UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> Christians clear this up for me


5/3/10 10:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
uglee
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/4/06
Posts: 183
 
If the bible is the divine word of God then what right do you have to interpret it? If it is not the divine word then on what do you base your belieafs?
5/4/10 9:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05/04/10 10:01 AM
Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1314
Wups, I wrote this but you're asking for an answer from Christians sorry.... came back and edited...
5/4/10 4:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Robert Wynne
87 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 5793
as far as interpreting..it would be our right as children of G-D too.
5/4/10 7:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26732
You have to interpret everything, just like 770mdm just did.

Because the bible is the word of God, it must be interpreted. Let me give you some examples. Much of the bible is parables. If you take a parable literally, it won't make the same point. This why almost every time a parable starts with the explanation "the kingdom of heaven is like".

Secondly, we live in a different cultural setting, so we may miss things if we do not interpret. For instance, much of what Jesus and Paul talk about is the Hebrew scriptures, and customs. If we do not understand those customs, we will not understand what is being said completely. Imagine if I said to you, "watched the ultimate last night and the natural beat the shit out of the bad boy" In a thousand years from now a direct understanding of this sentence, would not make sense unless you understood both slang, and customs of our times, and in this case historical persons.

Thirdly, the idea about Christianity is not just understanding the historical, and philosophical message of the bible, but also understanding how to practice what the bible says. Therefore, we must interpret in order to figure out how to live in our own world. So if Jesus tells us to follow him, and then he begins to act in a way that confronts the male dominated society, that confronts the cult of the temple, the cult of the family, and the economic oppression all around, we must ask ourselves, how can we live out these same truths, in our day and age. Sitting at the table with, and allowing yourself to be financially supported by women in Jesus day would have been incredibly scandalous, for us not so much, so how can we fight for gender equality now? In Jesus day the temple was the only place God's presence was manifested, for forgiveness one needed to go to the temple, and make offerings, Jesus says that He is the temple, and that forgiveness flows from Him. So how can we be radically forgiving in our world today.

And lastly, and probably most importantly, because that is the precedent set in the bible itself. The bible interprets the works preceding itself. Matthew doesn't only quote Isaiah but interprets it, and does so in a way that would not be literal.

If I can help more let me know

rev
5/4/10 11:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
uglee
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/4/06
Posts: 186
Ok I see how that can work with some things, but were I encounter issues is with things like the infamous levitcus 18:22 it very clearly states the sin and the punishment for that sin. If you interpet it as anything but what it is then aren't you plainly messing with the divine word of God? IF you say well it's a modern world and things changed well isn't god omnimpotent and wouldn't he account for that?Or you could claim that it's old testiment but then you have the problem of matt 5:17 which reaffrims old testiment law?

To be clear because I realize this is a touchy issue I really am not looking to offend or for an argument just answers from a differnt viewpoint thank you.
5/5/10 10:35 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1316

The problem Rev is, for the most part, you're not interpreting Torah, or O.T. on its own terms.  If the N.T. contradicts O.T. you go with what the N.T. says.  The N.T. interpretation not your interpretation it's based off something else.  It's filtered and diluted through N.T. writers.  Jesus didn't write the N.T. either.  Something that should be said.  Would he actually say follow a book written by people whom I don't know as opposed to following the Torah which he read and followed and said is the True word of G-d and that it should be followed by the letter?  Sure, as I understand it, he supposedly came back and told Paul otherwise but he's now contradicting himself?  And if you believe he is G-d then he's contradicting himself twice?  He gives the Torah to the Isrealites and then Jesus says follow the Law supporting Torah, but comes back and says Not to, to Paul?  Then a N.T. is written which says this book is greater? 
 

5/5/10 4:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
martial_shadow
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9233
Dude- that's a fight you won't win. Christians by definition believe in the old vs. new Covenant idea. Its very strange to Jewish ears but if you assume the basis of old vs. new covenant- it sort of gives them carte blanche. That's why they can get away with rituals that Jesus would find both alien and reprehensible.

That said, our beliefs and rituals are pretty bad too. Thank Deity I was born a Jew and wrestling G-d is seen as a good thing rather than a bad thing.
5/5/10 8:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26739
uglee - Ok I see how that can work with some things, but were I encounter issues is with things like the infamous levitcus 18:22 it very clearly states the sin and the punishment for that sin. If you interpet it as anything but what it is then aren't you plainly messing with the divine word of God? IF you say well it's a modern world and things changed well isn't god omnimpotent and wouldn't he account for that?Or you could claim that it's old testiment but then you have the problem of matt 5:17 which reaffrims old testiment law?

To be clear because I realize this is a touchy issue I really am not looking to offend or for an argument just answers from a differnt viewpoint thank you.


Dude, not offended at all, glad to discuss this with you.

Matthew 5:17 is one of those passages that you need to both understand the Greek, and look at the particular passage of scripture to understand what is meant there. Jesus is saying that He is the perfection and fulfillment of the law. The word used for fulfillment here is the word pleroo, this word is almost always used meaning a prophesy fulfilled. If it was talking about just doing the law, it would use the poieo which means to do, or the word tereo which means to keep.

Now in addition to this, you have other scriptures following this one that continue to address the law, specifically about not one little bit of the law will pass away until "heaven and earth pass away" (which is what the kingdom of God is supposed to be) but then it again is qualified by the statement, until all is accomplished, which again seems to be a apocalyptic meaning.

So Jesus, preaching that the kingdom of heaven is come, is talking about the fulfillment of all time that is begun in his being, and continues until the end of days. But he is the Lord of the scriptures and can perfect them. So that the law is not to be done away with, but perfected and made perfect. And the fact that Jesus claims to be able to do this, is a claim to the authority of deity.

Now just so you can understand what I am doing is not just making excuses, in this same sermon Jesus re-iterates some of the law but makes them not binding enough. For instance: the law says do not murder, but I say anyone who is angry at his brother without cause commits murder in his own heart. So the law that murder is wrong has not changed, but it has been expanded to also include being angry, and insulting others. But Jesus doesn't end there, knowing that this is something we all will deal with, and fall short of, he tells people to therefore work out your issues with one another, or be reconciled with one another.

In simple formula: the laws says don't murder, but even if you keep that but are still corrupted with anger and malice you are not close to God, so reconcile your issues with your friends.

In another section, in the very same sermon Jesus basically reverses the biblical position on Oath taking. And in fact says that anyone taking an oath is doing evil. So how can we interpret Jesus to say the law is to continue in the same way, yet a few paragraphs later, in the same speech he changes it?

This all comes down with the basic laws of interpretation. You must take a passage in its context. In the context of the entire bible (here is where I differ a bit with "normal" evangelicals see my video to understand how), and the context of the culture in which it is delivered into. So at first we are looking at why we interpret, now we are looking at how.

Hope that makes sense

rev
5/5/10 8:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
RoninBT
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/9/05
Posts: 44
770mdm - <p>The problem Rev is, for the most part, you're not interpreting Torah, or O.T. on its own terms.  If the N.T. contradicts O.T. you go with what the N.T. says.  The N.T. interpretation not your interpretation it's based off something else.  It's filtered and diluted through N.T. writers.  Jesus didn't write the N.T. either.  Something that should be said.  Would he actually say follow a book written by people whom I don't know as opposed to following the Torah which he read and followed and said is the True word of G-d and that it should be followed by the letter?  Sure, as I understand it, he supposedly came back and told Paul otherwise but he's now contradicting himself?  And if you believe he is G-d then he's contradicting himself twice?  He gives the Torah to the Isrealites and then Jesus says follow the Law supporting Torah, but comes back and says Not to, to Paul?  Then a N.T. is written which says this book is greater? 
 </p>



Would you apply this approach to talmud aswell?
5/5/10 8:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26740
770mdm - 

The problem Rev is, for the most part, you're not interpreting Torah, or O.T. on its own terms.  If the N.T. contradicts O.T. you go with what the N.T. says.  The N.T. interpretation not your interpretation it's based off something else.  It's filtered and diluted through N.T. writers.  Jesus didn't write the N.T. either.  Something that should be said.  Would he actually say follow a book written by people whom I don't know as opposed to following the Torah which he read and followed and said is the True word of G-d and that it should be followed by the letter?  Sure, as I understand it, he supposedly came back and told Paul otherwise but he's now contradicting himself?  And if you believe he is G-d then he's contradicting himself twice?  He gives the Torah to the Isrealites and then Jesus says follow the Law supporting Torah, but comes back and says Not to, to Paul?  Then a N.T. is written which says this book is greater? 
 



First off you must understand that I don't see Jesus as a teacher, but as YHWH in flesh. Secondly, I believe that it was Jesus disciples, that not only knew him, but lived with Him, listened to His teachings, and saw His life that are responsible for the gospels. Thirdly, Jesus is the center of my faith, I am not a biblian, nor am I a Jew, I am a follower of Christ. So I must understand the Old Testament from the context of Christ as "Lord of the Sabbath" and so on. Lastly, MS is correct, this is one argument that we will never agree on, however...

I do believe that I would usually agree with the interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures that you have, I just see their application different than you.

rev
5/5/10 8:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 2762
 Scary thing about having to interpret the Bible to get the message clearly though is that in traditional, or evangelical, modern Christian beliefs, the salvation of your soul depends on getting it right.  If not, you face an eternity of separation from God / torment / etc.

I know many on this particular forum are universalist, but the vast majority of Christian believe in an eternal hell.
5/5/10 9:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26742
well that isn't exactly right. Almost all Christians believe that the basics are all that is required for salvation. These basics are the deity of Christ, acceptance of His sacrifice as forgiveness for sin, belief in the sinfulness of man. Most Christians believe you have to have turned down the gospel to be judged by it as well.

rev
5/6/10 12:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
martial_shadow
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9236
This is actually an interesting point where Christians and Jews have historically differed. Until the 18th century, being a good Jew had little to do with 'faith'. It meant fulfiling the commandments. One will notice that of the 613, that fewer than 16 are about faith or belief and all the rest are about action, study and duty. Jews had massive debates about the nature of G-d and the nature of faith- but none of these led to massive schisms because the actions of these leaders were all the same.
5/6/10 1:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26743
Christians could well learn a few things from that

rev
5/6/10 11:01 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05/06/10 11:06 AM
Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1317
martial_shadow - Dude- that's a fight you won't win. Christians by definition believe in the old vs. new Covenant idea. Its very strange to Jewish ears but if you assume the basis of old vs. new covenant- it sort of gives them carte blanche. That's why they can get away with rituals that Jesus would find both alien and reprehensible.

That said, our beliefs and rituals are pretty bad too. Thank Deity I was born a Jew and wrestling G-d is seen as a good thing rather than a bad thing.
I have been around a little and understand this point but it's still really, really strange to my ears.  I don't believe in NT vs OT.  I guess is by debating the issue I'll understand more but I can't understand how Torah was abandoned the way it was.  I personally thing it was a multitude of understandable things. 

Like you see how Chabad see's the Rebbe as the Massiah and how similar it is to Christian ferver.  How some revere him as G-d himself!  The loss of a Tzadik leader Nassi whathave you is tremendous!  That I can understand.  It doesn't make things so but I understand that.  I also understand the yearning for the Massiah the put the two together... 

The next phase I see is the Noahide movement or the first Noahide movement.  A movement that today is getting larger and larger.  Anyway, it allows for non-Jews to practice a form of Judaism without having to be Jewish.  I believe after the Temple was destroyed there was a struggle going on between desperately trying to keep Torah alive and dealing with the reality of not having a Temple at all.  Because Jesus preached Faith and non-action oriented idea's that teaching was able to keep Torah somewhat alive.  Dealing with the idea of not having a Temple or be able to pilgramidge to the Holy Land left only so many options for those faithful to G-d.  The Christian can now operate in any country under any regeim realistically. 

The remaining Rabbi's however never left Torah.  They innovated Torah observance in the same way without abandoning anything.  I think probably by the time the poeple understood what the Rabbi's were doing they were already on the Christian path. 

Now the only way to superseed Moses from the Torah where it says No one ever rose to the level of Moses nor was as close to G-d as Moses was.  So in that Jesus got inserted as G-d because in order to not blatently contradict Torah Jesus had to Become G-d, G-d forbid. 

All that I can comprehend but I don't see their theology as solid as Judaism's in my opionion because of the inovation the Rabbi's exhibited after the Temple was destroyed.  Not to say it's not strong it is but just not comparible.  I think by inserting Jesus into the Torah the way they have really altered a lot if not all the Torahs intentions.  Original lessons get skewed and so forth.  Hence the reason Christians get a totally different outlook on Torah if they omit Jesus from it.  Just my humble opionion and I'm not saying it to upset or piss people off I'm saying it to debate... 
5/6/10 12:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1319
 http://njjewishnews.com/article/lifetimes/a-rabbi-explores-how-jews-view-other-religions/

5/6/10 1:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
martial_shadow
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9240
Well, the remaining Rabbis had to pick up where the Babylonian leaders had left off and re-transform Judaism from a religion of the land to a religion of hte book since we could take it with us.

I think some of your ideas are interesting and bear more investigation. Just realize, if A) G-d became a man and B) This man was Moshiach and C) Jews did not recognize him as such and D) His goal was to establish a new Covenant of the soul- then fundamentally, about 85% of Christian belief does make sense. There are still things that even with those ideas could not have been pulled frm a Jewish context and must have come from the Greco-Roman or Mithras religions around that time. Do I agree, of course not- but with these assumptions- if you back and reread Tanakh you will get a completely different book. I've actually debated that the whole 'typing' deal that Christians talk about is backwards reading. It is fundamental to their belief structure. As a Jew, its beyond weird but with those 4 assumptions- I know why they do it.
5/6/10 3:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1320
 Okay.  What is 'typing?'
5/6/10 4:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lahi
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6830
"There are still things that even with those ideas could not have been pulled frm a Jewish context and must have come from the Greco-Roman or Mithras religions around that time."

MS, could you explain a little? I'm curious if these are things that apply more or less across the spectrum of Christian thinking.

Great thread, very interesting what you said about faith vs. action in Judaism.
5/6/10 7:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26750
When MS says typing, he is talking about Christians reading Jesus from the Hebrew scriptures. Jesus is the suffering servant in Isaiah, Jesus is the rock that Moses struck in the desert, Jesus is the figure in Psalm 22 ect.

What I have explained more than once is this is not an invention of Christians after the fact, it is actually part and parcel of our scriptures from the very beginning, as I will point out in my series on Matthew.

rev
5/6/10 10:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
martial_shadow
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9242
Rev- I am not disagreeing with you on principal. You do it. I understand it and I respect it and I personally have no issue at all that Christians as a whole have this practice. Jews don't do it so we find it strange. Given that I felt like I was running into a concrete wall the first few times you, me, and a few of the other original members got into that discussion- I wanted to try to break 770 into it more gently, particularly since I think he is more religious than I ever was, this ideas sound even more outside of hte box to him.

Lahi- if you want to get into it, please start a thread. Understand that what will be discussed will be my opinon and can easily degenerate into a shouting match. Its very thin territory to say 'this part of Christianity came from Judaism, and this part from the Greek pagan faith and this part from Mithras' for an anthropologist. while I'm well read and I can see trend lines- I am not nor do I contend that I am an expert on that subject and I really don't want to cause a bigger ruckus here.

On the subject of faith vs. action. Around the time of the European Englightenment and the birth of widespread secularism with the acceptance of Jews (and thus Jews quickly rising to prominence in many fields), leaders feared that assimilation and atheism would follow. It is around this time that faith became a serious requirement for Judaism. I looked this up because about a year ago a Rabbi told me my beliefs aren;t Jewish (and technically, he was right) this bothered me so I spent some time researching the whole faith vs. action thing. Historically- you could say, "there is one G-d and I am unwilling to say more about It than that." but fulfil all the duties, study the Bible and pray- and no one would think twice about your 'lack of faith'. it was a none issue apparently.

MS
5/6/10 10:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26752
MS, what I am saying is not that I do it, but that my scriptures do it.

rev
5/7/10 10:07 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
770mdm
14 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/24/08
Posts: 1321

Take some responsibility Rev!  :-)  You'd be suprised how different the same scriptures read do read without Jesus.  If I don't impose a personality into scripture but you do then your imposing on it and not reading it on its own terms.  I don't see how you could view it any other way?
 

5/7/10 10:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
reverend john
163 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 26757
so you think you can't see it both ways? I actually try very hard to see it both ways. Because it is my belief that God actually chooses to reveal himself in this way. In the moment in history, also becomes something else in the future. Like Daniel's prophesy was speaking of the upcoming destruction of the temple, but within it are other meanings for our lives as well. Once you introduce Jesus, it doesn't mean the old meanings cease, it just means they are expanded.

rev
5/7/10 11:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
martial_shadow
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 9245
The Jewish response to that would be "why?" Daniel was there to prophesize to that generation about the events that were coming immediately. Why would G-d hide other prophecies within the prophecy when He could easily appoint another prophet at a later date. I'm not trying to be difficult.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.