• 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!

How do you distinguish which parts of OT are not applicable to you as a Christian?

Bree

Active Member
Oh please, how can a sect which claims that Jesus is not son of a God and is thus contradictory to scriptures say what is word of God and what is not?
John 10:36
As for contradictions, all contradictions in all the scriptures can be scripturally solved.


We do believe and teach that Jesus is the Son of God.

And the Jewish priests held the cannon of hebrew scripture and never did they include such books as part of it. As for the christian cannon, they were not included as part of christian scripture either.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
As for the christian cannon, they were not included as part of christian scripture either.
Sirach and wisdom are part of canon by both the Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

much later, protestant churches and various denominations and sects that arose out of protestants made their own canons and by doing so abolished the word of God but abolishing the word of God is certainly unbiblical because the scriptures say the word of God cannot be abolished.

By abolishing the word of God I mean Sirach and wisdom were declared word of God by the church long before protestants and their sects come to be, and were included into canon, therefore modifying the canon afterwards is nothing else but abolishment of the word of God which is unbiblical:
Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is flawless
John 10:35b
scripture cannot be set aside
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
We do believe and teach that Jesus is the Son of God.
But you do not teach Jesus is God? right?

How can son of a God not be God? since according to scriptures Pharisees understood the claim "son of a God" meaning being God by equating oneself with God.
 

Bree

Active Member
Sirach and wisdom are part of canon by both the Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

much later, protestant churches and various denominations and sects that arose out of protestants made their own canons and by doing so abolished the word of God but abolishing the word of God is certainly unbiblical because the scriptures say the word of God cannot be abolished.

By abolishing the word of God I mean Sirach and wisdom were declared word of God by the church long before protestants and their sects come to be, and were included into canon, therefore modifying the canon afterwards is nothing else but abolishment of the word of God which is unbiblical:
Proverbs 30:5

John 10:35b

they were not included in cannon by the early church nor were they written by any of Jesus apostles or early followers. They came much later and should not be regarded as part of christian scripture.

They contradict scripture inspired by God. For example, Sirach is anti female. He contradicts Paul’s statement at Romans 5:12-19, which places the responsibility for sin upon Adam, Ecclesiasticus says: “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.” (25:33, Dy)
The other book you mention 'Wisdom' proports to be written by King Solomon, yet it cites passages from Bible books written centuries after Solomon’s deathfrom the Greek Septuagint, which only began to be translated about 280 BCE. So it is not a book of truth and any piece of writing that trully comes from God, or is inspired by God would most certainly be truthful above all.
 

Bree

Active Member
But you do not teach Jesus is God? right?

How can son of a God not be God? since according to scriptures Pharisees understood the claim "son of a God" meaning being God by equating oneself with God.

correct. We do not teach that Jesus is God. We teach only what he revealed of himself to be and that is a 'son' of God.

How can he be a 'son' of God? The pharisees did not believe or accept that Jesus could have been from heaven because as they said "are not his mother and brothers all here with us?"

They had the wrong idea. Its pretty simple. He never claimed to be God.....they claimed that because they wanted to have him put to death and they used 'blasphemy' as a charge against him.

In everything they misunderstood about the Christ, do you seriously believe that they had it correct that Jesus was God himself??? Really. God disowned them. He tore the curtain of the most holy compartment in two in his anger toward them. He wasnt angry with them because they had enough insight to know who Jesus really was. No. He was angry with them because they did not recognise him to be their messiah and they had him put to death on false charges of blasphemy. I would not be taking their word for anything if I were you.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
He contradicts Paul’s statement at Romans 5:12-19, which places the responsibility for sin upon Adam, Ecclesiasticus says: “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.” (25:33, Dy)
There is no contradiction here...

It is well known truth according to genesis that Sin come first to Eve and then to Adam, and thus Sirach 25:33 is not in contradiction with genesis.
On other side Paul as well as many other holly writers mention men rather than women when it comes to genealogy or progeny, and Romans 5:12-19 is no different, he mentions Adam rather than Eve.

For example, Sirach is anti female.
We can say the same for entire bible not just Sirach, starting with genesis where God said that woman should be helper of men and not vice versa.

The other book you mention 'Wisdom' proports to be written by King Solomon, yet it cites passages from Bible books written centuries after Solomon’s deathfrom the Greek Septuagint, which only began to be translated about 280 BCE
There are many texts in the bible that cite passages that are chronologically later event, this is called prophecy and God's providence.
some Psalms for example are not prophecy yet they predict and fulfill future events and are because of this considered prophecy.

Another bible phenomena is that some scriptures were written by multiple authors, or by direct friends of original author after his death, this means some scriptures were modified but this doesn't make them not holly.
Some scriptures were written or assembled after authors death based on oral tradition, not all people were literate to write scriptures.

This are all factors affecting hermeneutics or what did the author mean to say.

btw. I do not know to which verse from the book of wisdom do you refer as false, can you share?
 
Last edited:

Bree

Active Member
There is no contradiction here...

It is well known truth according to genesis that Sin come first to Eve and then to Adam, and thus Sirach 25:33 is not in contradiction with genesis.
On other side Paul as well as many other holly writers mention men rather than women when it comes to genealogy or progeny, and Romans 5:12-19 is no different, he mentions Adam rather than Eve.

the bible says
12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin,+ and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned


We can say the same for entire bible not just Sirach, starting with genesis where God said that woman should be helper of men and not vice versa.
there is nothing 'anti' female about women being delegated 'helper' of the man. The scripture goes on to say 'as a complement of him'

God also delegated Aaron to be a helper to Moses.... do you assume that Aaron as high priest was put in that position because God viewed him as something lesser? Of course not. Being in a secondary position does not diminish a persons value or worth. Do you also think that Jesus is devalued by being 2nd to God? NO im sure you dont.

Women are not devalued in the bible.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
there is nothing 'anti' female about women being delegated 'helper' of the man.
Women are not devalued in the bible.
You say that to modern women who view biblical status of women with disgust toward the church, for example women who desire "right" for their body as a pretense to kill their fetus or women who organized their own non-profit institutions dedicated toward right of women. you tell them that.

the bible says
12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin,+ and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned
yes I know and there is no contradiction.

keep in mind also that in the bible word "man" is not same and "men"
man may mean men, women or both in same time, while men always means men.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I'm sure most of you have read the OT literally, ...
I do not read the OT, I read the Tanakh.
I do not read it literally. I read it intelligently, informed by Biblical criticism and Ancient Near East studies.

I suspect that the issues you have with (from my perspective) non-canonical text stem primarily from faulty expectations.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
I'm sure most of you have read the OT literally, page by page until all was read out, at least that's how I familiarized my self with the OT, although several times over.

I always wondered what to do about verses and texts that are contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.

For example Sirach 12:4-5 or Wisdom 13:1 are clearly contradictory to what Jesus was teaching.
We can find many such examples.

My "key" to differentiate so far is what Thomas Aquinas said that OT should be split into 3 parts:

1. Morality (Moral part)
2. Ceremonial (Ritual part)
3. Judicial (Legal part)

Where "moral" part is eternal, that is it's unchangeable, it's weight is same in both the OT and NT.
And Ceremonial and Judicial parts are a thing of the past that is, their weight does not flow into NT.

An example of Moral part is: 10 commandments of God and 2 commandments of love.
An example of Ceremonial part is: the duties of the Levites
An example of Judicial part is: The law of Moses

It's not hard to categorize certain text from OT into these 3 groups, but there are exceptions as with 2 wisdom examples above.

What is your method? how do you categorize when suggestion from Thomas Aquinas does not apply or when it's not obvious into which part some text goes?

Are there any specific bible verses or texts you would like to share here which you consider incomprehensible for the sake of such categorization or applicability to modern day life or teachings of Jesus?
The entire Bible (Canon) is the history of salvation. We cannot pick and choose. It is a collection of documents that God inspired in which God reveals Himself to give us all the knowledge we need for salvation.
The canon is closed.
It is salvation history.
It is God's own self-revelation.
It is the only way God communicates to us.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
do not read it literally. I read it intelligently, informed by Biblical criticism and Ancient Near East studies.
I read it as historical accounts and/or type of literature. Any other way of reading Scripture is ultimately subjective and must lead to heracy as is clear in modern Christianity...
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I read it as historical accounts and/or type of literature.
Since this collection would include The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, Mein Kampf, the Iliad, the works of Shakespeare, and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, it's rather unclear what you're trying to communicate.

Any other way of reading Scripture is ultimately subjective and must lead to heracy ...
Heresy by any other name is still unorthodox.

... as is clear in modern Christianity...
So you claim. One can only hope that it's more clear than your post.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
It's unbiblical to say that scriptures are the only way God communicates with us.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Also holly spirit is God which guides the church trough elders.
Acts 2
I am not with you. Are you suggesting the Holy Spirit somehow talks to us - day things that is new and had not been said before?
I agree with guidance but that does not imply new information or knowledge.
What I said obviously goes right against the teachings of the RCC because they hold to the infallibility of the Pope and Thier traditions. Within Reformed circles we reject that.
I say again, if God says new things to us it must become part of Scripture as word of God ...
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
I am not with you. Are you suggesting the Holy Spirit somehow talks to us - day things that is new and had not been said before?
Are you saying holly spirit (which is God) is unable to communicate with us?

I agree with guidance but that does not imply new information or knowledge.
If I say I will guide you, and you stuck and ask for help then it's up to me to give you info on what to do next rather than leave you stucked.

What I said obviously goes right against the teachings of the RCC because they hold to the infallibility of the Pope and Thier traditions.
I see, well pope is infallible only when it comes to protection of truth and faith. but otherwise he is a sinner like anyone else.
 
Top