|
|
Post by alon on Aug 27, 2019 8:56:10 GMT -8
The key to understanding all this is: Genesis 49:10 "The sceptre (Shebet) shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until _he to whom it belongs_ (Shiloh) come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." On Biblehub, the underlined part runs in Hebrew, "Ad ki yabo Shiloh"
"From between his feet" refers to the loins, his reproductive organs. So as long as the line of Melech Dovid was preserved, and as long as Israel knew that lineage, then the scepter had not departed. This, by the way is another reason we know Messiah has already come: the line may still be there, but if Israel doesn't know it then it might as well not be. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 27, 2019 9:26:56 GMT -8
I think the answer to Question 1 must be like you said, spiritual rule or right to political rule, and likely both because the author was a believer in Yeshua as the Messianic king, he said the scepter would be forever, and he knew in the first century that Yeshua lacked political power. Actually Yeshua had, if he'd chosen to use it, almost unlimited political power. Let's assume for a moment He was not God incarnate, but just a man, even if an extraordinary one. He was a genius and a born leader. He was very popular, over half the country following Him. He was also Crown Prince of Israel, and could have been crowned king and led a rebellion at any time He wanted. They even tried to force Him to take the throne at one point: John 6:15 ESV Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
And even as just a man, He would have had a high probability of success. The Jews were a thorn in Rome's side, and in their last revolt about a century later, despite R Akiva alienating and dispensing with probably half the army, the Jews almost won. Rome had to call in legions desperately needed elsewhere. 2 legions were utterly destroyed, others decimated. Imagine what a competent leader who could unite the nation could have done! I've said here before that if Rome hadn't wanted Yeshua dead, He would not have been killed. Pilate's only problem was that he did recognize and fear Yeshua's political clout. And with every Jewish male in Jerusalem, almost all of them hoping to see this "King of the Jews" and maybe hear Him speak, and here these doggone fool Sadducees bring Him the day before the Jews are to celebrate their freedom from Egypt and demand to have Him crucified! He was afraid he's have a riot on his hands, one he couldn't quell, and one that could very well spill over into rebellion! Pilate didn't believe in the Hebrews God, didn't believe in a Messiah. But he well knew the Jews believed, and most thought this was Him standing silent before him. He also knew of Yeshua's rightful claim to the Davidic throne. You bet he was afraid of Yeshua as a man, and with good reason! This was THE man who could in so many ways unseat him politically! I can imagine Pilate calling Caiaphas in private, grabbing his tunic and backing him into the wall and shouting in his face "You IDIOT!!! What the devil do you think you are doing!? Do you want to get us all KILLED!  " No, as both man and God Yeshua had more clout than the Emperor of Rome, let alone Pilate and his ally Caiaphas. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 27, 2019 10:52:13 GMT -8
Good discussion on Question 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 27, 2019 17:53:52 GMT -8
Dan,
For Question 2 (Were the Watchers all cursed as Naphtali's Testament seems to suggest?), it sounds like you are saying that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:4 were not supernatural beings, that 1 Corinthians 11 (about angels and women) is not talking about the episode in Genesis 6:4, that the references to the watchers in the post-Biblical literature was a case of the later writers' overactive imaginations, and that the Watchers would not be cursed/punished at the Flood because the punished Watchers would have to be fallen angels, and it would not make sense for them to be punished more than once (as you wrote: "I see no need... for them to be cursed again.")
Genesis 6:4 runs:
Regarding whether the "sons of god" in Genesis 6:4 were angels, the website Christiananswers.net comments:
The same Christiananswers.net suggests that
The Answers in Genesis website article "Who Were the Nephilim?" gives an argument favoring this view:
But the same website gives a counterargument
The Zondervan article "Who are the Nephilim in Genesis 6?" says about the view that the Nephilim were angels:
Getting back to the main question about the Watchers' cursing, did the Sons of God sin by mating with the daughters of men when they produced the Nephilim? Are the Nephilim necessarily bad? The Great Flood was imposed due to the humans' (and Nephilim's) sinfulness, but I don't remember anyplace in the Bible where the Sons of God's mating that led to the Nephilim was labeled sinful. So it seems that the answer to those questions is No.
Also, let me make the point that when Genesis 6 says "the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men", it doesn't sound like it necessarily means that all the sons of God did this. It seems more to be speaking about the Sons of God collectively, and not necessarily all of them.
In Daniel 4, it doesn't sound as if the "Watcher" angels in the Babylonian king's story are evil. There, King Nebudchadnezzar has a dream wherein "a Watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven" and said: "The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of men.’" On one hand, the Watcher is called "holy" and he fulfills God's decrees. But on the other hand, he is penalizing the Babylonian king, and punishment seems to tend to be a task of demons (although a good angel could impose a defeat on a bad angel).
In the Book of Enoch, the "Watchers" are primarily evil, disobedient angels, but they are chained by other "Watchers", the obedient archangels like Raphael. So the answer to the main Question 2 must be "No", they were not all cursed, or else you would have God cursing obedient and disobedient angels alike for mating with the daughters of men at the flood. And to be clear, it sounds like the Watchers in these later believers' interpretations of the Flood story would be the "Sons of Men", not the Nephilim.
I understand your argument that the Watchers could not be cursed more than once, and they were cursed at the Fall. But I think that a "curse" is a kind of negative blessing. In the Biblical story, Satan is punished at the Fall by being expelled from heaven, but in Revelation he is again chained or defeated in the End Times and Last Judgment. So there could be more than one imposition of punishment. If one perceives that the evil Watchers sinned more than once - at the Fall and then again by mating with the daughters of men or in deceiving mankind in the years leading up to the Flood, then one could conceive of two curses on the Watchers - one being their expulsion from heaven, and then another with the Flood, which punished them by wiping out their offspring, the Nephilim. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 27, 2019 22:16:00 GMT -8
DC: As you later point out, men are also called the “Sons of God.” And since nowhere are we told in scripture that angels mate with women, I have to say they are probably large, powerful men skilled at war. DC: No, I don’t think 1 Cor 6:4 refers to angels waiting to mate with any woman who uncovrs her hair while praying. DC: That’s one way to put it! DC: There is a difference in punishment and being cursed. Their curse is eternal separation from their (and our) creator. What curse is worse than that? Are you suggesting they’d drown? DC: Watchers were simply a class of angel. As you note there were good ones and bad ones. My guess (and all everyone you quoted is doing is giving their opinion), those mighty men of renown were able to take the best of the women, all they wanted and made for themselves harems. They were wicked tyrants. But they were men, not angels. DC: Bad angels cannot posses men. God gives us free will, and I doubt He’d give a demon power to do what He won’t do. They can however influence, but this depends on how much you let them. And the more you allow, the deeper you go, the harder it is to get away. DC: True. DC: That assumes they were angelic, not men. DC: It certainly looks that way. Were there any good ones God would have told Noah to take him on board the Ark. God doesn’t punish without reason. (But he'd have to find a mate and drag her by the hair onto the Ark, which would make him bad anyhow!  ) DC: Mating within marriage is not sinful. But having a harem just for your own pleasure is sinful. It is not the family model established by God. Nor is just taking any woman any time you please. Nor are orgies and/or pagan sex rituals to honor their gods. DC: Again, God doesn’t punish where there is no sin. DC: I don’t think so. Those watchers are good, they just have a task to do. DC: The Enoch we have is not the original. This is one I do think was meant to be a lie; meant to make us believe the book was the original book. The name was assigned to make us believe in the authors fantasy. DC: Oh, they could be cursed more than once. I just didn’t see the need. Mankind, on the other hand was definitely cursed at the flood, with the exception of Noach and his family. DC: You could look at it that way, though I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. But OK …  r DC: Absolutely! I was punished many times as a child- a habbit I am still trying to break! DC: Again, that assumes they were angels running around fornicating with women. Since I don’t believe they were, I can’t really answer that. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 28, 2019 8:25:01 GMT -8
I really wouldn't know what the author was saying, though that does sound plausible. However the council could not have been rejecting Christianity because it did not exist at that time. They were rejecting the Notsarim, the sect of the Nazarines. And of course rejecting Yeshua as the Christ/Messiah. After 70 AD and the loss of the rebellion, those Jews who had not accepted Yeshua blamed the Notsarim for their troubles. Many of the men dead left many widows. They were again dispersed, and were not even allowed to go up to Jerusalem. The problem was that the Nazarenes left the rebellion when Rabbi Akiva declared Bar Kochba to be the Messiah. Believers in Yeshua could not do that. They were persecuted and some killed for their refusal, and so the rest left and went to Pella. And subsequently the Jews barely lost that rebellion, and they became bitter towards the Notsarim. Dan, Regarding Question 3 (Was the Testament of Naphatli's story of the breaking up of the ship "Jacob" carrying dead flesh at Jamnia referring to the Council of Jamnia?), and your answer, let me clarify that there were two leading Jewish rebellions in the 1st and 2nd century that you touched on. One was the 70 AD rebellion that included the Temple's destruction, not long before which a major migration of Nazarenes left Judea on the "Flight to Pella". The second was Bar Kokhba's 135 AD rebellion that Rabbi Akiva supported. Certainly the Nazarenes could not have supported Bar Kokhba's claims and leadership. Before 135 AD, there had even been a Nazarene leadership among the community of believers in Yeshua in Jerusalem. After the failure of the 135 AD rebellion, the Jews were not allowed in Jerusalem.
Also, to address what you were saying about the Council of Jamnia's rejection, Yes, it was especially directed against the Nazarenes, although it also was addressed to "Minim", which was a broad term for the groups that the rabbis considered heretical.
Phillip Long on his website "Reading Acts" sees the ten planks from the broken ship as referring to the Diaspora, although he doesn't explain why. His theory this does not explain well why Joseph left on a separate boat. I thought that the 10 planks might refer to the Ten Lost Tribes, but that does not explain why Levi and Judah go on one of the ten planks, as they weren't lost.
I think that it refers to the rabbis' Council of Jamnia because 1) The author was a 1st-2nd century Nazarene and the Council of Jamnia was very relevant for him. 2) The story itself does not suggest why the port of Jamnia would be the place where the ship called "Jacob" broke up, but this location would fit with the Christian/Nazarene understanding of the schism between believers and the rabbinical community, as well as a spiritual crash of the outward "vessel" of Israel. 3) The dead flesh in the boat corresponds with a view that the Council of Jamnia and those it represented were spiritually dead. 4) The escape of Joseph in the small boat metaphorically corresponds to the Christian/Nazarene understanding that Joseph represented Yeshua as the resurrected Messiah since he was redeemed out of the slave pit that his brothers put him in and became an Egyptian minister. 5) Other interpretations of the passage seem less likely and don't explain why the ship broke up at Jamnia. The story wasn't about the brothers' betrayal of Joseph, because that already happened before Naphtali would have made his Testament, and the betrayal didn't happen at Jamnia. The story wasn't about the loss of the 10 tribes because historically Levi and Judah remained together with some of Joseph, and the rest of Joseph was lost, but in this story, Levi and Judah just get a broken plank, whereas Joseph gets his own boat. Nor would it be about the dispersion of the Jewish community into the Diaspora in the 2nd century, since Joseph didn't have his own boat with Levi and Judah sharing a plank at that point. Plus, the 2nd century Judean rebels did not hold Jamnia, there was not fighting there, and so it would not have been a disastrous break up point for the dispersion even though the story depicts the storm occurring there.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 28, 2019 8:56:14 GMT -8
Dan,
To answer your question "What curse is worse than that? Are you suggesting they’d drown?"
It sounds like if the "sons of God" were Watchers and there were Watchers who were cursed at the Flood, then either (A) there were additional Watchers who fell after Satan's Fall and got cursed at the Flood, with the curse or bad blessing being that they were killed or their Nephilim offspring were killed, or (B) they were Fallen expelled Angels who got an added curse in that they or their nephilim offspring got killed at the Flood.
Let me also clarify that it sounds like under the theory that Genesis 6:4 talks about Watchers, the Watcher Angels are the "sons of God" in that verse based on Job calling Angels "sons of God", whereas the Nephilim would be the mighty men of renown, the hybrid human-angel offspring of the Watcher angels.
You did a good job clearing up Question 2 when you said about the Babylonian king's punishment that the punishing watchers were good, but they had a task to do, since for example chaining Satan would be both good and a punishment. I think the king's punishment of eating grass was not so awful as it could have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 28, 2019 13:26:34 GMT -8
Elizabeth, Garrett and Dan,
Regarding the Birkat Ha-Minim, based on the scholarship, originally the "Blessing" was against "Nazarenes" and "Heretics" as for example Dan referred to in the Cairo manuscripts, which scholars consider tend to be reliable. But then the reference to the Nazarenes was edited out, probably due to relations with the larger community of believers in Yeshua. It reminds me of how there are Talmudic passages that differ when it comes to Yeshua Ha-Notzri.
Not being Jewish myself, my opinion about saying the current "Blessing" is that one should consider the larger issue of whether one wishes to say a prayer asking or imposing a curse on heretics. In my mind, this is not good spiritually, because it's better to direct the curse against the heresy itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 28, 2019 13:48:35 GMT -8
(Question 4) What do you think of Joseph's instructions to his descendants in the Testament to hide each others' sins out of love? I don't think he ever gave such instructions. I would agree that when someone speaks to you in confidence about his struggles with sin, unless there is good reason (like he is a serial killer, or is spreading disease) then you should never break that confidence. Dan C For Question 4 (What do you think of Joseph's instructions to his descendants in the Testament to hide each others' sins out of love?), I understand when you say "I would agree that when someone speaks to you in confidence about his struggles with sin, unless there is good reason (like he is a serial killer, or is spreading disease) then you should never break that confidence. "
In the story, Joseph preceded this by telling how when he saw that the Eunuch paid 80 units to buy Joseph but told his mistress that he had paid 100 units, Joseph kept his peace and did not reveal the Eunuch's lie. It seems like a tough situation. Joseph was going to be under the care of the Eunuch, so he wanted good relations with him. Had the Eunuch stolen from Joseph, Joseph could have kept silent and taken the loss himself. But in this case the Eunuch was stealing from the mistress and Joseph was keeping silent about that fact. It wasn't as if the Eunuch had confessed the sin to Joseph in confidence or even as if they were fellow Christians being persecuted by Roman courts. But nor am I sure that Joseph was wrong to keep silent. It seems like a strange issue. What do you think about hiding others' sins when they are not confessed or in confidence as long as it doesn't involve the risk of bodily harm to someone?
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 28, 2019 13:55:20 GMT -8
DC: The Council of Jamnia/Yavne is a bit of a mystery. Many “scholars” say it was held at Yavne sometime late in the 1st cen CE, that they finalized the Hebrew canon there, and that it was there the Birkat ha-Minim was added to the Amidah. Others (the minority view) say it never took place. I don’t know, but if either of the things usually attributed to that council actually happened, it is more likely the council occurred very late in the 1st cen or, most likely much later. The earliest form of the Birkat ha-Minim specifically mentions the Notsarim:
Since we know the Notsarim were with Bar’Kochba until he was declared ha’moshiach, it’s unlikely this was added earlier. Possible, but unlikely. The rift between the Notsarim and the mainstream of Judaism had not yet occurred.
If the Testament of Naphtali is talking about the Council of Yavne, this would bolster my view that said council occurred sometime after 170 CE, because the Testament of Naphtali was added to and changed over time, not taking its final form until sometime later in the 2nd cen. So this council would have been both important to and fresh in the mind of the author of this addition.
DC: I was just writing about this, so I’ll include your last post in this reply.
The Birkat ha-Minim was written not too long after the bitter loss of the Bar’Kochba rebellion. Had the Notsarim stayed, that war would have been won, and probably with a lot less Jewish casualties. As it was, there were many widows and fatherless children among the Jews, and even those who did not fight were effected by the diaspora and the order that no Jew could even see Jerusalem. They were bitter, and bitter people need someone to blame. Even though the Notsarim were forced to leave, they bore the brunt of the hared, disappointment, and bitterness of the rest of the Jewish community.
The Birkat ha-Minim was written specifically to keep Jewish believers from worshiping with other Jews. To even be found with Messianic texts was grounds for expulsion from the community. And since no one wants to pronounce a curse on themselves, the Notsarim could not say that part of the Amidah. Anyone not clearly saying it was immediately thrown out, or worse. It was said the Cantor could mess up any part of the Amidah but this one. If he even stumbled during the Birkat ha-Minim he would immediately come under suspicion.
I think the Rabbis agreed with you that this was not good spiritually, because the Birkat ha-Minim was later softened and today most Jews don’t think it was ever against the Nazarenes. But the deep suspicion and anger was still there. It may have softened as well, however as the church grew in power so did their hatred and persecution of the Jews. And since the church and the Notsarim worshiped the same Messiah as God they were lumped together in the minds of the Jews. 2000 years of the worst sort of persecution have left their mark. After the Mishna was codified and the Talmud continued with the Gemara, writings started to be more and more bitter against both the Nazarenes and the Christian church as a reaction to increasing persecution as well as the loss of the last rebellion.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 28, 2019 13:59:48 GMT -8
DC: The 10 lost tribes is a myth. We always knew where they were/are. They just didn’t return to ha’eretz/ the Land until now. Not too long ago almost the entire tribe of Dan was airlifted from Ethiopia to Israel in a daring special operation by the IDF. But the myth is perpetuated because people like looking for those tribes and, more than that they always seem to really enjoy finding their ancestry traces back to one of them! Most of these "tribe hunters" think the Tribe of Dan setled in western Europe via Denmark. Denmark, Danes, tribe of "Dan"-- see? It all fits! ... "Really!?" But this is typical of what I've been told by these nuts.
Yes, except more accurately “the authors,” (plural) were 1st and 2nd cen and “some or all were likely” Nazerines.
DC: That’s as good an interpretation as any
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 28, 2019 14:11:37 GMT -8
DC: The higher mitzvah is preservation of life. As you said, Joseph was going to be under the direct supervision of the thief. And he was being enslaved by the mistress. He was in a new culture and a new circumstance, and at that point he needed to keep his head down and observe. This was a pagan culture, and the pagans he would have been familiar with would have treated slaves very badly. So for the time he just needed to gather information, not rat out his immediate boss.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 28, 2019 21:11:47 GMT -8
Right, since he was in the Eunuch's power it would have been foolish for him to reveal the truth about the Eunuch's price changing. But my sense in reading the passage was that it would have been the kind of fault that Joseph was recommending that his sons hide about each other. Joseph said that he endured suffering on behalf of his brothers and hid their faults, eg. their sale of him, out of his love for them. It wasnt just an issue of personal prudence like in the case of the Eunuch. Nor was it a matter of them confessing their sin to him. My impression is that he would have also kept silent had they did the same price cheating as the Eunuch because he told his sons to hide their brothers' faults, without specifying what faults might not apply.
So I want to evaluate this advice. Typically if family members badmouth or rat on each other to the public or to law enforcement most people dont take very kindly to it unless the crime is something extreme, like causing major bodily harm. When it comes to confidants like priests, lawyers, or therapists, there is usually a duty of confidentiality and privacy for private information about the client unless some exception comes up like a risk of a major crime, especially one involving injury.
My sense is that the early Christian and Nazarene communities may have operated with similar confidentiality, while their members called each other brothers, but not trusting the pagan courts or pagan society.
But today we are dealing with a modern society that tends to profess acceptance of Yeshua. This was even more the case 100 or 300 years ago. So it's harder to demand believers geneeally hide other Christians' sins from the public and courts today than it was in the first century.
What do you think about this, like relatives and believers hiding each others' faults and sins, even ones that are not confessed in confidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Aug 28, 2019 22:36:25 GMT -8
Right, since he was in the Eunuch's power it would have been foolish for him to reveal the truth about the Eunuch's price changing. But my sense in reading the passage was that it would have been the kind of fault that Joseph was recommending that his sons hide about each other. Joseph said that he endured suffering on behalf of his brothers and hid their faults, eg. their sale of him, out of his love for them. It wasnt just an issue of personal prudence like in the case of the Eunuch. Nor was it a matter of them confessing their sin to him. My impression is that he would have also kept silent had they did the same price cheating as the Eunuch because he told his sons to hide their brothers' faults, without specifying what faults might not apply. So I want to evaluate this advice. Typically if family members badmouth or rat on each other to the public or to law enforcement most people dont take very kindly to it unless the crime is something extreme, like causing major bodily harm. When it comes to confidants like priests, lawyers, or therapists, there is usually a duty of confidentiality and privacy for private information about the client unless some exception comes up like a risk of a major crime, especially one involving injury. My sense is that the early Christian and Nazarene communities may have operated with similar confidentiality, while their members called each other brothers, but not trusting the pagan courts or pagan society. But today we are dealing with a modern society that tends to profess acceptance of Yeshua. This was even more the case 100 or 300 years ago. So it's harder to demand believers geneeally hide other Christians' sins from the public and courts today than it was in the first century. What do you think about this, like relatives and believers hiding each others' faults and sins, even ones that are not confessed in confidence. Families when I was growing up tended to be tighter than today. And in generations past they were very tight. When times were bad or you needed help, often the family name was all you had to trade on. Deals were made with a handshake, and honored better than with contracts today. If you did not keep the families secrets or in any way dishonored the family name you were worse than a lawyer or a pagan court. And our courts are pagan, make no mistake on that. You marry a woman, giving her your name. That also meant more in the past. But so many men bad mouth their wives or run them down. And I always think "Jerk, when you trash your wife don't you realize you are trashing yourself?" But people don't think that so much any more. We live in a society where people move around and family support doesn't mean as much. Neither does the family name. We live in a country of plenty where we don't face the kinds of disasters that could ruin wealthy families overnight. We have insurance, and government assistance has replaced family assistance. So we don't think so much in terms of preserving the family name. Now transpose those values onto the church or synagogue. You are a member of the family of the Christ if you are saved. Spreading gossip about your brothers and sisters or family members damages the reputation of the family. So does attacking other denominations, other religious leaders, etc. When many of us here first come to Messianism there is a tendency to be angry with the church because of all the lies we were taught! You cannot imagine, but I describe those first months and even years as a Messianic as standing under a waterfall of truth! Verifiable truth! And we ask why our pastors, priests, theologians, et all whose job it is to look into the truth of scripture, why didn't they see and tell us? Well we come to realize they have been lied to as well. They believe as we once did, but they either have not seen or refuse to believe the truth. And amongst ourselves we (still being human) often fell into the trap of maligning Christianity. I did for a while, which if you look at some of my earlier posts here you can see. But say you were someone looking to disprove either God or Yeshua, and you were scouring forums for tidbits to use against believers. And to the world, all believer are lumped into the same category. They do not distinguish. Did I just help or harm the body of the Christ, including Messianic Judaism? Now I am not saying we shouldn't discuss our disagreements with mainstream Christian doctrine. But we do not have to be disrespectful about it. And I am not saying some leaders in both Christianity and Messianism should not be held up as heretics or fools, or wolves let loose in the sheep pen. These are precisely the things we should be discussing! Nor do we shy from discussing our own faults. But airing dirty laundry in public, trashing others who still believe as we once did, maligning other believers or taking them to court over petty problems not only destroys their reputation but ours as well. And often when talking to non-believers, our family name is all we have to trade on. It's hard to lead someone to salvation if they just heard you speak disparagingly about another believer. I think this is what Rav Shaul meant when he said: 1 Corinthians 6:1–8 (ESV) When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your  . Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
Families take care of business amongst themselves. They don't turn their business over to lawyers to be aired in open court. Families suffer loss and even injustice for each other. Families protect the family name, putting that before their own self interest. Because what we live in today is not real. It is an insular bubble, where a lot of bad stuff is hidden from us, but it all waits and watches just on the other side of the thin membrane, like a hungry wolf just at the edge of the firelight, waiting its chance. There may come a time when family, your own or your brothers in the Christ are all you have. So it would behove us all to protect our family names and sto[p all the internecine bickering, especially in public. This is the kind of thing Joseph and all fathers of the time would have taught their sons. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Aug 29, 2019 6:35:40 GMT -8
Good job finding the verse in Corinthians and discussing how badmouthing other Christians can make you look bad. I went to an Evangelical school for a few months but wasn't really a fan, one reason being that they portrayed Catholics as bad, sometimes using insignificant anecdotes, and I didn't have a reason to feel that way about Catholics. The badmouthing had the opposite effect in that it pushed me away. It's too bad because looking back they were better than some other schools, like actually Catholic schools in the 1970s or earlier that hit kids. Ideally, their classrooms should have had a balanced discussion on Catholicism.
I wonder whether in his Testament Joseph is directing his instructions to his spiritual children, in the sense that we are "sons of Abraham" in a spiritual sense. The Testament of Joseph has:
It sounds like he is implying that both his children and his brothers should hide each others' faults in a way similar to how he hid the Eunuch's price cheating and his brothers' enslavement of him. And if his brothers and children should hide eachothers' faults, it sounds like Joseph sees this as a model for how other brothers, parents, and children should behave with their families. And in the New Testament, the faithful are considered each others' brothers like in the passage in Corinthians, so it sounds like this implies that believers should act this way too.
I am looking for a set of principles on the topic. In the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, there is a duty of confidentiality to clients, but their is also a duty to report violations of the rules. In your examples of families keeping their faults secret, which really happens, there is a downside because families could have someone involved in taking advantage of people but keep it secret thereby allowing it to happen more and hurt more people. Plus I dont know if this principle of secrecy should really be applied to the members of religious societies toward each other. There are TaNaKh verses where prophets say to declare sins, like to declare Israel's sins. |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
"
)
. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
