Another Look at the Biblical Canon

don · 05-19-09 9:04 am

<a href="http://www.jameskugel.com/critic.php" target="_blank">Orthoprax or Orthodox</a> (Kugel presents DH's idea and then explains how he views matters. I include the whole of the interaction to provide the basis for future discussions. In my opinion, the Jewish Orthodox struggle to relate to the Bible in the light of "modern scholarship" is similar to our own as Adventists, or other conservative and/or fundamentalist Christians. I have highlighted sections which get to the gist of the matter; blue for DH and Red for Kugel. The more I work with Kugel's ideas, the more I see differences between Judaism and Adventism. Judaism has a whole body of respected, and developing, religious law beyond the actual text of the Hebrew scripture. Adventism, [and Protestantism], has a more static approach to truth; i.e. limited to the Biblical canon. [Adventism has Ellen White's writings as a source of truth, as well. But this too is static.]) by DH > I just finished "The God of Old" > and found it to be an enlightening, if rather speculative, insight into > the Biblical minds of old. I also intend on reading your newest work > when I get the opportunity. > > But the real reason I'm writing you is not for the quality of your work > ... but of the curious juxtaposition of it to your ostensible Orthodoxy. Frankly, I do not understand how the same man who > intellectually deconstructs the very human pathways that lead to modern > Orthodox Judaism can at the same time hold belief in their immutable > correctness. I do not mean to sound accusatory in the least - and I know > you probably already get flak from all directions about this - but is > what you really believe "Orthodox" as you could find described in some > dictionary or recognized rabbinical treatise, or rather is it a kind of > self-styled religious philosophy that maintains *Orthopraxy* as proper > Jewish behavior? > > That may be mere splitting of hairs for some, but as I am an individual > who (I think, like you) is very interested in maintaining traditional > Jewish observance, I am struck by the gross untenability of typical > Orthodox beliefs in the face of modern scholarship from numerous fields. > I should also mention that I was raised Modern Orthodox and have > maintained general observance even while my philosophical and scholarly > thoughts have strayed, as it were. The great trick of course would be > how to open the eyes of so many of our observant co-religionists without > prompting disillusionment and a tumbling of the Halachic system - > assuming such a feat were even possible and assuming we ought to even be > interested in carrying out such philosophical revolutions. > > In the meantime, as I count myself among the "Orthodox" as a > sociological identity, I often encounter difficulties where what I have > learned through modern scholarship contradict established tradition. > Indeed, when the Torah is raised at hagbah, should I say along with the > congregation that “This is the Torah that Moses placed before the people > of Israel at the command of the Lord through Moses”? Clearly modern > Bible scholars like yourself would say that even if Moshe did write a > Torah, the modern Pentateuch we have raised before us is not it. > > I'm not exactly sure what I am asking of you here and it may even be > inappropriate (and if so, then you have my apologies) but how do you > engage the philosophical difficulties that lie between living our > traditional observances and the generally poorly informed beliefs of so > many whom we observe them with? Is there a philosophical or theological > or sociological endpoint to seek or should each man merely find their > place between skepticism and traditionalism and hope the great Jewish > masses will one day raise their minds from the merely Medieval? > > Practically, how much does traditional Judaism need to adapt so to > honestly assimilate these intellectual elephants sitting in the living > room? In ironic form, can these elephants become kosher? > > Regards, > > DH > > JK: Well, that is the question. I did try to address it in a few pages of the last chapter of HOW TO READ THE BIBLE, but judging by people's reaction, I obviously need to do more. (I didn't go into more detail there because that book is not really aimed at Orthodox Jews, or even Jews in general, and it is not, despite what a lot of my correspondents seem to think, a kind of personal confession. It's really a book about the Bible.) I suppose the longer answer that I might write some day would start by saying that I really don't buy into the distinction between "Orthodoxy" and "Orthopraxy" that you, and a lot of other people, invoke. An Orthodox Jew isn't just someone with the right "doxy," the right ideas; you wouldn't call someone "Orthodox" who sincerely believes that the Torah was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and fervently upholds his faith in the resurrection of the dead etc., but who does not keep Shabbat or the rules of kosher food. In a subtler way, I think the opposite is also true. I've heard lately from a lot of people who say that they like the "Orthodox life style," but that they are only "Orthoprax" and not "Orthodox." I hope that's not really true. As you know, Judaism is notoriously long on deeds and short on doctrine; still, I can't imagine that any such "Orthopraxy" can be pursued in the long run by someone who doesn't have some basic belief in H' and in the connection between that belief and all the "deeds" of his or her Orthopraxy. Rather, I think what such people mean is that they have difficulty accepting one or another of the traditional teachings of Judaism: they are bothered by what you call the “gross untenability of typical Orthodox beliefs in the face of modern scholarship from numerous fields.” I certainly understand what you, and they, mean. It seems intellectually dishonest to – if I can reverse the contemporary cliché -- walk the walk (not a bad way of referring in English to keeping the halakhah) while at the same time mumbling when it comes time to talk the talk, that is, affirming those traditional beliefs that seem to clash with modern knowledge. So what to do? You may say I’m chickening out, but I’ve always been a fairly conservative person, certainly when it comes to throwing off traditional teachings (though some of my readers may doubt this). I would never want to announce to anyone, “Forget about that mitzvah,” or, by the same token, “This specific belief isn’t really important.” I think history teaches that people who start down the road of public rejection of this or that specific thing rarely stop there. But history does have another lesson, and that’s the one I would highlight. Most of the “creedal statements” of Judaism were originally made in opposition to something or someone. That is, the very enterprise of formulating the "musts" of Jewish belief in rabbinic times arose out of doctrinal differences among the various Jewish groups that flourished before 70 C.E., or later on, as a result of the rise of certain changes in the Jewish world (Karaism, e. g.) or the world in general. The point of these affirmations of belief often was: If you want to be with "us," you can't uphold what "they" say or do. But situations do change, and so do (eventually) the things people feel it essential to assert. As I'm sure you know, the Mishnah (perek Helek) specifies a few things that Jews are to believe in or lose their portion in the world to come. The list of essential beliefs was considerably expanded when Maimonides (not unopposed) introduced his Thirteen Principles. After his time, other things did get added from time to time (creatio ex nihilo, for example, or free will), while some of the earlier items were dropped. You might look at the wonderful article by the late Professor Alexander Altmann,"Articles of Faith," in the Encyclopedia Judaica. So certainly one lesson of history is that at least some of these affirmations were not written in stone. Added to this is what history teaches about the actual application of various orthodoxies to real life. Even when things don’t change de jure, they sometimes change de facto. For example, that same chapter in the Mishnah says a Jew must not read from the "sefarim ha-hitzonim," and even if the Mishnah doesn't say exactly what those books are, it seems likely that that rubric includes at least some of the writings studied in courses currently given by Orthodox professors at Yeshiva University or Bar Ilan; indeed, a number of Orthodox posekim have explicitly ruled that this prohibition is no longer in effect, because times have changed. This is, I admit, a fairly small example of what you call “the Jewish masses rais[ing] their minds from the merely medieval,” but it did happen. (We’re talking about doctrine; I’m sure you can think of numerous examples in the domain of halakhah lema’aseh.) On a somewhat different plane, the use of amulets (kame'ot) for quasi-magical purposes, or the attribution of magical powers to mezuzot -- both of which, I’m afraid, are quite common in Israel today -- suggest beliefs that are clearly at odds with Jewish doctrine as formulated in the Torah, Mishnah, and by numerous later authorities. But these things do go on, and they are actually almost never denounced as heretical; in fact, they are espoused and practiced by prominent rabbinic figures. So I'm not sure that, in any descriptive (rather than prescriptive) definition of Orthodox Judaism, all required and prohibited beliefs are treated equally. In saying all this, I'm not looking for a back door out of what I take to be Judaism's basic doctrine about the Torah, namely, "Torah min ha-shamayim." (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Joshua_Heschel#Torah_min_HaShamayim" target="_blank">Torah from Heaven</a>) There's nothing in my book (or in me) that denies that belief. As I've written several times, words are words, and there is no litmus test that modern biblical scholars could ever perform to determine that this word was divinely inspired and that word was not. But in my book I did try to put the whole doctrine of a divinely-given Torah in a somewhat different perspective, which, since you say you haven’t yet read the book, I might summarize here: What I tried to show was that, at a certain point within the biblical period, the religion of Israel suddenly changed (I would say "as if by revelation," except that I don't mean the "as if"). Now, "avodat H'" (fundamental truth of Judaism and its way of life) was no longer principally understood as the offering of <a href="http://www.reference.com/browse/korbanot" target="_blank">korbanot</a> in the Temple, but the keeping of God's numerous laws. This is evident within the Bible itself, and the trajectory of avodat H' as presented in the Torah carries over into all the later stages of Judaism, even in such perfectly human activities as writing piskei halakhah (or, for that matter, formulating lists of required beliefs). Keeping the mitzvot is the way that Jews seek to reach out to H', and I would make no exception in this for people who define themselves as "Orthoprax." It can't just be a matter of lifestyle. So... The point of this rather long-winded answer is that people who devote themselves fully to keeping the mitzvot are, at least by my definition, Orthodox in the true sense of the word: they have grasped what is essential in Judaism, avodat H', and they are living it. All those mitzvot have a single trajectory, from the Torah itself through centuries and centuries of human interpreters, the makers of <a href="http://www.reference.com/browse/midrash%20halakhah%20" target="_blank">midrash halakhah</a> and <a href="http://www.reference.com/browse/aggadah" target="_blank">aggadah</a>, <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O101-Takkanot.html" target="_blank">takkanot</a> and gezerot shavot (inferences from parallel expressions in disparate verses) and piskei halakhah (personal, yet official, rabbinical guidance), down to the present day. I think someone who truly understands this will not be troubled by the things you mention. .

elaine · 05-19-09 12:08 pm

Don, this is evidently copied and pasted from a website. I don't recall the identification of "DH." Who is he? My thoughts were condensed and copied from his book. Book reviews are simply one or more persons critiquing the book. I prefer reading the book to inform my opinions, rather than relegating to someone else's opinions. IOW, you prefer reading the Bible for you opinions on the Bible, and you would not prefer to get all your opinions from others who have read the Bible and you have not, would you? I usually read book reviews to decide if I wish to read the book but I do not form my opinions on other's ideas. Jews are the only group in the world who are both identified by their ethnicity and a religious belief. The majority of Jews (by ethnicity) are secular, or non-practicing ones. If you have ever been in Israel on the Sabbath, you do not want to enter the Orthodox section as your car may be stoned, and you are made very unwelcome. Their Shabat is holy and not to be desecrated by tourists. There is an interesting thread just begun on the Spectrum blog site about "Rest" and its relation to Sabbath, asking what actions are inappropriate or appropriate on the Sabbath. It sounds exactly like the questions from the Sinai time and is still being asked in Adventism: what and how should the Sabbath be observed? What activities are appropriate? What does it mean to keep a day "holy" and how can anything an individual does be called "holy" and what makes a specific day "holy." If one does good and honorable work 24/6, why is it considered unholy on one day? In the original command the Sabbath was only to be a day of rest. What consitutes rest? There were many accretions the Jews added to the Sabbath, and SDAs added their own, many originating with EGW: shoes should be shined, baths should be taken, sundown should be strictly observed (originally it was from 6 pm Friday to 6 pm Saturday). We all know that the Sabbath is observed quite differently in many parts of the world. Is it not the distinguishing mark or barrier separating Adventists from the rest of the Christian world? Was that the original intent of the early church? Or a leftover from Judaism?

don · 05-19-09 5:19 pm

this is evidently copied and pasted from a website. I don't recall the identification of "DH." Who is he? I guess I didn't make clear the nature of my post. It comes from Kugel's website. I present it because it shows Kugel's thinking. This is the site: <a href="http://www.jameskugel.com/critic.php" target=_top>http://www.jameskugel.com/critic.php</a> Elaine, you presented Kugel as a representative of the Orthodox Jewish community. I had not studied his thinking before. So, I thank you for the introduction. Obviously, I consider Kugel's response to DH, whoever he is, to be of great importance in understanding Kugel. The Sabbath for the Christian is the Sabbath as Christ supported it. I have noted that even though Christ attended the festivals, we have no record of Him supporting them with as much as a discussion of them. I believe that the Gospel authors included Jesus thoughts about the Sabbath because they still observed the day and considered His words to be immensely helpful as they determined what to make of Sabbath observance in the Christian era. .

elaine · 05-19-09 6:50 pm

The way the Gospels report on Jesus' observing Sabbath was in every way contrary to Jewish laws. I have never disputed Jesus' observing the Sabbath as he came to the Jews and was one, wasn't he? He spoke against going to the Gentiles so it was not until after Pentecost that the Gospel went to the Gentiles. Unless you are an ethnic Jew, what is your obligation to observe the Jewish Law? How do you explain the many changes in the Gospel to the Gentiles? Do you believe that only some of the external Jewish laws are to be practiced today while many are obsolete? What do you believe were the barriers seprating Jews and Gentiles if it wasn't external practices? According to the Bible record, the Jews were so uncomfortable even eating at table with the Gentiles that Peter had to be shown that nothing was no to be unclean and all were to be now in the family of God without any exclusion. That the practicing Jews continue to observe the Sabbath is because it was given to them exclusively and never to any other tribes or cultures. The Jews accepted that the Noahacic covenant (before Sinai) was to be the guide for Gentiles, but never was the Law given to the Jews to include Gentiles. Perhaps you can show us where the Bible declared that the Jewish Law was to be kept by the Gentiles.

john8verse32 · 05-19-09 9:11 pm

Doesn't it make sense to let the Jews tell us how they wrote and interpreted their Scripture, rather than Christian appropriating their own understanding? I agree. the following are selections from <a href="http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm" target=_top>http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm</a> which is a book review of this new expose on the historicity of the Bible: The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman here are selected quotes, tho one should read the entire article, then the book to really comprehend the earth shattering change rumbling thru Biblical scholorship as verified by archeology: The authors conclude that the patriarchal traditions must be considered as a sort of pious "prehistory" of Israel in which Judah played a decisive role. They describe the very early history of the nation, delineate ethnic boundaries, emphasize that the Israelites were outsiders and not part of the indigenous population of Canaan, and embrace the traditions of both the north and the south, while ultimately stressing the superiority of Judah. -- p. 45 Rather than a chronicle or history, evidence indicates that this part of Genesis was a national epic created in the seventh century BCE which successfully joined many regional legendary ancestors into one unified tradition. The authors hold in this connection that the stories in the Book of Judges about conflicts with the Canaanites -- such as those concerning Samson, Deborah, and Gideon -- may be authentic memories of village conflicts and local heroes preserved as folktales, combined and recast for later theological and political purposes. ie, campfire stories!!!!! for edutainment of hebrew youth into the supposed importance of their ancestral history. The book of Joshua offered an unforgettable epic with a clear lesson -- how, when the people of Israel did follow the Law of the covenant with God to the letter, no victory could be denied to them. That point was made with some of the most vivid folktales -- the fall of the walls of Jericho, -- the sun standing still at Gibeon, -- the rout of Canaanite kings down the narrow ascent at Beth-horon -- recast as a single epic against a highly familiar and suggestive seventh century background, and played out in places of the greatest concern to the Deuteronomistic ideology. In reading and reciting these stories, the Judahites of the late seventh century BCE would have seen their deepest wishes and religious beliefs expressed. -- pp. 94-5 the Bible tells of the golden age of the united kingdom of Israel ruled over by a Judean monarch, first David and then his son Solomon. It describes a renowned empire spreading from the Red Sea to the border of Syria, the splendor of Jerusalem and the first Temple built by Solomon, as well as other magnificent building projects. This united kingdom then split into Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Does archeology confirm this picture? Despite legendary exaggerations and elaborations, the authors believe that David and Solomon did exist -- but as minor highland chieftains ruling a population of perhaps 5,000 people. No archeological evidence exits around 1005-970 BCE for David's conquest or his empire, nor in Solomon's time (ca. 970-931 BCE) is there any evidence of monumental architecture or of Jerusalem as more than a village: There is -- no trace of written documents -- or inscriptions, -- nor of the Temple or palace of Solomon, -- and buildings once identified with Solomon have been shown to date from other periods. Current evidence refutes the existence of a unified kingdom: "The glorious epic of united monarchy was -- like the stories of the patriarchs and the sagas of the Exodus and conquest -- a brilliant composition that wove together ancient heroic tales and legends into a coherent and persuasive prophecy for the people of Israel in the seventh century BCE" In summing up the significance of these recent findings, Finkelstein and Silberman maintain that "the historical saga contained in the Bible . . . was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of human imagination" (p. 1), and argue that the Bible's integrity and, in fact, its historicity, do not depend on dutiful historical "proof" of any of its particular events or personalities . . . The power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people's liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality. It eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive. -- p. 318 For centuries, however, Jews, Christians, and Moslems have believed that events in their racial and religious history are recorded in the Old Testament. Even today many continue to believe that the biblical account is literally true, or at least basically accurate. Scholarly findings in archeology, textual analysis, history, and newly translated ancient documents all point to a reality which may be difficult for many traditional and fundamentalist believers to reconcile with a faith that depends on biblical events, promises, prophecies, and revelations being historical facts. Nonetheless, this knowledge represents a new dawning in our understanding of these religions and their ancient history. ie...its quite a collection of myths!!!!! according to the most recent and extensive archeology done by a representative of the very people who have the most to lose or gain in the controversy. but its a valuable myth, because... It eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive. now what do we do? share the worry? the guilt? the lithium? petition the Pope for Christianity to divorce itself from the Old Testament? take up Nealism? or do we dance the "I accept" two step, rearrange the deck chairs, keep playing the special music, and don't rock the boat while so many hasten to jump ship and grab a lifeboat. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/5/1320.jpg" alt=""> its think or thwim time. (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 19, 2009) (Message edited by john8verse32 on May 19, 2009)

elaine · 05-19-09 9:58 pm

Finklestein's book is in my library and heavily highlighted and returned to repeatedly for review. How can his findings be refuted or ignored?

don · 05-19-09 10:01 pm

Perhaps you can show us where the Bible declared that the Jewish Law was to be kept by the Gentiles. The Jewish Law is everything Jewish, the whole thing. Of course, the whole thing does not carry over to Christianity, no one thinks that. But, isn't it far clearer to explain what is meant by Jewish Law. Incorporated in the Jewish Scriptures are the "righteous requirements" of God; i.e. the moral requirements of God. (A good example is Thou Shalt Not Kill.) Paul taught that the Gentiles get grafted into God's "tree". There are not two trees. Also, the Jews were entrusted with information for the whole world. God used them to receive His thinking for the whole world. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Romans 3:1,2 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>What are the oracles of God? An oracle is something spoken; the words of God. Apparently, the Septuagint uses oracles in Psalm 119. Psalm 119 is amazing, every verse deals with those oracles. Hmmm. The Jews were the caretakers of the oracles for the whole world. Jesus said that "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" It is not just the Jew who needs the Word of God, but the whole world. When Jesus spoke of "every word that proceeds out of the Mouth of God" he was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures; this includes the Jewish Law. (Of course some of the Jewish Law Jesus called the "traditions of men", the oral law. He did not say that the "oral" law proceeded from the mouth of God.) The prophecies of Isaiah lead me to believe that God had big plans for His people, Israel.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Isaiah 2:2 In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. 2:3 And many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the law will go forth (E)from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And (F)they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks (G)Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Seems to me that if modern Judaism wants to exclude the world, they have missed God's plan for them. Actually, from what I have read, some Jewish scholars recognize this responsibility to the world. Maybe you have read such as well. .

don · 05-19-09 10:40 pm

The Servant of the LORD, Israel's Role <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Isaiah 42 1 "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. (How? By means of the Law.) 2 He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. 3 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; 4 he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope." (This is the opposite to what some claim. The law is their hope. All moral laws properly enforced bring hope to the people, no matter where on earth.) 5 This is what God the LORD says— he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: 6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. 8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. 9 See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>From what you say Elaine, modern Judaism does not realize its global responsibility. Certainly some Jews recognize this, don't they? Are they all so narrow and self-serving that they don't realize their God-given task? You say that Jesus was a Jew. Yes. Christians worship a Jew in heaven. Jesus fulfilled this Jewish responsibility for the whole world. He still is fulfilling it through His Spirit. . (Message edited by Don on May 19, 2009)

elaine · 05-19-09 11:00 pm

The Jewish Law is everything Jewish, the whole thing. Of course, the whole thing does not carry over to Christianity. If the WHOLE thing doesn't carry over to Christiantiy, how was it decided that it only partially carried over?

elaine · 05-19-09 11:11 pm

Who was Isaiah directing his prophecies to? There were no Christians then so it could not have been addressed to them. To import OT prophecies or directions that were intended to the Israelites and then direct them to Christians, is an abuse of Scripture, IMO. Context is everything. The audience to which any thing is written is the most important to be considered, rather than anything in the Bible has equal importance to everyone at all time.

don · 05-20-09 5:45 am

how was it decided that it only partially carried over? The NT provides information on this, either straight out statements or examples by which the matter can be thought out. There were no Christians then so it could not have been addressed to them. Exactly. These prophecies of Isaiah describe a Judaism intended to be the "answer" to the world's problems. That is my point. This modern exclusive attitude you describe for the Jews or this "this is mine, and mine alone" attitude toward the things of God is not what we find in Isaiah. Jesus, as "the" good Jew, did more to accomplish this global task of Judaism than these exclusive, self-oriented people you describe. .

george · 05-20-09 1:51 pm

Isn't it more about the Jews seeing themselves as God's answer to everything? That didn't make it true, as was the case in the end. Jesus didn't come to promote Judaism or any other organized "ism". Jesus spoke to the inner man and his motivations - the heart of the person. That is how Jesus was able to say that he didn't come to nullify anything but to fulfill. There is no doctrinally organized religion that can compel a person to turn the other cheek; to forgive their enemies; to go the extra mile when compelled to go one. The laws Jesus was concerned with could be lived out within any religious system or none at all. To say that Jesus was here to make Gentiles into the true Jews is to speak from a Jewish perspective and that is exactly the perspective of the Bible. Initially it was Jews who were the custodians of the Gospel and from their point of view Jesus was the fulfillment of Judaism; and since Jesus was a Jew, he did not correct that perception when speaking to the Jews. But he did not come to make everybody into some form of Jews, who were to copy everything Jewish.

don · 05-20-09 5:13 pm

The laws Jesus was concerned with could be lived out within any religious system or none at all... But he did not come to make everybody into some form of Jews, who were to copy everything Jewish. Sirje thanks for your thoughts on this. I agree with them. .

elaine · 05-20-09 9:38 pm

Sirje and Don, I agree that Jesus did not come to make everybody into Jews, nor to begin a new religion. That is why I firmly believe that it was Paul who founded Christianity, based on concepts that Jesus preached, but plus his life, death and resurrection. Jesus could not accomplish creating a new religion after his resurrection, which is why Paul was called the founder because he went to the Gentiles, making it eventually a separate movement apart from Judaism. Jesus never separated from Judaism.

don · 05-21-09 2:11 am

Jesus did not come to make everybody into Jews, nor to begin a new religion. Yes, on both counts. But, the Gospel record does make it clear that He intended on transforming His religion after His plan. His people rejected His plan. There are indications in those Gospel records that Jesus new full well that a new order of things was needed and that his disciples would be the leaders of it. Paul tried to continue Jesus' efforts to transform Judaism into Jesus' new order but when the Jewish leaders opposed Paul, he turned to the Gentiles. However, the records we have of Paul as a religion-builder show three things: He consulted with the disciple-leaders to make sure he understood matters correctly; He appointed local leadership whereever he worked; He used verbal and compassionate financial persuasion to influence the already established church structure. According to the New Testament, Paul did not establish the leadership structure of the "world" church, but his understanding of Gospel theology molded the new religion. His evangelistic fervor developed the already established Christian religion as no other person had done. . .

george · 05-21-09 4:44 am

Don, If you agree that Jesus didn't come to make everybody into Jews, then of what significance is it to us that he kept the Jewish laws? Jesus' message wasn't about laws at all. When speaking to the Jews, whose focus was always the law, he turned even those laws into something more. "You have heard it said BUT, I say.....". In fact the Jews were upset with Jesus for changing the laws on them and speaking as if he had the authority to do so. He changed them from something that could be legislated to something that could not. When he did that, he took the Jewish laws out of the "court room" and made them comply with the law as he defined it - love God and love your neighbor. How do you legislate that?

don · 05-21-09 8:10 am

When he did that, he took the Jewish laws out of the "court room" and made them comply with the law as he defined it - love God and love your neighbor. How do you legislate that? Yes. Love cannot be legislated. I am uncomfortable reducing Jesus' notion of Law to the term "Jewish Laws". Paul said that the Jewish people were the custodians of the Oracles of God; the caretakers of God's Words. I see Jesus' role while here on earth as explaining the principles of His Father's kingdom. We find in the Gospels and in the writings of Paul a support for the "righteous requirements" found in the Torah. We also find no tolerance for the Oral Law. Jesus called it the "traditions of men". Peter called it a yoke of bondage. Much of what Paul says against the Law is because of the oppressive nature of the Oral Law. Never do we find the NT writers denouncing the principles of the Ten Commandments. (Some say the fourth commandment is presented in a take it or leave it fashion. I believe that Romans 14 discusses other sabbaths not the Sabbath of the LORD. Colossians 2 addresses the sabbaths of the "shadow". But the grand principle of taking one day in seven for rest, fellowship, and the special activities of corporate worship is never denounced in the New Testament.) How do you legislate love? Can't be done. Jesus did discuss Church "legislations" in Matthew 18. Paul talked about making moral judgments in the church in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. It is true that the depths and essence of Jesus message about God's will, i.e. God's Law, is a matter of the heart. Thus, the Sabbath is the matter of the heart. E. E. Cleveland said he never presented the Sabbath to someone who was not a follower of Jesus. First, he brought them to Jesus, then they could ask, "Jesus, what do you want me to do?" .

elaine · 05-21-09 5:03 pm

According to the New Testament, Paul did not establish the leadership structure of the "world" church, Certainly, it was not Jesus who set up any structure. In the letter to Timothy (whether Paul or ?), the first account of presiding elder and president of impeccable character, married only once is taught. Also the qualifications for a deacon is given and how these are to function in the church; and how women are to serve (only for a woman at least sixty years old who has had only one husband). There is more, but whoever wrote this to the new church, it surely seems to be setting up structure and functions doesn't it? There was no "world" church then, only the beginnings.

don · 05-21-09 5:17 pm

There is more, but whoever wrote this to the new church, it surely seems to be setting up structure and functions doesn't it? The Book of Acts tells us that Paul appointed elders in the various cities where churches were established. The counsel regarding these local leaders given in Timothy and Titus fit right in to that responsibility. The Jerusalem organization described in Acts was in place when Paul came on the scene. Even as the believers scattered because of persecution, the Jerusalem Church was their organizational center. Paul did not start this church. He influenced it profoundly and it can even be said that he shaped the church to adhere to the Gospel he proclaimed. We have no record where people came to Paul to solve matters of church policy. Paul was out on the front lines while James and others led the organization. Acts 1-15 illustrate the organizational work of the church. Obviously, Jerusalem led the way. Antioch quickly took up a position of prominence, as well. .

elaine · 05-21-09 8:21 pm

Acts was written at least a generation later than the Pauline epistles, and there are discrepancies in Luke's view when compared with Paul. While the Jerusalem church was not established by Paul, nevertheless, Paul began the church in a much wider area and largely with the Gentiles. This is where we also read about church structure from him. We have history of the churches in Antioch, Greece, Alexandria, Rome, and other cities, but after the temple was destroyed (and when all of the Gospels, with perhaps the exception of Mark) those are the churches that continue in the historical records and survive.

don · 05-21-09 9:32 pm

Paul began the church in a much wider area and largely with the Gentiles. There is no record that Paul "began the church". He established churches much like an evangelist does. By comparison, the founders of the Adventist Church were James and Ellen White and Joseph Bates. Yet, evangelists such as Lulu Wightman started individual churches in the state of New York. It would be incorrect to say she started the Adventist Church. It may be correct to say she started the Adventist church in Western New York. The book of Acts tells of Paul starting the Christian church in Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Philippi, etc. But to say that Paul started the Christian Church is incorrect according to the NT Canon, especially the Book of Acts. In Galatians, Paul admits that the Church had already begun when he came on the scene. .

elaine · 05-22-09 5:28 pm

Quibbling over such minor details! If you admit that Paul started the Christian church in Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Philippi, etc., what are you leaving out and who started the remaining? Paul BEGAN the Christian church with the Gentiles, which was the only church that lasted into the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Yes, the church began in Jerusalem, but where was it "first called Christian" if not Antioch? We do not know the enthnicity of all those there, but we do know for certain that Paul established at least four churches, according to your statement. Paul is to be preferred over Acts, especially when telling the story of his conversion, as Luke was only a much later reporter, and when there are discrepancies, it is to be presumed that the individual experiencing those events are more accurate than a reporter. See the Damascus road story and following it to see the differences.

don · 05-22-09 10:08 pm

Paul is to be preferred over Acts... Why? Is there a competition for truth? Did the writer of Acts lie? Luke reports to have been Paul's travelling companion? Why not seek to understand how both can be adding to the same set of events? All we have are the written accounts. Why believe Paul and not believe Luke? Why is modern scholarship so bent on putting the origin of the Christian organization exclusively on Paul's shoulders. The evidence is lacking for such exclusivity. .

elaine · 05-23-09 12:03 pm

Don if you have an experience that was not witnessed by someone else, and years later, that individual who had only heard the story wrote about in ways that differed from yours, would you choose his view over yours? This is the difference: Paul was writing HIS views long before Luke wrote Acts, and it should not be expected they would be identical, but preference surely should be given to the person involved rather than someone who heard it second or third-hand. Yes, they both tell the of some of the same incidents, but if they differ, Paul's should be given more preference. Nor does Luke give explicit instructions to the believers as Paul does: Luke is a reporter, while Paul is both a teacher and and wrote his letters to the churches telling them how to conduct themselves.

pilgrim99 · 05-23-09 2:18 pm

Before he wrote Acts, Luke was responsible for the Gospel of Luke. He introduces his Gospel with this statement:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught. Luke 1:1-4 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Was Luke not as careful when he wrote Acts? Where do Paul and Luke contradict each other?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 05-19-09 9:04 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#27 05-19-09 12:08 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#28 05-19-09 5:19 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#29 05-19-09 6:50 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#30 05-19-09 9:11 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#31 05-19-09 9:58 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#32 05-19-09 10:01 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#33 05-19-09 10:40 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#34 05-19-09 11:00 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#35 05-19-09 11:11 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#36 05-20-09 5:45 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#37 05-20-09 1:51 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#38 05-20-09 5:13 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#39 05-20-09 9:38 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#40 05-21-09 2:11 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#41 05-21-09 4:44 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#42 05-21-09 8:10 am

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#43 05-21-09 5:03 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#44 05-21-09 5:17 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#45 05-21-09 8:21 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#46 05-21-09 9:32 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#47 05-22-09 5:28 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#48 05-22-09 10:08 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#49 05-23-09 12:03 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

#50 05-23-09 2:18 pm

Re: Another Look at the Biblical Canon

Board footer