This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - agnostic
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
31
« on: July 28, 2021, 02:27:35 PM »
Christians > Catholics > Jesuits
Second temple Jews > Pharisees > whatever-branch-Paul-was But Paul claims to be a Pharisee.
The "but" makes me think you're understanding my analogy (sorry if you do, I'm not trying to be redundant). Christians aren't monolithic; Catholics are one branch. And even then, Catholics aren't monolithic. Jesuits are a branch of the branch. Paul came from an apocalyptic branch of the Pharisees, which was a branch of Judaism. It was not monolithic, and its branches were not monolithic. Saying Paul wasn't a Pharisee because he believed X but centuries later Rabbinic Judaism believed Y is an anachronistic imposition of later definitions (of what it mean to be a "Pharisee" or even a "Jew") onto an earlier time when those definitions didn't exist. To use terms like that is to already be talking as a Christian. "Christianity" didn't exist yet. We're talking about a small apocalyptic movement (Jesus-followers) within a very diverse religion (Judaism) that had spread across the world. We have many Jewish contemporary with Paul, pre-dating Rabbinic Judaism by centuries, to compare his thought process to. The only substantially unique thing is how he framed the "salvation" component of his eschatology around a person he believed had been sent by God. But abstract faith barely features in the Torah at all. Paul wasn't saying Gentiles need an abstract faith compartmentalized from behavior and action. His epistles constantly talk about how Gentile followers of Jesus were supposed to live according to their faith. (The key points of contention seem to have been sexuality and idolatry, in both personal and community spheres.) My argument is Paul was only saying -- in contrast to the apparent majority of other Jesus-following Jews -- that Jesus-following Gentiles could be faithful to God without needing to observe the Torah (and he uses Abraham's faithfulness to God before the Torah as the main picture in his slideshow). The idea that Gentiles don't need to observe the Torah to be counted righteous by God is standard in Judaism even today (the whole "Noahide laws" concept). The only real distinction with Paul is that he both categories -- Jews who observe the Torah and Gentiles who don't -- have to believe God sent Jesus to be the messiah.
32
« on: July 28, 2021, 12:47:36 PM »
You seem to have a problem with ultra-literalism. You have a severe problem with dancing around very straightforward questions. "The Law says it would be cancelled permanently." Where? "Here are nineteen paragraphs that don't once cite any actual statements from the Law regarding the Law's duration." You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary" I think it's disingenuous to avoid providing a clear answer to a clear question, and then to backtrack and change the substance of what you claimed. You said Paul .. called the law "temporary." Now you're saying God called the Law temporary Obviously Paul is not God. So... where did Paul say the Law is temporary? when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail. God literally says the Law is easy to keep. Deuteronomy 30:11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you God literally provides contingencies for when people fail to keep the Law perfectly. Numbers 15:22-26 But if you unintentionally fail to observe all these commandments that the Lord has spoken to Moses— everything that the Lord has commanded you by Moses, from the day the Lord gave commandment and thereafter, throughout your generations— then if it was done unintentionally without the knowledge of the congregation, the whole congregation shall offer one young bull for a burnt-offering, a pleasing odor to the Lord, together with its grain-offering and its drink-offering, according to the ordinance, and one male goat for a sin-offering. The priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the Israelites, and they shall be forgiven; it was unintentional, and they have brought their offering, an offering by fire to the Lord, and their sin-offering before the Lord, for their error. All the congregation of the Israelites shall be forgiven, as well as the aliens residing among them, because the whole people was involved in the error. God literally promises that, if the people persist in disobedience to the point that he will punish them with death and exile, he will restore them. Deuteronomy 30:1-5 When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, and return to the Lord your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you. Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back. The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. It couldn't be any clearer that the Law absolutely doesn't see itself as "temporary," because it had conditions in place that account for failure from the people: prosperity for obedience, discipline for disobedience, and restoration for renewed obedience.
33
« on: July 28, 2021, 12:35:13 PM »
On the other hand, he does seem to perceive the law in a negative light. And that gives me pause to accept his claims of being a Pharisee, because normative Rabbinic Judaism sees the law as a positive. If someone isn't a Jesuit, are they not a Catholic, let alone a Christian? Judaism in the second temple era was extremely diverse. One need only read Jewish literature from the time period to see it. This different versions were later considered heretical or unorthodox by Rabbinic Judaism, but that is a later assessment. Pharisees and their opinions were not monolithic, especially the farther outside Judea we get. This is a fact downplayed or entirely ignored too often when it comes to Paul. Christians > Catholics > Jesuits Second temple Jews > Pharisees > whatever-branch-Paul-was He certainly had a very harsh understanding of the law's function, relative to how it convicts people of their sins, but this is hardly abnormal for a second temple Jew with apocalyptic expectations. And his statement in Galatians 2 seems to be a complete break with both Jesus's statement and Judaism generally, "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." The versions we're each using translate the second word differently, "righteousness" or "justification." Paul's argument was a person isn't "justified" by observing the law, but by their faith in the one who gave the law. This is why two paragraphs later Paul appealed to Abraham, since he lived before the law was given (3:6). Abraham had faith in God, so Abraham was justified for his faith. Paul's argument wasn't addressed to Jews. He wasn't saying Jews need to stop observing the law. He was saying Gentiles are justified by their faith in God because they trusted that Jesus was the messiah, therefore they don't need to start observing the law (3:7-9).
34
« on: July 28, 2021, 10:09:56 AM »
Paul definitely had a complex understanding of the law and its function, but I genuinely don't think he believed it was "temporary." Even after believing Jesus was the messiah, Paul continued to think of himself as not just a Jew, but a Pharisee. (I'm not interested whether his later critics agree with the accuracy of his self-assessment.) He continued observing the law. His letters are small windows into his thoughts, and I suggest that Galatians lacks the clear-headed nuance of Romans, which is where he says
Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
The key component in reading Paul's epistles is something almost universally overlooked by his average reader today: he wasn't writing to Jews, he was writing to Gentiles. He makes occasional statements on him and his fellow Jews, but by and large his letters are to and about Gentiles. He didn't think Jews should stop observing the law because they follow Jesus "instead," he thought Gentiles shouldn't start observing the law when they became followers of Jesus.
35
« on: July 28, 2021, 09:30:40 AM »
There is no place where the covenant says that the law can be *cancelled*. None. He keeps claiming this, but also keeps failing to actually quote where it says it when repeatedly asked. If only he would quote where the Torah says what he claims it says, this would be put to rest. Patterns of dishonesty running amuck right now...
36
« on: July 28, 2021, 09:27:05 AM »
But your nonsense and rude accusation against me for calling a Jewish priest a Rabbi Are you seriously trying to say this conversation never happened? Joel 1:13-18 Put on sackcloth, you Rabbis and those who administer before the altar
Bad translation. The Hebrew word is "priest", not "Rabbi".
I like how he just completely ignores that the errant translation is in error.
An errant error is the truth!
What a X accusation, anyway. You obviously haven't bothered to look up the provenance of the Revised English Bible, Oxford edition 1987.
It is a complete re-translation of all the Bible, incl the Apocrypha, from a huge selection of ancient manuscripts, like the Dead sea scrolls.
The REBible puts the text into modern English and explains the Hebrew nuances.
Learn to read Hebrew. The word is "כֹּֽהֲנִ֗ים" which means "priests". The term "Rabbi" didn't even exist in the first temple era.
The REB wasn't published until 1989, and REB Joel 1:13 says "Put on sackcloth, you priests".
In fact, when I do a Google search for the translation you provided, "Put on sackcloth, you Rabbis", literally just one single result comes up: you, on another message board. It appears to be the REB, but you purposely changed the word "priests" to "Rabbis".
As I believe that the prophesies of Joel are for us, now close to the end of this Church age, then the use of 'Rabbi' for a Jewish priest, is quite correct and valid. The REB does, in fact say: priest.
You quoted a verse in Joel that used the word "Rabbi" instead of the word "priest." You doubled-down by calling people "s--pid" (now censored by an "X") for daring to point out this mistranslation. You insisted I was "obviously" ignorant about the "provenance" of the REB translation that used the word "Rabbi", which you claimed was published in 1987. When it was shown that the REB didn't exist until 1989 and that it used the word "priest" and not "Rabbi," you simply refused to acknowledge that you completely lied about all that, and pivoted to claiming that it was "correct and valid" to change what word the Bible used because your theology says you can change the wording of the Bible to reflect your theology. This is a pattern of willful dishonesty.
37
« on: July 28, 2021, 09:12:34 AM »
The documentary hypothesis has been updated since the 19th century. No one really calls it "his" theory, since it became the standard critical view.
It's also faced some challenges by critical scholarship in recent decades, particularly for how neatly organized it is. The broad idea now -- and I agree -- is the Torah wasn't made from four clearly defined "documents," but definitely is a composite text from several authors who lived over several centuries, none of them contemporary with the events they wrote about.
38
« on: July 28, 2021, 09:04:58 AM »
You're not going to find God calling the Law of Moses temporary *while it was in effect.* Okay, I'll try this again. Paul called the Abrahamic Covenant a "promise," and he called the Law "temporary." Where?
39
« on: July 28, 2021, 12:17:21 AM »
The genealogy of Jesus has no relevance to the timeline as I have presented. Absolutely relevant, since it includes an extra generation between Adam and Abraham, which throws off your timeline by at least 100 years. The only reason you exclude this extra generation is because it throws off your timeline. Purposely misrepresenting what the Bible says when what it says proves your view is wrong is both completely dishonest and circular. But it's not like a good Christian prophet completely lied about something else the Bible said in another thread and refuses to acknowledge they did so. That definitely wouldn't set a precedent that they're less than honest with how they use the Bible.
40
« on: July 27, 2021, 03:55:05 PM »
I found the article a good introduction, but I have criticisms in its categorization method.
1. The author, Noē, says the "four major" views are preterism, premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. This is a mixture of categories. The first is a view on when the Revelation is fulfilled (our past), and should have been listed alongside futurism (our future), historicism (across history), idealism (abstractly). The other three are a secondary view on when Jesus returns relative to the millennium (before, after, after), and what the millennium's nature is (literal, symbolic, either). I can't think of any other author who mixes the categories like Noē does.
2. Noē claims that preterism is one of the "four major" views. This would normally be fine, except he specifically mentions that by "preterism" he means "full preterism," which is not how most people use the word. And though preterism is a major view, "full preterism" has never been a major view. I doubt there are hard numbers on this, but I would guess that fewer than 1% of all preterists are "full" preterists, so "full" preterism doesn't deserve its own category.
3. Another major problem with his version of the "four major" views is with the other three he lists. Premil, amil, and postmil are all views on when Jesus returns relative to the millennium, and what the millennium actually is. He never explains what they are -- search in the PDF, the words "millennium" and "thousand" are never used -- so why is he using them as categories in the first place?
Noē should have listed the "four major" views like everyone else does: preterist, futurist, historicist, idealist. He could have relegated full preterism to a single paragraph under the umbrella of preterism, and he could have explored how the three millennium views manifest within each of the other four categories (example: amillennial preterism usually looks like this, while postmillennial preterism looks like that).
I have thoughts on the views themselves, but I won't tread over those here. These are just my thoughts on how the article could have been improved as a whole.
41
« on: July 27, 2021, 02:07:52 PM »
Oh, so you understand the utter pointlessness in asking someone who you know doesn't believe Jesus was the messiah "Do you love Jesus" and "Do you believe Jesus conquered death". Because doing that would just be condescending, now, wouldn't it?
42
« on: July 27, 2021, 02:03:33 PM »
Thanks for the link. I'll give it a read over lunch.
43
« on: July 27, 2021, 02:02:13 PM »
So what? I had a discussion with a pastor about eternal torment, annihilation, and universalism once. He (being a common pastor) took eternal torment as a fact, but he wanted to know why I thought the Bible isn't consistent on the topic. So we talked it through, and when he found he didn't have any reasonable objections to what I was saying, he fell back on "So what? It doesn't affect how we should live." Not in a direct sense, it doesn't. It's still a valid discussion to have, and it reflects on the theological and ethical constraints the religion places on its members (in this case, if the Bible isn't consistent on eternal torment, Christians aren't justified in requiring belief in it to be "orthodox", which was the purpose of our discussion). How does that affect your relationship with Jesus today, or change the task of the Great Commission? See username. My interest is in what the Bible says. Not how people can force it to fit their theology by misreading it (see the threads over in Bible Talk > Eschatology of this in action). Part and parcel of the understanding that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels and humans was that they were condemned by God by default. This was explored in 1 Enoch and followed by Jews for the next several centuries. It raises a valid question of whether the condemnation of an entire category of creatures simply for existing is ethical. Is your suggestion that after the Nephelim were destroyed in the flood (or that they survived the flood) there were "new" Nephelim created after the flood aka the sons of Anka/Goliath, etc? Here was my response to a similar question earlier in the thread The flood story in Genesis 6-9 (rife with textual inconsistencies, since it's really two versions puzzle-pieced together) were integrated into Genesis at a time after the Torah was already nearing completion. Before the flood's addition, Genesis had Noah being born to Lamech, the angels producing the Nephilim from human women, then Noah planting his vineyard. Some critical readers think there are textual cues that the flood story replaced a shorter narration of a drought or famine (the condition of Adam and Cain's difficult relationship to the ground being worsened over time), which was remedied with Noah, "a man of the ground."
The Nephilim was an etiology used to explain the gigantic residents of Canaan that Israel faced after the exodus (including Og of Bashan and, anachronistically, the Philistine giants like Goliath or the six-fingered man). The flood's insertion into the Genesis narrative resulted in a contradiction.
44
« on: July 27, 2021, 01:37:40 PM »
he called the Law "temporary." Where?
45
« on: July 26, 2021, 08:25:08 PM »
he departed from Ur at age 52. So what? Abram wasn't called by God until after he moved to Haran. Genesis 11-12 Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there. The days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." So Abram went, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. His age when he left Ur is completely irrelevant. That's why Genesis never says anything about it. It only talks about his age when he moved to Haran. You're purposely changing the details of the story to arrive at your desired outcome, but even then the math doesn't work out because you're picking-and-choosing the numbers you use on a whim.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
|
Watcha doing?
by tango
July 03, 2024, 12:27:20 AM
|
woke
by ProDeo
June 28, 2024, 04:08:07 AM
|
The Rejection of Rejection
by Fenris
June 27, 2024, 01:15:58 PM
|
Eschatology - Introduction PLEASE READ
by Stephen Andrew
June 22, 2024, 05:39:59 AM
|
Baptism and Communion
by Stephen Andrew
June 22, 2024, 05:35:20 AM
|
Faith and peace
by Stephen Andrew
June 22, 2024, 05:32:43 AM
|
The New Political Ethos
by ProDeo
June 13, 2024, 03:27:40 AM
|
Is the US its own worst enemy?
by Sojourner
June 11, 2024, 11:58:28 AM
|
Telling people about offerings
by tango
June 06, 2024, 10:57:09 PM
|
Matthew 24 - carefully analyzed.
by Kfawn
June 06, 2024, 09:32:53 PM
|
A scripture that awaits to be seen in the light... (Matthew 28:19)
by Fenris
May 22, 2024, 02:39:01 PM
|
Israel, Hamas, etc
by Fenris
May 15, 2024, 11:37:05 AM
|
Lemme see if I have this right
by RabbiKnife
May 06, 2024, 02:55:48 PM
|
Who's Watching?
by Fenris
May 05, 2024, 02:58:55 PM
|
who is this man?
by Fenris
May 02, 2024, 08:51:19 PM
|
Bibleforums.NET
by The Parson
April 25, 2024, 09:47:48 AM
|
How Do I Know God Exists?
by Cloudwalker
April 20, 2024, 05:47:40 PM
|
The Battle For The Mind
by Oscar_Kipling
April 18, 2024, 05:44:55 PM
|
Happy Bible Day (Simchat Torah) the value of God's WORD in our lives
by Fenris
April 08, 2024, 11:55:55 AM
|
"The Rabbis"
by tango
April 06, 2024, 04:45:25 PM
|
|
|
Show Posts
