Accepted Scripture

[NaildWithHim]

Friends,

On the subject of the "second resurrection", those words appear NOWHERE in Scripture. In fact, "The Resurrection" appears over one hundred times in the New Covenant writings. This indicates only ONE resurrection from among the dead ones, not two. The "two" resurrection idea comes from the misunderstanding of a single word, as well as a single verse of Scripture (Rev 20:5). The word 'first' in that verse actually means 'better', for it refers to the glorifying of the Saints who are found worthy of such honor. For more information on the word 'first' and it's useage in Rev 20:5 please read this short explaination here: The First Resurrection


If your using the Mozilla/FireFox web browser, make sure you have Greek and Hebrew fonts. Internet Explorer 6.0 comes with those at installation.



Shalom
Naild

[Mishkan]

mark said:

An easy reply is John 5:39:

Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life. They are they which testify of Me.

The conclusion, we cannot know Christ and Him crucified without an understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Unfortunately, there are other translations of that verse, which make it sound more like a prefatory observation: "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life." With such a reading in hand, this person will conclude that, if we know Messiah, then there is no more need to study the and the Prophets—we already have the goal of that which was written.

Personally, I agree with you. In fact, I would go farther, and say that we cannot properly understand Messiah without both the Written Scriptures AND an understanding of the rabbinic definitions for the Messianic expectation. There are no sticky notes in the Hebrew Bible announcing, "This is a messianic passage!" We are dependent upon the rabbis to tell us which passages were considered Messianic in the first century.

But some people are scared to admit this dependency.

[NaildWithHim]

Hmmmm, Mishkan is more learned than I thought.

You don't need a Hebrew or Greek rendition of Salvation folks. That is, unless you don't believe that which is written. Nature itself is a witness of YHVH:

(Rom 1:20)
For since the creation of the cosmos, His unseen attributes, His everlasting power and Divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made (ie-mankind in general), so that they are without excuse.



Shalom
Naild

[Mishkan]

naildwithhim said:

Hmmmm, Mishkan is more learned than I thought.

I'm still trying to decide if that statement was made tongue-in-cheek. ;D

naildwithhim said:

You don't need a Hebrew or Greek rendition of Salvation folks.

I may just be dense tonight, but I don't understand this statement, either. We don't need an original language "rendition" of salvation? What do you mean by this? Maybe my blood sugar is just too high, and I am having brain cramps?

naildwithhim said:

That is, unless you don't believe that which is written. Nature itself is a witness of YHVH:

(Rom 1:20)
For since the creation of the cosmos, His unseen attributes, His everlasting power and Divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made (ie-mankind in general), so that they are without excuse.

Yes, nature testifies to the power and glory of the Ultimate Creator. That is known as, "General Revelation." But the text says nothing of salvation. That this Master of the Universe deigned to reach down and rescue his creation is only known through what is called, "Special Revelation."

Shalom.

[Mark]

Hi Mishkan,

I understand your frustration. It's not too terribly unlike those who have come to me saying, "See, it says right here in Scripture that it's okay to eat unclean meats." Then I look to find the "Scripture" they are referring to is Matthew Henry's Commentary.

I suppose I'm just as guilty of jumping from one translation to another to find justthe one that best presents my argument. Such is why this thread is so pertinent and necessary: what is accepted Scripture, what do we acknowledge as authoritative. What did Paul mean when he penned 2nd Timothy 3:16-17?

I was hoping that such a quick easy (concise) answer could silence your oponent. Obviously, he (or she) has some training from a dispensationalist view (you have to be TAUGHT to pull such conclusions out of the text because you could certainly never draw them out just by reading them).

I used to enjoy the debate between our perspective and that of the Church (loosely defined). I haven't much time for it anymore. If they refuse to consider that all Scripture is inspired and consistent, then we disagree on the foundational premise whereby we each will validate our argument. Interesting that the writers of the New Testament consistently used the Tanakh to validate their message. If they ever once contradicted the Tanakh, their entire platform for debate would have been shattered. It is frustrating that in political debate we often use this strategy to prove the worthlessness of a candidate: that he speaks one thing to one audience and a contradicting message to another; but in our faith such hypocrisy is legitimized. No wonder the world around us has so given up on our religion.

I'm hoping that Nailed's comment was intended as complimentary. If so, I echo the acknowledgment that you have spent time in learning to understand the truths of Scripture and I welcome your presence with us here in this forum with a great deal of enthusiasm. While I pass myself off often as a teacher, I have very much to learn.

[Mishkan]

mark said:

I understand your frustration. It's not too terribly unlike those who have come to me saying, "See, it says right here in Scripture that it's okay to eat unclean meats." Then I look to find the "Scripture" they are referring to is Matthew Henry's Commentary.

LOL! Yes, I am frequently amazed by the number of people who think Acts 10 is about food. I am torn between the fact that each new individual is a unique case, as opposed to my own sense of having dealt with this same topic too many times.

Funny you should mention "Matthew Henry's Commentary". I actually bought one of those when I was a young believer. It only took me a few months to decide that there was too much subjective material, and not enough factual text to keep my attention. Now that I've matured a bit, I've come to see this in terms of Pardes—there is lots of sod, and very little recognition of the need for the p'shat meaning.

mark said:

I suppose I'm just as guilty of jumping from one translation to another to find just the one that best presents my argument.

I think we are all guilty of doing that, to one degree or another. That's why I consider it quite important to learn the original languages. If you are dependent upon English translations, then you will tend to go on hunts for supporting wording. But if you know how to use a lexicon, and are familiar with the syntax of the original languages, then you are able to do your own original research.

mark said:

Such is why this thread is so pertinent and necessary: what is accepted Scripture, what do we acknowledge as authoritative. What did Paul mean when he penned 2nd Timothy 3:16-17?

Oh, he quite certainly meant the Hebrew Bible when he wrote that. Of that, there is no doubt.

mark said:

I was hoping that such a quick easy (concise) answer could silence your oponent. Obviously, he (or she) has some training from a dispensationalist view (you have to be TAUGHT to pull such conclusions out of the text because you could certainly never draw them out just by reading them).

In my experience, all Christians are taught to have a, "That was then, this is now," perspective of the Bible. When they are young believers, they are taught to start out reading the Gospel of John, then Roman and Galatians. Then, when they ask questions about the rest of the Bible, their preachers will tell them that the earlier parts of the Bible are no longer relevant. It's not really a formally "dispensational" view. But yes, there is definitely a sense of, "Once there was , but now there is Grace."

There is an excellent book out by R. Kendall Soulen, called, "The God of Israel and Christian Theology". Soulen points out that, of all the details provided in the Bible, Christians tend to focus on about four key points:

• Creation
  
• Fall
  
• Salvation
  
• Final Restoration
  

If you'll notice, the thing that is missing from this overview is... the entirety of Israeli history. So, the flaw is not in the Scriptures, but in the outline we superimpose over the Scriptures. The technical term applied to this assumed outline is, the "meta-narrative".

mark said:

I used to enjoy the debate between our perspective and that of the Church (loosely defined). I haven't much time for it anymore.

Yes, I agree. I've been doing this online thing since 1997, and it has gotten real old.

mark said:

If they refuse to consider that all Scripture is inspired and consistent, then we disagree on the foundational premise whereby we each will validate our argument.

Yep.

mark said:

Interesting that the writers of the New Testament consistently used the Tanakh to validate their message. If they ever once contradicted the Tanakh, their entire platform for debate would have been shattered. It is frustrating that in political debate we often use this strategy to prove the worthlessness of a candidate: that he speaks one thing to one audience and a contradicting message to another; but in our faith such hypocrisy is legitimized. No wonder the world around us has so given up on our religion.

Absolutely. The problem I find most often is that church people lack the training in rabbinic methodology. Many of the uses of the Tanakh by the Messianic writers are non-literal applications of remez or sod. When church people read these, they often think that the remez interpretation is supposed to replace the literal meaning of the Tanakh text. Thus, they end up in a situation of insisting that the allegorical interpretation is the "literal" meaning, while forcing a non-literal interpretation upon the original literal text. They take the literal as allegory, and the allegory as literal!

It is truly a strange situation.

mark said:

I'm hoping that Nailed's comment was intended as complimentary. If so, I echo the acknowledgment that you have spent time in learning to understand the truths of Scripture and I welcome your presence with us here in this forum with a great deal of enthusiasm.

I appreciate that, my friend. I also look forward to learning with this group of knowledgeable leaders.

[NaildWithHim]

I'm hoping that Nailed's comment was intended as complimentary.

Yes, as a matter of fact it was a compliment. I am often plagued with being taken out of context, or people assuming that I'm attacking them. This can be most frustrating at times. Passion for the Word of G-d can sometimes be seen as railing, in my experience. That's why I no longer post on forums as much as I used to.



Shalom
Naild

[NaildWithHim]

I would also like to give some clarification on a verse of Scripture that was taken out of context in this thread. Of course, this is not the fault of the person who posted it, but rather, the English translators of the Greek text. I do NOT wish to discuss the doctrine of the "Immortal Soul", however, this verse was used as a 'proof text'........

(Luk 23:43) And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

In light of many other passages, this is an obvious error to the trained Bible student. How can this be you ask? Simple. For in the Gospel account of the Apostle Yochanan we read:

John 20:1 with John 20:17

(John 20:1) Now on the first of the week, Miriam of Magdala came early to the tomb, while there was still darkness, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

(John 20:17) Yeshua said to her, "Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

So you see, it is absolutely impossible that Yeshua would have told the thief that he would be in paradise with Him that very day. However, there is a simple solution. The Greek language does not make use of the English comma, this was added by the translators. Obviously to uphold thier own theology. This is not uncommon either. If you simply move the comma back a single space it then makes sense, and would read:


(Luke 23:43) And He said to him, "Truly I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise."



This makes perfect sense now doesn't it? Especially when you take into consideration the statement the thief made just prior to Yeshua's comment to him:

(Luk 23:42) And he said, "Yeshua, remember me when You come into Your Kingdom."


Yeshua did NOT establish the Kingdom that very day folks. If He did then why the comment by His most beloved disciples AFTER having been taught by the risen Savior for 40 days and 40 nights:

(Act 1:6) And when they had gathered together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Yisrael?"


So you see, "The thief on the cross" text which is so loudly trumpeted by Churchianity isn't even an accurate translation.


Just thought I would throw in my two cents after having studied this discrepancie many times over in Greek.



Shalom
Naild

[Firestorm]

You bring up some great points in your latest posting Naild. You learn something new every day and it never occurred to me, in all the times I've looked at that passage, to move the comma ! (If you haven't read it already, you might get a kick out of a little book on the perils of punctuation called Eats, Shoots and Leaves )
I'm just cutting my teeth on Hebrew and don't know a lot about Greek. I knew someone who took both Hebrew and Greek at Bible College; she said she had no problem with Hebrew, but found Greek much tougher in terms of understanding the syntax and grammar.

[Mishkan]

naildwithhim said:

I'm hoping that Nailed's comment was intended as complimentary.

[/size][/quote]

Yes, as a matter of fact it was a compliment.[/quote]
I suspected so. I just wanted to clarify. Thanks.

naildwithhim said:

I am often plagued with being taken out of context, or people assuming that I'm attacking them. This can be most frustrating at times. Passion for the Word of G-d can sometimes be seen as railing, in my experience. That's why I no longer post on forums as much as I used to.

Exactly. It is my understanding that the whole purpose of this forum is to foster open dialog without that negativity. We're trying to build a sense of community that will allow us to work out a Messianic theology without the attacks that can be so prevalent.

If one of the founding members wants to step in here, and correct me, feel free.

Shalom,

Mishkan David

[Mark]

English is a terrible language. I say this, I believe with some authority, having made my living by writing once upon a time. English was not designed to be written. Had we heard Nailed make his comment, there would have been no doubt of his meaning because English is made up of three elements: the words themselves, the inflection or tone of voice (emphasis given on certain words) and context (to include body language, surrounding elements of context, and cultural significance). When we read the written word (in English) we reduce a three-dimensional language to one dimension. It is very easy to confuse the message, particularly when the spoken language is not nearly so confined by rules and procedure as is the written version.

Knowledge of and understanding the original languages of the Bible is valuable, even simply because they are superior languages; yet, I am loathe to suggest that they are necessary for us to seek and find the will and grace of Adonai.

The Scriptures are folded over and over upon themselves in such a way so as to prevent mis-interpretation. Nailed's example is neatly done- even in English, we can find the truth of the Word.

I say this because it is our tendancy to lord over others our understanding of the original languages. It's easy to say, "You should believe what I'm telling you because I can read it in Hebrew." That's dangerous; and I believe, demeaning to the power of the Holy Spirit which transcends language. There are some occasions when it is necessary to take someone to the original language to bring clarity to a text; but in most cases, I prefer to use the knowledge toolbox that my companion has brought with them. I think it better to use the skill that they have already to show the truth of God's Word so that they are not left having to trust me and my superior education, rather they can see it for themselves.

This is necessary to understanding what we hold as "accepted Scripture". My favorite analogy is familiar to boaters who visit the coast. The rest of you will have to just visualize as best you can. There is a series of tower lights, five or six of them, that go up into the hills behind the harbor. They look something like radio towers, except a little smaller; and far too close together for that purpose. They are called channel markers. If you're driving down the highway, they appear randomly placed; but if you view the frm the ocean, their intended purpose could save your life. When steering your boat into the harbor, you want to line them up so that you can see only one- so that they are perfectly lined up one behind the other. This will steer you safely into the harbor. If they are not lined up, then you are not coming in straight and may likely crash on the rocks.

The Bible is folded over on itself just like those channel markers and when we read and interpretthe Bible for consistemcy, we theologically steer clear of the rocks. If we allow one of our doctrines to not line up or ignore what appears a contradiction, we are in danger. This method works regardless of language. While I also promote and actively practice study in the original languages, I do not suggest that one who only knows English is any lesser the biblical scholar.

It's not so much what you know as it is what you do with what you know. If you know or you are learning Greek or Hebrew, I commend you. There is great value in that ability. If you don't know the languages, don't feel that there is nothing you have to offer in the study of Scripture.

[Mishkan]

mark said:

English is a terrible language.

Mark,

I don't think I "get" the point of your post. Was there a purpose in this discussion of the English language? Did this have something to do with a statement I made?

[Rick]

My dear friends. I am as guilty as the next person of getting lost in the minutiae of trying to analyze, rationalize, or emphasize a particular book, passage, principle or viewpoint. As I was 'thumbing' to find a verse to illustrate an 'opinion', these verses seemed to stand out as if highlighted;

For faithful is the Word, for if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we do not believe Him, yet He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself. Put them in memory of these things, charging them before the Lord not to dispute about words to no profit, to the subverting of the hearers. Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.
But shun profane, vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. (2Tim 2:11-16)

It was time to step back from the twig with my magnifying glass and stand in awe of the majesty of the forest.
I fear the Marcionite tendency to question verses, chapters, or entire books, that don't fit our theology. If the Scriptures cannot be relied upon as "divine revelation", then my 'Theology' holds little value.
I should be praying instead of typing.
Shalom Mishpachah
Rick

[Mark]

I'm sorry if my statements lacked the implied context. There were a couple of phrases that jumped out at me- I think one from you and one from Nailed. I'm not in a place where I can get to them right now to give youa direct quote; but I fear that we easily and unknowinlgly alienate many by our in-hand use of the original languages. And really, my diatribe was was somewhat of a disappointment regarding that fact.

It's easily to become smug and say, "If you don't understand Hebrew, you can't really understand the Bible." Even to say, without understanding the rabbinical methodology, I think we are limiting the authoritative power of the Scriptures administrated through the Spirit of God.

If only we could accept the authority of the , and nothing else, we would have all that we need. The rest is icing. It's a Dayanu sort of thing. If only He had given us the it would have been enough; yet He also gave us the hafTorah and the Brit Hadashah. It sort of reminds me of a song.

We read the Scriptures (speaking of my own fellowship) on three levels. There is the (the Five books of Moses) which is Scripture- wholly inspired, directly from Adonai.

The second level is the rest of what we consider Canon: the remaining 61 books found in most Bibles. These we consider commentary under the direct superintendance of Adonai.

The third level is tradition and Talmud or human commentary, which has merit so long as it lines up consistently with . I've even quoted Matthew Henry on ocassion, prefacing it that even Caiaphas got it right once.

The Scriptures we possess as the Bible wasn't picked out of a mass of theological writings (as some suppose) in such a way as to defend a particular outlook. Among the leaders of the Church in the 3rd Century (some actually being godly men) it was simply acknowledged what was commonly used among them in public worship. These volumes were chosen (allowed) because they were universally agreed upon based on the following criteria: consistency in thought (there is no contradiction in the message- regardless of what the modern Church teaches), universally accepted and used publicly among all the leaders present, and (my favorite word of all time) Christocentricity-that everything in Scripture consistently points toward or revolves around the person of Messiah. It's interesting, and noteable that the only writings that were of debate were of the Brit Hadashah. The entire Jewish Tanakh was unchallenged as inspired Scripture.

[Mishkan]

mark said:

I'm sorry if my statements lacked the implied context. There were a couple of phrases that jumped out at me- I think one from you and one from Nailed. I'm not in a place where I can get to them right now to give youa direct quote; but I fear that we easily and unknowinlgly alienate many by our in-hand use of the original languages.

Mark,

No problem at all. I appreciate you filling in the blanks with this post.

mark said:

It's easily to become smug and say, "If you don't understand Hebrew, you can't really understand the Bible."

You're right.

And I agree with everything else you have written here. If I ever said anything that seemed to imply otherwise, let it be counted as though it had never been said. (Since you started a Passover theme with "Dayeinu" ).