Were Christians supposed to separate themselves?

[gluadys]

Of course, the principal message behind most of the texts about Jesus' return is that we do not know the day or the hour. So we are to be on the alert and ready at any time, yet not waste time in idle speculation looking to the clouds, but be busy serving God in our daily lives.

Clouds and trumpets and horses and armies are all symbolic, and not to be literally expected. They are ways to try and express the inexpressible in human speech.

[Marsh]

Yes, John the Baptist did represent Elijah (i.e. he prophecied in the same spirit given to Elijah the prophet). However, that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Elijah is to return before the day of the Lord, as it is written by the prophet Malachi:

"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers..."

The day of the LORD, as far as I can see, refers to a day that has not yet come because the prophets who talk about it-- Malachi, Amos, Joel, Zephaniah to name several-- seem to couple it with the day of judgment, which has not yet come. Most people agree that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the Revelation of Jesus Christ and also by the prophet Hosea. So while Elijah was symbolized by John the Baptist (just like Jesus himself was symbolized by figures in the OT such as Boaz, Joshua, and many others), that doesn't mean that the real Elijah won't be back someday.

Also, I don't necessarily believe that "Clouds and trumpets and horses and armies are all symbolic," nor do I believe that they are not. For example, it was prophecied that Jesus would enter Jerusalem on a donkey's colt, which he did. The same act can be taken as symbolic of the harvest of wheat (before threshing, the wheat was usually transported to threshing floors via donkey, just like Jesus was transported to Jerusalem to be "threshed," per se). They can be both sometimes.

And I'm sorry that I mixed up the Swedish with the Germans, but Swedebourg's nationality isn't going to change my mind about his being a crackp-- oh, I mean mystic.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Yes, John the Baptist did represent Elijah (i.e. he prophecied in the same spirit given to Elijah the prophet). However, that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Elijah is to return before the day of the Lord, as it is written by the prophet Malachi:

"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers..."

What's the difference between this and the passage I quoted above? I think what you need to understand here is that God comes in all shapes, forms and sizes and, that's it's the gift of the interpreter -- yes, through the aid of the Holy Spirit as gluadys says -- to interpret what these signs mean. In other words you might be in for a long wait if you're waiting for a literal interpretation to come about.

And I'm sorry that I mixed up the Swedish with the Germans, but Swedebourg's nationality isn't going to change my mind about his being a crackp-- oh, I mean mystic.

Even though you're willing to believe the words of some crackpot mystic who wrote the book of Revelation 2,000 years ago. But how do you know he wasn't just making it up?

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Also, I don't necessarily believe that "Clouds and trumpets and horses and armies are all symbolic," nor do I believe that they are not. For example, it was prophecied that Jesus would enter Jerusalem on a donkey's colt, which he did. The same act can be taken as symbolic of the harvest of wheat (before threshing, the wheat was usually transported to threshing floors via donkey, just like Jesus was transported to Jerusalem to be "threshed," per se). They can be both sometimes.

Jesus apparently arranged ahead of time to have the donkey ready. I expect he also knew about the prophecy in Zechariah. That sort of knowledge helps assure the fulfilment of prophecy.

Of course, even if we don't assumed the fulfilment was arranged, we have some other options.

1) Matthew was an incessant "prophecy hunter" mining OT texts for anything he could lay his hands on as a "prophecy" even when he had to mis-translate it and take it out of context as he did Isaiah 7:14.

2)The early church invented the story to create a fulfilment of the prophecy and the evangelists picked it up from oral history.

In short, we should be skeptical of what leads up to prophecy being fulfilled. Especially as the term "prophet" in the OT was not primarily geared to foretelling the future, but to re-calling the people to faithful observance of the covenant in the present.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by gluadys

Now I am not Roman Catholic, but I still find this a curiously paranoid point of view. Is it really likely that, apart from some special revelation, the unlettered masses would be able to interpret scripture better than monks who spent their whole lives in studying it? How can you say the church went through 1500 years of not knowing?

But what purpose does it serve to read the Bible to the masses in Latin when, in fact no one understands it? It would seem the very least they could do was read it in a tongue people could understand if, in fact that's what they wanted people to do. Otherwise you're stuck with having to take someone else's word for it, and what kind of belief is there in that?

And supposing that God did feel it was time to give a new "official account" why would it be significantly different from the historic faith?

So how does this explain why there are so many different interpretations to the Protestant faith then? Does this mean they are all at variance with the only true interpretation which, was the Roman Catholic interpretation? Or, could it be an official interpretation has never been given?

In any case, any "official account" soon becomes dated and in need of further adaptation and re-interpretation anyway. That has been our experience with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which is one of our official interpretive documents. We now either have to re-interpret or re-write or disallow portions of the WCF as well as interpreting scripture.

Yeah, but who the heck are these guys and what makes their interpretation so unique? Just because a group of men decide to get together, for whatever political purposes that might entail? and put their stamp of approval on something, does that make it official? Indeed, you're still stuck with having to take their word for it.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by oxieinexile

Christianity IS Judaism in its purest form.

i don't *think* so. presumably you're joking. insofar as this would make any sense in jewish terms, the 'purest form of judaism' is in fact judaism, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by iacchus

to understand this is to understand John the Baptist wasn't really Elijah, however, he did represent Elijah in the spirit.

this is so typical, though! co-opting jewish texts to make them support non-jewish points of view despite the lack of support or evidence from within the text itself.

Originally Posted by gluadys

The Catholic and, I believe, the Orthodox churches hold that the Church is the official interpreter of scripture. We Presbyterians, and most Protestants, I believe, hold that the Holy Spirit is the official interpreter of scripture.

what about sticking to greek grammar and rules of interpretation? obviously it's easier to read a translation of a translation and then filter that through modern experience.

Originally Posted by marsh

I haven't even cracked open the OT prophets like Isaiah who make statements about the spread of the word of God to the gentiles, or like Jonah who allude to it symbolically.

you also have to take into account that the jews are also called "a nation" and distinguish between what is addressed to the jewish nation specifically and what refers to nations in general. and the general part is far less general than you might think. could you give examples of these statements?

Originally Posted by marsh

just like Jesus himself was symbolized by figures in the OT such as Boaz, Joshua, and many others

according to christians, that is. and boaz is far less important than his wife is.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

But what purpose does it serve to read the Bible to the masses in Latin when, in fact no one understands it? It would seem the very least they could do was read it in a tongue people could understand if, in fact that's what they wanted people to do. Otherwise you're stuck with having to take someone else's word for it, and what kind of belief is there in that?

Well, the mass was never the laity's only source of information about the scriptures. Priest, monks and friars also preached and taught, both inside and outside the churches. And they didn't stick to Latin then.

As for why the worship was in Latin after it was no longer vernacular, I don't know, but it is not at all unique. Orthodox churches still use Old Russian or Old Slavonic, etc. languages as foreign to modern Slavic-speakers as Anglo-Saxon is to us. And whatever their first language Sikhs use Punjabi in worship and Muslims use Arabic.

It doesn't mean they remain ignorant of the teachings of their faith.

So how does this explain why there are so many different interpretations to the Protestant faith then? Does this mean they are all at variance with the only true interpretation which, was the Roman Catholic interpretation? Or, could it be an official interpretation has never been given?

About 95% of Protestants belong to the Anglican/Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist or Baptist/Anabaptist church families, with Pentecostals growing rapidly. Most of the differences are more about church governance than doctrine, and most of the doctrinal differences are minor enough that all of these groups can subscribe to the Nicean creed. The ecumenical movement has gone a long way to erasing old hostilities which exaggerated differences. Most now see the differences as immaterial to maintaining the unity of Christian faith.

Yeah, but who the heck are these guys and what makes their interpretation so unique? Just because a group of men decide to get together, for whatever political purposes that might entail? and put their stamp of approval on something, does that make it official? Indeed, you're still stuck with having to take their word for it.

Same sort of guys who wrote scripture in the first place, and collected it and canonized it and interpreted it. Yes, it does make it official. And yes, it does mean taking their word for it. That is why the apostles call themselves "witnesses". They claimed to be chosen by God as witnesses to the resurrection and they invited other people to take their word for it.

Same as Moses went to the Israelite slaves in Egypt with a story about hearing God speaking from a burning bush and promising them liberation from slavery and inviting them to take his word for it. And Mohammad claimed to receive the Qur'an from the angel Gabriel and gathered disciples who took his word for it.

In essence that is what faith is: trusting in the word of witnesses on the basis of what you hear and on the basis of their character and good name. Trusting in the God they proclaim because you decide to take the word of those who claim to be God's witnesses.

[I, Brian]

I preume the issue of preserving language is to prevent "corruption" of the original teachings.

After all, if you translate Shakespeare into Russian, then translate the Russian into Hindi, then translate the Hindi back into English - there's a good chance you won't have what you started with.

Maybe something of the semantics remain, but the interpretation no doubt could vary wildly.

You only have to compare literal readings of the Old Testament in English, to the Jewish interpertations of the Hebrew, to see an accentuated difference. Sublety and nuance seem particularly to be lost.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you also have to take into account that the jews are also called "a nation" and distinguish between what is addressed to the jewish nation specifically and what refers to nations in general. and the general part is far less general than you might think. could you give examples of these statements?

according to christians, that is. and boaz is far less important than his wife is.

Are we not in a Christian forum? Of course my connections are according to Christians. As for your statement about Boaz, I think you should read that book again: without him, there's really not much of a story.

But what is this Jewish nation that you speak of? What does God see nations as?

Jeremiah 18: "...I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in the hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. Then the word of the LORD came to me: 'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?' declares the LORD."

The Jews, like every nation, are a nation only insofar as God wills it that way, and the moment that he decides to destroy it, raise it up, or modify it, we can consider it done immediately. Therefore, from that point on if God at any time wishes to draw the Gentiles into his fold, everything that is written in scripture to instruct his chosen people retroactively applies to new believers. I believe that Jesus came to draw all mankind together; to be a light to the world, and not just to the Jews. Therefore, by faith, I can logically deduce that the scripture applies to me as well.

Whether you agree or not, which I'll assume you don't because nobody ever does, here's a statement that assuredly applies to me: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Here's another one: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Now if God saw all that he made, didn't that include the present? After all, every event is a remote cause of the present. If I create something, but know later it will fail and I will want to throw it away, would I describe it as being "very good?" God created me in his image, and he said I was very good. Then I fell, and so did you, and so did the Gentiles and so did the Jews. We all fell equally. Why, then, would God choose only the Jews to resurrect, and leave the Gentiles in the cold for all of eternity? That doesn't sound like someone who desires mercy over sacrifice.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by gluadys

Jesus apparently arranged ahead of time to have the donkey ready. I expect he also knew about the prophecy in Zechariah. That sort of knowledge helps assure the fulfilment of prophecy.

In short, we should be skeptical of what leads up to prophecy being fulfilled. Especially as the term "prophet" in the OT was not primarily geared to foretelling the future, but to re-calling the people to faithful observance of the covenant in the present.

Isn't a prophet someone who speaks the word of God? And in that case, wouldn't God be the 'thing' that leads up to a prophecy being fulfilled?

Actually, I find it kind of amazing that Jesus-- who never went to school and as such should have been for the most part illiterate-- knew about such a small prophecy in the writing of one of the minor prophets.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

I think what you need to understand here is that God comes in all shapes, forms and sizes... you might be in for a long wait if you're waiting for a literal interpretation to come about.

I'd rather wait than to be caught off-guard. If God comes in all shapes, forms and sizes why isn't that written in the scripture? Why are there instead teachings against idolatry? As spoken to Ezekiel, for example:

"Son of man, these men have set up idols in their hearts and put wicked stumbling blocks before their faces." (14:3)

Idols are false gods, and the heart is where our words come from. My conclusion then is that idols of the heart are false words-- interpretations-- of who God is. Interpreting God as coming in all forms, therefore, makes me a uncomfortable. I also don't believe that prophecies are fulfilled symbolically; I believe that prophecies contain symbolism, but their fulfillment in the past has always been literal. For example, when Jeremiah saw a vision of a pot of boiling water being tipped toward Jerusalem: I accept that the pot of water was a symbol, but the vision itself was fulfilled literally in that a physical catastrophe hit Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Even though you're willing to believe the words of some crackpot mystic who wrote the book of Revelation 2,000 years ago. But how do you know he wasn't just making it up?

The sheep know the sound of their shepherd's voice, and they run away from everyone else-- especially religious cults.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Why, then, would God choose only the Jews to resurrect, and leave the Gentiles in the cold for all of eternity? That doesn't sound like someone who desires mercy over sacrifice.

Exchange the word "Jew" for "Christian" and you have a key Atheist objection.

Originally Posted by Marsh

Actually, I find it kind of amazing that Jesus-- who never went to school and as such should have been for the most part illiterate-- knew about such a small prophecy in the writing of one of the minor prophets.

Actually, isn't there a passage in one of the Gospels where Jesus reads Isaiah aloud in a synagogue? Forget the reference - though it was Matthew 18, but I can't find it in there.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Exchange the word "Jew" for "Christian" and you have a key Atheist objection.

Actually, isn't there a passage in one of the Gospels where Jesus reads Isaiah aloud in a synagogue? Forget the reference - though it was Matthew 18, but I can't find it in there.

Exchange the word "Jews" for the word "nobody" and the word "Gentiles" for "all of us" and tell me what you think.

The passage you're looking for is from Luke chapter 4, and it refers to the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah...

"The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, and to provide for those who grieve in Zion-- to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair.

"They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor. They will rebuild the ancient ruins and restore the places long devastated; they will renew the ruined cities that have been devastated for generations.

"Aliens will shepherd your flocks; foreigners will work your fields and vinyards. And you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God. You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast. Instead of their shame my people will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace they will rejoice in their inherieance; and so they will inherit a double portion in their land, and everlasting joy will be theirs.

For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and iniquity. In my faithfulness I will reward them and make an everlasting covenant with them. Their decendants will be known among the nations and their offspring among the peoples. All who see them will acknowledge that they are a people the LORD has blessed."

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

wYou only have to compare literal readings of the Old Testament in English, to the Jewish interpertations of the Hebrew, to see an accentuated difference. Sublety and nuance seem particularly to be lost.

hear, hear - and this is to say nothing of the impossibility of making sense of the Written Law in the Pentateuch without the Oral Law of the Talmud.

marsh - i realise this is the christian forum, (i never liked the idea of splitting them by religion - after all, this is comparative, ain't it?) but when you refer to jewish texts, treating them as mere precursors to christian texts and attempting to interpret them as such, it should not be surprising that i take issue with it if i think you're claiming that they say something that i don't think that they say. if we were convinced that the OT prophesied the coming of jesus as the messiah, we'd be christians. i think that christianity needs to be feasible in its own right, using the NT as its sacred texts, not try and co-opt judaism in support. you don't need us as either villains or ancestors to be credible.

Originally Posted by marsh

As for your statement about Boaz, I think you should read that book again: without him, there's really not much of a story.

hmmm. i could say the same of ruth. there's a reason the book is named after her, not him. it's to do with prophecies about the lineage of the messiah.

But what is this Jewish nation that you speak of? What does God see nations as?

the jewish nation is the jewish people. the english words "nation" and "people" are used to translate two different words, "AM" and "GoY", which have similar, but not precisely equivalent, meanings, which i can look up for you if you like. when i use the phrase "jewish nation" in english, i don't mean a modern nation-state. i mean the entire community, the complete ethno-religious group if you like. when the Torah speaks of nations, it distinguishes between the jews and, say, the egyptians, not on the basis of a modern multicultural society, but on the basis of ethnic groups living in their own contiguous territories - "strangers" may live among them, but they are not part of the "nation". some "nations" referred to in the Torah, like the amalekites and the seven canaanite nations, can no longer be identified, so are effectively extinct. nowadays i think it would be safe to say that the only recognisable biblical "nation" still extant is probably ourselves. is this what you were asking?

in reference to the quote jeremiah 18, i understand how that may seem to you, but the potter does not throw the lump of clay away and take another lump instead. he keeps working on the same clay - and the clay, though altered, is still recognisable as a pot. the potter hasn't decided to make something else out of the clay instead, like a statue.

The Jews, like every nation, are a nation only insofar as God wills it that way, and the moment that he decides to destroy it, raise it up, or modify it, we can consider it done immediately.

right - and we have been modified and raised up many times in our history, but never destroyed. we have to trust that G!D Is going to stick to the terms of the covenantal relationship - which *hasn't* modified.

Therefore, from that point on if God at any time wishes to draw the Gentiles into his fold, everything that is written in scripture to instruct his chosen people retroactively applies to new believers.

that's completely specious logic. for one thing, it relies on a concept of a "fold"; the inside of it being 'good', the outside of it being 'bad', which is completely *not* what our relationship with G!D is. unfortunately once you have divided the world into the "inside" and the "outside" you either have to condemn the "outside" or go out and bring them in. neither of these are acceptable to us, which is why we don't proselytise. who are christians to decide that the nature of the relationship between G!D and humanity should be conducted according to a specific agreement? and on behalf of the entire planet? by this logic, somebody living a good life in the amazonian jungle needs you to spread the word and come and "save" him. we don't subscribe to that. you'd do far better to look at it from the islamic PoV, which is that G!D Sends prophets to each and every group and speaks to them in their own way at their own time.

I believe that Jesus came to draw all mankind together; to be a light to the world, and not just to the Jews. Therefore, by faith, I can logically deduce that the scripture applies to me as well.

it's not at all logical. you're taking an existing covenant and rewriting one side of it to apply to you. not only that, there's even a covenantal relationship already in place; the noachide laws. if you want to come in on the agreement, fair enough, but you can't redraft the terms of the agreement for the parties already in it, especially given that our end of the agreement was to observe the Law.

God created me in his image, and he said I was very good. Then I fell, and so did you, and so did the Gentiles and so did the Jews. We all fell equally.

you are assuming that we all agree on that. we don't accept the idea of original sin and the "fall". certainly, adam sinned by disobeying the Divine command - but that's really not the point. we don't have to make amends for his sin; he wasn't even a human being as we understand the nature of such. you cannot have both eden and free-will. the two things are mutually exclusive. we are not angels, but have the capacity to choose.

Why, then, would God choose only the Jews to resurrect, and leave the Gentiles in the cold for all of eternity? That doesn't sound like someone who desires mercy over sacrifice.

no, i dare say not. the answer is that this ISN'T WHAT IS GOING ON. the jews are to be redeemed from our current state of expulsion and downtroddenness by Moshiach, not admitted to some sort of spiritual VIP lounge while everyone else languishes behind the velvet rope. by our redemption the world is supposed to be improved for EVERYONE, not just us.

Actually, I find it kind of amazing that Jesus-- who never went to school and as such should have been for the most part illiterate

er, no he wouldn't have been at all. there's a thread on this somewhere. literacy was extremely good in 1st-century judea, if not everywhere else.

If God comes in all shapes, forms and sizes why isn't that written in the scripture? Why are there instead teachings against idolatry?

the teachings against idolatry are against idolatry, not against other ways of approaching the Divine. idols are things, worshipped in a variety of unpleasant ways and the forms of idolatry that are inveighed against in the OT no longer exist. have you met a molech worshipper recently? or someone who worships dagon, milcom or pe'or, G!D forbid? even the idiots that think they're worshipping baal and asherah nowadays aren't doing the sort of things that the prophets were trying to prevent us doing. the inclination to idolatry ceased with the destruction of the Temple.

and in reference to isaiah 61, it's still about the jews. in order to make it about everyone, you have to ignore the bit about it being specifically aimed at "those who mourn in zion" and which ancient ruins are meant. the captives spoken are the captives of the [babylonian or perhaps second] exile, which was what isaiah was talking about as far as we are concerned. and if it is, then you also need to note the bit about "in My faithfulness I will reward them and make an everlasting covenant with them". in fact, sorry, marsh; the more i look at this passage, the more specific to us it looks and the less universalist.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

this is so typical, though! co-opting jewish texts to make them support non-jewish points of view despite the lack of support or evidence from within the text itself.

So who exactly would have accomplished this? It certainly wasn't me, I'm just reading what's been transcribed. Is it possible that it was written by Jews, while living in Palestine at the time of Jesus? Or, if not written down, could it have been passed along orally by the same?