OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[OCBuckWife]

K, I knew it would be different because it was heraldry but I didn't know it was THAT different. I had wondered about the mane, now I know. :(

 

[Gatorubet]

And who got to ascribe the relative numerical values of the letters?

 

[OCBuckWife]

As heir apparent to the reigning sovereign, the Prince of Wales bears the Royal Arms differenced by a white label of three points. To represent Wales he bears the Coat of Arms of the Principality of Wales, crowned with the heir-apparent's crown, on an inescutcheon-en-surtout. This was first used by the future King Edward VIII in 1910, and followed by the current Prince of Wales, Prince Charles. [2]
He has a badge of three ostrich feathers (which can be seen on the reverse of all decimal British two pence coins dated up to 2008); it dates back to the Black Prince and is his as the English heir even before he is made Prince of Wales.
In addition to these symbols used most frequently, he has a special standard for use in Wales itself. Moreover, as Duke of Rothesay he has a special coat of arms for use in Scotland (and a corresponding standard); as Duke of Cornwall the like for use in the Duchy of Cornwall. Representations of all three may be found at List of British flags.
For theories about the origin of the ostrich feather badge and of the motto "Ich dien", see Edward, the Black Prince.

Not that I like using Wikipedia as a source reference but, hey, it's quick.




Another look at his personal crest.

The royal family crest from Wiki

The royal family crest







Yeah, also not seeing a broken chain. And, as can be seen in the family crest, those little lions aren't wearing crowns so......still I don't see the "ten crowns" mentioned in the first breakdown either.

 

[Bleed S & G]

The royal family crest

Yeah, also not seeing a broken chain. And, as can be seen in the family crest, those little lions aren't wearing crowns so......still I don't see the "ten crowns" mentioned in the first breakdown either.

I see the broken chain in both of these ones, the ring at the bottom of the chain is not complete.

I do not see the 10 crowns either, I count 7 crowns..

I pulled up the passage where the angel explains to him his vision:
Rev 17:12
12And(A) the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings(B) for one hour, together with the beast.

And who got to ascribe the relative numerical values of the letters?

I don't know who made the Hebrew gematria.. I do NOT like the numerology.. I can calculate anything to equal 666

 

[OCBuckWife]

I see the broken chain in both of these ones, the ring at the bottom of the chain is not complete.

I do not see the 10 crowns either, I count 7 crowns..

I pulled up the passage where the angel explains to him his vision:
Rev 17:12
12And(A) the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings(B) for one hour, together with the beast.


I don't know who made the Hebrew gematria.. I do NOT like the numerology.. I can calculate anything to equal 666

If you look at the different versions, you might see that the last ring is not a link in the chain itself. It is larger and rounder and thicker and is actually (IMHO) where the chain is attached to the base/ground stationary ring thus capturing/leashing the unicorn. The chain is also attached (think welded onto) to the crown that is serving as a "collar" on the unicorn.

Numerology is often overused and becomes a parody of itself which makes me laugh.

 

[OCBuckWife]

Reading up on it, It's a heraldic thing rather than what it looks like, usually.

Though sometimes shown collared, which may perhaps be taken in some cases as an indication that it has been tamed or tempered, it is more usually shown collared with a broken chain attached, showing that it has broken free from its bondage and cannot be taken again.

On the other hand I found this.

​

On the right it is supported by the Unicorn of Scotland.
(The unicorn is chained because in mediaeval times a free unicorn was considered a very dangerous beast (only a virgin could tame a unicorn)

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Why would someone have to be "highly educated in Jewish law" in order to mediate between those two groups?

As we can see from his letters, Paul attempts to theologically justify the admittance of the Gentiles - as well as how to handle the myriad theological issues raised by admitting Gentiles to a largely Jewish movement. I would imagine that it would take someone of certain theological credibility to a) be able to do this, and b) actually get people to listen.

Sincere question: why do you think Paul is promoting the mission of Jesus from the Gospels? I realize it may sound rudimentary, but from my position, Paul never met Jesus. He had an ethereal vision. He was never in Jesus' presence, and it's evident from the interactions between Paul, the Apostles and the writings amongst them that they weren't exactly in agreement.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Paul promotes the Gospel because he believes in the ideas as conveyed to him. I don't know why it matters whether or not he met Jesus any more than it matters whether or not the Pope or Billy Graham has.

I'm also not sure why being in agreement matters. Paul worked at the tail end of the first century CE - the movement was clearly in its infancy and post-Jesus leadership was still being worked out. I just dont understand why this matters one way or another. What's clear is that Paul was one of the leaders and his authority may have only been matched by James.

For clarification, do you mean rooted as in ascribing foundational tenets to Judaism like Islam does to Judaism and Christianity, or some other meaning?

I guess. But I also meant something more literal - that many, if not all, of the first followers of Jesus were, in fact, Jews. But, yes, the fundamental tenets are based in Judaism. This is most obvious in the way Jesus (and Paul) frame their lessons using Judaism as the context. Conversely, if the Jesus-movement was based, say, in paganism, the parables, the sermons, the letters, etc., would all be framed by the pantheon and Roman/Greek mythology, etc.

I agree that Chapter 2 discusses personal accountability, and I think that my previous wording and/or explanation was insufficient/wrong. Here's some Scripture that discusses Paul's position just after acknowledgement of "personal accountability".

(As something for future consideration, what Paul says is counter to what the Torah says. We can discuss this in more detail later.)

Romans 3
19Now we know that whatever the (Y)Law says, it speaks to (Z)those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and (AA)all the world may become accountable to God;
20because (AB)by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for (AC)through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
21But now apart from the Law (AD)the righteousness of God has been manifested, being (AE)witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22even the (AF)righteousness of God through (AG)faith (AH)in Jesus Christ for (AI)all those who believe; for (AJ)there is no distinction;
23for all (AK)have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24being justified as a gift (AL)by His grace through (AM)the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25whom God displayed publicly as (AN)a propitiation (AO)in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the (AP)forbearance of God He (AQ)passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 5
1(A)Therefore, having been justified by faith, (B)we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2through whom also we have (C)obtained our introduction by faith into this grace (D)in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

9Much more then, having now been justified (R)by His blood, we shall be saved (S)from the wrath of God through Him.
10For if while we were (T)enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved (U)by His life. 11(V)And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received (W)the reconciliation.

17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned (AH)through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will (AI)reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18So then as through (AJ)one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one (AK)act of righteousness there resulted (AL)justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man's disobedience (AM)the many (AN)were made sinners, even so through (AO)the obedience of the One (AP)the many will be made righteous.

I realize that Paul's speaks of each person's responsibility for their actions, but it's the immediate step just after this that bothers me. The above passages speak of the cross being a vicarious atonement. And I realize what Paul goes on to say about conduct, but here's the key: it's not about repentance between man and G-d (as is laid out explicitly in the Tanakh); but instead, it's about man => cross => G-d. And who/what is the culprit in all this? The Torah (or as Paul calls it, "the Law"). Rhetorical question: would a Pharisee deride the Torah in the way that Paul does? Just something to think about.

I understand your point. This passage is a departure from the Torah and Tanakh, as are many others from Paul.

Let me step back a little bit to use another example of what I am trying to say: before the 2002-3 season, Buckeye fans were all of one basic opinion: Woody was the best Buckeye coach in history (just bare with me). Then Tressel wins a Championship, beats scUM 6/7 times, takes us to 2 more BCS championships, ushers in a golden age of recruiting, etc., etc. Now many former Woody 'worshippers' are Tressel converts. It's the beginning, if you will indulge me, of the Tressel-movement. For former Woody-worshippers, some things have clearly changed. The same guy who once wore the black Block-O hat and glasses to games, now wears a sweater vest to games. Maybe, instead of wearing Woody-era jerseys (Archie's #45), he wears Tressel-era jerseys (Troy's #10). The picture of Woody that once hung in the prime spot on the wall has been replaced by a framed pic of Tress singing Carmen Ohio at the 2003 Fiesta Bowl. However, many things remain the same. Our hypothetical fan still tailgates in the same fashion (same parking spot, 2 brats, 8 miller lites). He still wears his lucky Buckeye necklace and lucky Buckeye boxer shorts on game day. He still sits on the left-most cushion on the couch while watching from home, and he still refuses to say M-c-i-g-n, using only Woody's TSUN.

Is our fan's faith different? Yes, definitely. Is his religion still very similar? Absolutely. For many Jews at the infancy of the Jesus-movement, this is how their lives changed. Gradually. But the tenets were rooted in the same place. Still, theologically, they definitely accepted some new ideas. Instead of three yards and a cloud of dust, they accept the modified spread-option. Why? Because they believe, or were convinced to believe. Paul argues for a new idea of a covenant with God. Formerly that covenant came through observance of the law (overly simple, but you know what I mean). Paul is not saying to dismiss that idea or to dismiss the law, but rather consider a newer idea that augments the faith - specifically what it means to be a Jesus-follower, based on the same building blocks.

50 years from now, Buckeye fans may be split 50/50 between Woody and Tressel. Who knows, 100 years from now there may have been a third superlative coach who has yet another set of followers. In the end, we're still all Buckeyes (er, monotheists? ), with faiths founded in the exact place. But I digress...

Anyway, to answer your question regarding how Saul the Pharisee could deride the Torah: Paul is like that old-timer at a game who for years hated what was "happening to the game." Now he is a firm believer in whatever Tressel does, including the 4 and 5 receiver sets that he once hated. He's not giving up on three yards and a cloud of dust, but he is convinced that Tressel's way works also, and is happy to tell others so. I don't think Paul derides the Torah, and it still is about repentance between man and G-d. Only, Paul adds something to it. Not only does he think people should live righteously - within the law, if you are Jewish - but the key is to also believe in Jesus.

but here's the key: it's not about repentance between man and G-d (as is laid out explicitly in the Tanakh); but instead, it's about man => cross => G-d. And who/what is the culprit in all this?

And I would adjust this. From my understanding (and that of many Christian do-gooders all over) it would actually be man=>works=>cross=>G-d. Now, do I think that there are a go-zillion inconsistencies in modern Chrisitianity (like, I don't know, eating lobster at dinner while ridiculing gay people)? Yes, I do. Best for another discussion. But I think the idea of works gets lost in Paul's letters because he so commonly deals in the minutiae of which of the 613 should the Gentiles be held to in order to join up, and for which can Jewish leadership among Jesus-followes look the other way.

Also, why do you think Paul believes that the law is a culprit? I don't understand.

Forgive me for breaking up the following, but there's a reason for it: IF Jesus had been the Jewish Messiah; then you and I (and everyone else in the world) would NOT be having this discussion. IF Jesus were the Jewish Messiah; then there wouldn't have been any reason for the "departing from the rest of the Jewish community". It would have been unanimous.

From a faith standpoint, it depends entirely on what kind of messiah was supposed occur. If you were of the mind that the Jewish messiah was supposed to be a conquerer in the mold of David, then, you're right. Jesus was not this. If you were ready to believe that the messiah was supposed to be a suffering messiah, then maybe he was/is... that's where the tablet comes back into the discussion. If the tablet is authentic, there is some proof that the suffering messiah is not as much of a departure from the Jewish community as we once thought. Mainstream? No. But no one ever thought that the Jesus movement was a mainstream movement - it was always revolutionary.

Which, according to the Tanakh, is not possible. One knowledgeable of the Tanakh would have known this.

A suffering messiah to what end? And yes, I realize this probably delves into Isaiah 53. However, I should note that Jewish tradition has been consistent throughout its history that the Messiah would not operate as a means of atonement between man and G-d. Thus, even Messiah ben Yosef does not operate in the means that is ascribed to Jesus. Anyway...

Dare I say that the Prophets were actually inconsistent? Some passages are quite literal. Some are quite mystical. Deliverance comes in different forms and fashions. Is there any way to argue that the relationship between man and G-d is the same in Song of Solomon as it is in Joshua? The Tanakh can be as opaque as it is illuminating, which is why there are millenia of Jewish scholarship.

But this partially comes back to the #1 "IF" statements. The Romans, of course, executed political enemies.

Point of clarification: all Messianic groups were seen as dangers to Roman leadership. When it came to Jewish leadership, the ones of concern would have been the priests.

Yes, all threats to Roman leadership were seen as threats to Roman leadership. But its clear that Jesus threatened established Jewish leadership as well.

All Jewish Rabbi's use drash to present teachings and morales to their disciples, this is nothing new.

So you agree that Jesus was operating within the Jewish tradition? Nice.

:) Where do you see this in the Christian Gospels? I know what happens AFTER Jesus is gone, but I'm not certain I recall many incidents in the Gospels.

Not in the Gospels, though the parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind as one example in which Jesus teaches his followers to at least be religiously tolerant of the Gentiles - perhaps a foundation of cross-the-aisle unity . Paul's letters are evidence of such interaction.

I guess it depends on what stage of Christianity we're discussing. I understand your point though.

I'm talking about the very beginning - but certainly through Paul's years.

Hope the wedding was fun.

 

[OCBuckWife]

An aha moment?

The unicorn depicted in the UK coat of arms is actually the "Unicorn of Scotland" and if you look at the coat of arms for Scotland, the two supporting unicorns wear chains but are free (complete ring at the bottom, not seemingly attached to anything).

Hmf. Maybe not..here's another depiction of it and in it, the anchoring points are buried and appear to be capturing again.

Sorry, just realized I am totally hijacking this thread for my sudden piqued interest in this heraldic thing!

 

[Bleed S & G]

An aha moment?

The unicorn depicted in the UK coat of arms is actually the "Unicorn of Scotland" and if you look at the coat of arms for Scotland, the two supporting unicorns wear chains but are free (complete ring at the bottom, not seemingly attached to anything).

Hmf. Maybe not..here's another depiction of it and in it, the anchoring points are buried and appear to be capturing again.

Sorry, just realized I am totally hijacking this thread for my sudden piqued interest in this heraldic thing!

Hey OCBW, found this piece on the Unicorn in realtion to prince Charles:

To the right of the head of the coat of arms is a representation of a unicorn. "In heraldry, this unicorn represents not only Scotland, but also a counterfeit Christ" (Cohen, pg 184). Symbolically, the unicorn in the past has represented Alexander the Great (Dan 8:5, goat with one horn) and Antiochus Epiphanes, a type of anti-Christ (Dan 8:9, "a little horn").

Mythologically, the unicorn probably originated in ancient Babylon and today is a symbol adopted by New Agers to represent "a great world leader" whom they expect to bring world peace to earth. Interestingly, in "Christian" symbolism, the unicorn has also represented the Virgin Mary.

In heraldry, and even historical representations, the unicorn's eyes are round and black, i.e., no visible eye-whites. (Queen Elizabeth's heraldic unicorn is depicted as thus.) Charles' design has the eyes shaped more like those of a human with noticeable eye-whites, (although not easily recognized in this particular copy.)

Note the chain leading from the unicorn and connecting it to the base of the arms (directly above the red dragon.) In heraldry this chain functions as a "restrainer" (cf. 2 Thess 2:6-7).

This site also had an explanation of the horns:

Note the design around the lion's neck. This image is called the "eldest-son label" and has been described by Tim Cohen (The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea, pg. 124) as "three parallel horns which are, in a manner of speaking, 'plucked out by the roots' (i.e., turned upside down)." The eldest-son label is a "distinctive mark" of all succeeding Princes of Wales. Other members of the British royal family have labels that have more than three descending "horns." There are a total of five eldest-son labels on the coat of arms: on the left-side lion, the head lion, the unicorn, the red dragon, and at the top of the center shield where 10 lions are depicted.

(Dan 7:8 KJV) I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were
three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

This region presented on the left is from the top of Charles' shield and is thus called the "head" of the overall coat of arms. Pictured is another lion with the eldest-son label around its neck standing on top of a crown and a "gold helm." The helm is made up of seven curved bars or "horns." These seven horns, along with the three horns from the eldest-son label make a total of 10 horns in the head region of the coat of arms.

(Dan 7:20 KJV) And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

Coat of Arms of Prince Charles of Wales

Perhaps the unicorn is chained because it hasn't been freed?

Revelation 9:1
1The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. 2When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. 3And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

But the chained unicorn appears everywhere.. maybe those are the nations that will be apart of the beast.. thus the beast chained, waiting to be released?

 

[OCBuckWife]

Hey OCBW, found this piece on the Unicorn in realtion to prince Charles:


This site also had an explanation of the horns:


Coat of Arms of Prince Charles of Wales

http://www.scribd.com/doc/851876/Coat-of-Arms-of-Prince-Charles-of-Wales

Ah! I was wondering what the strange white "upside down" castle fortification looking pieces were. "Eldest son" sign. It was one of the more obvious pieces that he had added that were not present in the arms he had incorporated.

Perhaps the unicorn is chained because it hasn't been freed?

Revelation 9:1
1The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. 2When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. 3And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

But the chained unicorn appears everywhere.. maybe those are the nations that will be apart of the beast.. thus the beast chained, waiting to be released?

My aha moment was related to the unattached chain being seen in the Scotland coat of arms but once it was incorporated into the UK coat of arms it was chained. Perhaps some kind of fealty symbol from history when England ruled there was my thought.

The original post refers to the chain and unicorn by citing 2Thess.2:6 which only reads

And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

but the rest of the talk about the "beast" all refers to the leopard/bear/lion dude to the left, or the "beast from the sea." So I guess yeah, the Unicorn could very well be the "beast from the earth", chained and therefore not yet released.


I'm not so great at interpreting biblical scripture, it's so metaphorical to me it almost becomes poetry.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Ok. The parts I've researched are..

You have beast #1 who is the "anti-christ" .. suffers a mortal wound to the head .. bear/leopard/lion (which could be symbols for 3 of the previous empires -or- germany, france, england [the western roman empire] -or- could be a man such as prince charles) .. I personally believe the country/empires don't fit what the anti-christs role is so it needs to be one person.

Then you have beast #2 which would be like a false prophet. One who basically vouches for beast #1. I think this one will be a religious leader, and IMO it will be the pope because of what the other major player is.

You have the great whore of babylon. Who rides the system of the beast. The great whore IMO is the Holy Roman Church as it fits the specific description perfectly, and the harlots would be all the off-shoots of the Roman church: baptist, lutheran, etc.

I guess the way I see it happening is as follows:

• Shit hits the fan on the world scene.. famine, money problems, natural disasters (I think we are seeing the beginnings of this now - but you can make this argument for anytime in history - I do believe in the prophecy of St. Malachi which puts this pope at end times)
• War (I don't think its a coincidence we are in a "holy" war right now.. nor do I find it ironic that Iran - Babylon - and Isreal are about to come to blows)
• One world-wide government system (EU, North American Union, African Union, Australian/Asian Union have all formed.. it will take 'plagues'/war/natural disasters for the people of the world to rely on one world government to sustain them.. these unions can unite into one system.. or you could argue the UN needs these bad things to happen and they will be permitted to take over.. dont think people can be driven to this? look at 9/11.. we gave up freedoms at the drop of a hat to feel 'safe.' "Man's biggest fear is the unknown")
• One world-wide religion (The system of the beast. The anti-CHRIST is a false god.. and all the worlds biggest religions are awaiting their gods return.. wheter it be the Jews, Muslims, or Christians.. the oppurtunity - with the right backing and validation (read: church/pope/system of the beast) - is there for an anti-christ to preform miracles during a time of economic depression and disasters and get followers.. by the tons.
• Armaggedon - God fights the anti-christ and his army of followers.. God wins.
• 1,000 years of peace to those who survive all of this destruction.. it's like the flood (which coincides with Mayan prophecy) .. it's a weeding out of evil in the world. This era of peace coincides with the next age of the Earth according to the Mayans as well.
• Judgement day.. all the dead are risen and judged. Either your soul reveals you did what you thought was right.. or you did what you thought was wrong and you are judged accordingly by the one TRUE judge.. your own conscious.

 

[muffler dragon]

Just so you're aware, I'm going to try to get through this post, but I may not be able to finish. I'll pick up later if that happens.

[quote='BusNative;120268;8]As we can see from his letters, Paul attempts to theologically justify the admittance of the Gentiles - as well as how to handle the myriad theological issues raised by admitting Gentiles to a largely Jewish movement. I would imagine that it would take someone of certain theological credibility to a) be able to do this, and b) actually get people to listen.[/quote]

Just to ask: why would Paul need to establish a different platform of conversion than what Judaism had had established. Furthermore, Judaism doesn't necessitate that all nations become Jews; therefore, why would Paul need to proselytize all nations unto his belief? To me, this is yet another divergence. As for justification, once again, I find his presentation anti-Torah.

[quote='Bus]I'm not sure I understand the question. Paul promotes the Gospel because he believes in the ideas as conveyed to him. I don't know why it matters whether or not he met Jesus any more than it matters whether or not the Pope or Billy Graham has.[/quote]

How exactly did he get these non-Judaic ideas? Were they figments of his own imagination? We know that they wouldn't have come from yeshiva (if he ever attended). We know where the Apostles got their instructions and the tenets that they shared; however, there isn't anything concrete regarding Paul.

[quote='Bus]I'm also not sure why being in agreement matters. Paul worked at the tail end of the first century CE - the movement was clearly in its infancy and post-Jesus leadership was still being worked out. I just dont understand why this matters one way or another. What's clear is that Paul was one of the leaders and his authority may have only been matched by James.[/quote]

I'm not sure where you get your timing for Paul from. I was under the impression that he was put to death in the 60s or so. Would you mind providing me some info for that?
In the beginning of a movement, I would think that agreement would be paramount especially in light of James being Jesus' brother and the leader of the church in Jerusalem. To bring it to modern terms, would a biship not be held accountable for not being in agreement with the pope?

[quote='Bus]I guess. But I also meant something more literal - that many, if not all, of the first followers of Jesus were, in fact, Jews. But, yes, the fundamental tenets are based in Judaism. This is most obvious in the way Jesus (and Paul) frame their lessons using Judaism as the context. Conversely, if the Jesus-movement was based, say, in paganism, the parables, the sermons, the letters, etc., would all be framed by the pantheon and Roman/Greek mythology, etc.[/quote]

Tangential (and quite possibly, rhetorical) Questions:

1) Do you believe that personal vicarious atonement exists in the Torah?
2) Do you believe that all nations are meant to follow Torah?
3) Do you believe that the Torah is inline with divine incarnation?

These are three things that can be discussed from a Pauline viewpoint that do not line up with the interpretation of the Sages or even the plain meaning of the Scripture. Thus, what fundamental tenets did Paul promote that exist in Judaism?

[quote='Bus]I understand your point. This passage is a departure from the Torah and Tanakh, as are many others from Paul.[/quote]

Hence, my question just above. :)

[quote='Bus]Let me step back a little bit to use another example of what I am trying to say: before the 2002-3 season, Buckeye fans were all of one basic opinion: Woody was the best Buckeye coach in history (just bare with me). Then Tressel wins a Championship, beats scUM 6/7 times, takes us to 2 more BCS championships, ushers in a golden age of recruiting, etc., etc. Now many former Woody 'worshippers' are Tressel converts. It's the beginning, if you will indulge me, of the Tressel-movement. For former Woody-worshippers, some things have clearly changed. The same guy who once wore the black Block-O hat and glasses to games, now wears a sweater vest to games. Maybe, instead of wearing Woody-era jerseys (Archie's #45), he wears Tressel-era jerseys (Troy's #10). The picture of Woody that once hung in the prime spot on the wall has been replaced by a framed pic of Tress singing Carmen Ohio at the 2003 Fiesta Bowl. However, many things remain the same. Our hypothetical fan still tailgates in the same fashion (same parking spot, 2 brats, 8 miller lites). He still wears his lucky Buckeye necklace and lucky Buckeye boxer shorts on game day. He still sits on the left-most cushion on the couch while watching from home, and he still refuses to say M-c-i-g-n, using only Woody's TSUN.

Is our fan's faith different? Yes, definitely. Is his religion still very similar? Absolutely. For many Jews at the infancy of the Jesus-movement, this is how their lives changed. Gradually. But the tenets were rooted in the same place. Still, theologically, they definitely accepted some new ideas. Instead of three yards and a cloud of dust, they accept the modified spread-option. Why? Because they believe, or were convinced to believe. Paul argues for a new idea of a covenant with God. Formerly that covenant came through observance of the law (overly simple, but you know what I mean). Paul is not saying to dismiss that idea or to dismiss the law, but rather consider a newer idea that augments the faith - specifically what it means to be a Jesus-follower, based on the same building blocks.

50 years from now, Buckeye fans may be split 50/50 between Woody and Tressel. Who knows, 100 years from now there may have been a third superlative coach who has yet another set of followers. In the end, we're still all Buckeyes (er, monotheists? ), with faiths founded in the exact place. But I digress...[/quote]

LOL!!! I gotta admit, 'Bus. That's pretty stinking thin. I understand what you're saying, but I can't say that I see it as being representative of the situation in the first century. I think I've asked enough questions above that we can go into more minute considerations. I do completely approve of the effort and what you wrote. I just can't swallow it.

I gotta split. I'll get the rest later.

 

[muffler dragon]

Back to finish...

[quote='BusNative;120268;8]Anyway, to answer your question regarding how Saul the Pharisee could deride the Torah: Paul is like that old-timer at a game who for years hated what was "happening to the game." Now he is a firm believer in whatever Tressel does, including the 4 and 5 receiver sets that he once hated. He's not giving up on three yards and a cloud of dust, but he is convinced that Tressel's way works also, and is happy to tell others so. I don't think Paul derides the Torah, and it still is about repentance between man and G-d. Only, Paul adds something to it. Not only does he think people should live righteously - within the law, if you are Jewish - but the key is to also believe in Jesus.[/quote]

The problem I see with your analogy is that the game of football is still the game of football; whereas, with Paul, the concepts and tenets he was introducing, would have made the game of football into rugby or soccer or something related but quite different.

Now, your usage of the word "adds" prompted me to something and I want to caution that my response is rather strong. This will come back into a discussion of "finer" points I'm sure, but here is some Scripture so you can see where I'm coming from:

Deuteronomy 4
1. And now, O Israel, hearken to the statutes and to the judgments which I teach you to do, in order that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord, God of your forefathers, is giving you.

2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.


Deuteronomy 13 (this differs from the NASB which has it as Deut 12:32)
1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"

4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.


Therefore, IF Paul adds or subtracts basic tenets of the Torah; then he is false according to the Torah.

Now, in case this attempts to turn into a discussion regarding Oral Torah, I would request that you read Exodus 18 first. If not; then don't worry about it.

[quote='Bus]And I would adjust this. From my understanding (and that of many Christian do-gooders all over) it would actually be man=>works=>cross=>G-d.[/quote]

Okay, but it still runs counter to the Tanakh.

[quote='Bus]Now, do I think that there are a go-zillion inconsistencies in modern Chrisitianity (like, I don't know, eating lobster at dinner while ridiculing gay people)? Yes, I do. Best for another discussion. But I think the idea of works gets lost in Paul's letters because he so commonly deals in the minutiae of which of the 613 should the Gentiles be held to in order to join up, and for which can Jewish leadership among Jesus-followes look the other way.[/quote]

It wasn't for Paul to decide what is expected of Gentiles with regard to a relationship with G-d. That had already been determined prior to Jesus' time on earth. Furthermore, should someone want to convert; then the book of Ruth satisfies the questions as to how.

[quote='Bus]Also, why do you think Paul believes that the law is a culprit? I don't understand.[/quote]

He blames the knowledge of sin on the Torah. The connotations with which he refers to the Torah is negative. Whereas, the concept of Inclination has a founding way back in the beginning of Genesis. Once again, the concept of good and evil predates Paul and Jesus by millenia; yet, he seems to have no knowledge of the good and evil inclinations. Instead, he blames the Torah.

[quote='Bus]From a faith standpoint, it depends entirely on what kind of messiah was supposed occur. If you were of the mind that the Jewish messiah was supposed to be a conquerer in the mold of David, then, you're right. Jesus was not this. If you were ready to believe that the messiah was supposed to be a suffering messiah, then maybe he was/is... that's where the tablet comes back into the discussion. If the tablet is authentic, there is some proof that the suffering messiah is not as much of a departure from the Jewish community as we once thought. Mainstream? No. But no one ever thought that the Jesus movement was a mainstream movement - it was always revolutionary. [/quote]

There is also the factor that "messiah" simply means anointed. It doesn't always denote the king from the line of David. However, if we're talking about the Davidic messiah; then there are a number of parameters well established in the Tanakh and this is further illuminated through tradition.

[quote='Bus]Dare I say that the Prophets were actually inconsistent? Some passages are quite literal. Some are quite mystical. Deliverance comes in different forms and fashions. Is there any way to argue that the relationship between man and G-d is the same in Song of Solomon as it is in Joshua? The Tanakh can be as opaque as it is illuminating, which is why there are millenia of Jewish scholarship. [/quote]

It is true that there are many different types of literature within the Tanakh; however, I don't believe that there is any discrepancy with which the following key tenets are revealed: the nature of G-d, sin, forgiveness, and other fundamental considerations. The 13 principles of Rambam would be a great summation of some of these.

[quote='Bus]Yes, all threats to Roman leadership were seen as threats to Roman leadership. But its clear that Jesus threatened established Jewish leadership as well. [/quote]

Jesus may have threatened the Sadducees; however, there was little to no threat to the Pharisees. Ultimately, considering Rome executed him, it's evident as to who he was found guilty by.

[quote='Bus]So you agree that Jesus was operating within the Jewish tradition? Nice. [/quote]

LOL. Sure, I'll go there for now.

[quote='Bus]Not in the Gospels, though the parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind as one example in which Jesus teaches his followers to at least be religiously tolerant of the Gentiles - perhaps a foundation of cross-the-aisle unity . Paul's letters are evidence of such interaction.

I'm talking about the very beginning - but certainly through Paul's years.

Hope the wedding was fun. [/quote]

The wedding and the experience were fine. I truly appreciate the interest.

I hope that my words above don't seem "cross" (no pun intended) as that is not my intent. I am still really enjoying the dialogue. Thanks for stretching my comfort level and experience.

 

[muffler dragon]

One world-wide religion (The system of the beast. The anti-CHRIST is a false god.. and all the worlds biggest religions are awaiting their gods return.. wheter it be the Jews, Muslims, or Christians.. the oppurtunity - with the right backing and validation (read: church/pope/system of the beast) - is there for an anti-christ to preform miracles during a time of economic depression and disasters and get followers.. by the tons.

It's interesting, but there are some aspects of Christian eschatology that have shown me that IF the Jewish Messiah were to come back now; then Christendom would probably refer to such person as the anti-Christ. The irony would be rather high.

 

[Bleed S & G]

It's interesting, but there are some aspects of Christian eschatology that have shown me that IF the Jewish Messiah were to come back now; then Christendom would probably refer to such person as the anti-Christ. The irony would be rather high.

Unless the pope and the church endorsed such a person.. the false prophet being the pope?

It seems to me, in our 'dumbed down' culture, where mainstream believes anything they are told through the tube at face value.. now would be the perfect time for such a being to convert many.

If he (anti-christ) were to have the pope's backing - who coincidentally has been attempting to open up relations with many other relations and claiming that they all worship the same god and should unite together - I can see many people being fooled.

Now for those who know scripture (increasingly rare) they would not be tricked.. but it seems mainstream is increasingly uneducated in many things, including scriptures and traditions of the very faiths they "believe" in.

Also, another factor in tricking the people of the world..

If times are that rough, which according to revelation they should be (sickness, death, natural disasters, famine, economic depression, etc.) - if a man arises as a political leader, claims to be the one true god, preforms miracles, has the backing of the pope ("earth's spiritual father"), and is able to help those who accept him have a better life.. wouldn't you accept him? (probably not because you understand the first 'god' to come is evil)

.. even Peter denied Christ 3 times out of fear..