by iamwhoiam 52 Replies latest watchtower bible
PS-
The Zealots were violent but still the counter philosophy of peace and pacifism was in full swing within Judaism, where is the mention of this- it would kind of take the wind out of these Disciples sails should they credit other Sages and schools who originated and popularized them
It just adds to the evidence that the NT writers like Luke, under discussion here, were playing loose with facts of history like most every Christian group did who gulped this porridge down with credulity.
Ok, so where in the OT or the writing of the sages does it say to LOVE your enemy? to pray for them that persecute you?
I have found these:
Exodus 23:4-5. "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him".
Proverbs 24:17-18 there is a warning that we should not gratuitously gloat over our enemy when he is in trouble. "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him".
25:21-22 we read "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee".
Yet these are more "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and not the degree of love and compasion that Jesus was preaching.
Can you point out some examples?
The Hillel school took the responsiblity for the actual compilation of the Talmud, the Mishnah was codified by Judah ha-Nasi and the Amoraim were credited with the Gemara. Pirke Abot are the compilation of The Sayings. Just some references for those wishing to do research.
One of the customs illustrating widespread Jewish concern for their fellows and travelers was to put our little flags announcing meal time. Tanna of the Mishanah, Akiba, would prepare the bed of travelers. Traditions like these were taught to children- ettiquette, hospitality, greeting strangers at the door to their homes, setting food in front of the traveler. The Mishnah says 'Let the poor be members of your household'.
If one only read the NT most of that would be totally missing from the conception of a Gentile Christian toward the Jewish community.
Not to be nitpicky, but that is not what we are discussing.
As Jesus pointed out:
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Sure Christian charity is more reknown than Jewish and no, it didn't start from Jesus but from Judaism.
Jesus just took it to the next level it seems.
It is NOT a slight on Judaism, just as it is not a slight on the teaching that existed BEFORE Judaisim and that one can argue that the Jewish sages took THIER views from.
PS-
One of the beauties of the Talmud was the careful inclusion of multiple arguments and ideas, preserved for later students and generations. 'Paul' gets outdebated and the flaws in his arguments exposed and off he runs to a naive audience.
The arguement here is- Did Jesus take it to another level or did the 'other level' already exist but the NT writers are loath to mention it.
One of the beauties of the Talmud was the careful inclusion of multiple arguments and ideas, preserved for later students and generations. 'Paul' gets outdebated and the flaws in his arguments exposed and off he runs to a naive audience.
You of course have evidence of Paul's spanking?
The arguement here is- Did Jesus take it to another level or did the 'other level' already exist but the NT writers are loath to mention it.
Well, it ( that other level) didn't exist in the OT, perhaps in later Rabbinic teachings?
PS-
It is a bit of argument from silence or deduction from lack of evidence. In this case knowing what Judaism was really about at the time of Jesus and Paul and seeing these two avoid almost entirely the issues that were part of most Jewish Schools, the lives of ordinary Jews, and mostly the misrepresentations about Judaism from the Pauline party line, Jesus adds his own little Ooops and overflys such as the Matthew verse.. Tackle 'you must be Born Again or you cannot see the Kingdom of God' both from a philosophical perspective and a Jewish perspective and see what you come up with. Airball over the Backboard.
So, in other words, you have an opinion.
Dude, you keep bring it up but no matter how much you say it, it doesn't make it automatically the "way it was".
The fact that Jesus was silent on the things he AGREED on or that he mentiones views and thoughts that were not typical of mainstream judiaisim, whatever that was in 1st century Palestine because not even the Jews can tell you that one with 100% accuracy, none of that means as much as you would LIKE it to me.
Fact is, the very critiques you have of them are the very things that made the message catch on.
Tackle 'you must be Born Again or you cannot see the Kingdom of God' both from a philosophical perspective and a Jewish perspective and see what you come up with
That teaching had very little to do with "orthodox" Judaisim of the time, hence his explantion to Nicodemus.
It was a NEW teaching, as such it can't be held inline with Judaic teachings.
See LWT's comment from the other thread on the Holy Spirit and the history of 'Christians' claiming to have lived by it for the past 2000 years. They were some serious sadists.
There are volumns of Jewish Literature from the time of Jesus and Paul. Most 'Christians' enjoy the ignorance of bliss never knowing the thin shell that their beliefs rest on. It is superflous to say you alone can Save someone who is already 'saved'.
AGuest..A 30 second google search came up with this : http://bible.cc/luke/1-3.htm Note the footnote.
I read your reference, dear PP (again, peace to you!)... en totale... thank you! Unfortunately, all I see are various opinions and commentaries on what [others believe] Luke "meant" or did not mean. Most of which is inaccurate. For example:
From Barnes:
"2. We see the nature of Luke's inspiration. It was consistent with his using his natural faculties or his own powers of mind in investigating the truth. God, by His Holy Spirit, presided over his faculties, directed them, and kept him from error.
In order - This word does not indicate that the exact order of time would be observed, for that is not the way in which he writes; but it means distinctly, particularly, in opposition to the confused and broken accounts to which he had referred before."
Mr. Barnes is incorrect in that (1) he totally overlooks the Greek transliteration of the word kathexes for his personal opinion, and (2) Luke was not inspired... by the Holy Spirit or anything other than his commission from Theophilus. We can discern that it is opinion because Barnes doesn't identify the source of his position that the word means anything other than in consecutive, successive, subsequent, or chronological order... including the Holy Spirit.
From Clarke:
"the Spirit of God presided over and directed his inquiries, so that he discovered the whole truth, and was preserved from every particle of error."
Again, it was Theophilus... and not the Most Holy One of Israel... who commissioned Luke. Now, if you want to speculate that perhaps Theophilus was inspired to ask Luke TO make an account, well, okay. But the question would be, why didn't the Holy Spirit just tell Theophilus what occurred himself? Indeed, why didn't he just tell Luke... rather than having him interview others? The Holy Spirit leads into all truth... so that ones do not need ANYONE to be teaching them. So, what need did Luke have TO interview others... when the very One about whom he wrote could have told him himself?
From Gill:
"Being moved to it by the Holy Ghost; for he did not undertake this work of himself, merely by the motion of his own will, but was influenced, and directed to it by the Spirit of God, as well as by him assisted in it:"
Same thing. He undertook at the request/direction of... and influence by... and most likely received some manner of payment from... Theophilus... not the Most Holy One of Israel... OR the Holy Spirit, Christ.
The other commentaries not only adhere to the word meaning consecutive order, but make no reference to the Holy Spirit. I don't know what their reasoning is for the second, but mostly likely it has to do with the actual transliteration of the word as to the first, which Barnes, Clarke and Gill seem to disagree with... but state no source for such disagreement (other than opinion).
MY reasoning for the second (that Luke was not inspired, by God, the Holy Spirit, or otherwise) is twofold: (1) because of what it means to BE so inspired... and (2) the fact that Luke did not give credit TO God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit... saying that it was one of them who TOLD him to write... which those who ARE inspired always do.
To be "inspired," dear one, means:
(1) that one is IN SPIRIT (i.e., has transcended the flesh... by means of an anointing with holy spirit which they received FROM the Holy Spirit... so as to be IN spirit)... when
(2) one is GIVEN what to write (so that one doesn't HAVE to interview others, as the Holy Spirit leads one into such truth himself and not through others); led by the Holy Spirit AS they write (so as to know WHAT to write so, again, no need to interview anyone); for which
(3) such one is TOLD to write.
None of these are true for ANY of the NT writers... except John. All of the others wrote as if from memoirs... or in the present (as Paul, et al., did with their letters). True, what one may KNOW of God, Christ/Holy Spirit, spirit matters, etc., may be the result of direct influence/teaching by the Holy Spirit... but that does not make it "inspired." What is inspired is considered "scripture" or "sacred writings", which the NT is not. The only "scripture" in the NT... is the Revelation GIVEN to John, who was IN SPIRIT at the time he wrote... and TOLD to write.
The only "scripture" in the OT is "Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets." The rest are histories, chronologies, letters, and records... all of which were combined WITH "scripture"... to create the Bible.
I hope this helps!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
