door suddenly becomes one person or a following of said person.

Now why would Philip ask to see the Father if Jesus was talking about a way of living one's life?

Because first century Jews were not trinitarians.

Edit: since I haven't been involved in your discussion with Gatorubet (and possibly others) from the beginning it may be best to ask: 1) where this discussion started and 2) whether I should get involved. Feel free to let me know if it's best to take a step aside while you all have your discussion.

 

[muffler dragon]

Thanks for the information, I appreciate you joining the conversation and adding your knowledge.

You're welcome.

However, I do have to ask, how does what you state conflict with what I stated? I was simply stating that biblical prophesy should not be limited to predictions of the future, which is the common understanding of the word today. As I said, it is any instance of God speaking through a person. How does this differ from "a Navi is a mouthpiece of G-d via direct communication that speaks to his immediate generation" other than I am talking about the message and you are talking about the messenger.

I was simply clarifying (not contradicting nor conflicting). And since Daniel was mentioned, I added that piece as well.

I must admit that you stated it more eloquently than I, but I think we are saying the same thing--please correct me if I am wrong.

Like I said, just clarifying.

One other question, what is the Jewish view on the Ketuvim in terms of prophecy? Although they may or may not have been spoken/written by prophets, can it not be said that they still contain prophetic messages in the sense of God is speaking through them to his people or individual people? If not, then what is their value?

There are prophesies and things to come to fruition within the Writings. One of the big differences, IMO, is the weight of the books. Torah is greater than the Prophets which is greater than the Writings when it comes to authority. Thus, if a passage is questionable in nature; then the parameters for interpretation will fall in line with the authority structure.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

FWIW, Muffler, I don't think you should bow out. I doubt Gator or Grad think you should either. Actually, if I can assume you're Jewish, it's nice to have that perspective in these discussions.

 

[muffler dragon]

FWIW, Muffler, I don't think you should bow out. I doubt Gator or Grad think you should either. Actually, if I can assume you're Jewish, it's nice to have that perspective in these discussions.

Thanks for the open invitation to continued discussions.

I am not a Jew nor Jewish. I am a Noachide. There are things that show up on the internet that are NOT favorable to my belief system, and thus, I don't often bring it up especially on an athletic forum. In short, Noachidism is the path of the Gentile who follows the G-d of Judaism. Hence, the understanding of Judaism that I attempt to present on topics that I'm knowledgeable.

FTR, I was raised Christian and spent 20+ years of my life in that belief system; therefore, I'm not ignorant of it either.

If any of you find that I present something out of line or antagonistic; then I ask that you call me on it (in a respectful manner) and I will make sure I apologize/clarify/change what I have presented.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Thanks for the open invitation to continued discussions.

I am not a Jew nor Jewish. I am a Noachide. There are things that show up on the internet that are NOT favorable to my belief system, and thus, I don't often bring it up especially on an athletic forum. In short, Noachidism is the path of the Gentile who follows the G-d of Judaism. Hence, the understanding of Judaism that I attempt to present on topics that I'm knowledgeable.

FTR, I was raised Christian and spent 20+ years of my life in that belief system; therefore, I'm not ignorant of it either.

If any of you find that I present something out of line or antagonistic; then I ask that you call me on it (in a respectful manner) and I will make sure I apologize/clarify/change what I have presented.

You're perspective is very much welcomed. I think we will have some very interesting discussions (and disagreements) as I am a practicing Messianic Jew.

 

[Gatorubet]

The burden of proof on interpreting the text is on the person claiming that something exists in the words, not on the one who says it does not exist. The one who wants to claim that Jesus is talking about the Golden Rule must show that is what the context shows as being the case. Simply saying it doesn't disprove it, means nothing.

Put another way, that quote does not conclusively state that unless you believe is Jesus as Lord, you will not be saved. I agree with your general proposition about proving a negative grad, but you were telling me that in context that passage supports "x", and not "Y". It supports both, but conclusively states neither.

 

[muffler dragon]

You're perspective is very much welcomed. I think we will have some very interesting discussions (and disagreements) as I am a practicing Messianic Jew.

LOL! I'm sure. I spent a stint in that belief system for a little over 2 years.
My transition of beliefs was as such:

Congregationalist (18 years) => Pentecoastal (4 years) => Non-Denominational (4 years) => Messianic (2 years) => Noachide (4 years thus far)

 

[buckeyegrad]

No offense intended when I say that the entire "way/truth/life" lends itself to poor interpretation anyway. When one realizes that Jews came to the Father for millenia prior to Jesus; then there is no way that the door suddenly becomes one person or a following of said person.

Unless that person is the promised Jewish messiah, which is what Christians believe--though many don't realize it, or want to acknowledge it.

Because first century Jews were not trinitarians.

If you keep the pagan philosophy out of Christian theology, there is nothing contradictory about a triun G-d and the concept of G-d being echad. But your point about first century Jews not being "trinitarians" is well taken and does explain Philip's question--though I think Jesus' response to the question supports the more classic and orthodox understanding of John 14:6 rather than one promoted by those who are trying to insert the Golden Rule teaching at that point.

 

[Gatorubet]

Thanks for the open invitation to continued discussions.

I am not a Jew nor Jewish. I am a Noachide.

I was unaware of what that meant.

I see you follow the seven rules of Noah...so I'm cool with that

 

[buckeyegrad]

LOL! I'm sure. I spent a stint in that belief system for a little over 2 years.
My transition of beliefs was as such:

Congregationalist (18 years) => Pentecoastal (4 years) => Non-Denominational (4 years) => Messianic (2 years) => Noachide (4 years thus far)

Very interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what caused you to come to the belief that Jesus was not the promised messiah?

As for my own progression:

Catholic (21 years) => Non-Denominational (8 years) => Messianic (3 years)

 

[muffler dragon]

Unless that person is the promised Jewish messiah, which is what Christians believe--though many don't realize it, or want to acknowledge it.

Outside of what I consider the eisegetical usage of Isaiah 53, I don't see anywhere in the Jewish Bible that the Jewish Messiah was supposed to provide a salvation mechanism for people. Personal accountability is a huge consideration in Judaism.

If you keep the pagan philosophy out of Christian theology, there is nothing contradictory about a triun G-d and the concept of G-d being echad.

I obviously disagree, but I'll posit something your way instead of debating directly. Can you show me where there are THREE and only three different "persons" displayed in the Jewish Bible?

But your point about first century Jews not being "trinitarians" is well taken and does explain Philip's question--though I think Jesus' response to the question supports the more classic and orthodox understanding of John 14:6 rather than one promoted by those who are trying to insert the Golden Rule teaching at that point.

Personally, I believe that the Jesus being "one" statements are more about purpose than entity. But that's another direction on that topic.

 

[muffler dragon]

I was unaware of what that meant.

I see you follow the seven rules of Noah...so I'm cool with that.

Cool beans. :thumbsup:

You might be surprised at how many people I've run into who have an issue with them. Thus, I thank you for the relief.

 

[muffler dragon]

Very interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what caused you to come to the belief that Jesus was not the promised messiah?

Not a problem. I shall try to be brief.

My leaving of Christianity was more or less doctrinal, and it went like this:

I tried to start reading the Bible from a Jewish perpective. I was challenged in this manner, and it spurred me on to an investigative approach. One of the first things to go was the trinity doctrine. This is an easy one to lose, because there are still ways to maintain a belief in the Messiahship of Jesus; yet, remove the deity aspect. I then started to look into other topics, but what really hit home was the criteria for the Jewish Messiah:

Jewish Messiah

First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)
He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)
He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)
He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)
He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)
He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)

In short, Jesus didn't fulfill all of these in his lifetime. Couple this with the fact that there have been dozens (if not hundreds) of other Jewish Messiah claimaints, and I realized that they all had something in common: incomplete before death.

Regarding the Second Coming, I don't see it in the Jewish Tanakh as being a criteria for the Messiah.

At some point in time, I also feel out of respect for Paul. That helped to cement my skeptic position.

As for my own progression:

Catholic (21 years) => Non-Denominational (8 years) => Messianic (3 years)

LOL! I never did have the RCC connection.