[Andyman_1970]

i´d get different answers from rabbi bronstein (masorti), and the other 2 rabbies in town (orthodox).

Curious...........I'd be interested in the differences.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Curious...........I'd be interested in the differences.

i´ve never asked an orthodox.
i´ve asked that to a rabbi before. he said something like "progressive human knowledge will lead us to know what is a factual story". he accepted evolution and thought of creationism a parable.

on the differences, lets just start by saying that rabbi bronstein would eventually accept marrying me to a jewish girl.. but the other 2 wont.
there goes the first difference in interpretation between what in the torah is "factual" and what is a parable".

my mom is jewish. my dad catholic. i wasnt raised jewish.
i was raised catholic, thus, since 10 i thought all religion was a bunch of crap.... until a few years ago i found more sense in judaism...
neither the sephardim orthodox, nor the ashkenazy orthodox rabbi in town will accept me as a "jew", unless i go to israel first and do the whole orthodox conversion thing first.. which is really, not my cup of tea.
i´ll just keep learning more.... its interesting nonetheless.

 

[Andyman_1970]

i´ve never asked an orthodox.
i´ve asked that to a rabbi before. he said something like "progressive human knowledge will lead us to know what is a factual story". he accepted evolution and thought of creationism a parable.

on the differences, lets just start by saying that rabbi bronstein would eventually accept marrying me to a jewish girl.. but the other 2 wont.
there goes the first difference in interpretation between what in the torah is "factual" and what is a parable".

my mom is jewish. my dad catholic. i wasnt raised jewish.
i was raised catholic, thus, since 10 i thought all religion was a bunch of crap.... until a few years ago i found more sense in judaism...
neither the sephardim orthodox, nor the ashkenazy orthodox rabbi in town will accept me as a "jew", unless i go to israel first and do the whole orthodox conversion thing first.. which is really, not my cup of tea.
i´ll just keep learning more.... its interesting nonetheless.

Interesting.........

Thanks for sharing your story Alexis. Do those orthodox rabbi's consider you a mamzier?

 

[fluff]

If a parable were meant literally why would it be called a parable?

 

[kinghami3]

And your basis for that is?

Common knowledge. Look in any dictionary.

The wiggle room is in why the parable was mentioned right then. What else would be the reason?

I'm still not sure what you're trying to get at. The parable has nothing to do with the story of the temple. There is no slaughtering of humans in the temple, just a lot of yelling. Now I'm not even sure what you mean by the term 'wiggle room'. Please expand on that.

I will have to find it, but Jesus does say that it is unforgiveable.

I will wait for that as well.

Oh jeez, don't get me started on original sin, which is a hateful concept.

How is that a hateful concept? It is as just and as fair a concept of love. It covers all, and is a result of OUR rejection of God love for all. God's salvation, in return, is an example of his undying love. Considering ideas such as infant salvation and salvation of the ignorant, we must remember that as an omnipotent god, God is ultimately the just force in this universe, and judges accordingly.

And your reason for saying that is? I'm wondering how you can back that up, since the context of the quote and the positioning sends a pretty clear message. And, before you take a stance like Andyman does and try to say that I just don't understand how they wrote back then, consider that NO ONE has ever written in the way that you would be suggesting.

For one, you are putting way too much emphasis on the positioning; they are not in the same context. The parable and the scene at the temple have very little to do with each other; imagine a book separated by chapters. If you don't want me to take a stance like Andyman and not say that that was the way people wrote back then, then I won't. Instead I'll say that it's the way people still write. Have you ever read Animal Farm? The book is a parable in itself, used to give a look Communist Russia. The parable, metaphor, and analogy are all common literary methods, and ideas like a lord slaughtering those who don't want him to rule will translate into the idea of the death of the soul, just as the rest of the parable translates into the spiritual spectrum.

 

[kinghami3]

i´ve never asked an orthodox.
i´ve asked that to a rabbi before. he said something like "progressive human knowledge will lead us to know what is a factual story". he accepted evolution and thought of creationism a parable.

on the differences, lets just start by saying that rabbi bronstein would eventually accept marrying me to a jewish girl.. but the other 2 wont.
there goes the first difference in interpretation between what in the torah is "factual" and what is a parable".

my mom is jewish. my dad catholic. i wasnt raised jewish.
i was raised catholic, thus, since 10 i thought all religion was a bunch of crap.... until a few years ago i found more sense in judaism...
neither the sephardim orthodox, nor the ashkenazy orthodox rabbi in town will accept me as a "jew", unless i go to israel first and do the whole orthodox conversion thing first.. which is really, not my cup of tea.
i´ll just keep learning more.... its interesting nonetheless.

Very interesting. I've been mulling over the ideas of Catholicism and Orthodoxy (which I would like to learn more about). The idea of becoming Catholic has become more appealing to me, especially the idea of Apostolic succession. I'm also trying to look at Christianity as Judaism with the prophesy of the first coming of the Messiah fulfilled.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

While you'll get no arguement from me on this aspect, I would argue that is part of the Hellenization of the church and the imperialization of it as well with it becoming the state religion in 325 AD.

I think I have an article from one of those scholars regarding such issues (justice, peace, etc.) if you're interested.

Do you happen to know much about the history of Christianity before that period?

And, feel free to send me that article (you can PM if you want.)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Common knowledge. Look in any dictionary.

I was asking about the basis for your conclusions. I'll continue to wait.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to get at. The parable has nothing to do with the story of the temple. There is no slaughtering of humans in the temple, just a lot of yelling. Now I'm not even sure what you mean by the term 'wiggle room'. Please expand on that.

It's not specifically the story of the temple, but of Jesus walking into the lions den, so to speak. He's walking into the center of the powers that be, and that don't want him to be.

I will wait for that as well.

Sorry, but you will have to wait a little longer, I have limited access at the moment, but will look it up as soon as I get a chance.

How is that a hateful concept? It is as just and as fair a concept of love. It covers all, and is a result of OUR rejection of God love for all. God's salvation, in return, is an example of his undying love. Considering ideas such as infant salvation and salvation of the ignorant, we must remember that as an omnipotent god, God is ultimately the just force in this universe, and judges accordingly.

In effect, you are saying that all humans are inherently flawed and sinful. All humans are inherently bad according to original sin. It is nothing more that hate for all humans. (I'm trying to be brief on this since I don't want to open up yet another can of worms.) If your child disobeyed you, would you punish them and all their offspring forever by disfiguring them? Of course not.

For one, you are putting way too much emphasis on the positioning; they are not in the same context. The parable and the scene at the temple have very little to do with each other; imagine a book separated by chapters. If you don't want me to take a stance like Andyman and not say that that was the way people wrote back then, then I won't. Instead I'll say that it's the way people still write. Have you ever read Animal Farm? The book is a parable in itself, used to give a look Communist Russia. The parable, metaphor, and analogy are all common literary methods, and ideas like a lord slaughtering those who don't want him to rule will translate into the idea of the death of the soul, just as the rest of the parable translates into the spiritual spectrum.

I've read Animal Farm, and I fail to see what it has to do with this. Animal Farm as a whole is parable. You are placing a parable inside of a larger story. If Jesus was not trying to hide anything or be deceptive (as Andyman would attest I think based on an earlier comment of his) then why would he choose this particular time to tell the story?

Andyman:
I'll have to check all your links and such above a little later.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Do you happen to know much about the history of Christianity before that period?.

I know a good bit and learn more daily. The real "problems" with Christianity seemed to pop up in the early second century when the Jews and the Gentiles "split" and the Gentile portion gained dominance.

And, feel free to send me that article (you can PM if you want.)

Ok.

 

[Andyman_1970]

From my orthodox Jewish friend regarding parables:

A Parable would be the same as an aggadic midrash (a legendary "teaching"). Midrash is like a method of teaching a "sermon" (for lack of a good word) that was designed to provide imagery so that a large amount of information can be presented with a small amount of effort and can be retained by the recipient.

An example:
There is a Midrash that the princess was by the river and saw baby Moses in a basket floating by and her arm stretched out beyond normal (like elasti-girl) to retrieve him. What does this teach? That if you desire something so much and you reach for it, He will extend your reach and permit you to be successful when your desire is His desire... ...etc, etc, etc...

The visual will stick in the person's mind, and the teachings inside of it will mull around and be useful. There are, however, some people who cannot tell the difference between a midrash and a p'sht (simple meaning), and so kids come home from kindergarten and tell the story that their teacher told them and they believe it to be exactly as it was said until you spend time to explain it, and then sometimes they still will insist that it is an exact happening, a historical fact. That is why you'll see some Jewish adults speaking of events as if they were historical facts, when they were midrashim (parables) designed to illustrate some kind of point.

Not all Midsrahim can be discounted as just legends, howver. Sometimes they contain names and dates and events and so forth that are true and plain in their meaning which is then interspresed with allusionas and symbols, and it is up to the student to study and know the patterns to look for and understand the differences. IOW, the actual event, person, historic time, etc serve as a sort of 'jumping off' point to incorporate into a story that would teach some further point (which may or may not be related to the originial event, person, time...)

So even though there are people who believe things too literally, we also have to remember when people say, "Oh, that's just Midrash!", that Midrash is not simply legends, but was of transmitting information that often do comtain symbolic references to transmit the information.

 

[Reactor]

From my orthodox Jewish friend regarding parables:

I agree with you and your friend.

I'm hardly a qualified bible scholar but I believe most scriptures present a large portion of their teachings this way. The problem is particularly with the bible that after numerous translations, retelling, editing, mistranslations it's not always apparent which portions were intended as parables and which were supposed to be taken literally. That's why it's important to look at the context, and validate against other sources, like the Torah.

The problem is that many people today take one isolated snippet out of the bible to support their point of view, instead of taking the whole work and changing their point of view. So people like Pat Robertson, Frist, Delay can stand up and use isolated passages to support their self serving hate mongering, prejudice and bigotry, instead the message of peace, love and forgiveness. You already know this of course, I only repeat it because other people reading this might want to critically evaluate what so called "leaders" say, and what they do.

Congratulations on the Youth Pastor gig, and I know you'll make an impact, and I wish there were more people like you around.

 

[MudGrrl]

The problem is that many people today take one isolated snippet out of the bible to support their point of view, instead of taking the whole work and changing their point of view. So people like Pat Robertson, Frist, Delay can stand up and use isolated passages to support their self serving hate mongering, prejudice and bigotry

which completely turns the rest of us non-church going, peace lovin' people away from any sort interaction with christians as a group because we don't want to be lumped in with the Robertsons of the world.

 

[tomvan72]

I live in NC and it is crazy here.
PastorT, Church o Dirt

 

[Andyman_1970]

Congratulations on the Youth Pastor gig, and I know you'll make an impact, and I wish there were more people like you around.

Thanks bro.........

which completely turns the rest of us non-church going, peace lovin' people away from any sort interaction with christians as a group because we don't want to be lumped in with the Robertsons of the world.

How do you think I feel being lumped in with that bunch......:angry:

 

[MMike]

Just to be a dick, I should delete this thread...I have the power...

 

[Westy]

The problem is that many people today take one isolated snippet out of the bible to support their point of view, instead of taking the whole work and changing their point of view. So people like Pat Robertson, Frist, Delay can stand up and use isolated passages to support their self serving hate mongering, prejudice and bigotry, instead the message of peace, love and forgiveness. You already know this of course, I only repeat it because other people reading this might want to critically evaluate what so called "leaders" say, and what they do.

The Catholic Church would not let the bible be translated out of Latin so the common man could not read it and come up with their own opinions. As modern leader have discovered this was not needed, you can simply rely on man laziness not to think for themselves.

 

[kinghami3]

Just to be a dick, I should delete this thread...I have the power...

I honestly wouldn't mind at all.

 

[Andyman_1970]

As modern leader have discovered this was not needed, you can simply rely on man laziness not to think for themselves.

Sadly this is too true........and yet contrary to the Bible "test everything hold on to the good"..........something modern evangelicals are sorely lacking in for the most part.

 

[kinghami3]

I was asking about the basis for your conclusions. I'll continue to wait.

The basis of my conclusion is that the while parable translates from the secular spectrum into the spiritual spectrum, into a much larger view of the workings of salvation.

It's not specifically the story of the temple, but of Jesus walking into the lions den, so to speak. He's walking into the center of the powers that be, and that don't want him to be.

Jesus is going to the temple to worship. I'll give you an assignment. Write 250 words connecting the parable (as a spiritual parable) with the the scene at the temple. Please put an emphasis on the idea of the parable giving Jesus 'wiggle room' at the temple scene. Also expand on any other ideas you think relevant to your part of the argument, but remember, look at the parable in the way that I explained it, as a spiritual one.

Sorry, but you will have to wait a little longer, I have limited access at the moment, but will look it up as soon as I get a chance.

I will wait

In effect, you are saying that all humans are inherently flawed and sinful. All humans are inherently bad according to original sin. It is nothing more that hate for all humans. (I'm trying to be brief on this since I don't want to open up yet another can of worms.) If your child disobeyed you, would you punish them and all their offspring forever by disfiguring them? Of course not.

The problem is that you are still looking at original sin as a punishment, not a consequence of our own actions. This disfiguring that you speak of (pain during child birth?) is more than likely an attempt to explain our physical problems, just as many ancient cultures that used mythology.

I've read Animal Farm, and I fail to see what it has to do with this. Animal Farm as a whole is parable. You are placing a parable inside of a larger story. If Jesus was not trying to hide anything or be deceptive (as Andyman would attest I think based on an earlier comment of his) then why would he choose this particular time to tell the story?

THE PARABLE AND THE TEMPLE ARE NOT THE SAME STORY. I don't know why you are trying to force this idea, besides that it helps you support you idea of Jesus as a murdering asshole who liked to cause trouble.

Andyman:
I'll have to check all your links and such above a little later.

There's no reason to bring him into this.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

From my orthodox Jewish friend regarding parables:

but is that criteria set on rock?? what if on the light of things

say creationism.
some see it as a "parable", in which the essence of the parable is an answer to "why god made everything" and a metaphorical illustration of a process more factually explained by rational means, but other see it as historical fact.

i know thats like a ball of snow, and that there are hundreds of for and against arguments both completely coherent, and supported by the torah according to each side....

then what?... who is the right? does it matter who is right??
is there an uncertainty on everything on the bible, not inherent to the book itself, but to human understading and our ultimate inability to interpret and differentiate a "parable" from a "fact" with absolute certainty??
should stories on the torah, bible be taken as parables by default, and then transformed into "facts" by our validation??
or should they be taken as "facts", and then, as we can validate them, move them from "facts" to "parables??
doesl the 2nd approach eventually evolve into the 1st????

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The basis of my conclusion is that the while parable translates from the secular spectrum into the spiritual spectrum, into a much larger view of the workings of salvation.

And how did you come to the conclusion that he is speaking of salvation? There is nothing in there to indicate that.

Jesus is going to the temple to worship. I'll give you an assignment. Write 250 words connecting the parable (as a spiritual parable) with the the scene at the temple. Please put an emphasis on the idea of the parable giving Jesus 'wiggle room' at the temple scene. Also expand on any other ideas you think relevant to your part of the argument, but remember, look at the parable in the way that I explained it, as a spiritual one.

You're not getting it. I'm not the one who keyed on the temple, you did. All I was doing was giving the rest of the story, so that it could not be said that I pulled the quote out of a larger point.

Additionally, it should be noted that Jesus says this right before he rides into a city run by people who did not want him to be king.

I will wait

Thank you for being patient. Check out Mark 12:30-32.

The problem is that you are still looking at original sin as a punishment, not a consequence of our own actions. This disfiguring that you speak of (pain during child birth?) is more than likely an attempt to explain our physical problems, just as many ancient cultures that used mythology.

The disfigurement is the innate "wrongness" of man, which is what original sin stands for. You are born inherently sinful and wicked, and that is a hateful concept. Also, this punishment vs. consequence stuff is bs. Doesn't god have the power to abolish original sin in people born today, who had NOTHING to do with Adam and Eve? It's a cruel punishment.

THE PARABLE AND THE TEMPLE ARE NOT THE SAME STORY. I don't know why you are trying to force this idea, besides that it helps you support you idea of Jesus as a murdering asshole who liked to cause trouble.

You have for some reason latched onto the temple. I misspoke about what Jesus did in the temple (who he threw out) and you have been stuck on it ever since. See above. It's not about the temple, OK? It's about the fact that Jesus tells this story out of the seeming blue, then rides into the city that holds people who do not want him to be king.

There's no reason to bring him into this.

No need to get snippy. I was merely trying to consolidate my posts to let Andyman know that I would be looking at his material when I get a chance.

 

[Andyman_1970]

but is that criteria set on rock?? what if on the light of things

say creationism.
some see it as a "parable", in which the essence of the parable is an answer to "why god made everything" and a metaphorical illustration of a process more factually explained by rational means, but other see it as historical fact.

Let me post an excerpt from another article by some Jewish scholars on this very subject and how it relates to both Christianity and Judaism (and will delineate the Jewish understanding of Genesis 1 & 2)

Vill. In Judaism it is understood that the earth was not created in six literal days. The Hebrew word for day, yom, can be understood in a number of different ways. The best definition for "day" in the first chapter of Genesis, could be a creative day, however long that was. One translation is "period" as in an unspecified period of time. (Solomon Schonfeld, The Universal Bible, London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1955, pp. 13-16) It could not have been a literal day of twenty-four hours. If it was, the biblical text would have to be thrown out as fiction. Science has proven the process, involved in creation through astronomy, physics, anthropology, archaeology, etc. The age of the earth is certainly much more than the fictional six thousand year theory that was introduced by Bishop Usher. He estimated, through the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, that the earth was created in 4004 B.C. Anytime you begin to try to figure dates by the use of biblical genealogies, you are in trouble. The genealogies in the Gospels are incomplete, yet they fit perfectly into the Jewish understanding of them. In Matthew 1:8-.9, of Jesus' genealogy, these kings are left out: Ahaziah, Athaliah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoahaz and Johoiakim. With this we learn an important lesson in Jewish genealogy. To the Hebrew mind it was as correct to say "A" begat "Z," and leave out all the others, as to say "A" begat "B."

Remains have been found of Homo sapiens that go back one hundred thousand years or more at the Border Caves in Africa. At the Carmel Caves in Israel there have been found very old remains of humans that go back sixty or seventy thousand years. The human family is much older than 4004 B.C. The Hebrew text of the Genesis account would admit this understanding of creation. We must understand that Genesis chapters one and two are not scientific accounts. It is a simple narrative that did not in any way have "science" in mind. When we look at it in Hebrew, we see that the best that is known scientifically fits perfectly with the biblical text and does not contradict it. Creation theology in Christianity simply does not have a leg to stand on in the Hebrew account of the Genesis narrative.

A translation endorsed by numerous rabbinic authorities is the modern targum by Isaac Elchanan Mozeson. If space permitted we could quote the entire passage of Genesis chapter one, but a few verses will suffice for our purposes. "From the beginning of this creation for revelation the Lord balanced the spiritual and the material. (1) And the Lord willed energy and it radiated. (3) And the Lord summoned the energies of day and entropy of night and there was mingling before examination in millennium one. (5) and the Lord willed vegetable from the mineral, perennial greening... (11) And the Lord willed that there evolve from marine plants mobile, organic life; amphibians emerging until fin and wing fly through the skies... (20) And the Lord created the dinosaurs and all reptilian life that evolved from aquatic species and all species of feathered birds... (21) And the Lord willed that the material and spiritual together make up human form and essence... (26) And Cro-Magnon was created from its Neanderthal mold, body and soul a divine creature; hermaphroditic were they created. (27) (From the Beginning, A Modem Targum)

i know thats like a ball of snow, and that there are hundreds of for and against arguments both completely coherent, and supported by the torah according to each side....

It is quite the can of worms that is for sure…………I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the answers in this matter (nor do I care to).

then what?... who is the right? does it matter who is right??
is there an uncertainty on everything on the bible, not inherent to the book itself, but to human understading and our ultimate inability to interpret and differentiate a "parable" from a "fact" with absolute certainty??
should stories on the torah, bible be taken as parables by default, and then transformed into "facts" by our validation??
or should they be taken as "facts", and then, as we can validate them, move them from "facts" to "parables??
doesl the 2nd approach eventually evolve into the 1st????

I would suggest diving into the Talmud and Mishanh with these kinds of questions……..this is what the rabbi’s have been discussing for centuries.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Check out Mark 12:30-32.

BTW (since we're talking about rabbi's), this was Jesus' "yoke", His interpretation of Torah. Which interestingly mirrors rabbi Hillel's from about 20 years before Jesus who said (paraphrase) "love you neighbor as yourself....on this the whole Torah hangs".

Oh and no problem G Funk, that was a lot of material to digest, take your time.

 

[Andyman_1970]

While this article is about a specific parable, it does shed some light on the "mechanics" behind a parable.......and addresses some of the questions G Funk had about Christianity loosing it's way with regards it's history of not being very Jesus like.

Friends and Enemies in the Parables
By: Brad H. Young, Ph.D. Posted: September 14 2004

The Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:29-37 is the classic form of the story parable. Parables are stories that have a message. The Parable of the Good Samaritan has a structure that is similar to many story parables. It is a mini-play with members of a cast and a live drama, which quickly moves from one scene to the next. The parable communicates a deep message. It introduces the members of the cast, and then it takes the listeners on a journey in which they come into contact with the internal conflict of the drama. The resolution of the conflict communicates the deeper meaning of the story.

Parables teach truth on different levels. Probably the desired response to the Parable of the Good Samaritan would be understood by every child. However, there is a deeper level of meaning. The Jewish background of the mini-drama provides the key for understanding the message of Jesus.

The parables of Jesus are Jewish. The Jewish sources provide rich insight into the original meaning of Jesus' story. We must study the parables in light of early Jewish thought of the period.

The parable begins with a question concerning "Who is a neighbor?" This is a theological question, which is asked by the so-called lawyer. It would be better to view him as a student of the Torah (in Hebrew, perhaps, ben Torah), or in the English language, the term theologian would be similar in meaning. The theologian asks Jesus the rabbi, who is certainly also a theologian, this decisive question concerning one's love of one's neighbor. It is a genuine question, for the Hebrew word can be translated and interpreted in different ways. The word neighbor in Hebrew (rea), in its stricter sense, means someone who is near to you. One who is near to you could be a friend but certainly not an enemy. Does Leviticus 18:19 teach, "Love your friends like you love yourself"? How do you translate the word rea? Jesus answers the question of the theologian with a parable.

The three key actors who play leading roles in the story parable, i.e., the Levite, the priest, and the Samaritan, all have a function to fulfill. The Samaritan was understood to be an enemy. Though he accepted the five books of Moses as authoritative for faith and practice, he rejected the Oral Law and was not considered to be Jewish. The Samaritans had a place of worship in biblical Shechem. On a number of occasions, historians of the period noted that civil conflicts erupted with Samaritans-often related to religious issues.

The Levite and the priest were true members of the Jewish community and served in the worship of the temple. They were descended from the priestly families. However, they had one thing in common with the Samaritans. The priestly class from the time of Jesus was almost exclusively composed of Sadducees. Like the Samaritans, the Sadducees rejected the Oral Law.

The Oral Law, which was accepted by the Pharisees and the majority of the people during the period, taught that preservation of life supersedes all other laws. The Sadducees, having rejected the Oral Law, interpreted the Scriptures in a literal fashion. They emphasized religious and ceremonial purity. Unlike the Pharisees, who interpreted the law in a way to give it practical application in daily living while preserving its validity, the priests and Levites preferred the letter of the law.

In the parable, the Levite and the priest avoided ritual uncleanness and did not give life-sustaining assistance to the man who fell among bandits. They were going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, probably after fulfilling their religious functions in the Temple. They did not desire to become ritually unclean and did not wish to go through the process of ceremonial cleansing. They may have reasoned, "If the man is not dead already, he will probably die anyway." He was half-dead.

The term "half-dead" probably refers to the Hebrew word goses, which had a technical meaning in the Jewish Oral Law. The goses is a dying man who is in agony. According to the Jewish Oral Law, most of these individuals will die (b. Gittin 28a). The rabbis were concerned that the goses would not receive adequate care. They ruled that the goses i.e., dying person, must be treated as a living person in every respect (Semachot 1:1). All means must be used to save his life. He may perform all legal functions in regard to will and testament. Often the deeper meaning of the Jewish oral tradition is misunderstood by Christians. According to the oral tradition, every law in the Torah may be broken if it will extend and save life. In fact, if it is a matter of life and death, the letter of law must be broken in order to observe the spirit of the law-which is to give life.

What if the Levite and the priest thought that he was dead? The written law teaches that a priest and - a Levite cannot become ritually impure even for a member of their own family (Lev. 21:11). If they discovered a dead corpse in the middle of the road, they could pass by on the other side--keeping the proper distance-and thus protect their ritual purity. But this violated the Oral Law.

The Pharisees lived by a different code. In the Oral Law they had another tradition. The Oral Law taught that a person was required to bury an abandoned corpse that had not been buried (in Hebrew, met mitzvah). In fact, they taught that though the High Priest himself may not -become ritually impure to bury a member of his own family, he was required to become impure in order to bury an abandoned body. The Mishnah teaches, The High Priest and the Nazir do not become unclean for their relatives but they do become unclean for a met mitzvah (an abandoned dead corpse) (m. Nazir 7:1).

In either case, whether the unclothed, beaten man in the middle of the road was dead or alive, the priest and the Levite were required to stop. According to the Oral Law, they either had to bury the dead or they had to give life-sustaining assistance to someone in need. But they were Sadducees and they rejected the Oral Law!

The Samaritan stopped. He reversed the actions of the bandits. The bandits 1) stripped him, 2) beat him, 3) abandoned him 4) left him half dead, having robbed the man. The Samaritan 1) bound his wounds by clothing the stripped man, 2) poured on oil and wine where he had been beaten, 3) took the man with him to an inn, 4) he paid the bills of the man who had been robbed. He gave healing and life-sustaining help. No one could discern the identity of the person in need. Was he a priest? Was he a Pharisee? Was he Jewish? Was he a Samaritan? His clothes, which could identify him as belonging to a particular community, had been taken. He was a person in need. Perhaps the original audience anticipated the third player. They probably expected a Pharisee to play the role of the Samaritan. After all, they believed in the Oral Law. Instead, an enemy, that is, the Samaritan, appeared in the story.

In listening to the story, often it is mistakenly thought that the neighbor is the one who needs help. The parable teaches that the neighbor is not the man in need of life-giving assistance, but the enemy. The key for understanding the parable is Mt. 5:43, where Jesus teaches us to love our enemies. Who is my neighbor? How do we answer the question? Only by assuming the position of one in need can we see that our neighbor is actually our enemy. One discovers reciprocity in Jesus' definition of neighbor. In order to understand the term "neighbor," ' one must be a neighbor. The enemy becomes the neighbor in the story. The Samaritan teaches what is meant by the word neighbor because he acted like a neighbor to someone who needed help.

Many listeners to the parable would have anticipated a different ending to the story. They may have thought that a Pharisee would wind up being the hero. Instead it is the enemy who is the neighbor to the one in need. Not surprisingly, the theologian understood the parable exactly. When Jesus asked him, "Which one of these three proved neighbor (rea) to the man who fell among the robbers?" the student of the law answered correctly, "The one who showed mercy." He was saying, "My enemy is my neighbor."

We must not miss the connection between the Samaritan and the Sadducean priest and Levite. Not only did the priest and the Levite reject the Oral Law, but also the Samaritans lived only by the written letter of the five books of Moses. From a religious perspective, the Samaritan was endangering his ritual purity in the same way that the priest and the Levite may have become ceremonially unclean. The Sadducees were not willing to take the risk, but the Samaritan realized that saving life was top priority. From the historical reality of the life situation of the period, the Samaritan was also risking his own life for the man in need because if the injured man died, he could be blamed for his death.

The theologian who asked Jesus the question understood the parable perfectly! My neighbor is my enemy. Jesus taught us to love our enemies (Mt. 5:43). This is the main point of this sophisticated story parable. Make your decision. Love your enemy. This is how we must translate Leviticus, "Love your enemy as yourself"!

In essence, the parable teaches us that when we define the word neighbor, we must understand reciprocity. If we are going to understand the meaning of the term neighbor, then we must behave like a neighbor, we must assume the position of someone in need. To understand what neighbor means, we must be a neighbor. We must do something for an individual in need. What would we want someone to do for us if we had the misfortune of being in their position? To know what the word neighbor means, we must be a neighbor.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us to love our enemies [1]. It is a story parable that reaches us on different levels. The parable communicates its message to the uninitiated but it also reaches the scholar and the theologian on a deeper level. We must abandon prejudice and love all people-even those whom we may consider to be our enemies.

The message of Jesus in the parables seeks a response. Jesus said to the theologian, "Go and do likewise."

[1] Often the term enemy in the Gospels has been used to justify a wrong approach to pacifism. The word enemy should be studied in light of Dr. Blizzard's and David Bivin's book, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, pp. 106-110.

 

[kinghami3]

And how did you come to the conclusion that he is speaking of salvation? There is nothing in there to indicate that.

Yes there is. Luke 19:11 explains why he is telling the parable: "…and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once." Jesus then uses the parable to explain why the kingdom of God is not going to appear at once.

You're not getting it. I'm not the one who keyed on the temple, you did. All I was doing was giving the rest of the story, so that it could not be said that I pulled the quote out of a larger point.

Additionally, it should be noted that Jesus says this right before he rides into a city run by people who did not want him to be king.

Good point, I will stay off the subject, because now I don't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

It's also worth noting that Jesus gets rejected just about everywhere else. His public mission is an utter failure. There is a reoccurring theme of Jesus being accepted by the poor, only to have the religious authorities try to turn the people against him. That is what happened in Jerusalem as well.

Thank you for being patient. Check out Mark 12:30-32.

"'30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.' 32 'Well said teacher,' the man replied. 'You are right in saying that God is on and there is no other but him.'"
What translation are you using to conclude that Jesus says not believing in God is an unforgivable sin? It is worse to know God and not to love him than to not know him at all.

The disfigurement is the innate "wrongness" of man, which is what original sin stands for. You are born inherently sinful and wicked, and that is a hateful concept. Also, this punishment vs. consequence stuff is bs. Doesn't god have the power to abolish original sin in people born today, who had NOTHING to do with Adam and Eve? It's a cruel punishment.

You have for some reason latched onto the temple. I misspoke about what Jesus did in the temple (who he threw out) and you have been stuck on it ever since. See above. It's not about the temple, OK? It's about the fact that Jesus tells this story out of the seeming blue, then rides into the city that holds people who do not want him to be king.

Ok, you're on track. The parable does have everything to do with his rejection in Jerusalem. It is Israel's final rejection of God, kind of the climax the series of rejections since Abraham or even Cain. The theme of rejection is important throughout the Bible.

No need to get snippy. I was merely trying to consolidate my posts to let Andyman know that I would be looking at his material when I get a chance.

Mmmk.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Yes there is. Luke 19:11 explains why he is telling the parable: "…and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once." Jesus then uses the parable to explain why the kingdom of God is not going to appear at once.

OK, let's go with that then. The king leaves, comes back and then wants every non-believer slain. Hmmm, sounds kinda like Jesus dying, then returning. Either way, he is advocating the slaying of all non-believers.

It's also worth noting that Jesus gets rejected just about everywhere else. His public mission is an utter failure. There is a reoccurring theme of Jesus being accepted by the poor, only to have the religious authorities try to turn the people against him. That is what happened in Jerusalem as well.

But Jerusalem is the main HQ (so to speak) of those who would oppose Jesus.

"'30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.' 32 'Well said teacher,' the man replied. 'You are right in saying that God is on and there is no other but him.'"
What translation are you using to conclude that Jesus says not believing in God is an unforgivable sin? It is worse to know God and not to love him than to not know him at all.

Actually that quote works pretty well, but it was unintentional. I meant to say Matthew 12:30-32 instead of Mark. My error.

Ok, you're on track. The parable does have everything to do with his rejection in Jerusalem. It is Israel's final rejection of God, kind of the climax the series of rejections since Abraham or even Cain. The theme of rejection is important throughout the Bible.

I would think the final rejection is handing Jesus over to the Romans.

Did you mean to say something about original sin?

Let me add this since I thought of it today. Adam and Eve had no idea about consequences of actions or right and wrong. True, god told them not to eat the fruit, but with no concept of consequences, how can they be held accountable? We don't find people guilty who can prove mental insanity, and part of that is showing that they can't grasp the concept of understanding consequences. God (who is omnipotent and omniscient) should have known what was going to happen, could have easily prevented it (but didn't), and did not give them the knowledge of what consequences mean. Therefore, can we conclude anything other than god set them up to fail? Since god set them up to fail, isn't he unfairly punishing them when they do exactly what he set them up to do?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

According to the late professor David Flusser of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (an observant Jew mind you not a Christian) Jesus was Judaism’s most brilliant rabbi.

Does he have a reference to Jesus by a contemporary author?

Not from Flusser but some interesting parallels between Jesus and Hillel.

From this reference we find this:

The documents we have in the New Testament about Jesus life are first (in chronological order) Paul’s letters beginning approximately fifteen to twenty years after Jesus’ death. Paul gives little information about the historic Jesus. The Gospels were written forty to seventy years after Jesus’ death. They tell about the historic Jesus from different traditions. There is contradictory information in the four gospels.

So you see there is scholarship (in this case from an Orthodox Jew no less) that affirms that the Jesus of the New Testament was a Jewish rabbi.

There is religious scholarship that looks at the purported teachings and relates them to Jewish teachings, that was never under dispute. If Jesus existed, he was a Jew, so he would probably teach things that resonated with Jewish philosophy.

What I'm saying is that Jesus might have existed but he might not have. People have taken this issue for granted for thousands of years now, but we don't have a single reference that would stand up in court. If he was such a great rabbi, then why are there no references to him during his lifetime? Every reference to him is after the fact by people who were not eye-witnesses, or just stories that were passed down. Does it mean that he didn't exist? Of course not. But, we can't assume that he did simply because that's how it has always been done. In fact, the burden of proof is on the person who thinks Jesus existed to show some fact, some document, some something to show he existed. I know that absence of evidence doesn't constitute evidence of absence, but we should definitely be critical of this concept until some evidence does surface.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Does he have a reference to Jesus by a contemporary author?

Not sure, I’m still wading through a mountain of his material. However in conversations with my Jewish friends over the last week, they have indicated that there is no reference to the Jesus of the New Testament in the Mishnah or Talmud……..so I’m also double checking my sources that indicated He was.

There is religious scholarship that looks at the purported teachings and relates them to Jewish teachings, that was never under dispute. If Jesus existed, he was a Jew, so he would probably teach things that resonated with Jewish philosophy.

Keep in mind Dr. Flusser and Dr. Shemul Safari (professor at Hebrew university as well) were Orthodox Jews, not Christians. While there work was “religious” in nature (Jewish) they didn’t have a theological agenda to prove as some (not all) Christian historians/theologians have.

What I'm saying is that Jesus might have existed but he might not have. People have taken this issue for granted for thousands of years now, but we don't have a single reference that would stand up in court. If he was such a great rabbi, then why are there no references to him during his lifetime? Every reference to him is after the fact by people who were not eye-witnesses, or just stories that were passed down. Does it mean that he didn't exist? Of course not. But, we can't assume that he did simply because that's how it has always been done. In fact, the burden of proof is on the person who thinks Jesus existed to show some fact, some document, some something to show he existed. I know that absence of evidence doesn't constitute evidence of absence, but we should definitely be critical of this concept until some evidence does surface.

One thing that is interesting about Jesus and His movement in the 1st century. While we have little or none extra Biblical contemporary accounts of Him, the effects of the early church have been documented………..Pliny the younger) that wrote a letter to Trajan asking what do with Christians (early second century), Tacitus' account of Nero's persecution of Christians…there are a few other more obscure references in Roman writings but all have “questions” surrounding them regarding the indepentant nature of their sources. Pliny and Hardain “confirm” each other to some extent I've read. While they aren’t contemporary accounts of Jesus and His ministry, they do show the effects of what He started, or His followers (Paul) started. Kind of like when someone throws a stone in a pond but you don’t see the stone or see it go in, but you see the ripples caused by the stone.

My point is not to prove Jesus at all, while I believe He really did exist I also understand that a part of that is a matter of faith and not 100% cold hard “facts” as it were……..if I had 100% cold hard facts it wouldn’t be faith then would it?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Not sure, I’m still wading through a mountain of his material. However in conversations with my Jewish friends over the last week, they have indicated that there is no reference to the Jesus of the New Testament in the Mishnah or Talmud……..so I’m also double checking my sources that indicated He was.

I know of no references in either of those texts as well, so if you do find some, please let me know.

Keep in mind Dr. Flusser and Dr. Shemul Safari (professor at Hebrew university as well) were Orthodox Jews, not Christians. While there work was “religious” in nature (Jewish) they didn’t have a theological agenda to prove as some (not all) Christian historians/theologians have.

I'm not worried that they have some agenda. I just think they are assuming Jesus, looking at what was written and comparing it to Jewish teaching. There's nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't really address the question of whether there was an actual Jesus that was the son of god and died for people's sins.

One thing that is interesting about Jesus and His movement in the 1st century. While we have little or none extra Biblical contemporary accounts of Him, the effects of the early church have been documented………..Pliny the younger) that wrote a letter to Trajan asking what do with Christians (early second century), Tacitus' account of Nero's persecution of Christians…there are a few other more obscure references in Roman writings but all have “questions” surrounding them regarding the indepentant nature of their sources. Pliny and Hardain “confirm” each other to some extent I've read. While they aren’t contemporary accounts of Jesus and His ministry, they do show the effects of what He started, or His followers (Paul) started. Kind of like when someone throws a stone in a pond but you don’t see the stone or see it go in, but you see the ripples caused by the stone.

My point is not to prove Jesus at all, while I believe He really did exist I also understand that a part of that is a matter of faith and not 100% cold hard “facts” as it were……..if I had 100% cold hard facts it wouldn’t be faith then would it?

There's no doubt that something was started (probably by Paul) and that the ripples have since moved out. The fact that there are Christians attests to that.

You may have faith in his existence and I'm glad that you admit that you don't "know" he existed. That's much more of an admission that most would be willing to give. It's just not something we should take for granted, and too many people do just that. It's also something we should not simply accept until we have some proof. If people want to say that Jesus existed, they need some sort of proof or something to make that assertion. For far too long the burden of proof has been on the wrong side on this issue.

 

[MMike]

Though maybe not the higher nuber of replies ever, but It think thiss thread may have the record most words and letters in a single thread.

Thank you, kids in the hall

 

[kinghami3]

G Funk, what bothers me is that you refuse to look at the Bible as a whole. I'm not sure whether or not you have read the Bible cover to cover, and I admit that it has been a while since I have, but, as John Calvin says, we need to be lead by the Holy Sprit in our understanding of the Bible meaning that we need to pray about it, or at least have someone guide us through the text. The Bible is not free of human error, and if we read it on our own, we will not understand it, and it can become misleading. When you decide to use specific passages in scripture to support your arguments, instead of the fourfold gospel, it leads to dangerous fallacies.

OK, let's go with that then. The king leaves, comes back and then wants every non-believer slain. Hmmm, sounds kinda like Jesus dying, then returning. Either way, he is advocating the slaying of all non-believers.

You're still taking the parable too literally. First of all, looking at the emphasis on the long period of time, Jesus is talking about his second coming, not his resurrection. Second of all, lets say that you are correct. There are many stories of God striking people dead.

But Jerusalem is the main HQ (so to speak) of those who would oppose Jesus.

Exactly, meaning that is a perfect time for the commentary of the parable. Jesus knew what was going to happen; even for a normal human this would be easy to predict.

Actually that quote works pretty well, but it was unintentional. I meant to say Matthew 12:30-32 instead of Mark. My error.

The context is that the Pharisees just claimed that Jesus was Beelzebub (Satan). "30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man [the human aspects of Jesus] will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come." Your are confusing 'not believing' with 'blasphemy'. What Jesus is saying is that the Pharisees are attributing the driving out of the demons by the Holy Spirit to Satan, something that Jesus calls unforgivable. There is no mention of not believing in this passage, besides that they will be scattered.

I would think the final rejection is handing Jesus over to the Romans.

It is the same rejection, just later in time. He is well received, then the Pharisees turn the people against Jesus, who then hand him over to the authorities. This isn't really worth arguing over.

Did you mean to say something about original sin?

No, I felt that this argument was just going in a nice circle.

Let me add this since I thought of it today. Adam and Eve had no idea about consequences of actions or right and wrong. True, god told them not to eat the fruit, but with no concept of consequences, how can they be held accountable? We don't find people guilty who can prove mental insanity, and part of that is showing that they can't grasp the concept of understanding consequences. God (who is omnipotent and omniscient) should have known what was going to happen, could have easily prevented it (but didn't), and did not give them the knowledge of what consequences mean. Therefore, can we conclude anything other than god set them up to fail? Since god set them up to fail, isn't he unfairly punishing them when they do exactly what he set them up to do?

First of all, and there are many who will disagree with me (and some who would prefer to lynch me), the story of Adam and Eve is mythology, not a literal story. It is used to explain the concept of original sin. That concept is that our sin comes from our free will, which comes from God's love for us. Because he loves us, he allows us to chose, and does not force us to love him; if that were the case, it could not be considered love. Because of our free will, we are at liberty to reject God, which we do.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I know of no references in either of those texts as well, so if you do find some, please let me know.

I sure will.

I just think they are assuming Jesus, looking at what was written and comparing it to Jewish teaching. There's nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't really address the question of whether there was an actual Jesus that was the son of god and died for people's sins.

Actually I stumbled onto a tidbit from the Talmud that describes that the Temple sacrificial system was no longer effective 40 years before the Temple was destroyed. While it doesn’t name Jesus it is food for thought for sure.

It's also something we should not simply accept until we have some proof.

If proof was needed it wouldn’t be faith then would it?

If people want to say that Jesus existed, they need some sort of proof or something to make that assertion. For far too long the burden of proof has been on the wrong side on this issue.

Both sides have a hard time disproving the other 100% - I see your point if one is going to make a claim they need to back it up.

 

[Westy]

This thread won't die. Or does just keep getting resurrected?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

G Funk, what bothers me is that you refuse to look at the Bible as a whole.

Coming from someone who thinks god loves us? What part of the Bible told you that? Oh yeah, it was only part of the Bible, not the whole thing, not the parts where god is smiting anyone she doesn't like.

What I'm doing is discerning why that parable is in that particular place. The meaning seems pretty clear, especially since denying god is unforgivable.

The Bible is not free of human error, and if we read it on our own, we will not understand it, and it can become misleading.

That will be news to the many Christians that believe the Bible is inerrant.

When you decide to use specific passages in scripture to support your arguments, instead of the fourfold gospel, it leads to dangerous fallacies.

That is a pretty weird assertion considering that the four gospels were written by different authors at different times. What you are saying here is that whatever was said doesn't matter, so long as we get the gist of the meaning....at least what YOU think is the gist of the meaning.

You're still taking the parable too literally.

And you have yet to give me a reason not to.

First of all, looking at the emphasis on the long period of time, Jesus is talking about his second coming, not his resurrection.

What emphasis on "the long period of time?" How do you know he's talking about his second coming? Also, dead is dead, and death means killing, not final judgement. You are trying to change the meaning of words to suit your purposes.

Second of all, lets say that you are correct. There are many stories of God striking people dead.

But, I thought god was all about love...why is she striking people dead? Is that what you do to your loved ones?

Exactly, meaning that is a perfect time for the commentary of the parable. Jesus knew what was going to happen; even for a normal human this would be easy to predict.

Kill the non-believers before they kill me...yeah, that's pretty easy to predict.

The context is that the Pharisees just claimed that Jesus was Beelzebub (Satan). "30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man [the human aspects of Jesus] will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come." Your are confusing 'not believing' with 'blasphemy'. What Jesus is saying is that the Pharisees are attributing the driving out of the demons by the Holy Spirit to Satan, something that Jesus calls unforgivable. There is no mention of not believing in this passage, besides that they will be scattered.

"Anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven...."
What does that mean to you? The Pharisees would not believe in the Holy Spirit and so Jesus damns them (literally.) You are splitting hairs here.

No, I felt that this argument was just going in a nice circle.

Are you calling my argument about original sin circular? If so, you'll have to explain to me how it is.

First of all, and there are many who will disagree with me (and some who would prefer to lynch me), the story of Adam and Eve is mythology, not a literal story. It is used to explain the concept of original sin. That concept is that our sin comes from our free will, which comes from God's love for us. Because he loves us, he allows us to chose, and does not force us to love him; if that were the case, it could not be considered love. Because of our free will, we are at liberty to reject God, which we do.

So, let me get this straight. God gives us free will, which is actually a state of sin? We can choose not to love god, so therefore we default to a state of NOT loving her and therefore a state of sin? We are born in this default state, correct? So, you are still saying that we are born in a faulty state, that there is some problem with us when we come out of the womb. That, to me, is a hateful concept. You can say that it's all about love, but it just makes it sound like battered wife syndrome. 'He only beats me because he loves me.'

I am glad to know that you understand Adam and Eve is only a myth at least. The problem is that the myth is meant to tell us something about the religion, else it wouldn't be there, and it is where the concept of original sin derives. Therefore, you can't simply toss out the story as myth when discussing this subject. What is clearly described is a situation where humans were set up to fail by god and are now and forever more burdened with being born in a sinful state as punishment by a god that supposedly loves us. It is a hateful concept to tell people that they are inherently sinful, bad, or defective.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If proof was needed it wouldn’t be faith then would it?

I meant that you can accept it on faith, but you can't take it for granted that you have faith in the truth.

Both sides have a hard time disproving the other 100% - I see your point if one is going to make a claim they need to back it up.

Glad you see my point. Just to clarify, I don't need proof that he didn't exist, since I'm not making any positive claim in this. I'm simply looking at the evidence that does exist (scanty at best) and saying that it doesn't hold up and that faith is necessary. I only bring this up because most people think that it is well proven that Jesus lived, was historical, and even performed miracles, like rising from the dead.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

But the table just like...fell right over......

Back to the original topic....

I watched the Passion of the Christ and if you believe that movie, he invented tables.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Back to the original topic....

I watched the Passion of the Christ and if you believe that movie, he invented tables.

LOL:dancing:

 

[Andyman_1970]

.............was historical....

I'm actually re-listening to a serise of lectures on the historical Jesus by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill...........I'll post any "nuggets" I hear...........

 

[kinghami3]

This thread won't die. Or does just keep getting resurrected?

It keeps getting resurrected because the argument is going nowhere.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It keeps getting resurrected because the argument is going nowhere.

So, does that mean that you have a coherent defense of your position or are you going to continue to back up your feel-good interpretation with more assertion?

I mean, you are more than welcome to think that he's not actually referring to killing non-believers if you can come up with something supporting it in the Bible. You're also free to deny the common view that disbelief is the only unpardonable sin, but it would mean you are running against the grain.