News:


Main Menu

Jews and God(s)?

Started by Brian Stoffregen, March 24, 2023, 02:52:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: DCharlton on March 25, 2023, 07:58:45 PM
I know that there are Christians who maintain that neither the Trinity, nor Christ, are revealed in the Old Testament, so that any exegesis that finds a reference to Christ or the Trinity is eisegesis.  I find it difficult to see how such a position can successfully ward off Marcionism, however.

Easy. The Old Testament is still the Word of God for us. It points to Jesus. It has "types" of Jesus, e.g., Moses, who brought the people God's Law directly from God on Mount Sinai, and Jesus who brought the proper interpretation of God's Law in the Sermon on the Mount. The sacrifices and their benefits in Leviticus is the necessary background to understanding Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. John shows how Jesus on the cross is similar to the serpents Moses hung on poles.

I've looked at every passage where the Hebrew "messiah" is used. Ironically, it is never translated "messiah," but 'anointed (one)." Those who look to the OT to understand what a messiah is and does will not find the word applicable to Jesus. In fact, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states with its definition of "anointed one;" "N.B. 'Messiah' as eschatological savior-figure not in OT." Rather, this word is used of the kings of Israel, especially Saul, David, Solomon, and successors; priests and high priests; Cyrus, and patriarchs.

Much closer to Jesus' saving acts are the suffering-servant poems in Isaiah - but the servant is never called a messiah.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Jim Butler on March 25, 2023, 09:16:59 PM
1) The people of Israel were monotheists.

We agree. (Although archeological evidence has shown that many of them had household idols. They were supposed to be monotheists, and their worship of other gods often got them in trouble.

Quote2) They were not unitarian--which is what you are arguing by saying that God was revealed to Abraham "as one God, one person." BTW, saying this "one God, one person" used "different names" takes you down the road to modalism.

We use many names for God, Lord, Father, the Almighty, the Trinity, etc., without become modalists.

Quote3) The rabbis talked about the "two LORDs" in reference to Genesis 19. In v24, the LORD is on earth raining  heaven raining brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah and in heaven raining fire. (Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. [ESV]). For example, the Babylonian Talmud has comment on this verse that it should say "and fire from him out of heaven" but "that is how Scripture says things." (Jacob Neunser, Babylonian Talmud, p. 192).

This verse was also used by many early Christians as evidence of Christ in Genesis, among them Justin in his Dialog with Trypho, Irenaues in Against Heresies, Cyprian, Noviatian, and the First Creed of Sirmium (which reads, "Whoever shall explain, The Lord rained fire from the Lord (Gen 19:24) not of the Father and the Son, and says that He rained from Himself, be he anathema. For the Son Lord rained from the Father Lord."

First of all, that verse doesn't indicate that the LORD was on earth.

Secondly, a rabbi's annotation on this verse in The Torah: A Modern Commentary says: "The repetition of the divine name in this sentence means to emphasize the super-natural origin of the catastrophe." It was common in a world before there was boldface or underlining to emphasize something by repetition.

Comments from Rashi on this verse.

Wherever it is said '?? "And the Lord", it means He and His Celestial Court (Genesis Rabbah 51:2).

HE CAUSED IT TO RAIN ON SODOM — When the morning broke), as it is said, (v. 15) "And when the morning dawned", i. e. the time when the moon is in the sky together with the sun. As some of them worshipped the sun and others the moon, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "If I punish them by day, the moon-worshippers may say, "If it had taken place at night when the moon rules we would not have been destroyed." And if I punish them by night the sun-worshippers may say, "If it had taken place at day time when the sun rules we would not have been destroyed." For this reason it is written, "And when the morning dawned" — He punished them at that time when both moon and sun are ruling (Genesis Rabbah 50:12).

HE RAINED BRIMSTONE AND FIRE — At first it was rain ( ??? ) to see whether they would repent and this was then turned into brimstone and fire (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 15).

FROM THE LORD — This is the Scriptural way of speaking (the Lord rained ... from the Lord); e. g., (4:23) "Ye wives of Lamech" and he did not say "my wives". Thus, too, did David say, (1 Kings 1:33) "Take with you the servants of your lord" and he did not say, "my servants" and so, too, did Ahasuerus say, (Ester 8: 8) "in the king's name" and did not say, "in my name". So, also, here: "From the Lord" and He did not say, "from Him" (Genesis Rabbah 51:2).

ROM HEAVEN — The text (Job 36:31) refers to this: "For by them (the heavens; see the preceding verses) He judges the peoples etc." When God is about to punish mankind He brings upon them fire from heaven, just as He did to Sodom (cf. 5:32 of the same chapter); and when he caused the Manna to fall it was also from heaven (cf. the second half of 5:31) as it is said, (Exodus 16:4) "Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you" (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 10).


Yes, I found some of the references you noted. Perhaps the clearest application of this verse to Christ is Ignatius in the Epistle to the Antiochians, ch. II. They argue that it refers to another person of the Trinity - not that there are two YHWHs, though.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

DCharlton

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on March 26, 2023, 02:01:45 PM
Quote from: DCharlton on March 25, 2023, 07:58:45 PM
I know that there are Christians who maintain that neither the Trinity, nor Christ, are revealed in the Old Testament, so that any exegesis that finds a reference to Christ or the Trinity is eisegesis.  I find it difficult to see how such a position can successfully ward off Marcionism, however.

Easy. The Old Testament is still the Word of God for us. It points to Jesus. It has "types" of Jesus, e.g., Moses, who brought the people God's Law directly from God on Mount Sinai, and Jesus who brought the proper interpretation of God's Law in the Sermon on the Mount. The sacrifices and their benefits in Leviticus is the necessary background to understanding Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. John shows how Jesus on the cross is similar to the serpents Moses hung on poles.

I've looked at every passage where the Hebrew "messiah" is used. Ironically, it is never translated "messiah," but 'anointed (one)." Those who look to the OT to understand what a messiah is and does will not find the word applicable to Jesus. In fact, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states with its definition of "anointed one;" "N.B. 'Messiah' as eschatological savior-figure not in OT." Rather, this word is used of the kings of Israel, especially Saul, David, Solomon, and successors; priests and high priests; Cyrus, and patriarchs.

Much closer to Jesus' saving acts are the suffering-servant poems in Isaiah - but the servant is never called a messiah.

Intersting method of argument, affirming the very thing you had previously denied.
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: DCharlton on March 26, 2023, 09:03:28 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on March 26, 2023, 02:01:45 PM
Quote from: DCharlton on March 25, 2023, 07:58:45 PM
I know that there are Christians who maintain that neither the Trinity, nor Christ, are revealed in the Old Testament, so that any exegesis that finds a reference to Christ or the Trinity is eisegesis.  I find it difficult to see how such a position can successfully ward off Marcionism, however.

Easy. The Old Testament is still the Word of God for us. It points to Jesus. It has "types" of Jesus, e.g., Moses, who brought the people God's Law directly from God on Mount Sinai, and Jesus who brought the proper interpretation of God's Law in the Sermon on the Mount. The sacrifices and their benefits in Leviticus is the necessary background to understanding Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. John shows how Jesus on the cross is similar to the serpents Moses hung on poles.

I've looked at every passage where the Hebrew "messiah" is used. Ironically, it is never translated "messiah," but 'anointed (one)." Those who look to the OT to understand what a messiah is and does will not find the word applicable to Jesus. In fact, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states with its definition of "anointed one;" "N.B. 'Messiah' as eschatological savior-figure not in OT." Rather, this word is used of the kings of Israel, especially Saul, David, Solomon, and successors; priests and high priests; Cyrus, and patriarchs.

Much closer to Jesus' saving acts are the suffering-servant poems in Isaiah - but the servant is never called a messiah.

Intersting method of argument, affirming the very thing you had previously denied.

Rather, quite typical. E.g.:

https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7358.msg524063#msg524063

Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Charles Austin

How about focusing on the arguments in the discussions rather than the person making comments? Try speaking to the argument rather about the person.
Iowa-born. Long-time in NY/New Jersey, former LWF staff in Geneva.
ELCA PASTOR, ordained 1967. Former journalist. Retired in Minneapolis.
GUILTY on ALL 34 counts

Donald_Kirchner

#35
Quote from: Charles Austin on March 27, 2023, 09:43:37 AM
How about focusing on the arguments in the discussions rather than the person making comments? Try speaking to the argument rather about the person.

Uh, we are focusing on arguments, Charles. E.g.:

"Intersting method of argument..."

It seems that your typical input (argument) in these matters is to move the focus from his arguments to Brian, then defending the person rather than his arguments.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

MaddogLutheran

Bad faith arguments inevitably point back to the person making them.

Especially when, based on the recurring pattern, it's about taking delight in puncturing long-standing orthodoxies:  but wait, these things Christians have taken for granted for centuries...not true!   ::)
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Dave Likeness

Marriage Counseling 101:

A CONSTRUCTIVE Argument is when you focus on the issues
and attempt to speak the truth in love.

A DESTRUCTIVE Argument is when you focus on your spouse
and resort to name calling and make personal attacks.

This basic premise also applies to this alpb forum.  In Christian love
we will focus on the issues and not resort to personal attacks.

George Rahn

Quote from: Charles Austin on March 27, 2023, 09:43:37 AM
How about focusing on the arguments in the discussions rather than the person making comments? Try speaking to the argument rather about the person.


Now with this I heartily agree. 

George Rahn

Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on March 27, 2023, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on March 27, 2023, 09:43:37 AM
How about focusing on the arguments in the discussions rather than the person making comments? Try speaking to the argument rather about the person.

Uh, we are focusing on arguments, Charles. E.g.:

"Intersting method of argument..."

It seems that your typical input (argument) in these matters is to move the focus from his arguments to Brian, then defending the person rather than his arguments.

Whereas you seem to never engage with the arguments but instead focus on projection.

Donald_Kirchner

#40
Quote from: George Rahn on March 27, 2023, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on March 27, 2023, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on March 27, 2023, 09:43:37 AM
How about focusing on the arguments in the discussions rather than the person making comments? Try speaking to the argument rather about the person.

Uh, we are focusing on arguments, Charles. E.g.:

"Intersting method of argument..."

It seems that your typical input (argument) in these matters is to move the focus from his arguments to Brian, then defending the person rather than his arguments.

Whereas you seem to never engage with the arguments but instead focus on projection.

That's simply baloney. And a generalized, personal attack, by the way. I've typically engaged Brian's arguments as well as yours. E.g., see the Christological/incarnation example given above. That grew out of an extended conversation in which I gave numerous references supporting the position that Jesus IS, not WAS, incarnate and the absoolute necessity of that for the sake of the Gospel.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

George Rahn

Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on March 27, 2023, 10:56:15 AM
Quote from: George Rahn on March 27, 2023, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on March 27, 2023, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on March 27, 2023, 09:43:37 AM
How about focusing on the arguments in the discussions rather than the person making comments? Try speaking to the argument rather about the person.

Uh, we are focusing on arguments, Charles. E.g.:

"Intersting method of argument..."

It seems that your typical input (argument) in these matters is to move the focus from his arguments to Brian, then defending the person rather than his arguments.

Whereas you seem to never engage with the arguments but instead focus on projection.

That's simply baloney. And a generalized, personal attack, by the way. I've typically engaged Brian's arguments as well as yours. E.g., see the Christological/incarnation example given above. That grew out of an extended conversation in which I gave numerous references supporting the position that Jesus IS, not WAS, incarnate and the absoolute necessity of that for the sake of the Gospel.

I have never denied that Jesus is incarnate.

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: George Rahn on March 27, 2023, 11:41:56 AM
Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on March 27, 2023, 10:56:15 AM
Quote from: George Rahn on March 27, 2023, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: Donald_Kirchner on March 27, 2023, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: Charles Austin on March 27, 2023, 09:43:37 AM
How about focusing on the arguments in the discussions rather than the person making comments? Try speaking to the argument rather about the person.

Uh, we are focusing on arguments, Charles. E.g.:

"Intersting method of argument..."

It seems that your typical input (argument) in these matters is to move the focus from his arguments to Brian, then defending the person rather than his arguments.

Whereas you seem to never engage with the arguments but instead focus on projection.

That's simply baloney. And a generalized, personal attack, by the way. I've typically engaged Brian's arguments as well as yours. E.g., see the Christological/incarnation example given above. That grew out of an extended conversation in which I gave numerous references supporting the position that Jesus IS, not WAS, incarnate and the absoolute necessity of that for the sake of the Gospel.

I have never denied that Jesus is incarnate.

And I've never read nor heard that anyone has stated, suggested, or even implied that you have.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Jim Butler

Quote from: Charles Austin on March 27, 2023, 09:43:37 AM
How about focusing on the arguments in the discussions rather than the person making comments? Try speaking to the argument rather about the person.

See the tag line for an example of Charles Austin "focusing on the arguments in the discussions rather than the person."

I'm still awaiting an apology and a retraction, not simply removal and a "It's just an opinion."
"Pastor Butler... [is] deaf to the cries of people like me, dismissing our concerns as Satanic scenarios, denouncing our faith and our very existence."--Charles Austin

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: DCharlton on March 26, 2023, 09:03:28 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on March 26, 2023, 02:01:45 PM
Quote from: DCharlton on March 25, 2023, 07:58:45 PM
I know that there are Christians who maintain that neither the Trinity, nor Christ, are revealed in the Old Testament, so that any exegesis that finds a reference to Christ or the Trinity is eisegesis.  I find it difficult to see how such a position can successfully ward off Marcionism, however.

Easy. The Old Testament is still the Word of God for us. It points to Jesus. It has "types" of Jesus, e.g., Moses, who brought the people God's Law directly from God on Mount Sinai, and Jesus who brought the proper interpretation of God's Law in the Sermon on the Mount. The sacrifices and their benefits in Leviticus is the necessary background to understanding Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. John shows how Jesus on the cross is similar to the serpents Moses hung on poles.

I've looked at every passage where the Hebrew "messiah" is used. Ironically, it is never translated "messiah," but 'anointed (one)." Those who look to the OT to understand what a messiah is and does will not find the word applicable to Jesus. In fact, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament states with its definition of "anointed one;" "N.B. 'Messiah' as eschatological savior-figure not in OT." Rather, this word is used of the kings of Israel, especially Saul, David, Solomon, and successors; priests and high priests; Cyrus, and patriarchs.

Much closer to Jesus' saving acts are the suffering-servant poems in Isaiah - but the servant is never called a messiah.

Intersting method of argument, affirming the very thing you had previously denied.


I have not said that the servant poems are about Jesus. Isaiah had his own meaning for the poems (like he did with the young women who would become pregnant). Christians later applied the passages to Jesus.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk