The bible says to not strain at a gnat, but a parable is not a gnat ;)

[Hank77]

Karaites are not TaNaKh Only. They are Torah Only. TaNaKh is Torah-Nevi'im-Kethuvim: Law, Prophets, Writings. Karaites reject the Prophets and the Writings as authoritative, and accept the Law alone, Torah alone. The Prophets and the Writings are mere written traditions to them, not law, and they categorically reject them as sources of law.

I'm not an expert on the Karaite beliefs but I agree that when it comes to the Law it is Torah only. They however, do not reject the rest of the Tanach as untrue.
They appear to use the Talmud, etc. rather like I use commentaries written by Christian men who have come before me. They are not perfect but they hold much wisdom as well.

It's a bit like the difference between Sola Scriptura Protestantism - that would be the Karaites, sort of - and traditionalist Catholicism - that would be the Judaism of the Temple.

I agree.

The great blindness of the Karaites and the Jews is that they don't see the divinity of Christ, which means that they are still assiduously applying (or, in the case of Conservative and Reform Jews, ignoring or defying) the Mosaic laws.

I agree again.

 

[Meowzltov]

No. I'm certainly not kidding. All the parables of the Gospel are not merely fables meant to convey moral lessons, or generalized warnings about what might occur in the future should these lessons not be heeded, but they were actual specific prophecies of what would occur. I should think that would be apparent to anyone who has eyes to see, and ears to hear.

Then again, when the disciples asked Jesus when the End would come, He reached out and touched a fig tree so that it withered and would no longer produce fruit. Maybe it's not so apparent to everyone anymore.

Parables are NOT prophecies. Anyone who does not produce fruit is cut off.

 

[Meowzltov]

I'm not an expert on the Karaite beliefs but I agree that when it comes to the Law it is Torah only. They however, do not reject the rest of the Tanach as untrue.
They appear to use the Talmud, etc. rather like I use commentaries written by Christian men who have come before me. They are not perfect but they hold much wisdom as well.

He is correct about the Karaites. They use ONLY the first five books of the Bible. And no they don't use the Talmud. Any Jew who uses the Talmud to influence how they determine Jewish law (which is the only reason why you would use Talmud) is a regular ol' Jew. Honestly, use of the Talmud is THE dividing line between the Karaites and regular Jews.

 

[Hank77]

He is correct about the Karaites. They use ONLY the first five books of the Bible. And no they don't use the Talmud. Any Jew who uses the Talmud to influence how they determine Jewish law (which is the only reason why you would use Talmud) is a regular ol' Jew. Honestly, use of the Talmud is THE dividing line between the Karaites and regular Jews.

Do Karaites accept the entire Hebrew Bible?


Yes.
http://www.karaite-korner.org/karaite_faq.shtml

 

[stephen583]

Parables are NOT prophecies.

So you don't believe the parable of the "wheat and the tares" has anything to do with how the world is going to end ? And the "marriage supper" parable has nothing to do with the Church during the Last of Days ? How about the parable of the Fig Tree ? You talked about a tree that bears bad fruit, didn't you ? So obviously you understand these parables and how they relate to signs of the End Times and the deterioration of our society. How can you say these parables are NOT prophetic ? I don't get it.

 

[Meowzltov]

The religious leaders were not given power under the Torah to add or subtract anything to the law.

It is clear you have never studied Jewish law. Oral Torah basically gives instructions for HOW to obey Torah.

• In some cases this simply means filling in the details of what is not explained in Torah. For example, Torah says not to work on the Shabbat, but doesn't explain what work is. Is reading work or not? How about writing? What about carrying things? What about carrying heavy objects? What about carrying a baby? Oral Torah looked at the fact that in Torah work on the Tabernacle stopped on Shabbat, and so it was ruled that any labor used for the construction of the Tabernacle was forbidden on Shabbat, forming 39 categories.
• In other cases, the Oral Torah follows the general rule of thumb to "build a fence around the Torah," meaning to make sure that we don't accidentally violate a law. Thus, while strictly speaking Shabbat doesn't start until Friday sundown, in Jewish law it is started 18 minutes before so that if something "goes wrong" one doesn't accidentally get stuck violating Shabbat.

 

[Meowzltov]

So you don't believe the parable of the "wheat and the tares" has anything to do with how the world is going to end ? And the "marriage supper" parable has nothing to do with the Church during the Last of Days ? How about the parable of the Fig Tree ? You talked about a tree that bears bad fruit, didn't you ? So obviously you understand these parables and how they relate to signs of the End Times and the deterioration of our society. How can you say these parables are NOT prophetic ? I don't get it.

Those two SPECIFIC parables are about the end times. What about the other gazillion parables? They are not prophetic. Parables are not prophetic--I'm making a good, strong basic generalization here. <Staff Edit>

 

[Meowzltov]

Clean meats ARE less prone to parasites than unclean meats.

Not true. Try going to a REGULAR health site (IOW not a religious site) and see if you can find evidence that all unclean animals have more parasites than clean animals. The fact that one might, like a pig, doesn't mean you can generalize.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Clean meats ARE less prone to parasites than unclean meats. The clean meats are the meats (and milk) of cud-chewing ruminants: pure herbivores. The eating of blood concentrates parasites. Pigs and lions and bats and eagles carry blood-borne parasites that cows and sheet and seed-eating birds with a crop don't have.

Very True.
And Proven. (not that Yhwh's Word needs any such proof; still, it is abundant)
Especially and usually not disputed "DO NOT EAT OR DRINK BLOOD".

 

[Meowzltov]

I strongly disagree. Genesis was historical and literal. Adam was formed from the dust and Eve from his rib. To deny a literal Genesis is to deny a large portion of scripture.

Wrong, so wrong. Those of us who read Genesis within its genre don't deny it. Rather we embrace it more fully, since we aren't trying to make it something it's not.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="-57, post: 69999188, member: 380403" I strongly disagree. Genesis was historical and literal. Adam was formed from the dust and Eve from his rib. To deny a literal Genesis is to deny a large portion of scripture.
For example Paul wrote:
1 Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
...the NT presents Adam as fact. Formed first from the dust.QUOTE
AMEIN and HALLELUYAH !

A huge religious system that denies Jesus is present on earth.
In Revelation of Jesus to John,
Yhwh warns a lot about this.

The huge religious system (worldly and carnal) had to discredit Genesis.
That is its evil and wicked beyond imagination religious nature (to try to discredit Yhwh's Word and to pretend that it didn't).

 

[Meowzltov]

Do Karaites accept the entire Hebrew Bible?


Yes.
http://www.karaite-korner.org/karaite_faq.shtml

I apologize. I got mixed up between Talmud/Tanakh.

 

[Meowzltov]

So you don't believe the parable of the "wheat and the tares" has anything to do with how the world is going to end ? And the "marriage supper" parable has nothing to do with the Church during the Last of Days ?

I already answered this. These two parables specifically are about the last days. However, that doesn't make the entire genre prophetic. <Staff Edit> The parable of the prodigal son or the rich man and lazarus are very obviously NOT prophetic.

 

[stephen583]

Bible scholars say the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9) relates directly to the ministry of Jesus on earth. Some Bible scholars also believe it has another prophetic meaning and relates to the First Half of the Tribulation Period and the Church extant during the same time, because the public ministry of Jesus and the First Half of Tribulations both take place during a three year time frame, which is the time allocated to the barren fig tree in the parable to bear fruit, lest it should be chopped down by the (vinedresser) who is God.

God is omnipresent. He exists in all times simultaneously. So the assumption the revealed knowledge of God only relates to ancient times, or the present time is quite erroneous. The act of assigning human attributes, traits, emotions and intentions to a divine entity such as God, is called "Anthropomorphism". It is clearly unbiblical, since the Scripture states explicitly God's ways are higher than that of man.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts", (ISAIAH 55:9, KJV).

<Staff Edit>

 

[Meowzltov]

Bible scholars say the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9) relates directly to the ministry of Jesus on earth. Some Bible scholars also believe it has another prophetic meaning and relates to the First Half of the Tribulation Period and the Church extant during the same time, because the public ministry of Jesus and the First Half of Tribulations both take place during a three year time frame, which is the time allocated to the barren fig tree in the parable to bear fruit, lest it should be chopped down by the (vinedresser) who is God.

So we can agree to disagree agreeably on the Fig Tree. However, the bulk of the parables are STILL not prophetic.

 

[stephen583]

So we can agree to disagree agreeably on the Fig Tree. However, the bulk of the parables are STILL not prophetic.

Only if you look at them from a human perspective (way of thinking), which I indicated is clearly an error. So no. We DON'T AGREE.

The Parable of the rich man, is not just a fable, it has everything to do with the problems of our modern world, which is based on greed, materialism and wealth. That one was "prophetic" as well.

 

[W2L]

So we can agree to disagree agreeably on the Fig Tree. However, the bulk of the parables are STILL not prophetic.

Disagreement is not agreement. Division is not unity either.

 

[Hank77]

Only if you look at them from a human perspective (way of thinking), which I indicated is clearly an error. So no. We DON'T AGREE.

The Parable of the rich man, is not just a fable, it has everything to do with the problems of our modern world, which is based on greed, materialism and wealth. That one was "prophetic" as well.

So we can agree to disagree agreeably on the Fig Tree. However, the bulk of the parables are STILL not prophetic.

Could we say that parables teach lessons in behavior and wisdom, and if not heeded can become prophetic in an individual or a nations future?

 

[Vicomte13]

I'm not an expert on the Karaite beliefs but I agree that when it comes to the Law it is Torah only. They however, do not reject the rest of the Tanach as untrue.
They appear to use the Talmud, etc. rather like I use commentaries written by Christian men who have come before me. They are not perfect but they hold much wisdom as well.

I agree again.

They use the TaNaKh, but the Torah is the Law - the rest is dictum. They reject the Talmud as authority, but they certainly can refer to it in the manner you described.

 

[Vicomte13]

It is clear you have never studied Jewish law. Oral Torah basically gives instructions for HOW to obey Torah.

• In some cases this simply means filling in the details of what is not explained in Torah. For example, Torah says not to work on the Shabbat, but doesn't explain what work is. Is reading work or not? How about writing? What about carrying things? What about carrying heavy objects? What about carrying a baby? Oral Torah looked at the fact that in Torah work on the Tabernacle stopped on Shabbat, and so it was ruled that any labor used for the construction of the Tabernacle was forbidden on Shabbat, forming 39 categories.
• In other cases, the Oral Torah follows the general rule of thumb to "build a fence around the Torah," meaning to make sure that we don't accidentally violate a law. Thus, while strictly speaking Shabbat doesn't start until Friday sundown, in Jewish law it is started 18 minutes before so that if something "goes wrong" one doesn't accidentally get stuck violating Shabbat.

I have examined Jewish law and know how Jews look at it. But I think that the Jews badly mishandled their law. I know how they think the Torah is to be used, and I think they are wrong. In this respect, I agree with the Karaites.

But it's not terribly interesting to me because I'm a Gentile who never was under Jewish law. The place where what the Jews did and do parallels something that DOES interest me is in the way different Christians handle the Scriptures and the other traditions.

What particularly interests me is neither scripture nor tradition nor church as such, but miracles, as miracles stand apart as physical manifestations of the power of God that can be examined (and corroborated) by the physics (as in "Yes, that is perplexing, because that breaks the laws of physics..."). A miracle is a thing that is manifest and not deniable, like America to a flat earther. Some of the most interesting miracles answer theological questions decisively. What is interesting to me is that NEITHER the scripturalists nor the traditionalists will generally accept the evidence of miracle (or if they do, only grudgingly) because they are so inveterately prejudiced in favor of their philosophy of looking at things.

For my part, I am much more persuaded by miracle than by either writings or traditions.

That said, in the battle between writings and traditions, I have often observed that there is a fault line in Christianity that divides denomination from denomination, and it all revolves on the degree of authority that one gives to certain things said by the Apostle Paul in some of his letters.

Here, there are maximalist traditions that essentially blot out everything else by the words of Paul (because they like those words...and therefore they believe those words are the truth), and the minimalist traditions that diminish Paul in favor of something else, usually a Church tradition to the contrary.

That's the Christian equivalent of the Karaite spat.

It's not that I don't understand the Jewish law and traditional Jewish concepts of it. I do. It's similar to the tax resisters. It's not that I don't understand their arguments and see what they base it on. It's just that I find their arguments indefensible. Because I don't like to fight with people I just let it go. But in a forum like this things like that come out.