This seems to me like a non-sequitur. I.e. I’m not seeing why if would follow from one of Jesus’ functions being to give an authoritative interpretation of Torah, that he could reveal nothing else, or that everything would already be found in the Torah.
I go with Bob on this.
NTW brings out that Paul’s assessment of Torah is that:
It is a great thing
It was given to show that the cancer of sin runs right through the chosen people as well as gentiles
The depth of that cancer calls for a greater remedy than ‘keeping Torah’ - it calls for a regeneration by the Holy Spirit, not ‘just’ forgiveness.
So Jesus came not just for the Jews, but for the remedy of sin throughout the human race, by pouring out the Spirit on those who believe in him in reality. Not mental assertion to propositions, but an actual spiritual renewal.
Much of this debate is obviously predicated on a persons ‘view’ of what or who ‘YAWH’ God is. God had a specific view of what Israel was to be and God’s focus in scripture was definitely Israel, but somehow some don’t like the way he dealt with them so have changed the narrative in their favor.
So I said my stuff.
Ah I see your point Bob - thanks
Interesting , but I would say that Jesus came not just for the Jews, but for the remedy of sin throughout the human race. Get rid of the believing part.
Jesus was and is the savior= the one that connected God with humanity. And that is ALL HUMANITY!
I will never give up the ‘believing’ part. Let’s leave it at that.
hmmm when will you ever give up your part in God’s plan and accept God’s gift of the Christ?
Chad as you know, I am trapped in the Evangelical mindset and unwilling to search the scriptures for fear that you might be right. All evangelicals and most believers since the Ascension have also been wrong, even though the apostles spent actual time with the Real Jesus.
And I have been trying to please God by my own efforts, trying to earn his love and ignoring the blessings of salvation for the past 40 yrs or so, completely ignoring the free offer of grace.
So based on that poor record, it may be a while before I come around. Peace.
Dave to Chad. We need a song, to emphasize this sentiment!
I agree with the stimulating thinking of C.S LEWIS ON THE GOODNESS OF GOD AND THE GENOCIDES OF JOSHUA:
“Yes. On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to, say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.
To this some will reply ‘ah, but we are fallen and don’t recognize good when we see it.’ But God Himself does not say that we are as fallen as all that. He constantly, in Scripture, appeals to our conscience: ‘Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?’ — ‘What fault hath my people found in me?’ And so on. Socrates’ answer to Euthyphro is used in Christian form by Hooker. Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.) The opposite view (Ockham’s, Paley’s) leads to an absurdity. If ‘good’ means ‘what God wills’ then to say ‘God is good’ can mean only ‘God wills what he wills.’ Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.”
2 Likes
I had not run across that from Lewis. Excellent!!
Thanks Bob. I agree that the inherent goodness of God triumphs any scripture that depicts Him as otherwise.
Who said you have a poor record?
So I was going back over this concept recently and had a couple of different thoughts on the matter. I think it is quite important to understand context throughout biblical time periods and so we need to get extra-biblical documents to help us understand this. However if we are adding books such as the ones in the NT, at what point can we say that it is okay or not okay to follow? Where would things like Oral Torah fall into all of this?
OT
Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
NT
Revelation 22:18-19 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
The bible is mostly a history book and so it reports on events that happened so concubines and pluralistic marriages are arrangements people made but these were never ordained by God. Man has redefined marriage today , just as people in the OT had pluralistic marriages but God never did go with the flow.
As you referenced Duet 4.2 , the so called oral Torah is man made & just gives Rabbis a chance to showcase their wisdom but it’s man made wisdom that may be influenced by the culture at any particular time.
I feel like there is a certain amount that is “inspired by God” or divine in a sense. Do you not see this to be the case?
Anything may be inspired by God, maybe a lot more then we think, but I have no insight why the Oral Torah is one of these? What suggests this to you?
Well I don’t think the Oral Torah is scripture itself and therefore not truly inspired. I do agree that there are many falsehoods with it in general. I would consider the OT to be scripture and everything else as oral torah.