|
|
Post by alon on Aug 21, 2019 14:19:45 GMT -8
Can you think of any clear examples of anointed prophets making sins in their speech? One example that comes to my mind is David's arrangement of Uriah's killing, although as I understand it, some Orthodox Jews don't consider David to have sinned there.
Miriam was a prophetess, and she should have known better. And Moses himself struck the rock a second time, speaking in anger over the whining of the people just after Miriam's death. This ruined what was supposed to be a clear Messianic prophecy where the rock (Yeshua) that gave water (life) was stricken once (crucified and died once) and afterward gave water when spoken to (prayers in His name answered). Instead this was more like a prophecy of what ha'satan would want, to strike Him again, his fierce anger and hatred over having been defeated possibly assuaged if only he could get another chance! |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 21, 2019 14:35:10 GMT -8
Touchy subject. The Orthodox are a bit different. They are descended from Eastern European converts to Judaism. It is from them we get Yiddish, actually. But they have their own way of looking at things, so it is entirely possible they hold that view. I don't know.
The truth of the matter is that when David had Uriah killed, it was murder. When he slept with Bat Sheva it was adultery. This is why he fell on his face and repented. Had there been no sin, there would be no reason for repentance. Same with the census. You do not count God's people unless He says to do it. When a king counts the people he is saying they are his. That was the sin.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 21, 2019 14:51:23 GMT -8
Dan,you wrote: <<Lopuhin was wrong: Acts 2:41 (ESV) So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. Scripture says 3000, and again, that is what I go with.>> Lopuhin was talking about Acts4:4, not Acts 2. My bad. Yes, in Acts 4:4 5000 is correct. However we cannot say these were the only Jews added to the Nazarene sect. These are just the only examples we are given. And remember many, possibly over half of all that were in Israel were believers, Nazarenes, even before the death and resurrection of their Messiah. And after that, mostly they (not just Christians) stood in the arenas of Rome with their families and were killed for sport rather than denounce their Messiah. Not that Christians are not capable of this. Thousands of Christians are being slaughtered across Africa even today because they will not proclaim Allah to be God. But at the time it was mostly the Notsarim who bore the brunt of this assault. Hated by both Rome and the church, they were an easy mark. And even before the games were restored in Rome, the Nazarenes were killed by the sword and by crucifixion because they would not declare the emperor to be a god over all other gods. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 21, 2019 17:39:55 GMT -8
Touchy subject. The Orthodox are a bit different. They are descended from Eastern European converts to Judaism. It is from them we get Yiddish, actually. But they have their own way of looking at things, so it is entirely possible they hold that view. I don't know. I agree with your interpretation that in the TaNaKh, David's actions were sinful. I remember ending up in an online conversation with Jews who considered his actions as not sinful, but forget their reasoning.
The following Times of Israel article mentions that the rabbis had both views:
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 21, 2019 21:40:25 GMT -8
Let me make Question 6 clearer. Matthew 27:65 (KJV) says: "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can." Pilate's words in Matthew 27 in Greek are "Echete koustōdian." ("You have a guard"). There was some ambiguity for me about who owned the guards that went to guard the tomb. It seemed to me that this this might mean either "You already have a guard patrol, your temple soldiers", or else "Here, you have this Roman guard patrol that I am giving you".
So a deeper issue is to whom did the guards belong in Matthew's gospel: to the Romans or the Temple priests?
John Oakes, on the Evidence for Christianity website, suggests that the guards were Roman soldiers:
On the other hand, Dr. William Lane Craig in his article "The Guard at the Tomb" gives the case that they belonged to the Temple priests:
A marginal note in some manuscripts says: "The Jewish Gospel has: 'And he delivered armed men to them, that they might sit opposite the cave and guard it day and night.'" So my question was if Pilate "delivered armed men to the high priests" like in the "Jewish gospel", doesn't that mean the armed men were Pilate's own soldiers?
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 22, 2019 1:44:56 GMT -8
Touchy subject. The Orthodox are a bit different. They are descended from Eastern European converts to Judaism. It is from them we get Yiddish, actually. But they have their own way of looking at things, so it is entirely possible they hold that view. I don't know. I agree with your interpretation that in the TaNaKh, David's actions were sinful. I remember ending up in an online conversation with Jews who considered his actions as not sinful, but forget their reasoning.
The following Times of Israel article mentions that the rabbis had both views: The Talmud is commentary, not scripture. And often it records arguents or debates between some of the most learned Rabbis and Sages. SO there is often conflict and contradition in it. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 22, 2019 1:55:08 GMT -8
Let me make Question 6 clearer. Matthew 27:65 (KJV) says: "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can." Pilate's words in Matthew 27 in Greek are "Echete koustōdian." ("You have a guard"). There was some ambiguity for me about who owned the guards that went to guard the tomb. It seemed to me that this this might mean either "You already have a guard patrol, your temple soldiers", or else "Here, you have this Roman guard patrol that I am giving you". ... If I am correct, Matthew 27:65 in inconclusive on whether the guard was Roman or Jewish. The traditional interpretation of this passage is that the guard was a Roman one. It may be possible that the Jews would have had the equivalent of local police, but the guard is specifically described as soldiers (Matthew 28:12). The only soldiers in the city of Jerusalem were Romans. ... So my question was if Pilate "delivered armed men to the high priests" like in the "Jewish gospel", doesn't that mean the armed men were Pilate's own soldiers? Based solely on scripture, the men sent to guard the tomb were of the Temple Guard. We know there was one since from the time of the Mishkan (Tabernacle in the Wilderness) part of the duties of the Levites was to guard the Mishkan and laer the Temple. Also: Acts 4:1 (NASB) As they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them,
While I am not "sola scriptura," neither do I look to pseudepigrapha for answers already given in scripture. But by all these commentators you are quoting, it seems to me that the EO church is giving a lot of weight to this tome. So I have to wonder what is in it they like or want so much from it? Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 22, 2019 9:21:39 GMT -8
Let me make Question 6 clearer. Matthew 27:65 (KJV) says: "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can." Pilate's words in Matthew 27 in Greek are "Echete koustōdian." ("You have a guard"). Based solely on scripture, the men sent to guard the tomb were of the Temple Guard. We know there was one since from the time of the Mishkan (Tabernacle in the Wilderness) part of the duties of the Levites was to guard the Mishkan and laer the Temple. Also: Acts 4:1 (NASB) As they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them,
While I am not "sola scriptura," neither do I look to pseudepigrapha for answers already given in scripture. But by all these commentators you are quoting, it seems to me that the EO church is giving a lot of weight to this tome. So I have to wonder what is in it they like or want so much from it? Dan C The ownership of the guards is an interesting issue. - In Matthew 26, "a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people" arrest Yeshua and Yeshua heals the ear of the high priests's servant. So Temple guards were involved in arresting Yeshua.
- In John 18, "a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees" arrest Yeshua, so it sounds like both Temple guards and Roman soldiers were involved in the arrest.
- Certainly, Roman soldiers were involved in the crucifixion.
- In Matthew 27, the priests ask Pilate to appoint a guard for the tomb, suggesting that he would have control over them.
- In Greek, Pilate's reply that they should "have" a guard uses ἔχετε (Have), which can be either imperative (an order) or indicative (a description). ie. His response is either "Have a guard" or "You have a guard".
- It sounds like in this scenario, he would be giving a them a watch/guard ("koustodian"), because he said it in response to their request that he appoint one. They did not already have a guard/watch for the tomb before their conversation. So he was not making an observation that they have a guard watch. According to Strong's Concordance, the term koustodian (Strong's # 2892) only comes up in Matthew and is only used to describe the guard at the tomb.
- The "Jewish Gospel" says that Pilate "delivered armed men to them". But this is not nearly as reliable as Scripture.
- The Gospel of Peter says "Pilate delivered to them Petronius the centurion with soldiers". But since it's not scripture, all this really proves is that some people in the mid-2nd century or earlier interpreted the soldiers to be Roman.
- In Matthew, the "soldiers" are concerned that the governor (Pilate) would be angry over the appearance of Yeshua's body and their failure to guard the tomb. This makes it sound like they were Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb, since Matthew calls them "soldiers" and they were worried about the governor's anger. If they were just Temple guards only following the orders of the Temple priests, and if Pilate hadn't appointed them but only observed that the Temple priests have a guard, the soldiers wouldn't be especially worried over Pilate's response.
- Acts 4:1 does not refer to the "captain of the Temple guard" in Greek, only to the "Captain of the Temple" (Strategos tou Hierou).
You asked why the EO Church commentators were giving so much weight to the Gospel of the Nazarenes. You can find all the patristic quotations of the Gospel of the Nazarenes here: (www.textexcavation.com/nazoraeangospel.html)
Jerome was the first one to get into it. He went to Palestine and Syria for his studies and he found copies of the Gospel of the Nazarenes both in the library in Palestine and being used by the Nazarenes in Syria. For Jerome to repeatedly quote from it and from the Gospel of the Hebrews, it sounds like he found in those writings traditions or stories that had been handed down in the first to mid-second century community of believers. So he had some value for those stories, even though those books didn't end up in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 22, 2019 9:31:19 GMT -8
I appreciate you going over these questions with me, Dan. It helps me think about them much better to discuss them.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 22, 2019 10:28:07 GMT -8
The ownership of the guards is an interesting issue. - In Matthew 26, "a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people" arrest Yeshua and Yeshua heals the ear of the high priests's servant. So Temple guards were involved in arresting Yeshua. Yes.
- In John 18, "a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees" arrest Yeshua, so it sounds like both Temple guards and Roman soldiers were involved in the arrest. Roman soldiers would not have been involved, as they were not under the command of the High Priest. This was a Jewish internal affair until they brought Yeshua before Pilate. The charge before the Sanhedrin was blasphemy: “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” But the charge changes when He stands before Pilate, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Rome didn’t care that He offended Jewish sensibilities, but they did not like a king who did not bend His knee to Rome.
- Certainly, Roman soldiers were involved in the crucifixion. The Jews being a vassal state could not condemn to death nor execute prisoners.
- In Matthew 27, the priests ask Pilate to appoint a guard for the tomb, suggesting that he would have control over them. And Pilate refuses that request. Again, Jews did not command Roman troops.
- In Greek, Pilate's reply that they should "have" a guard uses ἔχετε (Have), which can be either imperative (an order) or indicative (a description). ie. His response is either "Have a guard" or "You have a guard". I think he meant the latter.
- It sounds like in this scenario, he would be giving a them a watch/guard ("koustodian"), because he said it in response to their request that he appoint one. They did not already have a guard/watch for the tomb before their conversation. So he was not making an observation that they have a guard watch. According to Strong's Concordance, the term koustodian (Strong's # 2892) only comes up in Matthew and is only used to describe the guard at the tomb. For the Jews to post their Temple guards at another site would likely require Pilate’s approval. That is why it was said in response to their request. The idea it was a request he appoint one is an assumption, not a fact.
- The "Jewish Gospel" says that Pilate "delivered armed men to them". But this is not nearly as reliable as Scripture. Not reliable at all.
- The Gospel of Peter says "Pilate delivered to them Petronius the centurion with soldiers". But since it's not scripture, all this really proves is that some people in the mid-2nd century or earlier interpreted the soldiers to be Roman. Or later. It’s hard to date these writings more specifically than a period.
- In Matthew, the "soldiers" are concerned that the governor (Pilate) would be angry over the appearance of Yeshua's body and their failure to guard the tomb. This makes it sound like they were Roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb, since Matthew calls them "soldiers" and they were worried about the governor's anger. If they were just Temple guards only following the orders of the Temple priests, and if Pilate hadn't appointed them but only observed that the Temple priests have a guard, the soldiers wouldn't be especially worried over Pilate's response. Actually the Temple guards would have been concerned, since Pilate could arrest them for collusion or incompetence and condemn them as well. And their conspiring to cover it up would likely only occur in house.
- Acts 4:1 does not refer to the "captain of the Temple guard" in Greek, only to the "Captain of the Temple" (Strategos tou Hierou). “Captain” is a rank used by military and police and guards. And often meanings depend on context as much as syntax.
You asked why the EO Church commentators were giving so much weight to the Gospel of the Nazarenes. You can find all the patristic quotations of the Gospel of the Nazarenes here: (www.textexcavation.com/nazoraeangospel.html)
Jerome was the first one to get into it. He went to Palestine and Syria for his studies and he found copies of the Gospel of the Nazarenes both in the library in Palestine and being used by the Nazarenes in Syria. For Jerome to repeatedly quote from it and from the Gospel of the Hebrews, it sounds like he found in those writings traditions or stories that had been handed down in the first to mid-second century community of believers. So he had some value for those stories, even though those books didn't end up in the Bible. Jerome lived from 345 CE to 420 CE. A severe anti Semite, he hated the Jews as much as he hated women. He believed that the Jewish People lacked the ability to understand the "Word of God” and felt that they should be severely chastised or tormented until they were forced to become Christians, the only "true" faith. So I doubt he found this book being used by Nazarenes. It sounds more like it was handed down by some early variation of the “church,” from the 3rd or 4th cen. That Jerome found value in these wirings would be for me a huge red flag rather than evidence of worth. He was amongst the most vile of the early church fathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 22, 2019 18:04:00 GMT -8
You asked why the EO Church commentators were giving so much weight to the Gospel of the Nazarenes. You can find all the patristic quotations of the Gospel of the Nazarenes here: (www.textexcavation.com/nazoraeangospel.html)
Jerome was the first one to get into it. He went to Palestine and Syria for his studies and he found copies of the Gospel of the Nazarenes both in the library in Palestine and being used by the Nazarenes in Syria. For Jerome to repeatedly quote from it and from the Gospel of the Hebrews, it sounds like he found in those writings traditions or stories that had been handed down in the first to mid-second century community of believers. So he had some value for those stories, even though those books didn't end up in the Bible. Jerome lived from 345 CE to 420 CE. A severe anti Semite, he hated the Jews as much as he hated women. He believed that the Jewish People lacked the ability to understand the "Word of God” and felt that they should be severely chastised or tormented until they were forced to become Christians, the only "true" faith. So I doubt he found this book being used by Nazarenes. It sounds more like it was handed down by some early variation of the “church,” from the 3rd or 4th cen. That Jerome found value in these wirings would be for me a huge red flag rather than evidence of worth. He was amongst the most vile of the early church fathers. Well, I don't feel much worth in debating the point about Jerome's use of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, only that I think that the logic doesn't follow that his interest in it is a red flag. The Gospels, as I understand it, sometimes match the LXX and other times match what we find in the Masoretic. The LXX was more common among Greek Christians, so Jerome could have stuck with that. But instead, he studied Hebrew and created his Vulgate mostly directly on the Masoretic texts that he found, even though he criticized them for apparently changing the words in an antiChristian way, according to him. So Jerome found so much major value in the rabbinic TaNaKh texts that he used them directly for his own Bible translation of the TaNaKh instead of using the LXX, and this in turn suggests that just because Jerome found value in an ancient text does not mean that the particular text was some kind of gentile Christian writing. Anyway, this is my impression that I myself have regarding Jerome's use of the text - I understand that you draw a different conclusion and I don't mean to dismiss your views. I had a pretty valuable and interesting discussion in this thread.
Shalom.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 24, 2019 11:54:53 GMT -8
There is another point which you need to consider. Most of these pseudepigraphic works were written after all or part of an original work was lost. There was a valid original gospel of the Nazarenes. But neither Rome nor the early church would have wanted that out there. So it was lost to time and depredation, and a later writer decided to fill the void with his own version. References to the original should not be allowed to confuse he issue, giving credence to quotes from the later, fraudulent work.
Dan C
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
