 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
I'm not sure that I did, actually, make a statement about authority.
I quote:
quote:
Incidentally, scripture just means writings. I have at no point argued that God does not use scripture, but calling them the 'word of God' gives them authority on the same level as Jesus Christ, who is the only 'word of God'.
And again...
quote:
But it isn't the same authority. Reading about the word given to a person in history at a particualar time is NOT the same as the word made flesh. The first is a historical record (at best), the latter is alive.
You are clearly comparing the authority of the Scriptures with the authority of Jesus Christ. But when someone asks you to elaborate on this relationship or comparison, you don't want to know. Now I think that is pretty much "below the belt" as far as debate and discussion is concerned.
Ah-ha I see what you are referring to now.
I think it means that God can operate in opposition to the apparent text of the bible. I think we see occasions in history where the Spirit has moved to make changes in those who are willing to be changed that they would not have done on their own. For example by convicting people of the need to abolish slavery.
I do not believe that God is restricted by the bible.
quote:
You are presenting a false dichotomy here. The Holy Spirit does not contradict the Scriptures, and He works through an understanding of the Scriptures. To use one of Gamaliel's favourite sayings: It's not a matter of 'either / or' but 'both / and'.
I think sometimes he contradicts the bible. Or uses other things that explain the truth better in certain areas.
I actually think that God is quite able to use whatever he wants to use, no matter what we happen to think of them as sources. In fact, I think he actually delights in overturning our preconceptions as to what are 'godly' writings.
quote:
The Holy Spirit is not a mindless entity. You may imagine He is. Christianity does not.
Ha. That is so far from being true as to be funny. Your God exists only in the narrow confines of the bible, mine cannot be constrained by the universe.
quote:
Great. And God has just informed me that you are wrong. And don't you argue with Him, because He can do what He likes!
But seriously... any reasonable and intelligent person can see the sheer stupidity of your comment. God cannot make a square circle or a rock too heavy for Him to lift. And He cannot contradict His own moral character.
Your pocket sized version of God is rather small. Still, fortunately he isn't actually like that.
[ 24. February 2014, 17:05: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
A square circle is bigger than merely a circle or a square?
Hmmm... how interesting.
And God is limited by the Bible? By what concepts I wonder?
His mercy endures forever? Does that limit Him?
God is love? Does that idea limit Him?
He desires all people to be saved? Does that limit Him?
What is this expansive reality that pydsey's God lives in, that goes beyond these ideas?
Answer: it doesn't exist, except in said pydsey's bizarre imagination.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
[ 24. February 2014, 17:16: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I think it means that God can operate in opposition to the apparent text of the bible.
Of course He can. Because a) the Bible is not God and b) an apperent reading is one interpretation that may be wrong anyway.
quote:
I do not believe that God is restricted by the bible.
See above. The Bible is not God. God, by definition, is infinite. The Bible is a small collection of relatively short writings. Therefore, even for those of us who accept the Bible is (or contains) the authoritative message of God, it is clear that there is far more that God cna communicate that is not contained in those few pages.
quote:
I think sometimes he contradicts the bible. Or uses other things that explain the truth better in certain areas.
I actually think that God is quite able to use whatever he wants to use, no matter what we happen to think of them as sources.
I'm not sure about flat out contradiction of the Bible. He can certainly say/do something in contradiction of an interpretation of the Bible. He can say/do things that make some parts of Scripture almost obselete (He did it in Christ, rendering the purity laws of the OT obselete - though still of relevance in understanding how God dealt with the people of Israel, what true purity is etc). He can certainly speak from extraordinary places, if he can speak from a donkey he can speak from any ass.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydsey
And not only do I believe that my vision of the deity is a better one than EE's, I believe it is true, and I'm glad to believe in something like that.
And I am very happy for you.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
This is precisely the point. God spoke to Moses. It was the word of God. Moses spoke to the people. It was the word of God. The words became Scripture. It is the word of God.
That is entirely meaningless.
Scripture just means writings. Moses wrote down (or someone else wrote the words down) that God told him. That doesn't mean that all the other words are 'words from God'.
I didn't say they were. For now I'm saying that what God said to Moses in at least two verses recorded in writing is according to Jesus the word of God.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Describing the bible as the 'word of God' is very specific code to an Evangelical, and even many who would not describe themselves as inerrantists. Some do not seem to want to accept that there are sensible people out there who do not use that term - for example, [some of] the Orthodox.
But then, of course, many (perhaps most) Evangelicals would not consider Orthodox to be saved anyway.
Evangelicals? I'm an Anglo-Catholic. Guess how the reader concludes the first two readings at my place.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No we shouldn't EE. And I didn't. Though of course I do. So how was the truth of what I said about progressive revelation any different from what you meant to say? You seem compelled to disagree with yourself projected.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
So, to recap, in Mark 7 Jesus uses the phrase "the word of God" of two OT commands of God - spoken through Moses and which are recorded in book called the Exodus. One of these commands is not part of the Decalogue but from the wider Law.
Now the question, for me, is this: is there anything special about these two commands that Jesus would call them "the word of God" over and above any other commands of the Law?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
IME, evangelicals would never confuse "word of God" describing the Bible with "Word of God" as used by (for example John) to describe Jesus.
I've actually seen a fair amount of confusion on that point. Admittedly, it's from people who aren't well-versed in theology – but that's part of the problem. Using the same term to refer to two distinct concepts is highly confusing to people who are new to the whole Christian thing.
quote:
Would people be less confused if at the end of a reading of Scripture we say "this is a message from God" rather than "this is the word of God"?
Yes, please. Can we do that?
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
IME, evangelicals would never confuse "word of God" describing the Bible with "Word of God" as used by (for example John) to describe Jesus.
I've actually seen a fair amount of confusion on that point. Admittedly, it's from people who aren't well-versed in theology – but that's part of the problem. Using the same term to refer to two distinct concepts is highly confusing to people who are new to the whole Christian thing.
Although I can see it confusing for people new to the faith, the confusion is probably mostly relating to Jesus as Word of God. The Bible as "words spoken by God" is a far simpler concept (even though IMO it's far more nuanced than a view that has God dictating to human authors who are then merely glorified secretaries). The Word in John 1 is philosophically very sophisticated, perhaps it would be fairer to those new to the faith to mark that sophistication by not calling Jesus the Word and replace it with "Logos".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
This is getting a bit weird. Pydseybare seems determined to insist that the Bible is only the 'word of God' when it explicitly says it is - as in the law given through Moses or the words attributed to God by the prophets. And even that Pydseybare doesn't seem totally consistent about because in another thread he seemed to think it's not the 'word of God' when God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son....
But Jesus IS the Word of God.
I can't help wondering if either Jesus himself, judging by his teachings recorded in the Bible, or John who called him the Word, would even have understood this argument, let alone agreed with it. Well, OK, as God incarnate Jesus would have understood - but HOW would he have understood it??!! As good argument, or as something else and I would suspect something unprofitable?
Obviously Jesus and the Bible are the word of God in slightly different senses; but also obviously, AS WORDS OF THE SAME GOD, not to be seen as contradictory or incompatible. Apparent contradiction is generally a matter of historical perspective - for example, that Abraham lived in a different culture to ours, and is at the beginning of the process that led through Jesus to our present position. God did speak to Abraham to lead himm into that experience of Isaac's near-sacrifice as part of changing how things were then. We're at the end of that process and owe a great debt to it rather than criticising it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Slightly?!
We owe it the debt of criticism.
Otherwise we'll carry on believing that God DID order the mass murder of the Amalekites.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
As many do, and by the FSM do they get angry when you call a spade a spade, and despicable genocide despicable genocide.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
If the Bible, put together as a narrative, is teh Word of God, then the Word of God seems to me to be a changeable thing.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not...
Otherwise we'll carry on believing that God DID order the mass murder of the Amalekites.
Well at least pydsey won't have a problem with that, given that his 'God' does not have to be logically consistent, and can do whatever he likes without any recourse to morality or logic. He is apparently 'bigger' than logic or morality!
Likewise Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac, which, strangely, pydsey doesn't think was of God, even though God can do what he likes!
It's all very confusing!! Sounds more like: "God can do whatever He likes, as long as He does what I have given him permission to do." How very post-modern and self-indulgent!
[ 24. February 2014, 22:03: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
As many do, and by the FSM do they get angry when you call a spade a spade, and despicable genocide despicable genocide.
Or even people getting so angry when we call judgment judgment!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
So if the bible isn't God's word, what is it?
The written account of a People interacting with God. Part myth, part history, part prophesy, with some poetry and correspondance thrown in for good measure. Inspired by God, for sure, but not written by Him.
Thank you! Said as I would've said it if I wasn't busy cramming a chicken salad in my mouth.
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Sure
But few people who call the Bible the word of God believe in mechanical dictation. Only extreme fundamentalists would say that every single word in scripture was dictated to the author by God. My sense is that those who have a problem with calling the Bible the word of God are really just saying, "Fundamentalism is bad and we must get rid of everything that reeks of fundamentalism." In that sense, fundamentalism is the new popery.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Mousethief said something to tarnish the whole of anabaptists because of something that related to a small number of people at one year from the last 500.
Look, you attacked the Catholic (or maybe it was Orthodox) (or both) church for bloodletting. The Anabaptists' hands are not clean. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It can't be evil when the Catholics do it, but paper-over-able when the Anabaptists do it.
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Many others might, and do, suggest that an appeal to some kind of unadulterated RC or Orthodox view of the faith is equally moonshine. You takes your choice.
False dichotomy. Or straw man, take your pick. What "others" do matters naught here; only what people here do. And my choice will be history, not fantasy. The idea that the Anabaptists could have the Bible without the Catholic Church handing it to them is absurd ut extremis.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
In fact, daronmedway, you'd have a better argument if you could show an OT passage that Jesus ascribed as being the 'word of God' which was not preceded with the phrase 'and God said to Moses'.
No I wouldn't. The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ himself says that something in Scripture which "Moses said" is the "the word of God" is a very, very strong evidence that the Scriptures can rightly be called the word of God because we have example of precisely that from Jesus Christ himself.
But he DOESN'T call the Scriptures the Word of God. He calls God's words to Moses the Word of God. It does not follow from this that he calls Ecclesiastes the Word of God, or that he calls the book of Habakkuk the Word of God. You are extrapolating way beyond what the text will bear. This text does NOT preclude him thinking either Habakkuk or Qoheleth are NOT the Word of God.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus is quoting Scripture and he calls the words he quotes the word of God.
I can quote the dictionary's definition of the word "bread" and call it "the definition of the word 'bread'" but that doesn't make everything in the dictionary the definition of the word "bread."
Again, as people have said repeatedly, the scripture can CONTAIN the Word of God without itself, in entirety, BEING the Word of God.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
psydeybare said:But saying that a specific passage of scripture that is a direct quotation of God's words to Moses represents "the word of God" cannot be extrapolated to mean that all scripture is "the Word of God".
True. We'll get there later.
The Hell. You were already claiming this. You weren't waiting to get there later. This is completely in line with what psydeybare said. He probably would have said exactly this if he were as eloquent as Marvin.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, it looks like you're suggesting that Jesus is ascribing 'word of God" status to the words of Moses only, words which for him and Pharisees were found in Scripture. Right? In other words, that Jesus regarded only what Moses said as the word of God? Yes?
Jesus, Daron. The point is not that Jesus thought this or that. The point is that THE NT PASSAGE YOU ARE BASING YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON does not show that Jesus considered the whole of the OT "The Word of God."
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Whether or not he was mistaken is irrelevant to the point of whether this means he thought all of the OT was the 'word of God'.
I haven't argued that yet.
Now you're just being disingenuous.
You say:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Does the OT passage say 'And God said to Moses', yes or no.
Yes. Exodus 20:1 says, "And God spoke all these words:"
And yet upthread you said:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, Jesus is quoting scripture - not just the decalogue - and he calls the words he quotes the word of God.
Yes, because the OT scroll says 'these are the words that God spoke to Moses'.
There you go again. You'll have to substantiate that assertion if you want it to become an argument.
So is what he claims is in the scriptures actually in the scriptures or not? Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Or are you admitting you were wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Does it really make sense to think that Jesus confined His thinking about the "word of God" to those comparatively few spots where the Moses reports that God specifically said something?
Let's not get into "does it really make sense" arguments. We all disagree pretty vehemently about what "really makes sense" in interpreting the Scriptures. Your religion doesn't make any sense to me. Mine probably doesn't to you. Let's stick with the argument at hand. The passage Daron keeps presenting does not support the assertion he wants to lay on it. psydeybare keeps saying this, and Daron keeps not getting it, and insisting that psydeybare make speculations about whether Jesus believed this or that about the whole of the OT.
If Daron has evidence about the whole of the OT, it's long past time (as Marvin pointed out) for him to trot it out. One begins to think this passage is the whole of his argument, in which case his argument fails miserably, in the mud, in the rain, face down, with a bone-handled logic sticking out of its back.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You brought up the subject of authority, so I am simply asking how that authority works. If Jesus is the "Word of God" rather than the Bible, then it is not unreasonable to ask for an example of how Jesus as the "Word" trumps the Bible as the "Word".
What, exactly does that mean? What would that look like? I have no idea what you are talking about when you want evidence that Jesus "trumps" the Bible. They're not in a card game together. They are not rivals. How on earth can Jesus "trump" the Bible?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And how do I know that Jesus Christ is the living Word of God? Yes, the truth is confirmed by the Holy Spirit, but it is also affirmed in the Bible. Therefore, there is also a sense in which the Bible is the Word of God.
Jesus is also affirmed in the Book of Mormon. Therefore there is also a sense in which the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. Jesus is also affirmed in the Quran. Therefore there is also a sense in which the Quran is the Word of God.
Jesus being affirmed in a book isn't enough to make it the Word of God.
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
You appear here to be denying the Holy Spirit as a reality outwith of your narrow understanding of the bible. In fact, one might wonder what the point of the Holy Spirit is in your mind, given all that God might want to say is found in the bible.
Which is precisely the sort of category error the title of this thread mocks.
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Scripture just means writings.
You are mistaking etymology for meaning. The word "Scripture" spoken by a 21st century Christian means the Bible (either the whole Bible, or the Protestant subcanon, depending on who said it).
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Now the question, for me, is this: is there anything special about these two commands that Jesus would call them "the word of God" over and above any other commands of the Law?
Can you stop this fucking game and just come out with your whole argument?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My sense is that those who have a problem with calling the Bible the word of God are really just saying, "Fundamentalism is bad and we must get rid of everything that reeks of fundamentalism."
My sense is that making unfounded guesses about what other people's motivations are is dangerous business, and not one that everyone does well.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Mousethief said something to tarnish the whole of anabaptists because of something that related to a small number of people at one year from the last 500.
Look, you attacked the Catholic (or maybe it was Orthodox) (or both) church for bloodletting. The Anabaptists' hands are not clean. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It can't be evil when the Catholics do it, but paper-over-able when the Anabaptists do it.
First, the post to which you originally responded, regarding the anabaptists, was not from me.
Second, we have already established that the events in Munster were from a newly established group who can only be described as 'anabaptist' in the sense that they did not believe infant baptism was a thing. They are very tangentially related to the rest of anabaptist thought and theology.
Third, the abuses of the established churches went on for a considerable time. Munster was indeed a rebellion, but nothing compared to the battles between various other groups which led to burnings at the stake, torture and so on.
The two things are not comparable.
quote:
False dichotomy. Or straw man, take your pick. What "others" do matters naught here; only what people here do. And my choice will be history, not fantasy. The idea that the Anabaptists could have the Bible without the Catholic Church handing it to them is absurd ut extremis.
I didn't say that wasn't the case. In fact, I haven't said anything here about it.
The established churches all had a case to answer at the reformation (and, of course, the 'daughter' protestant churches did too). The question that anabaptists pose is whether it is unreasonable to say that the gospel had been corrupted in the hands of those controlling the church up to the 16 century. You are entitled to say no to that, but ultimately that is a choice you make - your stall is with the Orthodox, others have set their stall with the anabaptists or others.
[ 25. February 2014, 07:23: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
What, exactly does that mean? What would that look like? I have no idea what you are talking about when you want evidence that Jesus "trumps" the Bible. They're not in a card game together. They are not rivals. How on earth can Jesus "trump" the Bible?
Jesus cannot trump the Bible - i.e. overrule the Bible, because there is no conflict between His authority as the "Word of God" and the Bible as the "Word of God". Pydsey seems to think there is, hence my question to him, which he refuses to answer.
Therefore please direct your question to the right person.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is getting a bit weird. Pydseybare seems determined to insist that the Bible is only the 'word of God' when it explicitly says it is - as in the law given through Moses or the words attributed to God by the prophets. And even that Pydseybare doesn't seem totally consistent about because in another thread he seemed to think it's not the 'word of God' when God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son....
I'm sorry, that wasn't the question under discussion.
The question was whether Jesus Christ called the OT, or in fact any of it, the 'word of God' in the NT. daronmedway suggested a verse, apparently in evidence that Jesus Christ considered the OT to be the 'word of God', but I pointed out that that was a quotation of God speaking. So not an indication as to what he thought of the rest of the OT.
If you are asking me whether I think the OT is the 'word of God', then no.
If you are asking whether all the times when it says 'God said' was actually God speaking, then no.
My standard is Jesus Christ. Would Jesus Christ have ordered mass murder or a father to kill his child? No.
Was Jesus Christ interested in a religion of the land and of a specific chosen people? No.
Was the Law of Moses from God? Nope.
Does that therefore mean that the story of Abraham and Isaac is totally worthless and unhelpful and that the Holy Spirit cannot use it to teach us things? Absolutely not.
Funnily enough, I believe the Holy Spirit can use anything he likes to teach us the things he wants to teach us.
[ 25. February 2014, 07:32: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think Beeswax Altar had it right. There are in practice many different non-Fundamentalist understandings of scripture. Within those, there are also many different understandings of the way in which, and the extent to which, it is authoritative and inspired. As most of us who have been here any length of time know.
pydseybare happens to be articulating just one of those positions. Most of the other contributors here are illustrating others.
In so far as I understand pydseybare's theology, he has a kind of Fundamentalist appreciation of his own non-Fundamentalism i.e. arguments we put forward about the internal coherence of his own views seem to provoke a suspicion that we are really in the same "enemy" camp as Fundamentalists who I think he escaped from at some stage. So far, I have not seen much awareness of this "mirror-image" fault. There are many other escapers here.
Currently, I'm happy with the Rabbinical view (which I often see Jesus illustrating in the New Testament) that scripture is neither to be swallowed whole or discarded completely. Rather it is to be wrestled with, under the Lordship of Christ, and hopefully by listening to the indwelling Spirit while wrestling.
And to other believers, too. We lose sight of our membership of "a multitude no one can number" if we overlook the truth that God can speak to us through them. Whether they are still alive, or whether their understandings have been recorded for us.
And to folks outside of our faith. The idea that we have an exclusive awareness of what is good, and how to practise it, is actually contradicted in a number of places in the scriptures.
We learn to wrestle and listen. Otherwise babies disappear with bathwater.
[ 25. February 2014, 08:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Why do you think that is contradictory? AIUI, the Rabbinical view was a method of interpreting and understanding Scripture, involving (as Barnabas said) "scripture is neither to be swallowed whole or discarded completely. Rather it is to be wrestled with". That is an approach to Scripture I for one am more than happy with, it takes the texts seriously as messages from God - and taking them seriously includes applying our brains, to the best of our ability, to understand what those messages originally given to other people in other circumstances are telling us today.
It is also my understanding that Rabbinical schools operated with a structure of a Rabbi and his disciples, the understanding of the meaning of Scripture was developed by those disciples under the authority, guidance and leadership of the Rabbi. As Christians we approach Scripture under the authority, guidance and leadership of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Christ is our Rabbi, a Rabbi far above any other.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks pydseybare; I am now a lot clearer where you are coming from. I've a feeling full answers would be at a length inappropriate to this forum; perhaps via the Ship's personal message system?
I don't think you have fully made clear the issues arising from the fact that whether or not he uses the term 'word of God' Jesus nevertheless rather clearly treats the OT as the word of God, even when he is fulfilling/superseding it. Also the simple fact that in God's providence said OT prepared the way for Jesus - Jesus' very appearance is closely intertwined with the OT as the word of God.
On Abraham and Isaac a fairly quick point can be made; in the context of the times, yes, God did order Abraham to sacrifice Isaac - but look at how the situation worked out and was resolved, that is by Isaac not being sacrificed and a whole raft of new ideas brought in which ultimately lead to Jesus and help us to understand what Jesus was about. Without that and all the other OT teaching 'Jesus' would be a rather abstract idea.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
What Alan said.
It is just a shorthand for a way of looking at scripture which was common in Jesus own time and which Jesus used himself. He is actually referred to as Teacher and Master on a number of occasions in scripture (rabbi combines both meanings) even by the Aramaic "rabboni" a couple of times.
Where do you see the contradiction? Jesus was a man of his time; he would have been taught from the scriptures and learned means of evaluating them. There is this interesting story in Luke's gospel, ch 2, of Jesus as a 12 year old. Here's the quote
quote:
46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.
"Out-rabbi-ing the rabbis" at the age of 12. There was some wrestling going on there, for sure. It was just the way they did things then. It was a reverent and respectful approach, but not a fundamentalist one.
[ 25. February 2014, 11:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
As many do, and by the FSM do they get angry when you call a spade a spade, and despicable genocide despicable genocide.
Or even people getting so angry when we call judgment judgment!
If you call killing babes in arms "judgment" then I think anger is understandable isn't it? Would you kill babies because of what others in their society had done? Would you excuse any world leader whose armies did that? Of course you wouldn't, because you have a conscience. But because you're forced to accept it because it's in the Bible, you perform the most amazing amoral convolutions to get round the obvious.
If you think your God would ever kill my children because of something I did, he can Fuck Right Off.
Clear? I'm perfectly happy to admit to this anger. Injustice has this effect on me.
[ 25. February 2014, 11:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What Alan said.
It is just a shorthand for a way of looking at scripture which was common in Jesus own time and which Jesus used himself. He is actually referred to as Teacher and Master on a number of occasions in scripture (rabbi combines both meanings) even by the Aramaic "rabboni" a couple of times.
Where do you see the contradiction? Jesus was a man of his time; he would have been taught from the scriptures and learned means of evaluating them.
"Out-rabbi-ing the rabbis" at the age of 12. There was some wrestling going on there, for sure. It was just the way they did things then. It was a reverent and respectful approach, but not a fundamentalist one.
Well, because of the incarnation. The idea that a man could be God is obviously an anathema to Rabbinical Jews who rather passionately hold to the idea that there is only one, true God.
I think this phrase is a bit like talking about Christian Sufis. A contradiction in terms.
I think what you probably meant is of a Christianity which wrestles with the biblical text under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in [a form of] the Rabbinical tradition. Of course it is not actually the Rabbinical tradition.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Does it really make sense to think that Jesus confined His thinking about the "word of God" to those comparatively few spots where the Moses reports that God specifically said something?
Let's not get into "does it really make sense" arguments. We all disagree pretty vehemently about what "really makes sense" in interpreting the Scriptures.
Oh. OK.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks pydseybare; I am now a lot clearer where you are coming from. I've a feeling full answers would be at a length inappropriate to this forum; perhaps via the Ship's personal message system?
If you want.
quote:
I don't think you have fully made clear the issues arising from the fact that whether or not he uses the term 'word of God' Jesus nevertheless rather clearly treats the OT as the word of God, even when he is fulfilling/superseding it. Also the simple fact that in God's providence said OT prepared the way for Jesus - Jesus' very appearance is closely intertwined with the OT as the word of God.
I don't agree. He said nothing about the vast majority of the OT, and those parts which he did comment upon were usually in the context of 'you've heard it said x, but I say y'. Many/most Jews (then and now) would say that he played rather fast and loose with the biblical text, highlighting the bits he wanted to, condemning the bits he didn't, ignoring vast amounts of it, highlighting mostly forgotten parts.
I don't accept that it is a simple truth that 'Jesus' very appearance is closely intertwined with the OT as the word of God.'
quote:
On Abraham and Isaac a fairly quick point can be made; in the context of the times, yes, God did order Abraham to sacrifice Isaac - but look at how the situation worked out and was resolved, that is by Isaac not being sacrificed and a whole raft of new ideas brought in which ultimately lead to Jesus and help us to understand what Jesus was about. Without that and all the other OT teaching 'Jesus' would be a rather abstract idea.
Or a quicker point might have been that the idea of God asking anyone to sacrifice their own children stands squarely against the message of Jesus Christ in many different ways.
It is easy to see all kinds of things in the story when you know the ending. But without knowing that, one has a major problem reconciling this picture of God with the one we have in Jesus.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Mousethief,
In Mark 7:13, Jesus calls the commands of God, the word of God.
The specific commands of God which Jesus calls the word of God are Exodus 20v12 and Exodus 21:17.
Exodus 20:1 says that God spoke these words. In Mark 7:10 Jesus says that these commands were said by Moses. I take this to mean that God spoke his word to Moses and Moses spoke God's word to the people. I also take it to mean that the word of God spoken to Moses became Scripture, which is how the Pharisees and Jesus would have received them. Jesus calls the commands received by Moses (Ex.20:1) and spoken by Moses (Mark 7:10) and recorded as Scripture, the word of God (Mark 7:13).
Please note. At this point I am not saying that Jesus is saying the whole OT is the word of God. He is saying that two specific verses of the OT Law are the word of God.
However, Matthew 5:18 has Jesus say this: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
In Mark 7: 13 Jesus explicitly calls at least two of the commands of the written Law, the word of God. In Matthew 5:18 he affirms the authority of the whole written Law. Iotas and dots refer to written language.
Therefore, I conclude that Jesus Christ considered the whole written Law to be the word of God.
[ 25. February 2014, 11:39: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I think what you probably meant is of a Christianity which wrestles with the biblical text under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in [a form of] the Rabbinical tradition. Of course it is not actually the Rabbinical tradition.
What I said, and what I understood Barnabas as saying, is exactly that. The Rabbinical tradition included an approach to Scripture, that wrestles with the text and seeks by that method to produce the best possible interpretation and application for today. What I was saying was we adopt that approach, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and authority of Christ, building on and supported by the teaching and experience of other Christians. It seems obvious to me that we could do that without taking on the whole Rabbinical tradition.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A non-sequitur or three there, pydseybare. I used the term Rabbinical view, by the way.
1. There wasn't just one Rabbinical view, or tradition. There were several Rabbinical schools in play, and a lot of argument about which was best.
2. Jesus seems to have both known them well and produced a school of his own. All the studies I've seen suggest that he didn't belong, for example, to the Hillel or the Shammai schools, nor any other which has come down from antiquity. And some of his sayings and interpretations seem to be unique to him. Others seem to be in agreement with earlier schools. Like the Luke story tells us, he listened and asked questions. Later, in maturity, he even criticised strongly earlier rabbinical understandings. He kept babies, discarded bathwater.
3. All Christians believe in the Incarnation, at the very least in the "God with us" sense. That in itself does not confine the ways in which we might seek to make sense of scripture. Why should it?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
daronmedway, imagine that I am Moses.
I'm writing a book, I say in my book 'And God spoke to Moses and said..."
Later you refer to the book I've written 'as Moses said' and then refers to the words I've said are from God as 'the words of God'.
Wouldn't the simplest explanation of your words be that you are repeating the idea that the words I've said are from God actually are from God?
This is a very long way from saying that everything I've written is a 'word of God' or even saying anything about my writing beyond repeating the claim I've made that the words I've written are the words from God.
You're making an entirely spurious argument.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A non-sequitur or three there, pydseybare. I used the term Rabbinical view, by the way.
1. There wasn't just one Rabbinical view, or tradition. There were several Rabbinical schools in play, and a lot of argument about which was best.
Right, exactly. And Christianity is not any of them.
quote:
2. Jesus seems to have both known them well and produced a school of his own. All the studies I've seen suggest that he didn't belong, for example, to the Hillel or the Shammai schools, nor any other which has come down from antiquity. And some of his sayings and interpretations seem to be unique to him. Others seem to be in agreement with earlier schools. Like the Luke story tells us, he listened and asked questions. Later, in maturity, he even criticised strongly earlier rabbinical understandings. He kept babies, discarded bathwater.
One cannot be a Rabbi and a Christian. Even Jesus could not be both a Rabbi and a messiah, as the NT shows.
quote:
3. All Christians believe in the Incarnation, at the very least in the "God with us" sense. That in itself does not confine the ways in which we might seek to make sense of scripture. Why should it?
Because you are trying to attract credibility to your position by describing it in a way that it cannot be. Christianity cannot be Rabbinical. It just cannot.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'm sorry, could you repeat what you've said in another way please. I can't make out what you're trying to say.
However, I do have one question. Why the additional s in "word(s) of God"? That's not the term Jesus uses in Mark 7:13, he just says "word of God".
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
pydseybare, Jesus's disciples called him Rabbi. It means teacher (John 1:38).
[ 25. February 2014, 12:15: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
pydseybare: hey daronmedway, I've just heard from God
daronmedway: wow, that is interesting, what did he say?
pydseybare: well, he said x y and z.
Clearly the 'word of God' part of this conversation is 'x y and z'. Not the rest of it.
Interestingly, the word in Mark 7:13 is logos, which can mean many different things, both singular and plural:
quote:
1) of speech 1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea 1b) what someone has said 1b1) a word 1b2) the sayings of God 1b3) decree, mandate or order 1b4) of the moral precepts given by God 1b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets 1b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim 1c) discourse 1c1) the act of speaking, speech 1c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking 1c3) a kind or style of speaking 1c4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction 1d) doctrine, teaching 1e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative 1f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law 1g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed 2) its use as respect to the MIND alone 2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating 2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration 2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score 2d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment 2e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation 2e1) reason would 2f) reason, cause, ground 3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds. ++++ This term was familiar to the Jews and in their writings long before a Greek philosopher named Heraclitus used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1. \\See Gill on "Joh 1:1"\\.
from net.bible.org
I think using the word 'words' is a better fit to the passage, given that it is refering to words that are said to have been spoken to Moses by God.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
pydseybare, you are just asserting.
But I think you may mean Christianity cannot be "Pharisaical". That's not the same thing. Jesus certainly gave what he characterised as the faults of Pharisaism a particularly hard time. Those were
a) heaping the law on folks as a heavy burden but being indifferent to their needs for help.
b) missing the point that the really weighty matters were justice, mercy and faith.
c) leading folks up the same garden path they were up
(Rough precis of Matt 23)
I am absolutely sure that not all Pharisees and teachers of the law were like that. But the cap will certainly have fitted some of them, such are the temptations of the power there is in being regarded as teachers and masters.
Actually, similar criticisms fit some Christians today. But that doesn't mean they aren't Christian, just that they may have some things to learn yet, and repent of.
[ 25. February 2014, 12:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A non-sequitur or three there, pydseybare. I used the term Rabbinical view, by the way.
1. There wasn't just one Rabbinical view, or tradition. There were several Rabbinical schools in play, and a lot of argument about which was best.
Right, exactly. And Christianity is not any of them. Christianity cannot be Rabbinical. It just cannot.
You must be joking.
All the debates Jesus had with the pharisees are carried out in typical rabbinical fashion. Jesus mainly sides with Hillel and against Shammai.
And Paul argues rabbinically in Galatians.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
We don't need any more arguments against the idea that God dictated every word of the Bible. However, I just thought of one anyway.
Some parts of the OT text are corrupted, and we cannot be sure what certain words mean. Did God dictate the corrupted text or did he allow it to become corrupted? That doesn't sound very inspired.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You are just asserting.
No I'm not. You go and ask a Rabbinical Jew whether a Christian can be Rabbinical. I'll wait.
quote:
But I think you may mean Christianity cannot be "Pharisaical". That's not the same thing. Jesus certainly gave what he characterised as the faults of Pharisaism a particularly hard time.
You think wrong then. I know what a Pharisee is, and I know what phariseeism is.
quote:
Actually, similar criticisms fit some Christians today. But that doesn't mean they aren't Christian, just that they may have some things to learn yet, and repent of.
Relevant only to the point where Christians clearly cannot be pharisees given that they're not Jewish. Of course phariseeism has a meaning within Christian circles for certain kinds of behaviour, but I'd argue that the term 'Rabbinical' only has a marginal meaning to most Christians - and one that you assert - which is quite divorced from its actual meaning. You're just twisting the word to mean what you want it to mean without the content that you don't believe.
Of course, we all do this. I just don't think we should - Pharisee and Rabbinical have defined meanings in someone else's religion (Judaism) which should not be sucked into Christianity where they mean something quite different.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Knew you'd be here, leo. You seem have an inbuilt radar detector for Marcionite and related tendencies.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
daronmedway: quote:
However, Matthew 5:18 has Jesus say this: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
In Mark 7: 13 Jesus explicitly calls at least two of the commands of the written Law, the word of God. In Matthew 5:18 he affirms the authority of the whole written Law. Iotas and dots refer to written language.
Therefore, I conclude that Jesus Christ considered the whole written Law to be the word of God.
So what happened? Why do we eat pork and shrimp? (Peter, I'm looking at you.) Why do few Christians keep the Sabbath/Saturday? IOW, why did the early Christians dump a lot of the Law in its fiddly aspects? Yes, I've read all the wrangling in Acts over these matters, but if Jesus affirmed the Law as the Word of God where did the first Christians get the chutzpah to override Christ and jettison large chunks of it, and how did Paul come to say that Christians live no longer under the Law?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
pydseybare
Well I'm glad you didn't mean Pharisaism. But why should you think that I would disagree with any Jew? Or that all Jews would disagree with me in my approach to scripture.
Here is a nice article.
I "get" midrash, pydseybare. And I like the ending of this article.
quote:
In Jewish tradition, one depiction has particular verses of the Torah cry out, "darsheni" – "interpret me." The ancient rabbis were only too happy to oblige.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You are just asserting.
No I'm not. You go and ask a Rabbinical Jew whether a Christian can be Rabbinical.
But, that's not what I'm saying (and, I don't think it's what Barnabas is saying). I'm saying that Christians adopt an approach to Scripture that is common to the Rabbinical method. That both (some) Christians and Rabbinical Jews adopt similar approaches to interpreting and understanding Scripture does not make those Christians Rabbinical Jews.
You have repeatedly claimed that God can speak through anyone. If you find that God is speaking to you through a Hindu Yogi do you therefore convert wholesale to Hinduism? Or do you not take the message God has given through the Yogi and apply it to your own faith? Likewise, many evangelicals take the approach to Scripture developed in Rabbinical Judaism and apply it to our own faith - we don't take the whole package, we have no Rabbi (except Christ himself), we do not adopt the religious ritualism of Judaism, we do not get circumcised and stop eating bacon butties.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
