Since I have a profound interest in the Messianic Movement, I have decided to post a question for everyone. What are sound doctrines for the Messainic Community to adopt?
There are no "sound doctrines." How do I know this? Because nobody agrees on anything other than that it is a grand idea. So, don't worry about it. The notions will just give you an intellectual noogie.
To give some perspective, the Messianic Movement is in general, an acceptance of Jesus by some of the Jewish Community, and for non Jewish believers it is a recognition of the relevance of the Jewish roots of our faith. So you have two traditionally divergent comminities coming together under a set of realizations that bring unity to them.
ONe of the main problems I have challenged believers to overcome, it the problem that the traditional gentile Christian doctrines of Trinity presents to Jewish people who might accept Jesus, if it didn't come with baggage. In this case, Trinity presents a huge load of baggage since it flies in the face of the Jewish blood spilled over concept of one God.
If the Christian community has one thing right, that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and nie things wrong, such as mistaken doctrines, imagine the barroer this presents to Jewish people from even considering the relavance of Jesus Christ in their lives.
You know...after stepping outside of this and looking back in the window you would not believe how weird it is to watch people talk about the fine points of Christianity.
There is the Father, The Son, and a third thinking being called the Holy Ghost that POHsesses Christians. In addition to that there is Satan. And then there are a zillion angels and demons.All of these beings fly about the Universe and live forever. In addition to that there are a few people that did not die mentioned in the Bible.
Now here are all these beings who are immortal. Greater and lesser gods just like many other religions.Zillions of 'em.
And Christians have the balls to say Christianity is a Monotheistic religion.
Tex: Compared to the atheist "real" point of view:
It's to complicated for me (nonbeliever) so I don't want to believe it. Better to live for no reason and die for no reason, than believe that my life has meaning.
I don't know if you've heard of this Bryson, but as I have understood you to be a studious person and invested in testing and proving beliefs by logical means, I think you will find this very interesting.
www.netzarim.co.il
It's a website that goes into great depth and effort to delineate and distinguish what the historical figure around whom so much controversy has spun for the past near-two millenia, was actually about. The details are many and intertwined, but it is the most comprehensive/continuous historical explanation of the origin of the fame of the Galilean teacher and the procession of events and evolution of ideas surrounding him that has become such a fractured and splayed ideology - if not mythology.
I might be able to give a quick run down, and would like to test my comprehension thus far. Accordingly: he was a Jew, a Ribi (greater authority than Rabbi), a Pharisee (the only way to be ordained), and only intended to preserve and further the Jewish culture - Torah - in the classic Sinaitic tradition. He was the Tannaitic-era version of an Orthodox Jew. His hand-chosen talmidim (disciples/students) were also fully Torah observant in the rabbinic tradition, and they were not in agreement or cooperation with Hellenist sectarians such as Stephanos (Steven), Paulos (Paul), Barnabas, Timotheos (Timothy), et al.
The original "Netzarim" ONLY accepted the Hebrew "Matityahu" account of Ribi Yehoshua's life/career, as others had been colored with degradation in telling, foreign ideas, rumors and, quite simply, were sourced from initially disinterested and disassociated - ignorant - individuals (gentiles), concerning the culture and circumstances, not to mention specifics. Thus, among other reasons, the idea that a new religion was intended. Barring NT works of sectarian interest and any that would reflect that fabricated and super-imposed agreement, what remains is heavily edited to reflect contemporary doctrines of the redactors/compilers/translators and those in whose employ they were acting - to which there is historical documented admission, rather than the original meaning.
The Roman idolatrous syncretist religious (Catholic) connection to Jerusalem that claimed "Peter" as the first pope was a retrojection - an after-the-fact fabrication, and was passed off after a militarily forceful ousting and eradication of the Netzarim as a group, along with all Jews in Jerusalem in 135 C.E. - though some individuals survived and escaped to only ever be known as Jews - not specifically Netzarim. Protestantism, which is an offshoot of that Roman idolatrous syncretist religion, and child of the misojudaic (not anti-semitic - arabs are semites, too) Martin Luther, also is without legitimate connection to the original, fully - non-selectively Torah observant Jewish followers of Ribi Yehoshua.
This is what I understand to be put forth, and I cannot find the slightest objection. I look forward to discussions on it!
The first generation followers of Jesus were all Jews. They believed in One God, and in Jesus as his Messiah/Messenger, and they thought that God's resurrection of the dead Jesus proved Jesus' special status.
As Jews, they already had a collection of books they considered to be Scripture, the Tanakh, along with its Greek translation, the Septuagint, or LXX. Monotheism and the LXX were their heritage.
Over the course of the 1st century, the followers of Jesus Messiah and the rest of the Jews split. This new sect, at first "followers of the Way," started to call themselves Christians. They moved out of Palestine and into the Greco-Roman world, and they started to write books reflecting their own, unique views. However, they still claimed Monotheism and the LXX as their heritage — and this was reinforced by the Greco-Roman world, which admired ancient religions (the Jews), while thinking of new religions as "superstitio."
Eventually, some Christian churchmen with too much time on their hands started asking themselves how they could intellectually, rationally reconcile Monotheism (and they were absolutely certain they were Monotheists) with God the Father, another God the Son, the Presence of God (Holy Spirit), and even, finally, Mary, Mother of God ("theotokos").
It took over 300 years to work on this. Dozens of churchmen had dozens of "solutions," all differing. There were street riots with people getting killed, lots of people, and churches burned to the ground during these arguments. Finally, the notion of a Trinity gained more followers than other ideas, and further arguments (and riots) made it look like the "persons" in the Trinity got along in a way that was still "One". But when you sit down and actually try to parse it out, it doesn't, and the Catholic Church, they guys who came up with this alleged solution, said further argument is a waste of time because it is not explainable: it is a "mystery." That's right, a "mystery."
As Jerome said, "This Trinity business is bullshit invented by a bunch of dead guys a long time ago." And I would add that it has nothing to do with living a Christlike life, because he was into action, not words.
Menss: Over the course of the 1st century, the followers of Jesus Messiah and the rest of the Jews split.
Merk: How do you corroborate this, upon which the rest of the reply hinges?
Menss: "...and further arguments (and riots) made it look like the "persons" in the Trinity got along in a way that was still "One". But when you sit down and actually try to parse it out, it doesn't..."
Merk: I think this basic scenario applies to the entirety of your assertion. Did you visit the website? Although I also reject the trinity idea, I would liken and relate - obviously - further subscription to protestant xtianity to Martin Luther's euphemistic "antinomianism", which cites "immorality". This is without acknowledging the complete and continuous body - to which the standard of morality that antinomianism proposes as it's heart (10 commandments[?]) is inextricably sustenant and integral - Sinaitic Pharisaic rabbinic tradition. I do not propose that all things termed "rabbinic" properly adhere to and exemplify this body, but the website also goes into reasoning for this directive in distinction as well.
Start here, with Bart Ehrman's "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (http://tinyurl.com/3d367kn) and continue with J.D.G. Dunn's "Jews & Christians, the Parting of the Ways, AD 70 to 135 (http://tinyurl.com/3f4xuad). The links are to the titles at Amazon.com.
Vatic...this is just an aside. If I were you I would rename this website to something less self laudatory. Maybe "Vatic's Musings" or "Vatic's Ruminations".
I know it's hard to be humble when you are a Prophet of the Most High. But it will serve your purpose to be humble.
M: I'm not really in the market for that sort of thing at that sort of price. If you have a copy, however, I have a book that is part of the Netzarim "orientation" - "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue". Perhaps we could ship them in exchange.
jerome: If I were you I would rename this website to something less self laudatory.
M: If it were something like "Vatic's Empire" I would agree, but there's nothing wrong with self-proposed insight. Principle vs. merit...
The Trinity was a doctrine that the early church Father put together because of what Lord Jesus said and how the Apostles saw Lord Jesus. You can't say "God saves you" and " Lord Jesus is the savior" There is a problem right there. Then who is this " Holy Spirit" the Lord Jesus and the Apostles talk about.
Small minds can't see passed that, therefore the Trinity was created. It was more for the un-accepting Jews than for the pagans. Why should we care, we had thousand of gods. So three would be no problem to believe.
If you could see, you would believe. But since you say you can't, then that is why you can't believe..
Anyone who see Lord Jesus as the Son of God, has no choice but to believe him to be a God. Now if people have a hard time working that out in their brain, is only because they have doubts in the power of God.
Merkavah: The original "Netzarim" ONLY accepted the Hebrew "Matityahu" account of Ribi Yehoshua's life/career, as others had been colored with degradation in telling, foreign ideas, rumors and, quite simply, were sourced from initially disinterested and disassociated - ignorant - individuals (gentiles), concerning the culture and circumstances, not to mention specifics.
V: Jesse. Is it possible to obtain today anything that is Hebrew Matityahu? I was unaware that such a thing existed.
Merkavah: Thus, among other reasons, the idea that a new religion was intended. Barring NT works of sectarian interest and any that would reflect that fabricated and super-imposed agreement, what remains is heavily edited to reflect contemporary doctrines of the redactors/compilers/translators and those in whose employ they were acting - to which there is historical documented admission, rather than the original meaning.
V: I have to agree that the question warrants examination: Did Jesus intend to "Start a new Religion?" I have to say that I find absolutely no basis for thinking he did.
Merkavah: Protestantism, which is an offshoot of that Roman idolatrous syncretist religion, and child of the misojudaic (not anti-semitic - arabs are semites, too) Martin Luther, also is without legitimate connection to the original, fully - non-selectively Torah observant Jewish followers of Ribi Yehoshua.
V: I'm with you insofar as that Martin Luther didn't seem to have any grasp of the Jewishness of Jesus original followers. This illusion of Christian/Jewish segregation of religions is a major problem.
Menssana:However, they still claimed Monotheism and the LXX as their heritage — and this was reinforced by the Greco-Roman world, which admired ancient religions (the Jews), while thinking of new religions as "superstitio."
V: Non Jewish accounts of Jesus and his early followers is hard to find. It would help me if you could guide me to some Greco-Roman accountings of Jesus or the Early disciples.
Menss: Over the course of the 1st century, the followers of Jesus Messiah and the rest of the Jews split.
Merk: How do you corroborate this, upon which the rest of the reply hinges?
V: The Jewish commuity itself will corroborate this split between brothers over Jesus. It seems that jesus followers were insturcted to flee tot he mountains and not follow any false Messiahs, when the siege started. This provoked the anger of patriot Jews who felt Jesus' disciples were traitors to the nation for fleeing from the Romans. The rift is historical and political in nature more than religious.
Merkavah: Merk: I think this basic scenario applies to the entirety of your assertion. Did you visit the website? Although I also reject the trinity idea,
V: I was wondering which side you would fall on concerning the concept of trinity.
Mensanna: Start here, with Bart Ehrman's "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (http://tinyurl.com/3d367kn) and continue with J.D.G. Dunn's "Jews & Christians, the Parting of the Ways, AD 70 to 135 (http://tinyurl.com/3f4xuad). The links are to the titles at Amazon.com.
V: Quality titles for sure. I just kind of cringe about Bart Ehrman since he personally is spiritually derilect and the defacto champion of rationalist skeptics of the faith. But he is encyclopedic which is useful.
Tex: Small minds can't see passed that, therefore the Trinity was created. It was more for the un-accepting Jews than for the pagans. Why should we care, we had thousand of gods. So three would be no problem to believe.
V: That's a good point based on cultural criticisms. Christian converts from among the gentile pagans would be far more likely to have no objections to the concept of trinity. Like you said, "Why should we (they) care". I have to wonder if the divisiveness of the doctrine against Jewish people was not somehow intended, like the Pledge of Allegiance insertion of "Under God" is intended to be divisive against communist?
V: I think we should have a discussion on the ontology of Jesus, if the "Trinity" is brought into question. As helpful as it would be to Jewish people in accepting Jesus, for the trinity baggage to be discredited, what would we have as a correct ontology to describe Jesus? As you know Jerome, for me it all begins with the "Appearance of the Glory of the Lord". It is in this form that those who literally saw Jesus before his incarnation and those who literally see Jesus after his ascension, do see him. That is the correct ontology of Jesus the being, that unites Christian believers with Jewish Witnesses in a seamless and continual faith expression.
V: You're tempting me. But without equivocation, either with or without the doctrine of trinity, I have seen ( as in understood ) the reality of Jesus.
In that sense of the word "seen", I have to disagree that the realization of Jesus is connected in any way to the doctrine of trinity as Tex is suggesting. In fact I believe that with the descrediting of the Trinity doctrines, a road block will be removed for the incorporation of Jesus among the Jewish community. Indeed without Trinity, it may well make it easier for the Jewish people to see Jesus in His proper place unto them.
V: Jesse. Is it possible to obtain today anything that is Hebrew Matityahu? I was unaware that such a thing existed.
Merk: Paqid Yirmeyahu - the Netzarim "clerk", or deacon(bishop, something?), if you must, has reconstructed a version working from several manuscripts. I don't know all the details, but a hard copy (paperbackish, spiral spine) is over $100 dollars. This is because there are no publishers cranking them out, obviously. The "Even Bokhan" is the main source, I believe.
V: The Jewish community itself will corroborate this split between brothers over Jesus. It seems that jesus followers were instructed to flee tot he mountains and not follow any false Messiahs, when the siege started. This provoked the anger of patriot Jews who felt Jesus' disciples were traitors to the nation for fleeing from the Romans. The rift is historical and political in nature more than religious.
Merk: Agreed. However, this only pertains to Netzarim in Jerusalem/Judah/Israel. We can presume that there were Netzarim (who more than likely didn't insist on the label - they were 100% Jewish, so it didn't endure) in the diaspora who weren't in the same position of pressing military duty, and so, survived. The ones in the land would not participate in the Bar Kochba revolt presumably because Bar Kochba was being promoted as the Messiah, more than any other reason. I assume that they were executed as insubordinates, as you posit. However, I'm more inclined to believe that the ones who actually fled (at least, when they were supposed to) were successful, and others who hesitated or remained, yet refused to join - probably not exclusively Netzarim, either - were the ones who were executed. There may have been related sentiments in other areas/communities when the news got out, but to think that all Jews everywhere who believed in Yehoshua were completely ousted based on that lone point is dubious.
If they had any moral dilemmas about how they should represent or identify themselves when it came to Yehoshua, they either assimilated (converted to xtianity, or became "reform Jews" [politically correct]), or were content sticking to Torah Judaism - without "Messianic" dogma. This is where the importance of details as to who Yehoshua really was come into play, since people think "what's the difference"? The events and conditions in the diaspora served to polarize Orthodox Jews and other claimants to Judaism, but the assumption that there is such thing as a "Christian Jew" is a product of non-Jewish perspective/assessment, along with the false imperative to accept a personage without clarity as to the substance of it's identity - purpose and function. J*sus "started" a new religion, whereas Ribi Yehoshua only ever intended to preserve and further Judaism. It's just an extension of the super-imposed/falsified "agreement" between the Netzarim and other sects/sectarians who claimed to "believe" in J*sus - Paulos being the most prominent.
V: ...with the descrediting of the Trinity doctrines, a road block will be removed for the incorporation of Jesus among the Jewish community.
Merk: Quite, since this is concomitant to the idea that J*sus is g*d. However, there still remains the issue of virgin birth, to which there is an understandable resistance, It's scientifically inexplicable, and it's used as simplistic reasoning for the idea of J*sus' "divinity". I believe he was a spiritual person - supremely so among human beings, maybe even uniquely or primarily, in some respect. But when finer and finer distinctions are made, as they should be, we can still salvage basic concepts that would otherwise be thrown out the window, and even avoid being thrown out ourselves. I personally see no reason to believe that virgin birth is impossible, nor yet, that it should necessarily result in a demi-g*d.
Merkavah: There may have been related sentiments in other areas/communities when the news got out, but to think that all Jews everywhere who believed in Yehoshua were completely ousted based on that lone point is dubious.
V: Oh of course. I agree that the ostracizing of Jesus followers didn't happen all at once in every place. But when Jewish people speak of the historical rift, they point toward the siege as a major factor.
Merk: Quite, since this is concomitant to the idea that J*sus is g*d. However, there still remains the issue of virgin birth, to which there is an understandable resistance, It's scientifically inexplicable, and it's used as simplistic reasoning for the idea of J*sus' "divinity". I believe he was a spiritual person - supremely so among human beings, maybe even uniquely or primarily, in some respect.
V: I think it will become important to the doctrines of the Messianic Manifesto to have a clear ontological understanding of Jesus. Currently I know of no denominational doctrinal view of Jesus that concisely depicts the true nature of Jesus as a being. There is a need to be filled here. I think I will begin a new topic on just that subject.
Jerome: How does one not see but "understand the reality" of another being Vatic?
V: I'm not sure you saw it, but Tom started a blog on CBED that challenged me to present examples of prophecy as proof of God. I'm not saying I convinced my skeptic friends, but I'll take the liberty to say that I think Tom was given pause, since he was gentlemanly enough to actually follow along with me for the sake of the argument and point.
Through such studies Jerome, I believe the ability to understand both the reality and identity of God is apprehendable to the investigating skeptic. The doctriness of prophecy vis a vis established historical fact, I think will cause the Messainic Manifesto to raise the bar well above the doctrines of proof of God well above any previous examples set forward in publication or denominational doctrinal statement.
V: Oh of course. I agree that the ostracizing of Jesus followers didn't happen all at once in every place. But when Jewish people speak of the historical rift, they point toward the siege as a major factor.
merk: I think that follows closely behind believing the references to "Yeshu" in Talmud are referring to Yehoshua - though they apply just fine - generally - to "J*sus". It greatly depends on widespread and subtle misinformation. The Netzarim site really has a lot of information - the misunderstanding about "Yeshu" included. What's REALLY interesting is that, even with - or because of the misinformation - both sides refer to the right person with a wrong personality - for seemingly opposite reasons, so they kind of cancel each other out.
V: I think it will become important to the doctrines of the Messianic Manifesto to have a clear ontological understanding of Jesus.
merk: Did you check out that website? Do you think there are things missing/disagreeable to what the Messianic Manifesto should comprise?
Also, a search on CBED wasn't very illuminating. More info please, or even just an expansion of the acronym.
V: Okay Merkavah. I went to the website and immediately found somethng that is a fair question to ask. The website present a form of biblical fundementalism emphasizing the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). Here is a quote from the website:
"An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.
It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Av•râ•hâm′ , Mosh•ëh′ and the Nәviy•im′ . Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged)."
V: This axiomatic statement deserves to be challenged. I personally do not believe that the Torah can be so axiomatic as to be held forward as the ultimate answer or authority and sanctioned by God. Nor do I believe that such a stance should necessarily be part of the Messianic Manifesto. To me this creates unrealistic expectations of the Biblical testimonies, present an authority which is invalid, presents a perfection that is non existent in the writings, discourages scholarly delving into the text and pertinent questioning of those text. To me such an attitude means that one's faith becomes unwittingly loaded with fallacious baggage. This position would be intellectually dishonest for me, I think the Messianic Manifesto will take the more honest position that the Testimonies are important and should be understood from every possible human perspective, but no illusions are made to being the ultimate authority or to contain perfection.
V: I personally do not believe that the Torah can be so axiomatic as to be held forward as the ultimate answer or authority and sanctioned by God...To me this creates unrealistic expectations of the Biblical testimonies, present an authority which is invalid, presents a perfection that is non existent in the writings, discourages scholarly delving into the text and pertinent questioning of those text. To me such an attitude means that one's faith becomes unwittingly loaded with fallacious baggage...
merk: I'll assume that it's because the Torah doesn't "cover everything". The oral tradition (Talmud, Torah shel ba'al peh) is itself taken as axiomatic to "Torah" in that it is inclusive of the premises and tenets found therein, and applies them, more and more specifically and intricately, to everyday life - and this has doubtless required as much intuition as encyclopedic knowledge in it's development and maintenance (King Solomon & the two prostitutes/baby). Also, the exegetical methodology, "PaRDeS", yields more esoterically-oriented ideas and ideologies - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pardes_%28Jewish_exegesis%29
merk: I'll assume that it's because the Torah doesn't "cover everything".
V: I'm not sure what you mean by everything. For me the Torah, like other parts of the Bible, demands a lot of background knowledge to really see where its coming from. There are multiple reasons for why I would refuse a fundementalist viewpoint. I really should start a blog post on this topic.
V: For me the Torah, like other parts of the Bible, demands a lot of background knowledge to really see where its coming from. There are multiple reasons for why I would refuse a fundementalist viewpoint. I really should start a blog post on this topic.
merk: I really should like to see what you mean! Do you think fundamentalism is exclusive and restrictive - generally inaccessible/inapplicable for the purpose of naturalizing the utterly alien, so to speak?
merk: I really should like to see what you mean! Do you think fundamentalism is exclusive and restrictive - generally inaccessible/inapplicable for the purpose of naturalizing the utterly alien, so to speak?
V: That is part of it Merkavah. Sometimes the experiences of the people of God are so alien, that there really is no human way to relate to it except as apparently approximations and similitudes. For example we can look in place like the Song of Deborah at this quote:
Jdg 5:20 They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.
Assuming the translation is not marred, which it isn't in the case, what is a fundamentalist supposed to make of this verse? Well if he was being literal, then it appears that somehow the stars in the sky had some connection to the battle. This fundamentalist assertion would seem to validate the heresy of astrology in direct contradiction to the prophets denunciations of astrology. No, in this case the Prophetess is describing something she witnesses, yet which is outside the relatable spectrum of normal human experiences. There would be many examples of this kind of fundamentalist blockage to an actual understanding of esoteric aspects of the testimonies.
Another problem is simply the limiting factor of humanity handling text. Errors creep in, especially when they can't understand esoteric passages exactly as they are being conveyed. Another real problem is in translators who make myriad errors, usually because of a lack of grasp of the actual thing being discussed in a text.
Then there are the historical facts concerning the arbitrariness of Biblical compilation. The problems go on and on with the fundamentalist perspective, which invites those who believe in fundamentalism to confine themselves to canon to the point they they simply cannot gain real insight from source text and other traditions and testimonies. And those other text , traditions and sources, have enormous bearing on Biblical passages and the understanding of them..
V: Well if he was being literal, then it appears that somehow the stars in the sky had some connection to the battle. This fundamentalist assertion would seem to validate the heresy of astrology in direct contradiction to the prophets denunciations of astrology.
merk: Not to be evasive of the overall point, but I think the prohibition of astrological studies/practices has more to do with predictive and manipulative effort, whereas this is completely after the fact. However, it does seem to be making a definitive claim of heavenly intervention based on the results - which one might be tempted to call arbitrary. So just how the prophetess is able to appreciate, explain, corroborate, etc., a heavenly connection to an earthly event is more involved, I guess. It could be that Sisera was deeply involved in astrology, and that fundamental error was his downfall. It might be like saying "the walls of ____ (city) defeated her attackers". The walls just did what they do. So, likewise, the stars not "conforming" to and assisting in Sisera's plans can have an attribute of conspiracy, resistance, rebellion, etc. projected upon them. I can extrapolate meanings, but they need to stand up to reason if I am to present them to someone as valuable in any way.
I posted a reply to one of your other topics (Bryson Hughes Echo Board) and it has to do with the Noahide covenant. I think it helps to elucidate my view of just how a person can begin to gain the background knowledge you mentioned. I think it comes down to a matter of relinquishment and concession. The fact that Torah is non-negotiable to Jews, and the belief that it's not necessary for eternal life for xtians is the ultimate divergence - which can be a peaceful one, but there is no mutual continuity. The question is, who will get where they want to go? If being able to reason and express appreciably what, why and how, is optional, then it seems the discussions and dialogue are moot. If it's just exasperating to think about having to reason, explain, rethink, redoubt, and maybe even give up completely - as in defeat, then we may find ourselves with an invasive and ultimately destructive directive/paradigm at the heart, just because we have an image of the way things should be, and what we see currently doesn't "measure up". Being able to implement and execute that vision may be another matter. So fundamentalists don't necessarily have to have everything in a literally applicable form, only to be able to rely on a practical standard of thought and reason in order to work things out, or just make it through the times when it is as yet "impossible" to do so.
I would relate the xtian missionary/evangelistic mentality toward Orthodox Judaism to approaching a young child in a deep embrace with his older brother, face buried in his bosom. The evangelist says, "You can't see his face, though. Step away so you can get the full effect". It sounds appealing and compelling, but it is inherently divisive and alienating - and backward. So I would very simply respond to the idea of agreement between xtianity and Judaism like this: Judaism was here first, and the Messiah is inextricably linked to the same. So the burden of proof falls upon the challenger. I think this, though perhaps crude and simplistic compared to the actual reasoning that you would find in dialogue with qualified representatives, accurately sums up the two-handed grip on the sword of truth that is necessary for a claim to spirituality.
merk: Not to be evasive of the overall point, but I think the prohibition of astrological studies/practices has more to do with predictive and manipulative effort, whereas this is completely after the fact. However, it does seem to be making a definitive claim of heavenly intervention based on the results - which one might be tempted to call arbitrary. So just how the prophetess is able to appreciate, explain, corroborate, etc., a heavenly connection to an earthly event is more involved, I guess. It could be that Sisera was deeply involved in astrology, and that fundamental error was his downfall.
V: A valiant effort to explain this passage: "Jdg 5:20 They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera."
However I will just tell you directly that the prophetess was speaking of angelic apparitions that looked to her like stars that had come down from heaven and went into the battle.
Merkavah:I would relate the xtian missionary/evangelistic mentality toward Orthodox Judaism to approaching a young child in a deep embrace with his older brother, face buried in his bosom. The evangelist says, "You can't see his face, though. Step away so you can get the full effect". It sounds appealing and compelling, but it is inherently divisive and alienating - and backward.
V: That is a problem inherent in any type of ecumenical exchange. The claim of truth is inherently an insult to those who themselves think they have the claim of truth.This is one of the reasons I tend to be very diplomatic in approaching an inherently hostile audience, by sharing stories and information that I think they probably don't know about. Seeking bridges, having the courage to admit that Christianity has its own sets of misconceptions and addressing them honestly, helps Jewish people not feel disrespected. Let's face it, they have invested their lives in the Covenant and we should be sensitive to that.
I hope that writing a book, "Messianic Manifesto" will gently provoke curious reading and the information presented will help bridge the illusionary divide between Jesus and his own people, the Jews.
Let see, the same Doctrine the Messiah and his Apostles preached.
ReplyDelete"The secret ingredient is that there is no secret ingredient"
ReplyDeleteKung Fu Panda
The Movie.
There are no "sound doctrines." How do I know this? Because nobody agrees on anything other than that it is a grand idea. So, don't worry about it. The notions will just give you an intellectual noogie.
ReplyDeleteTo give some perspective, the Messianic Movement is in general, an acceptance of Jesus by some of the Jewish Community, and for non Jewish believers it is a recognition of the relevance of the Jewish roots of our faith. So you have two traditionally divergent comminities coming together under a set of realizations that bring unity to them.
ReplyDeleteONe of the main problems I have challenged believers to overcome, it the problem that the traditional gentile Christian doctrines of Trinity presents to Jewish people who might accept Jesus, if it didn't come with baggage. In this case, Trinity presents a huge load of baggage since it flies in the face of the Jewish blood spilled over concept of one God.
If the Christian community has one thing right, that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and nie things wrong, such as mistaken doctrines, imagine the barroer this presents to Jewish people from even considering the relavance of Jesus Christ in their lives.
You know...after stepping outside of this and looking back in the window you would not believe how weird it is to watch people talk about the fine points of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteThere is the Father, The Son, and a third thinking being called the Holy Ghost that POHsesses Christians. In addition to that there is Satan. And then there are a zillion angels and demons.All of these beings fly about the Universe and live forever. In addition to that there are a few people that did not die mentioned in the Bible.
Now here are all these beings who are immortal. Greater and lesser gods just like many other religions.Zillions of 'em.
And Christians have the balls to say Christianity is a Monotheistic religion.
And with a straight face.
Tex: Compared to the atheist "real" point of view:
ReplyDeleteIt's to complicated for me (nonbeliever) so I don't want to believe it. Better to live for no reason and die for no reason, than believe that my life has meaning.
Christianity has many gods Tex. Greater and lesser immortal beings.It is no different in that respect than any other religion.The Bible says so.
ReplyDeleteYou can publish whatever you like and this will not change.
It is not Monotheism.
This Trinity business is bullshit invented by a bunch of dead guys a long time ago.
I don't know if you've heard of this Bryson, but as I have understood you to be a studious person and invested in testing and proving beliefs by logical means, I think you will find this very interesting.
ReplyDeletewww.netzarim.co.il
It's a website that goes into great depth and effort to delineate and distinguish what the historical figure around whom so much controversy has spun for the past near-two millenia, was actually about. The details are many and intertwined, but it is the most comprehensive/continuous historical explanation of the origin of the fame of the Galilean teacher and the procession of events and evolution of ideas surrounding him that has become such a fractured and splayed ideology - if not mythology.
I might be able to give a quick run down, and would like to test my comprehension thus far. Accordingly: he was a Jew, a Ribi (greater authority than Rabbi), a Pharisee (the only way to be ordained), and only intended to preserve and further the Jewish culture - Torah - in the classic Sinaitic tradition. He was the Tannaitic-era version of an Orthodox Jew. His hand-chosen talmidim (disciples/students) were also fully Torah observant in the rabbinic tradition, and they were not in agreement or cooperation with Hellenist sectarians such as Stephanos (Steven), Paulos (Paul), Barnabas, Timotheos (Timothy), et al.
The original "Netzarim" ONLY accepted the Hebrew "Matityahu" account of Ribi Yehoshua's life/career, as others had been colored with degradation in telling, foreign ideas, rumors and, quite simply, were sourced from initially disinterested and disassociated - ignorant - individuals (gentiles), concerning the culture and circumstances, not to mention specifics. Thus, among other reasons, the idea that a new religion was intended. Barring NT works of sectarian interest and any that would reflect that fabricated and super-imposed agreement, what remains is heavily edited to reflect contemporary doctrines of the redactors/compilers/translators and those in whose employ they were acting - to which there is historical documented admission, rather than the original meaning.
The Roman idolatrous syncretist religious (Catholic) connection to Jerusalem that claimed "Peter" as the first pope was a retrojection - an after-the-fact fabrication, and was passed off after a militarily forceful ousting and eradication of the Netzarim as a group, along with all Jews in Jerusalem in 135 C.E. - though some individuals survived and escaped to only ever be known as Jews - not specifically Netzarim. Protestantism, which is an offshoot of that Roman idolatrous syncretist religion, and child of the misojudaic (not anti-semitic - arabs are semites, too) Martin Luther, also is without legitimate connection to the original, fully - non-selectively Torah observant Jewish followers of Ribi Yehoshua.
This is what I understand to be put forth, and I cannot find the slightest objection. I look forward to discussions on it!
The first generation followers of Jesus were all Jews. They believed in One God, and in Jesus as his Messiah/Messenger, and they thought that God's resurrection of the dead Jesus proved Jesus' special status.
ReplyDeleteAs Jews, they already had a collection of books they considered to be Scripture, the Tanakh, along with its Greek translation, the Septuagint, or LXX. Monotheism and the LXX were their heritage.
Over the course of the 1st century, the followers of Jesus Messiah and the rest of the Jews split. This new sect, at first "followers of the Way," started to call themselves Christians. They moved out of Palestine and into the Greco-Roman world, and they started to write books reflecting their own, unique views. However, they still claimed Monotheism and the LXX as their heritage — and this was reinforced by the Greco-Roman world, which admired ancient religions (the Jews), while thinking of new religions as "superstitio."
Eventually, some Christian churchmen with too much time on their hands started asking themselves how they could intellectually, rationally reconcile Monotheism (and they were absolutely certain they were Monotheists) with God the Father, another God the Son, the Presence of God (Holy Spirit), and even, finally, Mary, Mother of God ("theotokos").
It took over 300 years to work on this. Dozens of churchmen had dozens of "solutions," all differing. There were street riots with people getting killed, lots of people, and churches burned to the ground during these arguments. Finally, the notion of a Trinity gained more followers than other ideas, and further arguments (and riots) made it look like the "persons" in the Trinity got along in a way that was still "One". But when you sit down and actually try to parse it out, it doesn't, and the Catholic Church, they guys who came up with this alleged solution, said further argument is a waste of time because it is not explainable: it is a "mystery." That's right, a "mystery."
As Jerome said, "This Trinity business is bullshit invented by a bunch of dead guys a long time ago." And I would add that it has nothing to do with living a Christlike life, because he was into action, not words.
Menss: Over the course of the 1st century, the followers of Jesus Messiah and the rest of the Jews split.
ReplyDeleteMerk: How do you corroborate this, upon which the rest of the reply hinges?
Menss: "...and further arguments (and riots) made it look like the "persons" in the Trinity got along in a way that was still "One". But when you sit down and actually try to parse it out, it doesn't..."
Merk: I think this basic scenario applies to the entirety of your assertion. Did you visit the website? Although I also reject the trinity idea, I would liken and relate - obviously - further subscription to protestant xtianity to Martin Luther's euphemistic "antinomianism", which cites "immorality". This is without acknowledging the complete and continuous body - to which the standard of morality that antinomianism proposes as it's heart (10 commandments[?]) is inextricably sustenant and integral - Sinaitic Pharisaic rabbinic tradition. I do not propose that all things termed "rabbinic" properly adhere to and exemplify this body, but the website also goes into reasoning for this directive in distinction as well.
Start here, with Bart Ehrman's "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (http://tinyurl.com/3d367kn) and continue with J.D.G. Dunn's "Jews & Christians, the Parting of the Ways, AD 70 to 135 (http://tinyurl.com/3f4xuad). The links are to the titles at Amazon.com.
ReplyDeleteVatic...this is just an aside. If I were you I would rename this website to something less self laudatory. Maybe "Vatic's Musings" or "Vatic's Ruminations".
ReplyDeleteI know it's hard to be humble when you are a Prophet of the Most High.
But it will serve your purpose to be humble.
You are already really patient.
Just a suggestion.
menss: "Start here..."
ReplyDeleteM: I'm not really in the market for that sort of thing at that sort of price. If you have a copy, however, I have a book that is part of the Netzarim "orientation" - "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue". Perhaps we could ship them in exchange.
jerome: If I were you I would rename this website to something less self laudatory.
M: If it were something like "Vatic's Empire" I would agree, but there's nothing wrong with self-proposed insight. Principle vs. merit...
I know Vatic to be a good man sincerely convinced that he has been chosen to recieve certain special knowledge not readily available to everyone.
ReplyDeleteIf he has had an insight we are going to need to call the Ghost Busters sooner or later.
The Trinity was a doctrine that the early church Father put together because of what Lord Jesus said and how the Apostles saw Lord Jesus. You can't say "God saves you" and " Lord Jesus is the savior" There is a problem right there. Then who is this " Holy Spirit" the Lord Jesus and the Apostles talk about.
ReplyDeleteSmall minds can't see passed that, therefore the Trinity was created. It was more for the un-accepting Jews than for the pagans. Why should we care, we had thousand of gods. So three would be no problem to believe.
I have spent a lot of time and money trying to make my small mind bigger and I am fairly sure that a medium sized mind can't see it either.
ReplyDeleteThat's why it has to be "God like". Or else you are blind.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever noticed that dissinters always seem to go blind to everyone except the dissenter who thinks he can see quite well.
ReplyDeleteIf you could see, you would believe. But since you say you can't, then that is why you can't believe..
ReplyDeleteAnyone who see Lord Jesus as the Son of God, has no choice but to believe him to be a God.
Now if people have a hard time working that out in their brain, is only because they have doubts in the power of God.
I never saw Jesus at all.
ReplyDeleteDid you?
Merkavah: The original "Netzarim" ONLY accepted the Hebrew "Matityahu" account of Ribi Yehoshua's life/career, as others had been colored with degradation in telling, foreign ideas, rumors and, quite simply, were sourced from initially disinterested and disassociated - ignorant - individuals (gentiles), concerning the culture and circumstances, not to mention specifics.
ReplyDeleteV: Jesse. Is it possible to obtain today anything that is Hebrew Matityahu? I was unaware that such a thing existed.
Merkavah: Thus, among other reasons, the idea that a new religion was intended. Barring NT works of sectarian interest and any that would reflect that fabricated and super-imposed agreement, what remains is heavily edited to reflect contemporary doctrines of the redactors/compilers/translators and those in whose employ they were acting - to which there is historical documented admission, rather than the original meaning.
ReplyDeleteV: I have to agree that the question warrants examination: Did Jesus intend to "Start a new Religion?"
I have to say that I find absolutely no basis for thinking he did.
Merkavah: Protestantism, which is an offshoot of that Roman idolatrous syncretist religion, and child of the misojudaic (not anti-semitic - arabs are semites, too) Martin Luther, also is without legitimate connection to the original, fully - non-selectively Torah observant Jewish followers of Ribi Yehoshua.
ReplyDeleteV: I'm with you insofar as that Martin Luther didn't seem to have any grasp of the Jewishness of Jesus original followers. This illusion of Christian/Jewish segregation of religions is a major problem.
Menssana:However, they still claimed Monotheism and the LXX as their heritage — and this was reinforced by the Greco-Roman world, which admired ancient religions (the Jews), while thinking of new religions as "superstitio."
ReplyDeleteV: Non Jewish accounts of Jesus and his early followers is hard to find. It would help me if you could guide me to some Greco-Roman accountings of Jesus or the Early disciples.
Menss: Over the course of the 1st century, the followers of Jesus Messiah and the rest of the Jews split.
ReplyDeleteMerk: How do you corroborate this, upon which the rest of the reply hinges?
V: The Jewish commuity itself will corroborate this split between brothers over Jesus. It seems that jesus followers were insturcted to flee tot he mountains and not follow any false Messiahs, when the siege started. This provoked the anger of patriot Jews who felt Jesus' disciples were traitors to the nation for fleeing from the Romans. The rift is historical and political in nature more than religious.
Merkavah: Merk: I think this basic scenario applies to the entirety of your assertion. Did you visit the website? Although I also reject the trinity idea,
ReplyDeleteV: I was wondering which side you would fall on concerning the concept of trinity.
Mensanna: Start here, with Bart Ehrman's "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (http://tinyurl.com/3d367kn) and continue with J.D.G. Dunn's "Jews & Christians, the Parting of the Ways, AD 70 to 135 (http://tinyurl.com/3f4xuad). The links are to the titles at Amazon.com.
ReplyDeleteV: Quality titles for sure. I just kind of cringe about Bart Ehrman since he personally is spiritually derilect and the defacto champion of rationalist skeptics of the faith. But he is encyclopedic which is useful.
Tex: Small minds can't see passed that, therefore the Trinity was created. It was more for the un-accepting Jews than for the pagans. Why should we care, we had thousand of gods. So three would be no problem to believe.
ReplyDeleteV: That's a good point based on cultural criticisms. Christian converts from among the gentile pagans would be far more likely to have no objections to the concept of trinity. Like you said, "Why should we (they) care". I have to wonder if the divisiveness of the doctrine against Jewish people was not somehow intended, like the Pledge of Allegiance insertion of "Under God" is intended to be divisive against communist?
Jerome: I never saw Jesus at all.
ReplyDeleteDid you?
V: I think we should have a discussion on the ontology of Jesus, if the "Trinity" is brought into question. As helpful as it would be to Jewish people in accepting Jesus, for the trinity baggage to be discredited, what would we have as a correct ontology to describe Jesus? As you know Jerome, for me it all begins with the "Appearance of the Glory of the Lord". It is in this form that those who literally saw Jesus before his incarnation and those who literally see Jesus after his ascension, do see him. That is the correct ontology of Jesus the being, that unites Christian believers with Jewish Witnesses in a seamless and continual faith expression.
Yes or No works...
ReplyDeleteJerome: Yes or No works...
ReplyDeleteV: You're tempting me. But without equivocation, either with or without the doctrine of trinity, I have seen ( as in understood ) the reality of Jesus.
In that sense of the word "seen", I have to disagree that the realization of Jesus is connected in any way to the doctrine of trinity as Tex is suggesting. In fact I believe that with the descrediting of the Trinity doctrines, a road block will be removed for the incorporation of Jesus among the Jewish community. Indeed without Trinity, it may well make it easier for the Jewish people to see Jesus in His proper place unto them.
V: Jesse. Is it possible to obtain today anything that is Hebrew Matityahu? I was unaware that such a thing existed.
ReplyDeleteMerk: Paqid Yirmeyahu - the Netzarim "clerk", or deacon(bishop, something?), if you must, has reconstructed a version working from several manuscripts. I don't know all the details, but a hard copy (paperbackish, spiral spine) is over $100 dollars. This is because there are no publishers cranking them out, obviously. The "Even Bokhan" is the main source, I believe.
V: The Jewish community itself will corroborate this split between brothers over Jesus. It seems that jesus followers were instructed to flee tot he mountains and not follow any false Messiahs, when the siege started. This provoked the anger of patriot Jews who felt Jesus' disciples were traitors to the nation for fleeing from the Romans. The rift is historical and political in nature more than religious.
Merk: Agreed. However, this only pertains to Netzarim in Jerusalem/Judah/Israel. We can presume that there were Netzarim (who more than likely didn't insist on the label - they were 100% Jewish, so it didn't endure) in the diaspora who weren't in the same position of pressing military duty, and so, survived. The ones in the land would not participate in the Bar Kochba revolt presumably because Bar Kochba was being promoted as the Messiah, more than any other reason. I assume that they were executed as insubordinates, as you posit. However, I'm more inclined to believe that the ones who actually fled (at least, when they were supposed to) were successful, and others who hesitated or remained, yet refused to join - probably not exclusively Netzarim, either - were the ones who were executed. There may have been related sentiments in other areas/communities when the news got out, but to think that all Jews everywhere who believed in Yehoshua were completely ousted based on that lone point is dubious.
If they had any moral dilemmas about how they should represent or identify themselves when it came to Yehoshua, they either assimilated (converted to xtianity, or became "reform Jews" [politically correct]), or were content sticking to Torah Judaism - without "Messianic" dogma. This is where the importance of details as to who Yehoshua really was come into play, since people think "what's the difference"? The events and conditions in the diaspora served to polarize Orthodox Jews and other claimants to Judaism, but the assumption that there is such thing as a "Christian Jew" is a product of non-Jewish perspective/assessment, along with the false imperative to accept a personage without clarity as to the substance of it's identity - purpose and function. J*sus "started" a new religion, whereas Ribi Yehoshua only ever intended to preserve and further Judaism. It's just an extension of the super-imposed/falsified "agreement" between the Netzarim and other sects/sectarians who claimed to "believe" in J*sus - Paulos being the most prominent.
V: ...with the descrediting of the Trinity doctrines, a road block will be removed for the incorporation of Jesus among the Jewish community.
Merk: Quite, since this is concomitant to the idea that J*sus is g*d. However, there still remains the issue of virgin birth, to which there is an understandable resistance, It's scientifically inexplicable, and it's used as simplistic reasoning for the idea of J*sus' "divinity". I believe he was a spiritual person - supremely so among human beings, maybe even uniquely or primarily, in some respect. But when finer and finer distinctions are made, as they should be, we can still salvage basic concepts that would otherwise be thrown out the window, and even avoid being thrown out ourselves. I personally see no reason to believe that virgin birth is impossible, nor yet, that it should necessarily result in a demi-g*d.
Virgin birth???
ReplyDeleteAnd here I thought the "resurrection" of the Lord was the big problem.:)
tiex: And here I thought the "resurrection" of the Lord was the big problem.:)
ReplyDeletemerk: That's another good one. I've been reading about something called the DNA phantom effect, and I think it's the key to both issues.
merk: That's another good one. I've been reading about something called the DNA phantom effect, and I think it's the key to both issues.
ReplyDeleteTex: There is no "issues" with me.
Tex: There is no "issues" with me.
ReplyDeletemerk: Self-centrality is yet another that I hadn't in mind at all, nor to which I can imagine any DNA phantom effect-connection, whatsoever.
How does one not see but "understand the reality" of another being Vatic?
ReplyDeleteMerkavah: There may have been related sentiments in other areas/communities when the news got out, but to think that all Jews everywhere who believed in Yehoshua were completely ousted based on that lone point is dubious.
ReplyDeleteV: Oh of course. I agree that the ostracizing of Jesus followers didn't happen all at once in every place. But when Jewish people speak of the historical rift, they point toward the siege as a major factor.
Merk: Quite, since this is concomitant to the idea that J*sus is g*d. However, there still remains the issue of virgin birth, to which there is an understandable resistance, It's scientifically inexplicable, and it's used as simplistic reasoning for the idea of J*sus' "divinity". I believe he was a spiritual person - supremely so among human beings, maybe even uniquely or primarily, in some respect.
ReplyDeleteV: I think it will become important to the doctrines of the Messianic Manifesto to have a clear ontological understanding of Jesus. Currently I know of no denominational doctrinal view of Jesus that concisely depicts the true nature of Jesus as a being. There is a need to be filled here. I think I will begin a new topic on just that subject.
Jerome: How does one not see but "understand the reality" of another being Vatic?
ReplyDeleteV: I'm not sure you saw it, but Tom started a blog on CBED that challenged me to present examples of prophecy as proof of God. I'm not saying I convinced my skeptic friends, but I'll take the liberty to say that I think Tom was given pause, since he was gentlemanly enough to actually follow along with me for the sake of the argument and point.
Through such studies Jerome, I believe the ability to understand both the reality and identity of God is apprehendable to the investigating skeptic. The doctriness of prophecy vis a vis established historical fact, I think will cause the Messainic Manifesto to raise the bar well above the doctrines of proof of God well above any previous examples set forward in publication or denominational doctrinal statement.
V: Oh of course. I agree that the ostracizing of Jesus followers didn't happen all at once in every place. But when Jewish people speak of the historical rift, they point toward the siege as a major factor.
ReplyDeletemerk: I think that follows closely behind believing the references to "Yeshu" in Talmud are referring to Yehoshua - though they apply just fine - generally - to "J*sus". It greatly depends on widespread and subtle misinformation. The Netzarim site really has a lot of information - the misunderstanding about "Yeshu" included. What's REALLY interesting is that, even with - or because of the misinformation - both sides refer to the right person with a wrong personality - for seemingly opposite reasons, so they kind of cancel each other out.
V: I think it will become important to the doctrines of the Messianic Manifesto to have a clear ontological understanding of Jesus.
merk: Did you check out that website? Do you think there are things missing/disagreeable to what the Messianic Manifesto should comprise?
Also, a search on CBED wasn't very illuminating. More info please, or even just an expansion of the acronym.
V: Give me a link to that site, Merkavah.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.netzarim.co.il/
ReplyDeleteV: Okay Merkavah. I went to the website and immediately found somethng that is a fair question to ask. The website present a form of biblical fundementalism emphasizing the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). Here is a quote from the website:
ReplyDelete"An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.
It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Av•râ•hâm′ , Mosh•ëh′ and the Nәviy•im′ . Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged)."
V: This axiomatic statement deserves to be challenged. I personally do not believe that the Torah can be so axiomatic as to be held forward as the ultimate answer or authority and sanctioned by God. Nor do I believe that such a stance should necessarily be part of the Messianic Manifesto. To me this creates unrealistic expectations of the Biblical testimonies, present an authority which is invalid, presents a perfection that is non existent in the writings, discourages scholarly delving into the text and pertinent questioning of those text. To me such an attitude means that one's faith becomes unwittingly loaded with fallacious baggage. This position would be intellectually dishonest for me, I think the Messianic Manifesto will take the more honest position that the Testimonies are important and should be understood from every possible human perspective, but no illusions are made to being the ultimate authority or to contain perfection.
V: I personally do not believe that the Torah can be so axiomatic as to be held forward as the ultimate answer or authority and sanctioned by God...To me this creates unrealistic expectations of the Biblical testimonies, present an authority which is invalid, presents a perfection that is non existent in the writings, discourages scholarly delving into the text and pertinent questioning of those text. To me such an attitude means that one's faith becomes unwittingly loaded with fallacious baggage...
ReplyDeletemerk: I'll assume that it's because the Torah doesn't "cover everything". The oral tradition (Talmud, Torah shel ba'al peh) is itself taken as axiomatic to "Torah" in that it is inclusive of the premises and tenets found therein, and applies them, more and more specifically and intricately, to everyday life - and this has doubtless required as much intuition as encyclopedic knowledge in it's development and maintenance (King Solomon & the two prostitutes/baby). Also, the exegetical methodology, "PaRDeS", yields more esoterically-oriented ideas and ideologies - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pardes_%28Jewish_exegesis%29
merk: I'll assume that it's because the Torah doesn't "cover everything".
ReplyDeleteV: I'm not sure what you mean by everything. For me the Torah, like other parts of the Bible, demands a lot of background knowledge to really see where its coming from. There are multiple reasons for why I would refuse a fundementalist viewpoint. I really should start a blog post on this topic.
V: For me the Torah, like other parts of the Bible, demands a lot of background knowledge to really see where its coming from. There are multiple reasons for why I would refuse a fundementalist viewpoint. I really should start a blog post on this topic.
ReplyDeletemerk: I really should like to see what you mean! Do you think fundamentalism is exclusive and restrictive - generally inaccessible/inapplicable for the purpose of naturalizing the utterly alien, so to speak?
merk: I really should like to see what you mean! Do you think fundamentalism is exclusive and restrictive - generally inaccessible/inapplicable for the purpose of naturalizing the utterly alien, so to speak?
ReplyDeleteV: That is part of it Merkavah. Sometimes the experiences of the people of God are so alien, that there really is no human way to relate to it except as apparently approximations and similitudes. For example we can look in place like the Song of Deborah at this quote:
Jdg 5:20 They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.
Assuming the translation is not marred, which it isn't in the case, what is a fundamentalist supposed to make of this verse? Well if he was being literal, then it appears that somehow the stars in the sky had some connection to the battle. This fundamentalist assertion would seem to validate the heresy of astrology in direct contradiction to the prophets denunciations of astrology. No, in this case the Prophetess is describing something she witnesses, yet which is outside the relatable spectrum of normal human experiences. There would be many examples of this kind of fundamentalist blockage to an actual understanding of esoteric aspects of the testimonies.
Another problem is simply the limiting factor of humanity handling text. Errors creep in, especially when they can't understand esoteric passages exactly as they are being conveyed. Another real problem is in translators who make myriad errors, usually because of a lack of grasp of the actual thing being discussed in a text.
Then there are the historical facts concerning the arbitrariness of Biblical compilation. The problems go on and on with the fundamentalist perspective, which invites those who believe in fundamentalism to confine themselves to canon to the point they they simply cannot gain real insight from source text and other traditions and testimonies. And those other text , traditions and sources, have enormous bearing on Biblical passages and the understanding of them..
V: Well if he was being literal, then it appears that somehow the stars in the sky had some connection to the battle. This fundamentalist assertion would seem to validate the heresy of astrology in direct contradiction to the prophets denunciations of astrology.
ReplyDeletemerk: Not to be evasive of the overall point, but I think the prohibition of astrological studies/practices has more to do with predictive and manipulative effort, whereas this is completely after the fact. However, it does seem to be making a definitive claim of heavenly intervention based on the results - which one might be tempted to call arbitrary. So just how the prophetess is able to appreciate, explain, corroborate, etc., a heavenly connection to an earthly event is more involved, I guess. It could be that Sisera was deeply involved in astrology, and that fundamental error was his downfall. It might be like saying "the walls of ____ (city) defeated her attackers". The walls just did what they do. So, likewise, the stars not "conforming" to and assisting in Sisera's plans can have an attribute of conspiracy, resistance, rebellion, etc. projected upon them. I can extrapolate meanings, but they need to stand up to reason if I am to present them to someone as valuable in any way.
I posted a reply to one of your other topics (Bryson Hughes Echo Board) and it has to do with the Noahide covenant. I think it helps to elucidate my view of just how a person can begin to gain the background knowledge you mentioned. I think it comes down to a matter of relinquishment and concession. The fact that Torah is non-negotiable to Jews, and the belief that it's not necessary for eternal life for xtians is the ultimate divergence - which can be a peaceful one, but there is no mutual continuity. The question is, who will get where they want to go? If being able to reason and express appreciably what, why and how, is optional, then it seems the discussions and dialogue are moot. If it's just exasperating to think about having to reason, explain, rethink, redoubt, and maybe even give up completely - as in defeat, then we may find ourselves with an invasive and ultimately destructive directive/paradigm at the heart, just because we have an image of the way things should be, and what we see currently doesn't "measure up". Being able to implement and execute that vision may be another matter. So fundamentalists don't necessarily have to have everything in a literally applicable form, only to be able to rely on a practical standard of thought and reason in order to work things out, or just make it through the times when it is as yet "impossible" to do so.
I would relate the xtian missionary/evangelistic mentality toward Orthodox Judaism to approaching a young child in a deep embrace with his older brother, face buried in his bosom. The evangelist says, "You can't see his face, though. Step away so you can get the full effect". It sounds appealing and compelling, but it is inherently divisive and alienating - and backward. So I would very simply respond to the idea of agreement between xtianity and Judaism like this: Judaism was here first, and the Messiah is inextricably linked to the same. So the burden of proof falls upon the challenger. I think this, though perhaps crude and simplistic compared to the actual reasoning that you would find in dialogue with qualified representatives, accurately sums up the two-handed grip on the sword of truth that is necessary for a claim to spirituality.
merk: Not to be evasive of the overall point, but I think the prohibition of astrological studies/practices has more to do with predictive and manipulative effort, whereas this is completely after the fact. However, it does seem to be making a definitive claim of heavenly intervention based on the results - which one might be tempted to call arbitrary. So just how the prophetess is able to appreciate, explain, corroborate, etc., a heavenly connection to an earthly event is more involved, I guess. It could be that Sisera was deeply involved in astrology, and that fundamental error was his downfall.
ReplyDeleteV: A valiant effort to explain this passage: "Jdg 5:20 They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera."
However I will just tell you directly that the prophetess was speaking of angelic apparitions that looked to her like stars that had come down from heaven and went into the battle.
Merkavah:I would relate the xtian missionary/evangelistic mentality toward Orthodox Judaism to approaching a young child in a deep embrace with his older brother, face buried in his bosom. The evangelist says, "You can't see his face, though. Step away so you can get the full effect". It sounds appealing and compelling, but it is inherently divisive and alienating - and backward.
V: That is a problem inherent in any type of ecumenical exchange. The claim of truth is inherently an insult to those who themselves think they have the claim of truth.This is one of the reasons I tend to be very diplomatic in approaching an inherently hostile audience, by sharing stories and information that I think they probably don't know about. Seeking bridges, having the courage to admit that Christianity has its own sets of misconceptions and addressing them honestly, helps Jewish people not feel disrespected. Let's face it, they have invested their lives in the Covenant and we should be sensitive to that.
I hope that writing a book, "Messianic Manifesto" will gently provoke curious reading and the information presented will help bridge the illusionary divide between Jesus and his own people, the Jews.