Posts by CalebInFloroda

45

People should learn more about the Bible flaws

by opusdei1972 in

i have noted that the main problem for those who are seduced by the watchtower society is their ignorance about the bible itself.

people who believe that the bible is the word of god usually ignore the studies on textual criticism and how scientific criteria forbid absurd stories like that of the global flood.

so, i strongly believe that students in schools need at least an obligatory course on "the bible" through the point of view of science and the textual criticism.

CalebInFloroda

Megaboy does have academia behind him and his comments on the flood.

The best philology on the Noah narrative goes like this: a real man known as Noah, did save himself and his household and animals from a tragic but localized flood in the Mesopatamian basin, one that may have been extremely tragic to the surrounding communities. His survival therefore was likely attributed to divine providence as most cultures of the time would have done. End of original story.

Jump into the future at the time of the Babylonian captivity. Among other things Jews are appalled to discover from witnessing heathen worship is their own story of Noah turned into a horrendous tale explaining the superiority and non mercy of Babylonian gods. When Babylon falls, the Jews incorporate these details into the Noah narrative to tease the Babylonians because their gods proved failures. The heathen version is altered into a lesson that the G-d of Abraham and Sarah is not one that wants to flood the world with water like the heathen gods. The G-d of the Jews is one that redeems humankind and creation from tragedy, even promises not to allow such tragedy to repeat in the future.

The above is very simplified, you understand, but the theory does match what records this Mesopatamian flood infultrated and how critical analysis sees a pattern that allowed it to grow into legendary status among many cultures.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@lieu

Forgive me if I offended you. I meant to point out that your references to what it meant to be Torah obedient left out Halachic interpretation, but I assume I went further than that in your opinion? Sorry if I did.

I'm a Jew and I don't think any of us Jews have a full understanding of our own Jewish concepts, IMHO. It's far more than what we can obtain from merely reading Scripture, that's for sure....so at times to hear a non-Jew who has never learned about Halacha or kashrut, mitzvot, Talmud, or Midrash and presumes that everything that needs to be known can be understood by a non-Jew by simply reading a Gentile translation of the Old Testament...well that can set off a few bells in the Jewish head.

But you are correct. I cannot judge what your entire knowledge of Judaism is by merely one post of yours. For all I know you are my rabbi on the other end.

If you are I will be a little late to Shabbat service tonight.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

It should be noted that the word "resurrection" is a Greek term that does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Greek it means the literal re-animation of the corporeal body, or as the term simply means "to stand up [again]."

The JWs use this term incorrectly because they often speak of people being "resurrected to heavenly life," and in fact you can often use that as an indicator of even an exJW sometimes.

Neither in Scripture nor mainstream Christian eschatology can you say that someone is "resurrected" to spirit life. The term and theology requires that a corporeal form is coming back to life. Spirits are generally considered to be immortal and incorporeal and therefore never need to and cannot be "resurrected." In Acts 17 some Greeks find Paul's speech laughable because he mentions the concept of "resurrection" which is contrary to the pagan view that only a spirit life awaits us after death. If the term could be applied to life after death as an immortal soul or spirit, this would not have been the reaction. But since "resurrection" refers to new life in a physical body, the Greeks found this ridiculous and unnecessary.

So JWs are actually showing how uneducated they are by using the term "resurrection" to refer to entry into heaven life.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@Opusdei

in line with you last comments, the answer is a definitive "yes" from Catholic Church scholars, at least in reference to texts that are clearly redactions.

Convservative Catholics in the United States hate and have disowned the official Catholic translation of the Bible for use in America, the NABRE, because it contains in its footnotes philology citing texts like these as likely interpolations to the text. This, as you can imagine, has altered some doctrinal issues (likely for the better), and while the majority of Catholics are satisfied, conservatives in the Church call the work heretical.

This smaller group of Catholics in the U.S. has been very vocal and even resurrected the older text of the RSV Catholic edition as an alternative. But as you can imagine the USCCB will have none of it, not even including the RSV Catholic edition as an approved translation on its website.

The NABRE is the work of some 100 scholars from several denominations, has been in production since 1946 and will be officially completed by 2025 (the current 2011 edition is an ad-hoc "holdover" version). It is really outstanding and has been praised even by Jews and referred to as the cause of Bible-envy by one popular Protestant reviewer.

To see it rejected by its own people by such a vocal group is actually disheartening for me, and I'm not even Catholic! It appears to me that regardless of the scholarship and critical approaches involved and the beautiful and accurate results that can be obtained, some people are determined to remain in the dark and want to pull others down into the dark with them.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@John Aquila

I do know that Jewish women could read in synagogues of the Second Temple era, and there are some indicators that some had to act as prayer leaders and even in a capacity similar to rabbis. Lydia of Thyatira seems to have been a convert to Judaism that acted in such a capacity according to Acts 16.

While I know that Chrisitans often use the verse you mention to claim that Paul was following some Jewish practice of not allowing women to teach, that restriction only came into Judaism after the fall of the Second Temple and did not last very long. Judaism has generally remained quite egalitarian throughout most of its history (not that we didn't have our dark times however). Today only Orthodox Jews carry such restrictions.

But pagans were not this way. They treated women quite differently in society. Paul must be referring to his rules that he was establishing as an apostle to the Gentiles, much like the head covering rule, for churches he was establishing. Outside of this I cannot say what else Paul had in mind because it doesn't reflect Jewish practices.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@Opusdei

I see this as a possible indicator of pseudonymous redaction. Since the heretic Marcion of Sinope was the first to assemble and introduce the idea of a Christian canon into Christianity, and since his ideas were mainly Gnostic, I wonder if Marcion or his disciples did not have a hand in editing Paul into the works that have come down to us today.

Marcion's canon was essential Paul's epistles, and Marcion claimed that Paul championed Gnostocism. The verses you point out sound very Gnostic and incompatible with a Jew who learned at the foot of Gamiliel. Did the Catholic Church manage to capture each and every interpolation Marcion may have included into Pauline texts by the time it re shaped the NT to include 27 books? Me thinks not.

This is but my own theory on the matter, but the texts you offer do read contradictory to other statements where "knowledge" is not placed above Paul's main arguments regarding the superiority of grace and faith.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Lieu,

You are mistaken in some of what you say because you don't understand Jews or Judaism.

Being Torah-observant doesn't mean you sacrifice animals at a temple. It means following "Halacha" or the application of Torah.

To illustrate, Torah doesn't describe or make allowances for everything that was eventually established at the Temple, and some of what was practiced at the Temple later grew into redactions of the Torah text itself. But Torah is more than the 613 laws of Judaism. It contains of mythology and history and our mores and conventions.

Now obedience to Torah has always been observing its laws or Halacha, the current understanding of Torah in the era and circumstances you are in, not in following the Torah as written. Even Orthodox Jews are not like Christian Fundamentalists who believe in a literal, step-by-step following of what is written in Torah.

Mitzvah comes from Halacha which stems from Torah. It's always been that way. sacrifices of animals at a literal Temple are elements of an ancient society that have no meaning to Jews of today.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Megaboy,

Interesting views but, when you touch on such points, not reflective of any actual Jewish philosophy or theology, not officially representative anyway.

But the question that the OP is raising is one that perplexes even the best Biblical scholars and academics who study the Pauline epistles.

Some of the texts raise great questions, even whether or not not the historical Paul wrote all the texts that are traditionally attributed to him. If they all do come from the same person, then it isn't the imagination that makes readers question Paul's honesty.

A good example is 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16. In light of Romans chapter 11, this oft-labeled anti-Semitic text is either clear indication that Paul would say anything to win an argument or prove his point (and that would prove dishonesty) or, as most scholars agree, this suggests that the writings were either altered or written by people who only claimed to be Paul.

While I tend to agree with those in academia who believe this to be either an anti-Semitic interpolation or that someone other that Saul of Tarsus wrote this, this is not the only instance where a surface or literal reading makes "Paul" look a bit twisted. What Jew would write in one letter (Romans) that he would rather be accursed and sacrificed on behalf of his brother Jews that they might accept Christ and even exclaim that God's call to them is irrevocable but then turn around and call them Christ killers in a letter to the Thessalonians? Because the JWs insist this is totally fine, it can produce quite an odd picture of this character to others who hear of this view.

Even the scholarly answers about this cannot be set in stone. It's a valid question that deserves to be asked again and again. Whatever the actual answer remains at present elusive but nonetheless important as much harm has been caused by accepting the words of these epistles as holy writ directly composed by an apostle of Christ.

35

DOES BELIEF IN THE BIBLE DESTROY ONE'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY?

by TerryWalstrom in

based on information to be found at: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_dont_the_highly_educated_believe_in_evolution_the_bible_believers_effe/.

the bible-believers effect.

those who believe the bible is the word of god (bible believers) and those who dont believe the bible is the word of god (bible nonbelievers) differ in their beliefs that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

CalebInFloroda

DJS is correct about us Jews.

Even among the most religious of Jews there is no such thing as "belief" being central to the practice. Jews don't "believe" that G-d exists, as such in the manner that this is important to Christians.

While I've noticed Christians have a hard time with this when I say it, atheists seem to grasp the concept each time: we don't have "faith" or mental acknowledgement of G-d as an element of our religion. Whether or not a Jew views G-d as real as any material thing on the planet or merely as part of our mythology, the whole concept of the G-d of Abraham and Sarah is very real. Response to this is what makes a Jew a Jew, not belief. Belief (mental acknowledgment) of doctrines can't do anything for a person in Jewish theology. Responses however mean everything.

Jews can be atheist because Jews act as if G-d is not present to end suffering, help people, make the world better. Jews believe that it is our responsibility to do this. This is what the "chosen" in "chosen people" means to us. We are chosen to be as G-d would act in these circumstances. This philosophy is called "Tikkun Olam" and it replaces the "faith" that is so important to Christians.

So we do tend to reject things that require credulity. Even those who believe G-d is real have far different and often very logical concepts of what and who Elohim is, many of which would probably insult Christians.

While parts of Orthodox Judaism is still a little behind in some areas, generally speaking Judaism seeks to avoid being intellectual dishonest with itself and others. That's why it is not earth-shattering to admit that many of our traditions and texts stem from various sources that don't originate with direct revelation from our G-d. And you will find we don't believe that our mythology is true as much as we seek to find values and cherished truths that can be practically applied as Tikklun Olam.

35

DOES BELIEF IN THE BIBLE DESTROY ONE'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY?

by TerryWalstrom in

based on information to be found at: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_dont_the_highly_educated_believe_in_evolution_the_bible_believers_effe/.

the bible-believers effect.

those who believe the bible is the word of god (bible believers) and those who dont believe the bible is the word of god (bible nonbelievers) differ in their beliefs that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

CalebInFloroda

In support of what DJS is stating...

The study above and others like it show a correlation between Christian Fundamentalism and a lower intellectual quotient as demonstrated in rejection of accepted scientific paradigms.

A "Bible-believer" is generally limited to this type of Christian because their doctrine is limited to a literal reading of Scripture to the exclusion of outside sources. This expression sometimes gets confused with others who read or also use Scripture, but it is limited to these others.

The priest who first proposed the Big Bang comes from a religious tradition that not only discovered the expansion theory but accepts evolution and critical Biblical analysis. Catholics not only believe in Scripture but also a rich Tradition that actually shaped the New Testament while it was being composed and canonized.

Judaism is similar. The religion of my people also came first before the Scriptures were composed and set as we now have them. This means they do not get read at face value as they also do not do in Catholicism. The Scriptures were never intended to be used outside of the liturgical and cultural world in which they were composed.

"Bible-believing" Christians refer to members of Christianity that reject Apostolic Tradition and Jewish theology in exchange for a face-value reading and literal interpretation of Scripture. This formula requires an individual to ignore the historical development of Scripture and the intentions with which these texts came with. A life of confirmation bias is all you can entertain to do this successfully.

Both the question raised by the OP and the comments made by DJS cannot be confused with a declaration that use of Scripture in itself limits the use of intellect. What is being said is that there exist religious approaches, Bible-only groups, which fit a pattern of denial that seems necessary in order to hold on to a theology that itself is far from being intellectually honest or satisfying.