|
Author
|
Topic: Matthew 27:9: Quoted from Jeremiah?
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6459 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
|
Message 16 of 74 (282776)
01-31-2006 2:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by Iblis
01-26-2006 9:16 PM
|
|
Re: DeclineToRead
"First of all brother, don't reply to me in the third person, I'm not your pony." I prefer to keep replies in the third-person to keep the discussion on a more formal level. In any event, if I were to compare Iblis to a member of the horse family, a pony would not be it. "Secondly, I don't think you understand your position at all. You seem to be hunting elephants with a bb-gun, I have noticed this and stepped up, stuck my arm in front of my face like it was a trunk, and effortlessly taken away your weapon. Notice I didn't need to weigh several tons or have giant feet? There are real elephants here! If Faith or Herepton or Buzsaw notices you and finds you annoying enough to reply to you are going to get seriously crushed." Cute. I'm shaking in my boots. What does this have to do with anything posted? "Thirdly, and to your point, arguing that Matthew is unreliable because he attributes the '30 pieces of silver' language from Burden 1, collected into Zechariah, to Jeremiah instead, is like arguing that Geoffrey of Monmouth is unreliable because he attributes the Arthurian battle-list, collected into Nennius, to Gildas. Geoffrey has a copy of a collection that begins with Gildas's work and includes the Nennius material as well, he is being remarkably accurate in making this attribution, comparatively speaking." Strictly speaking, not my point. Iblis has a hard time keeping his (her?) facts straight. Perhaps Iblis is more like Matthew than he (she?) realizes. As for the "Burden" theory, I don't pretend to have sufficient specialized knowledge to comment on it. I frankly doubt Iblis does either, but I could be wrong. "In other words, this is about the weakest argument against his reliability that anyone could make! The real reason Geoffrey is unreliable is because he distorts every source he touches and totally disregards the intent of the original authors, to the point of being wildly humorous page after page after page to anyone who understands real history. "He's nothing compared to Matthew though. There are literally hundreds of passages in that gospel which are better examples of unreliable (or at least exceptionally difficult to explain away) usage of the Old Testament. Some on the same page! And this is what you come up with?" Iblis is free to start a thread on any other problem with Matthew that he (she?) pleases.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Iblis, posted 01-26-2006 9:16 PM | | Iblis has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by Iblis, posted 01-31-2006 7:41 PM | | DeclinetoState has replied |
|
AdminBrian
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 17 of 74 (282779)
01-31-2006 3:01 AM
|
|
|
Play nice guys
Iblis and DeclinetoState, Heading this one off at the pass guys, play nice please before this degenerates. AdminBrian
|
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days) Posts: 663 Joined: 11-17-2005
|
Haha, who's your savior?
I could not offer a better example of the dangers of literalism than Message 16. Are we to have a fist-fight over forced idioms? It's a little too funny, does this whole thread seem somewhat staged to you guys reading?
DeclineToState writes: Perhaps Iblis is more like Matthew
That was brilliant, mountain dew™ came out my nose and everything, keep up the great work! In any case, seeing as absolutely nobody is still waiting for the other shoe to drop, here's the climax of the first burden in Zechariah
11:7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock. 11:8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me. 11:9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11:11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 11:13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. 11:14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. 11:15 And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. 11:16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. 11:17 Woe to the idle shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. Notice what might make some of your classical theologians want to steer clear of this obvious match? Who is speaking in this passage? And what are they saying? In this burden the coming shepherd or messiah is represented not as a peace-loving hippy nonviolent cheek-turner type, so much as a beauty-defiling flock-starving nation-breaking proponent for the loss of arms and eyes. We'd rather not look at that, huh? "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" Anyway, follow the money, in Zechariah 11 it's the prophet who plays out the scene, and it's the prophet who receives and disposes of the symbolic coinage. Here's Matthew's version again in his context
27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; 27:10 And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me. Wow, Judas talked though an Old Testament prophet. Or Judas and the messiah were the same guy in the time of "Zechariah" perhaps. Any more clues like that one in the OT, perhaps in oh say Jeremiah's favorite surprise lawbook of "Moses" Deuteronomy?
21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God  that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. Did you see that? I don't make this stuff up you know, here's Paul confirming that this is the sort of thing that is suitable to prove his neo-messianic position to the Galatians
3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Matthew didn't start this either, Mark does the same thing in a much more open way, he marks his text with insulting views of the original disciples rather than OT references, that's all. Here's his opinion on the 30 pieces of silver
14:10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them. 14:11 And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him. That's it, no coinage, no hanging, those are all Matthew. Mark's making the same point though, which is that there are people in positions of trust and authority who don't have your best interests at heart at all. Don't be fooled! Quick review question, Judas is the real what? Zechariah 11:12 * Thanks purpledawn and arachnophilia for this link, it was very informative and entertaining
* credit for subtitle to Al Jean in the first episode of the rocking good cartoon series Jesus And His Brothers
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6459 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 19 of 74 (283047)
02-01-2006 3:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by Iblis
01-31-2006 7:41 PM
|
|
Re: Haha, who's your savior?
From http://www.geocities.com/...ns/Delphi/4027/pottersfield.html
The Prophecy of The Potter's Field - Matthew 27.9-10. In Matthew 27.10 we have reference to ”what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet’ concerning ”the potter’s field’ which was purchased ”as the Lord appointed me’. This would seem to suggest that he is combining in his thoughts two prophecies of Jeremiah, one concerning the purchase by Jeremiah of a potter’s earthen container (Jeremiah 19.1) which he dramatically smashes before ”the elders of the people and the elders of the priests’ (compare Matthew 27.1) as a symbol of coming judgment on the people in general (Jeremiah 19.10-11), and the other the purchase of a field, the title deeds of which were put in an earthen vessel in the view of the leaders of the people (Jeremiah 32.12-14) as a sign that God had not forgotten His own. Both purchases were at the specific command of the Lord, (in other words ”as the Lord appointed me’). Matthew clearly sees them as represented in the purchase of the potter’s field (Matthew 27.7). The earthen vessel/container is presumably seen as the key idea that connects the two. (It was common practise in Matthew’s time to connect Old Testament verses by key words and key ideas). The ”quotation’ in Matthew 27.9-10, (it is in fact not a quotation, it is a worked statement on the basis of two or more Old Testament passages, at least one of which we would expect to find in Jeremiah), is actually a combination extracted from two or more ”prophecies’ welded together. The first is loosely taken with omissions which refer to ”the potter in the house of the Lord’ from Zechariah 11.12a-13, ”And they took the thirty pieces of silver --- the price of him who was priced.’ The comment is then added, ”whom certain of the children of Israel did price’ (not in Zechariah). The second is ”they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me,’ which also is not in Zechariah. (Thus to call all this a quotation from Zechariah is totally deceptive. Only two phrases out of five are taken from Zechariah). As we have suggested above this was probably a combination of the ideas found in Jeremiah 19.1 and 32.12-14, so combined to fit in with the actual purchase of the potter’s field. These three prophecies in Zechariah and Jeremiah were seen as connected because of reference to ”the potter’ and (in Jeremiah) to ”the earthen vessel/container’. And also because they appear in similar contexts speaking of God’s judgment on Israel.
In summary, the explanation offered above is that the passage in Matthew quotes from several different Old Testament passages, including two in Zechariah and others from Jeremiah, possibly elsewhere. In a sense, Jon Partin (the author--I believe--of the quoted passage) seems to agree, at least in part, with Iblis, though I doubt either would admit that. The more serious problem, at least in my mind, is that we seem to be getting close to "quote mining." Creationists are sometimes accused of doing this by evolutionists. What it means (for the uninitiated) is that it is possible to take quotes out of context to get the individuals quoted to say something totally contrary to what they think or believe. Some would argue that creationists are notorious for taking one or two lines of Darwin, for example, out of context in order to try to "prove" he had doubts about evolution. One could argue that Matthew did the same thing: he took a few passages out of context from Jeremiah, Zechariah, and who knows who else, and tried to fuse them together to show that events in the life of Jesus and his disciples were all the direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Critical reading of the passages (or simple logic) quickly leads us to realize, however, that virtually any event in the New Testament can be explained as a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy. In fact, to take things to the extreme, any event in the history of the world could be taken as fulfillment of some Old Testament (or even New Testament) prophecy (like Ronald Reagan having the mark of the beast from Rev. 13:16-18, since he almost died in office--and each of his names had six letters). But once again, I'm drifting off into what should be topics for other threads.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Iblis, posted 01-31-2006 7:41 PM | | Iblis has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 20 of 74 (283095)
02-01-2006 9:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by Iblis
01-31-2006 7:41 PM
|
|
Faulty Translation
I've found your posts interesting. I had not heard of the burdens. Is there a site that would explain them more? There's also the possibility that the author of Matthew was working with a faulty translation of the Hebrew text.
English Torah
Zechariah 11:13 And the LORD said unto me: 'Cast it into the treasury, the goodly price that I was prized at of them.' Complete Jewish Bible
Zechariah 11:13 Concerning that "princely sum" at which they valued me, Adonai said, "Throw it into the treasury!" And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury, in the house of the LORD. These translations suggest the money was to be thrown into the treasury and not to the potter. Throwing money to the potter in the House of the Lord doesn't really make sense, IMO. I was looking into where this "Field of Blood" is located. Supposedly it is in the Valley of Hinnom or one end of it anyway. Considering it was a place of incineration, I find it an odd purchase for Judas or the priests. The tale that the author presents seems to be weaving together OT stories. The tale itself is about an incident that couldn't have been witnessed by any of the disciples and considering the Valley of Hinnom had a bloody past, the death of Judas or blood money, wouldn't be the only reason to call a place a "Field of Blood".
There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Iblis, posted 01-31-2006 7:41 PM | | Iblis has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by Iblis, posted 02-02-2006 5:43 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days) Posts: 663 Joined: 11-17-2005
|
Re: Faulty Translation
purpledawn writes: I've found your posts interesting. I had not heard of the burdens. Is there a site that would explain them more? Why thank you  and sure there is, it is actually pretty standard stuff Quartz Hill School of Theology
The problem of the unity of Zechariah represents one of the earliest critical problems in Old Testament studies. No serious question was raised against Zechariah's authorship of the entire book until the seventeenth century. Come AD 1638, a certain Cambridge theologian pointed out that Matthew 27:9 quotes Zechariah 11:12 as having been written by Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. The theologian's name was Mede. He decided to depart from the tradition that Zechariah wrote the whole book and wrote "There is reason to suspect that the Holy Spirit (through Matthew) desired to claim three chapters 9, 10, 11 for their real author."
At first Mede denied that Zechariah wrote all of the book on a scriptural basis. He wrote, "There is no scripture sayeth they (chaps. 9-11) are Zachary's, but here is scripture saith they are Jeremy's as this of the evangelists." But Mede did not base his view of Jeremiah's authorship of Zechariah 9-11 on Matthew's reference alone. He also argued on the basis of internal evidence in these chapters that they were earlier than the exilic period. He said, "Certainly, if a man weighs the contents of some of them, they should in likelihood be of an elder date than the time of Zachary, namely, before the captivity, for the subjects of some of them were scarce in being after that time."
Mede's suggestion did not attract attention until 1699 when Richard Kidder, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, wrote, "That Jeremy wrote chapter 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Zachary is a very probable opinion. This is certain, that such things are contained in those chapters, as agree with the time of Jeremy, but by no means with that of Zachary, e.g., that the pride of Assyria shall be brought down, and the Septre of Egypt depart, is foretold Zech 10:11. It is well known that this was past in Zachary's time. And tho' Jeremy might, Zachary could not predict this." (Richard Kidder, A Demonstration of the Mesiah I-III. London, 1664, 1700).
So why would these sections by Jeremiah be added to the end of a book by Zechariah? Because Zechariah was the last book of the prophets! Zechariah 9-11, Zechariah 12-14, and Malachi (also three chapters in Hebrew) are each called a masa, "a burden". Most scholars therefore believe that these were three floating and anonymous oracles arbitrarily assigned to their present position in the cannon. The third and last of these was given the title "Malachi" from a word in Malachi 1:1 and 3:1, in order to make twelve minor prophets. It is interesting to note that each of these three sections begins with the exact same phrase: "masa deber Yahweh" -- "A burden of Yahweh". There's also a substantial review of all the various competing theories and lines of thought, I will use the fairly lucid remarks in the last post by D2s for our example
One common attempt to explain the introduction of Jeremiah's name in place of that of Zechariah in Matthew, is to argue that, so far as the principle features are concerned, this prophesy is simply a resumption of the prophecy of Jeremiah 19, and that Zechariah announces a second fulfillment of this prophecy (Hegstenberg), or that it rests on the prophecy of Jeremiah 18, in which the potter is also introduced, and that its fulfillment goes beyond Zechariah's prophecy, so that Jeremiah 18 and 19 are fulfilled at the same time. Comparison is also sometimes made to Mark 1:2-3 where Mark states: It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way -- a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" Here, Mark has quoted from two separate passages in the Old Testament and combined them: Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. So, perhaps Matthew, like Mark, quotes from both Zechariah and Jeremiah, and then names only the more prominent of the two prophets. Unfortunately for this explanation, it works only in abstract; it is difficult, if not impossible, to find even one word in the context of what Matthew attributes to Jeremiah, actually in the book of Jeremiah. These guys go on to "prove" that Malachi is actually written by Isaiah in order to make their Nestle's Crunch critical text of the NT inerrant as well, I actually prefer to stop well short of that. If a thing is false, simple suggestive logic should be able to disprove it with no trouble at all; but the same methods become unreliable when one attempts to use them to prove anything substantial.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by purpledawn, posted 02-01-2006 9:21 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by jaywill, posted 02-09-2006 10:30 PM | | Iblis has not replied |
|
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: 12-05-2005
|
|
|
Message 22 of 74 (285358)
02-09-2006 10:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Iblis
02-02-2006 5:43 PM
|
|
Re: Faith Operates Through Love
I think that it is God's way to leave some room for you to doubt if you want to. The Israelites were in the wilderness and had witnessed God work strong deliverance for them from Egypt. But at one point they complianed "Is the Lord with us or not?" Likewise in Matthew's gospel after the resurrected Christ was manifested to His own disciples, some doubted: "And the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus directed them. And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him, though some doubted" (Matt.28:17.) Some of them wavered and hesitated. It seems that with faith God leaves you some room to doubt is you really want to. I see this principle played out in the discussion of the fulfilling of Old Testament prophesies spoken of by the New Testament writers. There is room for us to think "But, maybe its not true." I'm not sure why this seems to be God's way. Perhaps because "faith works through love" (Gal. 5:6). Perhaps He looks for your love for Him to accompany your faith. This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 10:31 PM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 10:33 PM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-09-2006 10:34 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Iblis, posted 02-02-2006 5:43 PM | | Iblis has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 23 of 74 (285466)
02-10-2006 10:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by jaywill
02-09-2006 10:30 PM
|
|
Room for Doubt
quote:
It seems that with faith God leaves you some room to doubt is you really want to. I see this principle played out in the discussion of the fulfilling of Old Testament prophesies spoken of by the New Testament writers. There is room for us to think "But, maybe its not true."
If God truly wants everyone to believe, love, and serve him, what would be the purpose of leaving room for doubt? How is it beneficial to God to deliberately allow people room to flounder, to not provide complete information? That's like giving someone a recipe but leaving out the ingredient that makes or breaks the recipe.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by jaywill, posted 02-09-2006 10:30 PM | | jaywill has replied |
|
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: 12-05-2005
|
Re: Room for Doubt
If God truly wants everyone to believe, love, and serve him, what would be the purpose of leaving room for doubt? That's a good question. There are many "good questions" about God's ways. Perhaps His greatest joy is that it is voluntarily rather than grudgingly you believe. Don't many posts on this Forum give you the impression that believing is only yielded by some people as an absolute last resort? I mean a kind of attitude "If all else fails, then I will begrudgingly trust God. I will explore each and every rationale NOT to believe first. Only if there is no way out of believing God, then I MAY believe."
How is it beneficial to God to deliberately allow people room to flounder, to not provide complete information? One of the commandments is that you shall not tempt the Lord your God. Now I heard it taught that to tempt God was to ask God for more of a sign than He is pleased to give. Let me give you an example. You are a child playing with something that you shouldn't be. Your sibling is with you. Your sibling says "Dad doesn't want you to play with that." You answer "I don't know that." Your sibling says "I'll go upstairs and ask dad." The sibling goes up and shouts down. "Dad says that he doesn't want you to play with that." You answer back "Let him tell me himself." Then you hear your father say "Please do not play with that thing." Then you answer "Let me see you come to the head of the stairs and say so. How do I know that it is really you dad?" So he comes to the top of the stairs and says the same thing. But you say "That may not really be you dad. Come down here and let me look closely at your face." Then maybe after that you say "How do I know you are really my father? I think we must have a DNA analysis done first." Eventually, you are asking for a sign which is more than your father is pleased to give. Your rebellion is disquised in the insistence for more and more and more proof. It is in fact posturing with an appearance of wanting to be certain. But at the root of your insistence there is just rebellion. I think that the Bible's effect on some people is similiar to this. They fault God for not giving enough indication of validity of the command to repent and believe in His salvation. You know that you are a sinner. God extends salvation to you. Why should you insist that in 800 points of the Scripture there be left absolutely no room for doubt before you ask His forgiveness and receive His gracious gift? And I do not exagerate.
That's like giving someone a recipe but leaving out the ingredient that makes or breaks the recipe. I don't see it that way. I see it as something like Jesus told Thomas after He presented proof of His resurrection. Thomas was skeptical and demanded strong imperical proof. He said that he would not believe unless he placed his hands in the hole in Jesus' side and placed his fingers in the wounds in His hands. Finally Jesus presented Himself to Thomas and showed Him His wounds as proof. But it is very interesting what Jesus added - "... and do not be unbelieving, but believing" (John 20:27) In the last analysis it was an act of will. Thomas was told to "be ... believing". In the light of whatever proof we demand, eventually it is a decision on our part. We are to be believing. This is a decision of the will, to be believing or to be unbelieving. This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-10-2006 10:51 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-10-2006 10:53 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-10-2006 10:55 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-10-2006 10:58 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-10-2006 11:02 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-10-2006 11:03 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-10-2006 11:10 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 02-10-2006 10:21 AM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 25 of 74 (285516)
02-10-2006 12:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by jaywill
02-10-2006 10:51 AM
|
|
Re: Room for Doubt
quote:
I mean a kind of attitude "If all else fails, then I will begrudgingly trust God. I will explore each and every rationale NOT to believe first. Only if there is no way out of believing God, then I MAY believe."
Because there is room for doubt which you said may be purposely left open by God. He may have created the problem. I don't think I know of anyone who begrudgingly trusts God. If my car malfunctions in a remote town and there is only one mechanic available, I will begrudgingly trust him even though I have my doubts, because I have no choice if I want my car fixed. Now if I'm faced with a Spanish Inquisition scenerio, then yes I would probably begrudgingly say I trust to save my life even though I doubt the veracity of people who threaten death as a means of gaining believers. But am I truly trusting God in this scenerio or saying what is necessary to save my physical life? IMO, begrudgingly implies a lack of choice in the matter against one's better judgement.
quote:
One of the commandments is that you shall not tempt the Lord your God. Now I heard it taught that to tempt God was to ask God for more of a sign than He is pleased to give.
If you look at the entire command written in the OT:
Deuteronomy 6:16
"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah. you will find that the original story isn't dealing with asking for signs to aid in belief or proof as the NT usage does. In the NT the Devil was asking Jesus to purposely put himself in danger to prove God. The people in the OT did not. There is a difference. Your analogy with the child doesn't really work because the child knows her father exists and has heard her father's voice. The child may not trust their siblings message, but they would insist their father come to the head of the stairs or come closer etc. All people have today is the equivalent of the sibling.
quote:
They fault God for not giving enough indication of validity of the command to repent and believe in His salvation.
They fault God for leaving us to deal with the various and sometimes conflicting messengers.
quote:
I see it as something like Jesus told Thomas after He presented proof of His resurrection. Thomas was skeptical and demanded strong imperical proof. He said that he would not believe unless he placed his hands in the hole in Jesus' side and placed his fingers in the wounds in His hands. Finally Jesus presented Himself to Thomas and showed Him His wounds as proof. But it is very interesting what Jesus added - "... and do not be unbelieving, but believing" (John 20:27)
But Jesus provided the proof and didn't condemn Thomas for refusing to believe what he was told without proof and Jesus didn't imply that Thomas was testing God. Thomas was only asking for proof of what the other disciples were claiming, not a miracle.
20:27
Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." Jesus provided the proof and Thomas believed he had returned.
20:29
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." Jesus doesn't imply that we shouldn't question what we are told. Maybe you score more points for believing without proof, but IMO, we aren't told to automatically believe what we are told.
quote:
This is a decision of the will, to be believing or to be unbelieving.
But who are we believing? God or Man?
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by jaywill, posted 02-10-2006 10:51 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by jaywill, posted 02-10-2006 2:28 PM | | purpledawn has replied | | | Message 28 by jaywill, posted 02-15-2006 10:18 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: 12-05-2005
|
Re: Room for Doubt
Jesus doesn't imply that we shouldn't question what we are told. Maybe you score more points for believing without proof, but IMO, we aren't told to automatically believe what we are told. I never said that we should not question. I said that there may come a point where our demand for more and more proof is a manifestation of our rebellion. God gave quite a lot of leeway to Gideon to test His word from different directions. This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-10-2006 02:29 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by purpledawn, posted 02-10-2006 12:07 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 02-10-2006 4:31 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 27 of 74 (285683)
02-10-2006 4:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by jaywill
02-10-2006 2:28 PM
|
|
Re: Room for Doubt
quote:
I never said that we should not question. I said that there may come a point where our demand for more and more proof is a manifestation of our rebellion.
I don't see that people are asking for more and more proof. They simply ask that what a spokesperson claims is consistently true. Within Christianity there isn't a consistent guarantee of an afterlife, healing, good life, safe life, etc. There are too many different forumulas that promise various types of salvation. The words of God aren't even presented consistently. We can't even come to a reasonable conclusion without a shadow of a doubt or gymnastics why the author of Matthew used the name Jeremiah when it doesn't seem to be a quote from Jeremiah.
Luke 16:10
"He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. So if that which is claimed to be God's word cannot be trusted to be correct, how can God expect people to trust Him concerning larger issues?
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by jaywill, posted 02-10-2006 2:28 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: 12-05-2005
|
Re: Room for Doubt
This will be a little off the topic. I'll try to work my way back to it. Purpledawn,
Because there is room for doubt which you said may be purposely left open by God. He may have created the problem. It appears that we are kept in dependence upon God. Even in a moment by moment way. It seems that we can never get to the point where we say "Okay, God. I have it. Now you can go away because I have the correct information that I need. I'll take it from here." Faith is a means that God has decided to use in order to do something very specific - that is to cause one Living Person to make His home in another living person: "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father ... that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith" The instrument that God has chosen to wrought His Spirit into our lives is faith. So whatever the prophets or apostles say, there is always left room for the excercise of our faith. It is a problem for the old man and the Adamic nature. That I will concede.
I don't think I know of anyone who begrudgingly trusts God. I'll think about that. I know that God loves a cheerful giver, when it comes to presenting a portion of our wealth to His work. Sometimes I have to check my heart prayerfully whether I am giving in cheerfulness or begrudgingly as if I am paying another bill. I don't know why I have this reaction. Time and time again God has proved that I cannot outgive Him.
If my car malfunctions in a remote town and there is only one mechanic available, I will begrudgingly trust him even though I have my doubts, because I have no choice if I want my car fixed.
Now if I'm faced with a Spanish Inquisition scenerio, then yes I would probably begrudgingly say I trust to save my life even though I doubt the veracity of people who threaten death as a means of gaining believers. But am I truly trusting God in this scenerio or saying what is necessary to save my physical life? That kind of compulsion in gospel preaching is an abomination to God. The Great Comission included no instructions about torturing people into becoming disciples of Jesus. And because of such behavior the way of the gospel has been held in evil repute. I would not want to have to answer to God for those Inquisitions.
IMO, begrudgingly implies a lack of choice in the matter against one's better judgement.
If you look at the entire command written in the OT: Deuteronomy 6:16 "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah. you will find that the original story isn't dealing with asking for signs to aid in belief or proof as the NT usage does. In the NT the Devil was asking Jesus to purposely put himself in danger to prove God. The people in the OT did not. There is a difference. Are you sure about that? Consider the larger context. God showed them many signs that He was with them. There were the ten mighty plagues. There was the opening of the Red Sea !! When they murmured that there was nothing to drink they provoked the Lord's anger. But I have to admit that I would have to read the account again. I am speaking from memory. Then again, I was providing a definition of "tempting" the Lord which may have limitations. Asking for a sign above what God is pleased to give may only be one symptom of "tempting" God.
Your analogy with the child doesn't really work because the child knows her father exists and has heard her father's voice. The child may not trust their siblings message, but they would insist their father come to the head of the stairs or come closer etc. I don't argue that the child knows. But the child is playing a game of self justification through rationalization. The sibling is a kind of messenger. The sibling is a kind of deputy authority. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are all messengers. God expects that we would receive those who He sends in His name. Even if He were to send a little child in His name we should receive the little child. This requires humility and pureness on our part. God could have had Jesus write the whole New Testament Himself. He chose not to. He assigned His dicsiples - His apostles to write. What would you think if what Matthew wrote about the prophecy was what he learned directly from Jesus' teaching? Perhaps Matthew was only conveying what he heard the Master teach. Anyway, for me as a Christian, when Matthew says that this was the fulfillment of a certain prophetic word, that is enough for me to believe that it was so. You see I do not regard the New Testament as a kind of faulty and error prone commentary on the Hebrew Bible. I candider the New Testament as the oracles of God like Genesis, Exodus, Jeremiah, or Zechariah. And I would not be at all surpised if what Matthew wrote about the fulfillment of the prophecy was taught by Jesus Himself. After His resurrection He opened up the Scriptures and taught many things showing that they refered to Himself:
And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory? And beginning with Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. (Luke 24:25-27) And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled. Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures; And He said to them, This it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, And repentence for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke 24:44-47) I suspect that what Matthew told us was probably what he learned from the resurrected Christ as He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures concerning Himself. I cannot prove this. But I suspect it. And I further think that Matthew was faithful to record this even if it meant that he had to set aside his own opinion about it. That is the way of faithfulness in service to God in obedience. This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 10:19 AM This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 10:22 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by purpledawn, posted 02-10-2006 12:07 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6459 days) Posts: 158 Joined: 01-16-2006
|
How God works
purpledawn writes: If God truly wants everyone to believe, love, and serve him, what would be the purpose of leaving room for doubt? How is it beneficial to God to deliberately allow people room to flounder, to not provide complete information? That's like giving someone a recipe but leaving out the ingredient that makes or breaks the recipe.
Questions like these sometimes lead to the old "God works in mysterious ways" cliche. I prefer to have as many mysterious things about God solved as possible before I get on to the real mysteries, such as the eternity of his existence, and the assumed possibility that man can share in it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 02-10-2006 10:21 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 30 by jaywill, posted 03-13-2006 5:46 PM | | DeclinetoState has replied |
|
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: 12-05-2005
|
Re: How God works
Questions like these sometimes lead to the old "God works in mysterious ways" cliche. I prefer to have as many mysterious things about God solved as possible before I get on to the real mysteries, such as the eternity of his existence, and the assumed possibility that man can share in it. What's wrong with saying that God works in mysterious ways? Doesn't God often appear to work in mysterious ways in the Bible? If not why does the prophet Isaiah say that He is a God who hides Himself? "Surely You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel" (Isa. 45:15) God gave Joseph as a little boy a dream. His drream was that his brothers and father would bow down before him. His brothers hated him because of his dream and sold him into slavary. He spent years in prison but God blessed him. God's blessing caused him to rise to be a ruler in Egypt. Eventually his brothers had to come down and bow down before him. Thier persecution of Joseph for his dream caused the dream to become fulfilled. It is mysterious to me that Joseph's dream caused his brothers to react. And that reaction brought about the fulfillment of the very dream! See Genesis 37 through 46. Don't you think that shows that God works in mysterious ways? It sounds like you are disdaining to say that "God works in mysterious ways" as some kind of dodge for tough moral questions. This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-13-2006 05:49 PM This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-13-2006 05:52 PM
|
™ Version 4.2