It is all well and good to talk about how the Bible is a great tool for witnessing to Jews, but what about the modern Jew? What makes them different?
First off the more I study the modern Jew the more I find them to be very much like any other major religion -- common themes, diversity of thought. I suppose you could put them in three major camps --Orthodox, Conservative and Reform -- but that is hardly adequate at all. The fact is there is a commonality of the Torah and Community Worship but to pigeonhole all Jews into a box is just plain intellectually impossible. So don't try. When talking to a Jew you going to have to ask a lot of questions to find out where they are coming from and avoid hot button topics like Israel, the Palestinians and the Sabbath. Remember your fishing not slapping the water.
In witnessing to them there is the advantage of having the Old Testament (don't call it that when you talk to them) as a guide, this is what the early church did, but even then your going to run into different opinions of what the Torah, Prophets and Writings are and how much authority they should have. The real issue is to convince them that Jesus wasn't just a great rabbi but the Messiah. It has worked for some.
Right now one of the most interesting phenomena involving Jews and Jesus is happening -- the Messianic Jewish Movement is growing and gaining steam. Jews are coming to Jesus in record numbers that probably haven;t been seen like this since the first century. I find this interesting and encouraging -- maybe Paul's prayer in Romans is finally being answered.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Book of Revelation -- Part 10 -- Interlude and 144,000 sealed.
The Vision of the Lamb opening the Seals is interrupted because the final seal on the scroll will usher in a great woe and there is a need for a few actions to take place first. Nothing is to be harmed until the chosen of God are sealed.
The next thing that happens is the sealing of 144,000 Jews -- note to you Jehovah's witnesses it says those of the tribes of Israel not of the Jehovah's witnesses. One weird thing -- the half tribe of Manasseh (part of the line of Joseph) is listed but Ephraim is not but replaced with the tribe of Joseph. I wonder if John considered them the same. The other weird thing -- the tribe of Dan is completely missing. The purpose of the sealing of these Jews is protection from the wrath of God to follow.
To the original readers it would have indicated that god has not forgotten his people and that he would protect them.
Next: The Great Multitude
The next thing that happens is the sealing of 144,000 Jews -- note to you Jehovah's witnesses it says those of the tribes of Israel not of the Jehovah's witnesses. One weird thing -- the half tribe of Manasseh (part of the line of Joseph) is listed but Ephraim is not but replaced with the tribe of Joseph. I wonder if John considered them the same. The other weird thing -- the tribe of Dan is completely missing. The purpose of the sealing of these Jews is protection from the wrath of God to follow.
To the original readers it would have indicated that god has not forgotten his people and that he would protect them.
Next: The Great Multitude
Monday, October 19, 2009
Apologetics: How do you talk to Jews? --Part 1 -- Biblical Consideration.
As you look through the Bible there is probably more on this subject than any other. The original church was Jewish. That is, it was made up of Jews that had accepted the Risen Christ. Because of this, you see many books of the New Testament addressed to Jewish people or believers.
Matthew as a gospel, for example, is very much a gospel for the Jew as it tries to to persuade Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. Even Luke though has Jesus himself going through the Law and the Prophets to two on the road to show that Jesus is the Christ and need to suffer these things.
The book of acts shows Paul on many occasions debating in the synagogues and showing through the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Finally both Hebrews and James are addressed to Jewish people. Hebrews in particular is trying to persuade Jews not to leave the faith and go back top their former covenant but stay with the covenant in Christ.
What this shows me is that the Jewish question has been with us from the very beginning and that the Bible already has arguments about it. The issue is there anything about modern Judaism that changes things.
Matthew as a gospel, for example, is very much a gospel for the Jew as it tries to to persuade Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. Even Luke though has Jesus himself going through the Law and the Prophets to two on the road to show that Jesus is the Christ and need to suffer these things.
The book of acts shows Paul on many occasions debating in the synagogues and showing through the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Finally both Hebrews and James are addressed to Jewish people. Hebrews in particular is trying to persuade Jews not to leave the faith and go back top their former covenant but stay with the covenant in Christ.
What this shows me is that the Jewish question has been with us from the very beginning and that the Bible already has arguments about it. The issue is there anything about modern Judaism that changes things.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 3 -- "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union"
"In order to form a more perfect union..."
Now you have to know a little history to understand this line. The original Constitution of the United States called 'The Articles of Confederation' was not working. The unity that had once existed between the various states during the revolution had basically disintegrated. The Articles gave the central government very little power --effectively none unless their was a war. The idea of forming a more perfect union was large in many peoples' minds. The thought of protecting the rights of states to run their own affairs was on the minds of others.
Biblically, a parallel existed as the tribes of Israel were much the same before the advent of the kingdom of Saul. The problem with this is some people believe that things were too free and wanted a king to protect them. The statement in Judges "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" is not a moral statement; it is a political one. Samuel himself was probably the author of judges and he was not pro-monarchy but quite the opposite. He can't be saying that the monarch got people to stop sinning because that was far from the truth. The statement is about the fact that each man stood in his own sovereignty before God himself. There was no king to answer to but God himself. The issue is that people often look to centralized authority in times of crisis. In the case of the time of judges, the authority was supposed to be God and His Law but judges would handle the crisis points empowered by God. Each man was very free and had massive liberty as long as he, by choice, followed the law of God. It was in short: a theocratic democracy.
In the United States at the time of late 1700's God was in the picture but not a ruler but as bystander and each state handled its own affairs, unfortunately there existed no central government with the power to handle things when to states had a dispute with each other. Union was not on any person's mind but states rights. The Constitution is a result of finding a better way to balance states rights with a need for a centralized power to handle crisis and disputes. The result was a limited central power but with strength within its limits.
The Constitution in and of itself was not powerful enough in many respects for some when regarding in the rights of individuals and states. The individual question was answered by the Bill of Right some years later. But the question of states verses Federal rights has always been heated as this was and still is not quite spelled out in the Constitution. This issue got so heated once we had a Civil War over it.
This line was an attempt to placate both sides -- we want to be united but we know it is an attempt at a more perfect union, not one that does not respect states' rights.
Next: Establish Justice
Now you have to know a little history to understand this line. The original Constitution of the United States called 'The Articles of Confederation' was not working. The unity that had once existed between the various states during the revolution had basically disintegrated. The Articles gave the central government very little power --effectively none unless their was a war. The idea of forming a more perfect union was large in many peoples' minds. The thought of protecting the rights of states to run their own affairs was on the minds of others.
Biblically, a parallel existed as the tribes of Israel were much the same before the advent of the kingdom of Saul. The problem with this is some people believe that things were too free and wanted a king to protect them. The statement in Judges "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" is not a moral statement; it is a political one. Samuel himself was probably the author of judges and he was not pro-monarchy but quite the opposite. He can't be saying that the monarch got people to stop sinning because that was far from the truth. The statement is about the fact that each man stood in his own sovereignty before God himself. There was no king to answer to but God himself. The issue is that people often look to centralized authority in times of crisis. In the case of the time of judges, the authority was supposed to be God and His Law but judges would handle the crisis points empowered by God. Each man was very free and had massive liberty as long as he, by choice, followed the law of God. It was in short: a theocratic democracy.
In the United States at the time of late 1700's God was in the picture but not a ruler but as bystander and each state handled its own affairs, unfortunately there existed no central government with the power to handle things when to states had a dispute with each other. Union was not on any person's mind but states rights. The Constitution is a result of finding a better way to balance states rights with a need for a centralized power to handle crisis and disputes. The result was a limited central power but with strength within its limits.
The Constitution in and of itself was not powerful enough in many respects for some when regarding in the rights of individuals and states. The individual question was answered by the Bill of Right some years later. But the question of states verses Federal rights has always been heated as this was and still is not quite spelled out in the Constitution. This issue got so heated once we had a Civil War over it.
This line was an attempt to placate both sides -- we want to be united but we know it is an attempt at a more perfect union, not one that does not respect states' rights.
Next: Establish Justice
Monday, July 13, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Five
Chapter 5 of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman's has some problems chief among them is his assumption that god does not intervene in human affairs.
1. Bart makes the statement that if God heals -- why does he not do so today -- heard that before and my response is he does -- I have grown up in Pentecostal churches -- when a person says they have cancer and that the doctors (more than one) have confirmed it and then that person is prayed for and they come back and don't have cancer -- confirmed by the same doctors you have to think something is up. It sounds like Hume when I listen to him on this. "I don't believe in miracles because I don't want to believe in miracles". In addition, he has this -- "God should heal all the time without conditions" attitude.
2. Ehrman talks about being committed to truth and integrity -- but if their is no God to be accountable to about truth then what difference does it make?
3. I think Bart over thinks Grace in pages 128-129 -- he talks about how if a person thanks God for food isn't that person condemning God for not feeding others. Here's the thing -- famine often happens because of short sighted agricultural methods or deliberate starvation of human beings by others -- either through malicious intent or apathy. He quotes the United Nations about the 850million starving stats as well. Yes, I am sure that the UN does not have ulterior motives in saying such things seeing they use such numbers to get more aid from other nations.
4. Why is it that when people want to blame God for everything, they always say that the problem in question is too big for humans to handle? Maybe their just looking for a personal excuse?
5. Says government should do more, quite frankly they cause more problems than they solve.
6. Assumes God always gets his way -- if God's will and his kingdom are a done deal and cannot be messed up than why in Jesus instructions to us in prayer does he ask us to pray that God's will be done and His kingdom come. Seems a strange thing to pray for if both just are and cannot be messed with -- another over reliance on classical theology.
7. Pharoah's hardened heart -- it is not hard to push a person a little harder when they have already demonstrated hardness in the first place. I would also point out for the record that the Egyptians were holding the Israelis as slaves. On the one hand he condemns Solomon for such a practice but here he is saying poor Egyptians forced to be victims of plagues when they are doing the same thing. The Egyptians were not nice people and the people who disobeyed the Passover had some control if they only believed enough to obey.
8. Going back to David's child -- David's own words kind of put this in perspective -- "I will see him again" The fact is what is better -- to live here suffering the stigma of sin and being a bastard child or Paradise. Here is Ehrman's saying poor child, but then turning about and say to be on this planet is suffering -- anybody else see the contradiction.
9. Bart assumes that Paul influence how the gospels are written -- he has no evidence of this other than more higher critical theories but were going to proceed as if it is fact anyway.
10. The Bible does not claim all suffering is redemptive like Ehrman attests on p. 155 (bottom). in fact I would say that sinful suffering is many times senseless and the Bible says this as well.
Next: Agreements with Chapter Six
1. Bart makes the statement that if God heals -- why does he not do so today -- heard that before and my response is he does -- I have grown up in Pentecostal churches -- when a person says they have cancer and that the doctors (more than one) have confirmed it and then that person is prayed for and they come back and don't have cancer -- confirmed by the same doctors you have to think something is up. It sounds like Hume when I listen to him on this. "I don't believe in miracles because I don't want to believe in miracles". In addition, he has this -- "God should heal all the time without conditions" attitude.
2. Ehrman talks about being committed to truth and integrity -- but if their is no God to be accountable to about truth then what difference does it make?
3. I think Bart over thinks Grace in pages 128-129 -- he talks about how if a person thanks God for food isn't that person condemning God for not feeding others. Here's the thing -- famine often happens because of short sighted agricultural methods or deliberate starvation of human beings by others -- either through malicious intent or apathy. He quotes the United Nations about the 850million starving stats as well. Yes, I am sure that the UN does not have ulterior motives in saying such things seeing they use such numbers to get more aid from other nations.
4. Why is it that when people want to blame God for everything, they always say that the problem in question is too big for humans to handle? Maybe their just looking for a personal excuse?
5. Says government should do more, quite frankly they cause more problems than they solve.
6. Assumes God always gets his way -- if God's will and his kingdom are a done deal and cannot be messed up than why in Jesus instructions to us in prayer does he ask us to pray that God's will be done and His kingdom come. Seems a strange thing to pray for if both just are and cannot be messed with -- another over reliance on classical theology.
7. Pharoah's hardened heart -- it is not hard to push a person a little harder when they have already demonstrated hardness in the first place. I would also point out for the record that the Egyptians were holding the Israelis as slaves. On the one hand he condemns Solomon for such a practice but here he is saying poor Egyptians forced to be victims of plagues when they are doing the same thing. The Egyptians were not nice people and the people who disobeyed the Passover had some control if they only believed enough to obey.
8. Going back to David's child -- David's own words kind of put this in perspective -- "I will see him again" The fact is what is better -- to live here suffering the stigma of sin and being a bastard child or Paradise. Here is Ehrman's saying poor child, but then turning about and say to be on this planet is suffering -- anybody else see the contradiction.
9. Bart assumes that Paul influence how the gospels are written -- he has no evidence of this other than more higher critical theories but were going to proceed as if it is fact anyway.
10. The Bible does not claim all suffering is redemptive like Ehrman attests on p. 155 (bottom). in fact I would say that sinful suffering is many times senseless and the Bible says this as well.
Next: Agreements with Chapter Six
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Three
Now some disagreements with Bart Ehrman's God's Problem chapter 3.
This is going to be longer ;-).
1. On page 61, Ehrman's makes a statement that suffering seems to be random but he says this in the context of the Nazi death camps. Sorry this was not random suffering, nor is any suffering that can ultimately be attributed to peoples' decisions. There is nothing involving chance about the death camps -- they were deliberate efforts to inflict human suffering by other humans.
2. On page 62, Bart also shows a poor understanding, like many Christians, about the Proverbs. Proverbs are not promises or guarantees. They are general principles that if lived improve one's chances of living a better life. This is why it is called a book of wisdom, not a book of promises.
3. I want to restate a point that became very clear once again by the time I got to page 64. Ehrman does not seem to see how humans have caused a majority if not all the suffering they receive. He continues to want to point the finger at God, but almost seems to be glib in taking about man's sinfulness leading to mankind's own suffering.
4. Ehrman states that because of Eve's sin she will now experience pain during childbirth. The fact is this passage actually indicates their would have been pain in childbirth already as it does not say cause pain in childbirth but -- "I will greatly multiply or increase you pain". Some suffering may have been present to mark warnings or trigger certain events.
5. When Ehrman considers the flood, I think he puts God in double jeopardy. Mankind has become completely and thoroughly evil. My guess is that humans causing suffering is run amok. God decides to destroy mankind (which would end the evil) to solve the problem. Ehrman sees this as extreme. God is thus damned if he doesn't --because here is God letting evil run amok again. God is damned if he does, now God is causing suffering Himself to 'innocent people'. Though how a people could be innocent if they are thinking evil all the time is beyond me.
6. Bart seems to not understand the seriousness of entering a covenant with God. He seems to think it unfair if God enforces the consequences when people break their word to Him. What's God supposed to do, beg them.
7. He calls Joshua's army ragtag. After training for 40 years and fighting against two people groups already, I doubt they were ragtag. They were trained experienced warriors.
8. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes" -- Bart interprets this improperly as a moral statement. The context of this statement is not moral but political -- "there was no king in those days" It is actually a statement of the freedom that existed in the period of the judges. I believe Samuel (who was against the monarchy) wrote Judges and if so this is actually a statement against becoming a monarchy. The fact is based on judges that when the people did right wilfully as a group they prospered and handled their problems well.
9. Second Isaiah Nonsense -- I have only one thing to say -- show me two separate texts. Oh you don't have any. Why is it that Bart here will believe this theory without a shred of textual evidence but then turn around and say the current manuscripts are false when they actually represent textual evidence. Seems odd that we will believe something with no evidence but then not believe something that actually has evidence.
10. By the time I was done with both chapter 2 and 3, I could safely say that Bart relies way to much on penal atonement theory as the only way to look sacrifice. I can say this there is almost no consideration of the possibilities other atonement theories might have on suffering and sacrifice. He assumes 'this interpretation" of things is the Biblical one and i know many who would beg to differ. This is one Christian way of looking at atonement, but it is by no means the only one.
11. Israel was overcome by her enemies because they didn't listen to God or the prophets. Had they listened they would not have been overcome. The times they are defeated is always in the context of their disobedience. Bart really tries to avoid Israeli culpability here. Part of the problem is that he believes many of the 'fulfilled prophecies' are written after the fact. But then their is no evidence for this either.
12. Bart asks the question: Is suffering really our fault? He states that freewill only answers part of the problem. He then gives a short list of things he believes cannot be explained by freewill. Allow me to engage them.
a. Famine -- actually famine is a preventable thing, if you do not believe me look at the US. When is the last time we had a famine and it is not because we have not had droughts. Why is this the case -- food storage when things are good (Joseph), as well as learning how to get greater yields out of crops and learning how to make food last longer. Many famines happen because of political repression -- the rulers starving their people. By not being wise, prudent or kind people starve. Our fault, we could do better.
b. Genocide -- Is God killing these people or man? Man.
c. AIDS (STDs in general) to be blunt if people followed God's plan of faithful matrimony sexually transmitted diseases of all types would disappear in a couple of generations. God has told us how to stop this we just refuse to listen.
d. Cancer other diseases -- God told us not to eat the tree or we would die -- mankind blew it we die. We all die of something. Who's fault? -- ours.
e. War -- it seems to me that people make decisions that result in wars -- and people make decisions to be soldiers and fight in them. I don't see God' to blame in this.
f. Natural disaster -- see d. Plus the fact that if we take Genesis literally then the introduction of natural disaster may be the result of The Flood which means: WHO got evil, so evil that God almost destroyed us all -- that would be mankind. The odd thing too is that we all know natural disasters happen and yet people rarely prepare for them like they could. Our fault again.
I am beginning to think that maybe all this suffering is just because mankind is sooooooo stupid and continues to refuse to learn from God.
Next: Agreements with chapter Four
This is going to be longer ;-).
1. On page 61, Ehrman's makes a statement that suffering seems to be random but he says this in the context of the Nazi death camps. Sorry this was not random suffering, nor is any suffering that can ultimately be attributed to peoples' decisions. There is nothing involving chance about the death camps -- they were deliberate efforts to inflict human suffering by other humans.
2. On page 62, Bart also shows a poor understanding, like many Christians, about the Proverbs. Proverbs are not promises or guarantees. They are general principles that if lived improve one's chances of living a better life. This is why it is called a book of wisdom, not a book of promises.
3. I want to restate a point that became very clear once again by the time I got to page 64. Ehrman does not seem to see how humans have caused a majority if not all the suffering they receive. He continues to want to point the finger at God, but almost seems to be glib in taking about man's sinfulness leading to mankind's own suffering.
4. Ehrman states that because of Eve's sin she will now experience pain during childbirth. The fact is this passage actually indicates their would have been pain in childbirth already as it does not say cause pain in childbirth but -- "I will greatly multiply or increase you pain". Some suffering may have been present to mark warnings or trigger certain events.
5. When Ehrman considers the flood, I think he puts God in double jeopardy. Mankind has become completely and thoroughly evil. My guess is that humans causing suffering is run amok. God decides to destroy mankind (which would end the evil) to solve the problem. Ehrman sees this as extreme. God is thus damned if he doesn't --because here is God letting evil run amok again. God is damned if he does, now God is causing suffering Himself to 'innocent people'. Though how a people could be innocent if they are thinking evil all the time is beyond me.
6. Bart seems to not understand the seriousness of entering a covenant with God. He seems to think it unfair if God enforces the consequences when people break their word to Him. What's God supposed to do, beg them.
7. He calls Joshua's army ragtag. After training for 40 years and fighting against two people groups already, I doubt they were ragtag. They were trained experienced warriors.
8. "Every man did what was right in his own eyes" -- Bart interprets this improperly as a moral statement. The context of this statement is not moral but political -- "there was no king in those days" It is actually a statement of the freedom that existed in the period of the judges. I believe Samuel (who was against the monarchy) wrote Judges and if so this is actually a statement against becoming a monarchy. The fact is based on judges that when the people did right wilfully as a group they prospered and handled their problems well.
9. Second Isaiah Nonsense -- I have only one thing to say -- show me two separate texts. Oh you don't have any. Why is it that Bart here will believe this theory without a shred of textual evidence but then turn around and say the current manuscripts are false when they actually represent textual evidence. Seems odd that we will believe something with no evidence but then not believe something that actually has evidence.
10. By the time I was done with both chapter 2 and 3, I could safely say that Bart relies way to much on penal atonement theory as the only way to look sacrifice. I can say this there is almost no consideration of the possibilities other atonement theories might have on suffering and sacrifice. He assumes 'this interpretation" of things is the Biblical one and i know many who would beg to differ. This is one Christian way of looking at atonement, but it is by no means the only one.
11. Israel was overcome by her enemies because they didn't listen to God or the prophets. Had they listened they would not have been overcome. The times they are defeated is always in the context of their disobedience. Bart really tries to avoid Israeli culpability here. Part of the problem is that he believes many of the 'fulfilled prophecies' are written after the fact. But then their is no evidence for this either.
12. Bart asks the question: Is suffering really our fault? He states that freewill only answers part of the problem. He then gives a short list of things he believes cannot be explained by freewill. Allow me to engage them.
a. Famine -- actually famine is a preventable thing, if you do not believe me look at the US. When is the last time we had a famine and it is not because we have not had droughts. Why is this the case -- food storage when things are good (Joseph), as well as learning how to get greater yields out of crops and learning how to make food last longer. Many famines happen because of political repression -- the rulers starving their people. By not being wise, prudent or kind people starve. Our fault, we could do better.
b. Genocide -- Is God killing these people or man? Man.
c. AIDS (STDs in general) to be blunt if people followed God's plan of faithful matrimony sexually transmitted diseases of all types would disappear in a couple of generations. God has told us how to stop this we just refuse to listen.
d. Cancer other diseases -- God told us not to eat the tree or we would die -- mankind blew it we die. We all die of something. Who's fault? -- ours.
e. War -- it seems to me that people make decisions that result in wars -- and people make decisions to be soldiers and fight in them. I don't see God' to blame in this.
f. Natural disaster -- see d. Plus the fact that if we take Genesis literally then the introduction of natural disaster may be the result of The Flood which means: WHO got evil, so evil that God almost destroyed us all -- that would be mankind. The odd thing too is that we all know natural disasters happen and yet people rarely prepare for them like they could. Our fault again.
I am beginning to think that maybe all this suffering is just because mankind is sooooooo stupid and continues to refuse to learn from God.
Next: Agreements with chapter Four
Friday, June 5, 2009
What Israel Should Do
The fact is that Obama has made it clear that Israel is the one in the wrong and that if push comes to shove the US will not back Israel. That being said here is one American (and I am not alone) that feels that Israel should be backed. But, I don't think the El Presidente of the US is going to back them. Here is the response they should take to all this.
1. They should absolutely reject any plan that involves a Palestinian State. Lets not put the enemy and terrorists on our front door. If Obama suggests this again tell him that he should do the same by giving us Conservatives our own state here in the USA. Lets have the 30 states that didn't vote for him.
2. Develop Nukes, if you haven't already because your neighbors are going to have them and you don't want to be bringing a knife to a gunfight.
3. Be prepared to act alone to defend yourself. Here is one American who will not say you are wrong to defend yourself.
Yes I am a Christian, but God has never given up on his people and we should not either. Why is it that we continue to stand against them when they are the ones who are being attacked by terrorists and being slammed by the media of the Arabs.
Pray for the peace of Israel.
1. They should absolutely reject any plan that involves a Palestinian State. Lets not put the enemy and terrorists on our front door. If Obama suggests this again tell him that he should do the same by giving us Conservatives our own state here in the USA. Lets have the 30 states that didn't vote for him.
2. Develop Nukes, if you haven't already because your neighbors are going to have them and you don't want to be bringing a knife to a gunfight.
3. Be prepared to act alone to defend yourself. Here is one American who will not say you are wrong to defend yourself.
Yes I am a Christian, but God has never given up on his people and we should not either. Why is it that we continue to stand against them when they are the ones who are being attacked by terrorists and being slammed by the media of the Arabs.
Pray for the peace of Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
