It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whose view of the O T is authoritative? Jewry or Christianity?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Whose view of the O T is authoritative? Jewry or Christianity?

In reading and discussing the O T, I have noted that the Jewish view is in some cases completely opposite of what the Christian view is.
I E. The Jews see Eden as man’s elevation to a moral sense, while Christians see Eden as man’s fall. Jews do not recognize original sin while Christians do.

Jews also do not read the O T as literal and historic while Christians do.

Whose interpretation should hold precedence? The Jewish view or the Christian one?

When Christianity usurped the Jewish God, should they have also usurped their interpretations as well, instead of reversing them?

Regards
DL




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

The Jews say "The Christians have nothing to stand on," and the Christians say, "The Jews have nothing to stand on," although they [both] recite the [same] Scripture. Thus the polytheists speak the same as their words. But Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ. - 2:113

edit on 1/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Being that Jesus himself was a Jew, I would say they have a leg up as far as accuracy and such..

With that said - I view these texts as a collection of ancient stories that have been integrated and updated as a set of morality tales .. Many of the biblical stories you find actually predate the bible in some form or another by quite a long time.. as I posted in another thread, you could almost view it this way..

Imagine the story of little red riding hood.. Now I'm going to take that story and rewrite it, but I'm going to place it in modern day new york and I'm going to add a moral lesson that red riding hood survived her ordeal because God sent an angel to warn her... I make the wolf a demon sent by satan .. and I'll give them both actual names.

Now lets write this down, lets teach our children... in a thousand years or so someone will find it, they will see that new york really existed and suddenly this story will have some credence .. It doesn't matter that I borrowed that story..

This is largely how the bible has evolved and come to be.. it's a collection of ancient tales reworked for morality and context..
edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
The Jews are made up of different beliefs of interpretations, factions if you will and the OP has taken different beliefs of the many factions and combined them to make a base statement
Many Jews believe the OT to be literal, Jesus as a Jew taught the bible as literal.
Where do you get your facts from
A little research always helps an argument or frames a question.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 




Being that Jesus himself was a Jew


Hi, I'm not being confrontational, but are you sure Jesus was a Jew? I was always told him being a Jew was a Myth, he was Judean, big difference. Here is some information, perhaps it is incorrect. If you can find flaws with the content in the source (please don't attack the source) I would be interested to hear about it.

JESUS WAS NOT A Jew

Like I said, I don't mind being proven wrong. I prefer it at times since that way I'm no longer believing disinformation. Perhaps you can help clear this up for me.
edit on 1-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Romans 3 1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?


They were given the oracles of God.


Oracle 1. a. A shrine consecrated to the worship and consultation of a prophetic deity, as that of Apollo at Delphi. b. A person, such as a priestess, through whom a deity is held to respond when consulted. c. The response given through such a medium, often in the form of an enigmatic statement or allegory. 2. a. A person considered to be a source of wise counsel or prophetic opinions. b. An authoritative or wise statement or prediction. 3. A command or revelation from God. 4. In the Bible, the sanctuary of the Temple.


I would say they do because they were given the oracles. I am sure that if we really knew those oracles, because Jesus did so many more things that could not be written, we would not be able to wrap our minds around it.

The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. So I learn more, then need to keep on learning.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by miniatus
 




Being that Jesus himself was a Jew


Hi, I'm not being confrontational, but are you sure Jesus was a Jew? I was always told him being a Jew was a Myth, he was Judean, big difference. Here is some information, perhaps it is incorrect. If you can find flaws with the content in the source (please don't attack the source) I would be interested to hear about it.

JESUS WAS NOT A Jew

Like I said, I don't mind being proven wrong. I prefer it at times since that way I'm no longer believing disinformation. Perhaps you can help clear this up for me.
edit on 1-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)


Actually yes He was.


Luke 2:21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord 24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. 25And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 29Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. 33And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.


And yet more evidence...

Luke 2:41Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. 42And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. 43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.


There are three ancient Jewish traditions honored here, and they all derive from Moses, as only Jewish people are the only group of people to have ever kept the traditions of Moses.

First we see Mary had to finish the days of her purification after the baby was born, second, they had Jesus circumcised according to the law of Moses and third, they traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover.
edit on 1/1/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Whose view of the O T is authoritative? Jewry or Christianity?

In reading and discussing the O T, I have noted that the Jewish view is in some cases completely opposite of what the Christian view is.
I E. The Jews see Eden as man’s elevation to a moral sense, while Christians see Eden as man’s fall. Jews do not recognize original sin while Christians do.

Jews also do not read the O T as literal and historic while Christians do.

Whose interpretation should hold precedence? The Jewish view or the Christian one?

When Christianity usurped the Jewish God, should they have also usurped their interpretations as well, instead of reversing them?

Regards
DL



Neither. Each is an aspect of the other. The question should be, "Which view reflects the underlying suggestion of the symbols?" God is hidden and we must rely on our faith or we are blinded by our pride. Faith only comes from an open heart. The spirit guides those who love God and others, but we must first overcome ourselves by crossing the bride of virtue. This is an impossible task on our own as we will always fail. The Jewish people are a mixture of various beliefs from secular to Christian. Missing Jesus makes their faith a works based religion like all others. The law cannot save someone who cannot possibly follow it fully. Only one person ever has.

As I just said, there is a bridge to cross and a path that leads to God. Jesus did what we are unable to do by any religious practice, allowing us safe passage. Crossing the bridge of our own sin and shame is not something we need to do alone. This is the single point of difference between the various groups. Jesus brings the world together on this journey. We just need to choose to take the first step.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


No offense but an old book that has been rewritten many times is not a very convincing source. I appreciate the efforts though. I know my source may not be the most trustworthy either, but which part of my source was incorrect?

I'm still confident he was Judean which is regional name, not a religious name. Many theologians have studied all the scriptures and can agree that most of the bible is purely agenda induced propaganda.

Do you believe something just because it was in the bible? If so, then the story of Jonah and the whale must really interest you, or how Satan and God used Job as a pawn in their sick bet.

Jesus was not a Jew.

They mocked him as "the king of Judea", not "the king of the Jews"



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by miniatus
 




Being that Jesus himself was a Jew


Hi, I'm not being confrontational, but are you sure Jesus was a Jew? I was always told him being a Jew was a Myth, he was Judean, big difference. Here is some information, perhaps it is incorrect. If you can find flaws with the content in the source (please don't attack the source) I would be interested to hear about it.

JESUS WAS NOT A Jew

Like I said, I don't mind being proven wrong. I prefer it at times since that way I'm no longer believing disinformation. Perhaps you can help clear this up for me.


Since you asked for errors on the web page you referenced. The first Jew is Judah. And he was mentioned in Genesis. As one of the 12 sons of Israel. And in the Genesis 49 prophecy.

8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
9 Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:
12 His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.

Also Judah apparently was a biblical bad-*** as well. Per the book of Jasher. It didn't make the bible but it is an interesting read though. Basically fleshes out Genesis.

www.sacred-texts.com...

As far as what's in the rest of the page well, the author has an agenda. It's normal for numbers to inflate over time. Especially when there is money involved. Did the Holocaust happen? I would say yes. Does the author of the page have a point on the inflation of the number of Jews involved? Yes. The real number of dead Jews is probably less than the numbers given. After all being in a major war the Germans would have been nuts to kill off perfectly good slave labor. The old and infirm yes but the healthy you would want to work them to the max. But the camps existed and the war killed millions. And displaced millions of others.

It was still a tragedy.

As far as Jesus being a Jew you would have to look at Mary's parentage. It's generally held that Mary was a Jew. Wikipedia



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I say neither is authoritative; the stories of Genesis originated in Mesopotamia. Jews gave the stories a meaning consistent with their theology and Christians gave the stories a meaning consistent with their theology. But neither religion is "authoritative" because the stories are much older than either religion. (Maybe better ask some of the worshippers of Marduk what these stories mean.)

edit on 2-1-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


No offense but an old book that has been rewritten many times is not a very convincing source. I appreciate the efforts though. I know my source may not be the most trustworthy either, but which part of my source was incorrect?

I'm still confident he was Judean which is regional name, not a religious name. Many theologians have studied all the scriptures and can agree that most of the bible is purely agenda induced propaganda.

Do you believe something just because it was in the bible? If so, then the story of Jonah and the whale must really interest you, or how Satan and God used Job as a pawn in their sick bet.

Jesus was not a Jew.

They mocked him as "the king of Judea", not "the king of the Jews"


The word Judea derives from the tribe of Judah. That was a real person.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Do you believe something just because it was in the bible? If so, then the story of Jonah and the whale must really interest you, or how Satan and God used Job as a pawn in their sick bet.



Do I believe Darius and Cyrus existed? They are mentioned in the Bible. Do I believe Egypt exists because it was the Bible as well.

So going by your theory that it must not be true because it was in the Bible, then I would have reason to believe Persia, Greece or Rome existed. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar and Chederloamer or Magog were never real, they were just figments of the imaginations of those writers.

Did you know those two rivers mentioned in Genesis, the Gihon and the Pison rivers are only mentioned in the Bible and that NASA has discovered two ancient rivers existing in the very places the Bible says they do? But since it was in the Bible, then the Euphrates and the Tigirs rivers are not real.

Shinar is still called Shinar today by those people who live in Iran. But it can't be real because the Bible says it is. So, according to your theory, if it is in the Bible it is not real, then I would have no reason to believe any of those nations or people ever existed. Would you accept that as correct?

Prove they existed, but whatever source you use I will say they were rewritten from unreliable sources and they were rewritten over and over again. Wikipedia can't be a good source because you don't know who wrote the article and youtube can't be used because they were created with an agenda to make people believe something that is not true.

So go ahead, prove to me those things mentioned are true using original sources.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 




So go ahead, prove to me those things mentioned are true using original sources.


I never claimed them to be true, and you know this.

So why should I have to prove them to be true?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by WarminIndy
 




So go ahead, prove to me those things mentioned are true using original sources.


I never claimed them to be true, and you know this.

So why should I have to prove them to be true?


No, what you have said is that you don't believe it because it was in the Bible. I was telling you people and places in the Bible, but you do a little dance around your own statement. So, if it is not true because it was in the Bible, and you don't want me to believe in the Bible, then I have no reason to believe any of those people existed at all and all those places are mere legends.

Now don't keep dancing around your statements, you have not distracted me.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 




So, if it is not true because it was in the Bible, and you don't want me to believe in the Bible, then I have no reason to believe any of those people existed at all and all those places are mere legends.


I never said you had to believe "those people existed at all and all those places are mere legends."

Are you purposely being obtuse?



Look pal all I did was ask Miniatus' opinion on the content of the source I provided. You took it upon yourself to join our discussion, which is fine since it's an open board, then continued to purposely twist things I have said to support your side of the argument.

So what, I don't believe in the bible. If you want to, go ahead. I respect one's right to worship. Stop being such a meanie


Personally, I think it's pretty obvious that the tales told in the source I provided are much more believable than the ones in the bible.

Jona and the whale is one of my favorites, as a child that is.
edit on 2-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by WarminIndy
 




So, if it is not true because it was in the Bible, and you don't want me to believe in the Bible, then I have no reason to believe any of those people existed at all and all those places are mere legends.


I never said you had to believe "those people existed at all and all those places are mere legends."

Are you purposely being obtuse?



Look pal all I did was ask Miniatus' opinion on the content of the source I provided. You took it upon yourself to join our discussion, which is fine since it's an open board, then continued to purposely twist things I have said to support your side of the argument.

So what, I don't believe in the bible. If you want to, go ahead. I respect one's right to worship. Stop being such a meanie


Personally, I think it's pretty obvious that the tales told in the source I provided are much more believable than the ones in the bible.

Jona and the whale is one of my favorites, as a child that is.
edit on 2-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)


Ah, the old obtuse argument because I don't agree with you. What you said was "it is not true because it is in the Bible". So I said that I am not obligated, by your own theory, that if it is in the Bible it is not true, I do not have to believe all those people and places existed.

I am only going by your statement. Have you forgotten what you said? You are just like someone on another thread who keeps dancing around their statement, as though you are trying to distract us from what you said.

I am going on your theory, is that such a bad thing to do on a site that is designed to challenge theories? I have challenged your theory, now prove to me your theory holds water or not.
edit on 1/2/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

I was always told him being a Jew was a Myth, he was Judean, big difference.

Here is a line from the web site you linked to:

During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere.
There were, between when Jesus preached, and the destruction of the temple.
If you read the Gospel of John, you see a place where the Pharisees warn Jesus against going to Jerusalem because the Jews wanted to kill him. The Pharisees did not call themselves Pharisees, other people called them that. The Sadducees did not call themselves Sadducees either, they called themselves, Jews. The reason probably that the writer of John calls them Jews is that he was a Sadducee himself, as evidenced by his apparent familiarity with them and they of him in the passion story.
My thought right now of who these people were, the Jews, is that there was an eviction from the land of a lot of people from the territory of Israel by the Assyrians and one place they were taken to was Media (land of the Medes). What I imagine is that they may have been embarrassed to be something other than from Judea, so decided to call themselves Jews, which was their way to self-identify in a way that was their own invention.
This culture of the Jew became an import item with the advent of the Media/Persian Empire which replaced Babylon after it fell, and became the power which Judea was now the client state of. So you had this self appointed aristocracy with imperial authorization who claimed to be the only true holders of the religion of the temple and had been in exile for the duration but now they were back and they were the it thing. So they became the sect who ran the temple and tried to rule the whole region as much as they could, for example Jesus was arrested in a nearby town by the temple police.

edit on 2-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
Being that Jesus himself was a Jew, I would say they have a leg up as far as accuracy and such..

With that said - I view these texts as a collection of ancient stories that have been integrated and updated as a set of morality tales .. Many of the biblical stories you find actually predate the bible in some form or another by quite a long time.. as I posted in another thread, you could almost view it this way..

Imagine the story of little red riding hood.. Now I'm going to take that story and rewrite it, but I'm going to place it in modern day new york and I'm going to add a moral lesson that red riding hood survived her ordeal because God sent an angel to warn her... I make the wolf a demon sent by satan .. and I'll give them both actual names.

Now lets write this down, lets teach our children... in a thousand years or so someone will find it, they will see that new york really existed and suddenly this story will have some credence .. It doesn't matter that I borrowed that story..

This is largely how the bible has evolved and come to be.. it's a collection of ancient tales reworked for morality and context..
edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)


Yes. And social manipulation and control.

Regards
DL



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

The Jews say "The Christians have nothing to stand on," and the Christians say, "The Jews have nothing to stand on," although they [both] recite the [same] Scripture. Thus the polytheists speak the same as their words. But Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ. - 2:113

edit on 1/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)


Thanks for sharing your delusion.

Regards
DL



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join