• 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!

It's a green truck -- mismanagement of verses from the Tanakh

74x12

Well-Known Member
They call that “eisegesis.”
They speak of what they've learned from one another, surmised and thought for themselves. On the other hand; we speak the wisdom of God that has been hidden in a mystery from the foundation of the world.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
They are taken from many scrolls. However, the thing that unites them is God inspiring the writers. That means that the themes and thoughts that God expresses should transcend single authors. In fact they do.
No. They don’t. If that’s how you’re reading them, you’re reading eisegetically.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
They speak of what they've learned from one another, surmised and thought for themselves. On the other hand; we speak the wisdom of God that has been hidden in a mystery from the foundation of the world.
That doesn’t address my post. At all.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
That doesn’t address my post. At all.
We see with our eyes. But God sees without eyes of flesh. How then does God see? Shouldn't we see what God sees? So you don't see -- unaided -- the deep meaning of the scriptures. Only God can show you. He anointed the writer. He anoints your eyes to see.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
We see with our eyes. But God sees without eyes of flesh. How then does God see? Shouldn't we see what God sees? So you don't see -- unaided -- the deep meaning of the scriptures. Only God can show you. He anointed the writer. He anoints your eyes to see.
It’s not magic. It’s scholarship.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I guess it is a matter of perspective but hardly unethical.

Matthew was correct because he quoted the Tannakh which is, IMV, truth. Obviously there are different viewpoints on the matter. But to say that Matthew didn't have a clue when he was Jewish would definitely be wrong.

As fare as the leaders, you had a variety of them. Sadducees which didn't believe in the resurrection, Pharisees which did and both of them can't be correct.

As far as Matthew's account, it was very specific as to where the leaders were wrong and not necessarily they were completely wrong in everything. Nicodemus wasn't wrong.
I don't think you properly understood what I was saying, as you've repeated the same thing here. I'm saying that being Jewish does not mean that one is correct. Also, quoting from the Tanach does not mean one is correct. Lots of Jewish people are making mistakes about Judaism all the time. Lots of Jewish people mistakenly quote from Tanach all the time. You repeatedly give these as reasons why Matthew is correct, but they are not sound arguments.
Matthew is not correct because he is Jewish. He is not correct because he quoted from the Tanach. He did so wrongly. His interpretation is not contextually sound. This can clearly be seen from the context in which the passage is found. This also makes it clear that he was manipulating the passage in order to buttress his argument. However, it failed to do so for obvious reasons, which is why early Christianity didn't make great gains among learned Jews.

It should also be noted that a significant segment of the Jewish population of the time, didn't speak or at least weren't fluent in Biblical Hebrew, which is why we have the Targums - "Translations", into Aramaic and why there existed Greek translations. These were the languages of the unlearned masses and the Hellenized Jews. And that was when they were lettered. Being Jewish did not in any way grant one fluency in the Tanach.

So what that means is, currently, you have no logical reason to assume that Matthew was correct.

I think it's also important to point out that neither Saducees nor the Pharisees were leaders, but sects. There were leaders of the Pharisees and I assume the Saducees had leaders as well, although I have not heard of them.

I do not know who Nicodemus was or the reference you are making.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
They are taken from many scrolls. However, the thing that unites them is God inspiring the writers. That means that the themes and thoughts that God expresses should transcend single authors. In fact they do.
This logic appears to be backwards. If they are not cohesive, that should indicate that they are not G-d inspired and connecting "themes and thoughts" could be construed as painting with an overly broad brush.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I don't think you properly understood what I was saying, as you've repeated the same thing here. I'm saying that being Jewish does not mean that one is correct. Also, quoting from the Tanach does not mean one is correct. Lots of Jewish people are making mistakes about Judaism all the time. Lots of Jewish people mistakenly quote from Tanach all the time. You repeatedly give these as reasons why Matthew is correct, but they are not sound arguments.
I agree and disagree. Certainly being Jewish does not mean that one is correct of that quoting from the Tanach does not mean one is correct but equally, just as you are saying he was not correct, does not mean you are right.

I stand on that he, along with John, and Mark, were correct about Jesus the Messiah as foretold by the prophets, Moses and the Psalms.


Matthew is not correct because he is Jewish. He is not correct because he quoted from the Tanach. He did so wrongly. His interpretation is not contextually sound. This can clearly be seen from the context in which the passage is found. This also makes it clear that he was manipulating the passage in order to buttress his argument. However, it failed to do so for obvious reasons, which is why early Christianity didn't make great gains among learned Jews.
Just as many Jewish people disagree with each other, I would say that he wasn't manipulating the passage.

As far as learned priests, yes, many did not but many did:

Acts 6:7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Acts 18;8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

Acts 22: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.

Acts 17: 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.



I think it's also important to point out that neither Saducees nor the Pharisees were leaders, but sects. There were leaders of the Pharisees and I assume the Saducees had leaders as well, although I have not heard of them.
They made up of much of the Sanhedrin

I do not know who Nicodemus was or the reference you are making.

Part of the Sanhedrin.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
You’re making assumptions based on an incorrect premise that piety replaces scholarship.
The point of wisdom is to know to whom it belongs and who can give it. Otherwise we are not wise but only wise in our own opinion!

According to the scriptures; was Solomon wise on his own or did God make him wise?
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
This logic appears to be backwards. If they are not cohesive, that should indicate that they are not G-d inspired and connecting "themes and thoughts" could be construed as painting with an overly broad brush.
They are cohesive.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The point of wisdom is to know to whom it belongs and who can give it. Otherwise we are not wise but only wise in our own opinion!

According to the scriptures; was Solomon wise on his own or did God make him wise?
We’re not talking about mythic characters; we’re talking about real people trying to read ancient texts in foreign languages from foreign cultures.
 

Duke_Leto

Active Member
I agree and disagree. Certainly being Jewish does not mean that one is correct of that quoting from the Tanach does not mean one is correct but equally, just as you are saying he was not correct, does not mean you are right.

As far as learned priests, yes, many did not but many did:

Acts 6:7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Acts 18;8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

Acts 22: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.

Acts 17: 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The book of Acts is not evidence to support the notion of many Jewish priests converting to Christianity.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
We’re not talking about mythic characters; we’re talking about real people trying to read ancient texts in foreign languages from foreign cultures.
No offense, but I find your out look rather perplexing. :confused:

Even if you put no faith in the scriptures and consider them all mythology. Yet, don't you agree they teach us the wisdom of God? Or what's the point of reading them at all; other than historical interest?

So, doesn't the story of Solomon teach us that God alone gives wisdom? Otherwise, Solomon is a fool to request wisdom above all other things from God. Yet, God commends his choice.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No offense, but I find your out look rather perplexing. :confused:

Even if you put no faith in the scriptures and consider them all mythology. Yet, don't you agree they teach us the wisdom of God? Or what's the point of reading them at all; other than historical interest?

So, doesn't the story of Solomon teach us that God alone gives wisdom? Otherwise, Solomon is a fool to request wisdom above all other things from God. Yet, God commends his choice.
Yes, I agree that the texts teach the wisdom tradition, but wisdom doesn’t magically create understanding of ancient texts written in foreign languages from foreign cultures. That requires scholarship.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree that the texts teach the wisdom tradition, but wisdom doesn’t magically create understanding of ancient texts written in foreign languages from foreign cultures. That requires scholarship.
The Word of God is alive for today.

Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts ...​

God Has a Word of Life for each of us.

I have not spoken in secret,
in a place of the land of darkness.
I didn’t say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me in vain.’​

The point of the scriptures is to draw you to God; so He can speak directly into your heart.

I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No wonder Jesus is the "Word of Life" for each of us.

From the beginning I have not spoken in secret;
from the time that it happened, I was there.​

I have not spoken in secret,
in a place of the land of darkness.
I didn’t say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me in vain.’​

Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.​
 
Top