Jesus/God the same?

First of all I wish to commend you on what surely required a considerable investment of your time and effort. That said, and wishing to keep this from snowballing into great clumps of research and rebuttal, I offer this brief, and probably unsatisfying, reply. There were several versions of these works. I have no information regarding which versions the scholars think Paul was quoting. Whether he quoted verbatim or hyperbolically is irrelevant. The point is that he considered them valid and utilized them in his ministry.BTW: It wouldn't be the first time a preacher took something out of context.If you have a problem with the way Paul quotes, condenses or summarizes the 'apocryphal' scriptures, then you will also have a problem with the way he and others, quote, condense or summarize the non-apocrphal scriptures. I believe you mean, All the evidence JW's will allow to be called evidence. I've dissected things with you before and doing it again doesn't appeal to me. Last time you couldn't see the frog and you couldn't smell the formaldehyde; and frankly, I don't trust your skill with a scalpel.db

I wrote:

quote:

---

The writer clearly intended for us to perceive Lady Wisdom as female.

---

To which you responded: There were other nouns he might have chosen, although most of them are feminine. Kinda makes one wonder why, eh?He may have selected chokmah because of its feminine case. He does seem to be comparing and contrasting her with the Hooker character of the preceding chapter. My point is that this wonderful personification with her obviously divine attributes may reflect the existence of an audience responsive to the liturgy of goddess cults; cults which were never eradicated from Jewish life; and even annoyed Isaiah in his time. I would expect to find evidence of these leanings in their prose and poetry; not alone in the multitude of feminine nouns which describe cleverness, intelligence, understanding, skill, craftiness, subtlity, prudence, substance, and yes: wisdom.There may be some reason of which I am unaware, why so many of these nouns are feminine. The first thing which comes to my mind is this peoples long history of goddess worship. A history which had tremendous influence on their culture and continued, apparently without interruption, into post-exhilic times.This subject interests me but I am not about to launch a campaign of research for it. I still feel that this passage is one of the few places in holy scripture femininity is envision in the realms of god. A sentiment sorely lacking in Christian culture.Thanks for the lesson in German grammar.db

Not necessarily. And why does that concern you? Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 completely out of context, which doesn't bother you at all. In fact, no one has been able to convince you that it actually IS out of context. I expect that your reference is uniquely JW. My reference: The Greek New Testament, is a reference prepared for translators of all denominations (Except JW I suppose) and it asserts that they did quote the 'apocrypha.'They also indicate that Paul quoted Genesis 1:1 at Hebrews 11:3. When you compare the two, even in the Greek (according to my version of the LXX) it does not appear to be a quote at all, but rather an allusion. Perhaps another version of the LXX contains the wording in question. There were three or more versions of it. Even when the NT quotes of OT passages are vaguely recognizable, they often seem to be butchered. This is due in part to the language difference (Hebrew to Greek) and in some cases represents quotes made from the LXX. If one expects word for word renditions with fully linked contexts then he is going to be very disappointed. Are you suggesting that anything NOT in the Jewish canon should be ignored? Except by a certain rebellious sect and their great apologist, a man from Tarsus. Of course not. Neither were the New Testament writings.You asked that we compare some of the passages I listed previously. Here's one: From 1 Maccabees 2:60 (Greek Version), in reference to the prophet Daniel who: "was delivered from the mouth of lions." Paul's Greek uses the exact same phrase, adjusted only for first person and singular case, when he says, that he, "was delivered out of the mouth of the lion." 2 Timothy 4:17. The English here varies more than the Greek does (see to appreciate).You will probably call this an "accident" as you did regarding Paul's quotes from pagan sources. But the number of happy "accidents" is mounting. Assertions are not evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence. I have searched out a number of the comparisons which the GNT asserts to be quotations and I must agree that they are far from what I would consider overwhelmingly convincing. I am at the same time aware that I do not have access to all the resources which exist; resources which were available to those emminent scholars who compiled this handy translators guide. But I have seen enough to convince me that there is substance to their claim and I must defer to their greater expertise.Denials, do not in themselves persuade me; especially when someone is swinging a musty old book at my head and shouting words of fiery damnation. Oh, pardon me, that was you, wasn't it?! db

Thank you for your input. Just this morning I found this from an introduction to The Books of the Apocrypha by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton:Thus, I am pleasantly surprised to discover your response here this morning! Thank you for that. I was unaware. Even better! Completely outside "the box." Unfortunately, I do not possess a copy of the book of Enoch. But while looking for it in my reference material I notice that the book of Daniel is considered "Deuterocanonical" according to my copy of the Jerusalem Bible (readers edition - 1968). In their introduction to Daniel, the editors say this: Gee truthlover, I didn't realize what a fountain of information you could be. I must acquire a copy of Enoch and include this tidbit in my argument regarding "inspiration."Thanks again for your help.db

Whether or not you believe Jesus was the Messiah, Isaiah 7:14 does not apply. We have already scorched that particular earth and I do not care to revist it further. You say this as if he quoted from Isaiah chapter seven. Which he, apparently, did not. You are guessing, of course, but that is not the answer. Even if that were my logic, which it is not, the line of reasoning you employ reflects rationalizations of those who were disappointed by Jesus' failure; so disappointed that they were compelled to fabricate explanations for why it turned out so bad. This handbook is designed for Bible translators, used in theological seminaries, and as far as I know, lacks overt sectarian bias (with the exception of that Judaic sect called: Christian.) There is a section in the very back called: Index of Quotations. I'm sure there's a more modern version out there. You just don't get literature, do you? What about those portions of the holy scripture which are direct quotes from those books? Are they 'uninspired' statements which should be purged from the scripture? Or, are they considered 'inspired' by virtue of the fact that they are now located between the covers of your Bible? I think you may be painting yourself into a corner. Are you saying that because New Testament authors do not say, "Now I am quoting from something inspired by God," that whatever it is they are quoting cannot be considered inspired? What about all the quotes from the Septuagint? Was the Septuagint inspired by God? If so, then why do their quotes from it differ so much from the Hebrew text which formed the basis of the LXX script? Temple authorities were not generally pleased with the Septuagint and eventually rejected it entirely. Besides that, the whole concept of 'inspiration' is a Christian concept. O.T. authors actually conversed with God, or so they say.Preachers today quote 'outside' sources all the time; and for the same purposes Paul did. Have you never quoted anything from sources other than the Bible? You quote from the New Testament don't you? And that was NOT in the Bible during Paul's time. It didn't even exist then. So what makes you think we should accept any of it as 'inspired.'By what authority did the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul become a part of the Bible?You know who. And you hate them. You reject their authority. Or do you? Really? My faith in men is not blind. And my faith is God, as I define the term, is well informed. Your quarrel is not with me. I'm just the messenger. Your quarrel is with scholars much more powerful than myself. Take it up with them.

I should have read more carefully. Here is what the footnote says, especially in relation to the book of Daniel:I don't know why these parts are exluded. I find them decent reading; no more fantastic than any other part of the book.Perhaps wmscott has some thoughts on this. Susanna. Quite right. The JB (Jerusalem Bible) give the date as "between 167 and 164 B.C., during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes and before the Maccabean revolt." I cannot entirely agree with that assessment, for I have compared Daniel's timed-prophecies with the Maccabean timeline and found them to line up quite nicely. But that study was done long ago. It was arduous and tedious and is now lost. Perhaps I will attempt to recreate it someday. I am not currently motivated to do so.Fundamentalists (if memory serves) desire to connect Daniels prophecy with Cyrus the Mede ca. 456 BC. This produces a cute timeline for the arrival of "the Christ" (assuming we actually know when that was) but fails to explain certain other numbers in the prophecy. The Maccabean timeline, whether following Daniels cues or inspiring them, satisfies those numbers quite nicely (he said without a shred of research in evidence). At any rate, I concur that it was probably no earlier than 167.db

I take no offense at that because I do not consider myself to be one of those. No, I'm not kidding. The trouble makers to whom I referred, (hope you're not one of them) clamor to enthrone their King, whom they may call God, or Jesus Christ, or Allah (I should have included the Quran thumpers as well). In the U.S. of A., it is illegal to set up a king. That is what makes us special, as compared to the Euro-lands from which our ancestors emmigrated. We've made a lot of progress since the days when women, blacks, eighteen-year-olds, poor men and Catholics, were not allowed to vote. A slogan which predates the Bible by at least a thousand years. Besides: Our form of government separates these functions due to millenia of experience with what happens when all these functions are the province of an individual Lord. We call it, [i]" Balance of Power"[i] and it is part of what has made this country safe for women, blacks, eighteen-year-olds, poor men and Catholics. I'm not going to say that, because I do not believe that. Is this NOT the land of freedom? Pretty words do not secure human rights. Bloodshed, deadly force against all who threaten our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," can and has secured it. Aliens are not the only threat to American Liberty. There are persons among us who thump their Bible (or Quran) and talk of God as if they know her; then, propose to suspend certain liberties not in accord with their idealistic imaginations; liberties won by the shedding of blood; the blood of American boys. Modern human sacrifices. Get Real for a moment, will you? The Taliban have not forgotten God. They know what he wants and they are enforcing his will. Why are they so misunderstood? Jones and Koresh did not forget God. Look at the wonderful tyrannies they brought. And don't forget the tyrant God of the Hebrews (same as Christian?) who could have you executed for working through the weekend.Where is the liberty in that?**

And you don't do this. Right? Please show, specifically, where this applies to 1 Maccabees, or Ecclesiasticus. Please show specific instances where these books may be called "Jewish fables" or shown to be written by, "men who turn themselves away from the truth." What evidence can you offer for this bold assumption. That has not been established. You say he never quotes them. You say he never cites them. And now, you say he specifically warned his audience about them? Prove it. Can you demonstrate that? Or are you putting "your faith in scholars who say what you want to hear"? Give examples please, IF you can. Show how this may be applied to 1 Maccabees, or Ecclesiasticus. BTW: Originally called Sirach, after its author Jesus ben Sirach, this book was used in worship servicdes by the early church. Thus the name: Ecclesiasticus - The Church Book. Spare me the boo hoo, woe is you, homily!I believe you are attempting to sidestep the REALLY BIG QUESTION which I have repeatedly raised in this discussion. You know it wasn't the Jews.You know it wasn't Paul.So, who was it?db

Abshalom offered this comparison suggesting that Luke quotes Sirach.

quote:

---

Luke 1:52
"He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree."
Shirach 10:14
"The Lord overthrows the thrones of rulers, and enthrones the lowly in their place."

---

And wmscott replies: In a footnote re: Luke 1:52 the Good News Bible offers three possible sources of the sentiment expressed there.Job 5:11 "it is God who raises the humble,"
Job 12:19 "He humbles priests and men of power." And,
Sirach 10:14 "The Lord has overthrown kings and put humbler people in their place."Of these three possiblities, Sirach is the obvious choice. The line in Luke is virtually identical with it. On the other hand, the OT passages you cite are VERY UNLIKE the verse in Luke.You are very liberal in what you accept as evidence for a quote from or allusion to the Hebrew Canon; but you apply a different standard of evidence for quotes from or allusions to non-canonicals. Sirach's thought was undoubtedly influenced by Hebrew literature but his way of expressing it was new and succint. It had never been stated quite that way before. That is what makes Sirach special; why Luke alludes to him; why the early church adopts his book for their worship service and call it Ecclesiasticus. And Sirach's book was included in the Greek Bible (Septuagint), the popular Bible of Jesus' (and Paul's) day.If, as you seem to believe, there can be nothing inspired which was not a part of the Jewish canon, then you'll have to rethink the matter of New Testament inspiration. Why not, instead, broaden your horizons as Paul did? Give ordinary people, even JW's, the possibility of being inspired. What do you think?db

From a website you quoted? -

quote:

---

Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number.

---

Except of course, those to which we are directed by The Ghost. (Besides: Where do you suppose the story of Lazarus and the Rich man comes from?) Not a part of your Bible. But it was a part of the Bible, in Jesus day. No, not the Official Bible of the Temple authorities; but the Popular Bible, the Bible of the People, the Septuagint. Most people could read Greek in those days. Most Jews could not read Hebrew in those days. If Matthew could have read Isaiah in Hebrew, he would have had no reason to get excited about Chapter 7 verse 14. Considering the double standard you apply to evidence, I suppose you will never be persuaded. And how is that cheap trash different from the cheap trash in your Bible? Sure I do. You're talking about superstition, prejudice, and exclusivism. No comment.

There is a third possible response. First: You must establish that the Bible IS the Word of God. That question was being debated in the post to which you responded. You have offered nothing to convince me that it is.Second: It is not as simple as believing or not. There are hundreds of conflicting interpretations of the Bible; all of them concocted by "believers." I have my interpretation. You have your interpretation. Through this debate we may come to see, if nothing else, that there ARE a variety of interpretations possible.Now, to the point:To say that Christ is God may be accurate. To say that Jehovah is God may be accurate. But to say that Jesus is Jehovah is raises more questions than it answers.db