Law, commands, or instructions?

[Verifyveritas76]

Just noticed your last post @FollowingHim,
The site earlychristianwritings.com is a great resource that I recommend highly, if for no other reason than to practice rightly dividing (it also lists a lot of gnostic writings and what I refer to as monastic, apocryphal writings). It also provides an invaluable resource into the Primitive New Testament doctrine and perspective. If you want to know what the early church believed that had direct contact with the Apostles and their direct disciples, this is the best resource I've found. The early Christian apologists are IMHO, par excellence. This site also includes works from the first century that for the life of me, I cannot imagine why they are not at least compiled into a supplementary historical edition for believers today. After studying the method by which we've arrived at our current Canon, I'm not surprised that they were excluded by the emerging RCC in spite of the fact that at least several other works were considered to be Scripture by most assemblies and bishops and many of the Apologists were circulated , discussed and held in high esteem among the brethren.
The Dead Sea Scrolls provide incredible insight into Pre Christ Jewish perspectives and beliefs that are in some cases, in direct opposition to the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. They considered themselves to be the remnant or ones who had "come out from among them" and after studying them, I believe that their community was probably begun as a result of Isaiahs influence long before they are credited with existence.
The Antiquities of the Jews are a great resource for a First Century perspective on Moses and the histories of the Jews. It is not exhaustive and it can be exhausting to read, but there are enough nuggets and insights to make this a highly recommended source.
There are quite a few sources referenced in a post I did titled Favorite Study Books,(not sure how to hyperlink this)

In my opinion, we can go round and round on our own individual interpretation of what the Apostles meant when they wrote (you fill in the blanks). However, we know that they taught much more in person than they did in writing and those perspectives are communicated best by those who were taught by the Apostles. It's pretty hard to argue against.

Godspeed in your studies.

 

[Mark C]

Drop the other shoe then! Which translation should I be reading from to get the proper meaning?

The key is whether Shaul/Paul is confirming what His Master said, or contradicting Him.

For starters, I would recommend and excellent commentary by Avi Ben Mordechai, Galatians: A Torah-Based Commentary in First-Century Hebraic Context, that outlines not only the Biblical and historic context of the letter, but deals with the 'wrestings' literally line-by-line, with considerable background on Pharasaic or Rabbinic “Oral Law”, including halacha (how to 'walk'), minhagim (customs or traditions enacted as 'law'), takenot and getzarot (decrees of the rabbis) and ma'asim (deeds or actions, serving as “how-to” precedent). Paul was a 'Pharisee of Pharisees' and knew better than virtually any of his readers what distinguished THAT “law” from the Hebrew Scriptures. In the absence of that context, what remains is confusion.

He includes material on the Bishop Marcion, and his contribution to turning the "Old Testament" literally upside-down. Once rightfully viewed as a heretic, his dogma is now mainstream, and essentially infuses the translations and doctrines most Christians now accept as “gospel”. While his name has not appeared in this thread, his dogma has. Says this author, “Marcion published his own version of the 'New Testament'...[where] some of these documents were altered and edited to remove what Marcion called “Jewish Corruptions.” Later, [in this commentary] I will show irrefutable proof of Marcion's tampering, framing Paul as a hot-blooded antinomian...”

Avi Ben Mordechai addresses the first four verses of chapter five at some length, particularly from the standpoint of the context of the letter: a handful of Pharisees who “had been pressuring a number of the new converts in the community of Galatia to follow a perceived law of allegiance to the Pharasaic authorities...Paul, in agreement with Yeshua, took a hard-line stance against something he himself had grown up with, while learning Pharasaic “Laws” at the feet of Galamiel I in Jerusalem. For Paul, it was either subjugation to Pharasaic ideology or liberty in Messiah's ideology, but not both. [the 'yoke' of servitude, vs His Torah.]

Here is the crux: “Gal. 5:2-4 was a solemn warning to the community that if any of the males accepted upon themselves the ritual of circumcision (still, BTW, a firm commandment of the written Torah) but then, in the process, transferred their loyalty from YHVH to the Pharisees, they would in effect nullify the commandments and work of Yeshua. Paul was not saying that circumcision was wrong or against Mashiach. Rather, if the Galatian community was to keep the commandment of circumcision but in the process act in rebellion to YHVH by submitting to Pharasaic authority and their made-up law of re-circumcision, [then] that was the lie.”

Another excellent reference is Nehemiah Gordon (who has a background in ancient languages, and worked as a translator on the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the earliest Hebrew texts of the Book of Matthew) and his book, The Hebrew Yeshua vs the Greek Jesus: New Light on the Seat of Moses from Shem-Tov's Matthew.

As for English Bible versions, I have several here within arm's reach, all of which do a much better job of making the vital distinctions clear. In no particular order, they include,

The Scriptures, David H. Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary, BYNV – the Besorah of Yahusha Natsarim Version, and The Original Scriptures E1, “The King's Covenant”. In several cases, including arguably the 1599 Geneva Bible, it is the footnotes which help to make the context clear, where words like "law" would otherwise be conflated.

 

[Mojo]

Scenes from the next men's only session at the BF retreat? Little laugh for y'all.

 

[FollowingHim]

Thankyou @Verifyveritas76 and @Mark C . Do either of you have a good online reference to English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, since both of you refer to them as a useful reference?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright, I'll list my references. The Bible. And only the Bible. Nothing else matters or counts. Read a bunch of versions. Spiral down into the translation vortex but don't ever let any other writing supersede that.

It is God's Holy Word preserved by Him through the millenia and presented to is in the form He wants us to have it. If He can't write and edit a book then He can't save my soul and if He can't save my soul then I have no use for Him.

The Bible has to be accurate, complete and trustworthy. God's Words must be true and knowable. Let the whole world be a liar but He is faithful and true. The faith is simple enough to be understood by a child and complex enough to confound the wisest of men.

Uninspired words that do not rise to the level of perfect truthfulness can never be set on the same level as what God has miraculously delivered to us intact and intoto.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Thankyou @Verifyveritas76 and @Mark C . Do either of you have a good online reference to English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, since both of you refer to them as a useful reference?

I'm not certain of online. I like the hard copy because you can highlight, dog ear, post it, and add notes to the table of contents for later reference. Although I am not opposed to search engines, I have often found many nuggets by wading that I wouldn't have otherwise.

Zec, I hear what you're saying and I understand the arguments behind it. Totally agree that the Bible is the premier and final authority on all matters of faith and doctrine. My question has been, what do you do when the plain language could be interpreted or understood along two diverging lines, 2000 years after the event, as is witnessed by this thread? Often times, I have found that the closer the witness is to the source, the more accurate the testimony. I also prefer the actual witness as opposed to commentary of the witness. The removal of bias is critical to rightly dividing and makes understanding much easier.

As far as salvation being dependent on an miraculously preserved word, I do not agree. God can save someone through the testimony of creation or a simple vessel that tells the Good News as he heard it. It is nice to have such an accurate and obviously ordained translation, but even the preface to the KJV, written by the translators does not confirm the absolute inerrancy that is claimed for it by so many. Where are the footnotes to the translation listing the optional ways that the Greek or Hebrew could be translated as? I personally know of several people who came to Christ through the NIV (as corrupt a translation as I know of) as well as "Christian" rock, or even one who accepted Christ due to Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth! They didnt stay there, but God used imperfect medium to bring lost souls to repentance. IMHO, its kind of like saying God can only use perfect vessels to do His work, rather, He loves to utilize simple, imperfect, yielded vessels so that His Name is glorified.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm not certain of online. I like the hard copy because you can highlight, dog ear, post it, and add notes to the table of contents for later reference. Although I am not opposed to search engines, I have often found many nuggets by wading that I wouldn't have otherwise.

Zec, I hear what you're saying and I understand the arguments behind it. Totally agree that the Bible is the premier and final authority on all matters of faith and doctrine. My question has been, what do you do when the plain language could be interpreted or understood along two diverging lines, 2000 years after the event, as is witnessed by this thread? Often times, I have found that the closer the witness is to the source, the more accurate the testimony. I also prefer the actual witness as opposed to commentary of the witness. The removal of bias is critical to rightly dividing and makes understanding much easier.

As far as salvation being dependent on an miraculously preserved word, I do not agree. God can save someone through the testimony of creation or a simple vessel that tells the Good News as he heard it. It is nice to have such an accurate and obviously ordained translation, but even the preface to the KJV, written by the translators does not confirm the absolute inerrancy that is claimed for it by so many. Where are the footnotes to the translation listing the optional ways that the Greek or Hebrew could be translated as? I personally know of several people who came to Christ through the NIV (as corrupt a translation as I know of) as well as "Christian" rock, or even one who accepted Christ due to Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth! They didnt stay there, but God used imperfect medium to bring lost souls to repentance. IMHO, its kind of like saying God can only use perfect vessels to do His work, rather, He loves to utilize simple, imperfect, yielded vessels so that His Name is glorified.

Where it appears to be non-specific it's because He meant to be non-specific. Trying to get more or less than what He gave are both sinful. You can't add. You can't subtract. If there appears to be ambiguity, which happens but is rarely the case, then we deal with the ambiguity. He doesn't have to explain it all to us. We couldn't handle it if He did.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I'm cool with you being where you are. I am where I am for obvious reasons. As I see it, more information is never a bad thing, after all, without more info, we wouldn't have the New Testament, or anything past Deuteronomy.

Peace

 

[Mark C]

RE:

...good online reference to English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls...

I don't actually refer to the DS Scrolls directly, I just know a guy who worked on them. (Much of that 'translation' involves ancient character sets, aka variants of "paleo-Hebrew" which are not as uniform as people might suspect. Generally, they confirmed the high level of accuracy in most of the Torah scrolls, 'as preserved', and rendered into the now-standard Hebrew character sets, and similarly for the 'Naviim' and other Writings.)

So, no - I don't know of an on-line reference specifically for the DS scrolls, although I, too, like BLB, because it's on-line, thus universally accessible, and provides search and concordance tools that enable a person to do in a few seconds what would have taken the "sages" of centuries ago months to accomplish (comparing word usage, seeing where and how often a specific Hebrew word is used, conjugation, and so forth.)

To ZA's point...

The Bible. And only the Bible. Nothing else matters or counts. Read a bunch of versions.

While I agree 'in principle' and in part, I concluded years ago that there's no such thing as "solo Scriptura". Context is key, and the more I've delved into the original language, the more nuance and depth and even mathematical complexity and evidence of "Divine Authorship" I find. Some things just simply don't translate (idioms, poetry, multiple meanings/double entendre, and so on) into another language. And as I've done teachings on before, if you realize that (non-Masoretic) Hebrew "Torah scrolls" do NOT have spacings between the letters, a whole 'nuther world opens up.

Did you know that the first few characters even in Bereshiet (Genesis, 1:1) --
normally 'parsed' and rendered as "Bereshiet Bara Elohim et haShemaim va'et haEretz" (In the beginning, created [ex nihilo] Elohim...)
can be parsed into at least seven different phrases, EACH with different meaning that is clearly "Truth"?

It forced me to realize that sometimes the Original (whether we have the character set or not) simply can NOT be rendered adequately in a single alternative translation. He just "packs too much information" in there for us to rephrase it.

In other words, I don't disagree that people can "come to Him" in any number of ways (His prerogative, amply demonstrated), and via multiple renderings of His Word, in many different languages, flawed as some or even all may be. But "to whom much is given, much is expected", and He WILL reward those who diligently seek Him.

I suggest that looking for ourselves, and studying His Word ('haTorah,' those five Books especially, since they are about THE single most-vetted Written work in human history) in the Hebrew is an astounding 'eye-opener'.


Now that the tools are available for literally anyone to "search out the Truth" for ourselves, even in the original language, I suggest that is a big part of why things that have been so long "hidden" (Prov. 25:2 ) are now coming out, as "knowledge increases". But we still have to seek it.

 

[andrew]

Zec, this is meant to be helpful, not argumentative, but your logic suggests that you are wasting time on this forum when you should be home reading your bible.

What I mean by that is that all of us here have decided that there is some utility, maybe even some necessity, for us to gather and share our stories and compare notes and hopefully sharpen our faces on each other. When we go to other writings about God, we are simply communing with those who have gone before us and left a record of their thoughts.

Same rules apply: You test everything in the light that you have and you sort people (living or dead, speaking or writing) into more-helpful-than-not, more-not-than-helpful, and kind-of-a-wash (although obviously there are more than three classes—that's just a rough triage).

Last thought exercise to illustrate my point: If you would be willing to listen to my thoughts at the retreat (did I mention I can't wait to see you guys?), would you be willing to buy my book if I ever get around to writing one? (Of course, in your case I would give you one, but work with me here.…) If you read my book and thought it was helpful, would you be willing to recommend it to your grandchildren 50 years from now after I'm gone?

VV can speak for himself, but that's how I view the study of other sources, and why I would ask the outrageous question: If you're truly going to be "Bible only", then why are you here?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, this is meant to be helpful, not argumentative, but your logic suggests that you are wasting time on this forum when you should be home reading your bible.

What I mean by that is that all of us here have decided that there is some utility, maybe even some necessity, for us to gather and share our stories and compare notes and hopefully sharpen our faces on each other. When we go to other writings about God, we are simply communing with those who have gone before us and left a record of their thoughts.

Same rules apply: You test everything in the light that you have and you sort people (living or dead, speaking or writing) into more-helpful-than-not, more-not-than-helpful, and kind-of-a-wash (although obviously there are more than three classes—that's just a rough triage).

Last thought exercise to illustrate my point: If you would be willing to listen to my thoughts at the retreat (did I mention I can't wait to see you guys?), would you be willing to buy my book if I ever get around to writing one? (Of course, in your case I would give you one, but work with me here.…) If you read my book and thought it was helpful, would you be willing to recommend it to your grandchildren 50 years from now after I'm gone?

VV can speak for himself, but that's how I view the study of other sources, and why I would ask the outrageous question: If you're truly going to be "Bible only", then why are you here?

Fair criticism, but far fewer people are qualified to delve that deep than think they are. Sola Scriptura maybe isn't the right phrase. Maybe Scripture first through fifth would be more accurate.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

When I realized that just because the Scripture was all true, did not mean that it was all truth, it opened up a whole nother dimension for me. I do not refer people to earlychristianwritings.com because all of it is vetted and true, far from it! They just have everything from Gnostic to early church leaders to Canonical to fragments of parchments to Apocrypha to you name it. Do I accept the majority of what they have on there as truth? Not even close, but they have the manuscripts, translated into a medium I can understand (English), by some of the foremost scholars of their day, along with multiple perspectives on dating, reliability, commentary on why they were included in their respective categories, the history and provenance for that manuscript, historical acceptance and by whom as well as multiple sources for additional information on that particular manuscript.

I am not a big fan of their dating methods as many of them I believe to be an extremely conservative date. I understand that as peer reviewed scholars that they can only post what they can prove so I take that into consideration when reading their commentary. That being said, I think they get pretty close most of the time after Christ.
You can imagine my surprise when digging into the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls and one of them stated matter of factly that they assign dates based upon the premise that prophecy is a myth, therefore Daniel could not have been written until after Antiochus Epiphanes in 175 BC. Hmm. And these are the scholars among us!?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Just ran across this in Octavius of Minucius Felix (Roberts - Donaldson Translation). It's a two part debate with Minucius acting as moderator after Caecilius ends his discourse and before Octavius answers.

Thus far Caecilius; and smiling cheerfully (for the vehemence of his prolonged discourse had relaxed the ardour of his indignation), be added "And what does Octavius venture to reply to this, a man of the race of Plautus, who, while he was chief among the millers, was still the lowest of philosophers?" "Restrain," said I, "your self-approval against him; for it is not worthy of you to exult at the harmony of your discourse, before the subject shall have been more fully argued on both sides; especially since your reasoning is striving after truth, not praise.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Here's the rest of Minucius' response

And in however great a degree your discourse has delighted me by its subtile variety, yet I am very deeply moved, not concerning the present discussion, but concerning the entire kind of disputation--that for the most part the condition of truth should be changed according to the powers of discussion, and even the faculty of perspicuous eloquence. This is very well known to occur by reason of the facility of the hearers, who, being distracted by the allurement of words from attention to things, assent without distinction to everything that is said, and do not separate falsehood from truth; unaware that even in that which is incredible there is often truth, and in verisimilitude falsehood. Therefore the oftener they believe bold assertions, the more frequently they are convinced by those who are more clever, and thus are continually deceived by their temerity. They transfer the blame of the judge to the complaint of uncertainty; so that, everything being condemned, they would rather that all things should be left in suspense, than that they should decide about matters of doubt. Therefore we must take care that we do not in such sort suffer from the hatred at once of all discourses, even as very many of the more simple kind are led to execration and hatred of men in general. For those who are carelessly credulous are deceived by those whom they thought worthy; and by and by, by a kindred error, they begin to suspect every one as wicked, and dread even those whom they might have regarded as excellent. Now therefore we are anxious--because in everything there may be argument on both sides; and on the one hand, the truth is for the most part obscure; and on the other side there is a marvellous subtlety, which sometimes by its abundance of words imitates the confidence of acknowledged proof--as carefully as possible to weigh each particular, that we may, while ready to applaud acuteness, yet elect, approve, and adopt those things which are right."

 

[andrew]

Pretty cool....

 

[Mojo]

Wow, this post really took another 90 degree turn again!

My thoughts: I am probably closer to Zec in terms of attitude toward scripture. I think scripture interpreting scripture is our most reliable methodology in theological matters. I just can't help thinking that the Roman church began to fall into the trap that "commentary" and continuous interpretation began to take on innerant status, leading to Papal edicts equal to scripture.

None of us here learned all of scripture on our own. Most of us stand on the shoulders of great men and women of God in our lives who endeavored to rightly divide the word truth with us. But even that was subject to human frailty and imperfect exegesis. We had to seek and find deeper truth on our own using a flawed interpretation in our own languages. But God is powerful to overcome those flaws.

But in the end, utilizing extra canonical resources simply for their chronological proximity, or linguistic expertise doesn't render any more truth. Just because something is written 50 years after canonized scripture doesn't make it valid. A lie is a lie whether it's told in the morning or afternoon. Some of these extra biblical texts might add some shading, but the bold lines of the truth are immutable.

I don't know about all of you, but I came to the conclusion that polygyny was a part of the Almighty's divine order by reading scripture since a child. I read commentaries by practitioners to confirm that I was not alone in the thought, but their commentaries didn't convince me, they just made me feel less alone.

I do agree that scripture isn't necessary for one to receive salvation.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wow, this post really took another 90 degree turn again!

My thoughts: I am probably closer to Zec in terms of attitude toward scripture. I think scripture interpreting scripture is our most reliable methodology in theological matters. I just can't help thinking that the Roman church began to fall into the trap that "commentary" and continuous interpretation began to take on innerant status, leading to Papal edicts equal to scripture.

None of us here learned all of scripture on our own. Most of us stand on the shoulders of great men and women of God in our lives who endeavored to rightly divide the word truth with us. But even that was subject to human frailty and imperfect exegesis. We had to seek and find deeper truth on our own using a flawed interpretation in our own languages. But God is powerful to overcome those flaws.

But in the end, utilizing extra canonical resources simply for their chronological proximity, or linguistic expertise doesn't render any more truth. Just because something is written 50 years after canonized scripture doesn't make it valid. A lie is a lie whether it's told in the morning or afternoon. Some of these extra biblical texts might add some shading, but the bold lines of the truth are immutable.

I don't know about all of you, but I came to the conclusion that polygyny was a part of the Almighty's divine order by reading scripture since a child. I read commentaries by practitioners to confirm that I was not alone in the thought, but their commentaries didn't convince me, they just made me feel less alone.

I do agree that scripture isn't necessary for one to receive salvation.

Yes to infinity squared!

 

[Verifyveritas76]

My thoughts: I am probably closer to Zec in terms of attitude toward scripture. I think scripture interpreting scripture is our most reliable methodology in theological matters. I just can't help thinking that the Roman church began to fall into the trap that "commentary" and continuous interpretation began to take on innerant status, leading to Papal edicts equal to scripture.

Agreed. Scripture defining scripture, in context is always the authority.

 

[Mark C]

This is pretty good:
Slouching Towards the Post-Legal Society
https://lewrockwell.com/2017/06/no_author/slouching-towards-post-legal-society/

And it pretty well outlines my long-standing concern, because we have a whole society that despises "law". Trouble is, when you look at see what it has become nowadays, that's not unreasonable. Thus the dilemma...

 

[Mojo]

This is pretty good:
Slouching Towards the Post-Legal Society
https://lewrockwell.com/2017/06/no_author/slouching-towards-post-legal-society/

And it pretty well outlines my long-standing concern, because we have a whole society that despises "law". Trouble is, when you look at see what it has become nowadays, that's not unreasonable. Thus the dilemma...

...quandary, predicament, catch-22, plight...
Maybe we've begun to despise laws because they are no longer designed to protect and defend...they are designed to CONTROL