Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Stephen could not have been an apostle. There is no evidence that he was a witness, nor did he know that Torah was ordained by YHWH - not by the angels, as he claimed! (Acts 7:53)
See Deuteronomy 33:2 in conjunction with Psalm 68:17.
Some Rabbis of old saw in those readings a distinct understanding that angels were there at Mount Sinai.
Read also Galatians 3:19-20 and Hebrews 2:2
Absolutely. Another great example of the need for study the extra-biblical materials, so we understand the theological landscape of what we read in the Bible. Over my lifetime, I have gone from a strict "sola scriptura" to realizing that the Bible contains only the tip of an iceberg.
I think it is pretty arrogant to go around judging people who lived in the events, and whose statements have been approved since earliest generations of believers. They certainly wouldn't have said stupid things that were easily identified as error or heresy. It is we who need to be taught be them, not the other way around.
It is one thing to evaluate varying techniques of interpretation, and identify just how we wish to take the words of Stephen (in this case). It is something else entirely to accuse him of blatant error (or in Paul's case, to accuse him of conscious deceit).
IndeedSee Deuteronomy 33:2 in conjunction with Psalm 68:17.
Some Rabbis of old saw in those readings a distinct understanding that angels were there at Mount Sinai.
Read also Galatians 3:19-20 and Hebrews 2:2
I agree with you to a point. There is much to be learned in the histories, archeology and even fables of the past.
But anything that does not align with scripture when taken in context, including science and archeology, must be wrong. No other books or commentaries are inspired, and all have errors to different degrees.
See Deuteronomy 33:2 in conjunction with Psalm 68:17.
Some Rabbis of old saw in those readings a distinct understanding that angels were there at Mount Sinai.
Read also Galatians 3:19-20 and Hebrews 2:2
Oh, I agree. But, the person who I quoted obviously does not, hence my little emoticon closing its ears, 'cause I don't want to hear people who don't believe the entire NT is inspired (the poster I quoted believe Stephen was mistaken when he wrote what he did).
I agree. We need, also, to remember that we have only a small fraction of what went on in those days; there is far more that happened of which we have no knowledge, so we therefore have to ask ourselves why the writers chose only the bits they did to share with us - what was so important about those events, issues, problems or joys that they just felt compelled to write down for us. We can glibly say that G_d inspired them to write to it - but why? Why those bits over all the other bits of life and society in first century life as believers in Yeshua?
When we have learned to cope with that we have to be aware of our own baggage - known or not known - and seek a system of checks and balances to ensure we are not reading into The Book what we would like to see it say, or throwing out what it does say, quite plainly. Reading The Book for all it's worth is NOT for the faint-hearted!
The problem I see comes from this idea of "does not align with Scripture". Unless one is conversant with the contemporary material available, one has no idea whether s/he is correctly interpreting the Bible, right from the get-go. We can only pour our own life experiences and interpretations into the ancient text, and assume that we have created a correct interpretive framework based on our own assumptions. This is the very definition of eisegesis.
After reading both rabbinics and the Biblical text for a number of years, I see increasing parallels in terminology and theology.
But I do note that you mention "taken in context, including science and archeology".
I'm not sure if that includes religious writings, or whether they were deliberately excluded from your list. They have to be taken into account, if one wishes to follow the religious discussions of the day. If we aren't aware of the hot topics, and the various positions held in the debates, we are back to what I described above--our interpretation is only as good as our own reasoning. I view this as a form of arrogance, since there were people living back then who were a lot smarter than we are. Even when they were ultimately proven wrong, we can only benefit from taking their ponderings into consideration.
It was only a few years, even after I joined CF, that I fought against the Talmud. I kept being told that a beginning of understanding of Torah was linked intrinsically with Oral Torah (Talmud) and I fought that idea tooth and nail. NOW, I 'see' what those people were talking about. It doesn't mean one has to accept and follow to the letter everything that is written in those works (Talmud, Mishna, Gemara, etc.), but without them, far too much is left to faulty Christian commentators. Those works bring the life and times of Yeshua and his followers to life, complete with vivid colors and patchwork.
As it is with any material, there is reasons and information with it. If you have a problem with biology book because it was written with evolutionary comments, will it stop you from continuing with that education class on your way to getting your degree? How often in life are we thrown dross? How often do we wade through it all just to get to the little gem that is beneficial. Just because it is not scripture, but closely related doesn't make it forbidden. It is like a protestant studying early church father material. It is not the material that is dangerous it is the person reading it. Not all that read the material are influenced, so I say those weak in the faith should not read it until they have a strong anchor in the truth and are not stumbling over or falling for the pit falls.The problem is that those who wrote the talmud were vehemently opposed to the messianic faith, and as such, it can not be trusted by messianics. It also contains tradition borrowed from Babylon and fences around the Torah that we are forbidden to create. I'm sure there are some good things in the koran and the i ching too, but I'm not going to wade through the dross to find it.
As it is with any material, there is reasons and information with it. If you have a problem with biology book because it was written with evolutionary comments, will it stop you from continuing with that education class on your way to getting your degree? How often in life are we thrown dross? How often do we wade through it all just to get to the little gem that is beneficial. Just because it is not scripture, but closely related doesn't make it forbidden. It is like a protestant studying early church father material. It is not the material that is dangerous it is the person reading it. Not all that read the material are influenced, so I say those weak in the faith should not read it until they have a strong anchor in the truth and are not stumbling over or falling for the pit falls.
Most people who read other works by different faith, do so to gain the knowledge to relate to the other. It isn't to change, or be converted to that faith. I am not saying it won't happen to some degree, if it speaks to the heart of the reader on a material that has not been addressed.
As it has been said, in the case of the Talmud, it gives many insights into terminologies, theologies, ideologies, and traditions that are found active and alive in the first century when the disciples and Yeshua walked the earth. It explains the controversies, the ideologies, the hopes and dreams of the people. It explains why many leaders missed the boat when it came to Yeshua. I think we have a lot to learn from their mistake so that we do not make the same one, and assume we have all the truth in its true colors.
It'd be interesting to see the issue of what MJism feels on the issue of not only the apostles/identifying who they were..but the concept of apostolic succession and addressing whether or not the apostles chose others to be apostles in place of them after they died/passed away....as that is, in many ways, the root cause/key behind many of the differing streams of thought (be it Catholicism or Orthodoxy or the Protestant movement and other movements from the Protestant world such as the Anabaptists or Organic/Simple Church movement) that have arisen....each with their own view on what leadership meant for the apostles and what they expected from other leaders they raised up.Just that MJs accept Paul and always have.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?