|
Replies: 18
| visibility 2105
|
Orange Immortal [66162]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49595
Joined: 2000
|
|
|
|
 |
Top TigerNet [32223]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Nah, I'm good.
3
Dec 30, 2024, 4:34 AM
|
|
A good vid which touches on some important points. The biggest in my mind is, what does one even consider "The Bible" to be?
By that I mean the Hebrew Bible is not the same as the Catholic Bible, which is not the same as any number of Protestant Bibles. So which one is the 'real' Bible, if one were pressed to make such a call?
The individual books are mostly the same, but the assemblage of those books is quite different in some cases. So the differences in those Bibles are not so much in the books themselves, but in what books were chosen to be included or not.
For instance, the Samaritan Bible has 5 books...count 'em, five. The standardized Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic text, has 24 books. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, and most Protestant Bibles have 66 books. So if one has to use only one word, "The Bible," which version does one chose? "Bible" even means "The Books," and with good reason. Each one is a mini-library. And not all libraries have the same collections.
I thought his blurb on doctrine vs. text was good too. The two kind of drive each other. For instance, the Jews say no one can possibly live up to the stringency of the 613 commandments. They're right. It's the same in Christianity...no one (short of a monk, maybe) is going to actually sell all their belongings to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. Maybe a fisherman in 30 AD could do that, but in this world, the doctrine that applies to this world has to be different.
So that literal act by Jesus is 'negotiated' today to mean, 'do your best and sacrifice to the extent that you reasonably can.' Plus, in Jesus's day he probably thought no one would need their belongings with the End Coming so soon.
Romans 13:11 "... our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed."
So it really does become a case of WHAT the text literally says, and HOW it is interpreted, in all cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3705]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: Nah, I'm good.
2
Dec 30, 2024, 8:55 AM
|
|
Very good point about following Jesus. I’ll try to dig up a lengthy article that I believe I posted on here a while back that showed that following Jesus was impossible in a modern context and if you think about the people we “follow” today, the preacher with a masters in theology wearing a three piece suit, it is totally different. Negotiated as the video put it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26248]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14988
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3705]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: Or not.
3
Dec 30, 2024, 9:10 AM
|
|
Don’t you think it’s a bit misleading to claim that no doctrine is effected by the variants? If we just go by Mark nobody ever saw Jesus or even heard about it after he died.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26248]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14988
Joined: 2001
|
You're not doing it right. Video's where it's at.***
1
Dec 30, 2024, 9:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66162]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49595
Joined: 2000
|
Re: Or not.
2
Dec 30, 2024, 10:26 AM
[ in reply to Or not. ] |
|
Indeed! All opinions and viewpoints are appreciated!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26248]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14988
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [66162]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49595
Joined: 2000
|
LOL! I remember - that's what EVERYBODY said!***
2
Dec 30, 2024, 10:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32223]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26248]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14988
Joined: 2001
|
Re: Exactly. A video version of American Bandstand.
2
Dec 30, 2024, 2:21 PM
|
|
You child. That was in color.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26248]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14988
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3705]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: Or not.
Dec 30, 2024, 1:48 PM
[ in reply to Re: Or not. ] |
|
Valid ones. That there are no central doctrines affected by the manuscript variances is demonstrably false as your video shows. If CUintulsa® would have watched the whole thing he would have known that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32223]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Or not.
3
Dec 30, 2024, 1:28 PM
[ in reply to Or not. ] |
|
I think that's a very reasoned message, and plus, he bashes on UT so that's a bonus point after the playoff game!
For me, the strongest argument is the consistency of the message. As you know, a message can be changed just by what is presented, or not. We see that every night on the news. "I'll tell you a, b, and c, but withhold x, y, and z from you to slant things my way."
But I think the CORE message of Christianity is remarkably consistent, though the details may not be...hence, different denominations and different texts.
For instance, I'm starting to think that Jesus saw his message as only for Jews, and Paul saw his message was primarily for Gentiles, but none of that changes the core tenets of 1) Do you believe in sin? 2) Do you believe you need to be saved from sin, and 3) Do you believe Jesus is the guy to do that?
I find the in-the-weeds differences in interpretation fascinating, but I don't think any of them really change that message. People split the entire Church in half over leavened or unleavened bread in the Great Schism of 1054, but they all still believed Jesus was the path to salvation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3705]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: Or not.
2
Dec 30, 2024, 1:52 PM
|
|
“For instance, I'm starting to think that Jesus saw his message as only for Jews, and Paul saw his message was primarily for Gentiles, but none of that changes the core tenets of 1) Do you believe in sin? 2) Do you believe you need to be saved from sin, and 3) Do you believe Jesus is the guy to do that?”
For the most part the message seems the same, however if Jesus believed he was sent for the Jews, not for the gentiles, how can he still be the savior of the world?
Is there any indication amongst Jews that non Jews will be saved? Or any indication that non Jews will even be condemned? Aren’t there verses that allude to people worshipping different gods when Jerusalem is restored?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32223]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Or not.
Dec 30, 2024, 3:37 PM
|
|
>however if Jesus believed he was sent for the Jews, not for the gentiles, how can he still be the savior of the world?
Well, that kind of requires being inside of Jesus's head, which is pretty perilous territory...getting inside of anyone's head, in fact.
I think the ancient Jewish idea at the time was that everyone would eventually convert to Judaism. That's in several places in the OT. And probably why the End of the World has New Jerusalem, and no other city, coming down from Heaven. So Jesus's place in that larger, and older world view is interesting.
Since the Jews seemed to think that everyone would be Jewish in the end, Jesus could still be said to be the savior of the world, ultimately. Not all at one time in that case, but as people 'came around.' Paul took the active approach to that idea - he wasn't going to wait for gentiles to just come around over time, he was going to go out and convert them now.
>Is there any indication amongst Jews that non-Jews will be saved?
Well, that gets into the idea of being 'saved,' which is different between Jews and Christians; temporary vs. permanent. I think maybe the ancient Jews thought that when God comes back to earth, the ones who survived judgement and avoided the Second Death would by default be permanently saved.
At that point sin would be removed from the earth. So the Christian version just moves that 'permanent' idea of sinlessness to before death, rather than after death.
Again, that's within the framework of the Gentiles eventually coming around, or if not, getting Second Death.
REV 20:14
"The lake of fire is the second death [the death after judgement]. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."
>Aren’t there verses that allude to people worshipping different gods when Jerusalem is restored?
Well, there is some interesting stuff in Micah. It's at least an acknowledgement that other people worshiped other Gods, and that other Gods existed. But it could be interpreted that there will be other Gods in the End, too.
It's just really hard to say. It's definitely a different view than John has in Revelation. But then, John was John, and Micah was Micah, ya know?
It's important to know the context of the time to understand Micah's message, too. First, the Assyrians had just kicked their axx and hauled off the 10 tribes...4/5 of their nation. So Hebrew morale was probably pretty low, and they had to be wondering why the God that had led them out of Egypt just turned them over to their enemy Assyria, and to THEIR god.
Micah does speak of Israel rising again, and other nations coming to worship there in the end. Whereas John implies the only people still alive to worship at all in the end will be the believers...everyone else gets Second Death.
The scope of the change in view is dramatic sometimes. In Obadiah, it's almost local, only concerned with immediate neighbors, and far from the sweeping celestial and global view John has. Obadiah's only 21 lines...here's a summary of "The Day of the Lord."
“The day of the Lord is near for all nations.
As you have done, it will be done to you your deeds will return upon your own head.
But on Mount Zion will be deliverance; it will be holy.
Deliverers will go up on Mount Zion to govern the mountains of Esau.
And the kingdom will be the Lord’s.”
That's a pretty small view of the End, with very, very tight national boundaries, vs. God settling in at New Jerusalem to command the whole world, as in Revelation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [20339]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
Chiming in...
1
Dec 31, 2024, 9:06 AM
[ in reply to Re: Or not. ] |
|
Wayyy back to Abraham, God promised: "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” - Gen 12:3
So, this points to something wonderful for all - Jews and Gentiles.
However, Jesus did come first for the Jews. His message was directly aimed at the Jews - who were God's chosen people. Most people get caught up on the term "Chosen People." As though the Jews were better than everyone else and always would be. Perhaps, though, they were the chosen people because of how stubborn they were.. and because of that stubbornness God shows how He still walks with those He designates His own. Even today through the blessing of Jesus. That is a whole lot more to talk about though.
Throughout the OT you find this truth continuing - that God was going to make the Gentiles His people too: "Indeed He says, It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” - Isaiah 49:6
SIDEBAR - isn't it an interesting thing that the prophet mentions both Jacob and Israel in this verse - that Jacob must be "raised up" (restored) in order for the "preserved ones" of Israel to be restored? With this I believe we should begin to think about the "Time of Jacob's Trouble" and what it means.
Anyway, Jesus also fulfilled other scripture in that He was rejected by the Jews (His own) because in their stubbornness, they refused Him for how He came and for the position in His life He assumed when He came. He also brought a message of unity and of peace through love. (The Jews had too much anger and hate toward Gentiles to hear any of that).
So, they crucified Jesus, interestingly, outside the walls of Jerusalem. They kicked Him outside of the Holy City - cast Him out like the goat turned out in the wilderness way back in Leviticus. And in doing so, salvation was made open to all. The Gentiles were shown a great light as promised! That Light is the Life of men...
An interesting thing happened when Jesus was put on trial. Something I must add for consideration. The people, when given the choice between Jesus or Barabas, chose Barabas. And in the process they cried out about Jesus, "Let His blood be on us [and] our children." With that statement, the Jews began their "Jacob" walk. As Jacob did not believe in God - he actually called Him the God of his fathers, but did not claim Him as his own. Not until that night when he wrestled with God - and then he did. And the Angel of the Lord (preincarnate Jesus) changed his name to Israel.
Now, I alluded to the Time of Jacob's Trouble - this is a reference to the Great Tribulation. This is the Time that God will use to restore Israel. The age of the "church" is over. The rapture has taken the church out of the world and has been saved from the wrath of God - Who is now holding the blood of the Jews, and of their children, to account as they had demanded. Isreal will be restored - but at great cost to them... just as salvation came to the world, at great cost to God.
Happy New Year!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32223]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
|
Re: Chiming in...
1
Dec 31, 2024, 12:02 PM
|
|
Nice post, Hunt
>Perhaps, though, they were the chosen people because of how stubborn they were
That's an interesting idea. I like it.
>I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” - Isaiah 49:6
Yes, that's consistent with the idea that everyone would eventually be Jewish one day. Isaiah was written during the Exile. The previous chapter includes:
Isaiah 48:20
"Leave Babylon, flee from the Babylonians! Send it out to the ends of the earth; say, “The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob.”
I know that "The Servant of the Lord" is generally considered to be Jesus, though in this case I think it's the nation of Israel itself, in the context of Chapters 47-50+. That gets us back into High vs. Low Christology.
As an interesting side about Abraham:
I'm reading the Koran right now for some future posts. Before Jesus, and even before the Law, there was Abraham. It's the Muslim view that as a believer in God, without any 'extras' like the Law, Abraham was the first Muslim. The Muslim view is: "Just believe in God, and don't worry about all the distracting details that people get caught up in." Which is what Abraham did. He didn't follow the Law because there was no Law. Islam is a very, very simple religion in that sense. It's a little weird to think of Abraham as a Muslim, and I hope it will be interesting to compare and discuss their views vs. Judaism and Christianity on the board in the coming year.
You have a Great New Year, too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3705]
TigerPulse: 80%
35
|
Re: Nah, I'm good.
2
Dec 30, 2024, 8:50 AM
|
|
Wow. I knew about the added passages in Mark and John, however didn’t know that Codex Sinaticus contained the apocrypha books or two more books in the New Testament. Why doesn’t the King James have those? I believe that it’s because the King James was based on a totally different manuscript tradition which the translators believed was pure and not tainted like the Catholic versions.
The ending of Mark, or lack there of, is significant considering it is considered the first gospel to be written and Matthew and Luke both used it as a source.
So inerrancy is a doctrine that is effected and should be thrown out the window.
Also he makes a great point that doctrine is not just based on the text anyway, but is also effected by culture which makes sense because there are so many variances across Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 18
| visibility 2105
|
|
|
50
