OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Gatorubet]

Here's the passage from the Jewish Bible:

Joshua 15
13. And to Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the Lord to Joshua, even the city of Arba the father of the giants, which is Hebron.

14. And Caleb drove out of there the three sons of the giant: Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of the giant.

Ethnic Giant Cleansing?????

 

[buckeyegrad]

Here's the passage from the Jewish Bible:

17. And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter for a wife.

Caleb was the biological son of Jephunneh.
Othniel was the biological son of Kenaz.
Caleb was the step-son of Kenaz.

But that is just the problem with the English translation. Does "the brother of Caleb" refer to Othniel or Kenaz? The way it is written in English suggests that Caleb is the brother of Kenaz. If he was the brother of Othniel, then there would be a comma between "Othniel" and "the". Hence the need to look directly to the Hebrew to see if it is clearer or just as ambiguous.

Also from my acquaintance:

There is no Gentile derision or anything of the sort. Caleb was a Jew.

Yes, Caleb was a Jew. But the question is if it was by birth or by conversion.

I do not see where the Tanakh makes it clear that Caleb's father was from Judah. It only shows that he was a Kenezite (Numbers 32:12).

 

[muffler dragon]

I would like to start by telling you that I meant no offense in my statement. As I disclaimed before, if I bring offense, then please tell me so that I might change my presentation. I've spent a LOT of time in theological discussions, and my curt nature is not to be seen as a slight.

tradition? is tradition the authority now? or the Word?

Well... the authority pyramid would look like this to me:

Torah > The Prophets > The Writings > Other Jewish Scripts. Personally, the Christian testament holds very little authority; thus, I can only answer your question with an answer that you don't provide in your question.

let's see, v14: "I am poured out like water:" John 19:34 "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." and all my bones out of joint (typical of crucifixion), v15: my tongue is dried up: John 19:28, Jesus said, "I thirst" and they gave him gall and vinegar to quench his thirst, v16: they pierced my hands and feet, when did that ever happen to King David? John v17: they part my garments among them and cast lots for my vesture: John 19:24.

Okay, let's look at the entire chapter (taken from a Jewish Bible):

Psalm 22
1. For the conductor, on the ayeleth hashachar, a song of David.

2. My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? [You are] far from my salvation [and] from the words of my moaning.

3. My God, I call out by day and You do not reply, and at night I do not keep silent.

4. But You are holy; You await the praises of Israel.

5. Our ancestors trusted in You; they trusted and You rescued them.

6. They cried out to You and they escaped; they trusted in You and they were not shamed.

7. But I am a worm and not a man; a reproach of man, despised by peoples.

8. All who see me will mock me; they will open their lips, they will shake their head.

9. One should cast his trust upon the Lord, and He will rescue him; He will save him because He delights in him.

10. For You drew me from the womb; You made me secure on my mother's breasts.

11. Upon You, I was cast from birth; from my mother's womb You are my God.

12. Do not distance Yourself from me, for distress is near; for there is none to help.

13. Great bulls have surrounded me; the mighty ones of Bashan encompassed me.

14. They opened their mouth against me [like] a tearing, roaring lion.

15. I was spilled like water, and all my bones were separated; my heart was like wax, melting within my innards.

16. My strength became dried out like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my palate; and You set me down in the dust of death.

17. For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet.

18. I tell about all my bones. They look and gloat over me.

19. They share my garments among themselves and cast lots for my raiment.

20. But You, O Lord, do not distance Yourself; my strength, hasten to my assistance.

21. Save my soul from the sword, my only one from the grip of the dog.

22. Save me from the lion's mouth, as from the horns of the wild oxen You answered me.

23. I will tell Your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise You.

24. You who fear the Lord, praise Him; all the seed of Jacob, honor Him, and fear Him, all the seed of Israel.

25. For He has neither despised nor abhorred the cry of the poor, neither has He hidden His countenance from him; and when he cried out to Him, He hearkened.

26. Because of You is my praise in the great congregation; I pay my vows in the presence of those who fear Him.

27. The humble shall eat and be sated; they shall praise the Lord, those who seek him; your hearts shall live forever.

28. All the ends of the earth shall remember and return to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall prostrate themselves before You.

29. For the kingship is the Lord's, and He rules over the nations.

30. They shall eat all the best of the earth and prostrate themselves; before Him shall all those who descend to the dust kneel, and He will not quicken his soul.

31. The seed that worships Him; it shall be told to the generation concerning the Lord.

32. They shall come and tell His righteousness to the newborn people, that which He has done.


When you read this entire chapter, do you ascribe EVERY verse to Jesus or just a select few? I'm will to bet that it's the latter and not the former.

then to what is it referring?

Hosea 6
1. Come and let us return to the Lord, for He has torn and He shall heal us; He smites, and He will bind us up.

2. He will revive us from the two days, on the third day He will set us up, and we will live before Him.

3. And let us know, let us strive to know the Lord: like the dawn whose going forth is sure, and He will come to us like rain, like the latter rain which satisfies the earth.

4. What shall I do for you, Ephraim? What shall I do for you, Judah? For your loving-kindness is like a morning cloud and like the dew that passes away early.

5. Because I have hewed by the prophets, I have put them to death because of the words of My mouth; now will your verdicts come out to the light?

6. For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

7. But they, like Adam, transgressed the covenant; there they betrayed Me.

8. Gilead is a city of workers of them that work iniquity, who lurk to shed blood.

9. And as a man gathers fish, so do bands; a gang of priests murder on the way in one group, for they devised a plot.

10. In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing: there, harlotry [is found] in Ephraim; Israel has become defiled.

11. Judah, too, there is a harvest appointed to you, when I will return the backsliding of My people.


It is about the sinning of Israel and Judah, and the call to repentance by Hosea.

just because David penned the words does not mean that it refers to David.

When personal pronouns are used in a song penned by David, why wouldn't they refer to David?

again, to what is it referring, if not to the resurrection of the Messiah?

Psalm 16
1. A michtam of David; O God, guard me for I have taken refuge in You.

2. You should say to the Lord, "You are my Master; my good is not incumbent upon You.

3. For the holy ones who are in the earth, and the mighty ones in whom is all my delight.

4. May the sorrows of those who hasten after another [deity] increase; I will not pour their libations of blood, nor will I take their names upon my lips.

5. The Lord is my allotted portion and my cup; You guide my destiny.

6. Portions have fallen to me in pleasant places; even the inheritance pleases me."

7. I will bless the Lord, Who counseled me; even at night my conscience instructs me.

8. I have placed the Lord before me constantly; because [He is] at my right hand, I will not falter.

9. Therefore, my heart rejoiced, and my soul was glad; even my flesh shall dwell in safety.

10. For You shall not forsake my soul to the grave; You shall not allow Your pious one to see the pit.

11. You shall let me know the way of life, the fullness of joys in Your presence. There is pleasantness in Your right hand forever.

David is rejoicing, because G-d has provided protection and shall not allow him to fall at this point in his life.

i'm not sure what v15 you're referring to. Psalm 16 only has 11 verses. not leaving a soul in the grave seems to be a fairly clear reference to resurrection.

Your translation has different numberings, and a different overall translation thatgives a different picture. I'm sure you can see the difference between the two. "...shall not forsake my soul to the grave..." means something entirely different than "leaving a soul in the grave". When the entire context of the passage is taken into consideration, you can see that this has nothing to do with death and resurrection.

i don't feel compelled to throw a tremendous number of passages. i don't feel like wasting my time.

Once again, I meant no offense in my statement. In my previous experience, I have run into many a person who feels that it's quantity that means more than quality. Thus, it's better to go one at a time and evaluate.

 

[muffler dragon]

Ethnic Giant Cleansing?????

LOL!!! That's a question that I'm afraid I don't have an answer for.

 

[muffler dragon]

But that is just the problem with the English translation. Does "the brother of Caleb" refer to Othniel or Kenaz? The way it is written in English suggests that Caleb is the brother of Kenaz. If he was the brother of Othniel, then there would be a comma between "Othniel" and "the". Hence the need to look directly to the Hebrew to see if it is clearer or just as ambiguous.

It is true that a closer look would help; however, since there is no punctuation in Hebrew, I don't think it would help too much. Couple this with the fact that Caleb is already defined as the son of Jephunnah, and I think it helps to elucidate the situation.

Yes, Caleb was a Jew. But the question is if it was by birth or by conversion.

I do not see where the Tanakh makes it clear that Caleb's father was from Judah. It only shows that he was a Kenezite (Numbers 32:12).

Numbers 13
6 From the tribe of Judah, Caleb son of Yefuneh.

This is as clear as it can get.

Btw, here is a rabbinical snippet on the topic:

See Joshua 14:6,14; also note on 13:6. He was called a Kenizite because he was the stepson of Kenaz, that is, the son of Kenaz's wife (Rashi here and Sotah 11b, end). He was thus the step-brother of Othniel; cf. Joshua 15:17, Judges 1:13, 1 Chronicles 4:13. Also see Genesis 15:19, 36:11. The Septuagint translates Kenizi as 'the one set apart,' or 'the independent one.' On the basis of Semitic roots, Kenizi denotes a hunter or lone warrior.

 

[buckeyegrad]

And that is a contention that you would have to substantiate. Furthermore, I'm not talking about halacha. I'm talking about reading Jesus back into the text. There is a vast difference between those two things. The former discusses things that have taken place since the Torah was given; whereas, the latter will try to fit a person into a verse/passage regardless of the context.

In terms of substantiating my contention, I would point to the fact that there is nothing to collaborate or substantiate that the oral torah was given by G-d to Moses and passed down through the generations. In fact, there are points in scripture that would suggest it didn't exist prior to the Babylonian captivity (why does Deut 17 require the king to keep a copy of the written Torah to study and makes no mention of the oral torah that supposedly provides its correct interpretation; or why is it when the written Torah was found during Josiah's reign did it seem as if the knowledge within it had been lost if there was a oral torah that would have kept all of the teachings known?

As for reading Jesus back into the text, this is where we greatly disagree, but it has to do with what oral torah can teach us. Although I find no evidence of the oral torah being from G-d, but rather the writings/speculations of men, I view it as a historical document that helps me understand the minds of the Jews in the centuries between the Babylonian captivity and the late 2nd century C.E. What these historical teaching show me is that the writings of the New Testament authors were not projecting Jesus back into the text as every application of it were applications already within Jewish thought by the time of Jesus' life. Isaiah 53 was thought to be about the messiah, and not Israel, by many rabbis both before and after Jesus. Messiah ben Yoseph as a suffering servant (with no warrior attributes) was a concept before Jesus. This shows that the followers of Jesus were not simply projecting Him back into the Scriptures, but rather they were taking understandings present in those Scriptures and realizing that they were fulfilled by Jesus.

You're more than entitled to this belief.

As you are yours.

I tell you what. When you present the source that your brother-in-law uses; then I'll present substantiation for the halachic view. Deal?

The problematic thing is that your brother-in-law will have to rely on the very text that he doesn't believe has authority: Talmud. I believe this would be the same thing for you.

I'll see him tomorrow night at Yeshiva, so I find out what his source is. If it is Talmud, then I apply my post above. I don't believe that former Gentiles are grafted into Israel, and specifically Judah because of the practice (if it is outlined in Talmud or wherever). I believe it because the New Testament states so and I believe those words are "G-d breathed". The point of referencing other oral torah (again, if that is the source) is to show the New Testament idea is completely Jewish and not one made up by the followers of Jesus.

 

[muffler dragon]

In terms of substantiating my contention, I would point to the fact that there is nothing to collaborate or substantiate that the oral torah was given by G-d to Moses and passed down through the generations.

Are you wanting to discuss this topic in detail? Or just let it drop?

In fact, there are points in scripture that would suggest it didn't exist prior to the Babylonian captivity (why does Deut 17 require the king to keep a copy of the written Torah to study and makes no mention of the oral torah that supposedly provides its correct interpretation; or why is it when the written Torah was found during Josiah's reign did it seem as if the knowledge within it had been lost if there was a oral torah that would have kept all of the teachings known?

These are answerable questions. Just let me know if you're writing rhetorically.

What these historical teaching show me is that the writings of the New Testament authors were not projecting Jesus back into the text as every application of it were applications already within Jewish thought by the time of Jesus' life. Isaiah 53 was thought to be about the messiah, and not Israel, by many rabbis both before and after Jesus. Messiah ben Yoseph as a suffering servant (with no warrior attributes) was a concept before Jesus. This shows that the followers of Jesus were not simply projecting Him back into the Scriptures, but rather they were taking understandings present in those Scriptures and realizing that they were fulfilled by Jesus.

Since there are other posts in which I have already addressed these statements, I will defer to what I wrote previously.

As you are yours.

Truly. LOL!

I'll see him tomorrow night at Yeshiva, so I find out what his source is. If it is Talmud, then I apply my post above. I don't believe that former Gentiles are grafted into Israel, and specifically Judah because of the practice (if it is outlined in Talmud or wherever). I believe it because the New Testament states so and I believe those words are "G-d breathed". The point of referencing other oral torah (again, if that is the source) is to show the New Testament idea is completely Jewish and not one made up by the followers of Jesus.

I'll await your post after your attendance tomorrow.

Sorry for the brevity, just posting quickly before I go home, and I'll be gone until Thursday night.

Take care.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Numbers 13
6 From the tribe of Judah, Caleb son of Yefuneh.

This is as clear as it can get.

I'm not sure why you keep quoting that verse as if the answer to our question is self-evident there. All it says is that Caleb was from Judah and he was the son of Yefuneh. It does not say Yefuneh was from Judah. If there was no other information, logic would make it a safe assumption, but it would not prove it. The major problem is that the "safe assumption" is not there due to Numbers 32:12

Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite, and Joshua the son of Nun: for they have wholly followed the LORD.

Which shows that Yefuneh was a Kenezite; and hence, not of the tribe of Judah.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Interesting that wikipedia even notes the disagreement between interpreters as to whether Kenaz was Caleb's step-father or brother:

Kenaz or Knaz - hunter - is the name of several persons in the Hebrew Bible. קְנָז "Hunter", Standard Hebrew Qənaz, Tiberian Hebrew Qənaz / Qənāz

• A son of Eliphaz and a grandson of Esau. He was an Edomite leader. (Genesis 36:11, 15, 42). He may have been the ancestor of the Kenezites.
• Caleb's younger brother, and father of Othniel (Josh. 15:17), whose family was of importance in Israel down to the time of David. (1 Chr. 27:15) Some think that Othniel (Judg. 1:13), and not Kenaz, was Caleb's brother, Kenaz obviously being Caleb's stepfather.
• Caleb's grandson. (1 Chr. 4:15)

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm not sure why you keep quoting that verse as if the answer to our question is self-evident there. All it says is that Caleb was from Judah and he was the son of Yefuneh.

Are you aware that tribal lineage is passed on through the father?

 

[muffler dragon]

Interesting that wikipedia even notes the disagreement between interpreters as to whether Kenaz was Caleb's step-father or brother:

Wiki is not authoritative when compared to Judaic tradition.

 

[Brewtus]

 

[lvbuckeye]

Brewtus: we know how you feel. why don't you do us a favor and stay out of it?

 

[Brewtus]

Brewtus: we know how you feel. why don't you do us a favor and stay out of it?

Lighten up Francis. I just saw that comic and it reminded me of this thread. Just trying to lighten things up a bit with one post.

Actually I've enjoyed reading the discussion and hope it continues. I've learned a lot so far.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Yes, very good discussion. Keep on keepin' on.