OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[muffler dragon]

Could you please explain your last ststement?

Which post?

 

[stowfan]

Stow:

FTR, you've been extremely respectful and courteous in your statements to me thus far. Truth be told, there has only been one occurrence during my attendance in this forum when I was felt excessively offended. I tell you this so that you can feel like discoursing with me without concern or presenting a disclaimer. I appreciate the sentiment. I just want you to know that I have pretty thick skin.



I should clarify that I am not affiliated with any Noachide groups per se. The sole resource that I recommend to others for education and insight is AskNoah - The Seven Laws of Noah. I am not evangelistic in my beliefs, and they don't extend beyond my personal family circle.



I agree with this thought. Truth be told, the investigation into the Pharisee and Sadducee delineations is a major strike (for me) against the legitimacy of the Christian gospels and Pauline epistles.

This one

 

[muffler dragon]

This one

At the time of Jesus the Sanhedrin and the High Priest were appointed by the Romans. Ten % of all he Jewish wealth was to go to the temple, ten % of that to the high priest. You "played ball" with the romans or you wouldn't have those jobs.

I agree with this thought. Truth be told, the investigation into the Pharisee and Sadducee delineations is a major strike (for me) against the legitimacy of the Christian gospels and Pauline epistles.

I should note (as I re-read your post) that I wasn't referring to the Maccabee statement. My apologies for the confusion.

This is really a thread into it's own, but I'll try to express some salient points.

Pharisees v. Sadducees
1) Pharisees gave credence to the Oral and Written Torah. The Sadducees did not.
2) The Pharisees believed in resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees did not.
3) The Pharisees followed a more lenient approach when it came to capital offenses. The Sadducees were literalists.
4) The Pharisees are the Sages of Jewish tradition. The Sadducees became the priests of the Temple, and thus, the High Priest was also a Sadducee.
5) I don't recall the name of the Sadducee, but there was a priest who slaughtered thousands of Pharisees about 2-400 BCE. Therefore, the relationship between the two was rather "chilly".

The above causes concern for the validity of the Christian testament, because of the following reasons which are by no means exhaustive:

1) Oftentimes, the Pharisees are painted as the strict legalists with regard to punishment and outward expression. Whereas, when understanding the role and the mindset of the Sadducean priests, it becomes apparent that there are some quite possible inconsistencies. The Pharisees had nothing to do with people's money or sacrifices; however, this plays a role in the Christian testament.
2) The Sadducees (much like the modern-day Karaites) suffer from unanswerable questions when it comes to observance. Yet, the Pharisees are painted as ignorant in the Christian testament.

Regarding the Pauline epistles and Paul's biography:

1) It is highly unlikely (if not impossible) for a Pharisaic Jew to align himself in the service/employ of a Sadducean High Priest. This distinction is somewhat shown in Acts when Gamaliel (Pharisee President of the Sanhedrin) is lenient towards the new Jewish Sect and the High Priest is sending out letters to arrest them and bring up charges.
2) There is no history in Jewish tradition of Paul being a student of Gamaliel, and yes, students are notated.
3) Paul, IMO, presents a poor understanding of the Torah and its observations. He further misrepresents this concept to Gentiles when Torah observance is never a requirement in the first place.

I imagine, as I read back on this post, that a lot of my points are probably not presented in the most clear fashion. In truth, I haven't spent much time on these topics in the last year+, and I've forgotten a fair amount. It just seems to me that many times the Christian gospels make a claim or stance about the Pharisees when, in fact, the group that would fit such a claim or stance is the Sadducees.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The link was interesting, but also interesting to note that the "scientific method" employed used similar leaps (or gaps) of logic in interpretation proving or disproving points.

I always become uneasy when someone tries to do things like that. It cloaks the test in a sense of legitimacy that it may not actually have. That said, I appreciate the effort made. Still, the more I think about it, his "method" tests internal validity of the OT with itself and the NT with the OT. It's not really surprising the OT would be consistent with itself. It is, to me, surprising that the NT would not be consistent in as much as it's alleged to be an extrapolation on it. I must confess, it makes me think the reasoning of "The NT is "new law"" or whatever is a cop out answer. I might as well write the Book of Mormon and convince people that this is the new new law. It just doesn't work that way.

Regardless, as you note:

Still, very fascinating stuff that should make anyone continue to question and explore.

It does provoke some very pointed questions that, in my mind, DO require sound answers (for each person, that is)

What is key to me is this: you cannot use the New Testament to interpret the meaning of what the Old Testament says about Messianic prophesy. You have to - at minimum - at least have some alignment with Jewish understanding of the Messiah. He was a Jew fulfilling God's promise to his people. Now, it is true that God can and will change his mind on some pretty important stuff. Killing off everyone in city unless X number of righteous men are found. Destroying his entire creation, flooding the world, etc.

I would think the second of his essays (the one I linked) speaks strongly against Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. On the issue of G-d changing his mind, I do not subscribe to said view. True, it seems apparent enough in the Bible, but in the research I was doing on Ancient Kings (A few pages back) I've come to realize that a lot of the Bible is an accounting of history from a particular peoples and it's not uncommon for people to attribute things to G-d.. particularly the peoples in question here. To be clear, I still find wisdom and value in the Bible in a metaphysical sense, however, it's become increasingly clear to me that is most certainly a book of man, mostly about man, and sometimes about G-d. If nothing else, it does indeed give all glory to G-d and 'makes" us contemplate Him. Nothing wrong with that. (I should say, again, while this paragraph focuses on the historical accounting nature of the Bible, I DO still hold that there is more to it than that.)

So I guess he can change his mind, and whatever he told the Old Hebrew guys is old hat. But for Christians to hold with every-word-is-true puts them in hot water come interpretation time for Messianic purposes.

Good stuff.

For sure (with my "changing of His mind" objection noted, of course).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I admit to taking this out of context, but it serves as the basis for the consideration I'd like to talk about..

"If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven (John 20:23).

Ezekiel 18:30. Therefore, every man according to his ways I will judge you, O house of Israel, says the Lord God: repent and cause others to repent of all your transgressions, and it will not be a stumbling block of iniquity for you.

31. Cast away from yourselves all your transgressions whereby you have transgressed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, and why should you die, O house of Israel!

The NT passage seems to imply that other men hold the key to one's sin tally, whereas the OT squarely puts the responsibility with the "sinner" In the John passage, a man who trespasses against me is held accountable for that so long as I do not forgive him. Conversely, in the Ezekiel passage, regardless of my forgiveness, it is enough for the trespasser to realize his "sin" and to learn from it and repent.

I suppose in practice, the John passage could just as easily stand for the idea that one should always forgive he who seeks forgiveness.... and I would personally adopt the same approach. But, in context, the passage seems to me to be an attempt to empower man to judge other men.... or to .... how do I say this... to .... provide them with the "authority" to decide what G-d wants. "Who are you to tell me if G-d forgives me?" "Well, I"m Peter and Jesus said I get to decide who gets forgiveness and who does not. So there." This approach, it seems to me, flies right in the face of the Old Test. for reasons as I said just above (personal responsibility/accountability v. the will of another to "forgive" you)

My anticipation is, of course, that the Christians would say the new rules are what they are and if you don't like em, tough. But, it seems to me, claims of basis on the OT becomes further and further away when you do that. To the point where it is such that the NT and OT shouldn't ever be combined as if it's some comprehensive text.

 

[buckeyegrad]

The NT passage seems to imply that other men hold the key to one's sin tally

Ummmm, WOW! I'm not sure where you get that idea from. I guess if you read the sentence by itself, you could come up with that, but it basically violates everything else stated in the New Testament. What you just did here is equivalent to saying the disciples were driving around in Hondas (read Acts 2:1). Really, this is such a misrepresentation of what is being stated that I wonder if it isn't intentional.

whereas the OT squarely puts the responsibility with the "sinner" In the John passage, a man who trespasses against me is held accountable for that so long as I do not forgive him.

This is not what is being said and I think it is pretty obvious that is not what is being said. I noticed that you neglected one big thing that in your "analysis"--Jesus says this only after giving the disciples the Holy Spirit--this is key to understanding the verse, if you really are interested in understanding it.

I suppose in practice, the John passage could just as easily stand for the idea that one should always forgive he who seeks forgiveness.... and I would personally adopt the same approach.

At least that is an understanding much closer to what is being said, though I personally don't think it gets to its complete meaning.

But, in context, the passage seems to me to be an attempt to empower man to judge other men.... or to .... how do I say this... to .... provide them with the "authority" to decide what G-d wants. "Who are you to tell me if G-d forgives me?" "Well, I"m Peter and Jesus said I get to decide who gets forgiveness and who does not. So there." This approach, it seems to me, flies right in the face of the Old Test. for reasons as I said just above (personal responsibility/accountability v. the will of another to "forgive" you)

Again, you miss the key context of what is occurring. They first receive the Holy Spirit, which changes everything! In fact, I would argue you got the entire thing backwards! In other words, it is not that the disciples will determine who God forgives, but that they will have the guidence of the Holy Spirit in understanding who God forgives and does not forgive.


I'm not trying to start a debate here with you. In fact, I have decided to purposefully avoid them for the time being as I have come to determine that they are about as fruitful as chasing the wind. However, your statements twist things too such a degree that this really made me pause and say WOW! Not to offend, but from my perspective it as though you are really going out of your way, and stretching things too the point of obsurdity, in order to try to criticize Christianity--I can only wonder why.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Ummmm, WOW! I'm not sure where you get that idea from. I guess if you read the sentence by itself, you could come up with that, but it basically violates everything else stated in the New Testament. What you just did here is equivalent to saying the disciples were driving around in Hondas (read Acts 2:1). Really, this is such a misrepresentation of what is being stated that I wonder if it isn't intentional.

whereas the OT squarely puts the responsibility with the "sinner" In the John passage, a man who trespasses against me is held accountable for that so long as I do not forgive him.

This is not what is being said and I think it is pretty obvious that is not what is being said. I noticed that you neglected one big thing that in your "analysis"--Jesus says this only after giving the disciples the Holy Spirit--this is key to understanding the verse, if you really are interested in doing so rather than twisting it in order to attack it.



At least that is an understanding much closer to what is being said, though I personally don't think it gets to the true meaning.



Again, you miss the key context of what is occurring. They first receive the Holy Spirit, which changes everything! In fact, I would argue you got the entire thing backwards! In other words, it is not that the disciples will determine who God forgives, but that they will have the guidence of the Holy Spirit in understanding who God forgives and does not forgive.


I'm not trying to start a debate here with you. In fact, I have decided to purposefully avoid them for the time being as I have come to determine that they are about as fruitful as chasing the wind. However, your statements twist things too such a degree that this really made me pause and say WOW! Not to offend, but to me it appears as though you are really going out of your way, and stretching things too the point of obsurdity, in order to try to discredit Christianity--I can only wonder why.

Whatever floats your boat, Bgrad. I'm merely stating my view of this stuff. I dont expect you to agree, and frankly, whether or not you appreciate the remarks I make - or consider whatever value they may have, is well beyond my control. I'm not trying to go out of my way to discredit Christianity at all. I don't find it credible, sure, but I guess I don't see why I should stop posting my opinions just because you take issue with them so strongly that you've decided to stop posting. Feel free to correct my misunderstandings. That's what these threads are for, right?

As to "I guess if you read the sentence by itself..." I guess you missed me saying I realized it was out of context? It was my first sentence in that post, so I can see where by the end you'd have forgotten I said that. I would have guessed my use of terms like "to me" would have convinced any reader that whatever followed was merely my opinion, or a affirmative statement as to how those passages effected ME. Are you in shock that the NT just doesn't "speak to me?" Seriously.. is that it? Do you just not "Get" that that Book is not all things to all people?

Not sure I was offering a quote/unquote "analysis" but.. whatever.

As to the Holy Spirit.... well... we all have our faiths in things that do or do not exist or how they might behave, I guess. I might as well say the Holy Spirit is moving me to write this. You have a choice.. believe me, or do not believe me. It's really that simple. You believe the authors of the NT... so what?

 

[AKAK]

Let's take a deep breath, everyone.

And... ironically, lets not judge others beliefs/opinions... or judge them to have agendas...

Play nice.

Remember, It's not about being "right."

Start a rep circle if you need to.

(Now...Everyone say, "Yes, Uncle AKAK... we'll be good... we love you... even though you're being a condescending jackass")

Kumbaya, motherfuckers.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Let's take a deep breath, everyone.

And... ironically, lets not judge others beliefs/opinions... or judge them to have agendas...

Play nice.

Remember, It's not about being "right."

Start a rep circle if you need to.

(Now...Everyone say, "Yes, Uncle AKAK... we'll be good... we love you... even though you're being a condescending jackass")

Kumbaya, motherfuckers.

Look at you, acting all Moderator and everything. :p

I obviously agree it's not about being right... and a rep circle sounds great!

 

[muffler dragon]

John 20 (NASB)
19So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for (AC)fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "(AD)Peace be with you."

20And when He had said this, (AE)He showed them both His hands and His side The disciples then (AF)rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21So Jesus said to them again, "(AG)Peace be with you; (AH)as the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23"(AI)If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."
24But (AJ)Thomas, one of (AK)the twelve, called (AL)Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in (AM)His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, (AN)I will not believe."
26After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "(AO)Peace be with you."
27Then He said to Thomas, "(AP)Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."
28Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? (AQ)Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
30(AR)Therefore many other (AS)signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written (AT)so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, (AU)the Son of God; and that (AV)believing you may have life in His name.

The part that leaves me wanting in this entire exchange is that the giving of the Holy Spirit and subsequent announcement are completely irrelevant to the surrounding information.

According to this passage, the following occurs:

1) Jesus shows up.
2) Jesus gives the disciples the Holy Spirit.
3) Jesus pronounces that the disciples can forgive or refuse to forgive sins.
4) Thomas wasn't there.
5) Thomas waits to see proof that Jesus lives.
6) Thomas sees Jesus.
7) Jesus commends those who believe without seeing.

Thus, points 2 and 3 have NOTHING to do whatsoever with 4-7. Are we to presume that Thomas didn't receive the Holy Spirit and thus, cannot forgive nor refuse to forgive sins? It's a complete disconnect.

Therefore, when observing the context of John 20, it can be determined that this has no direct effect on the text of the Jewish Bible. They are completely unrelated as it pertains to sin => repentance => forgiveness, and whether another can be a vicarious replacement for another.

 

[AKAK]

Look at you, acting all Moderator and everything. :p

I obviously agree it's not about being right... and a rep circle sounds great!

Now...Everyone say, "Yes, Uncle AKAK... we'll be good... we love you... even though you're being a condescending jackass"

 

[muffler dragon]

Let's take a deep breath, everyone.

And... ironically, lets not judge others beliefs/opinions... or judge them to have agendas...

Play nice.

Remember, It's not about being "right."

Start a rep circle if you need to.

(Now...Everyone say, "Yes, Uncle AKAK... we'll be good... we love you... even though you're being a condescending jackass")

Kumbaya, motherfuckers.

I've got your "kum-bye-ya" right here, pal!!!

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

"Yes, Uncle AKAK... we'll be good... we love you... even though you're being a condescending jackass"

 

[Steve19]

Now...Everyone say, "Yes, Uncle AKAK... we'll be good... we love you... even though you're being a condescending jackass"

ditto

 

[AKAK]

I've got your "kum-bye-ya" right here, pal!!!

Crap... I feel a duel coming on.

Oh well...