Tentativity and The Bible

But ...Since you are a Christian ... is it not the case that Jesus was radically against the culture of Israel? So much so that he stood against the conventional interpretation of the laws concerning sabbath-breaking and adultery? So much so that the Bible repeatedly portrays him as being against the traditional interpretation as defended by the Pharisees? So much so that when he claimed to be the Messiah then the religious experts of Israel decided that he should be put to death as a blasphemer? And not just the experts, but the ordinary people who cried out that Pilate should free Barabbas rather than Jesus.If you believe the gospels, then the Jews did not understand their scriptures, and were so far away from understanding them that when their promised Messiah turned up they wanted him to be tortured to death.So if you are a Christian then you have to admit that the most important idea ever was incomprehensible and indeed blasphemous to the Jews, the very people for whom the OT was written.You write: And yet the readers of the OT, using their "common knowledge" cried: "Crucify him! Crucify him!" The "implied missing bits" were not such "common knowledge" as to prevent them from sadistically murdering God incarnate. But you think that their consensus --- their "common knowledge" --- is sufficient for us to agree on less important stuff than whether it is OK to torture God to death?To be a Christian, you have to believe that the most important fact in the world ever was concealed and hidden in the OT from the Jews: from their experts, from their religious enthusiasts, and from the common people. So let's hear no more about this "high context culture".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And the intended reader was Israel, not you. That's exactly why the Bible should not be taken literally. It should be taken in the context in which it was meant.
If you understand that, why are you a creationist?

---

Yes, the intended reader was Israel. So, if we read it like the Israelites, we would understand the text in the same way as the Israelites. Therefore, given this, add our more substantial knowledge, and we can definitely see if it’s the Truth or not. After all, I think that Science is merely one way of looking for the truth, or in some cases, it’s called knowledge.Why creationists here worn out so fast? Because there are so many of you and so few of us. Each of you post a reply to something we say. We have to post a reply to all that you say. Otherwise, it’s aha. You don’t have an argument. Get me? It’s not the debate. It’s the volume of it.

Dr., Re: first point. The Jes did understand the Scriptures. Jesus was not against the Scriptures. He was against the additional laws that the Pharisees imposed on the people, all of which were excessive. The experts in this case were jealous of Him, He was much the more popular. Common crowds can be stirred up quite easily. I’ve seen it done before.

quote:

---

And yet the readers of the OT, using their "common knowledge" cried: "Crucify him! Crucify him!" The "implied missing bits" were not such "common knowledge" as to prevent them from sadistically murdering God incarnate. But you think that their consensus --- their "common knowledge" --- is sufficient for us to agree on less important stuff than whether it is OK to torture God to death?
To be a Christian, you have to believe that the most important fact in the world ever was concealed and hidden in the OT from the Jews: from their experts, from their religious enthusiasts, and from the common people. So let's hear no more about this "high context culture".

---

You make mistakes here. I’ve already shown why they wanted him crucified. It was not use of their common knowledge, it was use of their shared jealousy. So this high-context culture, supported by the historical community, as I’ve shown, stands.

So ... what are you saying? They knew, from their "high context" reading of the scriptures that he was their promised Messiah, but out of "jealousy" they decided to go ahead and crucify him anyway?

Nope, I did not say they KNEW it was so. They wanted Him crucified because they were jealous, not because he was the Messiah. You see, He hadn’t yet fulfilled the prophecies, which is another topic altogether.

But this doesn't really answer the point. They had all this "high-context" knowledge of the OT. Yay for them. But they didn't recognize their own Messiah promised in the OT when he turned up. How is that? You write: And yet apparently they missed the most important fact in the whole universe. "Common knowledge"? Apparently not.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How is that? I think that's a good question. You see, at the point where Jesus came to Earth, there had not been a prophet for around 400 years. Thus the appearance of Jesus was something they were not expecting. It was not, however, common knowledge that the Messiah would be Jesus. He did not absolutely say He was the Son of God until the High Priests interrogated him. Even then they had no reason to believe that He was indeed the Messiah, since it is not stated in the Scriptures.

The ones most likely to read it like Israelites are modern Jews, who can read the Hebrew. So why is it that fundamentalist CHristians often disagree with the Jewish view of the Old Testament? Then bring reinforcements. If evolution is dying as creationists claim, you should have an endless supply of adherents to inundate us. You don't have to respond to everybody. It's to your advantage to have several versions of an argument to choose from. Respond to the one(s) thatyou have the best answers for.

quote:

---

The ones most likely to read it like Israelites are modern Jews, who can read the Hebrew. So why is it that fundamentalist CHristians often disagree with the Jewish view of the Old Testament?

---

How exactly do fundamentalist Christians disagree? I seriously do not know

quote:

---

Then bring reinforcements. If evolution is dying as creationists claim, you should have an endless supply of adherents to inundate us.

---

I hardly make such a claim. In fact, the evidence points to the contrary. I also do not know of many other creationists.

quote:

---

You don't have to respond to everybody. It's to your advantage to have several versions of an argument to choose from. Respond to the one(s) thatyou have the best answers for.

---

That’s the problem. I have answers to all of them...

I assumed that you were a fundamentalist Christian, like most creationists. Aren't you?The basic difference is that Jews read the Bible as literature while fundamentalists read it like a newspaper.

I don't read the Bible like that. Literal would be too restrictive. Rather, I use a literal-historical-grammatical-contextual reading

In other words.
You make it mean what you want it to mean.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

I have already explained myself, Theodoric. You are simply twisting words{Note: Message 29 was spam and was deleted. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note.

Bro, you are great, and i know a nice web site please check this______________________
More Exciting News: Asshole's spam content deleted.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Spam deleted.

Response to the content of the OP:There is a way that seems right to a man that will only bring him deathThe biblical account of creation is the only one to rely upon .... communicated by the Creator HimselfThings to ponder about the biblical account:Why did the earth need a makeover about 6000 years ago?How old is the universe?How long has mankind been on the planet?Why are all of the other planets in the earth's solar system uninhabitable?Is the earth and the others of the same age?When was this event? [Job 38:1-7] .... who was present?Why is there a breaching of time lapse between Genesis 1:1 ..... and Genesis 1:2?What was the condition of the earth as viewed from the planet and why?Edited by Straightshot, : No reason given.Edited by Straightshot, : No reason given.