Perhaps looking at a wider focus instead of the bar mitzvah issue will help:
Has it occurred to you that PFAL doesn't have to be inerrant or God-breathed to be useful?
That's really why we're torquing your lugnuts. There are a few pro-Wierwille folks here who think that PFAL was fantastic and that VPW was completely innocent of all the charges leveled against him. Not many, but there are a few. None of them, however, has gone so far as to claim that PFAL is direct revelation from God. I never even heard that during the "all-is-well" years. Wierwille himself never claimed PFAL came straight from God, so it's just unfathomable how you came up with that idea.
Several folks have demonstrated that not everything VPW said was true. That's okay, he didn't have to be perfect. When he wrote “...every word I have written to you is true.” it's genuinely what he believed, but we've found out that a lot of words weren't.
If you want to study Wierwille's stuff for the rest of your life, be my guest. If you take it as equivalent to the Word, though, you will be sorely deceived. Since we know not everything he wrote was true, the honest thing to do is to go back, research everything again and see what really is true and what isn't.
I've done this myself with Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed. It checks out, you can punch the dates into any computer astronomy program and see that the planetary positions really are just what JCOPS says. Great! Now that's one more thing I can move into the "true" column.
Remember the verse about the refiner's fire? Purified seven times and so on? Outside verification is just refining the gold from the dross.
You want to live the truth; that's admirable. Real truth has nothing to fear from test and scrutiny. The Pythagorean Theorem really does hold true for all planar right triangles. Test and measure over and over again, with a billion different instances, and it doesn't change the truth of the Theorem one bit.
If all of what Wierwille wrote in PFAL was direct from God, it should be absolutely unfalsifiable. It isn't. If some of what Wierwille wrote was from God and some was from human error, then we absolutely have to examine everything bit by bit to separate the two, without the fear that the scrutiny will expose something we don't want to believe.
I'll leave you with this thought: if VPW was taking dictation from God, then there would be no need to "master" PFAL. Wierwille would have said what he meant and meant what he said, in our language, so that there could be no misunderstandings in our day and time. Hence, all we would have to do is "read" it.
quote:Has it occurred to you that PFAL doesn't have to be inerrant or God-breathed to be useful?
I was going to say that myself. PFAL doesn't have to be perfect, to still be a tremendous blessing to folks who want/need to hear great truths about God and Jesus.
quote:Has it occurred to you that PFAL doesn't have to be inerrant or God-breathed to be useful?
Problem is, guys, that Mike HAS considered this viewpoint, and rejected it. According to his view (and I SWEAR I'm not making this up) people who hold this position are fence sitters, and need to face up to the realization that either all of PFAL is true or none of it is true. There IS no middle ground, according to Mike. Wierwille's claims to "God-breathed" status invalidate any position except all or nothing.
Here's his EXACT WORDS...
quote:Let me say first, though, that I REALIZE that Dr’s claims to having received and abundance of revelation do NOT prove that his claims are true. I don’t know why so many think I don’t see that.
What Dr’s claims do prove or demand is something different. His many, many claims like this do effectively eliminate all gray areas in how we should regard him.
Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr’s material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr’s extreme assertions. They need to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely wrong. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.
If Dr’s writings fall into the totally evil category (with just enough good to hook people but not really bless them) then the ONLY proper response for one of his former disciples would be a TOTAL purge himself of everything Dr taught and then totally start over in some other camp. This would not only be a monumental task for some of the more entrenched grads, but WHERE to go to get their total re-education in Christianity (notice I didn’t say churchianity here) is even more arduous. This second task, in addition to purging, should severely challenge the wise seeker, because who’s to say he wouldn’t suffer from the “out of the frying pan and into the fire” syndrome.
If this possibility is true, that Dr’s claims were false, then the best response is to throw away BOTH the bathwater AND the baby, and start all over.
That's why EVERY ACTUAL ERROR matters. That's why ONE PREPOSITION out of place, and all of PFAL crumbles to pieces (because that is PFAL's standard for "God-breathed" accuracy).
Guys, you need to rightly divide the Word of Mike, or you would not ask these questions he has already answered, thereby taking away from him the time he needs to ignore posts by Goey, Garth and Georgio, and the time he needs to write about how he has no time to get bogged down resolving even one actual error in PFAL.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 17, 2003 at 14:14.]
quote:The Bar/Bat Mitzvah custom is not found in the Torah. We do know that throughout history many other cultures and civilizations have had their own ceremony or recognition of puberty. The association of religious obligations and the age of thirteen probably began around the era of the Second Temple (between 516 BCE and 70 CE). It was not until the sixth century CE that there were some beginnings of the Bar Mitzvah customs/ceremony as we know it today. However, the full ritual of Bar Mitzvah was not developed until the Middle Ages. By the thirteenth or fourteenth century, it was the custom to call the 13-year-old boy to the Torah in order to recognize his entry into 'manhood'. He would chant the Torah blessings, all or part of the weekly parasha (Torah portion) as well as a section of Haftarah (an additional reading from the prophets). The young man's father would then recite the following b'racha (blessing):
It was also a custom for the boy to give some type of speech or lesson on either the sidra or something from the Talmud. In some form or another these are the elements that still today are included in the Bar Mitzvah today."
Although it was not Bar Mitzvah as is practiced today, according to this source, there was "probably" some kind of religious confirmation of Jewish boys at the time of Christ. The age of 13 is not set in stone - it is probable. According to another source ( Rivkind) Moroccans boys Bar Mitzvah at the age 12.
Karl D. Coke . PHD, like VPW, also believes that Jesus was in Jerusalem for "Bar Mitzvah" and he builds a plausible case, yet makes no reference to 12 years as being the age that illigimate boys celebeated this in Jesus day. Here is the link:
So, it is "possible" that Jesus could have participated in some kind of comming of age ceremony at the time in the record in Luke 2. More evidence of this "possibility" is the record of Jesus having dialog with the the "doctors" in the Temple, which could be seen as similar to the custom of the boys in the Middle Ages making a speech or giving a lesson. However, I can find no reference at all that the age of 12 was reserved for illigitimate boys in regards to any ceremony.
At this point I will move Rafael's point # 1 out of the "actual error" category in regards to PFAL. It now becomes a doctrinal isssue at this point, IMO. Yet there is nothing to support that PFAL is correct on # 2. I count that as speculation without any legitimate supporting evidence.
So you see Mike, it is not too difficult to search these kinds of things. This took me less than 1 hour to do the work on this, and I did not have to do a song and dance routine.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 17, 2003 at 14:45.]
Reconsidering... Good information. A source that at least seems credible at this point.
Still, too many questions prevent this from being moved out of actual error.
1. There's still nothing anywhere to suggest Jesus' illegitimacy had anything to do with going at age 12 instead of 13. Remember, this is the whole point of Wierwille's reference here, as Mike himself noted.
2. One could argue that Wierwille is not talking about Bar-Mitzvah, but implying that the Bar-Mitzvah had already taken place. This still contradicts history, as there was no Bar-Mitzvah ceremony at that time.
3. If the purpose of Jesus' visit was specifically tied to his coming of age, as Karl Coke states, his parents would have known better than to leave him behind. Jesus staying behind, asking and answering questions of the rabbis, is depicted in the Bible as UNUSUAL and unexpected. Mary and Joseph didn't know where he was at first. Surely if the purpose of the trip was even partly to follow tradition following a young man's coming of age, then they would have known about his visit with the rabbis and, indeed, they would have accompanied him.
So with due respect to Mr. Coke (or is it Dr. Coke?) the most he can do is state that Jesus was considered to have come of age at his 12th birthday, a half-year prior to Passover. Bravo, it's possible.
Still unresolved is the actual error of illegitimacy having anything to do with it, the establishment of age 13 as the year of coming of age at the time of Christ, etc.
Sorry, I'm not convinced. But I will acknowledge that it's a lot closer than anything Mike didn't say.
On second thought, I'll drop it. I'll concede the point. Not that I'm convinced, but ok, let's move it into errors of interpretation (or, more accurately, speculation without evidence). Fine and dandy.
Nine to go from the original list, if anyone would care to bother trying.
(P.S. Does anyone still have a copy of the advanced studies questions or whatever they were called? I'm interested in the phrasing of the question that was asked about this section).
Maybe I'm not remembering the name correctly, but it's the list of questions AFTER the main syllabus that took you through just about all of the book and the class. Completing it was one of the prerequisites of taking the Advanced Class.
Home studies questions? I can scan the ones you want and send them to you. Offhand I don't see anything having to do with the bar mitzveh, if that's what you're interested in, but I'll take a closer look.
That's it. The home studies questions. There is one specifically about the Bar-mitzvah, Luke 2:42 reference. If you can just quote that question, I'll be a happy camper.
quote:In Luke 2:42 we find Jesus being taken to the temple in Jerusalem to go through Bar Mitzvah. At this time Jesus was 12 years old. Normally, a boy becomes a man at age 13. What is the case here?
Outside of what Wierwille seems to have pulled out of (somewhere), where does anyone get the idea that Jesus was considered to be illegitimate? (I know Wierwille mentioned John 8:41, but that doesn't mean what he said it meant. Matthew 1:19 would seem to indicate that no one but Joseph, Mary, and maybe some close family knew anything about Mary being pregnant before she and Joseph came together.)
Could be the ones Jesus was talking to was refuting what Jesus was saying by saying that they were children of Abraham and Sarah and not of Abraham and someone else-like the maid
I, of course, haven't studied it in depth, but the argument is compelling. There's one part that resorts to Trinitarian gobbledygook that even the most devout Trinitarian will recognize as gobbledygook.
One VERY compelling point to make is that the stigma associated with illegitimacy would probably have precluded any respect in the synagogues for Jesus. Deuteronomy 23:2 would seem to preclude that. So it seems unlikely that Jesus was widely believed to be illegitimate.
Pardon me for butting in here, but we just covered John 8 in my bible study. My thoughts on verse 41 are this: The Pharisees, a couple of times in John, accused Jesus of being a "Samaritan" to discredit him. The Samaritans were the ones that the Jews believed to be "born of fornication." I personally don't think that verse 41 is referring to the fact that they thought Jesus was illegitimate because of the circumstances of his birth, but that they were telling everyone he was a Samaritan. They were simply flaunting their pedigree and accusing Jesus of not being as learned and purebred as they were. Context is everything. ;)--> the Pharisees by this point were doing everything they could to set Jesus up. They wanted him dead, and in fact, had already tried to kill him by this time.
Of course, this is MHO from studying John this year, and I could be wrong. I haven't consulted any commentaries or anything to see what others think. This is just off the top of my head.
I guess I should add that the Jews thought the Samaritans were the scum of the earth. By spreading the word that Jesus was a Samaritan, they could obfuscate his claim to be the messiah. In the Jewish mind, it would be impossible for the messiah to be a Samaritan.
If you read John through chapter 8 in the NIV, rather than the King James it's easier to understand without waybrain, I think.
According to Strongs Hebrew Lexicon, "bastard" is from the Hebrew 'mamzer'
mamzer {mam-zare'}
1174a from an unused root meaning to alienate
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) bastard, child of incest, illegitimate child
a) bastard
b) mixed population (fig.)
c) born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother or visa versa
Is it possible that 'bastard' here in Deuteonomy is referring to a child of incest or a child of conceived a Jew and a heathen such as an Ammonite or a Maobite ( See Verse 22:30 and Verse 23:3) and not just an illigitimate child conceived out of wedlock between two Jews?
Possibly 'bastard' in English does not fully correlate to "mamzer" in Hebrew.
Like I said, I've drawn no conclusions. I just find it interesting. The more evidence, the better.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that no one considered Jesus illegitimate.
Matthew teaches that Joseph intended to put her away "privily." That means, rather clearly in my opinion, that he COULD have done so. No one would have known what happened, unless someone blabbed.
Who would have done so? Long Gone is right: there's nothing in the Bible to indicate that anyone other than Mary, Joseph and Gabriel were privy to the knowledge of the Lord's conception.
Fascinating.
Goey, I see what you're saying. I don't know the implications. Like I keep saying - no conclusions.
Rafael, it has been years since I’ve studied the Bible so I’m not prepared to lay out a full case. I did read the two chapters I cited from Ezekiel, as well as the whole of John 8.
John 8:41 is easy to understand if we look to the verse, the context, and prior usage. (Not because scripture interprets itself, just because that's sensible.) I’ll discuss them in reverse order.
In the Old Testament, “fornication” (more often translated “whoredom”) seldom refers to literal fornication, but rather to “whoring after” other gods. (Ezekiel 16 and 23 are good reference chapters, in which the words are used repeatedly.)
In the context, the Jews counter Jesus’ statements about continuing in his word and the freedom that gives with an appeal to their free standing as Abraham’s seed. Jesus deals with that and goes on. He says that he speaks that which he has seen with his father and they do that which they have seen with theirs. They say that Abraham is their father. Jesus says that if that were so, they would do the works of Abraham. Jesus then goes on to say that what he spoke he had heard of God, which because of what he said earlier, says that God is his father.
In verse 41, after already contrasting his words and the Jews works and indicating that God is his father, Jesus says that the Jews do the deeds of their father. He obviously is not talking about their literal, human fathers. He is challenging their “spiritual” fatherhood. They respond by saying, “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” In other words, “We’re not offspring of whoring after other gods; we have one Father, even God.” It has nothing to do with Jesus’ father, in either a human or a spiritual sense. Jesus goes on to challenge their claim that God is their father and even says that they are of their father, the devil. Nothing in the context has anything to do with anyone’s literal father or the circumstances of anyone’s actual birth.
[This message was edited by Long Gone on January 17, 2003 at 21:38.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Zixar
Mike,
Perhaps looking at a wider focus instead of the bar mitzvah issue will help:
Has it occurred to you that PFAL doesn't have to be inerrant or God-breathed to be useful?
That's really why we're torquing your lugnuts. There are a few pro-Wierwille folks here who think that PFAL was fantastic and that VPW was completely innocent of all the charges leveled against him. Not many, but there are a few. None of them, however, has gone so far as to claim that PFAL is direct revelation from God. I never even heard that during the "all-is-well" years. Wierwille himself never claimed PFAL came straight from God, so it's just unfathomable how you came up with that idea.
Several folks have demonstrated that not everything VPW said was true. That's okay, he didn't have to be perfect. When he wrote “...every word I have written to you is true.” it's genuinely what he believed, but we've found out that a lot of words weren't.
If you want to study Wierwille's stuff for the rest of your life, be my guest. If you take it as equivalent to the Word, though, you will be sorely deceived. Since we know not everything he wrote was true, the honest thing to do is to go back, research everything again and see what really is true and what isn't.
I've done this myself with Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed. It checks out, you can punch the dates into any computer astronomy program and see that the planetary positions really are just what JCOPS says. Great! Now that's one more thing I can move into the "true" column.
Remember the verse about the refiner's fire? Purified seven times and so on? Outside verification is just refining the gold from the dross.
You want to live the truth; that's admirable. Real truth has nothing to fear from test and scrutiny. The Pythagorean Theorem really does hold true for all planar right triangles. Test and measure over and over again, with a billion different instances, and it doesn't change the truth of the Theorem one bit.
If all of what Wierwille wrote in PFAL was direct from God, it should be absolutely unfalsifiable. It isn't. If some of what Wierwille wrote was from God and some was from human error, then we absolutely have to examine everything bit by bit to separate the two, without the fear that the scrutiny will expose something we don't want to believe.
I'll leave you with this thought: if VPW was taking dictation from God, then there would be no need to "master" PFAL. Wierwille would have said what he meant and meant what he said, in our language, so that there could be no misunderstandings in our day and time. Hence, all we would have to do is "read" it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I know it's not in PFAL but this is a glaring error.
There is no "semi-official" GS belief system. It's official and those "in the know" adhere to it. That's why Zixar and I always agree.
:)-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I was going to say that myself. PFAL doesn't have to be perfect, to still be a tremendous blessing to folks who want/need to hear great truths about God and Jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Problem is, guys, that Mike HAS considered this viewpoint, and rejected it. According to his view (and I SWEAR I'm not making this up) people who hold this position are fence sitters, and need to face up to the realization that either all of PFAL is true or none of it is true. There IS no middle ground, according to Mike. Wierwille's claims to "God-breathed" status invalidate any position except all or nothing.
Here's his EXACT WORDS...
That's why EVERY ACTUAL ERROR matters. That's why ONE PREPOSITION out of place, and all of PFAL crumbles to pieces (because that is PFAL's standard for "God-breathed" accuracy).
Guys, you need to rightly divide the Word of Mike, or you would not ask these questions he has already answered, thereby taking away from him the time he needs to ignore posts by Goey, Garth and Georgio, and the time he needs to write about how he has no time to get bogged down resolving even one actual error in PFAL.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 17, 2003 at 14:14.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
What is the history of Bar/Bat Mitzvah?
" TARGET=_blank>http://www.milknhoney.co.il/torah/barmit_history.htmlAlthough it was not Bar Mitzvah as is practiced today, according to this source, there was "probably" some kind of religious confirmation of Jewish boys at the time of Christ. The age of 13 is not set in stone - it is probable. According to another source ( Rivkind) Moroccans boys Bar Mitzvah at the age 12.
Karl D. Coke . PHD, like VPW, also believes that Jesus was in Jerusalem for "Bar Mitzvah" and he builds a plausible case, yet makes no reference to 12 years as being the age that illigimate boys celebeated this in Jesus day. Here is the link:
http://www.restorationfoundation.org/6_126.htm
So, it is "possible" that Jesus could have participated in some kind of comming of age ceremony at the time in the record in Luke 2. More evidence of this "possibility" is the record of Jesus having dialog with the the "doctors" in the Temple, which could be seen as similar to the custom of the boys in the Middle Ages making a speech or giving a lesson. However, I can find no reference at all that the age of 12 was reserved for illigitimate boys in regards to any ceremony.
At this point I will move Rafael's point # 1 out of the "actual error" category in regards to PFAL. It now becomes a doctrinal isssue at this point, IMO. Yet there is nothing to support that PFAL is correct on # 2. I count that as speculation without any legitimate supporting evidence.
So you see Mike, it is not too difficult to search these kinds of things. This took me less than 1 hour to do the work on this, and I did not have to do a song and dance routine.
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 17, 2003 at 14:45.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hmm.
Reconsidering... Good information. A source that at least seems credible at this point.
Still, too many questions prevent this from being moved out of actual error.
1. There's still nothing anywhere to suggest Jesus' illegitimacy had anything to do with going at age 12 instead of 13. Remember, this is the whole point of Wierwille's reference here, as Mike himself noted.
2. One could argue that Wierwille is not talking about Bar-Mitzvah, but implying that the Bar-Mitzvah had already taken place. This still contradicts history, as there was no Bar-Mitzvah ceremony at that time.
3. If the purpose of Jesus' visit was specifically tied to his coming of age, as Karl Coke states, his parents would have known better than to leave him behind. Jesus staying behind, asking and answering questions of the rabbis, is depicted in the Bible as UNUSUAL and unexpected. Mary and Joseph didn't know where he was at first. Surely if the purpose of the trip was even partly to follow tradition following a young man's coming of age, then they would have known about his visit with the rabbis and, indeed, they would have accompanied him.
So with due respect to Mr. Coke (or is it Dr. Coke?) the most he can do is state that Jesus was considered to have come of age at his 12th birthday, a half-year prior to Passover. Bravo, it's possible.
Still unresolved is the actual error of illegitimacy having anything to do with it, the establishment of age 13 as the year of coming of age at the time of Christ, etc.
Sorry, I'm not convinced. But I will acknowledge that it's a lot closer than anything Mike didn't say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
On second thought, I'll drop it. I'll concede the point. Not that I'm convinced, but ok, let's move it into errors of interpretation (or, more accurately, speculation without evidence). Fine and dandy.
Nine to go from the original list, if anyone would care to bother trying.
(P.S. Does anyone still have a copy of the advanced studies questions or whatever they were called? I'm interested in the phrasing of the question that was asked about this section).
The Living Epistles Society
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Rafael,
I just dug out a PFAL syllabus from 1971 and from 1974. What is an "advanced studies question" and where do I find it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Maybe I'm not remembering the name correctly, but it's the list of questions AFTER the main syllabus that took you through just about all of the book and the class. Completing it was one of the prerequisites of taking the Advanced Class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Home studies questions? I can scan the ones you want and send them to you. Offhand I don't see anything having to do with the bar mitzveh, if that's what you're interested in, but I'll take a closer look.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's it. The home studies questions. There is one specifically about the Bar-mitzvah, Luke 2:42 reference. If you can just quote that question, I'll be a happy camper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Okay. This was from 1974. Exam 1, Question 31:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, now THAT's an actual error.
Wierwille left himself a little more wiggle room. But it's clear what official TWI THOUGHT he meant.
Not exactly relevant to claims that PFAL is God-breathed. But interesting nonetheless.
I recall doing a home study session as a group, and when we got to that part I told the coordinator that this was a problem for a few reasons.
1. How were we supposed to trust "an old piece of literature" we never saw?
2. The verse is clearly and obviously not talking about bar mitzvah.
I was reproved, but I told him that even if he marked it wrong, it just showed his willingness to put PFAL above the Bible.
He relented.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 17, 2003 at 16:06.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Outside of what Wierwille seems to have pulled out of (somewhere), where does anyone get the idea that Jesus was considered to be illegitimate? (I know Wierwille mentioned John 8:41, but that doesn't mean what he said it meant. Matthew 1:19 would seem to indicate that no one but Joseph, Mary, and maybe some close family knew anything about Mary being pregnant before she and Joseph came together.)
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You know, I've so long taken for granted that Jesus was considered illegitimate that I never questioned it.
I always thought of John 8 as fairly convincing evidence of that. Luke 2 all but certainly is not.
Long Gone, how do you get around John 8? (At most this is going to be an error of interpretation, if it's an error at all).
Please, state your case. You got my attention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
"We be not born of fornication"
Could be the ones Jesus was talking to was refuting what Jesus was saying by saying that they were children of Abraham and Sarah and not of Abraham and someone else-like the maid
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This article seems to agree with Long Gone.
I, of course, haven't studied it in depth, but the argument is compelling. There's one part that resorts to Trinitarian gobbledygook that even the most devout Trinitarian will recognize as gobbledygook.
One VERY compelling point to make is that the stigma associated with illegitimacy would probably have precluded any respect in the synagogues for Jesus. Deuteronomy 23:2 would seem to preclude that. So it seems unlikely that Jesus was widely believed to be illegitimate.
No conclusions, but I am fascinated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
makes me wonder what else I accepted without checking it out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Pardon me for butting in here, but we just covered John 8 in my bible study. My thoughts on verse 41 are this: The Pharisees, a couple of times in John, accused Jesus of being a "Samaritan" to discredit him. The Samaritans were the ones that the Jews believed to be "born of fornication." I personally don't think that verse 41 is referring to the fact that they thought Jesus was illegitimate because of the circumstances of his birth, but that they were telling everyone he was a Samaritan. They were simply flaunting their pedigree and accusing Jesus of not being as learned and purebred as they were. Context is everything.
;)--> the Pharisees by this point were doing everything they could to set Jesus up. They wanted him dead, and in fact, had already tried to kill him by this time.
Of course, this is MHO from studying John this year, and I could be wrong. I haven't consulted any commentaries or anything to see what others think. This is just off the top of my head.
peace, love, dove.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I guess I should add that the Jews thought the Samaritans were the scum of the earth. By spreading the word that Jesus was a Samaritan, they could obfuscate his claim to be the messiah. In the Jewish mind, it would be impossible for the messiah to be a Samaritan.
If you read John through chapter 8 in the NIV, rather than the King James it's easier to understand without waybrain, I think.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Rafael,
According to Strongs Hebrew Lexicon, "bastard" is from the Hebrew 'mamzer'
mamzer {mam-zare'}
1174a from an unused root meaning to alienate
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) bastard, child of incest, illegitimate child
a) bastard
b) mixed population (fig.)
c) born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother or visa versa
Is it possible that 'bastard' here in Deuteonomy is referring to a child of incest or a child of conceived a Jew and a heathen such as an Ammonite or a Maobite ( See Verse 22:30 and Verse 23:3) and not just an illigitimate child conceived out of wedlock between two Jews?
Possibly 'bastard' in English does not fully correlate to "mamzer" in Hebrew.
Just a tidbit worth considering.
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Like I said, I've drawn no conclusions. I just find it interesting. The more evidence, the better.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that no one considered Jesus illegitimate.
Matthew teaches that Joseph intended to put her away "privily." That means, rather clearly in my opinion, that he COULD have done so. No one would have known what happened, unless someone blabbed.
Who would have done so? Long Gone is right: there's nothing in the Bible to indicate that anyone other than Mary, Joseph and Gabriel were privy to the knowledge of the Lord's conception.
Fascinating.
Goey, I see what you're saying. I don't know the implications. Like I keep saying - no conclusions.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Rafael, it has been years since I’ve studied the Bible so I’m not prepared to lay out a full case. I did read the two chapters I cited from Ezekiel, as well as the whole of John 8.
John 8:41 is easy to understand if we look to the verse, the context, and prior usage. (Not because scripture interprets itself, just because that's sensible.) I’ll discuss them in reverse order.
In the Old Testament, “fornication” (more often translated “whoredom”) seldom refers to literal fornication, but rather to “whoring after” other gods. (Ezekiel 16 and 23 are good reference chapters, in which the words are used repeatedly.)
In the context, the Jews counter Jesus’ statements about continuing in his word and the freedom that gives with an appeal to their free standing as Abraham’s seed. Jesus deals with that and goes on. He says that he speaks that which he has seen with his father and they do that which they have seen with theirs. They say that Abraham is their father. Jesus says that if that were so, they would do the works of Abraham. Jesus then goes on to say that what he spoke he had heard of God, which because of what he said earlier, says that God is his father.
In verse 41, after already contrasting his words and the Jews works and indicating that God is his father, Jesus says that the Jews do the deeds of their father. He obviously is not talking about their literal, human fathers. He is challenging their “spiritual” fatherhood. They respond by saying, “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” In other words, “We’re not offspring of whoring after other gods; we have one Father, even God.” It has nothing to do with Jesus’ father, in either a human or a spiritual sense. Jesus goes on to challenge their claim that God is their father and even says that they are of their father, the devil. Nothing in the context has anything to do with anyone’s literal father or the circumstances of anyone’s actual birth.
[This message was edited by Long Gone on January 17, 2003 at 21:38.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Goey: Might be worth cross-checking that in the Septuagint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.