Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 25, 2014, 11:13:30 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | |-+  The sola scriptura OT church
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: The sola scriptura OT church  (Read 1380 times)
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« on: April 27, 2012, 11:01:51 am »
Ignore

I agree with the definition given by wiki: 

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

---

Concerning the OT church:

1) The whole Law given to Moses was also given to all the Israelites, there was no “oral law” kept hidden by the leadership of the OT church.  And it was sufficient for their salvation and holiness:

Deut 27:2 “When you have crossed the Jordan into the land the LORD your God is giving you, set up some large stones and coat them with plaster. 3 Write on them all the words of this law….8 And you shall write very clearly all the words of this law on these stones you have set up.”

Deut 31:24 “Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end.

Deut 4:1 “Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live

2) The leadership of the OT was limited in the scope of dogmatic teaching to teach only what was in accordance to the Law, the same Law the people had in its fullness:

Deut 6:1 “These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess…”

3) The leadership of the OT church (the successor of Moses) were NOT infallible in their teachings:

Jeremiah 50:6 “My people have been lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray and caused them to roam on the mountains.”

Mat 15:14 “Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

While the old covenant was still in effect and before the new covenant was put in place by the death of Christ, Jesus was placed on trial before the Sanhedrin (the official leadership of the OT church, the rightful successors of Moses), and the Sanhedrin rejected Jesus (Mat 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71; John 18:19-23)

---

Therefore, the OT church meats the definition given above of sola scriptura:
1)   The OT, even just the first 5 books written by Moses, contained all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
2)   the leadership of the OT church had absolutely no authority to teach doctrine that went beyond what was written in scripture.
3)   The leadership of the OT church was fallible, and was subordinate to, and was to be corrected by, the scripture.  In fact, there were so fallible, they committed the ultimate doctrinal error by rejecting Jesus as the Messiah.  And those who wanted to follow Jesus, even before Jesus died, were cast out of the OT church.  So, in order to be right with God, you had to be willing to stop follow church leadership when it was in serious error.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2012, 11:53:11 am »
Ignore

I'm pretty surprised no one has responded to this as much as sola scriptura is treated as a red-headed step child.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11901
Kuwait


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2012, 04:48:07 pm »
Ignore

And yet the Book of Ruth made it into the Scripture, even though it's perspective was in opposition to the Mosaic Law regarding the exclusion of Moabites.
Logged

Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2012, 02:19:57 pm »
Ignore

And yet the Book of Ruth made it into the Scripture, even though it's perspective was in opposition to the Mosaic Law regarding the exclusion of Moabites.

are you referring to Ruth's marriage to a Israelite, even though she was a Moabite?

The exclusion of the Moabites, or any foreigner, was to prevent the mixing of false religions into Israel's religion, not unlike the NT’s command 2 Corinthians 6:14: "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers."

Exo 34:15 “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.”

But Ruth was a believer, so she didn’t fall into that exclusion:

Ruth 1: 15 “Look,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her.”  16 But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.” 18 When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her.

Ruth was also the widow of an Israelite, so Boaz had an additional right to marry her.  

Ruth 4:9 Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelech, Kilion and Mahlon. 10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from the town records. Today you are witnesses! ”

This is a pretty open and shut case from scripture, so I’m not sure of your point.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 10:00:48 am by consigliere jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14526


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2012, 12:02:40 pm »
Ignore

How about contrasting Ezra's and Nehemiah's responses to mixed marriages?  Ezra kicked the offending spouses and offspring out of the community, Nehemiah merely grandfathered in the preexisting mixed marriages and banned new ones.
Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11901
Kuwait


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2012, 01:14:19 pm »
Ignore

When Ruth says "Your people will be my people and your God my God," it is in opposition to the exclusion of Moabites from being a part of the assembly of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23:3-6.
Logged

Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2012, 01:49:32 pm »
Ignore

When Ruth says "Your people will be my people and your God my God," it is in opposition to the exclusion of Moabites from being a part of the assembly of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23:3-6.

But you're purposely fogetting that is was based on their paganism and disloyality to Israel:

Deut 23:3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, even down to the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.

But Ruth is both loyal to Israel and a believer in Israel's God.  In fact, when Naomi have Ruth the chance to turn her back on Israel and God and to return to the Moabites and to their pagan god, Ruth refused:

Ruth 1: 15 “Look,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her.”  16 But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.” 18 When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her.

This is no different than the NT requirement:

2Cor 6:14: "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers."

1Cor 7:39 "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord."

1Cor 9:7 "Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Peter?"

---

Added to that, Ruth was ALREADY a widow of a Israelite, but had no children though her late Jewish husband, which then invoked the law of kindsmen redeemer, which Boaz married her to redeem.

Quote
Ruth 4:4 Meanwhile Boaz went up to the town gate and sat there. When the kinsman-redeemer he had mentioned came along, Boaz said, “Come over here, my friend, and sit down.” So he went over and sat down.

2 Boaz took ten of the elders of the town and said, “Sit here,” and they did so. 3 Then he said to the kinsman-redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech. 4 I thought I should bring the matter to your attention and suggest that you buy it in the presence of these seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, do so. But if you[a] will not, tell me, so I will know. For no one has the right to do it except you, and I am next in line.”

“I will redeem it,” he said.

5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the land from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabitess, you acquire the dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property.”
6 At this, the kinsman-redeemer said, “Then I cannot redeem it because I might endanger my own estate. You redeem it yourself. I cannot do it.”

7 (Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption and transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal and gave it to the other. This was the method of legalizing transactions in Israel.)

8 So the kinsman-redeemer said to Boaz, “Buy it yourself.” And he removed his sandal.

9 Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelech, Kilion and Mahlon. 10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from the town records. Today you are witnesses! ”

11 Then the elders and all those at the gate said, “We are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you have standing in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. 12 Through the offspring the Lord gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.”

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2561
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2012, 02:28:15 pm »
Ignore

How does the OT church respond to matters like those touched on in the image posted below? I'm a little curious.

Logged

"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized." ~ Nelson Mandela
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14526


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2012, 03:27:33 pm »
Ignore

Redalgo: get lost in Brooklyn sometime and you'll quickly find the answers you seek.
Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2561
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2012, 03:46:58 pm »
Ignore

lol
Logged

"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized." ~ Nelson Mandela
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14526


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2012, 07:38:09 pm »
Ignore

lol

I'm not really joking.  You can find tens of thousands of Orthodox Jews who do this s**t every day, from not using electricity and toilet paper on Saturday to not drinking tap water because some of the microbial life in it is vaguely, in some sense, shellfish.

Oh, yeah, and as to the "not approaching the altar of the Lord if you have physical defects" thing, a nice demonstration of that in practice is given by Josephus, who tells of how Herod the Great had the heirs of the Hasmonean family blinded and had their ears cut off in order to make them physically deformed and permanently ineligible for the priesthood so they wouldn't be able to threaten his rule any more. 
« Last Edit: May 05, 2012, 07:40:09 pm by The Mikado »Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2561
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2012, 08:28:09 pm »
Ignore

Wow, that's actually pretty sad. D:
Logged

"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized." ~ Nelson Mandela
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14526


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2012, 09:29:56 pm »
Ignore

But, yeah, Judaism (and Christianity, though the answers are mostly different) has answers to a lot of the silly stuff like that old chain email.  I'm not a believer, but I find it a bit frustrating when people who clearly don't even really understand the basics of how Judaism/Christianity work string together a bunch of Bible verses and go, "What do you think about this?" 

For example, that mention of a bull sacrifice.  Judaism firmly established the doctrine that animals can only be sacrificed at the Temple at Jerusalem.  Said Temple no longer exists.  Rabbinical Judaism dictates that the prayer liturgy takes the place of the sacrifice in the Atonement and worship cycle (at least until/unless the Temple is ever rebuilt).  Similarly, this is the same reason why Judaism abandoned priests: they're intimately connected with the Temple ritual: should the Temple be reestablished, the Jews will bring back the kohanim.  Christianity never did animal sacrifice because Jesus took the place of the sacrifices: his body is the scapegoat, there is no need for animal sacrifices.
Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2561
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2012, 10:49:26 pm »
Ignore

I can see how that sort of thing could get frustrating pretty quickly. I suppose one of the hard parts for me is having contradicting interests to: (a.) stay well clear of these sorts of threads since I'm unwilling to devote hundreds of hours to combing over and scrutinizing the contents and potential interpretations of sacred texts so I can go toe to toe in discussions with people who revere them and (b.) say something due to how incredibly mind-numbing it is to watch people deliberate (if not argue in a heated tone on occasion) the fine details of what strikes me as a complex, at times offensive set of myths. Perhaps it'd just be better for me to ignore it all, stop making a fool of myself, and show more tact so as to avoid being a jerk about it?
Logged

"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized." ~ Nelson Mandela
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14526


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2012, 01:28:51 am »
Ignore

Redalgo, if you want a "fun" introduction to some of these issues, I'd recommend A. J. Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible As Literally As Possible.  Jacobs, a lapsed Jew, is a secular guy and more than a bit irreverent (especially towards the beginning of the book), but by the end of his project he ends up finding worth in a lot of the ritual of the OT and ends up continuing to keep the Sabbath, saying prayers of thanksgiving before meals, etc.  

Amusingly enough, Jacobs, being a germophobe, adores the rule that he can't touch menstruating women.  He celebrates having an excuse not to have to shake hands or hug half of the human race and wishes he could find a similar Biblical excuse not to touch men either.

EDIT:  At various points, Jacobs does experiment with stuff that's reminiscent of that email up there.  He goes a week without mentioning the days of the week or the names of the planets due to the Biblical injunction not to let the names of false gods pass your lips.  He gives that one up, of course.  But there's plenty of more serious passages where he really does end up getting something out of what he's doing...mostly in passages where he's joining movements in their rituals.  Like the bit where he gets rip-roaringly drunk with a bunch of elderly Lubavitchers on Purim (Purim is basically Judaism's answer to Mardi Gras).  He argues pretty persuasively that a lot of people have the incredibly false opinion that all religion is anti-booze, and that partying with a bunch of ultra-Orthodox Jews will disavow you of that pretty quickly.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2012, 01:43:43 am by The Mikado »Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12897


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2012, 01:51:39 am »
Ignore

Oh, yes, that's one of my favorite recent nonfiction books.

I can attest to partying with ultra-Orthodox Jews, since one of my friends invited me to Purim at our campus's Chabad House this year...
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2012, 11:27:29 am »
Ignore

How does the OT church respond to matters like those touched on in the image posted below? I'm a little curious.

your post is so full of ignorance, I'm sure I'm wasting my time responding, but here is an effort:  homosexuality is condemned in the bible prior to the Law of Moses, during the Law of Moses, and after the Law of Moses was superceeded for it is condemned in the New Testament.

Homosexuality is not a Law of Moses argument, rather the verses from the Law of Moses are quoted simply to show uniformity with the rest of scripture.  It would be just like arguing about adultery: I would show that prior to the Law, during the Law, and after the Law (New Testament), adultery was condemned.

In a nutshell:  1) the bible only allows for sex within the context of marriage, 2) and marriage is defined in the bible as a heterosexual union.  Which is why fornication, adultery, lust, homosexuality, and bestiality...are not allowed.

It's pretty cut and dry.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2012, 11:41:16 am »
Ignore

I'm not sure how this thread got derailed with homosexuality and religion bashing, but I just want to remind everyone that the purpose of this thread was to show that the bible clearly states that OT Israel was given the entire Law of Moses, just as Moses himself was given it by God.

this is NOT a discussing of belief, rather it is a observation of facts concerning what the bible states pertaining to the giving of the Law of Moses to the OT church prior to the appearance of the different Jewish sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, etc).

In this thread, I have stated 3 points:
1)   The OT, even just the first 5 books written by Moses, contained all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
2)   the leadership of the OT church had absolutely no authority to teach doctrine that went beyond what was written in scripture.
3)   The leadership of the OT church was fallible, and was subordinate to, and was to be corrected by, the scripture.

If none of those three points can be refuted, then sola scriptura has a biblical precedent within the OT church, regardless of the opinions of the OT sects that came after Moses.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28781
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2012, 02:07:11 pm »
Ignore

Of course, then the question becomes which version of the Pentateuch?  The Septuagint that the NT writers largely used?  The Masoretic that many Protestant denominations use because it is seen as more authentic?  The Samaritan?

Granted, the textual differences between the versions are largely minor save for where the Samaritan version calls for the temple to be located.  However, while the Samaritans are an example of a sola scriptura OT church, I doubt you'd find the Five Books of Moses of the Samaritans to be accurate, jmf.  Still, the fact that Jesus and his ministry in ancient Palestine is inclusive of the Samaritans is an example of how these minor quibbles over doctrinal issues were not something he was much concerned with, just as he refused to get drawn into the petty squabbles of the day of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. — Khaled Hosseini
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2012, 02:52:14 pm »
Ignore

Of course, then the question becomes which version of the Pentateuch?  The Septuagint that the NT writers largely used?  The Masoretic that many Protestant denominations use because it is seen as more authentic? 

The choice between these two does NOT impact any of the following 3 points:
 
1)   The OT, even just the first 5 books written by Moses, contained all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
2)   the leadership of the OT church had absolutely no authority to teach doctrine that went beyond what was written in scripture.
3)   The leadership of the OT church was fallible, and was subordinate to, and was to be corrected by, the scripture.

So, your attempt to muddy the waters is irrelevant.

---

The Samartian?  Granted, the textual differences between the versions are largely minor save for where the Samaritan version calls for the temple to be located.  However, while the Samaritans are an example of a sola scriptura OT church, I doubt you'd find the Five Books of Moses of the Samaritans to be accurate, jmf.  Still, the fact that Jesus and his ministry in ancient Palestine is inclusive of the Samaritans is an example of how these minor quibbles over doctrinal issues were not something he was much concerned with, just as he refused to get drawn into the petty squabbles of the day of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.

Christ already rejected the Samaritan version of events:

John 4: 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”  21 Jesus declared, …You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

But the reason why Jesus didn’t harp on the Samaritan differences was that the OT church age was about to come to a close:

John 4:19 “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem …Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

So, Jesus basically said:  “You Samaritans don’t know what you are talking about, but the Jews do.  However, none of that matters anymore because a new era is dawning that will see the old covenant superseded; therefore, the point of disagreement concerning where to worship is no longer going to be an issue.”
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28781
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2012, 06:23:21 pm »
Ignore

John 4: 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”  21 Jesus declared, …You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

The traditional translation and interpretation of John 4:22 has two major problems.

The first is while the verb "εἴδω" can be translated as "to know", it can also be translated as "to perceive".  Translating that verb as perceive makes the meaning of the first part of the verse clearer, for the Samaritan temple upon Mount Gezrim had been destroyed in the 2nd century BC.  "You Samaritans worship a temple that has been destroyed, we worship one that still stands."

The remainder of John 4:22 is asserting that salvation comes not from any particular place but comes from the line of Judah (the literal meaning of from the Jews).  That is, salvation comes from Jesus himself.  You'll need to come up with some other quote to convince me that the NT shows that Jesus treated the Samaritan version of the Five Books as inferior to the other versions.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. — Khaled Hosseini
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2012, 09:52:01 am »
Ignore

John 4: 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”  21 Jesus declared, …You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

The traditional translation and interpretation of John 4:22 has two major problems.

The first is while the verb "εἴδω" can be translated as "to know", it can also be translated as "to perceive".  Translating that verb as perceive makes the meaning of the first part of the verse clearer, for the Samaritan temple upon Mount Gezrim had been destroyed in the 2nd century BC.  "You Samaritans worship a temple that has been destroyed, we worship one that still stands."

The remainder of John 4:22 is asserting that salvation comes not from any particular place but comes from the line of Judah (the literal meaning of from the Jews).  That is, salvation comes from Jesus himself.  You'll need to come up with some other quote to convince me that the NT shows that Jesus treated the Samaritan version of the Five Books as inferior to the other versions.

if you can't see that Jesus took the Temple in Jerusalem as the legitimate historical temple site of the OT, as opposed to Samaritan version of scripture/history, then quoting scripture to you wont do any good.

as ALWAYS, you have issues with the scripture that force you to apologize for scripture all the time.  Unlike Jesus and the Apostles, who NEVER saw the need to diminish scripture, you simply can’t “roll with it”.

The fact that you feel the need to confront scripture each and every time you talk about it, shows that you are not on the same page with Jesus and the Apostles; for they NEVER did such a thing.  There’s really no difference between Derek’s view of scripture and yours.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28781
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2012, 12:22:46 pm »
Ignore

Why shouldn't one confront scripture with the same tools of logic and reasoning that would be appropriate for any other text written by men?
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. — Khaled Hosseini
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2012, 12:29:09 pm »
Ignore

Why shouldn't one confront scripture with the same tools of logic and reasoning that would be appropriate for any other text written by men?

are you accusing Jesus and Apostles of not using logic and reasoning in their approach to scripture?
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28781
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2012, 04:41:11 pm »
Ignore

Why shouldn't one confront scripture with the same tools of logic and reasoning that would be appropriate for any other text written by men?

are you accusing Jesus and Apostles of not using logic and reasoning in their approach to scripture?

No.  I'm accusing you of that.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. — Khaled Hosseini
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines