ForumGarden

Ted;

"Jacob I have loved but Esau I hated."

d:-5

downag:-6

Of course that is what it says. That is how the writer felt. It does not come from God.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted wrote: Of course that is what it says. That is how the writer felt. It does not come from God.Malachi certainly *claims* it comes from God, very explicitly, as "The word of the LORD to Israel". He's in a different league to a New York Times columnist.

Spot:-6

Of course Malachi said that. Once again that is what was written by the ancients. That is how they thought.

Shalom

Ted:-6

FarRider:-6

Of course, of course. You like the creative writing and dancing that goes on to reconcile the irreconcilable. That is okay with me. I certainly don't agree. But hey, if it makes you laugh then it has done some good. Think of the healthy endorphins that your body is producing when you laugh.

I enjoy a good laugh myself.

You say you don't understand. Of course not. If one doesn't try one does not understand.

As you wish.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted wrote: Of course Malachi said that. Once again that is what was written by the ancients. That is how they thought.How, then, would you have us make use of the words of the Prophets? We're not socio-archaeologists, we're Christians reading our sacred text. Does Malachi speak to us or not? If he does, what does the prefix "The word of the LORD to Israel" say to us?

Spot:-6

The Bible contains many truths but we have to learn to discern the messages from God from the very human words of the Bible. (prayer, meditation, study, tradition, common sense, discussion with other Christians, personal experience, observations).

The Bible becomes for Christians "The Word of God" by virtue of the fact that God does speak to us through the Bible not by virtue of its authorship.

Even though the prophesies are ancient and about their time and place does not mean that there is not wisdom there. That would indeed, be a disappointing reading.

The OT was compiled around 500 to 700 BCE. It was compiled from some existing written documents and a great deal of oral tradition.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted wrote: Even though the prophesies are ancient and about their time and place does not mean that there is not wisdom there. That would indeed, be a disappointing reading.And yet Malachi was, presumably, a bona-fide prophet speaking to God's people in the Lord's name, and he has a distinct view on God's partiality (pro-chosen, anti-heathen), and this partiality carries through into the Gospels. It's not an abberant verse, it's a central tenet of the nature of the Chosen People and their relationship with the Voice from the Burning Bush.

Malachi isn't on the edge of the Christian experience here, displaying a minor aspect of their historical setting, he's thumping his pulpit with what became a central tenet of the early Christian church. Now, admittedly, you and I can disagree strongly with the early Christian church's interpretation of the life of Jesus, but I do think we disapprove into the teeth of authority. Between us, we'd like to re-invent Christianity to co-exist with our liberal philosophy while keeping the label.

I'm not sure that we can succeed. On the other hand, I'd rather see the entire concept of monotheism torn down than watch any more Us and Them bigotry divide people one from another in the name of religious belief. In the Christian context, the heart of the divide is the Bible's acceptance of God's partiality for a subset of humanity - those who believe in Him in the Bible's terms as opposed to any other historical experience.

spot:-6

Absolutely not. God is not partial. If He is then our concept of God is no different than that of any other faith.

God saw what he had created and said that it was good. The story is a myth but the truth is there. The Gospel of John tells us that "God so loved the world". Acts 10:34ff "Then Peter began to speak to them; 'I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. Matt. 5 with the beatitudes and Matt 25: 31ff clearly show us that God does not show partiality.

Partiality is part of the view created by the theology of redemption and the theology of Atonement. That was fine for an era and a particular time and context. It no longer fits our knowledge today.

As I said before those are the words of Malachi and not God. This is not to say that in some ways Malachi does not speak to us concerning God. He does, but in that one he is wrong.

Isaiah was probably the greatest of all the prophets. In fact Isaiah was written by three different Isaiahs. The prophets were calling on the Hebrew people to return to their faith in God.

It is not a matter of reinventing Christianity. It is a matter of seeing that our faith is reflective of the reality of the world around us. God does not change but our concept of God does as we gain more and more knowledge. That is knowledge that God has led us to discover.

In fact the early church had a better understanding then we do today. They did not think of the Bible as inerrant. They knew if for what it was.

To put it suscintly, Canadian theologian, D. J. Hall, has said in his book "The Cross in Our Context" that fundamentalism/literalism is the home of those who simply don't want to face reality.

Shalom

Ted:-6

spot:-6

Just a little aside and yet in line with the theme of this thread we now have the problem of the above mentioned quotes and squaring them with Paul's statement about salvation by faith alone.

Personally I don't see it as a problem because the contradictions are immaterial.

That leads us to another problem; that of squaring Malachi with Peter in the book of Acts. Another contradiction?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted said;

"Isaiah was probably the greatest of all the prophets. In fact Isaiah was written by three different Isaiahs. The prophets were calling on the Hebrew people to return to their faith in God."

That is the opinion of certain scholars, Ted. The Bible took many punches from the "higher critics". It doesn't mean they are right. No doubt it means we have a very busy Devil running amuck.

d:-5

downag:-6

If you choose to believe in the devil as a supernatural being that is fine with me. I do not subscribe to that view.

As for one or three Isaiahs; you are correct that it is a guess but a scholarly guess based on writing style and historical factors which clearly indicate that it could not have been composed by one man. In fact in some instances we have prophesy written after the fact not before.

The same goes for the writer or writers of the Pentateuch. There are two creation stories that are different and there are two Noah stories. Along with that if Moses had written the first five books he did a wonderful job of writing the ending after his own death. It is neat how the early writers would not change what they had written but would add on later to make a character seem more moral as in the case of Abraham and his encounter with a ruler.

Shalom

Ted:-6

With the season approaching, I thought a brain teaser was in order.

Most Christians celebrate Good Friday and Easter. We know from Strong's Concordence, that Easter is a "replacement" word for Passover. Some say it is derived from the name Ishtar or Ishtarte, a pagan reference dealing with fertility rights of Spring, etc (eggs, Rabbits, et-al).

The scripture says that Yeshua (Jesus) was 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb.

QUESTION: How do you get 3 days and 3 nights from Friday afternoon (the scripture says that he died about 3PM (the 9th hour)), to Sunday morning?

The story goes that he had to be buried quickly because the "sabbath" was coming at 6PM that evening. The sabbath was 6PM Friday and all day Sat. until 6PM. Right?!

So, is the church that celebrates Good Friday merely observing a tradition which has no basis in scripture or is the scripture erroneous OR have the great minds of the church just not seen a "thing"?

d:-5

Ted wrote: As for one or three Isaiahs; you are correct that it is a guess but a scholarly guess based on writing style and historical factors which clearly indicate that it could not have been composed by one man. In fact in some instances we have prophesy written after the fact not before.It does rather depend on your view of whether a prophet does more than speak to the people to return them to the strait and narrow. If a prophet such as Isaiah is also one who foresees future events, there's not a lot of internal evidence that it's not a single author. I know writers whose style varies significantly within a single book. I know writers who use both past and future tenses in different chapters when they describe events. The key question in the timeframe is whether the scholar assesses the work naturally or supernaturally. If the book of Isaiah is written naturally, then the authors lived over a period of at least two hundred years. If the supernatural is real, then bets like that are off.

I have no place for the supernatural in this world, myself.

downag wrote: QUESTION: How do you get 3 days and 3 nights from Friday afternoon (the scripture says that he died about 3PM (the 9th hour)), to Sunday morning?I suppose it depends on whether you're a literalist or not, whether you have a problem with that. If you accept that "a day and a night" is an idiom which can refer to a portion of a 24 hour period, then there's portions of three sunset-to-sunset periods that Jesus is gone from the world. If you demand literal rather than expressive use of English, you have a conundrum.

doenag:-6

Does it matter if it was literally 3 and 3? Who knows it might have been three weeks. It is immaterial to the experience of the Risen Lord.

Spot:-6

Some of what you say, such as timeframe, supports the contention that it was written by more then one author. Your comment about the supernatural is also supportive of what I said.

I must disagree that writers change their style as often as you suggest. There are consistencies in all writers' works.

Anyway some good points.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Sorry for the interuption guys,



Hiya Ted, i hope you're keeping well, dont see you enough x:-6

Abbey:-6

Thanks. Not bad for an older fellow. Notice I said older not just old. LOL I comment when I think it important.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I just thought it unusual that so many take the word of some teachers regarding Good Friday and Easter Sunday as granted.

It makes no difference, but it does show how deep some study and no one offered an explanation.

So here it is.

Because the scripture says they had to get Yeshua down from the cross for buriel in a hurry because the sabbath was approaching they assume it was Friday because as everyone knows, Saturday (Fri. at 6PM) the sabbath begins.

Except for High Sabbath days, such as Yom Kippur, Passover, etc., which can fall on any day. I believe Jesus died on Wednesday afternoon and Passover was to begin at 6PM that day. A High Sabbath. Wed. night to Thurs. morning = 1 night.

All day Thurs. = 1 day. Thurs. night ='s 2 nights. Fri. all day = 2 days. Fri. night ='s 3 nights. All day Sat. ='s 3 days. Sometime Sat. night Jesus was raised from the dead because at first light when the women came he was already risen.

I just thought one of you would tell this.

d:-5

Geza Vermes in his book "The Passion" points out that in the Gospel of John the meal was held on 14 Nisan which is the day before the Passover whereas in the synoptic gospels it is held on the day of Passover. Both Vermes and Crossan in his book "The Last Week are clear that the feast was on Thurs. evening and the crucifixion was on the day before the Sabbath. The reason for Jesus hasty buriel was in fact to have him buried before the Sabbath began since they did not want Jewish bodies hanging on the cross over the Sabbath which is Saturday. This places the resurrection on Sunday.

However since the story is midrashic the actual length of time in the grave is uncertain in spite of what the gospels say. (Spong)

Shalom

Ted:-6

Sounds like someone has smoked too much Midrash in their pipe (SPONG)

d:-5

downag wrote: Sounds like someone has smoked too much Midrash in their pipe (SPONG)



d:-5
Good to see your sense of humor finally show itself, downag! :yh_bigsmi

downag:-6

Why am I not surprised?

Shalom

Ted:-6

From p86 "The Last Week" J. D. Crossan.

For example, Matthew unifies the cursing and withering of the fig tree as a single incident on Monday(21:18-20) rather than following Mark, who divided it overMonday an d Tuesday to frame the temple incident."

Shalom

Ted:-6

There I go smoking too much Midrash again. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

And as figs are not in season in Palestine during the Passover period, (March/April), either this biblical incident is midrashic, a parable about figs corrupted by oral transmission (see Luke 13:6-9), or Jesus was demented.

memibias:-6

Surprise, surprise. I agree with you. It is in all likelihood midrashic in its style and intent. However, that is only a problem for those who take the Bible literally. BTW I have dozens more. Should be able to keep this thread going for a long while.

Shalom

Ted:-6

downag:-6

Instead of attacking the messanger perhaps you should look at the message. As noted above, though, I am not the least bit surprised at your response. It is one I fully expected.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Getting to repeating ourselves now, are we?

downag:-6

You still haven't dealt with the issue. You are too busy attacking the messenger.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Another neat contradiction. In Mark's gospel we find that the two criminals crucified with Jesus both rebuked and tormented him. In John's gospel we find that one of them repented and looked to Jesus for help in his kingdom.

Best to read the gospels for meaning rather then from an historical perspective.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Another contradiction is the fact that at the first part of Genesis we have two entirely different stories of creation. Neat trick if one can do it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I hope you are enjoying yourself, Ted, because I am.

As far as your second to last post. It was not the Gospel of John, but rather Luke, that you should have referenced.

Knowing that you are not perfect, we'll let it slide with just this mention.

As for there being a contradiction, I ask where? So early on both revile him and later on one changes his mind. No big deal. No exact time frame is given for precisely when their words were spoken. And no big deal that the same event is recorded differently by two different people. Try to get as close testimony from any two people today!

As for two creation accounts. You fail to point out any differences, but merely make a general reference. Make your point.

Have fun.

d:-5

:-6

Aw Ted, randall thinks that you will find THREE different desriptions of THE CREATION - But who's counting.

Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good.

Let him who is without sin throw the first stone.

God bless.

Shalom

randall

Keep the faith baby. Spread it gently.

:)

Yeah, what HE said!

downag:-6

Oops, I goofed. Three lashes with a wet noodle.

As far as your comment on the two crucified with Jesus, it doesn't wash. You are adding to one gospel what is not there.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;

No, I'm not!

d:-5

downag wrote: As for two creation accounts. You fail to point out any differences, but merely make a general reference. Make your point.down, if you will read the two accounts you will have no trouble finding the differences. Did God create the animals before man (Gen 1) or man before the beasties (Gen 2)? Did He create humans male and female together (Gen 1) or did He create man early in the process and woman last of all (Gen 2)?

downag:-6

You mean to tell me that you don't know that those two creation stories are located in the first few pages of Genesis and that happens to be the first book of the Older Testament.

A careful reading of Mark chapter 15 will clearly show you that the two thieves both taunted Jesus and neither of them is said to recant or repent. Mark 15:32b. "Those who were crucified with him also taunted him." If one tries to make it say anything else one is adding to the sacred scriptures what is not there.

Thus you are adding to scripture.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted wrote: downag:-6

You mean to tell me that you don't know that those two creation stories are located in the first few pages of Genesis and that happens to be the first book of the Older Testament.

A careful reading of Mark chapter 15 will clearly show you that the two thieves both taunted Jesus and neither of them is said to recant or repent. Mark 15:32b. "Those who were crucified with him also taunted him." If one tries to make it say anything else one is adding to the sacred scriptures what is not there.

Thus you are adding to scripture.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Ted, I tried to explain before (I thought) that the first creation account represented corporate man and that the second was about THE MAN (HaAdam) (ruddy complected) . You fail to recognize that the latter Adam was designated as a tiller of the ground specifically. There are all kinds of conotation to be derived from a "planter/tiller" race, vs. those who smelt metals or work wood, etc, etc, as those skills were described of certain of the other folk mentioned later in the book.

But! Since it is all midrash, or midtrash, or tedtrash or whatever, I see no use in continuing an exchange with you. You aren't seeking, anything anyway. Except perhaps other victims of the world according to Ted. For someone to have so much time on their hands to post as large as do you, I suspect it is all much like an athletic competition with you. You don't care about truth as much as you do the game.

Furthermore, when has anything except orders from Her Majesty to her willingly knighted dupe American subjects, come out of GB, lately? You folks exported your hugely popular Beatles and Stones and, and, and to the colonies and planted the seeds of Hinduism among many a searching young soul with the likes of George Harrison. John Lennons voltairesk was nausiating. For goodness sake, I personally know of a young man who went to YOUR country to be a missionery. That is almost laughable. You are far better prepared as an antagonist than I am.

Your method is really quite good. Someone quotes a scripture and offers an explanation which is plausable and Ted says, it's

"midrash"! HEY! End of subject. But Ted has his huge resource of alternative poo-poo on the Bible, and it's time to shower the opponnet with bologna.

Ted, time will tell.

I only really know what I have seen and heard and what has touched me.

Watch me Ted. I'll be around.

d:-5

downag:-6

Your take on the two creation stories does not mesh with what is known about scripture. However, you are entitled to your opinion.

As for the rest of your diatribe you do what others do. You don't want to discuss or debate and when the going gets rough you resort to personal attacks.

As far as my depth of faith and belief are concerned you have absolutely no idea whatsoever.

My heavens you started this thread. You invited contradictions to be listed and then get angy when they are presented and alternative views are expressed. I've got dozens more . . . we'll see.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Teddy;

The central theme of this thread was to plant seeds of faith. To have one illustrate a perceived flaw in the Bible which would be easily discounted. As it is written, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (KJV).

I have found that this has been perverted into a forum for bashing the scripture with claims of unreliability because of "midrash" et al,

which you have postulated.:

I was not the first to make personal attacks, but rather it was you with your attacks upon my simple faith in the word, which you so easily watered down as "midrash" and which couldn't be trusted (in your drift).

You don't understand how instantly the Holy Spirit can act upon an individual while they are reading the word, if God chooses to illuminate an individual. But the spirits which drive you do. And you are more than willing to do their bidding, enjoying the victory over an idea you think needed tending too (to our collective detriment).

You post with a deceptive smiley wearing sungalsses. We can't see your eyes Ted, to discern your demeanor. The eye is the window of the soul, Ted. :-3

d:-5

:-6

randall wistfully wandering,

I certainly do not wish to get embroiled in this bible argument as I have more than my fair share of bible thumpers here in Buchan.

Many carrying the bible in their back pocket apparently twenty four hours a day and are only just waiting for the least excuse to whip it out and quote chapter and verse.

I did mention in an earlier post that I heard that there were three versions of the creation - not two - but as it is over thirty years since I read the Bible from cover to cover I cannot remember where it is supposed to be. During one very long trip to sea.

However, like almost all old sea dogs I depended entirely upon the BBC Overseas Radio (shortwave) from Bush House, in London, England; for keeping us up to date with events in the world at large.

Once whilst listening to a man answering a wide variety of questions I was hit on the head with a wooden mallet.

A listener had written in and asked if it was true that Eve was Adam's SECOND wife!

The question was answered seriously and with dignity. Apparently there is a (oral?) tradition that Adam's first wife was named Lilith and he kicked her out of the Garden of Eden because she would not obey him

The world's first FEMINIST??????

Anybody else come across this legend or myth - remember a myth need not necessarily be untrue - usually, unproven.

But if you can prove anything then you do not need faith to believe in it.

Faith is the evidence of things unseen and the HOPE of things to come.

God bless all

You need it.

randall.

:)

downag wrote:

Furthermore, when has anything except orders from Her Majesty to her willingly knighted dupe American subjects, come out of GB, lately? You folks exported your hugely popular Beatles and Stones and, and, and to the colonies and planted the seeds of Hinduism among many a searching young soul with the likes of George Harrison. John Lennons voltairesk was nausiating. For goodness sake, I personally know of a young man who went to YOUR country to be a missionery. That is almost laughable. You are far better prepared as an antagonist than I am.




Excuse me? Would you care to explain this 'cos it don't seem to make no sense to me!

Bryn Mawr wrote: Excuse me? Would you care to explain this 'cos it don't seem to make no sense to me!


It makes perfect sense if you are someone who thinks British Columbia is part of the British Isles.

randall:-6

Yes there is, in fact three creation stories. I will look them up and post them later.

Shalom

Ted:-6

downag:-6 :-6

You are talking nonsense. This forum is not a place for proselytizing it is for discussion and debate. I do respect a thread that is clearly labelled as a "soft" thread, if I can use those words. This thread was an open invitation that I accepted.

You asked for discrepencies, but you have a preconceived idea of how ouwant it to go. You wanted to probe that they weren't discrepencies. This is imposible because their are discrepencies. However, if you have your head buried in the sand you will not see them. You don't like my reference to the use of midrash or metaphor. Excuse me but midrash was the style of the ancient writiers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Ieep it buried in the sand if you like.

As for a personal attack, that is simply untrue and a complete misreading of the situatioin. I have not attacked you. I have pointed out other views on the Bible. I can't help it if you don't like it. That is your problem downaggy.

You have absolutely no ideas about my faith and my understanding and my ministry. None whatsoever.

Now I am berated for using the smiley given on the list. My heavens, what next. Am I to be blamed for existing.

As far as the "spirits" which drive me; once again a judgment which the Bible clearly speaks against.

To put it bluntly you have resorted to ad homonim attacks because you didn't get what you expected. I had grade six classes who knew full well what "put downs" are and they knew the reasons for folks using them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have been where you are and done that and I am truly sorry for being duped into such nonsense.

I am truly sorry you feel that way but that is how it is.

Shalom

Ted:-6 :-6

PS And just for that you get two smilies.

randall wrote: Once whilst listening to a man answering a wide variety of questions I was hit on the head with a wooden mallet.

A listener had written in and asked if it was true that Eve was Adam's SECOND wife!

The question was answered seriously and with dignity. Apparently there is a (oral?) tradition that Adam's first wife was named Lilith and he kicked her out of the Garden of Eden because she would not obey him

The world's first FEMINIST??????She does seem that way inclined, Randall. The legend comes down from a couple of paragraphs written in the Jewish medieval tradition, a thousand years ago:

After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, 'It is not good for man to be alone' (Genesis 2:18). He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels to bring her back.It turned up in Scots lore after George Macdonald wrote a novel called Lilith, in Victorian times. It was not exactly racy - I read it as a youth and enjoyed the story - but it shocked the more dour of his contemporaries.

I've enjoyed reading your posts, I'm sorry I haven't found much worth contributing by way of replies to them. You have a wry regard for your fellow man.

downag wrote: The central theme of this thread was to plant seeds of faith. To have one illustrate a perceived flaw in the Bible which would be easily discounted. As it is written, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (KJV).


Well now...will wonders never cease. I gotta go with Ted on this one, Downy. You can't control the direction a thread takes. You can post all the threads you want, but that doesn't mean you own them or get to discount the input and opinions of those who care to reply. Not to mention, if we all consistently agreed about everything, how boring a place would this be?

And by the way? My faith cometh by what I've seen and learned in this world, not by any book, including the Bible.