Christians, historicity of Torah?

[Dirk1540]

I ask because "if" a person desired a deeper relationship with Christ that is more than that as a "follower", I don't understand how that can be done with out going into gnosis (little g).

I'm one of the members in here who had extremely high moments of stress in their past, and who has felt the overwhelming presence of Jesus euphoria that I could achieve only through prayer, so I would be one of those members who answers 'Yes' in those threads asking if you have ever felt the power of the Holy Spirit/Jesus (my prayers were always to Jesus for the record).

Never EVER were one of those moments of euphoria attached to a knowledge breakthrough. Now I will say this, knowledge breakthroughs did come into play to increase my faith because I'm such a natural Doubting Thomas, and the knowledge pushed the demons of doubt a little further away from me little by little. BUT the take away is that the knowledge set the stage for me to more often pray with total faith that was 100% free of doubt, that is when euphoria moments would happen sometimes. But those moments never involved anything intellectually deeper than the Christian knowledge of a 7 year old saying a basic, but 100% committed, prayer to 'Jesus as God.' It's the 100% commitment without doubt that was the key, not the knowledge that helped get me there.

Personally I'd say that pound for pound Dr. Michael Brown supplied me with my coolest 'Ah Ha' intellectual moments. I was never slapped in the face with the euphoria AT one of those moments of intellectual enlightenment. So in my experience the 'Deeper Relationship' was always revealed in the prayers without chains of doubt, not in knowledge breakthroughs that may have helped me to release my chains of doubt. Hopefully I'm being clear about the difference.

 

[dlamberth]

I'm one of the members in here who had extremely high moments of stress in their past, and who has felt the overwhelming presence of Jesus euphoria that I could achieve only through prayer, so I would be one of those members who answers 'Yes' in those threads asking if you have ever felt the power of the Holy Spirit/Jesus (my prayers were always to Jesus for the record).

Never EVER were one of those moments of euphoria attached to a knowledge breakthrough. Now knowledge breakthroughs did however come into play to increase my faith because I'm such a natural Doubting Thomas, and the knowledge pushed the demons of doubt a little further away from me little by little. BUT the take away is that the knowledge set the stage for me to more often pray with total faith that was 100% free of doubt, that is when euphoria moments would happen sometimes. But those moments never involved anything intellectually deeper than the Christian knowledge of a 7 year old saying a basic, but 100% committed, prayer to 'Jesus as God.'

Personally I'd say that pound for pound Dr. Michael Brown supplied me with my coolest 'Ah Ha' intellectual moments. I was never slapped in the face with the euphoria AT one of those moments of intellectual enlightenment.

When looking at gnosis (little g), in reading your post it seems to me that experiencing the Power of the Holy Spirit/Jesus was not only a spiritual breakthrough, but the experience changed you profoundly. This is active gnosis at work.

 

[Dirk1540]

When looking at gnosis (little g), in reading your post it seems to me that experiencing the Power of the Holy Spirit/Jesus was not only a spiritual breakthrough, but the experience changed you profoundly. This is active gnosis at work.

Gnosis means spiritual knowledge. I had 2 frequently moving up & down roller coaster rides in my Christian seeking life, one was my fluctuation of Christian knowledge, and the other was my fluctuating level of faith. The 2 did not move in unison. When my faith roller coaster was at its highest heights is when I felt the power of Jesus. Hands down my most powerful Jesus moment in my life (20 years ago) was when I held knowledge based beliefs that today makes me shake my head and laugh.

 

[dlamberth]

Gnosis means spiritual knowledge.

Gnosis is spiritual knowledge, yes. But it's more than that. It's knowledge gained by "inner experience". It's not head knowledge. So for example in your experience of the Power of the Holy Spirit/Jesus you found out what that Power is like from your own inner experience. It gave you a deeper insight into that Power that a a person can not get just by reading about it. So you gained knowledge about something that you would not of otherwise had as the result of an inner experience. That's an example of gnosis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Gnosis is spiritual knowledge, yes. But it's more than that. It's knowledge gained by "inner experience". It's not head knowledge. So for example in your experience of the Power of the Holy Spirit/Jesus you found out what that Power is like from your own inner experience. It gave you a deeper insight into that Power that a a person can not get just by reading about it. So you gained knowledge about something that you would not of otherwise had as the result of an inner experience. That's an example of gnosis.

Considering the way in which Paul used the word 'gnṓsis,' I don't think his application of this concept was as ethereal as it was when used by Gnostics themselves. [Link below]

Strong's Greek: 1108. γνῶσις (gnósis) -- a knowing, knowledge

 

[dlamberth]

Considering the way in which Paul used the word 'gnṓsis,' I don't think his application of this concept was as ethereal as it was when used by Gnostics themselves. [Link below]

Strong's Greek: 1108. γνῶσις (gnósis) -- a knowing, knowledge

That may be true. But speaking of Paul, his conversion experience while on the road to Damascus is an other example of a gnostic moment. I'd like to journey to the past to see how in practice those Gnostics that Paul was referencing actually experienced the Divine. We treat them like a noun or a thing from the past. If we treated them instead like a verb, and jumped into their experience it would be interesting to see what we see from the inside.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That may be true. But speaking of Paul, his conversion experience while on the road to Damascus is an other example of a gnostic moment. I'd like to journey to the past to see how in practice those Gnostics that Paul was referencing actually experienced the Divine. We treat them like a noun or a thing from the past. If we treated them instead like a verb, and jumped into their experience it would be interesting to see what we see from the inside.

What Paul experienced on the Road to Damascus isn't one that Paul seems to associate directly with the concept of "gnosis" as he generally understands it, and neither does Luke, nor Peter for that matter. You might want to study the actual contexts in which the term 'gnosis' and even 'epignosis' are used in the New Testament. As you will see, they have little to do with having a mystical, visionary, or internal experience involving some 'divine spark.'

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a place for visions or other mystical experiences in one's Christian faith. Obviously, these kinds of phenomena have been experienced by some Christians, even by Peter and Paul. But as we see accordingly from their extant writings, their personal visions of Christ don't constitute for them the main focus of their faith, and it's not just some inner light of enlightenment that leads them closer to God in Christ but rather it is the work of God's Holy Spirit as He directs them toward the articulated truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is why we also see Knowledge often paired up with the concept of Wisdom in the Bible.

 

[Robban]

What Paul experienced on the Road to Damascus isn't one that Paul seems to associate directly with the concept of "gnosis" as he generally understands it, and neither does Luke, nor Peter for that matter. You might want to study the actual contexts in which the term 'gnosis' and even 'epignosis' are used in the New Testament. As you will see, they have little to do with having a mystical, visionary, or internal experience involving some 'divine spark.'

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a place for visions or other mystical experiences in one's Christian faith. Obviously, these kinds of phenomena have been experienced by some Christians, even by Peter and Paul. But as we see accordingly from their extant writings, their personal visions of Christ don't constitute for them the main focus of their faith, and it's not just some inner light of enlightenment that leads them closer to God in Christ but rather it is the work of God's Holy Spirit as He directs them toward the articulated truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is why we also see Knowledge often paired up with the concept of Wisdom in the Bible.

Wisdom, understanding, knowledge is the order it comes in Chassdic thought.

Wisdom can be seen as a spark, a thought, a spark of wisdom,
by grabbing hold of it, then what?

what is the use of a spark of wisdom if one does not understand it?

Once one understands it, it becomes knowledge.

Thereof Chabad,
Chochmah-Binah-Da`as


Wisdom, understanding, knowledge.

 

[juvenissun]

If you believe the Garden of Eden and Noah's Flood were historical, then you probably believe God literally revealed Laws to Moses and delivered the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt, so this question doesn't apply to you as much.[/quote/]

You asked a question which only applied to some people, then the question is not much a question. Whatever you ask, some people WILL fit to wonder about it. This does not mean anything to the quality, even the validity of your question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wisdom, understanding, knowledge is the order it comes in Chassdic thought.

Wisdom can be seen as a spark, a thought, a spark of wisdom,
by grabbing hold of it, then what?

what is the use of a spark of wisdom if one does not understand it?

Once one understands it, it becomes knowledge.

Thereof Chabad,
Chochmah-Binah-Da`as


Wisdom, understanding, knowledge.

Yes, you're right. Understanding is also a part of the process of Knowing God and His Will, and we see this stated or implied by the New Testament authors as well. But, none of this is still anywhere close to what the 1st and 2nd century proponents of gnostic-type thought practiced or thought.

For Christians, 'gnosis' is basically coming to learn and understand the truth of God in Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and thereby, we know God and live in His truth, according to the truth that is in all the Scriptures, both Old and New. Then by this, we gain peace of mind and spirit in God, one that may be emotionally felt as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many Christians do not literally believe in the Garden of Eden or Noah's Flood, but the Torah also includes the Exodus from Egypt and the Jewish Laws. For me, the story of Exodus is not only unbelievable - it is also a tedious story expressing a narrow-minded tribal perspective. And the Jewish Laws are equally uninspiring. However, Moses and the Laws are absolutely central to Judaism, and Jesus was Jewish. Jesus speaks of Moses, and Jesus even talks with Moses in the Transfiguration.

How do you Christians fit the Torah into your system?

Now, back to your OP, which I never directly addressed, Cloudy.

Like a few others here, the simple answer for me is that the first several chapters of Genesis (say, 1-11) are highly representational, yet still theological. And more specifically, they are accounts involving Jewish geneology which serve as a backdrop by which to present a polemic against the already existing cosmological stories found among the peoples of the surrounding Mesopotamian cultures (like Old Babylon, for instance).

The rest of the Torah is also made up of representational narratives, but these may have more historical substance in the core ideas which reflect the focal points of the Exodus and God's establishment of His Law among the Hebrew people. Of course, during the actual times when these books were written and compiled, they were very likely worked over and edited a few times. Still, this doesn't mean that they don't still carry within the essence of the original Hebrew narratives. From my view, there could actually have been a Moses who wrote some 'original' Torah that we no longer have in exact form, and it could still be that God used Moses to lead the Hebrews out of the Land of Egypt and through the Red Sea.

 

[cloudyday2]

Still, this doesn't mean that they don't still carry within the essence of the original Hebrew narratives. From my view, there could actually have been a Moses who wrote some 'original' Torah that we no longer have in exact form, and it could still be that God used Moses to lead the Hebrews out of the Land of Egypt and through the Red Sea.

One part of the Torah that you didn't mention is the Law. Probably Jesus believed the Law was divinely inspired with hidden spiritual meanings and so on (especially if Jesus was similar to an Essene).

So what do you think of all those rules about pork and fabrics? It doesn't seem divinely inspired to me. It seems like ancient taboos and traditions. Can we expect that these rules have hidden spiritual meanings when their origins were tribal - you know the saying "garbage in, garbage out"?

The fact that Jesus was enthralled by the Law due to His childhood indoctrination as a Jew, makes me think that Jesus was not inspired by God either. He should have been able to see the Law as the mess that it seems to be.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's pretty humorous. I'd say that you don't know the right people then. I'd be happy to introduce you to some that I know.

The reality is that arguably most Christians don't take Genesis 1 literally, or believe there was a literal flood. There are lots of Christians who do, but it's hardly definitive of mainstream Christian thinking. As such a similar comment could be made in your direction, that if you think that this is how all Christians think, then you don't know the right people. Because millions of faithful, Bible-believing Christians understand that these early chapters of Genesis aren't intended to be read as literal history--and this isn't a new concept, it's an idea present in mainstream, historic Christian thought going back hundreds of years, one can see in the writings of Origen, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas perspectives such as this. Yes, there have always been Christians who read some of these things literally, and there have always been Christians who don't--neither position is more orthodox than the other. But Augustine's words are worth heeding, that as Christians if we speak foolishly on topics we know nothing about and claim as our source of knowledge as Scripture, then we don't merely bring shame to ourselves, we bring shame to Scripture, we bring shame to our faith.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." -St. Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FreeAtLast]

The reality is that arguably most Christians don't take Genesis 1 literally, or believe there was a literal flood. There are lots of Christians who do, but it's hardly definitive of mainstream Christian thinking. As such a similar comment could be made in your direction, that if you think that this is how all Christians think, then you don't know the right people.

LOL. Actually, I refute the generalization that "most" Christians don't take the Bible events literally and it is impossible to say what "most" Christians think about anything, so it is not reality, it is simply hyperbole. Besides that, it's simply not true. And since it is right to take the Bible for what it is, G-d's Word and His truth, the RIGHT people know that So, yeah, the ones I know, know the right way to look at the Bible.

PLUS, if you will bother to actually read my words and not imply I said what I did not, you'd see that I never said I know how "all Christians think". Sheesh.

Have a nice evening. Shalom.

 

[hedrick]

One part of the Torah that you didn't mention is the Law. Probably Jesus believed the Law was divinely inspired with hidden spiritual meanings and so on (especially if Jesus was similar to an Essene).

Are you sure? The only actual interpretation we have from him of the commandment is Mat 5. He didn't spiritualize them there. He looked at their ethical intent.

So what do you think of all those rules about pork and fabrics? It doesn't seem divinely inspired to me. It seems like ancient taboos and traditions. Can we expect that these rules have hidden spiritual meanings when their origins were tribal - you know the saying "garbage in, garbage out"?

I agree that likely they went back to ancient taboos. They were understood by Jews to be intended to set them apart from the nations. To my knowledge there's no reason to think that Jesus expected them to apply to non-Jews. Indeed it's pretty clear that the author of Mark thought he did not endorse them at all. Mark 7:19. Jesus was well-known for eating with "sinners." To the extent he ate at their houses (and I think that was more common than he invited them to a meal that he hosted) that would probably have involved eating meals that didn't follow the rules. This was one of the major reasons he was accused of being a law-breaker.

 

[Robban]

One part of the Torah that you didn't mention is the Law. Probably Jesus believed the Law was divinely inspired with hidden spiritual meanings and so on (especially if Jesus was similar to an Essene).

So what do you think of all those rules about pork and fabrics? It doesn't seem divinely inspired to me. It seems like ancient taboos and traditions. Can we expect that these rules have hidden spiritual meanings when their origins were tribal - you know the saying "garbage in, garbage out"?

The fact that Jesus was enthralled by the Law due to His childhood indoctrination as a Jew, makes me think that Jesus was not inspired by God either. He should have been able to see the Law as the mess that it seems to be.

That is why there is Oral Torah, to explain, even if I see a double meaning, I do not eat just anyhing,
One Sage meant,
"Are you just as particular with what comes out your mouth as with what goes in your mouth?"

Good question.

 

[cloudyday2]

Are you sure? The only actual interpretation we have from him of the commandment is Mat 5. He didn't spiritualize them there. He looked at their ethical intent.

In Matthew 7, Jesus responds to Pharisee complaints about His refusal to wash his hands. Here is a link you can read that summarizes a chapter on Matthew 7 in Daniel Boyarin's "Jewish Gospels". According to Boyarin, Jesus felt that adding the oral Torah promoted by the Pharisees was actually obscuring the deeper meanings in the written Torah. The deeper meaning that Jesus felt was being obscured was His point that it is what comes out of a person that makes him/her impure. In the written Torah impurity is always caused by something emitted from the body such as fluids. The ritualized hand washing of the Pharisees broke this pattern linking impurity to emission. Jesus was not abolishing the kosher food rules, because purity and kosher eating are totally separate issues in Judaism.
Jesus Kept Kosher (Boyarin, Pt. 3)

I agree that likely they went back to ancient taboos. They were understood by Jews to be intended to set them apart from the nations. To my knowledge there's no reason to think that Jesus expected them to apply to non-Jews. Indeed it's pretty clear that the author of Mark thought he did not endorse them at all.

If that was actually the thinking of Jesus, then I would have expected Him to have Gentile disciples and so forth. When Jesus mentions Samaritans and Romans, it is merely to shame His Jewish followers into doing better. Also, if there is any truth to the book of Acts, Peter did not initially understand that Gentiles could be part of the Jesus movement. Later in Acts and in the epistles of Paul, it seems that most Christians think that conversion to Judaism is necessary to be Christian. Jesus obviously didn't make His view of Gentiles clear if He intended them to be part of the Church.

 

[Robban]

In Matthew 7, Jesus responds to Pharisee complaints about His refusal to wash his hands. Here is a link you can read that summarizes a chapter on Matthew 7 in Daniel Boyarin's "Jewish Gospels". According to Boyarin, Jesus felt that adding the oral Torah promoted by the Pharisees was actually obscuring the deeper meanings in the written Torah. The deeper meaning that Jesus felt was being obscured was His point that it is what comes out of a person that makes him/her impure. In the written Torah impurity is always caused by something emitted from the body such as fluids. The ritualized hand washing of the Pharisees broke this pattern linking impurity to emission. Jesus was not abolishing the kosher food rules, because purity and kosher eating are totally separate issues in Judaism.
Jesus Kept Kosher (Boyarin, Pt. 3)


If that was actually the thinking of Jesus, then I would have expected Him to have Gentile disciples and so forth. When Jesus mentions Samaritans and Romans, it is merely to shame His Jewish followers into doing better. Also, if there is any truth to the book of Acts, Peter did not initially understand that Gentiles could be part of the Jesus movement. Later in Acts and in the epistles of Paul, it seems that most Christians think that conversion to Judaism is necessary to be Christian. Jesus obviously didn't make His view of Gentiles clear if He intended them to be part of the Church.

Beer drinkers should take note that only kosher beer is suitable,

You know, He-Brew,

 

[cloudyday2]

LOL. Actually, I refute the generalization that "most" Christians don't take the Bible events literally and it is impossible to say what "most" Christians think about anything, so it is not reality, it is simply hyperbole.

What I have noticed is that many Christians interpret the literal meaning of those early chapters of Genesis such that they conform better to science. For example, the six days of Creation are interpreted to be six tasks that were somewhat overlapping and millions or billions of years in duration. The main character of the movie "God's Not Dead" seems to have understood the Creation in this way.

Noah's Flood is a little harder to reconcile with science. Most attempts seem to imagine the Flood as a local event. That explanation seems to destroy the theology of the story IMO.

 

[Dirk1540]

Noah's Flood is a little harder to reconcile with science. Most attempts seem to imagine the Flood as a local event. That explanation seems to destroy the theology of the story IMO.

Here is an exegetical defense of a local flood...