• 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!

The Problems of Hellenized Judaism and interpretation of Christian Scripture

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Bit like the way the Muhammadan priesthood encourage their people to read the Quran first then the older books such as the Torah and the Gospels isn't it?

In my opinion.
Yeah, and now we can add the Baha'i Faith to that. Each religion wants the person to understand the "truth", meaning how the new religion interprets the older ones, so when they read the Scriptures of the older ones, they can get the "correct" meanings and interpretations from them.

After first learning about the Baha'i Faith, I then studied the Bible with a friend that had become a fundy Christian. After that, I happened by a Jewish bookstore and asked, "Both the Baha'is and the Christians say they came from your religions, but you don't believe either one of them... why?" I had to keep pressing the issue and he finally gave in and told me. He showed me why, from their perspective and beliefs, Jesus was not the true Messiah. And since Baha'u'llah essentially was also claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, that went for him too.

Each religion, that wants to or needs to, has ways to make the older religions fall in line with their beliefs and eliminate all apparent contradictions. But, coming from the older religions forward, it's much harder to make the new ones fit.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Plato? Why people worship this moron? They even have him in the bible???

As you probably know, Plato is not in the Bible, and no one worships Plato or the comparatively used Moses. This thesis is contrasting Moses to Plato though some may think otherwise, and that thinking otherwise is a blockage for Jewish theology to be grounded in Jewish theology.

@pearl

Very interesting. Thank you very much.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Bit like the way the Muhammadan priesthood encourage their people to read the Quran first then the older books such as the Torah and the Gospels isn't it?

Which so called "Priesthood" does that?

And how do you equate that to first reading the NT and then reading the OT? Both are in the same Bible, while the Qur'an and the Bible are separate books? And how is that "you too" thing matter in this thread?

Do you really have a dire need to bring Muhammed, Islam, Qur'an into every thing. Somethings wrong. You are planning to derail this thread and turn it into a Muhammed and Quran argument aren't you?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Which so called "Priesthood" does that?
The Muhammadan clergy ensures that the Muhammadan children are indoctrinated in the Quran first.

And how do you equate that to first reading the NT and then reading the OT?
Because in either case they are getting indoctrinated to view the old through the lenses of the new.

Both are in the same Bible, while the Qur'an and the Bible are separate books?
Irrelevant

And how is that "you too" thing matter in this thread?
It was directly relevant to post #11.

In my opinion.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
My understanding is that Pauline-Christianity's-Priesthood discourages its people to study OT first and then NT, they read it upside down, first they read NT and then OT; is it correct, please? Right?

Regards

What you must realise is that Paul was writing before the gospels. So what NT are you speaking of when you say this?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Muhammadan clergy ensures that the Muhammadan children are indoctrinated in the Quran first.

So in what madrasa do the "indoctrinate children" in the Qur'an first and then the "OT and NT"? Please give me the address.

Because in either case they are getting indoctrinated to view the old through the lenses of the new.

I say this again. The Bible is irrelevant to Islam, and your so called "Muhammedan PRIESTHOOD". ;) It's not part of their theology, while the OT IS part of the Christian theology.

Too desperate to bring Islam and Muhammed into it you have lost thinking.

It was directly relevant to post #11.

No it's not.

"in my opinion".
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Topic: Hellenised Judaism, Scholarship and differences.

Some peoples need: Muhammed, Islam, Quran, Muslim indoctrination, and some priesthood.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I say this again. The Bible is irrelevant to Islam, and your so called "Muhammedan PRIESTHOOD". ;) It's not part of their theology, while the OT IS part of the Christian.

'Because they regard Ghulām Ahmad as the Mahdi, they believe he is the "Promised One" of all religions, fulfilling eschatological prophecies found in the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions'

Source: Ahmadiyya and other faiths - Wikipedia

Perhaps I have understood wrongly, but according to my understanding this would require viewing the prophecies of the old and new testaments through the lense of Islam.

In my opinion.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
'Because they regard Ghulām Ahmad as the Mahdi, they believe he is the "Promised One" of all religions, fulfilling eschatological prophecies found in the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions'

Source: Ahmadiyya and other faiths - Wikipedia

Perhaps I have understood wrongly, but according to my understanding this would require viewing the prophecies of the old and new testaments through the lense of Islam.

In my opinion.

Daniel. You know this is absolutely irrelevant to this topic. I don't know what is seriously wrong. What is this dire need to bring Muhammed and Quran etc etc into this thread? Did you even address the OP with it's scholarship at least once properly? You just jumped to a Muslim thing somehow. What is this requirement you have?

The post you reply to is speaking about Paul. Paul was writing prior to the Gospels, and other books in the NT. So what in the world is he referring to as the New Testament if he is writing before all of them? If you thought of the topic, and actually what he said, rather than being obsessed about Muhammed, Islam and the Qur'an, and Tu Quoque attempts, that's what you would spot.

The topic is about Hellenisation and the Jewish divide from the hellenised view of theology. Paul is Roman in citizenship, and wrote in Greek. That's the relationship you should be worried about. Not Islam, Muhammed, and Qur'an and a Tu Quoque attempt. You have not done any of this to a single relevant post in this thread, but only when a faint chance is presented to bring in Muhammed, Islam and the Quran.

I am not gonna go on with this but this is some weird obsession,
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
God reaching out for man in love to bring man back to Him is certainly there in the NT with the sending of Jesus for all of mankind.

Yes. I think the problem is with translating to Greek language is one thing,
translating the Jewish mindset is another. At least that is what I get.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Yes. I think the problem is with translating to Greek language is one thing,
translating the Jewish mindset is another. At least that is what I get.

I'm sure everyone's mindset is corrupted by where they live even if not by the Greek mindset.
Who would know the pure Jewish mindset if that exists.
Christians familiar with the OT have a sort of Jewish mindset and those who read Jewish interpretations or speak to Jews about the scriptures might understand more of it.
Those familiar with customs etc in ancient times would understand more.
But really as Christians we believe that the full Jewish mindsets (and there is more than one no doubt) is something that cannot be completely dependable in finding out the full meaning of their scriptures.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Daniel. You know this is absolutely irrelevant to this topic. I don't know what is seriously wrong. What is this dire need to bring Muhammed and Quran etc etc into this thread?
It was directly relevant to post #11, conversations evolve. I don't see why you have some obsessive need to control them.

Did you even address the OP with it's scholarship at least once properly?
Yes. See posts #16 and #20.

If you thought of the topic, and actually what he said, rather than being obsessed about Muhammed, Islam and the Qur'an, and Tu Quoque attempts, that's what you would spot.
I see you still don't understand Tu Quoque. Tu Qugue is where one "intends to discredit the opponent's argument".

Source: Tu quoque - Wikipedia

I agree with his argument and note that it also applies to the clergy of Ahmadiyya Islam. So since I had no intention to discredit his argument there was no Tu Quoque. You'll note I'm not Christian so the argument simply doesn't apply to me.

In my opinion.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I see you still don't understand Tu Quoque. Tu Qugue is where one "intends to discredit the opponent's argument"

You didn't even begin to even consider the argument. All you wanted to was to say "You too" and bring Muhammed, Quran and Islam into a completely irrelevant conversation. It's a Tu Quoque attempt. An normal person would use a Tu Quoque to distract from or deflate the power of the first party’s allegations. But you don't even understand what the implications are of the proposition because you are obsessed with Muhammed, Islam and the Qur'an. All who make this argument are people who do quick searches every time a propositional logic or an informal fallacy stems up.

Bye bye.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
I hope this paper is of interest, personally I found it remarkable. Abraham Heschel has always been a favorite of mine.

There is another block to Jewish theology. This danger is a more insidious one. I refer to the Hellenization of Jewish theology… To oversimplify the matter: this approach would have Plato and Moses, for example, say the same thing. Only, Plato would say it in Greek and Moses in Hebrew. Consequently, you can say that Moses was a sort of Hebrew Plato. This view has had a great impact on much of Jewish medieval philosophy. They talk about God in the language of the Greeks.

We are inclined to think in non-Jewish terms. I am not discouraging exposure to the non-Jewish world. I am merely indicating that it is not biblical thinking. It is not rabbinic thinking. It is not Hassidic thinking. It is non-Jewish thinking. A non-Jewish philosophy is fine. But we would also like to have in our thinking a Jewish view of things… If you take biblical passages or biblical documents or rabbinic statements, and submit them to a Greek mind, they are often absurd. They make no sense… May I say to you personally that this been my major challenge, ever since I began working on my dissertation; that is: How to maintain a Jewish way of thinking?

In the second part of The Prophets, as in several other places, Heschel explained why he rejected the Greek God of complete actualization or being, instead introducing God as an omnipotent but passable God of Pathos, in need of man. As he wrote, “Plato thinks of God in the image of an idea; the prophets think of God in the image of personal presence. To the prophets God was not a Being of Whose existence they were convinced in the way in which a person is convinced of the truth of an idea. He was a Being Who is supremely real and staggeringly present.”48 Heschel did “not offer a systematic essay in metaphysics,” as Shai Held states; “he was content, instead, to point out that the metaphysical principles Maimonides simply took for granted are in fact historically conditioned—of Greek rather than biblical provenance.”49

To give a comprehensive overview of his rejection is beyond the scope of this essay; I will only point briefly to the way Heschel went about discrediting the Greek approach as unbiblical and why he deemed that vital. It should first be stated that Heschel did not intend to go so far as to claim a conceptualization of God’s essence: “The idea of divine pathos is not a personification of God but an exemplification of divine reality, an illustration or illumination of His concern. It does not represent a substance, but an act or a relationship.”50 In fact, to make such a contention would be to misunderstand the root of Heschel’s issue with Greek thinking.

According to the celebrated statement of Xenophanes, ‘If oxen and horses and lions had hands or could draw with hands and create works of art like those made by men, horses would draw pictures of gods like horses, and oxen of gods like oxen’ The essential error is not in how man depicts God, but in depicting Him at all. The great revolution in biblical faith was to regard any image of God as an abomination.51


Microsoft Word - Lieblich (hakirah.org)


Plato

Plato was born around 428 B.C. (source: website above).

Much of Plato's writings were transcribed from the verbal statements of his teacher, Socrates. Plato's student was Aristotle.

Moses | Story, Summary, Significance, & Facts

Moses was "probably" born around the late 14th century bce. (source: website above).

So, Moses was born before Plato was born.

Since Moses was born first, it is possible that Plato copied Moses. It is not possible for Moses to have copied Plato.

It is also possible that the Jews altered their own religion to fit the religious beliefs of Greeks.

Greek Myths | AMNH

Greek Myths (about their Greek Gods) date back to about 2,700 years ago (that is, about 800 BC). There is no zeroeth century. (source: website above). Thus, the Greek God stories didn't even exist in the time of Moses.

The Jewish religion was translated to many languages (Latin, Greek, ancient Hebrew, and Arabic). The Hebrew language had been wiped out by those who wished to suppress their religion, and reconstructed from memory by Jews. Hence, Hebrew, today, is not the same as ancient Hebrew, though it is often enough to roughly translate ancient Hebrew writing.

It would help, tremendously, for a Christian to learn Judiasm (perhaps by attending a Jewish temple). It is the root of the Christian faith and Muslim faith.

God sent modern prophets to warn us not to attack Iraq (to reiterate Revelation in the New Testament). Some of them were my personal friends. Some of them said that God consisted of many spirits (a voice like running water...many voices at once, all saying the same things). One Psychic of God told me that God is more like heaven, rather than a person.

A horse might draw a human God (if horsing around).

"Image of God is an abomination." Perhaps we lack the senses to see all of God? Perhaps God transcends what we can observe? It is odd that theists sometimes are afraid to show an image of their God, and sometimes afraid to speak His name (G_d is sometimes used for God).
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
God reaching out for man in love to bring man back to Him is certainly there in the NT with the sending of Jesus for all of mankind.

Sent and retrieved (painfully).

He raises me up, so he can crush me later (they ought to write a song about that).
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
You didn't even begin to even consider the argument. All you wanted to was to say "You too" and bring Muhammed, Quran and Islam into a completely irrelevant conversation. It's a Tu Quoque attempt. An normal person would use a Tu Quoque to distract from or deflate the power of the first party’s allegations. But you don't even understand what the implications are of the proposition because you are obsessed with Muhammed, Islam and the Qur'an. All who make this argument are people who do quick searches every time a propositional logic or an informal fallacy stems up.

Bye bye.

You are too humble to admit that the conversation was irrelevant. But, the injection of Muhammed hopefully made it relevant.

If Islam is the correct religion, how can it distract from any discussion of religion?

This forum is designed to allow those with diverse opinions to share ideas. If it was just a matter of "I'm right, and the rest of you are wrong, and you don't have a right to write" (Cancel Culture), then the forum would not exist.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It's a Tu Quoque attempt.
'Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also") is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.'

Source: Tu quoque - Wikipedia

Can you demonstrate that I intended to discredit the opponent's argument?

If not it is not Tu Qugue.

As I said I agree with the argument. No intention to discredit on my part whatsoever.

In my opinion.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Sent and retrieved (painfully).

He raises me up, so he can crush me later (they ought to write a song about that).

He raises me up, so he can crush me later
In your eyes I'm a little slater
I aspire to more, I want to be greater
But la de da, you're a slater hater.

You can do the next verse
 
Top