• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abrahamic Only: Who is Jehovah?

nothead

Active Member
So you are saying that you have no source even though you claimed that you were quoting from authorities. OK ma'am, I'll make a note that what you say is not supported.

Scripture has it's own SOURCE, ma'am. It is called C O N T E X T.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Scripture has it's own SOURCE, ma'am. It is called C O N T E X T.
That 's true, but then everyone should be consistent. If someone says' "Elohim can mean any deity', ok, great, but then they are never consistent. What they really mean is, 'Elohim can mean any deity in the the way I personally am interpreting Scripture.
Thusly, 'God' doesn't mean the father when it's not conveneient to their beliefs, and means the father when it is. That is clearly just subjective belief, with a veneer of 'authority' on interpretation. The way I understand the terms, there is no need for this, it's consistent.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Scripture has it's own SOURCE, ma'am. It is called C O N T E X T.
Maybe you have lost track of what is going on. The claim was made, "Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis"

I am asking for a source for this statement, because the scripture uses a variety of words for laws (which I listed earlier...I'll wait while you review). If you don't have a source for your statement then just say so. Scripture disagrees with you, ma'am.
 

nothead

Active Member
Maybe you have lost track of what is going on. The claim was made, "Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis"

I am asking for a source for this statement, because the scripture uses a variety of words for laws (which I listed earlier...I'll wait while you review). If you don't have a source for your statement then just say so. Scripture disagrees with you, ma'am.

The 613 mitzvot have been divided also into three general categories: mishpatim; edot; and chukim. Mishpatim ("laws") include commandments that are deemed to be self-evident, such as not to murder and not to steal. Edot ("testimonies") commemorate important events in Jewish history. For example, the Shabbat is said to testify to the story that Hashem created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and declared it holy. Chukim ("decrees") are commandments with no known rationale, and are perceived as pure manifestations of the Divine will.[4]

613 Commandments, wiki.

In NT theology, Peter received a vision or dream by which God tells him the Law had changed in outline, although not by Core Law. My term, but consistent with Authorial intent.

If you don't believe in NT, then of course you will not know that God had eased many technical boundaries, especially in the Edot and Chukim categories. Shema can and is seen by many as Chukim, but my contention in Deut 30 the view of God shows that it is not. In order that even CHILDREN may do Shema, in Deut 31 implies rather the Law was given to be simply known and simply done.

But if these technical boundaries are not eased objectively, then you or your leaders may think it is STILL righteous to stone a man like me, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, ma'am.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
The 613 mitzvot have been divided also into three general categories: mishpatim; edot; and chukim. Mishpatim ("laws") include commandments that are deemed to be self-evident, such as not to murder and not to steal. Edot ("testimonies") commemorate important events in Jewish history. For example, the Shabbat is said to testify to the story that Hashem created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and declared it holy. Chukim ("decrees") are commandments with no known rationale, and are perceived as pure manifestations of the Divine will.[4]

613 Commandments, wiki.

In NT theology, Peter received a vision or dream by which God tells him the Law had changed in outline, although not by Core Law. My term, but consistent with Authorial intent.

If you don't believe in NT, then of course you will not know that God had eased many technical boundaries, especially in the Edot and Chukim categories. Shema can and is seen by many as Chukim, but my contention in Deut 30 the view of God shows that it is not. In order that even CHILDREN may do Shema, in Deut 31 implies rather the Law was given to be simply known and simply done.

But if these technical boundaries are not eased objectively, then you or your leaders may think it is STILL righteous to stone a man like me, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, ma'am.
Ah, so there are 613, all textual, and you say that two categories have been eased. That's a far cry from ""Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis""
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
In NT theology, Peter received a vision or dream by which God tells him the Law had changed in outline, although not by Core Law. My term, but consistent with Authorial intent.

If you don't believe in NT, then of course you will not know that God had eased many technical boundaries,
Believe as you wish. Calling it 'knowledge' is simply laughable.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
By the way, are you referring to Acts? Seriously?
When am I not serious? You like to draw things out? State your refute at the same time. I might see it tomorrow.
The author of Acts writes about Peter having a dream and, therefore you claim to know. It never occurs to you to question your source.

Critical scholarship suggests:

The title "Acts of the Apostles" (Greek Πράξεις ἀποστόλων Praxeis Apostolon) was first used by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century. It is not known whether this was an existing title or one invented by Irenaeus; it does seem clear, however, that it was not given by the author.[4]

The gospel of Luke and Acts make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke-Acts.[3] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution attributed to a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus and the early church.[5]

The author is not named in either volume.[6] According to Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the "Luke" named as a companion of the apostle Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."[7] (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-31, 22:6-21, and 26:9-23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17-24).)[8] He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[9] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[10]

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[2] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. source
Udo Schnelle, in The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings, notes:

We must therefore regard Luke as a Gentile Christian who lived in contact with the Disapora synagogue and who consciously integrated Jewish Christian traditions into his composition.
Therefore your so-called knowledge begins to look very much like the simple act of taking a story written decades later by a non-eyewitness apologist as holy writ. I have no problem with you having faith in it, but it is nothing more than faith, and uninformed faith at that.
 

nothead

Active Member
The author of Acts writes about Peter having a dream and, therefore you claim to know. It never occurs to you to question your source.

Critical scholarship suggests:

Udo Schnelle, in The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings, notes:


Therefore your so-called knowledge begins to look very much like the simple act of taking a story written decades later by a non-eyewitness apologist as holy writ. I have no problem with you having faith in it, but it is nothing more than faith, and uninformed faith at that.

Udo can kiss my grits, sir. No smarty pants scholar is gonna have ANY faith if he can't put his views on the lab table and dissect it. What DO you have faith in sir? Your own mind, when God told you His thoughts are not your own?

If you cannot have faith in even the first commands of Moses, then what is your Judaic faith after all?
God exists. He is One. Love Him with all. Amen to Moses and grits to UDOH.
 

nothead

Active Member
There's not much left to say.
@nothead --> ignore-list

Boo hoo. I didn't think much of you when you came on the scene, groovy Jay. Still don't. Not behoovin' to be groovin' much. Cat Stevens even knew no man can know how a flower grows. But all order and the opposite of randomness indicate the One True God of your Jews.
 

nothead

Active Member
Ah, so there are 613, all textual, and you say that two categories have been eased. That's a far cry from ""Core Law is in Jewish terminology, mishpatim. Extensions of Law are something else, even given by later rabbis""
How many of the 613 are mishpatim after all, and not historically/culturally given in their own context? For a Gentile with different customs, are these after all, for us to do? I think not, being the pigstye dog that I am, ma'am.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
How many of the 613 are mishpatim after all, and not historically/culturally given in their own context? For a Gentile with different customs, are these after all, for us to do? I think not, being the pigstye dog that I am, ma'am.
How many are mishpatim? Wouldn't you have to know that to make your claim? And how can something be given NOT in its own context? That makes no sense at all. As for a gentile, none of these is given to you. But for a Jew, all (which can apply to a particular person) are given, textually. You made the claim that those not of the "core" were added on later. Now you see that all 613 are textual so you try to make distinctions that you don't even understand.

And what's a "pigstye dog"? Ma'am.
 

nothead

Active Member
The author of Acts writes about Peter having a dream and, therefore you claim to know. It never occurs to you to question your source.

Critical scholarship suggests:

Udo Schnelle, in The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings, notes:


Therefore your so-called knowledge begins to look very much like the simple act of taking a story written decades later by a non-eyewitness apologist as holy writ. I have no problem with you having faith in it, but it is nothing more than faith, and uninformed faith at that.

Gal 1

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.


20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

Acts 9

9 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?

22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:

24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.

26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.

30 Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Easily reconciled, he was known to Peter and James, in person and the others by what they said, just as both accounts attest.

Acts 22

6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.

14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.


19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:

20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

Obviously his first and brief entrance into Jerusalem, not showing ANY meeting with the "Pillars."

Acts 26

9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.

22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day,
witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

The first reference to Jerusalem before his conversion, the second harmonious with the Acts 22 passage. He did not MEET the "Pillars" and it is entirely evident these Jews were not the new Christians, rather the Pharisees and Saducees whom he converted from. For which of the first gen Christians KILLED anyone?
 

nothead

Active Member
How many are mishpatim? Wouldn't you have to know that to make your claim? And how can something be given NOT in its own context? That makes no sense at all. As for a gentile, none of these is given to you. But for a Jew, all (which can apply to a particular person) are given, textually. You made the claim that those not of the "core" were added on later. Now you see that all 613 are textual so you try to make distinctions that you don't even understand.

And what's a "pigstye dog"? Ma'am.


Like I said, Mishpatim should be in modern lingo, BASIC or Core Law. Self-evident, to a Jew ma'am, but not really to a Gentile at all. A DOG is a Gentile, ma'am, from Jesus' own mouth, to the woman of Canaan. You don't know this?

In other words, our context is not YOUR context. To be in the outer courts is to know the FEAR of God firstly, mishpatim.

To be grafted-in is to know JESUS as our lord. Mishpatim for the Christian, ma'am.
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
Like I said, Mishpatim should be in modern lingo, BASIC or Core Law. Self-evident, to a Jew ma'am, but not really to a Gentile at all. A DOG is a Gentile, ma'am, from Jesus' own mouth, to the woman of Canaan. You don't know this?

In other words, our context is not YOUR context. To be in the outer courts is to know the FEAR of God firstly, mishpatim.

To be grafted-in is to know JESUS as our lord. Mishpatim for the Christian, ma'am.
"should be in modern lingo"? Really? You just make up a statement like that and decide that it means something? How about "black" in modern lingo should be "kghfkvj". Is that valid? And why would I care that Jesus called someone a dog according to texts that I don't believe hold any authority, ma'am?

The context of the laws is the context of the laws. Not YOUR context or mine. You just keep inventing things. Just admit it.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
A DOG is a Gentile, ma'am, from Jesus' own mouth

while it is true that the Jews considered Gentiles as dogs in the 1st century, one must take note the Jesus softened the description. And he was refusing on account that his assignment was not to preach to the Gentiles, Jesus and his followers only preached to Jews and Samaritans till 36 C.E.

At Matthew 15:26 and Mark 7:27, Jesus called them 'little dogs' or as we would call them 'puppies.' Perhaps he used this softened version to provide her a reason to persist?
 

nothead

Active Member
"should be in modern lingo"? Really? You just make up a statement like that and decide that it means something? How about "black" in modern lingo should be "kghfkvj". Is that valid? And why would I care that Jesus called someone a dog according to texts that I don't believe hold any authority, ma'am?

The context of the laws is the context of the laws. Not YOUR context or mine. You just keep inventing things. Just admit it.

I am a dude, ma'am. I assume you are a female, since no man calls himself "rosebuds."

So then if the Torah is true, you WOULD stone me for picking up sticks on the sabbath, as Numbers 23 would imply?
 
Top