Mr Dave
God Save The Queen!
Sorry, Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth
Jonathan Sacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Upvote
0
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.
Out of curious, which Chief Rabbi are you referring to? As you probably know, American Judaism is divided into three primary denominations (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed) with a fourth smaller denomination (Reconstructionist).
The bottom line is that I have read very convincing arguments concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as being primarily a morality story for mankind with its literal features merely being added by the later writers of the gospels who, as we all know, were not really first-hand witnesses.
Wow...I'm floored and baffled at the responses in the thread! Jeez, so much for the bible being under divine inspiration :/
Me too! I just picked my chin up of the counter from my mouth actually falling open!!
God can't inspire narrative theology, only weather reports?98cwitr said:Wow...I'm floored and baffled at the responses in the thread! Jeez, so much for the bible being under divine inspiration :/
98cwitr said:There is nothing in the text to suggest it was an allegory.
Sorry, Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth
Jonathan Sacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
bbbbb-
I refer you to The Muratorian Fragment, written circa 170 A.D. (much closer to the actual events than The Jesus Seminar is). In that fragment it states that the three synoptic gospels, as well as the book of Acts, were already completed prior to 62 A.D. This puts them well within the lifetime of the apostles, Jesus' own family, and others who had personally known him: www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html
There are also other arguments for an early dating of the New Testament to be found here:
www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.html
As for Jesus' resurrection not to be taken as literal, It is only in the literal sense that it can be taken:
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (I Corinthians 15:20-26,NIV)
and:
But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:8-13,NIV)
We have Jesus' resurrection being told as a literal event by too many authors of Scripture for us to be able to accept the rationalization of a presentday scholar that it was only a nice story made up decades later. It is the very foundation on which the Church rests: Christ lived, Christ died, Christ lives.
Thanks. His comments come as no surprise to me as he heads a theologically liberal body of Judaism. I would expect similar comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
he is the Chief Rabbi of the mainstream British Orthodox synagogues, but not the religious authority for the Federation of Synagogues or the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations or the other movements, Masorti, Reform and Liberal Judaism.
Got a question for you:There's everything in the text to suggest it's purpose is theological, and plenty to suggest the writer is writing the same sort of parabolic history/myth that was a common and respected genre at the time.
On what basis do you assert that Genesis is not in the genre of History?
Differemce being that your example comes in the Gospels, which are intended to present a biography/history of what happened by people who lived at such a time, into a Greek context.
The story of the flood was written by people many years after those who believe in the event claimed it to happen
in an introduction to the law which does not claim to be a history into a Jewish Hebrew context. As the Chief Rabbi (who is a reliable source on things relating to the Torah) said recently
2thePoint said:Got a question for you:
Were the ancients incapable of writing history without allegory, hyperbole, etc.? How would you identify a text as in the genre of history?
Then historical elements of, say, Leviticus can't be literal history either, and should all be allegorized. In other words, consistency demands that if entire books are to be labeled only one genre, then there can be no individual exceptions. So Abraham and Moses and all the patriarchs are reduced to figments of imagination to tell stories about morality. That's the logical conclusion, unpleasant though many may find it.The OT is split into three bits in Judaism (a bit more in Christianity) being Torah (Law, instruction, guidleines), Ketuviim (Writings, history) and Neviim (Prophets) Tanakh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Genesis is Torah. Read it in that light.
Professor Nahum Sarna, who was chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, referred to the days in Genesis as the same kind of days in the regulatory sacrifices in the Book of Leviticus (i.e. literal days, Lev. 7:15; 22:30).13
My conclusion had to be that the traditional Jewish understanding of the days of Genesis is that they are literal. As I left the London School of Jewish studies and passed a Jewish newsagent on the way back to the tube (London Underground train), I glanced at the Jewish Chronicle. It was dated in the year 5,760 since creation. The Rabbis calculated this date 4,000 years after the event, and a lot of information was missing at the time. With modern knowledge of post-biblical chronology, we now know they were about 250 years short.(source, and be sure to let the data stand on its own instead of shooting the messenger).
Differemce being that your example comes in the Gospels, which are intended to present a biography/history of what happened by people who lived at such a time, into a Greek context.
The story of the flood was written by people many years after those who believe in the event claimed it to happen, in an introduction to the law which does not claim to be a history into a Jewish Hebrew context. As the Chief Rabbi (who is a reliable source on things relating to the Torah) said recently
1 Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
Thanks. His comments come as no surprise to me as he heads a theologically liberal body of Judaism. I would expect similar comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
There's everything in the text to suggest it's purpose is theological, and plenty to suggest the writer is writing the same sort of parabolic history/myth that was a common and respected genre at the time.
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?