• 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

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The book of Acts is not evidence to support the notion of many Jewish priests converting to Christianity.
Why would a document that gives the history of the church written by Doctor Luke not be evidence?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.​
That doesn’t address my point.
 

Duke_Leto

Active Member
Why would a document that gives the history of the church written by Doctor Luke not be evidence?

Firstly, because you don't know that 'Luke', whoever that is, even wrote it, or that he was a physician, and secondly, for the same reason you don't believe the Holy Quran as given by the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Firstly, because you don't know that 'Luke', whoever that is, even wrote it, or that he was a physician, and secondly, for the same reason you don't believe the Holy Quran as given by the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him.

I disagree completely. We can ascertain that Luke wrote the document as we can believe that Churchill wrote The Malakand Field Force.

And there was a spiritual entity that gave Mohammed spiritual information, may God have mercy on his soul.
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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.
The Torah, or books of law, claim to have come to Moses from the very mouth of God. The books of the Prophets came through visions and dreams. Not quite as good, but still pretty nifty. And the other writings were simply inspired by God, the way a symphony might inspire me.

Now a symphony might inspire two different men to paint a picture, but I'll wager their pictures will be very different. In the same way, men who are inspired by God write different things, bringing into the picture their own time and culltures, unique educations and upbringings and biases. IOW, with inspiration, you do get something from God, but it gets filtered through the mind of a man.

I don't find that a problem. I find it an asset. I have a Tanakh that approaches the Divine from many points of view. It gives me a richer, fuller picture of the Lord.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Firstly, because you don't know that 'Luke', whoever that is, even wrote it, or that he was a physician, and secondly, for the same reason you don't believe the Holy Quran as given by the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him.
Someone in the early church wrote it. It is the consensus of scholar that the first part of Acts is a gathered collection of oral stories, and that the bulk of it is a travel diary of Paul's journey, recorded as the journeys progressed. These diary events are undoubtedly filtered through the eyes of a first century believer who would ascribe things to supernatural forces but they would for the most part be historically true.
 

Tumah

Veteran 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.
Of course just the fact alone that I've said it doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the contextual evidence from whence he lifted those verses: he was clearly interested in manipulating the verses, because contextually, his interpretation of them does not fit.

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.
Yes, we're aware. The argument is that there's no contextual evidence for that, such that you believe only because you believe.


Just as many Jewish people disagree with each other, I would say that he wasn't manipulating the passage.
No, that's not the same as all. You can't re-interpret a passage out of it's context and call it a disagreement with someone who interprets it's the verse in context. That's not a disagreement, because the latter lacks any basis for the interpretation.

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.
It doesn't say that the priests here were learned. I'm not sure why you think they were.

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.
This is even worse! Someone who wasn't even there, took the word of some random preacher! If that actually happened, that wouldn't say anything good about him.

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.
Do you think that there were no Pharisees who left the sect? We call them "off the derech". It's a phenomenon that started well before Paul.

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.
Where does it say they were learned?

Aside from the question of whether any of this actually happened, even assuming these did happen, we don't know anything about their knowledge of Scriptures, and about the arguments that convinced them - if it was indeed Scriptural arguments that convinced them and not other reasons.

And, what I think is most important, the fact that these interpretations are lifted out of context and are not supported by anything but the NT author's claim, we should immediately call into question anyone who believes his words.

Let's say I said, "Peaches. Plums. I was foretold to have said these words in John 1:1 - 'The Word and the Word'. This is because I am the second coming of the reincarnated son of god!"

You wouldn't believe me, because that's clearly not what John 1:1 is talking about and I'm simply using a snippet of a verse to make a claim that has absolutely nothing to do with it's context. But for some reason, when the NT does it, you think it's perfectly logical and even believe people would convert to a new faith on the basis of such an argument!

They made up of much of the Sanhedrin
I'm not sure that's true.

Part of the Sanhedrin.
I'm not sure that's true.
 

Duke_Leto

Active Member
Someone in the early church wrote it. It is the consensus of scholar that the first part of Acts is a gathered collection of oral stories, and that the bulk of it is a travel diary of Paul's journey, recorded as the journeys progressed. These diary events are undoubtedly filtered through the eyes of a first century believer who would ascribe things to supernatural forces but they would for the most part be historically true.

I'm curious; as a non-Christian, how do you explain the author's depiction of tongues of fire coming down from the sky onto people's heads and making them speak in tongues?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Of course just the fact alone that I've said it doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the contextual evidence from whence he lifted those verses: he was clearly interested in manipulating the verses, because contextually, his interpretation of them does not fit.

Yes, we're aware. The argument is that there's no contextual evidence for that, such that you believe only because you believe.

No, that's not the same as all. You can't re-interpret a passage out of it's context and call it a disagreement with someone who interprets it's the verse in context. That's not a disagreement, because the latter lacks any basis for the interpretation.
Yes, you keep saying it. But when it say "That it might be fulfilled", it doesn't lack for interpretation

It doesn't say that the priests here were learned. I'm not sure why you think they were.

Let me see if I understand... you become a priest with no learning? Are you learned? Is a prophet "learned"? Who then is "learned"?


Do you think that there were no Pharisees who left the sect? We call them "off the derech". It's a phenomenon that started well before Paul.
Yes, I'm sure that those who believed in the Messiah were labeled "off the derech" if that is what you call them.

Aside from the question of whether any of this actually happened, even assuming these did happen, we don't know anything about their knowledge of Scriptures, and about the arguments that convinced them - if it was indeed Scriptural arguments that convinced them and not other reasons.
Which one are you specifically referencing?

I'm not sure that's true.

I'm not sure that's true.
Maybe you should research?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Do you think that there were no Pharisees who left the sect? We call them "off the derech". It's a phenomenon that started well before Paul.
And the Pharisees were hardly a monolithic group to begin with.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Yes, you keep saying it. But when it say "That it might be fulfilled", it doesn't lack for interpretation
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that because an NT author added the words, "that it might be fulfilled" when quoting a verse out of context as applying to Jesus, that it allows the verse to gain another out of context interpretation?

Let me see if I understand... you become a priest with no learning? Are you learned? Is a prophet "learned"? Who then is "learned"?
Are you joking? A priest needs to know how to slaughter an animal and identify a skin malady. If that's your idea of "learned" then i can see why we're having such a disconnect.
"Learned" in this context means being fluent in Biblical Hebrew and being fluent in the jewish Scriptures both in terms of context and language.

Yes, I'm sure that those who believed in the Messiah were labeled "off the derech" if that is what you call them.
Yes, definitely they were.

Which one are you specifically referencing?
Didn't this whole thing start because someone said something about Hosea 11:1?

Maybe you should research?
There doesn't seem to be any information about either of these points in anything that is not the NT.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that because an NT author added the words, "that it might be fulfilled" when quoting a verse out of context as applying to Jesus, that it allows the verse to gain another out of context interpretation?
Just saying your opinion remains an opinion. Matthew had a different viewpoint.

Are you joking? A priest needs to know how to slaughter an animal and identify a skin malady. If that's your idea of "learned" then i can see why we're having such a disconnect.
Interesting... you weren't around when then were there and you specifically know that all they did was teach them how to slaughter an animal and identify a skin malady.

"In cases of defiling skin diseases, be very careful to do exactly as the Levitical priests instruct you. You must follow carefully what I have commanded them." But apparently God believed they knew what to do.

" Go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict." Oh... and they could judge things too

"The Levitical priests shall step forward, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister and to pronounce blessings in the name of the LORD and to decide all cases of dispute and assault." and how to minister.

So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the Levitical priests, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel." and were entrusted with the law.

WOW! For unlearned people, they sure knew a lot.

"Learned" in this context means being fluent in Biblical Hebrew and being fluent in the jewish Scriptures both in terms of context and language.
You never told me, if it wasn't the priests, who were the "learned" people.

Didn't this whole thing start because someone said something about Hosea 11:1?
You are welcomed to disagree.

There doesn't seem to be any information about either of these points in anything that is not the NT.

Josephus names the three leading Jewish “schools of thought” as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Maybe you can brush up on it.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I'm curious; as a non-Christian, how do you explain the author's depiction of tongues of fire coming down from the sky onto people's heads and making them speak in tongues?
This is the early part of Acts which is the collection of oral stories, thus history is interlaced with legends. Undoubtedly something occurred in the upper room but I don't think literal tongues of fire appeared over people's heads.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
This is the early part of Acts which is the collection of oral stories, thus history is interlaced with legends. Undoubtedly something occurred in the upper room but I don't think literal tongues of fire appeared over people's heads.
I believe that would be classified as a "personal viewpoint". Others would disagree.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Basically Jesus must fulfill all the prophecies of the Son of God. No matter who Exodus is talking about. "Out of Egypt I called my Son" means it doesn't matter. Jesus must fulfill it regardless. If Jesus is really the Son of God; then He must come out of Egypt at some point. So He did.

Besides ... what if I told you that Jesus is Israel? Yes He is; more than Jacob!

Hosea isn't confusing.. Its not about Jesus at all. Its about Israel. Christians should resist the impulse to muddy the water.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
What makes you think that the author of Matthew was Jewish? The book's author was anonymous and claiming that it was by Matthew puts a huge burden of proof upon you.

It appears to be far more likely that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the authors of Luke and Matthew wrote that he was born there to "fulfill prophecy" .

Tinkering with scripture makes a mess of things.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Hosea isn't confusing.. Its not about Jesus at all. Its about Israel. Christians should resist the impulse to muddy the water.

Actually, it was the Jewish people that helped us understand its applications.

Hosea 3:5 The reference that the children of God will “return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king.” King David had long been dead in Hosea’s day, so this is clearly a reference to the Messiah, of whom it was promised that He would be in the line of David and that He will reign forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13).

The references to a lion in Hosea 13:7-8, is another Messianic prophecy the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:8-12) and (Rev 5:5).

Hosea 11:1, where God says, “out of Egypt I called my son.” Matthew 2:15 tells us that this was fulfilled when, after Mary, Joseph, and Jesus had fled to Egypt, God sent an angel to call His Son, Jesus, out of Egypt (Matthew 2:19-20).

And many more.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that because an NT author added the words, "that it might be fulfilled" when quoting a verse out of context as applying to Jesus, that it allows the verse to gain another out of context interpretation?

Surely that is a stated opinion on your side since Jesus did fulfill them.

Are you joking? A priest needs to know how to slaughter an animal and identify a skin malady. If that's your idea of "learned" then i can see why we're having such a disconnect.
"Learned" in this context means being fluent in Biblical Hebrew and being fluent in the jewish Scriptures both in terms of context and language.

Priests did much more than just sacrifice. They were also interpreters of the law.

PRIEST - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Deuteronomy 17:9
And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Actually, it was the Jewish people that helped us understand its applications.

Hosea 3:5 The reference that the children of God will “return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king.” King David had long been dead in Hosea’s day, so this is clearly a reference to the Messiah, of whom it was promised that He would be in the line of David and that He will reign forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13).

The references to a lion in Hosea 13:7-8, is another Messianic prophecy the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:8-12) and (Rev 5:5).

Hosea 11:1, where God says, “out of Egypt I called my son.” Matthew 2:15 tells us that this was fulfilled when, after Mary, Joseph, and Jesus had fled to Egypt, God sent an angel to call His Son, Jesus, out of Egypt (Matthew 2:19-20).

And many more.

Mary, Joseph and Jesus didn't flee to Egypt. Embellishing the story to make Jesus fit the old prophecies about an anointed warrior king makes a mockery of the gospels.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Mary, Joseph and Jesus didn't flee to Egypt. Embellishing the story to make Jesus fit the old prophecies about an anointed warrior king makes a mockery of the gospels.
Denial doesn't change history.
 
Top