Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

I dunno, Brian. How do we know the full intent of Biblical interpretation? I dug this up: It is not as if the OT is merely a straightforward historical narrative. These scriptures had some deeper meanings for the people. The reading of the day was all connected with religious wisdom for the Jewish people. It was not as if the ancient scribes were merely recording history. Knowledge of the time was limited of course, but the Jews of that time were largely religious and not secular with their writings.Keep going, though. Lets talk about EACH so called Messianic prophecy. I say that we leave them inconclusive. I would rather that you not attempt to build an argument from one to another, and I will not trot out the tired counter arguments from those illiterate Christian apologists! Lets simply take each prophecy and comment on it. That was my comment on Isaiah 7:14. NEXT?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-07-2005 06:38 AM

He could have, as He can do all things...but why use Davids tainted D.N.A. when divine impartation is a better option? Do you doubt the possibility of infinite purpose?
Or do you dismiss a belief in God while holding to a hope of mankind attaining heights which may approach infinite potential in an unmeasured future?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-07-2005 06:55 AM

And this is why the prophecy is meaningless to non believers and from a "logical" point of view.If the Creator of the Universe DID in fact appear on earth among us in the flesh and died and rose from the dead 33 years later, this event would be so all inclusive as to define meaning into life as we know it. For a non-believer, the event itself is not even newsworthy or certain. How then can we expect you to see meaning in a text? This is a clash of world views. To those who need human derived logical "proof" and who see human wisdom as the yardstick and arbitrator of truth,religious belief is philosophy subjected to critique.I suppose if nothing else you can say that belief is faith...circular reasoning, and non provable. Very well. Next scripture, please? But Brian, don't you see.
While human wisdom and logic can or may "disprove"miracles, supernatural events, and the person of Jesus Christ as written, faith and belief can never be disproven.Try telling a Jehovahs Witness that the Watchtower organization is a business and a cult.Try telling a Catholic that Mary was as sinful as you or I.Was not Jesus as historically portrayed a servant? Did He not suffer?
The basic question that Jesus asked Peter is "Who do you say that I am?" If He was not a suffering servant, who was He? A cult leader?
Why? What defines a cult? What is the standard of wisdom upon which to base popular opinion?Were I asked to define Christianity under either religion or cult, I would say cult. Quite a cult, I might add! So why am I a cult member? I believe that God was among us in human form, died, and rose from the dead. You can prove nothing greater.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-07-2005 11:58 AM

Brian, you really should not irritate Mike so much! You are a teacher, after all! And who is the opposing team to our good friend, Jesus? True that there is a remnant who loves Him. He is rejected certainly by many humanist scholars who see an average historical figure and not God incarnate. There appear to be two types of people described. Those who love Him and those who despise Him. Oh really? I suppose that you have somewhat of a clever theory. Yet Israel has not been despised and rejected by ALL! Some people stand in support of Israel, and it infuriates many. Yet I don't see where Israel shuts up. So we see that those against Israel won't shut up. What about Israel? hmmmmm Sure sounds like Israel is doing everything BUT shutting up!Thus, a case can be made that the scripture could be referring to a leader of Israel just as surely as Israel, itself. Now....this LORD must surely be a person. It seems that way. We are talking religion, are we not? If you have a temple and you are worshipping, you don't want panhandlers in the forum! None of them were personally hurt. They were just put in check. Sounds like Jesus took their lack of respect rather personal, does it not? And why does this refer to Israel, again?

Talk about "splitting hairs!" Critics often accuse N.T. Christian Believers with ignoring the facts. Well my friend, if God is WITH you in purpose, it does not mean that He is along for the ride while YOU fullfill your own intellectual, military, or human derived accomplishment. Having God with you means that you and He are in one accord. One Spirit. One agreement. And I can tell you that the purpose was initially His idea and not yours. Immanuel, God with us, was made possible to all through the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In THIS day and age, God can be with us no other way.Of course you will say that my belief is merely the Christian one.
You cannot define Biblical meaning philosophically, however, as that is human derived wisdom. Only theological wisdom need apply here.
Further explanations, professor?

Hi, Brian. Our subject, again, is about corrupting the Old Testament. You started the thread and you did not want any sensationalist ideas about Jesus to be discussed here. It appears that you wanted to represent an independant view. Am I correct, or are you representing primarily a Jewish point of view? Common sense would suggest that a strictly conservative Jewish view would be based on a dependant belief in one monotheistic Creator whereas an independant view would evolve from human wisdom. These problems that you mention....why are they problematic? What are they attacking? What is it that YOU would have us believe?While I respect you certainly as a scholar beyond my caliber, I question the motive and the passion that you have for presenting your wisdom and logic to me. What is it that you would have me do? Denounce Christianity as a corrupted offshoot of Judaism? Let me ask you something, Brian. Is this a problem for me or for you? You have told me where you stand when you said: If this is in fact what you believe, how are you suggesting that Christians need a problem? My entire basis of faith is in the Spirit as the origin of wisdom. So I quote from the book that you say was written by men. Well, we can agree that men wrote the book. Surely a giant hand did not write it. Surely the book did not drop from the clouds.You and I disagree on the source of wisdom that inspired the book. Commenting on Solomon, who I can only know about through reading the Bible, you say Yet you say that the book itself is written by man. I agree, yet you would say that Thus, any reference to God in the book is merely a reflection of one author or anothers personal agenda and ego, right? And you know that I maintain that the inspiration behind the collection of books was from an external source apart from human wisdom.You do make me think, and I do respect your titles and scholarship. I again ask you what it is that you want me to do with all of your careful assertions. What do you want me to believe in?
Myself? Well, I trust myself as a relatively sane individual. I trust that my motives in teaching or counseling others are noble and true. I will admit that I have an ego as do all of us.Additionally, I have been dissappointed and let down by a lot of people in my life. I have conversely been inspired by others. You have reminded me that it is good to have independant sources to examine. A dependant source, according to what I think that you mean, is a source that supports a faulty assertion. To me, God is a dependant source. To me, human wisdom apart from God is an independant source. Still I listen to you, even though you are independant.
Why? Because surely your wisdom and education are ultimately dependant on something. I am curious as to what it ultimately is that you depend on? What defines theological wisdom? In your opinion, does theology differ from philosophy? Can a theologian be an atheist, for example?

translation: Christian scholars interpreted words differently from some secular sources. OK...what is the method by which we can arrive at an agreeable concensus of the ideas and thoughts conveyed by an author? Were not the original authors of the words inspired religiously? How does one define an ideology as a non truth?

quote:

---

ideology \'-d-"-l-j, 'i-\ also idealogy \-"-l-j, -"a-\ n, pl -gies 1 : the body of ideas characteristic of a particular individual, group, or culture 2 : the assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a political, social, and economic program ideological \'-d--"l-ji-kl, 'i-\ adj ideologist \-d-"-l-jist\ n

---

Brian DOES correctly point out that Jewish scholars interpret meaning much differently from Christian scholars. says who? At best, we have a disagreement among translations of the meaning of the word. I would hardly see it as a corruption. Tell me, Ramoss what you define a corruption to be? How is this word corrupted? So Isaiah used two different "virgins"...I still see no corruption.He intended to say that a young maiden who had never been one in the flesh with a man...right? Of course I am using Strongs. If you showed me another translation, I would still be attentive to the interpretations of the source and why the interpretations were explained a certain way.[/qs] Well...I may agree that it is a purposeful translation...and who determines if it is mistranslated? In order to translate an authors words, one must see a pattern of thought. If you interpret a thought concept differently than I do, why am I the one who is mistranslating? Could it also not be you? The standard that you adhere to is consenual agreement among independant scholars. The standard that I use is consensual agreement among theologians. At best, we each have a relative platform.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-29-2005 11:35 AM

Well, Brian...you gave me an honest and thorough answer and explained to me your current position quite well. I respect your position, yet I will still attempt to argue if only to generate further explanations from you. Unless human wisdom was corrupted from the beginning and the overall plot of the book was to show Gods wisdom as superior to the best that humanity had to offer. Not at all. Jesus was God with us. Is that not the translation of Immanuel? One thing about Jesus that is interesting is how the subject brings out such a passion and a desire within people to either embrace Him as God or to denounce the legend. Why is it that as to the idea of, say, the Dalai Lama being a God hardly causes a stir? In other words, so what? If he is, he is. Why then, does the name of Jesus carry such an emotional charge with it? Really? Lets take Saul of Tarsus aka Paul. Do you seriously think that this man made up the entire story that he wrote? He explains why the Jews were concluded in unbelief, he explains why the church is a mystery that begins when Israel rejects the messiah, and he quite honestly shows us that he is a bit of an egomaniac, but for Christ of course!
I agree that the church was a flawed human institution of self interests aplenty, and that many Popes were corrupt. I believe that the heart of the faith was preserved through many of the "little people"...monks who were patient enough to copy the scriptures one letter at a time for no monetary gain on their part.I also agree with you, though, IFEN. You may be right when you suggest that God has a reason for His timing concerning various people knowing Him and why I may get in His way!

While I agree that the verse appears to be clearly added, I maintain that the meaning of the book is essentially unchanged. The Virgin Birth is central to Christianity. You otherwise have a mere philosophy of do-goodisms. Humans still get to keep their source of human wisdom as their standard. This eliminates tthe biased and unloving fundamentalists who use the Bible to justify ignorance, but I think that you guys overuse this word, "dogma".
The belief system of the church, in my opinion, must start with God.
To try and figure it all out without Spiritual impartation will never acheive more than humanist philosophy. Of course, you have this right,Ifen. I would not want the 17 year old rebel in you to throw the finger at me! Your right to think and reason is precious. Just remember that bowing to an omnipotant, eternal Spirit without error is one of your options. As you have said before, maybe He wants you to try and figure it out for awhile and not to have a blind faith! This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-30-2005 14:46 AM

Good answer. Quite honest and to the point! I don't recall telling you specifically and personally what to believe so much as just presenting options and showing orthodox precepts. For example, these are basically sound advice, IMHO:
1) God is not a relative concept. We don't find Him. He finds us. He draws us unto Him.
2) Without the person of Jesus Christ, God as a concept can become relative. I would urge caution in this area, yet I respect your faith when you say that He may have planned it all that way! There is IMHO only one way between God and us, but He may have each and every one of us in a unique purpose! Organized belief of any kind can morph into cultic mind control and human ambition/self deification "in the name of God" rather quickly!
3) While admitting that the Bible is far from perfect on a word for word translation, I am unconvinced that it is but the product of human imagination and control. I believe that the character behind the book is the living God interacting with humanity. So why does He need this book to do this?Well, do you trust your discernment enough to interact with Him any other way? Many claim to be able to find Him in the forest or at the beach. My only argument would be this: If they could do so and did so, I would be in agreement with the God that they found. Why? He has already found me and I believe that I know Him.

Hi, Ifen! I can already see that there is no way to force you to see God as an absolute. Conceptually, yes. Practically, no. You are a 17 year old who does not want Daddy to give you any advice, not because you don't trust Daddys concepts, but because in your own mind the concepts have not yet been proven.Again, perhaps God wants it this way....it may be a few years before you find the absolute certainty and reality of a living character. I say this to you not as a Daddy, but as a 17 year old who himself wanted to find out for himself what the nature of truth really was.If a stranger comes up to me and offers to show me a path to enlightenment, do I internally trust them? For it is this that is the issue.
My trust needs a point of reference. When I was saved 12 years ago, Jesus Christ internally became my point of reference. I can no longer deny Him as a concrete absolute any more than I could deny my own Mother.Still, as a Christian, I am not going to listen to just anyone who has or claims to have wisdom from God. Fred Phelps is (has) a devil. Mormon wisdom has never impressed me, perhaps since I never personally knew a Morman enough to trust their source. I now trust Brian enough to listen to him, even though he has admitted to me that his source originates from human wisdom.Conversely, even though wmscott, for example, knows scripture quite well, I do not trust him not due to his personality but due to his source which originates with Jehovahs Witness theology.Some Christians, even though they claim a source of origin from God as I understand God to be defined as--I will not trust.When I was 17, my Daddy had some advice for me. I trusted my Daddy, but I wanted to find out life for myself, and did not listen to him.
I was not wrong, but he was in retrospect wise in his wisdom.Conclusion: We all have an internal wisdom that we can trust.
This wisdom compels us to seek truth from some sources and to avoid other sources. as Forrest Gump would say, "Thats all that I've got to say about that!"This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-31-2005 04:23 AM

Doc, I love Bible studies! If you throw one, I'm there! P.S. Can I bring my friends? Hal and Lou Ya.

Interesting, Ifen. It has been my experience that many people have also attempted to force me to believe certain ways that they assure me are sound. One of these ways is the open minded "all paths up the mountain" inclusiveness.I say that there may be many paths up the mountain, but there is only one summit. I will be humble enough to not preach to you every sight that I see and feeling that I feel on the top of this mountain. I have tried to share the reality of the Lord who exists....alone....on the mountain top. Maybe I should let you climb at your own pace and in your own way.Rest assured, however, that it is not metaphorically as if each of us climbs our own private mountain. To have a billion people on a billion mountaintops is nothing more than an equation of ye shall be as gods....There is but one Everest!

Not sure that I follow. What does the implication mean? Well, for me I believe that He should be referred in the definition which He and I have agreed upon. I know that the thumpers quote that Jesus is the ONLY name to salvation, and I believe that He is.What of the seeker who has no Bible as a point of reference, however? Surely they are not unable to know Him! The Lord may have given different instructions to others, however....yet they and I know the same Lord if He so wills it.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-03-2005 00:49 AM

Well, the way that I see it, God not only exists at the end of the journey but He exists "In the Beginning" of the Journey and is present during the Journey as well. Hopefully, I am In Christ. A man on a journey. John 1:3-4- Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Not sure that I follow. As a Deity, that is. I hope that He keeps us around to chill with Him as well! This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-03-2005 10:23 AM