Canon Complications
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB
All Scripture – It goes without saying that Paul is not referring to anything in our New Testament. For Paul, Scripture (Greek – graphe – what is written) is the Torah, the Writings and the Prophets. Of course, in Paul’s day even some of the books of the Tanakh were still unsettled. But something happened as the Gentile population expanded in Messianic circles.
“Generally speaking, there were no authoritative Christian texts in the early second century, and the only texts reckoned to be binding on the Christian community were the OT Scriptures. Hermeneutical reflection was thus largely on the OT writings and not on the NT. The second century saw a growing awareness of the value of Christian writings, and largely with Justin and Irenaeus the center of authority moved away from the oral traditions to a fixed normative text. . . .”[1]
Aside from McDonald’s failure to recognize the anachronistic use of “Christian,” what he demonstrates is that the influence of Hellenistic Gentiles replaced the Tanakh with a new collection of writings that we now call the “New Testament.” But none of the authors of these manuscripts believed that they were writing holy text. That designation occurred when the Hellenistic Gentiles needed a non-Jewish source of authority. McDonald points out that none of the authors (except John’s revelation) attempted to actually produce holy Scripture. Paul’s letters were just that—personal correspondence about specific community issues. The gospels were written to retain the story soon to be lost from memory as the original witnesses died. McDonald finds this surprising, but we should not. Jewish elaboration, commentary and halacha were usually not written. The culture of Judaism was oral. Memorization made written texts unnecessary. References to the Tanakh in the writings of the apostles were markers, recalling entire passages from the memory of the hearers. There was no need for a written “New Testament” until Greek thinking began to replace Hebraic practice.
McDonald’s comment that the process of New Testament canonization really began with Justin and Irenaeus should tell us something quite important. These men were not Jews. They didn’t think like Jews. They didn’t study like Jews. And they specifically and deliberately attempted to remove faith from Jewish roots. Is it surprising that they would develop a new “Scripture,” one suitable to their need for authorizing a different faith? When Paul wrote pasa graphe he was thinking like a rabbi. The Tanakh was the only authority. His words were explanation and midrash. They still are. They are extremely valuable for practical and theological guidance, but they weren’t canon until another form of religion came on the scene—a form never imagined by the Jewish authors of our New Testament.
Today we are blessed with both the revelation given by God to Moses and the prophets, and the story of the Messiah and the subsequent formation of Messianic communities. It is all extremely valuable. But the story of the Messiah cannot be removed in any way from the Scriptures as Paul understood them. Canonization should not discriminate. There is no “Old” and “New.” There is one revelation and a collection of commentaries, stories and reflections. The idea that the Christian Scriptures are separate in any way from the culture, authors and context of a Hebraic worldview leads to nothing but anti-Judaic thinking. Canonization is only the formal process of recognizing what the believing community already treated as sacred. It is not more than that. When canonization becomes a means of excluding the faith and practices of followers of the Messiah of YHVH, it steps onto sacred ground without removing its sandals.
Topical Index: canon, pasa graphe, Scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16-17
[1] Lee McDonald, The Biblical Canon, p. 248.
How many of the writers of the “Scriptures”, after Moses, actually thought they were “writing holy text”?
From this perspective, wouldn’t we have to look at most everything after Moses as a “collection of commentaries, stories, and reflections” rather than scripture?
I wonder how much more, the words or our Lord and Savior, the only begotten Son of God, could be considered a Holy text?
Didn’t Peter seem to place the words of Paul on the same par as “the rest of Scripture”?
Do we think Paul would have allowed someone to call him a Rabbi? Or that he looked at himself as one? I mean he called his former self a blasphemer and his current status a slave of Yeshua.
I wouldn’t call the Apostolic text “Christian Scriptures” but, yes I would completely agree that they can’t be, and shouldn’t be, separated from the rest of Scripture. I’d say the words of Yeshua and those whom He taught, whom the Spirit of a Holy God brought to remembrance His words and deeds, are just as authoritative and as much scripture as the entire bible, the prophets as well as all authors of the Tanakh, that’s been preserved by a Holy God for 1000’s of years.
Mark, this is exactly where my thoughts headed.I know much of what I might think internally others would view as heretical. To me, if it came out of the mouth, or from YHVH or Yahshua, it is True…even though we may not fully understand it. I am about to start reading Proverbs…is this Holy Scripture? I believe there is Holy Wisdom there, but there are also writings that are very difficult as a woman to accept. I often give myself comfort in challenging scripture that these were written by men (meaning humans…with flawed perspectives. ..not just male). So, back to the main question, What defines “Holy Scripture “? Skip?
(On a side note, when one has a question on this forum, is there a way to see any responses to a question or comment without having to come back to this particular blog? I guess kind of like Facebook where you get a notification if someone responds to a comment you post?)
To answer your question about having to come back to the blog, in order to see the comments, or be able to get email notifications.
I’m currently in the process of rebuilding the website in order to bring it up to snuff with new web standards and practices.
We may be able to implement a notification functionality but, that’s not for sure, for many reasons but, I am in the beginning stages of developing a new site.
There will be some new features to the blogging platform, though. But it’s too early to be clearer on things right now.
Mark, Thanks for all the time and effort you expend to bring us Skip’s words. It is appreciated, though not often acknowledged. We look forward to whatever you can do to make us more involved, active and interrelated to each other by upgrading this site. For some of us this is our only community and the desire for fellowship, illumination and edification is frustrated not only by distance, but by distribution. I, for one, am thankful for you and your willingness to use your talents to further the Kingdom of G-d. May YHWH bless you and give you the wisdom of Bezalel and Aholiab in the construction of this “tabernacle”.
Your very welcome Michael. And thank you for your kind words and prayers. Always appreciated and always needed.
Blessings to you and your home.
YES! Michael, we used to have that feature when someone replied to our comments, we get an email notification, but that somehow has vanished, so we may miss responding back to that reply.
I guess this should be addressed to Mark as well.
Shalom.
Have you considered setting it up like a bulletin board, Where Skips blogs would be the conversation starter and the responses (and sub responses) would be in a more readable/trackable format? That would sublime.
Hello
I could add a “bulletin board” to the website if Skip wanted one.
However, that would defeat much of how TW is set up, functions with ie., how the TW goes out and interacts with mail chimp, and would be more of an impersonal type of interaction, than a blogging platform.
Those are 2 different type of formats.
Technology inside of a custom built WordPress theme, which this site is built on, is far more advanced and interactive, in every respect.
But, thank you for your input.
I see, thanks for your time. It was just that i find the bulletin board to be easier to track conversation threads with. however, i’m am supremely computer tech ignorant, so dismiss my suggestions!
MARK RANDALL, YOUR NEW IDEAS SEEM TO BE WORKING; I LOST THE BLOG I WAS WRITING ABOUT TEN PM TONIGHT, DEC. 7, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS MY COMPUTER, DID ALL THAT I KNOW TO DO, MAYBE THIRTY MINUTES OR LESS, AND THEN WHEN IT CAME BACK ON, I HAD SOME NEW FORMAT GOING IN FRONT OF ME: ONLY THE COMMENTS WERE SEPERATE FROM THE INFORMATION WRITTEN BY THE PERSON ON THE BLOGS, THAT WAS SEPERATE AGAIN . ANYWAY, DO NOT KNOW IF IT HELPS YOU, AND I AM TOO TIRED TO STUDY IT NOW, BUT THINK IT CAN BE USED TO SEND INDEPENDENT BLOG REPLIES, AND NOT ENTIRE DOZEN OR SO OF THEM. THANKS FOR WORKING SO DILIGENTLY! A WORKER IS MENTION MANY TIMES IN THE BIBLE, AND GREAT IS THE REWARD FOR THEM. LaVaye Billings
I hate to quibble, but Paul WAS a rabbi, wasn’t he? and the reason we have so much from him is because he was considered an authority, someone who could be asked questions of and be relied upon to give appropriate (jewish rabbi level) responses?
am i wrong?
Some argue that Paul was not a rabbi. I believe that they mean he wasn’t OFFICIALLY designated as one by the Rabbinate of Jerusalem (although obviously he was at one time on that path). But that overlooks the FUNCTION of a rabbi, even without the official title. A rabbi is recognized as the authority in a community because he has a deep knowledge of the Torah and his life demonstrates it. He is the one the community goes to in order to understand how the Torah applies. In this regard, all of the evidence points to Paul as a FUNCTIONAL rabbi.
By the way, Yeshua fits the same category. He is called “Rabbi” by those who recognize his authority but questioned by those who are looking for an official endorsement.
I understood Messiah place on the Rabbi scale, but was totally ignorant of any discussion on Paul’s.
My understanding of the whole road to Damascus thing was that he was headed, in official rabbi capacity, to rain death, hell and destruction on believers when he was stopped in his tracks.
Thanks for the clarification. >sigh< so hard not knowing everything these days! 😉
Must we not likewise treat ALL TRANSLATIONS as “mere” Commentaries?
The Bereans surely searched the Prophets for confirmation of the First Coming, and probably also, at least the genealogies and Psalmic revelations, in the Writings, for further clarification: Again using this as commentaries and not doctrine.
Is the incredible depth in TORAH not enough to settle all Theological arguments?
You know, I am no scholar or expert, but I have thought that so much of our way of thinking about history comes to us after centuries of purging and political and ecclesiastical correctness that recreated that history so as to justify actions and color impressions and the acceptance of authority elevated by man.
It is astounding to me to learn about the vast community of believers and followers of the Way that lay outside the purview of Rome for centuries. For centuries, people treasured, not the versions of the Tanakh filtered through the commentaries of the Hellenistic center of the classical world (which was largely Alexandria as well as Rome and their sisters in Gnostic and other heretical thought) but, say, the Aramaic versions of the Peshitta. The center of these followers early on moved to Syria to escape the persecution of Rome, as well as to the north, like Scotland, and also Africa; far from Rome. These people were very slow to become forced or persuaded to accept the apostasy centered in Rome and Alexandria, particularly when it came to the keeping of Sabbath, but the one thing most of them had in common was that accepted canon. People everywhere of good faith voluntarily agreed upon that canon. To me, that is important.
I think it may be tempting, in a Greek sort of way, to invent a ‘standard’ for truth, and then apply it. One of those standards that may be getting us into trouble could be the one that says that corruption happened gradually, and so therefore the farther back in history we get, the ‘purer’ we can expect to find things, like manuscripts. But isn’t it interesting that, in this way of thinking, we are left – with our carbon dating and our other methods of dating – with manuscripts that were copied in the blackest hearts of apostasy from the earliest time; namely, Alexandria and Rome, with the only qualification that they are ‘earliest’, all the while, putting the accepted texts of purer communities of faith, that almost ALL got eventually overrun by the apostates, in the shade. They undoubtedly had earlier texts, too, but all their vaults got raided and their texts typically got destroyed, too, until there was hardly a Bible left in Christendom. Except the ones, of course, that got left in the foxes’ dens. I guess you can tell I am not a huge fan of Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus.
Here is a link I really love of a book written by a man who went to Europe and studied original documents of early church history, and compiled them. This is the history I think we WEREN’T taught well, if at all. Wonder why?
http://www.sabbathtruth.com/portals/20/documents/Truth_Triumphant.pdf
The NT canonization process did not replace the Tanakh – it expanded it.
//There was no need for a written “New Testament” until Greek thinking began to replace Hebraic practice.// If Greek thinking is the ’cause’ of the written New Testament, then what thinking ’caused’ the writing of the Tanakh? Three times the Messiah responded to Satan with the phrase, “It is written”. There is obviously something special and important about a written text. Which is why the apostolic oral traditions were committed to written form.
Hello Ian
Those are good questions. It’s my opinion that the Apostolic text was purposed to be written down very early on. Just as the Torah was to be. I’m not sure if Greek thinking was the reason. I think it was the intention to begin with.
It seems clear that the first motivation for the Apostles to write the Apostolic Scriptures was their commission and desire to record the words and acts of Yeshua.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. (Matt 24:35, Mk 13:31, Lk 21:33)
How many would ever be able to make such a claim, that their words will never pass away? And how would that happen if they weren’t meant to be wrote down?
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (John 14:26)
I think we can fairly assume the accounts written by the Apostles to be authoritative if it’s the Ruach that’s bringing them to their remembrance.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matt 28:19–20)
but these have been written so that you may believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:31)
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; (1Cor 15:1–6)
All according to “Scripture”. The written text is our straight edge, our guideline. Without it, we’re in very big trouble. Blessed be His Name! He assures us that we won’t be.
And of course, The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8)
But if the NT is motivated by the dying of the first witnesses, and the majority of the NT is really correspondence about specific halacha in various communities, then writing it down make sense on purely human terms. This seems to me to be categorically different than “Thus spoke the LORD” literature in the Tanakh. The cause of writing the portions of the Tanakh that deliver a message from God is the revelation itself, whereas the cause of writing the rest of the material can be understood from purely human motivations. Yes, there is something special about the written text, but what is special about it is that it contains information vital to the believing community, not necessarily that it was all spoken by God Himself.
We have canonized the material because it is inspired and sacred to the community. But canonization is a process that reflects what is already in place. Now that it is canonized, we treat it differently, but that doesn’t mean it was always considered in this way.
Back to you. 🙂
Re: We have canonized Scripture. Operative word: “we”
I’m not sure what you mean by saying “the NT is motivated by the dying of the first witnesses”. Because the Apostolic text, was motivated by and brought to us by, the Spirit of YHVH.
My premise comes from this perspective. On top of what I’ve already quoted from the Scriptures.
Not one single person in all of the Tanakh can say “their words” will not pass away as long as there is heaven and earth. Not one single person in all of the Tanakh can claim to be divine at the least, Deity at best. Not a single prophet or person in all of the Tanakh can claim to be the only begotten Son of God. Not one single person in all of the Tanakh would or ever did claim to have been around for all eternity and that nothing came into being without or apart from them. No place in all the Tanakh do we see a claim that any person would ever be called the word of the creator of heaven and earth made flesh. And I could go on and on.
And this person, Yeshua Messiah, the only begotten, I say Son of God but, the Apostolic text goes way further. This Yeshua, our only means for Salvation and right standing with YHVH. He comes, He speaks He teaches and He commissions those whom He taught to do the same, and He tells them that the Spirit of YHVH will bring His words and deeds to remembrance. For what? To not be wrote down for us? To just be looked at as commentary and halacha within the Messianic communities? To not be just as, if not more so, authoritative than the majority of Tanakh writers? I mean He Himself says He only speaks and does what YHVH tells and shows Him? Is that not at least on par with the writers of the Tanakh? I’d say far more so.
This just doesn’t make any sense to me at all, based on what I read in the Apostolic text, or the prophecies concerning this Messiah, to diminish or down play the words of Yeshua and those whom He taught and that the Spirit of YHVH carried along to write down their witness and words for us and for all before and after us, as mere stories and commentaries.
And yet the man you describe has not ever been recorded as saying “write these (MY) words…” in any fashion.
With the exception of the gospels, what we have made holy are a series of personal letters, we don’t even have both sides of the conversation.
Doesn’t that make you wonder?
Make me wonder what? Or are you really asking, doesn’t it make me question?
Were the words and deeds of Yeshua, that the Apostles were “told” would be given them and brought to they’re remembrance, NOT God-breathed and given for the purpose of being written down?
Absolutely they were and are.
Is He, Yeshua, not the only means by which we’re afforded Salvation made right before a Holy God? Most definitely!
That any words He spoke which are directly from the Father, weren’t intended to be wrote down?
Yes, of course, they were.
That we should put any less credence and authority in them, than what Moses or any prophet said or wrote?
We most definitely should.
And… now wait.. do I really need to repeat what I’ve already wrote, or the significance of those things pointed out? No, I don’t think there’s any point in it. Not if in fact you don’t see the significance of them yourself.
All due respect Bp Wade, no, your position, makes no sense to me, and doesn’t ring true with what I read and see from Yeshua, in Him, from Him, and from those whom He taught and the Spirit of YHVH led to write down the words they did, to be honest.
I’m not quibbling about the Gospels, all good, what ‘makes me wonder’ is the letters that have been cannonized, the correspondence between private indivduals that have been used and distorted through the ages to fit the whim of whomever and whatever current political wind dictated.
The Scriptures that Timothy learned at his mother’s need were sufficient, the ‘NT’ didn’t even exist. I promise, when i learned/realized THAT, it was a total eye opener for me.
The part of the NT that is strictly private correspondence between two entities that has been formally cannonized was done so by humans who had political and other agendas, that’s my belief, and they dictated as to what was going to be fed to the masses from that perspective. It made and makes a huge difference to me, this understanding, in how i respond to the NT.
My apologies that my stance (seemingly) is bewildering to you. It’s just my opinion and it is, in and of itself, neutral in its impact to anyone else.
In my final sentence, I should have said, “Which is why the apostolic traditions were eventually confined to written form.”
Are the Gentiles the ten lost tribes?
Two opinions: 1) Yes 2) No
It gets into British Israel type of theory in my opinion.
It’s all irrelevant though because you are grafted into Israel by Messiah. Truth be told though you were grafted into Israel before Messiah you just did Torah and you would get grafted in. Trouble is try telling a Jew that you are grafted in without being Jewish and you’ll get some odd looks. There is no Hebrew word for, “Religion” it’s all about what you do rather then what you believe. That means, if you do the things that God tells Israel to do then you are part of Israel if you don’t it doesn’t really matter what you believe.
Full circle “Are the Gentiles the ten lost tribes” my thought is no – I’m sure someone reading would say yes and at the end it’s irrelevant because you are grafted in faith of Messiah and by doing Torah so in theory you would not be lost any more you would be part of Israel.
All 12 tribes are lost 😉 … Spatially and Spiritually.
If all 12 tribes are lost, then so are we; for we were grafted into that original tree — there is no other.
As a shepherd seeks his flock in the day that he is among his scattered sheep, so I will seek out My sheep and will deliver them from all the places where they were scattered in a day of cloud, and thick cloud.
(Ezekiel 34:12 LITV)
This is God re-gathering his flock, and His flock is Israel. If we wish to be part of that re-gathering, we must come alongside. They aren’t lost, but we may be if we think there is another tree.
Pieter, I love the way you play words. I do that to.
Actually, now that i think on it, so does Skip.
And if I may intrude on what Skip referred to in regards to finding more information on Bob Gorelik’s website.
I just recently completed his new website also. I haven’t uploaded it to eshavbooks.org yet, though.
I say this because Bob Gorelik has a 6 part series, as Skip is referencing, which he did on two house theology, I haven’t actually listened to it but, it’s available if you’re a member of Eshav Books, and if you want just the individual series, you can get it right now on his new website here ESHAVBOOKS.
You can also find some good information HERE by Tim Hegg.
Hope you don’t mind Skip, that I provided the above information and links.
Mark,
The link (HERE by Tim Hegg) doesn’t work, at least on my computer.
Thanks for the addition. We learn in the thoughts of others. Keep it coming.
No one that I know suggests that ALL the Gentiles are really the 10 “lost” tribes. That seems quite impossible considering that Gentiles were around when the 12 tribes were not “lost.” The current idea of the lost tribes is that all Gentiles WHO LATER ACCEPT YESHUA AS MESSIAH are really the “lost” tribes. Not ALL, but just these few. This theory is known as Two House theology. It is very recent. For an absolutely compelling critique of the whole idea, please listen to Bob Gorelik’s analysis (found on eshavbooks.org). There is VERY little to support such a view.
Patty, my understanding is that strictly speaking, the word ‘gentile’ is a way of saying ‘not jewish’.
If you take this definition literally, AND ‘jewish’ is defined as the ones w/Torah and know YHVH, then the direct answer to your stated questions is this: Yes, ALL ‘gentiles’ are lost. Whether or not they are the ‘lost tribes’, defining tribes as those that are jewish by their bloodline, then the answer would probably be ‘no’, because, as Skip has stated, there are and were plenty of people who were not jewish by blood prior to the tribes being ‘lost’.
Hello Patty
I’m not sure how the “10 lost tribes” comes into the conversation, to be honest.
Number one, the “10 lost tribes” is a theory, not even theology, really. No place mentioned in scripture. I personally feel as though this line of thinking borders real close on replacement theology. Not that you are but, rather the two-house/10 lost tribe/Ephraimite teachings.
We, Gentile believers in Yeshua/ converts to the sect of the Way/ of the ekklesia of Yeshua, by and large, are not from any real tribe of Israel.
Take me personally. I’m a Greman/Scottish-Irish person. I’m fairly certain there is no real ethnic tribes of Jacob blood line in my history. I’ve been grafted in/ brought into the citizenship of, Israel, through Yeshua Messiah. But, in no way could I claim to be from some unknown lost tribe. Thereby making me all the sudden Jewish or transformed into a different ethnicity other than what I am.
Just my two cents on it…
Thank you Derek S and Pieter for your responses. ☺️
Tough sell with this TW. My question would is,… Besides misinterpretation, do you find anything written in the “New” testament that challenges the Truth as represented in the Tanakh?
No, I don’t. But it is not a question of one challenging the other. Especially is the later is an extension of the former. Is there anything about the NT that could be considered INDEPENDENTLY of the Tanakh?
One of the recent Dutch theologians, Dr. A.A. van Ruler, put it this way:, “The Old Testament is the real Bible and the New Testament is an inspired commentary upon it .”
Sounds good to me.
I like John 5:46-47 as an entering wedge. “Believing” the writings of Moses seems here to be a prerequisite to understanding the messiah. So for everyone who wants to get to know their Savior better:
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
They make a distinction between stranger and Gentile. And talk about the mixed multitudes that came out of the exodus.
I don’t see how you can say that Moses’ encounters were more important than Paul’s. And surely Yeshua’s words should be considered God breathed.
Why wouldn’t we want to “canonize” Yeshua’s words? Seriously, they’re just “commentary”??
Exodus 20:24 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. KJV (because i like KJV)
The premise being, Patty, is that man can not improve upon what YHVH has created. When he tries, it is polluted, defiled, in a word, unacceptable.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
“We” can not add to or take from Scriptures. “We” (man, as in HUman) are simply not authorized to do so. In fact we are DIRECTED to NOT do so.
And yet, here we are.
As I understand it, the major criteria for canonization of “scripture” was that the text had to have been written / authored by an apostle. Modern scholarship has concluded that 1Timothy and 2Timothy were not written by Paul and are pseudonymous, i.e., written by someone falsely claiming to be Paul. How should we approach these “scriptures”? Are they inspired?
please consult McDonald, The Biblical Canon
These are Messianic believers who are claiming this. Gentile ten lost tribes of Israel and Paul is addressing them not the stranger. Check it out if you like. Maybe that is what skip is referencing and he has already given us bob Gorelik’s website. I’m thinking what mark is thinking ?
I’m very aware of the messianic thoughts/teachings.
Thinking is encouraged.
The Gentiles are the ten lost tribes. Coreection?
When the 10 tribes “called Israel” was divorced, they became goyim / gentiles in Hebrew thought … which somewhat complicates all theories and theologies: It may well be that when Paul went to the “gentiles”, he went to Israel (all 12 tribes … whenre the “Yehudaites” clearly caused him, as a Benjaminite (not a Jew … a name of recent invention) serious problems.
Genetically the “Palestinians” have been shown to be the real Judahites / tribe of Judah (“Jews” in some people’s understanding).
People like to throw in the false “British Israelism / racism” to slander the understanding of the tribes. But it must be remembered that in Zimbabwe / Uganda / Ethiopia / India / etc. there are groups claiming decent of the tribes. The pigment in their skin is irrelevant as an opposing argument, as any knowledgeable breeder should know.
I am uncertain of your claim that the “Palestinians” are real Judahites. Please provide the references.
Some genetic studies / articles I read in about 2004. Will see if I can find it. Should be interesting to know the truth… especially today.
Mark earlier quoted 1 cor 15.3 ..For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures,… What scriptures does Paul refer ?? Is 53??
I’ve wondered the same thing. Their are scriptural allusions to a suffering servant, but where is the smoking gun? What would you say to those that read that verse: “.. that Messiah died because of our sins as repeatedly patterned in the scriptures….”. Christ perfectly fits the pattern, even the cyclical nature of Israel’s apostasy.
One example: There are significant historical parallels between Christ’s life and that of Jeremiah, especially considering the time frame before the dual destructions of Jerusalem and the Temple. People will openly talk about “types of Christ” in the “OT”. But as I read in Jeremiah, God calls him “Son of man” over and over, and I cannot but help notice that Yeshua referred to himself by this title quite a bit.
As long as we avoid exegesis in arrears (reading back into the text things that occurred long after the text), we may see patterns in the PRESENT author’s view, that is, in his historical consciousness. Jeremiah is an example. Jeremiah does not become a type of the Messiah until AFTER the Messiah. This should give us caution. The patterns we see now could not have been seen earlier and that means we are susceptible to transporting our cultural ideas into the exegesis. There is no better example of this than the constant predictions of the “end.”
One of the significant questions of Messianic texts. Thanks for pointing it out. LOTS OF DEBATE over this.
A devils advocate… Are all these scriptural documented records not the individuals own view of how they understood the Ten Commandments – the only undisputed records as inspired by God and meant to be taught in all generations… The records as claimed to be written by Moses and maybe Joshua could be God inspired as they were specific and purposefully documented. The majority of the rest of the scriptures were records claimed to have been documented years after actually occurring narrated by someone or on behalf of someone, years after the event…
Another question would be why are the evangelistic books only written or documented between 30 and 90 years after the death of Jesus… Who can remember such detail after the lapse of so many years…
Let us play the telephone game… I tell you a story you repeat it down a conversation line. is it the original message after say 20 people, what about after 10 or 30 years, not to say 300 to 700 years after actually being uttered the first time…
If we continue with these negative thoughts how can we even write and try to explain our understanding of the records…
Question 1 Do we believe in God (Yes/No)
Question 2 Do we believe He created everything seen and not seen (Yes / No)
Question 3 Do we need some form of confirmation of the power and purpose of God to find comfort in our convictions (Yes / No)
If no then clearly not concerned with the scripture.
If yes then clearly we read the scriptures in a hope to find some answer to a life experience or conviction we have.
And what do we find, history records of people trying to convince others that there actually is a God… And it is His will that they need to find and foster in their lives…
If our answer is Yes we need to accept the records as they are as all inspired by God, as the scientists today still cannot say why the stars seldom change place and relationship with the earth during the earth rotation while the sun and moon “change position” as the day or night progresses…
The same is for me concerning the biblical records. The essence Jesus or Emmanuel – God in us is the center point of all the records – The Sun. While the Christ messiah was only revealed when doubt and hope was lost – The Moon. And it is with this understanding that I propose we read the scriptural records to discover where we (earth) is in relation to the sun and moon. The witnesses or biblical records (and your own insight and testimony) are there but as little specs or comfort in the progress of us manifesting the will of God in our lives… (The Stars) It is not about these heavenly instruments that we need to be concerned it is about our way of doing things (Bear fruit or be barren)…
I am sorry you seem so confused about the history of the revelation given to the people of Israel. There is absolutely NO attempt to prove the existence of God in Scripture. Nor is there any attempt to treat the Messiah in terms of astrology. Perhaps you need to reconsider your approach and concern yourself with what the original audience thought, not with how you wish to interpret the text according to your view of science and horoscopes. Just a suggestion.
And yes. FOR ME We are not Rabbi, etc. we are apostles or prophets of the doctrine of Christ nothing more and nothing less… We are the apostolic era which is not the new testament biblical records of the reiteration of how individuals living 2000 years ago could become such a witness.
I think Laurita gives you the right choice. I find no evidence that anyone today (or within the last 1000 years or so) qualifies as a biblical navi (prophet) despite many claims by those who wish the title. Refer to my writings on the characteristics of a prophet in the Bible to clarify this. As for apostles, I have much the same reservations regarding the plethora of those claiming the title today. Perhaps they have not considered the consequences or the obligations and simply want the status. Finally, claiming that we are in the apostolic era but the actual writers of the documents concerning the Messiah were not seems to me to be a gross misunderstanding of both history and exegesis.
Hello, Seeker – I wanted to say “hi” and welcome. I like your interest level and attitude! I hope you stick around and continue to mix it up.
Well, I know we toss around words sometimes quite carelessly, and I think the word ‘prophet’ has seen rather a lot of use lately, but I wonder how many people today would qualify as a Biblical prophet? Skip has done some really good work on defining ‘prophet’, but I don’t think, by the Biblical definition, it is something people can choose to be, or go to a school for. I would really like to be introduced to someone today who fits the criteria – vs. all the ones who think the criteria don’t matter. Personally, I don’t want to be one. If I have to follow the Biblical definition of one, that is…
SKIP I make the claim of trying to convince others from the 20 plus different Names provided of God in the Old Testament and the reference to God as being revealed in different forms… This is not impossible but is clearly an indication that the authors were explaining something the audience was not convinced of, were they convinced of this the use of the common name Jehovah would have sufficed but it was preferred to make a specific statement – my personal view. Your explanation of Yahweh during you discussion of the Guardian Angle and how we are created unto His image and likeness explains also how the individual experienced God unless I understood this incorrectly…
What I wanted to say with the statement is that (We will either be proclaiming the word or will of God (Apostle) or we will be reprimanding and inspiring (Prophet) each other as servants not ministry titles…
LAURITA: HAS ANYONE EVER TOLD YOU, YOU HAVE BEEN SENT TO ASSIST IN CLARIFYING A BIBLICAL QUESTION OR LIFE CONCERN RELATING TO GOD AND HIS WILL… If yes, then according to my understanding this role you fulfilled was being a living prophet…