A Deceptive Argument: No Gentiles Under the New Covenant

[cyberjosh]

Strictly speaking, I think both propositions are incorrect.

Warning---If you read the following, you might have to read each sentence carefully.----
Proposition #1 would be correct statement if the writer said "Only Israel was promised the NC." That would be a true statement. Gentiles are not explicitly named in the promises of the New Covenant. In the NT, this does not limit Gods grace. Gods grace can superabound beyond his promises and this does not mean that God violated his promises.

If God had said that "only Israel will receive the New Covenant, then he would have violated his promise to Israel. But there is no such limit in the NC promises.

If I promise to give all the Jewish kids in my neighborhood who come to my door on Halloween $1. Then when Gentiles come along with the Jewish children, and I also give them $1, I have not violated my promise to the Jewish kids.

I think your observations are correct.

This leaves me disagreeing with both the above propositions. Gentiles are under the NC, but were not promised the NC. But neither is there any explicit teaching that Gentiles have become Israel or spiritual Israel.

There are in certain contexts suggestions that Gentiles are considered spiritual Israel, from the fact that Gentiles have been grafted into the root of Israel, Paul mentioning the "Israel of God", Paul saying that not all of Israel (spiritual Israel) are of Israel (physical/ethnic Israel), among other clues like Paul saying Jerusalem above is the mother of us all. I think Paul makes provisions for understanding Gentiles as a spiritual Israel to whom the covenant promises had been extended. This of course only reflects the actually reality of the the regeneration and baptism into the body by the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of adoption). But the idea of Gentiles being spiritual Israel stands, not because of some technical requirement, but simply by virtue of spiritual reality, and Paul (I believe) is arguing that all that have been extended grace by God to be under the New Covenant - both Jew and Gentile - can be considered a spiritual 'Israel', or rather "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16; cf. Galatians 3:7, 3:29).

Also, it is an exegetical mistake to assume that the theologocial content of the term "Jew" in Romans 2 is identical with the theological content of the word "Israel." I do not see Galatians mentioned in the thread. It is appropriate to say that we are Jews by nature in the inner man, we are the children of Abraham by faith (Galatians), but none of this is the same as being Spiritual Israel.

Well I actually did mention Galatians twice, although I'm not sure if it was on the same topic you are trying to address:

So then it seems you actually do agree that the Church is Spiritual Israel. Why then did you say my terminology was open-ended? We seem to agree on that idea.

Also what I meant by suggesting transcendence in identity is taken from the verse, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). And I also was balancing my argument if you noticed, in which I noted both interpretations and I said that it should be determined by context. So while the Church surely has an "Israel-ness" about it (as I said - I believe the Church is Spiritual Israel), they also yet in Christ are all one, the whole (as a body) transcends the individual identities in Christ. The same holds for male & female, who have very different roles given by God, and where the woman is the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7), yet in Christ male and female are equal - no distinction (Galatians 3:28), though not so in their individual roles. The unity in Christ is the transcendence I was referring to.

Hope that addresses any questions or concerns you had.

God Bless.

~Josh

 

[stranger]

Isn't Israel by defintion the Israel of God?

Well, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Romans 9:6).

That is an analogous situation where Jews in Jesus' day claimed that Abraham was their father while Jesus told them the Devil was. In both instances - the Jews who were not of the household of faith, needed to repent. What makes 'Israel the nation' unique among all the nations of the earth is its status as God's chosen nation which includes the faithful and the faithless.

Then there is the following prophesy which has not been fulfilled:

Jer 31:1"At that time," declares the LORD, "I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people." . . . .

Jeremiah 31:34
"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

At no point in history have 'the least to the greatest of them' know the Lord so the prophesy has not been fulfilled. While some may disagree with this, such a fulfilment for Israel seems to be contingent on a national repentance and acceptance of the Messiah at the end of the age.

With regard to the NC the olive tree itself may be the Kingdom of God into which the gentiles are grafted, and from which the natural branch (hardened Israel) was broken off.

 

[francisdesales]

Also, it is an exegetical mistake to assume that the theologocial content of the term "Jew" in Romans 2 is identical with the theological content of the word "Israel." I do not see Galatians mentioned in the thread. It is appropriate to say that we are Jews by nature in the inner man, we are the children of Abraham by faith (Galatians), but none of this is the same as being Spiritual Israel.

Does the term "Jews" and "Israel" have different meanings in the Old Testament when the promise was given? The context seems to suggest that Paul believes that God's Spirit leads even the non-Jew to become spiritual Jews, without the rites of becoming Jewish.

Secondly, in the same letter to the Romans, Paul says the Gentiles will be grafted onto the SAME tree, Israel. There is only one people of God, and it has been widened to include Gentiles. There are not two "trees", two covenants, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. That is a mistake. The Messiah's New Covenant expanded the coverage to include all men who seek God.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Also, it is an exegetical mistake to assume that the theologocial content of the term "Jew" in Romans 2 is identical with the theological content of the word "Israel." I do not see Galatians mentioned in the thread. It is appropriate to say that we are Jews by nature in the inner man, we are the children of Abraham by faith (Galatians), but none of this is the same as being Spiritual Israel.

Does the term "Jews" and "Israel" have different meanings in the Old Testament when the promise was given? The context seems to suggest that Paul believes that God's Spirit leads even the non-Jew to become spiritual Jews, without the rites of becoming Jewish.

I am taking your question as rhetorical. You first are assuming the term Jews appears in the OT, I doubt your researched this. The term does appear in the post exilic OT literature (Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther), it does not appear in any prophetic or theological context in which you can demonstrate that the use of the term is a theologically a replacement for the term Israel?

The establishment of the term Jew and Israel would be absolutely necessary for your previous comments to have any validity. Please provide evidence for your assertions (IE: Chapter and verse).

Secondly, in the same letter to the Romans, Paul says the Gentiles will be grafted onto the SAME tree, Israel. There is only one people of God, and it has been widened to include Gentiles. There are not two "trees", two covenants, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. That is a mistake. The Messiah's New Covenant expanded the coverage to include all men who seek God.

Regards

The paragraph above that you wrote seems to me to indicate that you do not understand what I previously wrote. I would agree that there is one people of God. I would not do so using Romans 11 (where it might be inplicit), but would use a text where explicit statements are made concerning the one people of God. The later part of Ephesians 2 would be the preferable text to demonstrate the unity of the one people of God. I think Ephesians 2 tells us how the middle wall of partition was broken down, and the 2 became 1. This is the basis for unity in Paul's opening salvo of unity in Ephesians 4. The saints are one people. This does not mean that I would agree that the NC promises were made to all people. The NC promises were made only to Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31). This does not mean that God cannot give the NC to all whom he pleases. He must save at least one generation of Israelites because of his promises, but that does not mean he cannot save any more then the generation of Israelites. It is to them the promises belong, but the blessings have been given to many. So then, the promises were made to Jews, but the many (one people of God) received its blessings, but it will be fulfilled in the people to whom it was given.

Concerning Romans 11, certainly there is only one New Covenant (you said this, and I agree). There is unity in the NC in that the blessings are the same. The NC speaks of regeneration (I would defend this, but it takes too much effort). The difference is not the blessings of the covenant, or the unity of the covenant, nor the unity of the people of God. The difference is the way and means of gaining access to the NC. Israel is the natural branch, and to them the promises of the New Covenant were given. The Gentile is the wild olive branch that does not naturally belong to the tree, but was grafted in.
------------You might begin by asking why does Romans 11 assume that Gentiles do not naturally belong to the tree? This is because the OT NC promises do not name the Gentiles in the promises, but only name Israel and Judah.----------
So then, Gentiles are included in the NC not as the group named to receive the promises, but by Gods grace he grafted us into promises that were not naturally ours. We were not named in the New Covenant, but he gave us its blessings anyway. God did not violate any promises in doing this, but his grace superabounds to give us blessings (under NC) that he did not promise us. We are the wild olive branch.

So then, there is one people of God, one NC, one faith, one hope, but some belong naturally to the olive tree, and others are grafted into the richness and fruits of the olive tree who do not naturally belong there.
____________________________________________________________________
Let me add a few comments that might tie what I am saying here in with my previous post.

I gave an illustration...

If I promise to give all the Jewish kids in my neighborhood who come to my door on Halloween $1. Then when Gentiles come along with the Jewish children, and I also give them $1, I have not violated my promise to the Jewish kids.

If I promise all the Israelite kids in the neighborhood $1 for Halloween (but let us say that I did not say which Halloween), and their names are "the natural branch." Now this halloween some of the Jewish kids come to my door and some do not. So then, I did not give "all the Israelite kids" $1. And I gave some of their Gentile friends $1. I still must fulfill my promises to these "natural branch" Israelite Children. I did not give all of them, each and every one of them, $1 on Halloween. So then, maybe some halloween I will change all their natures so that they will come to my door and want the prize. Now of course this promise does not mean that I cannot give $1 to the wild olive branch. Who then are the children that I claim as my favorites, my own. All the children who receive $1 on halloween are "one people."

CONCLUSION
I am glad God's grace abounded to Israel and that he made promises to Israel in the OT. I am also glad that God's grace did not end there, but superabounded to me, a Gentile. I am glad I am under the NC by his superabounding grace. I think many texts make it clear that I am under the NC, Hebrews 8-10, 1 Cor 11, 2 Cor 4, etc.

 

[francisdesales]

Does the term "Jews" and "Israel" have different meanings in the Old Testament when the promise was given? The context seems to suggest that Paul believes that God's Spirit leads even the non-Jew to become spiritual Jews, without the rites of becoming Jewish.

I am taking your question as rhetorical. You first are assuming the term Jews appears in the OT, I doubt your researched this. The term does appear in the post exilic OT literature (Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther), it does not appear in any prophetic or theological context in which you can demonstrate that the use of the term is a theologically a replacement for the term Israel?

The establishment of the term Jew and Israel would be absolutely necessary for your previous comments to have any validity. Please provide evidence for your assertions (IE: Chapter and verse).

I am asking YOU, where does the term "Jew" and "Israel" have different meanings? Where is YOUR evidence in your assertion that they are different - e.g. Israel receiving the promise, but not the Jews?

Secondly, in the same letter to the Romans, Paul says the Gentiles will be grafted onto the SAME tree, Israel. There is only one people of God, and it has been widened to include Gentiles. There are not two "trees", two covenants, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. That is a mistake. The Messiah's New Covenant expanded the coverage to include all men who seek God.

The paragraph above that you wrote seems to me to indicate that you do not understand what I previously wrote. I would agree that there is one people of God. I would not do so using Romans 11 (where it might be inplicit), but would use a text where explicit statements are made concerning the one people of God. The later part of Ephesians 2 would be the preferable text to demonstrate the unity of the one people of God.

I was not attempting to write a tract that would describe that there is only one people of God. I refered to Romans 11 because the same author writes to the same people in the letter to the Romans. Romans 2 and Romans 11 are thus related and share Paul's thought that the gift of the Spirit is not just for the national Jews, but rather, an expanded Israel, a spiritual Israel, which theologically speaking, was a new concept, as the OT does not separate the two (Jew = Israel).

Certainly, Ephesians 2 is a good section of Scriptures, and Galatians also describes the same oneness, as the walls between Jews and Greek have been broken down. But again, I used Romans because it relates to Romans 2 and the understanding Paul maintains to the Romans.

Concerning Romans 11, certainly there is only one New Covenant (you said this, and I agree). There is unity in the NC in that the blessings are the same. The NC speaks of regeneration (I would defend this, but it takes too much effort). The difference is not the blessings of the covenant, or the unity of the covenant, nor the unity of the people of God. The difference is the way and means of gaining access to the NC. Israel is the natural branch, and to them the promises of the New Covenant were given. The Gentile is the wild olive branch that does not naturally belong to the tree, but was grafted in.

I contend that the definition of "Israel" has changed with the coming of the Messiah and the relegation of dietary laws and circumcision rites to the dustbin of history. "Israel" the nation is no longer of concern to become part of the people of God. Those rites that separated Jews/Israel from the Gentiles are done. Gone. Pointless. Jew no longer = Israel.

The term "Israel" no longer signifies the historical nation of Israel, people of Palestine, but rather, "spiritual Israel", those born of Abraham by faith, not by blood. "Israel" as before, signifies the people of God, but the definition has been changed from "those born of Abraham by the flesh" to "those born of Abraham by faith". Those regenerated, as you said, are "New" Israel. (although in God's plan, it was always that way - just the Jewish OT theologians didn't realize the extend of God's plan)

Regards

 

[mondar]

Does the term "Jews" and "Israel" have different meanings in the Old Testament when the promise was given? The context seems to suggest that Paul believes that God's Spirit leads even the non-Jew to become spiritual Jews, without the rites of becoming Jewish.

Can you cite even one context where Jews are given any promises?

In any OT context where promises are made to Israel, only the terms Israel or Judah are mentioned.

I am taking your question as rhetorical. You first are assuming the term Jews appears in the OT, I doubt your researched this. The term does appear in the post exilic OT literature (Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther), it does not appear in any prophetic or theological context in which you can demonstrate that the use of the term is a theologically a replacement for the term Israel?

The establishment of the term Jew and Israel would be absolutely necessary for your previous comments to have any validity. Please provide evidence for your assertions (IE: Chapter and verse).

I am asking YOU, where does the term "Jew" and "Israel" have different meanings? Where is YOUR evidence in your assertion that they are different - e.g. Israel receiving the promise, but not the Jews?

OK, what will you accept as evidence?

Also, even if I do not prove that the terms Jew and Israel are different, it does not logically follow that your assumption is correct. It would still be possible that they are different and that I cannot provide evidence. However, that is a mute point. I think I can provide evidence, but no matter what evidence I provide, I have a feeling it will be rejected. So is there any possible evidence you would accept? Or do you consider it an axiomatic truth that Israel = Jew?

(material by francisdesales and mondar deleted)
I was not attempting to write a tract that would describe that there is only one people of God. I refered to Romans 11 because the same author writes to the same people in the letter to the Romans. Romans 2 and Romans 11 are thus related and share Paul's thought that the gift of the Spirit is not just for the national Jews, but rather, an expanded Israel, a spiritual Israel, which theologically speaking, was a new concept, as the OT does not separate the two (Jew = Israel.

Again you assert that the OT does not separate the two terms. Can you please cite any evidence you have of this assertion. I mentioned that the term "Jew" is used in some post-exilic literature in the bible. But we are talking about widely separate books and contexts. The term saints and gentiles occurs in the NT, but few would assert that the two terms are identical in meaning.

Certainly, Ephesians 2 is a good section of Scriptures, and Galatians also describes the same oneness, as the walls between Jews and Greek have been broken down. But again, I used Romans because it relates to Romans 2 and the understanding Paul maintains to the Romans.

What are the contextual connections between Romans 2 and Romans 11? Do these two Chapters have the same rhetorical arguments? Can you demonstrate how they relate? Just because the term Jew appears in Chapter 2 and the term Israel appears in 9-11 does not mean the terms are identical.

Concerning Romans 11, certainly there is only one New Covenant (you said this, and I agree). There is unity in the NC in that the blessings are the same. The NC speaks of regeneration (I would defend this, but it takes too much effort). The difference is not the blessings of the covenant, or the unity of the covenant, nor the unity of the people of God. The difference is the way and means of gaining access to the NC. Israel is the natural branch, and to them the promises of the New Covenant were given. The Gentile is the wild olive branch that does not naturally belong to the tree, but was grafted in.

I contend that the definition of "Israel" has changed with the coming of the Messiah and the relegation of dietary laws and circumcision rites to the dustbin of history. "Israel" the nation is no longer of concern to become part of the people of God. Those rites that separated Jews/Israel from the Gentiles are done. Gone. Pointless. Jew no longer = Israel.

Francis, you seem to be all over the road. At the beginning of your post you said the term Jew=Israel. Now you assert that the term Jew no longer = Israel.

Furthermore, some of your assertion is confusing. If Israel is no longer of concern means that they are no longer and never will be again the people of God, this would be a problem. If you mean that Israel is totally rejected in the future, I will have to disagree. Even the very context you quote begins with the statement...
1 I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew.
Notice who the people of God are here... Paul tells us that the people of God are the Israelites, and he is of the tribe of benjamin. What tribe are you from? It is obvious that he is referring to genetic Israel.

Now it is true that in the context Israel is temporarily and partially rejected, but this does not nullify the NC. God can still fulfill his covenant.

The term "Israel" no longer signifies the historical nation of Israel, people of Palestine,

Name one context in the scripture where the term "Israel" does not refer to the nation.

but rather, "spiritual Israel", those born of Abraham by faith, not by blood.

Those born of Abraham are sons of Abraham in Galatians. Nowhere in the context of Galatians does the scripture assert that all sons of Abraham are Israelites. Ishmaelites, and the sons of Keturah were all sons of Abraham also, but were not Israelites. So also, Abraham had a spiritual seed as the Father of Faith. The statements in Galatians do not make a "Spiritual Israel" of those who are of faith.

Can you please demonstrate why you say that the "children of Abraham" = "Sprititual Israel?" Evidence please?

"Israel" as before, signifies the people of God, but the definition has been changed from "those born of Abraham by the flesh" to "those born of Abraham by faith". Those regenerated, as you said, are "New" Israel. (although in God's plan, it was always that way - just the Jewish OT theologians didn't realize the extend of God's plan)

Regards

Where has the definition changed? What context in the bible asserts that tribal, fleshly, Israel became Spiritual Israel. More below....
(((francisdesales, when you write things, you seem to make propositions and then assume that your propositions are true because you assert them. Can you provide scriptural evidence for your propositions?)))

You could go to Romans 9:6. Even in that text the term Israel never actually applied to every individual Israelite in the flesh. That is the point of Romans 9:6.
6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:

In Romans 9:6 the term Israel is actually used of two Groups. There is unbelieving Israel ("they are not all Israel) and believing Israel (that are of Israel). Only believing Israel is the true Israel. This interpretation could easily be demonstrated in the context of Romans 9 by looking at the illustrations that follow verse 6. All illustrations make a difference between a believing son of the flesh and an unbelieving son of the flesh.

FRANCIS
We are starting to drift, we could go back to the original NC passage in Jeremian 31 and look at the context, we could do a number of exegetical things. Could we look at a specific passage related to the new Covenant?

 

[francisdesales]

Where has the definition changed? What context in the bible asserts that tribal, fleshly, Israel became Spiritual Israel. More below....
(((francisdesales, when you write things, you seem to make propositions and then assume that your propositions are true because you assert them. Can you provide scriptural evidence for your propositions?)))

I have already stated Romans 2.

Therefore if the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his foreskin be counted for circumcision? And that which is by nature foreskin, but keeps the law perfectly, shall judge thee who with the letter and with the circumcision art rebellious to the law. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is circumcision that which is done outwardly in the flesh; but he [is] a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit [and] not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God. Romans 2:26-29

I apologize if I appear to be "assuming my propositions are true", I had thought it was self-evident, especially after I have already mentioned this section of Scriptures to prove my point...

Note the difference between an outward Jew, one who follows the rite of circumcision, and the inward Jew, one who is following the Law, EVEN IF it was printed upon their heart, rather than given written words. In essence, this says that the "spiritual Jew" has been given God's Word and abides in it. This is not "new", according to Paul, but would be new to the Pharisess who hold to national superiority (which Paul speaks of in the following chapter, much to the chagrin of his Jewish interlocutor. Can I at least assume that this is the topic of chapter 3, my friend?).

Being a "Jew", of the "new" Israel, no longer requires Jewish rites. You have read Acts 15 as well? Paul explains to the Romans that such things are done away with - and also to the Ephesians and the Colossians and the Corinthians and the Galatians and the audience of Hebrews... The old distinction of 'Jew' (one who performs the rites prescribed in the Old Testament, born of one of the 12 tribes of Israel) as the saved people no longer applies.

Romans 11, among other places, clearly tell us that the Gentiles, by faith, have been grafted onto the TRUE Israel, those who, by faith, were born from Abraham.

You could go to Romans 9:6. Even in that text the term Israel never actually applied to every individual Israelite in the flesh. That is the point of Romans 9:6.
6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:

Again, this is new theology ascertained from the teachings of Jesus Christ, not the understanding of the Pharisees who frowned upon those not Jewish. WHY do you think the Judaizers wanted the Gentiles to become Jews, for heavens sake? They wanted to see people mutilate themselves and refrain from pork for what reason again? Because it was the traditional belief that one first had to become Jewish before becoming Christian. Paul's theology was innovative, not traditional.

FRANCIS
We are starting to drift, we could go back to the original NC passage in Jeremian 31 and look at the context, we could do a number of exegetical things. Could we look at a specific passage related to the new Covenant?

The New Covenant is the promise made to God's People. Now, what changes that makes it "new"? Is it because it promises a "better" heaven for the Jews, or is it because the Promise is more encompassing to include potentially all people of faith in God? Remember Jesus, the promulagator of this New Covenant, offers it to ALL men, to save them from their sins, not just "Jews".

As to "exegetical things", I have found that one can interpret Scripture verses in many assundry ways. To properly conduct exegesis of one passage, one must also be aware of other passages, as well, understanding that Christians interpet Scriptures differently than Jews.

Regards

 

[DanielPatrick]

The ONLY promise left to "Israel after the flesh", as Paul referred to them, is either to individually accept the "King of the Jews" & "King of Israel" (Mt 2:2; Jn 1:49).

OR

Be "CAST OUT" Genesis 21:10; Galations 4:30

"Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."Mt 8:12

I don't believe that I ever referred to the Church as 'spiritual' Israel I said they are the ONLY Israel and the ONLY Jews. At least it is the only legitimate Israel and Jew in the eyes of God. Now there "are those who "SAY they are Jews but do LIE" according to Jesus in Rev 2:9 and 3:9. So who do we believe so-called prophecy experts, or the plain words of scripture?

Israel 'after the flesh" is now Hagar & Ishmael and also Esau. according to Paul.

In my opinion, those who look to Jerusalem in the mid-east, for some grand fulfillment of verses they misinterpret in Romans 11:25-26 (the national salvation of fleshly Israel) are going to be greatly disappointed--and maybe even worse when the Lord sits as their judge.

 

[mondar]

Where has the definition changed? What context in the bible asserts that tribal, fleshly, Israel became Spiritual Israel. More below....
(((francisdesales, when you write things, you seem to make propositions and then assume that your propositions are true because you assert them. Can you provide scriptural evidence for your propositions?)))

I have already stated Romans 2.

Therefore if the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his foreskin be counted for circumcision? And that which is by nature foreskin, but keeps the law perfectly, shall judge thee who with the letter and with the circumcision art rebellious to the law. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is circumcision that which is done outwardly in the flesh; but he [is] a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit [and] not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God. Romans 2:26-29

I apologize if I appear to be "assuming my propositions are true", I had thought it was self-evident, especially after I have already mentioned this section of Scriptures to prove my point...

Note the difference between an outward Jew, one who follows the rite of circumcision, and the inward Jew, one who is following the Law, EVEN IF it was printed upon their heart, rather than given written words. In essence, this says that the "spiritual Jew" has been given God's Word and abides in it. This is not "new", according to Paul, but would be new to the Pharisess who hold to national superiority (which Paul speaks of in the following chapter, much to the chagrin of his Jewish interlocutor. Can I at least assume that this is the topic of chapter 3, my friend?).

Being a "Jew", of the "new" Israel, no longer requires Jewish rites. You have read Acts 15 as well? Paul explains to the Romans that such things are done away with - and also to the Ephesians and the Colossians and the Corinthians and the Galatians and the audience of Hebrews... The old distinction of 'Jew' (one who performs the rites prescribed in the Old Testament, born of one of the 12 tribes of Israel) as the saved people no longer applies.

Romans 11, among other places, clearly tell us that the Gentiles, by faith, have been grafted onto the TRUE Israel, those who, by faith, were born from Abraham.

Romans 2 does not contain the word "Israel" or "Spiritual Israel." How then could that text be proposing the parallel of the terms Israel with Jew? Francis, what you are asking me to do is to assume that the term "Jew" in Romans 2 means that the term "Jew" = "Spiritual Israel." You are approach the text assuming this, and then when you see the term "Jew," in your mind that proves your point. This is assuming your argument to be true even before you read the text. I recognize that there is an inward circumcision and an outward circumcision. I have no problem with the propositions of Romans 2:26-29. It is the person with inward circumcision that is keeping the law. Yet such propositions that I have agreed just now are different then the proposition "the term Jew = Spiritual Israel."

Now the reason I make a difference is because the promises of the NC in Jeremiah 31:31-34 were not made to Jews. They were made to Israel. Can you show me anywhere in the scripture that promises were made to Jews?

Francis, for me to accept your argument from Romans 2, I must first assume that the term Jew=Spiritual Israel, and only then can the term Jew = Spiritual Israel. I must first assume what you are trying to prove.

Concerning the term Israel in Romans 11, the term Israel is obviously referring to fleshly Israel. Again, Paul mentions what tribe he is from. Where is the term Israel used of "Spiritual Israel" in Romans 11?

You could go to Romans 9:6. Even in that text the term Israel never actually applied to every individual Israelite in the flesh. That is the point of Romans 9:6.
6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:

Again, this is new theology ascertained from the teachings of Jesus Christ, not the understanding of the Pharisees who frowned upon those not Jewish. WHY do you think the Judaizers wanted the Gentiles to become Jews, for heavens sake? They wanted to see people mutilate themselves and refrain from pork for what reason again? Because it was the traditional belief that one first had to become Jewish before becoming Christian. Paul's theology was innovative, not traditional.

I have no idea why you say Paul's theology was an innovation. Pauls theology was totally consistent with OT theology. Why else would PAul quote the OT so many times. You could say Paul was some sort of OT heretic, who departed from the teachings of the prophets and was an innovator, but you must demonstrate that thesis. I probably will not agree. Paul never uses the term "Spiritual Israel" anywhere in his writings. In many of the contexts Paul uses the term Israel in the exact opposite way you suggest he does. I mentioned Romans 11:1 where Paul mentions his tribe (fleshly Israel--not Spiritual Israel). You can also look at Romans 9:3-4. Paul speaks of his countrymen, kinsman according to the flesh. How would you get "spiritual Israel" out of the term Israel anywhere in the scripture?

(I could help you here, because most Reformed baptists do not agree with me here--- They would turn to Galatians 6)

Concerning the traditional belief of the Pharisees, I also disagree. Nowhere does the OT demand that Gentiles live as Jews for the sake of salvation. Phariseeism was a total innovation and misinterpretation of the OT. As a matter of fact, when James quotes the OT in Acts 15:16-18, he uses it to defend the point that the Gentiles need not be circumcised.

Paul was not an innovator, he did not create a new theology of Spiritual Israel. He did not deny that to Israel belongs the "adoptions as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law..." Romans 9:4. Notice in Romans 9:4 that these things are given to "kinsman according to the flesh, who are Israelites."

FRANCIS
We are starting to drift, we could go back to the original NC passage in Jeremian 31 and look at the context, we could do a number of exegetical things. Could we look at a specific passage related to the new Covenant?

The New Covenant is the promise made to God's People. Now, what changes that makes it "new"? Is it because it promises a "better" heaven for the Jews, or is it because the Promise is more encompassing to include potentially all people of faith in God? Remember Jesus, the promulagator of this New Covenant, offers it to ALL men, to save them from their sins, not just "Jews".

As to "exegetical things", I have found that one can interpret Scripture verses in many assundry ways. To properly conduct exegesis of one passage, one must also be aware of other passages, as well, understanding that Christians interpet Scriptures differently than Jews.

Regards

To be addressed later...

 

[mondar]

FRANCIS
We are starting to drift, we could go back to the original NC passage in Jeremian 31 and look at the context, we could do a number of exegetical things. Could we look at a specific passage related to the new Covenant?

The New Covenant is the promise made to God's People.

Chapter and verse please?

The NC is made to Israel, but God grafted the Gentile into this Israelite promise, but it was not made to the Gentile. God can always go beyond his promise, and his grace can superabound.

You do not understand what I am saying here, do you?

Now, what changes that makes it "new"? Is it because it promises a "better" heaven for the Jews, or is it because the Promise is more encompassing to include potentially all people of faith in God? Remember Jesus, the promulagator of this New Covenant, offers it to ALL men, to save them from their sins, not just "Jews".

Francis, there is a passage that talks about why the New Covenant is "new." But holy cow, your making a mess of that passage. The passage I think you allude to is Hebrews 8. Christ is a mediator of a better covenant (NC) because it has better promises. The contrast is between the conditional promises in the Mosaic Law and the unconditional promises given in the NC. The writer of Hebrews does not assert that the NC is for all, but rather his point is that Christs mediatorship of the NC makes the old Covenant obsolete (8:13). There is nothing in that text about a " ` better ` heaven" for the Jews, or that the promises are more encompassing.

Something else... You use the term "potentially." Maybe this was just a slip that you put into your words, or maybe I am misunderstanding you somehow, but I have to say that there is nothing potential about the promises of God. There is nothing potential about the NC. God does not potentially fulfill his promises, he does not maybe kinda sorta fulfill his promises, when he promises to do something, he does it just as he said.

As to "exegetical things", I have found that one can interpret Scripture verses in many assundry ways. To properly conduct exegesis of one passage, one must also be aware of other passages, as well, understanding that Christians interpet Scriptures differently than Jews.

Regards

I think this is the spot where a great gulf exists. I do not see any Christian method of understanding the scripture, neither do I recognize any special Jewish exegetical methodology. There is simply rules of grammar and syntax. When rules of grammar and syntax is applied to any document, no matter if the bible, the Koran, or some modern book, you get the meaning of the author. You are unconsciously using those very rules of grammar and syntax as you read my words right now. Without realizing it you are finding main verbs and nouns, and subordinate clauses. Then you read sentence after sentence in the development of my arguments. I do the same as I read your writings. When those same rules are applied to reading the biblical authors in the original language that they were wrote in, we get correct meaning. There is no Christian or Jewish methods of exegesis. Three are no "many assundry ways" of interpreting scripture, there is only the rules of grammar and syntax. If you wish to read any greek grammar book, they all have them. Summers, Machen, ATRobertson, Dana and Mantey, and many more have these same lessons of grammar. Some are more extensive then others. Some focus on certain parts of grammatical study, but all have the same rules of grammar. They can be used by Jews or Christians, Muslims, or Hindu's.

It is when people do not use these rules that the different interpretations come. Few are willing to start with nouns and verbs, and build an exegetical grammar. Rather we like to take the teachings of our church or denomination and read that theology back into the text.

Now certainly I agree with part of what you said, scripture must be compared with scripture. But I strongly disagree that there are different rules of grammar, and different methods of exegesis for Christians and Jews. This is where the Church got into trouble. If you remember Origion and his Allegorical Methodology of reading the bible? Fanciful allegories were made up that did not relate to the propositions of the text at all. The methodology of allegory spawned heresies.

I think this is a very important point. How would you read the Council of Trent? Would you say there is a Christian and Jewish way of reading the Council? In Roman Catholicism the Church tells you what the council says. But then how do you know what the Church says? Some one send something in writing. How do you know your own Church tradition? You read something. How do you know what it says? You use rules of grammar and syntax and exegete meaning from the words you read.

Why did you say what you said above? We both know! You deny sola scriptura as a good Catholic. Yet you use the same principles of sola scriptura to read what your Church tradition says in the councils and statements of your Church. You exegete your written Church tradition. Yet when you approach the bible, you suddenly fall apart and say "what method of exegesis do we use?" Then you fall back on tradition. "Well tradition tells me the text says..." Thats not exegesis.

Do the words of the scripture have no meaning unless interpreted in light of Church tradition? If that is true, then why do the words of the Council of Trent have meaning? Or what about the words of the textbooks used by your priest in his training?

Francisdesales, why do you and I disagree so much on what the scriptures say? I think this discussion is the bottom line. I will never respond to claims of Church tradition, and you will never receive appeals to the scriptures. To you the scriptures must be read in light of Church tradition, and for me the scriptures can only be exegeted according to their proper rules of grammar and syntax. I will always look to the text, and you will always assume that the text has to say what the Church says it says.

 

[francisdesales]

The New Covenant is the promise made to God's People.

Chapter and verse please?

As I said before, you need to look at all of Scriptures, not just one verse. Such narrow-minded focus keeps you from seeing God's plan more fully:

And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my (Jesus') blood. Luke 22:20

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Cor 11:25

What is the purpose of this new Covenant??? Why was Christ's blood poured out?

for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Mat 26:28

OK. Let's stop.

Do you agree that Christ brought salvation, which is the forgiveness of sins? Do you agree that His death brings about the forgiveness of sins? Christ Himself says He is forming a New Covenant in His blood for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins, salvation...

And who was this forgiveness offered to? Merely national Jews???

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Acts 10:43

For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 2 Cor 5:14-15

We know that baptism was offered to people who were NEVER Jews. Even Gentiles. Thus, Christ's act of promulgating the New Covenant won the forgiveness of sins for ALL men who seek God. THESE are "spiritual Jews", the New Israel. I presume you understand that Christ's selection of 12 Apostles symbolizes a New Israel?

Our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses' face because of its brightness, fading as this was, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? ... not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor. But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. 2 Cor 3:6-8, 13-18

Here, the written word, given to the national Jews, "killed", while the SPIRIT gives life. It is the Spirit that will unveil the "face of the Lord", transforming the beneficiaries of the New Covenant into a likeness of God. Isn't the Spirit PROMISED to all who seek God?

This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people...For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more. Heb 8:10, 12

Is the "house of Israel" confined to national Jews??? Of course not... No, as Romans 2 says, those who obey the Law in their hearts are indeed spritual Jews, sons of Abraham by faith, not by the flesh. The above just is more evidence of the same. Thus, the New Covenant, promulagated by Christ's Passion and Death brought about the forgiveness of sins, available to all men who have the Law in their hearts, who are spiritual Jews.

Note, Romans 2 doesn't say that the spiritual Jews (pagans with the Law in their heart) must FIRST become Jews by becoming circumcised BEFORE they receive the Spirit and the forgiveness of sins are offered.

Put two and two together. God promises to issue a new covenant to the "house of Judah", a law that will be written on their hearts and they shall be His people... Paul tells us that those who circumcise their hearts are indeed "true" Jews.

The NC is made to Israel, but God grafted the Gentile into this Israelite promise, but it was not made to the Gentile. God can always go beyond his promise, and his grace can superabound.

You do not understand what I am saying here, do you?

Yes, I do understand what you are saying. But I believe the Gentiles are grafted into the "House of Judah" and this amalgamation is the New Israel, the Church. It is to these people that the New Covenant is offered to, ANYONE who desires the forgiveness of sins, since it is OFFERED by Christ, since He died for ALL men, not just "Jews". The promise is made to all men who repent of sins. Israel is thus defined differently in the NT. We have new symbology, a new sacrifice, a new temple, and a savior who has broken down the barriers between Greek and Jews. Thus, the promise is made to a "different" "Israel" then conceived of in the OT.

Something else... You use the term "potentially." Maybe this was just a slip that you put into your words, or maybe I am misunderstanding you somehow, but I have to say that there is nothing potential about the promises of God. There is nothing potential about the NC. God does not potentially fulfill his promises, he does not maybe kinda sorta fulfill his promises, when he promises to do something, he does it just as he said.

Are all men saved? Are all men's sins forgiven? Yet, God offered a New Covenant for ALL men... I see you are again having a problem with the distinction of "efficient" and sufficient". God offers something to all men, and those who seek God please Him and will be given salvation. Those who do not suffer the wrath of God. Yet, God HAS offered His salvation even to the wicked.

I will address exegesis in the next post.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I think this is the spot where a great gulf exists. I do not see any Christian method of understanding the scripture, neither do I recognize any special Jewish exegetical methodology.

That is interesting. Do the Jews read Jesus Christ into the Old Testament???

There is simply rules of grammar and syntax. When rules of grammar and syntax is applied to any document, no matter if the bible, the Koran, or some modern book, you get the meaning of the author.

No, you don't. You don't necessary get the literary genre of a writing by merely reading a verse or two. For example, is Genesis one and two literal or mythical genre intending to pass on theological truths? Does the "grammar and syntax" necessarily tell us this? Is the book of Jonah literal history? Perhaps. But the grammar and syntax doesn't tell us that.

In addition, it is important to view the background of the writers of Scriptures, who were part of the Church, not separate individuals giving their own personal take on things. Interpreting the Scriptures, the book of the Church, must always be done within the context of its writing TO the people of God, the Church.

You are unconsciously using those very rules of grammar and syntax as you read my words right now. Without realizing it you are finding main verbs and nouns, and subordinate clauses...

Yes, thanks. But even that doesn't tell me EVERYTHING about the statements you are making. For example, are you giving a dissertation on the utilization of grammar to an unsuspecting person or are you being a smart-a@*#? Does grammar or syntax tell us this? NO. My knowledge of you and your background gives me the context of your statements now.

There is no Christian or Jewish methods of exegesis.

Wrong. Jews read and interpret Scriptures differently. Ask them what "virgin" means in Isaiah 7... Ask them whether the Suffering Servant verses refer to a person or the nation of Israel... We all view the Scriptures through different lenses.

Even other Christians. You see James 2 and tell me "we are saved by faith alone" when it clearly says the opposite! How did your grammar and syntax get so screwed up??? Clearly, interpreting Scriptures is more than just nouns and verbs... It is also based upon Tradition. In your case, the Protestant tradition...

Now certainly I agree with part of what you said, scripture must be compared with scripture. But I strongly disagree that there are different rules of grammar, and different methods of exegesis for Christians and Jews. This is where the Church got into trouble. If you remember Origion and his Allegorical Methodology of reading the bible? Fanciful allegories were made up that did not relate to the propositions of the text at all. The methodology of allegory spawned heresies.

Fanciful allegories? Allegory is found WITHIN the bible. Origen's problem was deviating from already-accepted interpretation of the Church's recording of the Apostolic Tradition - both oral and written - that the soul always existed and no one will go to hell; teachings that the Church did not teach.

The Church gets into trouble when it minimizes or incorrectly emphasizes part of the teachings given to it.

I think this is a very important point. How would you read the Council of Trent? Would you say there is a Christian and Jewish way of reading the Council?

Of course. Jews would say it is pointless since God never became man... Despite all of the nouns and verbs... And certainly, the Jews wouldn't consider its defined doctrines as infallible. Do you? I do. And we are reading the same nouns and verbs...

In Roman Catholicism the Church tells you what the council says. But then how do you know what the Church says? Some one send something in writing. How do you know your own Church tradition? You read something. How do you know what it says? You use rules of grammar and syntax and exegete meaning from the words you read.

Naturally, I am not saying we ignore grammar and syntax. I am not sure where you got this idea that I do. I am saying that exegesis is MORE than merely reading the nouns and verbs. I hope that is clear by now. It also depends upon the reader and HIS own views and lenses through which HE reads the Scriptures. Since Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Christ, THEY view OT Scriptures differently, even though the verbs and nouns are the same.

Why did you say what you said above? We both know! You deny sola scriptura as a good Catholic.

I denied it even BEFORE becoming Catholic, since it is rationally self-defeating... It was one of the major factors in me NOT becoming Protestant.

Yet you use the same principles of sola scriptura to read what your Church tradition says in the councils and statements of your Church. You exegete your written Church tradition. Yet when you approach the bible, you suddenly fall apart and say "what method of exegesis do we use?" Then you fall back on tradition. "Well tradition tells me the text says..." Thats not exegesis.

As I said before, exegesis is more than verbs and nouns... Earlier you agreed, now, you don't? The writer's intent is ALSO part of the Sacred Scriptures, and as such, is ALSO inerrant. It is more than just nouns and verbs. Knowing that the writer of Scripture was ALSO a conformist to the doctrines of the Church, to include adhering to Sacred Tradition, the intent of the writer to support God's Church ALSO must be taken into account when we conduct exegesis. We find the writer's intent through the Apostolic Tradition.

Francisdesales, why do you and I disagree so much on what the scriptures say? I think this discussion is the bottom line. I will never respond to claims of Church tradition, and you will never receive appeals to the scriptures.

You are incorrect. Of COURSE I respond and receive appeals to Scriptures. Just not interpretations of Scriptures that differ from Christ's Church. You present a false dichotomy, just like a good Protestant. To you, a Christian can EITHER accept the Bible or Tradition. NEVER BOTH. I would advise you study more Christian history and what Catholics believe. Of course we accept the Scriptures, we are Prima Scriptura. The difference is you place ALL of your eggs in the basket of PRIVATE interpretation. And since you personally are not infallible, you cannot even KNOW if you are correct in your interpretations. It becomes just another philosophy, another Hinduism or Buddhism, if you will.

Thus, your personal emphasis on knowledge and verbs and nouns...

Fortunately, God has given man a teaching Church that doesn't require one to EVEN READ!

We believe Christianity is a revealed religion, not one where we must become Ph.D's in theology and have 500 books and well-versed in Greek and Hebrew to understand God's Word to us. We have a teaching Church, a wonderful gift given to us to teach to us the more sublime wonders of God's revelation.

To you the scriptures must be read in light of Church tradition, and for me the scriptures can only be exegeted according to their proper rules of grammar and syntax. I will always look to the text, and you will always assume that the text has to say what the Church says it says.

[/quote]

I would suggest you consider expanding your exegisis method to include the analogy of the faith, which means the entirety of Scriptures - this cannot be had UNLESS one considers the Tradition of the Church.

Regards

 

[mondar]

I think this is the spot where a great gulf exists. I do not see any Christian method of understanding the scripture, neither do I recognize any special Jewish exegetical methodology.

That is interesting. Do the Jews read Jesus Christ into the Old Testament???

I do not "read Jesus Christ into the Old Testament." I dont need to do that, he is already there. We do not need to read the OT allegorically to see prophecies of Jesus. Aspects of the life and death of Jesus are actually and literally prophesied in the OT, why would I need to read the OT allegorically to see literal prophecies of Jesus? This is not to say that OT authors do not use metaphorical language. But the use of metaphorical language is still a literal interpretation and not an allegory where we must read Jesus back into the OT.

There is simply rules of grammar and syntax. When rules of grammar and syntax is applied to any document, no matter if the bible, the Koran, or some modern book, you get the meaning of the author.

No, you don't. You don't necessary get the literary genre of a writing by merely reading a verse or two.

This is a gross exaggeration of what I said. I did not say you can discern a literary genre from a verse or two in every situation. I merely asked you to treat all literature with the same rules of grammar and syntax. I can read the koran, the or the readers digest, or any literature including the bible and determine literary genre based upon the context. This is still internal evidence. Unless you recognize the perspicuity of the text , you cannot determine literary genre. The creation narratives are to be understood literally because of the perspicacity of the text, not because some outside source says it is to be understood literally.

For example, is Genesis one and two literal or mythical genre intending to pass on theological truths? Does the "grammar and syntax" necessarily tell us this? Is the book of Jonah literal history? Perhaps. But the grammar and syntax doesn't tell us that.

Again, we determine literary genre based upon internal evidence, such as grammar and syntax. We read the bible like any other literature, with the same rules. Do we need a sentence in the readers digest to say that "this story actually happened and is to be taken literal?" Now if there is some statement in the context that suggests that the story is a metaphor or parable, then we take from the grammar and syntax of that statement that the story is a metaphor. We still do not need an outside source to tell is that it is literal.

In addition, it is important to view the background of the writers of Scriptures, who were part of the Church, not separate individuals giving their own personal take on things. Interpreting the Scriptures, the book of the Church, must always be done within the context of its writing TO the people of God, the Church.

Certainly the author, intended audience, date of writing, and all those things are important. But this does not mean that we have the right to establish a special "Christian method" of interpretation. If we read the Babylonian Chronicle, or a local newpaper from 50 years ago, it is still very useful to know the writer, audience, and date, etc. Actually, at times in the scriptures, some prophecies are written in exactly this way.... "In the 4th year of the reign of ..." This is only one kind of internal evidence from the grammar and syntax to help us read a book. The personal notes of the endings on Paul's epistles also are useful. This is the common methods of using grammar and syntax to reading the internal evidence within a book to establish author, audience, etc.

I am not sure what you mean by a "book of the Church." If that means that there is some external authority that can overrule the grammar, syntax, context, internal evidence of a book to establish its meaning. I obviously dont agree. If by the term "book of the Church," you merely mean that the scriptures is religious theological literature, I certainly agree. Certainly many of the epistles were written to a Church or groups of Churches. Some were written to Pauls coworkers, Luke/Acts was written to Theophilus, an individual (probably Roman). I am guessing you will agree that all of it was theological and religious literature. However, we disagree that there is some super-spiritual eyesight needed by special Churchmen to magicly come up with correct allegories to understand literature that cannot be understood by the natural reading of the text.

I admit it is hard work to learn the original language of the scriptures (Kione Greek, Hebrew, a small amount of Aramaic). It is hard work to systematicly go through text after text to determine what the author was saying. But, just because it is hard work, does not mean that we are to forsake the scriptures and go off on special churchly and sacred allegorical tangents. We dont read any other literature (whatever genre) in that was, why should we not use the grammar and syntax to determine meaning with the scriptures? (in their historical, literary context).

There is no Christian or Jewish methods of exegesis.

Wrong. Jews read and interpret Scriptures differently. Ask them what "virgin" means in Isaiah 7... Ask them whether the Suffering Servant verses refer to a person or the nation of Israel... We all view the Scriptures through different lenses.

The illustrations you give above are not different methods of exegesis. They are simply issue of right and wrong exegesis.

Lets look at your first illustration, the Jewish view of Isaiah 7:14. First of all, any Jewish scholar that would take your position would be in deep problems with other Jews. Tell me, who translated the LXX? Was it Jews or Christians? Remember, it was translated over a period of years in Egypt about 200BC? Any ideas what word was used by these Jewish translators to translate their own Hebrew language? The majority opinion of the Jews before Christ would assume the parallel of the greek virgin and the Hebrew "woman of marriageable age." Even today many Jews will recognize the truth of this fact. They still might deny Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah 6-11, but they attempt to use the same literal method we as reformed protestants do.

Now concerning your allusion to Isaiah 40-53 and the suffering servant. It is true many Jewish people say that the suffering servant is the people of Israel. I think they are actually close to being right. The suffering servant is not all the people of Israel, but one Israelite. Isaiah's language in that passage is to be taken literally within its poetic genre. Poetry can have shades of meaning, but that shade of meaning must be determined by the grammar, syntax, and context. They key to literally interpreting Isa 53 and context is to recognize that the "suffering servant" is an Israelite. Let me give an illustration.
ILLUS--- During the olympics, when Michael Phelps set a record for Gold medals, the narrator said "America just won its 9th gold medal in swimming." Now who actually won the medal? Michael Phelps, but he was competing in behalf of America.

Did Israel fulfill the prophetic passage in Isa 52-53? I would agree that they did, but it was by one Israelite competing. So then, the singular pronoun "he" can be used all the way through Isaiah 53 to speak of that single Israelite who saved many. I get this by using rules of grammar and syntax, by studying the context, by recognizing that the syntax is set up as poetry. For the Jew to say Isaiah 53 cannot be a person, does not fit the grammar and syntax.

So then, its not a matter of Jewish and Christian methods of exegesis, but it is an issue of right and wrong exegesis.

Even other Christians. You see James 2 and tell me "we are saved by faith alone" when it clearly says the opposite! How did your grammar and syntax get so screwed up??? Clearly, interpreting Scriptures is more than just nouns and verbs... It is also based upon Tradition. In your case, the Protestant tradition...

Again, here is the great gulf. You read your tradition back into scripture, I do not. We consider the scripture to be the judge of our tradition, and not our tradition to be the judge of scripture.

As for James 2 and sola fide, again, it is not a matter of Reformed protestants reading our tradition back into the text. The text itself tells us what James is talking about. In 2:18 James says...
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
The justification in the later part, when James says that a man is justified by works, is related to verse 18. In verse 18 the issue sets the agenda for the passage. The question of James 2:14-26 is "how can a man show he has faith." The obvious answer from James 2 is "works." So then, the claim "I have faith" is justified by works. Again, this is not a matter of reading tradition back into the text, this is what the text says when correctly and literally read. Protestants use the same rules of grammar and syntax when reading James 2 as we do with the readers digest. We do not read our tradition back into the readers digest, neither do we read it back into James 2.

Fanciful allegories? Allegory is found WITHIN the bible....(snip)

I must admit that I do not know what passage you might be referring to. Certainly Revelation and Ezekiel uses an apocalyptic genre of literature, but I would not call that allegory. There is a difference. The OT prophets often used metaphors, such as the Vine--Israel, or the marriage of Gomer and Hosea, etc. But again, these are not the same as allegory. I believe the term allegory is used in 1 Cor, but I believe it is the greek word for type. The allegories that Paul might refer to there are actual historical events that are used as types of Gods dealings with men. This again is not an origin like allegory. In any case, the scriptures does not justify the use of allegorical interpretation.

I think this is a very important point. How would you read the Council of Trent? Would you say there is a Christian and Jewish way of reading the Council?

Of course. Jews would say it is pointless since God never became man... Despite all of the nouns and verbs... And certainly, the Jews wouldn't consider its defined doctrines as infallible. Do you? I do. And we are reading the same nouns and verbs...

I would say that the Council of Trent claims infallibility. My refusal to accept those claims does not mean that I am using a different method of interpreting those claims. I suspect that we could come to a lot of agreement on what the claims of the Council of Trent are. Why? We would use the same rules of grammar, syntax, and all the rules of literature.

The fact that I know the claims of Trent, but deny it as truth has nothing to do with using my tradition to read different meaning back into the Council of Trent. Do you really think your argument is a strong argument here?

In Roman Catholicism the Church tells you what the council says. But then how do you know what the Church says? Some one send something in writing. How do you know your own Church tradition? You read something. How do you know what it says? You use rules of grammar and syntax and exegete meaning from the words you read.

Naturally, I am not saying we ignore grammar and syntax. I am not sure where you got this idea that I do. I am saying that exegesis is MORE than merely reading the nouns and verbs. I hope that is clear by now.

No, was not getting this. Until this point all I heard was about the necessity of reading Roman Catholic tradition back into the text. All I hear was a criticism of using the grammar and syntax to establish the meaning of a text.

Certainly I can agree that to understand the rhetorical argument of a book of the bible is to study all the grammar and syntax of the whole book, and even to consider things as you mention, literary genre. However, even literary genre is established by studying what the text says (grammar and syntax). I do not dispute that the historical context is important, but I would not use this to establish a "Jewish method, and a Christian method of interpretation."

It also depends upon the reader and HIS own views and lenses through which HE reads the Scriptures. Since Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Christ, THEY view OT Scriptures differently, even though the verbs and nouns are the same.

Humans are fallible. Anyone can make the mistake of approaching the scriptures with a pre-supposition (tradition). This results in many wrong interpretations. Certainly, I would never claim infallibility for Jewish interpretation (unless it is a prophet interpreting the Mosaic Law, etc). I think I have said that I think many Jewish interpretations are wrong enough now. The point is, that the difference is right and wrong interpretation, but a Jewish method of exegesis and a Christian method of exegesis.

Yet you use the same principles of sola scriptura to read what your Church tradition says in the councils and statements of your Church. You exegete your written Church tradition. Yet when you approach the bible, you suddenly fall apart and say "what method of exegesis do we use?" Then you fall back on tradition. "Well tradition tells me the text says..." Thats not exegesis.

As I said before, exegesis is more than verbs and nouns... Earlier you agreed, now, you don't? The writer's intent is ALSO part of the Sacred Scriptures, and as such, is ALSO inerrant. It is more than just nouns and verbs. Knowing that the writer of Scripture was ALSO a conformist to the doctrines of the Church, to include adhering to Sacred Tradition, the intent of the writer to support God's Church ALSO must be taken into account when we conduct exegesis. We find the writer's intent through the Apostolic Tradition.

First, I said that verbs and nouns are a correct method of exegesis in contrast with the method you were suggesting. You wanted to read your tradition back into the text. I did not mean to say that you cannot use literary genre, or other methods of understanding the text.

Second, I would strongly disagree that the writers were conformists to the doctrines of the Church, I would state that just the opposite. The Church should be the conformist to the teachings of the apostles. We find the writers intent not through the teachings of the Church, but through the writings of the scriptures themselves.

Francisdesales, why do you and I disagree so much on what the scriptures say? I think this discussion is the bottom line. I will never respond to claims of Church tradition, and you will never receive appeals to the scriptures.

You are incorrect. Of COURSE I respond and receive appeals to Scriptures. Just not interpretations of Scriptures that differ from Christ's Church.

Just as I have been saying, your real authority is not the scriptures, its the Church. I might believe in sola scriptura, but in actual practice you are suggesting sola ecclesia. You do this by statements like the one you made above. The bottom line in your authority is not the scriptures, but what the Church says the scriptures teach. There is a difference between these two propositions. One places the scriptures as the final authority, the other places the church as the final authority. In one, the Scriptures is over the Church, in the other the Church is over the scriptures.

You present a false dichotomy, just like a good Protestant. To you, a Christian can EITHER accept the Bible or Tradition. NEVER BOTH.

Another false dichotomy. I accept the scriptures as infallible and sufficient for faith and practice. Certainly I accept tradition, but not as infallible. Semper reformandi (always reforming! We accept tradition, not as infallible, but nevertheless we accept tradition, and then reform it. The man who says he has not tradition is blind to his own presuppositions. On the other hand, you are right, I am not like you, and will not blindly follow my tradition and presuppositions. I do not interpret the bible in light of my tradition, but form my tradition in light of what the bible says.

I would advise you study more Christian history and what Catholics believe. Of course we accept the Scriptures, we are Prima Scriptura.

Not an easy task my friend. Catholics believe so many different things. They do not even view tradition in the same identical way. Some view tradition as in development, other view it as being passed down from the apostles.

I am aware that Catholics claim to follow the scriptures, but of course when I see claims that only the Church can authoritatively interpret scriptures, that claim rings hallow. Oddly enough, RCC Church tradition rarely quotes scriptures. For their doctrine they infallibly interpreted maybe very few verses. The percentage of scriptures that the RCC even claims to infallibly interpret is very low, but that is not the point. The point is that in practice, I observe Catholics practicing sola ecclesia, not prima Scriptura.

The difference is you place ALL of your eggs in the basket of PRIVATE interpretation.

I place my eggs in the scriptures, and my own conscience. Now your use of the term "private interpretation" makes me think of how Catholics wrongly interpret 2Peter 1:20. The private interpretation has nothing to do with an individual interpreting the scriptures. That text is about the inspiration of the prophets and apostles. The idea is that no prophetic or apostolic writing came by the apostles own will or ideas, it came as the HS carried along the apostles and prophets.

Am I placing my eggs all in the basket of the message of the scriptures? I certainly hope so. Are not all your eggs in one basket? The church?

And since you personally are not infallible, you cannot even KNOW if you are correct in your interpretations. It becomes just another philosophy, another Hinduism or Buddhism, if you will.

Well, you are correct I am not infallible. That is a statement of the obvious. I have publicly admitted mistakes because less then 2 years ago I was more arminian, and am not a Calvinists. You could even justly say I am probably a Calvinist that is on the bottom of the totem pole of knowledge, and therefore, every fallible. I hope you do not think I ask you to believe me because I say something. Never! Search the scriptures and see if the things I say are right. I never proclaim by infallibility, but only the scriptures infallibility.

Thus, your personal emphasis on knowledge and verbs and nouns...

Its the only way to understand language. Tell me, what method do you use to understand Catholic doctrine? Do you speak to the Pope personally? Or do you go to CatholicAnswers.org? Do you read internet web sites? Do you read books by Catholic authors? Then you use nouns and verbs.

Fortunately, God has given man a teaching Church that doesn't require one to EVEN READ!

Ahh, so you do know the Pope personally? Can you even claim to have received all your knowledge of the RCC orally by the parish priest? Your priests never read books? Did he get all his training orally? Certainly the RCC does not require one to be literate to be saved. Your faith teaches baptismal regeneration. But I am not saying that one must be able to read to be saved either. I am saying that the way to read the scriptures is to make use of rules of grammar and syntax. I am guessing you said what you did above because your getting off topic.

We believe Christianity is a revealed religion, not one where we must become Ph.D's in theology and have 500 books and well-versed in Greek and Hebrew to understand God's Word to us. We have a teaching Church, a wonderful gift given to us to teach to us the more sublime wonders of God's revelation.

I certainly hope a PH.D is not required to read the scriptures. I hope to attain an AUG degree (Approved Unto God), that is higher then a PH.D. in the sight of God anyway.

While some very good exegesis is done in english and other native languages, I think it is good to study the scriptures in its original languages if possible. Certainly it is not a requirement, but the grammar and syntax of the original languages is the inspired word of God. I am certainly not an expert in greek or hebrew. In fact I cannot read Hebrew.

The part that I find interesting is the last part of your statement... "a teaching Church, a wonderful gift given to us to teach to us the more sublime wonders of God's revelation."
Again, my point is look how you put down the scriptures! Look at how you exult the Church! That is what I am calling sola ecclesia. It is the innerrant Church over the scriptures of lesser authority only interpreted by the Church.

To you the scriptures must be read in light of Church tradition, and for me the scriptures can only be exegeted according to their proper rules of grammar and syntax. I will always look to the text, and you will always assume that the text has to say what the Church says it says.

I would suggest you consider expanding your exegisis method to include the analogy of the faith, which means the entirety of Scriptures - this cannot be had UNLESS one considers the Tradition of the Church.
Regards[/quote]
The entirety of Scriptures iss Genesis to Revelation. Then at the end of Revelation it says not to take anything away or add anything to it.

Certainly I would agree that the "tradition of the Church" can be found in Genesis to Revelation. This is not what you are saying. You want to find Gods word outside of Genesis to Revelation. And this non-scriptural revelation is the only thing to be consulted in understanding what the scriptures actually mean. No my friend, of course I dont think the Church tradition corrects understanding of the scriptures, but the scriptures correct our understanding of Church tradition.

Sola Scriptura

Mondar

PS, sorry for not responding to the article above, time is limited, and this one was a whopper... : )

 

[francisdesales]

I do not "read Jesus Christ into the Old Testament." I dont need to do that, he is already there. We do not need to read the OT allegorically to see prophecies of Jesus. Aspects of the life and death of Jesus are actually and literally prophesied in the OT, why would I need to read the OT allegorically to see literal prophecies of Jesus?

I respectfully disagree. Christ is found in the OT ONLY by reading the OT in a particular paradigm - that Jesus is Risen and the Messiah. Christians have received the Tradition from the Apostles and read subsequent OT Scriptures THROUGH the lenses of what the Church taught them. Thus, the presumption that He is the Messiah then forces Christian exegetics to read the OT Messiah passages (and even those that are not) with Christ in mind. Jews do not approach the OT with the presumption that Jesus is the Messiah, thus, they don't see Him in the OT.

I have yet to find a verse that mentions "Jesus of Nazareth" in the OT. Clearly, Christians must utilize outside presumptions to "see" Jesus in the OT.

I did not say you can discern a literary genre from a verse or two in every situation.

You told me I can discern Scriptures by reading the nouns and syntax ALONE. You didn't mention any other paradigms or presumptions of the intent of the author! I disagreed and gave you further means of exegesis.

I merely asked you to treat all literature with the same rules of grammar and syntax. I can read the koran, the or the readers digest, or any literature including the bible and determine literary genre based upon the context. This is still internal evidence.

And I again say that EXTERNAL evidence is necessary to know what the author intends to say. In other words, knowledge of the culture and world of the author, and the tradition he is writing from. Can you infallibly tell me that Jonah was a real person or is the whole story a parable meant to explain theological truths?

Again, we determine literary genre based upon internal evidence, such as grammar and syntax. We read the bible like any other literature, with the same rules. Do we need a sentence in the readers digest to say that "this story actually happened and is to be taken literal?" Now if there is some statement in the context that suggests that the story is a metaphor or parable, then we take from the grammar and syntax of that statement that the story is a metaphor. We still do not need an outside source to tell is that it is literal.

That is your opinion BECAUSE of your sola scriptura stance - that mere book study can ascertain ALL that God wants to say in Scriptures... But when science yields convincing evidence that the earth is VERY old, OUTSIDE EVIDENCE, it appears that Genesis one and two are NOT literal.

Certainly the author, intended audience, date of writing, and all those things are important. But this does not mean that we have the right to establish a special "Christian method" of interpretation. If we read the Babylonian Chronicle, or a local newpaper from 50 years ago, it is still very useful to know the writer, audience, and date, etc. Actually, at times in the scriptures, some prophecies are written in exactly this way.... "In the 4th year of the reign of ..." This is only one kind of internal evidence from the grammar and syntax to help us read a book.

First of all, historical novels begin the same way. Ever read Tom Clancy books? Only knowing the EXTERNAL history and cues can we know it is a work of fiction. Internal evidence is not enough.

Second of all, OUTSIDE knowledge of the author, audience, etc., are important in understanding whether a passage IS metaphorical, as understood by the audience, for example, John 6:51. Christian interpreters of that time clearly see it as literal. Thus, it becomes paramount to our understanding of the correct interpretation of the passage.

The personal notes of the endings on Paul's epistles also are useful. This is the common methods of using grammar and syntax to reading the internal evidence within a book to establish author, audience, etc.

I would agree that internal evidence is helpful, and in your example, it establishes a literary genre of "letter writing". Not all writings are so easy to figure out. Some Christians CONTINUE to discuss the literary genre of Genesis 1.

I am not sure what you mean by a "book of the Church." If that means that there is some external authority that can overrule the grammar, syntax, context, internal evidence of a book to establish its meaning. I obviously dont agree.

That is generally quite subjective in nature. Establishing the "grammar" or "context" is not always foolproof, nor is it necessarily unique. Most Scriptural passages can be read in several senses - literal, moral, analogical, or anagogical. This multiple sense of Scripture passages is what gives the Bible its meaning to people of TODAY, as it can speak to us through our own personal readings, even IF out of context.

If by the term "book of the Church," you merely mean that the scriptures is religious theological literature, I certainly agree. Certainly many of the epistles were written to a Church or groups of Churches. Some were written to Pauls coworkers, Luke/Acts was written to Theophilus, an individual (probably Roman). I am guessing you will agree that all of it was theological and religious literature. However, we disagree that there is some super-spiritual eyesight needed by special Churchmen to magicly come up with correct allegories to understand literature that cannot be understood by the natural reading of the text.

Not at all. My point is that the Church is authoritative WHEN and IF it determines that "verses 2-3 means x". The Church has been given authority to bind and loosen, and this includes teaching men what ITS writings mean. Churchmen have been reading and commmentating on Scriptures for 2 millenium. It is only when commentaries destroy the analogy of the faith does the Church have the duty to protect the deposit once given so that the faith does not change.

What would you think if someone started to teach that God is not a Trinity of persons? Does the Scriptures REALLY give the definitive answer to that? No. The teachings of the Church USING the Scriptures certainly does, but the book itself without the infallible interpreter does not.

We are free to read Matthew 28:16-20 as if spoken to us, although we both know that the context and the syntax and the nouns do not allow it.

I admit it is hard work to learn the original language of the scriptures (Kione Greek, Hebrew, a small amount of Aramaic). It is hard work to systematicly go through text after text to determine what the author was saying. But, just because it is hard work, does not mean that we are to forsake the scriptures and go off on special churchly and sacred allegorical tangents.

I think you place too much stock in your ability to ascertain the Scritpure's true meaning.

Jews read and interpret Scriptures differently. Ask them what "virgin" means in Isaiah 7... Ask them whether the Suffering Servant verses refer to a person or the nation of Israel... We all view the Scriptures through different lenses.

The illustrations you give above are not different methods of exegesis. They are simply issue of right and wrong exegesis.[/quote]

You know as well as I do that you are now trying to hedge. By using the Internal evidence of Isaiah 7, without the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, one CANNOT POSSIBLY figure out that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The context does not allow it and clearly, this Christian exegesis DEPENDS upon traditions given to them. I am not even speaking of the word "virgin", but its application to a person born hundreds of years later. NO ONE would be able to understand this as a Messianic prediction until AFTER the fact reading into the Scriptures what the Christian reader has already been taught. I guess you would call it "eigesis". To me, it is perfectly acceptable that man does not necessarily understand God's Word when first written, OR the multiple applications of the same passage - written to the Jews of the time and Christians hundreds of years later at the same time.

Now concerning your allusion to Isaiah 40-53 and the suffering servant. It is true many Jewish people say that the suffering servant is the people of Israel. I think they are actually close to being right. The suffering servant is not all the people of Israel, but one Israelite.

Based upon your external tradition, not internally from reading the Bible in a vacuum as if you just landed from Mars. This Christian tradition helps us to read particular passages with Christ in mind, rather than the original literal intent.

During the olympics, when Michael Phelps set a record for Gold medals, the narrator said "America just won its 9th gold medal in swimming." Now who actually won the medal? Michael Phelps, but he was competing in behalf of America.

Again, you are forgetting that there is external evidence to support your interpretation. Merely hearing that message on a radio broadcast from Mars would not lead one to believe that, but rather, that an American team had won its 9th gold medal.

One should try not to dismiss our built-in paradigms that resulted from years of teaching and reading and living a particular faith life. No one approaches the Bible without some background or viewpoint.

Again, here is the great gulf. You read your tradition back into scripture, I do not. We consider the scripture to be the judge of our tradition, and not our tradition to be the judge of scripture.

As for James 2 and sola fide, again, it is not a matter of Reformed protestants reading our tradition back into the text. The text itself tells us what James is talking about. In 2:18 James says...

Sorry, you are denying your tradition. James 2 will not support your claims of being saved by faith ALONE, especially when the sentence clearly says the opposite. You can twist words and meaning all day, but you are clearly reading your eigesis into the passage. It is an innovation from the 16th century, as no Christian before had even considered such "context" before. Your viewpoint is destroyed by James subsquent explanation and phrase

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith" v 24

What further need to continue with this? The syntax is clear. You deny what the syntax clearly says in favor of your tradition. No need to deny it.

I must admit that I do not know what passage you might be referring to.

Paul uses allegory in 1 Corinthians 10, for example. He even uses the WORD allegory in Galatians 4...

I would say that the Council of Trent claims infallibility. My refusal to accept those claims does not mean that I am using a different method of interpreting those claims. I suspect that we could come to a lot of agreement on what the claims of the Council of Trent are. Why? We would use the same rules of grammar, syntax, and all the rules of literature.

Again, you are confusing EXTERNAL evidence with internal. Where does the Council of Trent declare that its statements are infallible? It is ASSUMED...

Certainly I can agree that to understand the rhetorical argument of a book of the bible is to study all the grammar and syntax of the whole book, and even to consider things as you mention, literary genre. However, even literary genre is established by studying what the text says (grammar and syntax). I do not dispute that the historical context is important, but I would not use this to establish a "Jewish method, and a Christian method of interpretation."

It is my firm belief, and I believe I have amply demonstrated it, that there is a multitude of outside "sources" that effect one's reading of any book. Often, the writer's intent is not clear and an outside source authoritatively clarifies it.

Even in non-infallible instances, such as what the Supreme Court does with the understanding of the Constitution. The Courts do not just read the Constitution and base their decisions on "syntax"... They also look to precedent, cultural pressures and readings, and "traditions". There is also a particular paradigm present within EACH justice, who brings to the table their own personal experiences and views. This certainly effects the judgment, as conservative vs liberal views are expressed on the same issues.

Again, I think you agree with all of this, but your paradigm does not allow an outside source to offer authoritative opinions on the Bible, although you do with other aspects of your life.

To deny a Jewish vs Christian way of reading the Bible makes no sense to me. If it was solely based upon internal evidence, the Jews would have no choice BUT to convert to Christianity. However, that Jesus is found within the OT Scritpures is purely OUR paradigm and interpertation.

It also depends upon the reader and HIS own views and lenses through which HE reads the Scriptures. Since Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Christ, THEY view OT Scriptures differently, even though the verbs and nouns are the same.

Humans are fallible. Anyone can make the mistake of approaching the scriptures with a pre-supposition (tradition). This results in many wrong interpretations. Certainly, I would never claim infallibility for Jewish interpretation (unless it is a prophet interpreting the Mosaic Law, etc). I think I have said that I think many Jewish interpretations are wrong enough now. The point is, that the difference is right and wrong interpretation, but a Jewish method of exegesis and a Christian method of exegesis.[/quote]

What is right and what is wrong depends upon the person, as you have said you are not infallible. As such, you do not know if your interpretation is even correct or not.

First, I said that verbs and nouns are a correct method of exegesis in contrast with the method you were suggesting. You wanted to read your tradition back into the text. I did not mean to say that you cannot use literary genre, or other methods of understanding the text.

I never said that we should not read the nouns and verbs. I am saying that one's tradition is part and parcel of OUR interpretation, whether you like it or not. James 2 and John 6 are clear examples of reading your tradition into the verses, as the context will not support your assertions.

Second, I would strongly disagree that the writers were conformists to the doctrines of the Church, I would state that just the opposite. The Church should be the conformist to the teachings of the apostles. We find the writers intent not through the teachings of the Church, but through the writings of the scriptures themselves.

What came first, the Church or the NT Scriptures? Isn't it clear that the writers of Scritpures WOULD conform to what they ALREADY HAD TAUGHT? Paul seemed pretty adamant that his teachings were from God - and he certainly was not refering to only what he WROTE.

Just as I have been saying, your real authority is not the scriptures, its the Church.

You don't really believe that cliche, do you?

The Scriptures are read through what the Church teaches, not what Gnostics taught, using the exact same Scriptures. The authority of the Church is a gift from God to aid us in knowing His teachings, since the Scriptures are ambiguous on a number of issues. The Church, however, does not contradict the Scriptures. It certainly uses them for ALL of her teachings.

I might believe in sola scriptura, but in actual practice you are suggesting sola ecclesia.

Sola ecclesia would suggest that the Church ALONE is the sole rule of our faith. That is an incredible statement, since the Catechism clearly states that the Bible AND the Apostolic Tradition share the same fount, God Himself. We follow God's Word, whether we find it in the Bible or not. The Church is bound by God's Word. Thus, If we were sola ecclesia, we could dispense of Scriptures on a whim. That is not the case in any situation that I am aware of.

You do this by statements like the one you made above. The bottom line in your authority is not the scriptures, but what the Church says the scriptures teach.

The Church is teaching what the Scriptures says. How is that sola ecclesia????

There is a difference between these two propositions. One places the scriptures as the final authority, the other places the church as the final authority. In one, the Scriptures is over the Church, in the other the Church is over the scriptures.

Fine. Now tell me where I can find your proposition in Scriptures. IF the Bible was my "final" authority, rather than God, I would expect to see a verse mentioning that rule. We both know there is no such mentioning. Rather, the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. The CHURCH has been given power to bind and loosen. The CHURCH has the power to excommunicate or baptize. Please. Without the Church, you wouldn't even KNOW what the Bible was!

I accept the scriptures as infallible and sufficient for faith and practice.

Where does the "Bible" tell us what IS the Bible in the first place??? Where does the Bible say that it is "sufficient" for faith and practice? Big difference between "useful" and "sufficient". And don't forget Ephesians 4:11-13 that speaks of ANOTHER means of perfecting the saints. Thus, the Bible ITSELF says it is not "sola".

And again, see above on what is the pillar of truth. The Holy Spirit abides within the Church, not necessarily the individual reader to infallibly know what the Scriptures teach.

Certainly I accept tradition, but not as infallible. Semper reformandi (always reforming! We accept tradition, not as infallible, but nevertheless we accept tradition, and then reform it. The man who says he has not tradition is blind to his own presuppositions. On the other hand, you are right, I am not like you, and will not blindly follow my tradition and presuppositions. I do not interpret the bible in light of my tradition, but form my tradition in light of what the bible says.

In other words, whatever the culture tells you to do, you change for the sake of the culture, rather than protecting the teachings of the Apostles, even when culture does not approve of it. Case in point - contraception. ALL Christian churches except the Catholic Church caved in to pressure from the secular world. So much for "holding onto the teachings once given"...

Not an easy task my friend. Catholics believe so many different things. They do not even view tradition in the same identical way. Some view tradition as in development, other view it as being passed down from the apostles.

It is the two sides of the same coin. A kernel of a doctrine was taught by the earliest Church and developed by theologians of later day. Like Trinity. Do you think the Apostles taught the exact same definitions found at Chalcedon? I doubt it. But they taught the idea in kernel form and the liturgy and everyday devotions lead to the idea of God being a Trinity of persons rather than one.

But don't fret. There is a heirarchy of truths - some are more important than others. In addition, faith leads to understanding.

I am aware that Catholics claim to follow the scriptures, but of course when I see claims that only the Church can authoritatively interpret scriptures, that claim rings hallow.

Why? Scriptures clearly support the view that there IS an authoritative church that teaches what Christ taught, to include interpreting the Scriptures written by the very same apostles.

Oddly enough, RCC Church tradition rarely quotes scriptures.

Go back an glance at Vatican 2 documents or the Council of Trent (or Orange, since it may be of more interest to you). Scriptures is amply cited.

Have you read any Church Fathers? You can hardly read two sentences without running into Scriptures.

For their doctrine they infallibly interpreted maybe very few verses. The percentage of scriptures that the RCC even claims to infallibly interpret is very low, but that is not the point. The point is that in practice, I observe Catholics practicing sola ecclesia, not prima Scriptura.

I find this sadly funny. Catholics can't win! Either we are too restrictive or not restrictive enough - often mentioned by the same charecter! You complain about the Church's authority to interpret the Bible, and now, you complain that "maybe a very few verses" are infallibly interpreted!

And again, you are mistaking the definition of sola ecclesia. Maybe you mean "prima ecclesia"??? Sola ecclesia would mean we disregard the Scriptures entirely... Even you seem to deny that.

I place my eggs in the scriptures, and my own conscience.

Place it in God, my brother. Read my signature line. That is why I hold the Church so highly.

I trust that God established a Church, for me and others to come and join His Body. I presume you are aware of Ephesians and the very close relationship Paul makes between the Church and Christ? Christ also makes such comments when talking about the sheep/shepherd.

Now your use of the term "private interpretation" makes me think of how Catholics wrongly interpret 2Peter 1:20. The private interpretation has nothing to do with an individual interpreting the scriptures. That text is about the inspiration of the prophets and apostles. The idea is that no prophetic or apostolic writing came by the apostles own will or ideas, it came as the HS carried along the apostles and prophets.

I agree with you here, some Catholic apologists have incorrectly used this verse to pound Protestants. I don't recall mentioning that verse, though. And private interpretation is not to be done outside of the Church's meaning and teachings - since the Bible is PART of what the Church teaches. When you do, you take the bible out of its intended context.

Am I placing my eggs all in the basket of the message of the scriptures? I certainly hope so. Are not all your eggs in one basket? The church?

LOL! And if your interpertation of the message of Scriptures is wrong?

Well, you are correct I am not infallible. That is a statement of the obvious. I have publicly admitted mistakes because less then 2 years ago I was more arminian, and am not a Calvinists. You could even justly say I am probably a Calvinist that is on the bottom of the totem pole of knowledge, and therefore, every fallible. I hope you do not think I ask you to believe me because I say something. Never! Search the scriptures and see if the things I say are right. I never proclaim by infallibility, but only the scriptures infallibility.

Fair enough. My point was to say we can NEVER have complete confidence in our ability to interpret Scriptures, and when they DIFFER from the Church's, we have a clear cut sign that WE ARE wrong, since the Church, not the individual, is the pillar of Truth, the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Its the only way to understand language. Tell me, what method do you use to understand Catholic doctrine? Do you speak to the Pope personally? Or do you go to CatholicAnswers.org? Do you read internet web sites? Do you read books by Catholic authors? Then you use nouns and verbs.

Again, of course I use words. I am merely saying that there is MORE to interpreting passages then internal evidence. One should read the Bible, for example, with Jesus as the heart of it. That is not part of "internal evidence". That is our paradigm, an external teaching applied to reading the OT.

I certainly hope a PH.D is not required to read the scriptures. I hope to attain an AUG degree (Approved Unto God), that is higher then a PH.D. in the sight of God anyway.

Oh boy...

While some very good exegesis is done in english and other native languages, I think it is good to study the scriptures in its original languages if possible. Certainly it is not a requirement, but the grammar and syntax of the original languages is the inspired word of God.

Good luck with that. I mean relying on yourself to know God's Word. Such self-reliance is unbecoming of a Christian. Unfortunately, as Americans, we have been taught that to the deepest depths of our souls. However, unless we become as a child, we shall not see the Kingdom.

The part that I find interesting is the last part of your statement... "a teaching Church, a wonderful gift given to us to teach to us the more sublime wonders of God's revelation."
Again, my point is look how you put down the scriptures! Look at how you exult the Church! That is what I am calling sola ecclesia. It is the innerrant Church over the scriptures of lesser authority only interpreted by the Church.

Perhaps I need to invite you to our church when we incense the Scriptures and parade it around and bow to the Gospels to show our reverance for God's Word. Again, you are confusing "sola" with something else. Exulting the Church does NOT mean I have cast aside the Bible. You are again displaying the typical "either"/"or" false dichotomy.

When you pray to Jesus, Mondar, are you ignoring the Holy Spirit? Does that make you a "sola Jesus" while leaving the Spirit behind?

The entirety of Scriptures iss Genesis to Revelation. Then at the end of Revelation it says not to take anything away or add anything to it.

That is poor exegesis, my friend. That refers to the prophesies found WITHIN the Apocalypse... There was as yet no "NEW TESTAMENT" to "take away" from anything yet!

Certainly I would agree that the "tradition of the Church" can be found in Genesis to Revelation. This is not what you are saying. You want to find Gods word outside of Genesis to Revelation.

I do not "want" to do any such thing. I happen to recognize that God DOES speak outside His Sacred Scriptures. Sorry if you have problems with that, but I realize that God speaks to people even today. God spoke to Christians well before the formation of the NT. That is quite obvious, and I find no passage that tells me Scriptures swallowed up Tradition. That is YOUR tradition, Mondar, not your "exegesis" of any passage of Scriptures.

And this non-scriptural revelation is the only thing to be consulted in understanding what the scriptures actually mean. No my friend, of course I dont think the Church tradition corrects understanding of the scriptures, but the scriptures correct our understanding of Church tradition.

It depends upon the "tradition" you are speaking of. All traditions are not the same. There is a number of "traditions" that even you accept, such as the Canon of the New Testament. You infallibly accept a tradition based upon God working through the Church!

Sola Scriptura

Hocus pocus to you, too... :P

Take care and thanks for the conversation.

Regards

 

[codenamehsk]

francisdesales wrote:
I respectfully disagree. Christ is found in the OT ONLY by reading the OT in a particular paradigm - that Jesus is Risen and the Messiah. Christians have received the Tradition from the Apostles and read subsequent OT Scriptures THROUGH the lenses of what the Church taught them. Thus, the presumption that He is the Messiah then forces Christian exegetics to read the OT Messiah passages (and even those that are not) with Christ in mind. Jews do not approach the OT with the presumption that Jesus is the Messiah, thus, they don't see Him in the OT.

I have yet to find a verse that mentions "Jesus of Nazareth" in the OT. Clearly, Christians must utilize outside presumptions to "see" Jesus in the OT.

Actually there is a prophecy in Daniel 8 & 9 that tells exactly the year when the Messiah was going come. The prophecy is so accurate that the Rabbis have placed curse on those that study it. The curse can be found in the Talmudic Law.

May the bones of the hands and of the fingers decay and decompose, of him who turns the pages of the book of Daniel, to find out the time of Daniel 9:24-27, and may his memory rot from off the face of the earth forever.
Talmudic Law, p978, Section 2, Line 28

 

[mondar]

Jews read and interpret Scriptures differently. Ask them what "virgin" means in Isaiah 7... Ask them whether the Suffering Servant verses refer to a person or the nation of Israel... We all view the Scriptures through different lenses.

The illustrations you give above are not different methods of exegesis. They are simply issue of right and wrong exegesis.

You know as well as I do that you are now trying to hedge. By using the Internal evidence of Isaiah 7, without the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, one CANNOT POSSIBLY figure out that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The context does not allow it and clearly, this Christian exegesis DEPENDS upon traditions given to them. I am not even speaking of the word "virgin", but its application to a person born hundreds of years later. NO ONE would be able to understand this as a Messianic prediction until AFTER the fact reading into the Scriptures what the Christian reader has already been taught. I guess you would call it "eigesis". To me, it is perfectly acceptable that man does not necessarily understand God's Word when first written, OR the multiple applications of the same passage - written to the Jews of the time and Christians hundreds of years later at the same time.

Not only am I not trying to hedge, but here you are totally blowing smoke. The Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is exactly what I say it is. I dont think I mentioned all the evidence because I did not have certain sources with me when I wrote. I am at home now and have more sources.

Let me paste the LXX of Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23.... I will highlight the word virgin in each text...
ιδοὺ η ÀαÃÂθένο εν γαÃĀÃÂὶ ξει καὶ ÄέξεÄαι Ã…ιÌν, καὶ καλέÃοÅÃι Äὸ oνομα αÅÄοÃ… ΕμμανοÃ…ήλ
ιδοὺ η ÀαÃÂθένο εν γαÃĀÃÂὶ ξει καὶ ÄέξεÄαι Ã…ιÌν, καὶ καλέÃοÅÃι Äὸ oνομα αÅÄοÃ… ΕμμανοÃ…ήλ

Now here is the odd thing, dont you think those two lines of text look the same? Would you take my word for it that one is a line I coped from my Greek New Testament in Matthew 1:23 and the other line is copied from my electronic copy of the LXX in Isaiah 7:14? Oh, and by the way, the reason they look the same is because they are the same. Why do you think that might be? Could it be that Matthew did not actually invent the word "virgin" with reference to Mary. Could it be that the word came strait out of the LXX. Now tell me, who were the translators of the LXX? Were they good little Church members? Were they Christians? Could it be that they were those nasty Jews who only look at the words of scripture by the lenses of Jewish tradition? These Jews lived 200 years before Christ, and obviously thought Isaiah was talking about a virgin.

Now you come along and tell me that the Jews exegeted the text only through Jewish tradition? The Jews admitted that Isaiah prophecied of a virgin 200 years before their was a Church.


___________________________________________________________________
I cold quote you other examples of this. You mentioned Isaiah 53. Have you ever read the targum Jonathan?Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel wrote a targum for Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) mentioning the very passage of Isaiah 53 as referring to the atonement of the Messiah.

Certainly not all Jews got everything right. Jewish interpretation is like going into a book store and getting all sorts of opinions. Jewish tradition through out history is as varied as different Christian traditions.

This easily demonstrates my point. There is no special Jewish interpretation of any passage, there is grammar and syntax. There is right readings of prophecies and wrong readings of the prophecies.

Many Jews interpret the OT correctly and realize that many OT passages prophecy a messiah and then simply refuse to believe that Jesus is that Messiah.

I have dropped in on Jewish synagogues several times. I once spoke to a rabbi, and he said "we Do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I asked him do you believe there will be a new covenant. He said "no, that is Christian theology." I asked him "Rabbi, was Jeremiah a Christian?"

Much of Jewish tradition comes not from the words of the scripture, rather they have forsaken the scriptures with their tradition. Christ complained of this very thing...
Mat 15:3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
This was where the Jews went astray. They began to read their tradition into the scriptures, and ended up with wrong interpretations. It is also where the Church went astray.

Sola Scriptura,
Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

You know as well as I do that you are now trying to hedge. By using the Internal evidence of Isaiah 7, without the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, one CANNOT POSSIBLY figure out that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The context does not allow it and clearly, this Christian exegesis DEPENDS upon traditions given to them. I am not even speaking of the word "virgin", but its application to a person born hundreds of years later. NO ONE would be able to understand this as a Messianic prediction until AFTER the fact reading into the Scriptures what the Christian reader has already been taught. I guess you would call it "eigesis". To me, it is perfectly acceptable that man does not necessarily understand God's Word when first written, OR the multiple applications of the same passage - written to the Jews of the time and Christians hundreds of years later at the same time.

Not only am I not trying to hedge, but here you are totally blowing smoke. The Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is exactly what I say it is. I dont think I mentioned all the evidence because I did not have certain sources with me when I wrote. I am at home now and have more sources.

In your rush to judge about my smoke blowing, you completely miss the point... Let's try again. My last post included:

By using the Internal evidence of Isaiah 7, without the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, one CANNOT POSSIBLY figure out that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The context does not allow it and clearly, this Christian exegesis DEPENDS upon traditions given to them.

I am not talking about the word "virgin" and whether it was the correct word or not (although we could argue HOW the word virgin came to be in the Septuagint), and so I am ignoring your tangeant, as I am not contesting the use of that word!

Now, what is the INTERNAL CONTEXT of Isaiah 7? I'll post some verses around Is 7:14. If I didn't post enough, I apologize... No evil intent.

For the head of Syria [is] Damascus, and the head of Damascus [is] Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. And the head of Ephraim [is] Samaria, and the head of Samaria [is] Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; [even] the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the LORD shall hiss for the fly that [is] in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that [is] in the land of Assyria. Is 7:8-18

Where in all of this passage is the Messiah mentioned? The context is God asking Ahaz to select a sign. AHAZ. The context is God speaking directly to Ahaz, not to people hundreds of years later. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you{Ahaz} a sign It is only Christian exegesis and Tradition that reads Is 7:14 as refering to Jesus HImself being the sign, born of the virgin... It is only Christian Scriptures, written MUCH later, that claims JESUS is EMMANUEL. Internal evidence of Isaiah 7 clearly does not provide the Christian interpretation.

Only when reading the OT THROUGH Christian lenses do we understand this as a prophesy refering to the Christ!

Jews reading the OT without the NT will NEVER get it... Using internal evidence, nouns and verbs and the literal context, it is NOT going to happen. Only by reading our traditions into the Scriptures do we realize we have found a prophesy once hidden but now made manifest by the Christ, WHOM WE ALREADY KNOW, OUTSIDE OF THE OT, AS JESUS.

Before compiling the Scriptures, no doubt the tradition was that Mary told Christians of the events leading up to the birth of Jesus. Matthew went to the OT and found a prophesy that he and Christians later claim refers to the Christ. Outside evidence and presumptions are required to read "the Messiah will be born of a virgin". Since Jesus was the Messiah and Matthew claimed that Jesus was born of a virgin according to Mary, we have "the Messiah will be born of a virgin" prophesy, a prophesy hidden until the proper time, according to Paul.

Much of Jewish tradition comes not from the words of the scripture, rather they have forsaken the scriptures with their tradition. Christ complained of this very thing...
Mat 15:3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
This was where the Jews went astray. They began to read their tradition into the scriptures, and ended up with wrong interpretations. It is also where the Church went astray.

I think your fallible interpretation has gone astray. Jesus refers to TRADITIONS OF MEN... NOT ALL traditions. Jesus defines what "tradition of men" is in Mark's Gospel,

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your owntradition. Mark 7:7-9

Jesus does not condemn ALL traditions (teachings), that is foolish to even make such a claim, as Christ HIMSELF said He did not come to abrogate the Law, not even one dot... He is clearly rebuking "rules" that "LAY ASIDE THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD". They are not part of the Law, since they don't come from God, but men trying to BYPASS God's Word.

Traditions (teachings) are not bad UNLESS they attempt to circumvent God's Law. As you probably know, this is what Korban was (as Christ explains in the following verses). Thus, you are caught by your own tradition that tries to shoot down ALL traditions, even Apostolic Traditions given by God, without understanding what Christ ACTUALLY said about traditions. It is such traditions that prevent you from better understanding God's Word.

It is reading Scriptures through the sola scriptura paradigm. ANYTHING that appears to speak unkindly about tradition or the men of the Church is blown out of proportion, while verses about how the Church is the pillar of truth are ignored. THIS is "reading the nouns and verbs and context" of Scriptures? Please. This is hypocrisy. We ALL read Scriptures through our own paradigms. Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Jews, atheists, etc...

Sola Scriptura

Abracadbra to you, as well,

Regards

 

[St Francis]

You know as well as I do that you are now trying to hedge. By using the Internal evidence of Isaiah 7, without the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, one CANNOT POSSIBLY figure out that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The context does not allow it and clearly, this Christian exegesis DEPENDS upon traditions given to them. I am not even speaking of the word "virgin", but its application to a person born hundreds of years later. NO ONE would be able to understand this as a Messianic prediction until AFTER the fact reading into the Scriptures what the Christian reader has already been taught. I guess you would call it "eigesis". To me, it is perfectly acceptable that man does not necessarily understand God's Word when first written, OR the multiple applications of the same passage - written to the Jews of the time and Christians hundreds of years later at the same time.

Not only am I not trying to hedge, but here you are totally blowing smoke. The Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is exactly what I say it is. I dont think I mentioned all the evidence because I did not have certain sources with me when I wrote. I am at home now and have more sources.

In your rush to judge about my smoke blowing, you completely miss the point... Let's try again. My last post included:

By using the Internal evidence of Isaiah 7, without the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, one CANNOT POSSIBLY figure out that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The context does not allow it and clearly, this Christian exegesis DEPENDS upon traditions given to them.

I am not talking about the word "virgin" and whether it was the correct word or not (although we could argue HOW the word virgin came to be in the Septuagint), and so I am ignoring your tangeant, as I am not contesting the use of that word!

Now, what is the INTERNAL CONTEXT of Isaiah 7? I'll post some verses around Is 7:14. If I didn't post enough, I apologize... No evil intent.

For the head of Syria [is] Damascus, and the head of Damascus [is] Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. And the head of Ephraim [is] Samaria, and the head of Samaria [is] Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; [even] the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the LORD shall hiss for the fly that [is] in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that [is] in the land of Assyria. Is 7:8-18

Where in all of this passage is the Messiah mentioned? The context is God asking Ahaz to select a sign. AHAZ. The context is God speaking directly to Ahaz, not to people hundreds of years later. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you{Ahaz} a sign It is only Christian exegesis and Tradition that reads Is 7:14 as refering to Jesus HImself being the sign, born of the virgin... It is only Christian Scriptures, written MUCH later, that claims JESUS is EMMANUEL. Internal evidence of Isaiah 7 clearly does not provide the Christian interpretation.

Only when reading the OT THROUGH Christian lenses do we understand this as a prophesy refering to the Christ!

Jews reading the OT without the NT will NEVER get it... Using internal evidence, nouns and verbs and the literal context, it is NOT going to happen. Only by reading our traditions into the Scriptures do we realize we have found a prophesy once hidden but now made manifest by the Christ, WHOM WE ALREADY KNOW, OUTSIDE OF THE OT, AS JESUS.

Before compiling the Scriptures, no doubt the tradition was that Mary told Christians of the events leading up to the birth of Jesus. Matthew went to the OT and found a prophesy that he and Christians later claim refers to the Christ. Outside evidence and presumptions are required to read "the Messiah will be born of a virgin". Since Jesus was the Messiah and Matthew claimed that Jesus was born of a virgin according to Mary, we have "the Messiah will be born of a virgin" prophesy, a prophesy hidden until the proper time, according to Paul.

Much of Jewish tradition comes not from the words of the scripture, rather they have forsaken the scriptures with their tradition. Christ complained of this very thing...
Mat 15:3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
This was where the Jews went astray. They began to read their tradition into the scriptures, and ended up with wrong interpretations. It is also where the Church went astray.

I think your fallible interpretation has gone astray. Jesus refers to TRADITIONS OF MEN... NOT ALL traditions. Jesus defines what "tradition of men" is in Mark's Gospel,

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your owntradition. Mark 7:7-9

Jesus does not condemn ALL traditions (teachings), that is foolish to even make such a claim, as Christ HIMSELF said He did not come to abrogate the Law, not even one dot... He is clearly rebuking "rules" that "LAY ASIDE THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD". They are not part of the Law, since they don't come from God, but men trying to BYPASS God's Word.

Traditions (teachings) are not bad UNLESS they attempt to circumvent God's Law. As you probably know, this is what Korban was (as Christ explains in the following verses). Thus, you are caught by your own tradition that tries to shoot down ALL traditions, even Apostolic Traditions given by God, without understanding what Christ ACTUALLY said about traditions. It is such traditions that prevent you from better understanding God's Word.

It is reading Scriptures through the sola scriptura paradigm. ANYTHING that appears to speak unkindly about tradition or the men of the Church is blown out of proportion, while verses about how the Church is the pillar of truth are ignored. THIS is "reading the nouns and verbs and context" of Scriptures? Please. This is hypocrisy. We ALL read Scriptures through our own paradigms. Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Jews, atheists, etc...

Sola Scriptura

Abracadbra to you, as well,

Regards

Wow. Fantasatic post

 

[mondar]

In your rush to judge about my smoke blowing, you completely miss the point... Let's try again. My last post included:

By using the Internal evidence of Isaiah 7, without the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, one CANNOT POSSIBLY figure out that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. The context does not allow it and clearly, this Christian exegesis DEPENDS upon traditions given to them.

I am not talking about the word "virgin" and whether it was the correct word or not (although we could argue HOW the word virgin came to be in the Septuagint), and so I am ignoring your tangeant, as I am not contesting the use of that word!

Actually, the context provides the clue as to why the ancient Jews interpreted the entire context as prophetic of two things.

1--- They recognized the prophecy of Isaiah that relates to Assyria. You have mentioned this. Isaiah probably was referring to his betrothed wife. You have alluded to this already. The birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz is recorded in Chapter 8, and is the birth of the son prophecied.

2--- This is the part that you missed in your rush to justify reading your tradition back into the passage in your defense of eisegetical hermeneutics. It has to do with 8:18.
18 Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion.
So then, there is a prophecy concerning a child of Isaiah, but the child of Isaiah is a prophecy of a future event. The name Immanuel--God with us is used several times in Chapter 8. See 8:8, 10. Now the name given to this historical son was "God with us." Not only did the son have meaning and fulfill prophecy, but according to 8:18 the name had meaning and demands a fulfillment of prophecy. Then in Chapter 9:6-7 we see further stipulations upon the prophecy.
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.
The titles of this child make it obvious that it refers to a Messianic figure. Then if you go on to read Chapter 10 you will see that a Judean remnant is prophecied. Also in Chapter 10 we see that Assyrian will be not only the rescuer of Judah in the ancient first fulfillment, but will also be punished by God. By Chapter 11 this son of Isaiah leads Judah as its king and rules in righteousness. He causes the wolf to lay down with the lamb.

Of course for the sake of your tradition you can ignore the unity of Isaiah 6-11. You can refuse to see that the text naturally applies both to several historical situations and also relates to a prophecy of the coming of a Messiah, born of the seed of David, born of a virgin, and is a sign to Israel that God is with them.

Matthew correctly saw, by the Spirit of God, that there was a fuller meaning in Isaiah 7:14. He did not have to consult Church tradition. Neither did he have to invent something new. It was there all the time.

I think this sums it up. The virgin birth is a proper interpretation of Isaiah 6-11. The Jews got it right when they translated 7:14 as virgin.

Sola Scriptura

Abracadbra to you, as well,

Regards

Of course the main argument you have is to insult and make fun of things, if you had better arguments you would not have to use such behavior.

As a matter of fact, your method of reading the OT seem to be the hocus pocus. If you dont like what the text says, you can get the pope to make up some new meaning for the text and isogete it back into the text. The text for you is meaningless.

Sola Scriptura,
Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

1--- They recognized the prophecy of Isaiah that relates to Assyria. You have mentioned this. Isaiah probably was referring to his betrothed wife. You have alluded to this already. The birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz is recorded in Chapter 8, and is the birth of the son prophecied.

Was that son of Ahaz born of a virgin? That would be the internal context, the context the Jew would read it through.

2--- This is the part that you missed in your rush to justify reading your tradition back into the passage in your defense of eisegetical hermeneutics. It has to do with 8:18.
18 Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in mount Zion.

WOW!!! You go to the next chapter and wind up with nothing ...

It is an amazing stretch to think that this verse (Is 8:18) tells me INTERNALLY and without knowledge of Jesus and the New Testament (Matthew), that this refers to the Christ.

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me [are] for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. Is 8:18

It merely says the son of AHAZ is a sign for Israel. The signs are ALREADY GIVEN and are past tense - "hath given me ARE..." CURRENTLY. Signs already given...

Only Christian exegesis can read into this a future sign, much less a Messiah, as the INTERNAL CONTEXT tells us:

And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Is 8: 14-15

WHICH Jew would think that the future Messiah would be a "snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem"? A "rock of offence to the houses of Israel"??? How many Jews would interpret this as the Messiah? None before Christ.

Really... Let's be honest and cut the hedging. Christians were given a tradition, a teaching, that Jesus WAS the Christ. These Christians, such as the Bereans, went to the OT Scritpures and found such verses and appropriated them into a Christian exegesis. Simple as that. Forget about "internal evidence alone tells me the full meaning of Scriptures".

Again, you are bringing OUR tradition into the reading. What is a shame is you refuse to even recognize it. Afraid of the truth, I suppose, and your sacred cow, sola scriptura.

Matthew correctly saw, by the Spirit of God, that there was a fuller meaning in Isaiah 7:14. He did not have to consult Church tradition. Neither did he have to invent something new. It was there all the time.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Only through the Christian paradigm can one recognize that Is 7:14 refers to the Messiah... It was there all of the time, but hidden. It was only AFTER the Christ came and the Apostles were enlightened with the Holy Spirit and had experience the Risen Lord were the Scriptures OPENED UP to the Apostles

Then he (Jesus) said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:25-27

Paul says the same thing, here, among other places:

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Cor 2:7-8

Clearly, the OT does not unambiguously speak of Jesus as the Messiah, OR they "would not have crucified the Lord of glory" Clearly, it wasn't so obvious that Jesus or the Messiah was indicated in Is 7:14, since Christ had not expounded on the Scriptures BEFORE the Resurrection and His relationship to what the Scriptures said about Him. Only after were their minds opened to what God had revealed, from the beginning of the world, but only made manifest after the Resurrection. Thus, if you do not have the experience of the Risen Christ, you won't see God's hidden work in Scriptures.

I think this sums it up. The virgin birth is a proper interpretation of Isaiah 6-11. The Jews got it right when they translated 7:14 as virgin.

I never argued they used the incorrect word. Are you being purposely obtuse?

Of course the main argument you have is to insult and make fun of things, if you had better arguments you would not have to use such behavior.

My logic is sound, but you do not want to accept it, since it would throw your mind into a conflict. Thus, rather than thinking about it, you outright deny it and complain about my behavior? Your tradition requires you to believe that one can read the Bible in a vacuum and figure it all out. You really think that if the Jews only had the OT, they'd figure out Is 7:14 refers to the Messiah born of a virgin? Get real and stop pretending.

As a matter of fact, your method of reading the OT seem to be the hocus pocus. If you dont like what the text says, you can get the pope to make up some new meaning for the text and isogete it back into the text. The text for you is meaningless.

Hocus pocus? No, that would be your "sola scriptura", invented out of thin air.

No sola scriptura in this testament.

None in that testament.

I wave my hands and PRESTO, sola scriptura!!! Just believe it, don't worry about backing it up...

Because I don't follow your poor exegesis means that I find the text meaningless? You have a mighty high opinion of yourself. Too bad you cannot admit you are wrong and have to resort to such stupid attacks. If the text was meaningless to me, I would certainly not have a working knowledge of Scriptures. And even you must admit I am aware of Scriptures and am familiar with them, even if you disagree in my interpretation of it... This and your red herrings are just more desperate attacks to get your mind off the reality that internal evidence is not the entire means of approaching the Scriptures.

Regards