Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 1:41 AM
125 online now:
PaulK, Theodoric (2 members, 123 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,153 Year: 15,189/19,786 Month: 1,912/3,058 Week: 286/404 Day: 4/96 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Jews Rejected God's Offer
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 106 of 219 (163469)
11-27-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by arachnophilia
11-26-2004 5:33 AM


Re: Prophecy after the Fact
Sometimes the obvious eludes us.

I don't feel that Moses wrote the Torah either. He is author by tradition. Without an author it would carry no authority.

According to Genesis 36:31-40, Genesis would have been written after Israel had kings.

These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned:....

This is written in past tense, not future, plus the statement "before any Israelite king reigned" leads me to believe that it was written after more than one king had reigned in Israel.

I feel that Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were stories passed down by oral tradition. The benefit of the oral tradition is that the stories change to acommodate the the audience of the time. It is hard to teach if your audience doesn't identify with your story. That's why we see the notes in Genensis telling us what the name of the city is "to date" (time of the author).

When the kingdoms split, the stories grew within each group. Then when they came back together their stories were meshed together. An example would be the stories are told twice, but differently, such as the quail story.

Exodus 16 They ate quail with no problem.
Numbers 11:4-35 They ate quail and God struck them with a plague.

Deuteronomy 34 describes the death and burial of Moses.

5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.

The claim that "Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, would need to be written after the time of the prophets.

I feel that oral stories are used to teach morals, traditions, agriculture, etc. The teaching stays the same, but the story can be altered to the understanding of the audience.

What I have experienced in Christian teaching, though, is that the words are left the same and the teaching is altered to fit the needs of the teacher.

When we put these on paper and expect them never to change, then the story becomes stuck in time and the original teaching lost.


A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 11-26-2004 5:33 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2004 1:43 AM purpledawn has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 107 of 219 (163790)
11-29-2004 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by purpledawn
11-27-2004 10:06 AM


Re: Prophecy after the Fact
Sometimes the obvious eludes us.

people are usually more attached to the tradition of the bible than the bible itself. there are clear signs in the text that go against certain claims: contradictions, style, and sometimes what the book itself even says.

people ignore these for dogma. i think it's silly.

I don't feel that Moses wrote the Torah either. He is author by tradition. Without an author it would carry no authority.

i disagree here. i think there is truth and meaning to be found in the book even with unknown multiple authors. who cares if we don't know who wrote it, or if stories conflict? both genesis creation stories tell us that there is something of god in us, and i think that's a powerful idea regardless of textual problems.

feel that Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were stories passed down by oral tradition.

i'm not sure. i think some of genesis is oral tradition, and some of exodus. not sure what i think about numbers, but deuteronomy is a forgery. i feel it's evident looking at genesis that the redactor was working from multiple source DOCUMENTS, which were copied wholesale into the torah. had the redactor been merely recording oral traditions, the stories would agree on the name of god, and there likely would not be as many contradictions.

the source documents themselves, however, may have been records of oral traditions.

The benefit of the oral tradition is that the stories change to acommodate the the audience of the time. It is hard to teach if your audience doesn't identify with your story. That's why we see the notes in Genensis telling us what the name of the city is "to date" (time of the author).

agreed, and this is evident in various stories in genesis that mock babylon. it points to a date of 600 bc for one of the documents.

When the kingdoms split, the stories grew within each group. Then when they came back together their stories were meshed together. An example would be the stories are told twice, but differently, such as the quail story.

Exodus 16 They ate quail with no problem.
Numbers 11:4-35 They ate quail and God struck them with a plague.

yes, we are often told two versions of the same story, and this probably has to do with the split of the two kingdoms.

a better example would be all of chronicles and all of samuel/kings. same stories, sometimes a different spin. it's not neccessarily the case that one is northern and one is southern. the northern kingdom is often spurned in both stories, but chronicles doesn't even tell the stories of the north, samuel and kings do.

Deuteronomy 34 describes the death and burial of Moses.

i'm convinced that deuteronomy was written during the reign of josiah.

The claim that "Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses," would need to be written after the time of the prophets.

not neccessarily. it could have been written before there were any prophets. it really doesn't say much. no prophets? none like moses? i dunno.

What I have experienced in Christian teaching, though, is that the words are left the same and the teaching is altered to fit the needs of the teacher.

quite. and often, the words really don't have much to do with the teaching. this is one of the first problems i ran into: random bible quoting. "that's nice, but that has nothing to do with what you're talking about"

When we put these on paper and expect them never to change, then the story becomes stuck in time and the original teaching lost.

not sure i agree here either. we can often extract the "original" meaning by context, which can be provided both textually, and with the writings of other cultures at the time and in the area.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2004 10:06 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2004 7:18 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 108 of 219 (163791)
11-29-2004 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by dpardo
11-26-2004 1:21 PM


Re: Prophecy after the Fact
The point you are missing, though, is that if you believe the words, then God told Abraham something that would happen beyond his lifetime.

but not beyond the lifetime of the audience. even presuming that moses wrote the torah, then the people at the time had ALREADY fulfilled that prophesy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by dpardo, posted 11-26-2004 1:21 PM dpardo has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 109 of 219 (163828)
11-29-2004 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by arachnophilia
11-29-2004 1:43 AM


Re: Prophecy after the Fact
quote:
i disagree here. i think there is truth and meaning to be found in the book even with unknown multiple authors.
Lack of authority doesn't mean lack of meaning, but IMO it does lose the authority to condemn us today.

Such as that nice little phrase in Genesis that says a woman is ruled by her husband, which some churches like to hold over a woman's head. Without the higher authority behind it, that phrase describes the culture of the time, not for all time.

quote:
various stories in genesis that mock babylon
In an earlier post you commented on their hate obsession with Babylon. I found that interesting. Now that is something I hadn't noticed before. It is interesting that they have such a dislike for Babylon and no problems with Egypt where they were enslaved for over 400 years.

I found this web page, which mentions the book Who Wrote The Bible?. Have you read this book? I haven't yet.

quote:
we can often extract the "original" meaning by context, which can be provided both textually, and with the writings of other cultures at the time and in the area.
We can come up with a best quess, but even the writings of other cultures have trouble expressing the idioms, slang, and humor of the time.

I work with genealogy, and even in America the writing style has changed since the our ancestors infiltrated this land. They spelled words differently.

I listened to a Red Skelton radio show that I have on cassette. Some of the humor is lost on me because I don't truly know the culture of the time. I know what happened historically, but the little personal details which also shape society are lost.

The Disney cartoon Aladdin, where Robin Williams as the Genie brings in a lot of humor from my past, my daughter doesn't get it. I have to explain. Once there is no one to explain, the meaning will be lost.

Something from thousands of years ago, we can guess, but we'll never be sure. That's why, IMO, it is better to read the Bible and understand the reality of it, which is full of lessons and wisdom, than to condemn people with the supposed literal meaning or convoluted explanations.

I saw the thread on "Did Moses Write the Bible", I didn't have much to add though.

Take care


A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2004 1:43 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2004 8:16 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 110 of 219 (163857)
11-29-2004 10:02 AM


Summary
This thread is in response to a statement that the Gentiles were given the same option that the Jews rejected.

I asked to be shown two things from within the Bible:

quote:
Show me where God made a clear offer to the Jewish Community, as a whole, and what that specific offer was!

Show me where the Jewish Community, as a whole, clearly rejected a specific offer from God.


Here are the responses pertinent to the OP:

In Message 6 Phatboy presented Acts 28:23-28 with Paul quoting Isaiah 6:9-10 and the final statement from Paul: "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" Plus Romans 11:7-21.

My response in Message 18 asked that Phatboy show me what Paul showed the Jews from the Law and the Prophets to present his case. I pointed out that Paul’s quote has a different meaning than Isaiah, and that Paul didn’t have the authority to claim that God disowned the Jews. I also asked: Then show me where God explains to the Jewish people, before the death of Jesus, that if they individually or as a "group" do not accept the Messiah that God will cast them aside.

Unfortunately, Phatboy never made his case past the opinions and beliefs of Paul.

In Message 57 dpardo provided Acts 9:13-16 as evidence that Paul spoke for God.

My response in Message 60 shows that Acts 9:17 explains that Jesus is the speaker, not God. Paul was allowed to bring the name of Jesus before the Gentiles, not speak for God.

Discussion did not continue on that point.

In Message 68 dpardo brought in Jeremiah 31:31… as God’s plan of salvation.

My response in Message 80 said that the prophecy would not have been any use past the lifetime of the audience and was more than likely expected when the Jews came back from exile.

Discussion has not continued on that point.

So far the participants have not shown me a clear offer made to the Jewish people from God or that the Jewish people clearly rejected that offer.

If they consider my understanding of scripture to be incorrect, they haven’t provided Biblical proof, unclouded by dogma and tradition, that I misunderstand the OT.


A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by dpardo, posted 11-29-2004 6:31 PM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 113 by ramoss, posted 11-29-2004 9:26 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 116 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 11:34 AM purpledawn has responded

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 219 (163985)
11-29-2004 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by purpledawn
11-29-2004 10:02 AM


Re: Summary
Purpledawn writes:

In Message 57 dpardo provided Acts 9:13-16 as evidence that Paul spoke for God.

My response in Message 60 shows that Acts 9:17 explains that Jesus is the speaker, not God. Paul was allowed to bring the name of Jesus before the Gentiles, not speak for God.

I apologize for taking so long to continue on this topic. I had a busy weekend.

I will try and follow up on our discussion later on today or tomorrow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2004 10:02 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 206 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 112 of 219 (163988)
11-29-2004 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by purpledawn
11-29-2004 7:18 AM


Re: Prophecy after the Fact
Lack of authority doesn't mean lack of meaning, but IMO it does lose the authority to condemn us today.

Such as that nice little phrase in Genesis that says a woman is ruled by her husband, which some churches like to hold over a woman's head. Without the higher authority behind it, that phrase describes the culture of the time, not for all time.

oh i see. in that case, i agree.

In an earlier post you commented on their hate obsession with Babylon. I found that interesting. Now that is something I hadn't noticed before. It is interesting that they have such a dislike for Babylon and no problems with Egypt where they were enslaved for over 400 years.

well there's a simple explanation. think about, we know the hebrews were in babylon and assyria, but we don't know if they were in egypt or not. lots of hatred towards babylon in particular, not a lot towards egypt. maybe it's because the egyptian captivity never happened.

of course, this is not the only explanation. new testament authors were very sympathetic of rome (and very careful not to place blame on rome) when christ was executed by romans. instead the blame was placed on jews. this happened because the christian church was trying to survive under roman rule and not get killed as rebels, but at the same time separate themselves from judaism.

not sure how that applies directly to egypt/babylon situation, but it does demonstrate that other factors often distort perspective. however, i think it is clear that authors of particularly exodus used egypt as an allegory for babylon: god rescued us from egypt, and he'll rescue us from babylon. at the same time, it's careful not to place the blame on egypt (god hardened pharoah's heart, etc) directly.

and they weren't enslaved all 400 years, just the last little bit of it.

I found this web page, which mentions the book Who Wrote The Bible?. Have you read this book? I haven't yet.

no, but i'll give the page a looksee.

We can come up with a best quess, but even the writings of other cultures have trouble expressing the idioms, slang, and humor of the time.

true, but it's better than baseless literalist readings centered in our own society.

I work with genealogy, and even in America the writing style has changed since the our ancestors infiltrated this land. They spelled words differently.

I listened to a Red Skelton radio show that I have on cassette. Some of the humor is lost on me because I don't truly know the culture of the time. I know what happened historically, but the little personal details which also shape society are lost.

The Disney cartoon Aladdin, where Robin Williams as the Genie brings in a lot of humor from my past, my daughter doesn't get it. I have to explain. Once there is no one to explain, the meaning will be lost.

Something from thousands of years ago, we can guess, but we'll never be sure. That's why, IMO, it is better to read the Bible and understand the reality of it, which is full of lessons and wisdom, than to condemn people with the supposed literal meaning or convoluted explanations.

yes, but you can often still tell that it's a joke. with the bible, the context has often been so lost that we don't even know what was a joke. it's nice to read the tower of babel literally, sure. but you're missing the fact that it's funny if you do. i've been giving some of the bible a little closer look for a while now, and genesis can be downright hillarious just given the historical context.

granted, it's not exactly the same as if i were in the target audience in 600 bc, but some of it can be extracted in "best guesses."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2004 7:18 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by lfen, posted 11-30-2004 2:53 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3112
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 113 of 219 (164000)
11-29-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by purpledawn
11-29-2004 10:02 AM


Re: Summary
And one point you did not bring up , the concept of 'SALVATION' in the Jewish religion is not the same as the Christian religion. The concept of SALVATION is for THIS life, not for a hypothetical next one. So attempting to use the term 'salvation' in the tanakh to mean the same thing as what Christians refer to is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'.

The term just does not mean the same thing in the Tankah. It does not have the same connotations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2004 10:02 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by purpledawn, posted 11-30-2004 6:30 AM ramoss has not yet responded
 Message 117 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 11:37 AM ramoss has responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2905 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 114 of 219 (164047)
11-30-2004 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by arachnophilia
11-29-2004 8:16 PM


Who Wrote the Bible--I liked this book
I plan to reread or at least review the book soon. It is a fascinating study and well worth reading. I checked it out of the local library. It was since damaged but when I asked about it they ordered a new copy.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2004 8:16 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by purpledawn, posted 12-04-2004 7:20 PM lfen has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 115 of 219 (164067)
11-30-2004 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ramoss
11-29-2004 9:26 PM


Re: Summary
quote:
And one point you did not bring up , the concept of 'SALVATION' in the Jewish religion is not the same as the Christian religion. The concept of SALVATION is for THIS life, not for a hypothetical next one.
Thanks for reminding me. Hopefully that will come to light in the continued discussion of the prophecies.


A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ramoss, posted 11-29-2004 9:26 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 219 (164113)
11-30-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by purpledawn
11-29-2004 10:02 AM


Re: Summary
Purpledawn writes:

In Message 57 dpardo provided Acts 9:13-16 as evidence that Paul spoke for God.

My response in Message 60 shows that Acts 9:17 explains that Jesus is the speaker, not God. Paul was allowed to bring the name of Jesus before the Gentiles, not speak for God.

Why the distinction between God and Jesus here though?

If Jesus is who he said he is (and that he and the father are one), then Jesus' message is God the Father's message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2004 10:02 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by purpledawn, posted 11-30-2004 3:12 PM dpardo has responded

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 219 (164114)
11-30-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ramoss
11-29-2004 9:26 PM


Re: Summary
Ramoss writes:

And one point you did not bring up , the concept of 'SALVATION' in the Jewish religion is not the same as the Christian religion. The concept of SALVATION is for THIS life, not for a hypothetical next one.

Can you explain what the Jewish religion's concept of Salvation is, as you understand it?

Remember that (in the OT) Enoch and Elijah were taken by God. Where were they taken?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ramoss, posted 11-29-2004 9:26 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ramoss, posted 11-30-2004 11:40 PM dpardo has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 118 of 219 (164135)
11-30-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by dpardo
11-30-2004 11:34 AM


Re: Summary
quote:
If Jesus is who he said he is (and that he and the father are one), then Jesus' message is God the Father's message.
Why would you think that "I and the Father are one" means one entity, as opposed to Jesus being in agreement with God?

I don't believe Paul claimed that Jesus was God (The Father).

The phrase "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) is only included in the Book of John, which is by an unknown author, probably written after 80CE. This date because of John 9:19-22

...22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue.

Excerpt from "A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson 1987

The collapse of the Jewish--Christian church after 70 AD and the triumph of Hellenistic Christianity led the Jews, in turn, to castigate the Christians. ...Under the rule of Raban Gamaliel II, the Twelfth Benediction or Birkat ha-Minim (Benediction concerning heretics) was recast to apply to Christians and this seems to have been the point at which the remaining Jewish followers of Christ were turned out of the synagogue.

Petition 12 of the Prayer of 18 Petitions:
For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.

During the ministry of Jesus, his followers were allowed in the synagogues. So the parents in verse 22 would not need to fear the Jews during the life of Jesus. This makes the book of John an unreliable source.

Now if you trust the Book of John and believe that Jesus is God, so be it, but Acts 9:15 doesn't say that Paul speaks for God.

But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings....

As I said before, speaking of God is different than speaking for God.


A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 11:34 AM dpardo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 3:27 PM purpledawn has responded

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 219 (164141)
11-30-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by purpledawn
11-30-2004 3:12 PM


Re: Summary
Purpledawn writes:

Why would you think that "I and the Father are one" means one entity, as opposed to Jesus being in agreement with God?

I do not believe they are one and the same.

I believe, as I think you also believe, that Jesus' will is in agreement with God the Father's will.

Acts 13:2 says:

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

God The Holy Ghost sends Saul (Paul) on his mission to carry this message as well.

Edit: Grammar.

This message has been edited by dpardo, 11-30-2004 04:46 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by purpledawn, posted 11-30-2004 3:12 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by purpledawn, posted 11-30-2004 6:37 PM dpardo has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1685 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 120 of 219 (164164)
11-30-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by dpardo
11-30-2004 3:27 PM


Re: Summary
As I said the Book of John is an unreliable source. It carries no weight.

Paul was an evangelist. He spread the word of God as he interpreted it for his time. Like I showed before, the notion to loosen up the Mosaic Law wasn't a new idea.

I understand what Paul claims, but his words are after the fact.

What I need you to show me:

    Where did God clearly make the offer to the Jewish community before the death of Jesus?

    What was the offer?

    Where did the Jewish community clearly reject God's offer?


A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 3:27 PM dpardo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 7:11 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 122 by dpardo, posted 11-30-2004 7:17 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019