Understanding Judaism

UU

Shalom!

As a secularist who has a deep interest in learning about religions, it suprises me greatly how little many Christians actually know about the religion of the Jews in which Christianity emerged from to a large extent.

I remember last Christmas was in fact the exact same day as the Jewish festival of Chanukah. I mentioned this to my grandmother who is a devout but tolerant Catholic. Her reply was "What in the world is Chanukah? I've never heard of that in my life before!" It then astonished me of how little many Christians really do know of their fellow Jews and their culture, festivals, religion other than that which is mentioned in the Old Testament. Of course, the Jewish lifestyle ranging from cuisine to practises to dress to language has evolved from other sources than that in the Old Testament.

How many Christians actually have a knowledge of the Hebrew language, for example? That language in which much of the holy texts were translated from. After all, Jesus spoke Aramaic which in very similiar to Hebrew. Wouldn't it be wise for Christians to learn Hebrew? (Here's a good website for those who'd like to: Link. Then they could surely read the Bible without much inaccurate and biased interpretation in the English version. After all, the true form and most accurate form of the Bible would be in its initial language.

I was taught nothing of Jewish stuff when I was a Catholic in primary school. Jesus was certainly portrayed as very much European and western which in fact he was not. Now, I've learnt lots of such an ancient and interesting religion and culture.

robindch

> I remember last Christmas was in fact the exact same day as the
> Jewish festival of Chanukah.

Christmas also shares many features with the Roman festival of Saturnalia, though I see that recent editions of Wikipedia's page have been edited to downplay the link. Perhaps it's better to go to James Grout's page on the Saturnalia and note the similarities.

> Jesus was certainly portrayed as very much European and western which
> in fact he was not

The Communists also did something similar to this -- I've heard russian friends say that the facial features of the statues of Lenin and Stalin changed from the western part of the country (where the two guys were locals and portrayed as so), to all the Stans way off to the east, where the guys were given a distinctly asiatic feel.

Meanwhile, in that catholic church I passed through in Kiev a few weeks back, Jesus' picture looked more like that of scandinavian, what with prominent blue eyes and blond hair which didn't make him look too much like any palestinian I've ever seen.

metrovelvet

Actually a lot of Christians do know about it, but I dont think Irish ones do.

Channukah is their festival of lights, which is a celebration of something occurring in the Old Testement where there was only enough oil for one night but it managed to last for eight. [I dont exactly what event this was]. So to celebrate Jewish children get one small gift for 7 days and then on the eighth get a substantial one. Each night at dusk [hebrew word for this I forget] a candle is lit and a prayer is said.

BrianCalgary

I agree UU. We don't spend enough time on the OT. It foretells the coming of the Messiah. Just knowing the NT is like watching the Return of the King and missing the first two movies.

Chanukah is a celebration that comes from Maccabees where Judas Maccabeeus was holding out against th eenemy. they only had enough oil for 1 day but God stretched it to 8. I'm sketchy on my details as I don't have an apocrypha here with me.

Two Easters ago we attended a Passover supper with a local Jewish Christian congregation. What a great meal and presentation. We started by remembeering what God did at the passover by eating the appropriate feast foods and then ate the meal and finished with the Lord's supper.

We went from Moses who delivered the Hebrews out of bondage to Egypt and finished with Christ who delivers us from our sin.

With regard to Hebrew. The scholars have studied it and translated it quite nicely. Any Christian in doing any type of study would have different translations about, yet go to the tools like Strongs for specific words and phrases to try and capture the original meaning.

JimiTime

Excuse me for being contentious, but it is of little consequence to know jewish customs. Long before the arrival of our king and messiah, the jews had been corrupted by their own laws, customs and traditions, losing the meaning behind them. Christ was severely critical of this. As for learning hebrew etc. I've often thought about that, however I found that people intelectualise to a fault. Christ talked about the truth coming from the mouths of babes. 'love thy God, Love thy neighbour'. The quest should be discovering what it is to truly love. Learning about customs, traditions and the like can be an interesting process, but once again I feel it is of very little consequence, spiritually speaking.

UU

I don't know JimiTime, I think Christians should try and learn about Judaism even if its practises and culture isn't nessessarily a huge part of modern Christianity which has become very Westernised. Early Christianity was almost like Judaism onlt that they believed that Christ was their awaited Messiah. Due to evolution and change, the Christian Church apoted a more Latinised, European ethos which is to be seen today.

How can one possibly know fully about their religion when they abandon its roots. Both Christianity and Islam came forward from Judaism which is a very old religion and culture. I think it is paramount to understand Judaism fully as to know so would certainly reduce ignorance which some Christians have towards their Jewish neighbours.

It's like learning about World War 2 without studying World War 1.

wolfsbane

Many good points raised in this thread:
UU said:

It then astonished me of how little many Christians really do know of their fellow Jews and their culture, festivals, religion other than that which is mentioned in the Old Testament. Of course, the Jewish lifestyle ranging from cuisine to practises to dress to language has evolved from other sources than that in the Old Testament.

JimiTime replied:

Excuse me for being contentious, but it is of little consequence to know jewish customs. Long before the arrival of our king and messiah, the jews had been corrupted by their own laws, customs and traditions, losing the meaning behind them. Christ was severely critical of this.

It is good to know where your neighbour is coming from, spiritually speaking. Those of us who evangelise Jews would be wise to learn all they can about how they think. I have an interest in Christian Witness to Israel, a missionary organization specialising in bringing the gospel to the Jews. They work at understanding the teaching and customs of Judaism in its many varieties. Just as Christ and His apostles were well aware of the distinctions between the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians, so we too need to be aware of the modern types of Judaism.

UU said:

Wouldn't it be wise for Christians to learn Hebrew? (Here's a good website for those who'd like to: Link. Then they could surely read the Bible without much inaccurate and biased interpretation in the English version. After all, the true form and most accurate form of the Bible would be in its initial language.

It would be good to have even a rudimentary knowledge of it, as it makes one careful about reading too much into any translation. But all that proficiency in Hebrew would bring is another, personal, translation. Most of us have neither the time nor ability to become so proficient, so we are happy to use a variety of good translations.

UU said:

Jesus was certainly portrayed as very much European and western which in fact he was not.

Yes, the fact is the New Testament Church is not represented by the main claimants to Christianity. Just as the Pharisees were the corrupt degeneration of the faith of the Old Testament people of God, so Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy so departed from the faith as to be not Christian in any real sense. They hold to many Christian truths, but have added so many of their own commandments and ideas that it is a different gospel they preach. Thankfully, not every Roman Catholic in his heart buys into the corrupt theology, but rely instead on the pure faith they have learned from the Scripture.

Real Christianity is but the faith of the Old Testament brought to its fullness by the revelation of God's Son. Abraham looked for that day. Moses and all the prophets spoke of Him. Jesus was a Jew; the first Christians were Jews; the Gentiles only were admitted after the gospel went first to Israel.

robindch said:

Christmas also shares many features with the Roman festival of Saturnalia, though I see that recent editions of Wikipedia's page have been edited to downplay the link. Perhaps it's better to go to James Grout's page on the Saturnalia and note the similarities.

Yes, Christmas is just paganism in Christian clothes. There is no precept for such a celebration in the Bible. I'm happy to use it as an opportunity to bring the gospel to sinners, but I make it plain that this is no 'holy day' and the date is unrelated to the birth of Christ.

Capt'n Midnight

How many catholics know about rites that are different to their own in various types of pordestants or of the greek / russian orthodox ? (or visa versa)
Or of Buddest / muslim / shinto / hindu /taoist festivals or of sikhs ?

Most have heard of barmitzvah / honkia and seen representations of Jewish Weddings. I don't know but I'd guess that there are differences between the varoius types of judaism. And of course Judaism has changed in the past 2,000 years like all religions.

As for christians needing to know about Judaism as it was 2,000 years ago, I'd say they should also know about how the christian church was back in the early days too when priests could marry and all that stuff too. We should know more about muslims because of their numbers and because they shared some similar roots to us. The monoatheist religions of Ancient Egypt and Zoroastrianism also deserve to be looked at too because if theories are accepted then Judaism inherited a lot from them. All religions change over time, limbo don't exist anymore, you can eat meat on friday, women don't need to be churched after having a baby. So to understand christianity you have to look at Judaism as it was, and compare todays sects to then To foster goodwill between religions you look at Judaism as it is, bearing in mind that it is just one of many world religions.

Taken by the number of adherents far more is known about Judaism by christians than for other major religions. Apparantly the Bahá'í Faith is the second most wide spread after christianity and has half as many followers as Judaism, but how many of the general public have even heard of it ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religions

I've always been amazed at how muslims have shown respect to "people of the book" which may not have been recripocated when the boot was on the other foot.

Aoide

http://www.holidays.net/chanukah/story.html

This did not happen in the Old Testament, this historical event happened between the Old and New Testaments and was prophecied by Daniel in chapter 11 of Daniel. The "king of Syria" was Antiochus, who you will read about in the above link. It's a wonderful story that shows that even a small yet faithful group of people can overcome a super power and fight for their beliefs and right to their own religion while under threat of death. The link I provided doesn't really go into all the details but it's certainly worth looking into in more depth.
I think it's very important for modern Christians to have a good working knowledge of Jewish history. By studing this it can help you understand the New Testament better. Jesus was a Jew , after all, and his main audience were Jewish people who understood the customs and history of their people. Therefore by understanding these customs ourselves it can help us to have a clearer picture of his message.
I think the story of Chanuka is important for those who wish to understand Bible prophecy, because the Jewish tradition of prophecy is often to give what is called a "near/far prophecy". Something that comes about in the short term and then also happens in the far distant furture so that the people living in future times have a frame of referance to use to help them understand a prohecy that happened so long ago that no one from that original time is living to help explain it.
Many people believe that Daniel was predicting the troubles caused by Antiochus and a future "king" who will again bring trouble to the faithful. Many believe that the story that Chanuka is based on is a good preview for what is still to come in the end times and that just as Antiochus forced people to worship his image that there will be a future ruler even more powerful than him who will do the same thing and set up an image in the temple for all to worship or die.
Therefore anyone serious in their faith should make the effort to study the faith of Jesus to better understand his message and those of his prophets.

Talliesin

robindch wrote:

Christmas also shares many features with the Roman festival of Saturnalia, though I see that recent editions of Wikipedia's page have been edited to downplay the link.

Actually, it's not at all clear that Saturnalia was the model for Christmas.

Indeed the solstice period, after Saturnalia (how long after varied throughout the history of the Empire) and before the Kalends of Ianuarius, was a relatively solemn period in the Pagan Roman calendar.

So, while the early Christian writers (St. Chrysostom and Syrus anyway) say they chose the date of the celebration of the nativity to coincide with a Pagan feast it would seem not to have been to compete with the main state religion of Rome but with another sect - quite possibly that of Mithraism (Mithras was supposed to have been born on the Winter Solstice) which was also having significant success gaining converts throughout the Roman Empire at the time and which was therefore in some ways in a more direct competition evangetically than Roman Classical Paganism. It's also quite possible that there was no one holiday that it attempted to replace, but that the same factors that led to the Church Fathers in one area to deem it a suitable date may have had analogies in other areas where Christians were sending missionaries.

Bookee

[QUOTE=UU]
it suprises me greatly how little many Christians actually know about the religion of the Jews
[/QUOTE]

Having travelled a bit I believe it's one Religion I've never had the opportunity to become involved in, be it on a trial/temporary basis or a permanent one.
I've been instructed in the Religion of Islam, and believe that has a similar way to the RC Religion; ie "Spreading the Word"..... I think the Religion of Jews is more like an exclusive club, and I only have experience of pressing buttons in elevators for Jews who are too Religious to do it themselves, and too Hypocritical to step out and take the stairs.... !

Aoide

Bookee wrote:

I think the Religion of Jews is more like an exclusive club, and I only have experience of pressing buttons in elevators for Jews who are too Religious to do it themselves, and too Hypocritical to step out and take the stairs.... !

I like this site http://www.jewfaq.org/toc.htm

Here is a good explaination as to why you don't see missionaries for Judaism like you do for some other faiths (I highlighted the section that applies the most, but quoted the rest for background.)

Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does not maintain that Jews are better than other people. Although we refer to ourselves as G-d's chosen people, we do not believe that G-d chose the Jews because of any inherent superiority. According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b), G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it.

Another traditional story suggests that G-d chose the Jewish nation because they were the lowliest of nations, and their success would be attributed to G-d's might rather than their own ability. Clearly, these are not the ideas of a people who think they are better than other nations.

Because of our acceptance of Torah, Jews have a special status in the eyes of G-d, but we lose that special status when we abandon Torah. Furthermore, the blessings that we received from G-d by accepting the Torah come with a high price: Jews have a greater responsibility than non-Jews. While non-Jews are only obligated to obey the seven commandments given to Noah, Jews are responsible for fulfilling the 613 mitzvot in the Torah, thus G-d will punish Jews for doing things that would not be a sin for non-Jews

wolfsbane

Aoide said:

I like this site http://www.jewfaq.org/toc.htm

Here is a good explaination as to why you don't see missionaries for Judaism like you do for some other faiths (I highlighted the section that applies the most, but quoted the rest for background.)

Thanks for the info. Here's another that will add to our understanding of the nature of Judaism:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Aoide

wolfsbane, I'm surprised you chose that link as an example to learn more about the Jewish faith. That's a political website and does nothing to teach about the faith, I actually found that site quite offensive.

wolfsbane

Aoide said:

wolfsbane, I'm surprised you chose that link as an example to learn more about the Jewish faith. That's a political website and does nothing to teach about the faith, I actually found that site quite offensive.

I had no intention of offending you, just wished to point out that Judaism has a broad spectrum. Obviously one end of it will feel unhappy with the other end. But is it enough to describe that site as political? Their anti-zionism is soley based on their religious undrestanding, i.e. they feel that the decision to return from exile and re-take the land of Israel was contrary to God's purposes for the nation, and point to the godless nature of much of Zionism as proof.

To show that I'm not trying to get at Zionists, let me point you to a site of some friends of mine:
http://www.graceandtruthbulletin.org/hagefen/flash/templete/navPageLink.asp?catID=121&subCatID=547&lang=2

IFX

I just read: 'Letters to Auntie Fori', a 5,000 year history of the Jewish people and their faith, by Martin Gilbert.
I thought I'd get a good objective history as I have read some of his other books and think they are excellant. I learnt a good bit, especially about the current siege mentality I believe the Jews have.
However I had three questions before reading the book that I still have:
1. Why do so many people hate them? I don't obviously, but they have been the most hated culture in history IMO. The book gave the reason that many Christians saw them as the Jesus killers in book, but I think there is more to it than this.
2. Why do so many of them not believe Jesus and his "miracles"?
3. Why are so many Jews very very clever?

As an atheist, I found the spirtual / biblical parts of it very difficult to read, but managed to get through it. One of the most interesting parts in it, was Martin Luther's Letter to the Jews - ferociously sectarian and violent. Another interesting part was Gematria - Jewish Numerology. Not because I believe it, but purely from an educational perspective, quite interesting.

wolfsbane

IFX said:

1. Why do so many people hate them? I don't obviously, but they have been the most hated culture in history IMO. The book gave the reason that many Christians saw them as the Jesus killers in book, but I think there is more to it than this.

There may be practical issues from time to time that tend to put the Jewish people as a whole in a bad light, e.g. the financial power quite out of proportion to their numbers. When that is abused - and what band of rich and powerful do not tend to do that? - the Jews stand out from the rest as culprits.

But beyond such excuses, I believe the answer to your question has its basis in the spiritual realm. Satan has many times tried to exterminate the Jewish nation, for that would destroy the purpose of God. God has promised to preserve the Jewish nation, and to convert to Himself at least a remnant of Israel in every generation.

2. Why do so many of them not believe Jesus and his "miracles"?

That great Jewish preacher, Paul the apostle, put it this way:
Romans 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

But God is sovereign and won't let their disobedience frustrate His purpose.
Romans 11:2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

and it gets better:
Romans 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:


“ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

One of the most interesting parts in it, was Martin Luther's Letter to the Jews - ferociously sectarian and violent.

Yes, sadly when Luther left the persecuting Imperial religion, he took some of its ideas with him. It took a while before the Reformers stopped persecuting anyone who did not worship their way. Not only the Jews, but their fellow-believers such as the Anabaptists were villified and hounded even to death.

Such behaviour is totally contrary to the teaching of Christ, and owes its origins to the pagan mind-set that conquered much of the professing church after Constanstine. The New Testament commands Christians to love one another, to love their neighbours as themselves, and to love their enemies. We are to share Paul's attitude to the Jews:
Romans 9: 1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen

Puck

wolfsbane wrote:

Such behaviour is totally contrary to the teaching of Christ, and owes its origins to the pagan mind-set that conquered much of the professing church after Constanstine.

I'd say such behaviour owes its origins to the broken nature of humans rather than any taught religion. If the world and its history teaches us anything it's that humans don't need to be taught how to hate and persecute other humans.

Asiaprod

Puck wrote:

I'd say such behaviour owes its origins to the broken nature of humans rather than any taught religion. If the world and its history teaches us anything it's that humans don't need to be taught how to hate and persecute other humans.

Good point, I agree.

wolfsbane

Puck said:

I'd say such behaviour owes its origins to the broken nature of humans rather than any taught religion. If the world and its history teaches us anything it's that humans don't need to be taught how to hate and persecute other humans.

I agree that is the more original source. But philosophies that are inherited have a dulling effect on moral consciousness. We tend to assume our response is OK because that is how it was always done. By the time of Luther, the Catholic Church (of which he was a son) had over a thousand years of oppression of heretics under its belt. A lot had to be unlearned.

robindch

> that humans don't need to be taught how to hate and persecute other humans.

Yes, you're right -- it's an inbuilt, evolutionary thing. But in order to achieve the levels of persecution that will make a real difference to society, lots of people have to be motivated to do the same thing. And the best way to do that is use some popular exclucivist idea, which can be be philosophical, economical, or nationalist, but more often than not, it's religion.

robindch

> [wolfsbane] But philosophies that are inherited have a dulling effect on
> moral consciousness. We tend to assume our response is OK because that
> is how it was always done.

Well, perhaps it's fairer to say that some people assume that what they think is a traditional response is the best, because they think it's always been done that way.

But I'm curious as to why you should produce this point of view -- in other threads, you've come out rather strongly against "fornication", homosexuality (and a few other things), all supported by a moral philosophy which has been inherited for thousands of years. Do you accept that your "dulling" comment above applies to your inherited philosophy too?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

But I'm curious as to why you should produce this point of view -- in other threads, you've come out rather strongly against "fornication", homosexuality (and a few other things), all supported by a moral philosophy which has been inherited for thousands of years. Do you accept that your "dulling" comment above applies to your inherited philosophy too?

Yes. Any unthinking acceptance is not healthy, even if it is of the truth. The truth welcomes examination; only error fears it.

robindch

> Any unthinking acceptance is not healthy

Good And for yourself, and upon reflection, what biblical views have you found to be in error?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

And for yourself, and upon reflection, what biblical views have you found to be in error?

After years of careful reflection, I am happy to say I have found none of the Bible to be in error.

I have found some of my previous ideas about it to be in error, and had to conform them to the truth I found in the Bible. Examples: God used evolution; man's free-will can frustrate God's free-will; women have the same role in the church as men.

These errors had to give way to God's truth. No doubt there is more light still to come for me.:)

robindch

> After years of careful reflection, I am happy to say I have found none
> of the Bible to be in error.

So, you've thoughtfully accepted everything you've been told?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

So, you've thoughtfully accepted everything you've been told?

No, only what the Scripture tells me. I've been told a lot of un-Biblical stuff over the years, by both Christians and unbelievers.

I've tried to be like the Berean Jews: Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

robindch

> No, only what the Scripture tells me.

Oops, let me rephrase then:

Have you thoughtfully accepted everything you've read?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Have you thoughtfully accepted everything you've read?

No. Only what I've read in the Bible.

robindch

> Only what I've read in the Bible.

So, you have accepted everything that the bible says, and nothing that is not contained in the bible? Or, have you accepted everything that the bible says, and accepted other things too?

Sorry to have to drag it out so, but asking very, very specific questions seems to produce answers from time to time -- thanks

wolfsbane

robindch said:

So, you have accepted everything that the bible says, and nothing that is not contained in the bible? Or, have you accepted everything that the bible says, and accepted other things too?

The latter. The Bible is silent about many things, for example the resonant frequency of a tuned circuit. I learned about that in my electronics studies and saw it in practise.

Sorry to have to drag it out so, but asking very, very specific questions seems to produce answers from time to time -- thanks

No problem. I totally agree.

robindch

So, let me get this straight. You have "accepted everything in the bible" as being "without error". But at the same time as you have accepted every philisophy written in this inherited book, you simultaneously belive that

philosophies that are inherited have a dulling effect on moral consciousness. We tend to assume our response is OK because that is how it was always done.

Could you tell me how you reconcile these two contradictory views?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

So, let me get this straight. You have "accepted everything in the bible" as being "without error". But at the same time as you have accepted every philisophy written in this inherited book, you simultaneously belive that
Quote:
philosophies that are inherited have a dulling effect on moral consciousness. We tend to assume our response is OK because that is how it was always done.

Could you tell me how you reconcile these two contradictory views?

No problem. If you followed what I said in the other posts you would have found Any unthinking acceptance is not healthy. That is my meaning of inheriting a philosophy - the unthinking acceptance of it - rather than your use, the physical inheritance of the manuscripts.

robindch

> If you followed what I said in the other posts you would have found Any
> unthinking acceptance is not healthy.

I agree with you entirely. Whether it's unthinking acceptance of any scientific theory (explicitly required by philosophy of science), or unthinking acceptance of any religious dogma, hatred, or anything else.

> That is my meaning of inheriting a philosophy - the unthinking acceptance
> of it - rather than your use, the physical inheritance of the manuscripts.

Er, I wasn't referring to "physical inheritance of the manuscripts"!

I am referring to you accepting that every word in the bible is true. This, together with the philosophies that are included in the book, constitute "an inherited philopsophy". I do not understand how you can reconcile your own acceptance of every element of an inherited philosophy your viewpoint that unthinking acceptance (what's required for 100% acceptance) of an inherited philosophies is unhealthy.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Er, I wasn't referring to "physical inheritance of the manuscripts"!

I am referring to you accepting that every word in the bible is true. This, together with the philosophies that are included in the book, constitute "an inherited philopsophy". I do not understand how you can reconcile your own acceptance of every element of an inherited philosophy your viewpoint that unthinking acceptance (what's required for 100% acceptance) of an inherited philosophies is unhealthy.

Apologies for misunderstanding you. How can you describe the Bible as an inherited philopsophy, seeing I specifically told you I did not accept it because it was there or someone told me to, but that I tested it and found it true? For many it may well be an inherited philopsophy, but that is a comment on their failure, not on the Bible itself. Any philosophy, true or false, can be an inherited philopsophy if those who encounter it fail in their duty to test it before accepting it.

robindch

> How can you describe the Bible as an inherited philopsophy, seeing I
> specifically told you I did not accept it because it was there or someone
> told me to, but that I tested it and found it true?

It's inherited because you have asserted the 100% truth of 100% of the text of somebody else's decsription of the world. If that's not inheriting somebody else's view, then I don't know what is and I give up on trying to understand how you resolve this conflict!

> Any philosophy, true or false, can be an inherited philopsophy if those who
> encounter it fail in their duty to test it before accepting it.

Which begs the useful question of how you fully tested it before fully accepting it. The only three things which you say that you have tested are these:

God used evolution; man's free-will can frustrate God's free-will; women have the same role in the church as men.

What's interesting about this is that you are "testing" something in its own terms only -- ie, by seeing if its own commentary matches itself. This isn't testing at all, at all, as generations of astrologers will tell you. Have you done any testing outside of these three areas?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

It's inherited because you have asserted the 100% truth of 100% of the text of somebody else's decsription of the world. If that's not inheriting somebody else's view, then I don't know what is and I give up on trying to understand how you resolve this conflict!

It would only be inherited if I accepted it on the word of those who passed it to me. But I didn't.

Which begs the useful question of how you fully tested it before fully accepting it. The only three things which you say that you have tested are these:
Quote:
God used evolution; man's free-will can frustrate God's free-will; women have the same role in the church as men.
What's interesting about this is that you are "testing" something in its own terms only -- ie, by seeing if its own commentary matches itself. This isn't testing at all, at all, as generations of astrologers will tell you. Have you done any testing outside of these three areas?

They were only examples. Yes, I've read the whole Bible several times, many parts many times, and applied my test to it all.

What was this test? Yes, it includes the self-consistency criteria, but the essential nature is the witness of the Holy Spirit with my spirit that what I am reading is His word.

It does not involve the authority of any man or organization, no matter how honourable they may be. So no 'inherited' philosophy.

robindch

> Yes, it includes the self-consistency criteria,

Wasn't talking about self-consistency (which it does not have; cf the gods of the old and new testaments), but rather it's self-absorption. The bible -- to use a mediocre metaphor -- is both fake disease and fake cure. It describes a view of the world, then tells people how to deal with it. If you believe the former, then the latter works. At no point, however, does it ever demand that people check whether or not the view of the world is accurate.

> but the essential nature is the witness of the Holy Spirit with
> my spirit that what I am reading is His word.

And what exactly is "the witness of the Holy Spirit"?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Wasn't talking about self-consistency (which it does not have; cf the gods of the old and new testaments),

They are perfectly consistent.

but rather it's self-absorption. The bible -- to use a mediocre metaphor -- is both fake disease and fake cure. It describes a view of the world, then tells people how to deal with it. If you believe the former, then the latter works. At no point, however, does it ever demand that people check whether or not the view of the world is accurate.

It assumes the sinner comes with every sort of view of the world, and challenges him to abandon them for the truth. Time and again it ridicules the idea of man-made gods, for example. Or that a man is free as a sinner. Or that the world has not undergone the judgement of God at the Flood, etc.

And what exactly is "the witness of the Holy Spirit"?

The impressing on my mind/conscience of the truth. Let me give an illustration: say you were traveling down to Cork and coming to a cross-roads you had the strongest impression that you must brake and pull into the side. You ignore it but it remains so strong that you do it. A second later a lorry tears across the right of way without stopping. Had you continued, you would have been there. That impression was real, even if you cannot explain it.

But in the real case, where it is the witness of the Spirit in my mind to the truth of the gospel, it not only convinces of the truth, but also of the identity of the Witness.