[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I agree that Luke had a very specific purpose in mind, but we disagree on what that purpose was.
Stephen misquoted the scriptures several times, and then rejected the temple as the dwelling place of God. To the Jews, this would not be considered blasphemy?
[/quote]
What was Luke’s rhetorical aim, i.e., his purpose in writing, in your mind?[/quote]
I’d rather not answer this right now, as I don’t want to go off on a tangent.
Moses was not simply left outside the door at three months old, and he did not have prior knowledge that he would lead his people out of Egypt. I have also found nothing in the OT (though I am reading it again now to see if I missed it) to back up his claim that God gave them up to worship the host of heaven.
He was brought to the Sanhedrin because of those accusations, but he was convicted and stoned based on his sermon.
Let me say that I don’t believe this is the real reason Stephen was killed. Just as I don’t believe what Luke writes about the early church and that Peter basically killed Ananias with the Spirit (that is not consistent with the example that Christ set during his time on Earth). Furthermore, Luke was not only not an Apostle, he was not even an eyewitness to any of the events of Christ’s life. Nor was he there when the early church was formed. For that matter, he had very little contact with the Apostles because Paul admittedly kept him very close at hand.
I have very little trust in Paul or his little buddy Luke.
Cute thought, but since you didn’t understand my previous statements about Luke, your claim to know ANYTHING about first century Judaism is, once again, questionable at best. [/quote]
I know that they ran him out of the city and stoned him to death for the sermon he gave before the Sanhedrin. So if it wasn’t for blasphemy, what was it?
[quote][quote]
[quote][quote]
“How is it that Jacob, Moses, Miriam, Aaron and a few more folks saw and even spoke face to face with God, but then Jesus tells us no one has heard His voice or seen Him?”
[/quote]
Miriam and Aaron are never said to see or to speak face to face with God. That’s actually the point in Numbers 12 - Moses ALONE is singled out for getting to speak with God “face to face.” Yet once again, you need to read in context, because “speaking face to face” in Hebrew does not mean the same thing as “seeing someone’s face.” Speaking face to face is a euphemism for a close, intimate relationship. In fact, Torah elsewhere CLEARLY states that Moses did NOT see God’s face; he only saw his back (Ex. 33:18-34:8). The ONLY real example you have is Jacob in Gen. 32, but there the being with whom he wrestles does NOT claim to be God; Jacob simply thinks it is. Scriptural narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, so you cannot assume from Jacob’s statement that he was necessarily correct. Moreover, and more importantly, the Jews believed that God’s angel, “the angel of the Lord,” was the one who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as well as a host of Second Temple texts you likely have no access to or interest in) and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This angel bore God’s authority and Name, thus embodying God for the people since by definition the God of Israel did NOT have a body that could be seen. When God wanted to reveal himself in visions to prophets, this glorious angel stood as his personal representative. [/quote]
So, in Numbers 12, it doesn’t say that God spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron? God doesn’t tell the two of them that He speaks directly and openly to Moses, and that Moses sees his form?
[/quote]
Again, you are misreading my statements. I was NOT saying that God didn’t speak to Aaron and Miriam, but that they did not see him FACE TO FACE or speak to him FACE TO FACE. [/quote]
You do your fair share of misreading, yourself. Go back and read it again. Moses talked directly with God and saw his form, god spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron, and Jacob not only talked face to face with Him, He wrestled with Him all night. Jacob even said “I have seen God face to face”
Jesus said “you have never heard His voice or seen His form.” John said “no one has ever seen God”
These are direct quotes, not inference.
I definitely agree that it was not God that they saw.
Appears as a fire that does not consume?
Uses the serpent as a symbol of himself to Pharaoh?
Kills with fire at the slightest mistake?
Demands a blood sacrifice sprinkled on his altar?
Loves the smell of burning flesh?
Gives his people statutes that are no good and ordinances they can’t live by?
Instructs them to murder women and children after he gave them the command to never murder?
Spiteful?
Hateful?
Selfish?
This is not God the Father that Christ made known, and there is no way you could ever convince me of it.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
There are two major options when Scripture presents a difficulty - we can either try to understand how others have coped with this problem previously and see if there is a fitting solution related to the definition and use of words, etc., OR we can take the coward’s route, the route Marcion took, and redefine which texts are Scripture so that we can throw the problem out. You, JayPierce, are doing a little of both, which is the primary strategy of cultists.
That’s really how Christian cults have been started for LITERALLY 2000 years…
(1) Someone sees that a biblical text presents an apparent contradiction (the goodness of an omnipotent God and human suffering, for example)
(2) That person offers a theory that seems to simplify the problem (God is good but not omnipotent; God is omnipotent but not God; etc.)
(3) That person eventually realizes that their theory does NOT fit all the evidence (too many passages say that God is omnipotent AND good)
(4) The cultist starts cutting out pieces of Scripture or even entire books that don’t fit his model (in your case, that includes most of the New Testament and much of the Old)
(5) The cultist offers others his “simplified” form of Christianity, and the unlearned, gullible, and lonely fall for it
The sad thing, Jay, is that you aren’t even in the same league as guys like Joseph Smith, and people are more wary of easy answers today than they used to be, so your career likely won’t get off the ground. I praise our Heavenly Father for that. [/quote]
I’m not the one with a career in religion, remember?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
[/quote]False. We have THOUSANDS of other texts from that far back, many of them much older than the biblical accounts. This is why your Jesus’-words-only stuff is nonsense. Our historical sources for time periods around Jesus’ life are exceptional.
[/quote]
Then why is it so difficult to provide the information that HH asks for? You obviously know exactly which sources provide the necessary corroboration to the events of Christ’s life, which are exactly what he’s asking for. Why not point him in the right direction instead of hurling insults?
[/quote]
HH isn’t interested in history. He is interested in providing his own interpretation of history without reference to sources or facts, and he is especially interested in new interpretations like those you love to provide.
At that point in time, potentially. I never said the Scriptural account was exhaustive; I simply provided examples that may be the very ones of which God speaks. Positing a long list of commandments of which there is no evidence in the text itself goes beyond the evidence. Your readings regularly go beyond the evidence; that is why they remain unconvincing.
What was Luke’s rhetorical aim, i.e., his purpose in writing, in your mind?
Clarity, please - what constitutes a “misquotation” of Scripture in your mind? By what criteria do you, who lacks knowledge of Hebrew (and thus cannot read the Masoretic text) and Greek (and thus cannot read the Septuagint) and ancient culturally-conditioned quotation practices, call something a misquotation? If you have a theory that will actually convince someone who DOES possess knowledge of these things, I would like to hear it. That might finally lend some credibility to your radical claims.
Moreover, you have once again shown your inattention to context. Luke clearly calls those who accuse Stephen of “speaking against the holy place (the Temple) and against the law” FALSE WITNESSES (Acts 6:13). From Luke’s perspective, the men who accused Stephen of blasphemy were LIARS, men who had been PAID to bear false testimony about him (Acts 6:9-11). And even Stephen’s claim that “the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands” cannot be considered blasphemous, because what he means is elucidated by the Scripture he quotes (Is. 66:1-2). His point is that Yahweh is not dependent on human beings for anything, let alone shelter. Thus, Luke CLEARLY demonstrates that Stephen was UNJUSTLY accused of blasphemy.
Cute thought, but since you didn’t understand my previous statements about Luke, your claim to know ANYTHING about first century Judaism is, once again, questionable at best.
Miriam and Aaron are never said to see or to speak face to face with God. That’s actually the point in Numbers 12 - Moses ALONE is singled out for getting to speak with God “face to face.” Yet once again, you need to read in context, because “speaking face to face” in Hebrew does not mean the same thing as “seeing someone’s face.” Speaking face to face is a euphemism for a close, intimate relationship. In fact, Torah elsewhere CLEARLY states that Moses did NOT see God’s face; he only saw his back (Ex. 33:18-34:8). The ONLY real example you have is Jacob in Gen. 32, but there the being with whom he wrestles does NOT claim to be God; Jacob simply thinks it is. Scriptural narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, so you cannot assume from Jacob’s statement that he was necessarily correct. Moreover, and more importantly, the Jews believed that God’s angel, “the angel of the Lord,” was the one who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as well as a host of Second Temple texts you likely have no access to or interest in) and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This angel bore God’s authority and Name, thus embodying God for the people since by definition the God of Israel did NOT have a body that could be seen. When God wanted to reveal himself in visions to prophets, this glorious angel stood as his personal representative. [/quote]
So, in Numbers 12, it doesn’t say that God spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron? God doesn’t tell the two of them that He speaks directly and openly to Moses, and that Moses sees his form?
[/quote]
Again, you are misreading my statements. I was NOT saying that God didn’t speak to Aaron and Miriam, but that they did not see him FACE TO FACE or speak to him FACE TO FACE. There is a difference. God’s point in Numbers 12 is that Moses has a unique relationship with God, one in which Miriam and Aaron do not share, one in which Moses speaks to God “face to face.” As I noted previously, this means that Moses and God had a uniquely intimate relationship, not that Moses saw God’s face. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for “form” or “LIKENESS” is mareh, the same word that Second Temple Jews often used (along with the term doxa/ cabod, meaning “glory”) to refer to the Angel of the Lord. In other words, Jews in Jesus’ time believed that it was not Yahweh that Moses saw, but Yahweh’s representative, the Angel of the Lord. THAT is why Stephen says that the law was revealed by angels (Acts 7:38, 53) rather than Yahweh directly.
[quote]
I do not have a problem with context, so save your childish insults. The real fact is that anybody with any sense at all can see that the god of Israel and the Father, as exemplified by Christ, are two completely different entities. If you didn’t have the church to beat it into your head that they are the same, you would see it plain as day.
I do not doubt Christ. I do not doubt the Father. I also believe that Paul is exactly who and what the prophesies say he would be (not who he says he is).[/quote]
There are two major options when Scripture presents a difficulty - we can either try to understand how others have coped with this problem previously and see if there is a fitting solution related to the definition and use of words, etc., OR we can take the coward’s route, the route Marcion took, and redefine which texts are Scripture so that we can throw the problem out. You, JayPierce, are doing a little of both, which is the primary strategy of cultists.
That’s really how Christian cults have been started for LITERALLY 2000 years…
(1) Someone sees that a biblical text presents an apparent contradiction (the goodness of an omnipotent God and human suffering, for example)
(2) That person offers a theory that seems to simplify the problem (God is good but not omnipotent; God is omnipotent but not God; etc.)
(3) That person eventually realizes that their theory does NOT fit all the evidence (too many passages say that God is omnipotent AND good)
(4) The cultist starts cutting out pieces of Scripture or even entire books that don’t fit his model (in your case, that includes most of the New Testament and much of the Old)
(5) The cultist offers others his “simplified” form of Christianity, and the unlearned, gullible, and lonely fall for it
The sad thing, Jay, is that you aren’t even in the same league as guys like Joseph Smith, and people are more wary of easy answers today than they used to be, so your career likely won’t get off the ground. I praise our Heavenly Father for that. [/quote] @KingKai this angel of the Lord stuff is interesting, what are your thoughts about this being a Christophany of the preincarnate Christ? Anywhere I can read up on the historical milleu concerning this?[/quote]
Hey Joab, there are several excellent monographs on this issue, but they are all really expensive. If you have access to a good college/university library, you might be able to find some of them. Here are a couple good ones…
The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord by Jarl Fossum
Jesus and the Angels by Peter R. Carrell
Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology, and Soteriology by C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis
As far as being a Christophany, that’s a great question. The primary problem with that notion is that it is not an identification the New Testament authors ever make; that view originates with some of the early church fathers alone.
At that point in time, potentially. I never said the Scriptural account was exhaustive; I simply provided examples that may be the very ones of which God speaks. Positing a long list of commandments of which there is no evidence in the text itself goes beyond the evidence. Your readings regularly go beyond the evidence; that is why they remain unconvincing.[/quote]
You are backpedaling right into the exact question I originally asked: “What were they originally and how do they differ from what was given on Mount Sinai?”
I’m not claiming that you have the answer or that it is some huge secret or that it even matters much, I just want to know. Especially since God tells Ezekiel that he gave the Jews statutes that were not good and ordinances they couldn’t live by (Ezk 20:25).
It’s just one example of details being left out.[/quote]
In this case, I am jumped on you too soon, and for that I apologize. Given your generally idiosyncratic interpretations, I mistakenly assumed that you had another revisionist interpretation in mind, when in reality you were just asking a question.
Regarding Ezekiel 20:25, however, you are again ignoring the context. I know the way the verses are ordered on the page in translations can make you think that the text is an assemblage of random quotes, but it is not. Three times before that passage you quote, God says he gave the Israelites in the wilderness (1) HIS rules (2) “by which a man shall live” (Ez.20:11, 13, 21). Yahweh’s gift of HIS laws, ways, etc, is purposefully contrasted with the latter “gift” of laws “by which one cannot live.” The Hebrew here does not mean, “they could not obey them,” but rather that “these laws do NOT lead to life.” God’s laws, for those who obey them, lead to life; once Israel had repeatedly shown itself disobedient, God gave them laws that were not good and that didn’t lead to life. Of what did these laws consist? THe very next verse explains -idolatry (setting aside their children for burnt sacrifices) (Ez. 20:26). In other words, God gave disobedient Israel over to idolatry so that he could punish them.
Why? No idea. Tirib would say something about " for His own glorification," and that’s honestly the best answer anyone can give.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I agree that Luke had a very specific purpose in mind, but we disagree on what that purpose was.
Stephen misquoted the scriptures several times, and then rejected the temple as the dwelling place of God. To the Jews, this would not be considered blasphemy?
[/quote]
What was Luke’s rhetorical aim, i.e., his purpose in writing, in your mind?[/quote]
I’d rather not answer this right now, as I don’t want to go off on a tangent.
[/quote]
Actually, this is the very opposite of a tangent. An authors writes a work like Acts with a purpose in mind; he doesn’t just sit down one day and say, “hey, I think I’ll write a bunch of random stuff.” Writing in the ancient world was VERY EXPENSIVE - parchment was difficult to make; inks were rare; and good scribes (people trained to write) were relatively few and far between. Consequently, Luke would have had a purpose in mind, and that purpose forms the organizational structure of the work. Every story, every anecdote, has a purpose, always relating back to the ultimate purpose of the work. This is CENTRAL for understanding ANY portion of Luke’s works.
The Greek of Acts 7:21 does not say that Moses was “simply left outside the door.” Seriously, dude, every time you see something weird in a translation, you should be asking yourself, “what does it say in the Hebrew/Greek?” That’s Hermeneutics (the art of interpretation) 101. If you don’t know the biblical languages, your theories will ALWAYS be weak. ALWAYS. The Greek word is ektithemi, which merely means to “expose.” It was a common term in the ancient world for the abandonment and exposure of infants to the elements. It does not mean simply “put outside the door;” that’s a horrible translation. Stephen’s description is thus accurate - Moses’ mother handed him over to fate. And regarding Stephen’s claim that Moses knew he was to be Israel’s deliverer, there is nothing in the text itself of Exodus 3 that refutes that point. Moses does not WANT to be the deliverer when he speaks with God; moreover, after forty years in wilderness, he probably thought that he had misinterpreted God in the first place. But the Exodus is account is silent on that issue - it does not say that Moses did OR didn’t know when he killed the Egyptian that he was the one God had chosen to be Israel’s deliverer.
As for the claim that Yahweh gave them over to idolatry (“the worship of the hosts of heaven”), note Is. 6:9-12, where the prophet’s preaching is meant to SOLIDIFY AND CONTINUE the people’s hardness of heart and disobedience (idolatry) so that God could justly punish them for it. This is a relatively common motif.
This is the exact same problem we’ve run into over and over again. You read the text too selectively. FACT - there is NO evidence that Stephen even EXISTED outside of Acts. None. Therefore, if you are going to question Luke’s veracity, you cannot pick and choose which things you want him to be honest about. Why should we believe that Luke didn’t make the entire Stephen story up? Don’t you see? WIthout Luke, YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE WAS A STEPHEN TO BE KILLED!
Still you miss the most fundamental point - You have no access to Jesus except through the interpretations of individuals who likely never met him, including Luke, Mark, and Matthew. They ALL used the testimony of those who had seen Jesus, but the odds are that NONE of these three individuals knew Jesus. These individuals were divinely commissioned to assemble the teachings of the apostles into coherent narratives under the guidance of the Spirit; without them, you don’t know what Jesus said. And the things they tell you Jesus said are INTERPRETATIONS AND DISTILLATIONS of what Jesus said, NOT THE VERY WORDS OF JESUS.
Cute thought, but since you didn’t understand my previous statements about Luke, your claim to know ANYTHING about first century Judaism is, once again, questionable at best. [/quote]
I know that they ran him out of the city and stoned him to death for the sermon he gave before the Sanhedrin. So if it wasn’t for blasphemy, what was it?
[/quote]
Simple - READ THE TEXT IN CONTEXT! Acts 7:51-58 - He accuses them of being stiff-necked murderers of the Messiah (the Righteous One was a relatively common designation for the Messiah)! Then he goes further and says that Jesus (who called himself Son of Man) was seated at God’s right hand, just as he said he would be, thus further indicting them for Christ’s murder.
Miriam and Aaron are never said to see or to speak face to face with God. That’s actually the point in Numbers 12 - Moses ALONE is singled out for getting to speak with God “face to face.” Yet once again, you need to read in context, because “speaking face to face” in Hebrew does not mean the same thing as “seeing someone’s face.” Speaking face to face is a euphemism for a close, intimate relationship. In fact, Torah elsewhere CLEARLY states that Moses did NOT see God’s face; he only saw his back (Ex. 33:18-34:8). The ONLY real example you have is Jacob in Gen. 32, but there the being with whom he wrestles does NOT claim to be God; Jacob simply thinks it is. Scriptural narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, so you cannot assume from Jacob’s statement that he was necessarily correct. Moreover, and more importantly, the Jews believed that God’s angel, “the angel of the Lord,” was the one who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as well as a host of Second Temple texts you likely have no access to or interest in) and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This angel bore God’s authority and Name, thus embodying God for the people since by definition the God of Israel did NOT have a body that could be seen. When God wanted to reveal himself in visions to prophets, this glorious angel stood as his personal representative. [/quote]
So, in Numbers 12, it doesn’t say that God spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron? God doesn’t tell the two of them that He speaks directly and openly to Moses, and that Moses sees his form?
[/quote]
Again, you are misreading my statements. I was NOT saying that God didn’t speak to Aaron and Miriam, but that they did not see him FACE TO FACE or speak to him FACE TO FACE. [/quote]
You do your fair share of misreading, yourself. Go back and read it again. Moses talked directly with God and saw his form, god spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron, and Jacob not only talked face to face with Him, He wrestled with Him all night. Jacob even said “I have seen God face to face”
Jesus said “you have never heard His voice or seen His form.” John said “no one has ever seen God”
These are direct quotes, not inference.
[/quote]
No, sir, YOU are the one who needs to read these passages again, and ask WHAT THEY SAY AND DO NOT SAY. I know Greek and Hebrew; you don’t. Frankly, you came to battle with a wiffle bat against someone with a sword. When I provide evidence from the biblical text itself in the original languages, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that I am misreading them, you who lacks the capacity to even objectively compare the accuracy of one translation with another.
Moreover, GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS. I did not say that God did not speak to Miriam and Aaron; I said God did not speak to them FACE TO FACE! The text of Exodus 33-34 also says that Moses, while seeing the back of the divine being, NEVER SAW HIS FACE. And regarding Jacob, anyone with ANY training in the study of literature (ancient OR modern) knows that in a narrative, the LEAST trustworthy perspective (i.e., the perspective with the worst grasp on the situation) is that of the CHARACTER. Just because JACOB, the CHARACTER, interprets his confrontation with the being as “seeing God face to face,” that doesn’t mean that the NARRATOR, the one with the trustworthy perspective, thinks that he did! This is English 101!
You are creating a difficulty where there actually isn’t one, if you just knew ANYTHING about Second Temple Judaism. But you don’t. If you did, you would understand that when John says, “no one has ever seen God,” he was speaking into a context where ALL THE JEWS interpreted the supposed theophanies (i.e., divine appearances) in the OT as appearances of God’s special representative, an angel. Jesus is TRULY God, not just a representative, so in that sense, until people had seen Jesus, they had never really seen God.
And stop quoting John 5:37. He has a particular audience in view there; that passage is too specific to make your point. Jesus was talking to a specific audience, not making a general comment applicable to everyone. READ IN CONTEXT PLEASE.
This just illustrates my point about cultism. You don’t like the fact that the bible contains passages that are difficult to harmonize, so you posit multiple referents (i.e., multiple “gods,” or one major god and an antithesis masquerading as god). The gnostics did that too, and they did it better than you. So did Marcion. Smarter, more spiritually mature and sensitive people than you have been wrestling with these issues for thousands of years, and even your most novel interpretations are but pale shadows of those other heretics made. It’s been done and said before. How then do you, in the face of 2000 years of your betters interpreting these texts, not wonder why Christians throughout history have unanimously found such answers as you attempt to provide… lacking? Deficient? Simplistic? Naive?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Aw, c’mon, HH. The Scriptures are basically the only written records from that far back in history, and even some of those have been completely or partially destroyed. So it’s kinda difficult to provide proof outside the Scriptures. Be reasonable.
[/quote]False. We have THOUSANDS of other texts from that far back, many of them much older than the biblical accounts. This is why your Jesus’-words-only stuff is nonsense. Our historical sources for time periods around Jesus’ life are exceptional.
[/quote]
Then why is it so difficult to provide the information that HH asks for? You obviously know exactly which sources provide the necessary corroboration to the events of Christ’s life, which are exactly what he’s asking for. Why not point him in the right direction instead of hurling insults?
[/quote]
HH isn’t interested in history. He is interested in providing his own interpretation of history without reference to sources or facts, and he is especially interested in new interpretations like those you love to provide.
At that point in time, potentially. I never said the Scriptural account was exhaustive; I simply provided examples that may be the very ones of which God speaks. Positing a long list of commandments of which there is no evidence in the text itself goes beyond the evidence. Your readings regularly go beyond the evidence; that is why they remain unconvincing.
What was Luke’s rhetorical aim, i.e., his purpose in writing, in your mind?
Clarity, please - what constitutes a “misquotation” of Scripture in your mind? By what criteria do you, who lacks knowledge of Hebrew (and thus cannot read the Masoretic text) and Greek (and thus cannot read the Septuagint) and ancient culturally-conditioned quotation practices, call something a misquotation? If you have a theory that will actually convince someone who DOES possess knowledge of these things, I would like to hear it. That might finally lend some credibility to your radical claims.
Moreover, you have once again shown your inattention to context. Luke clearly calls those who accuse Stephen of “speaking against the holy place (the Temple) and against the law” FALSE WITNESSES (Acts 6:13). From Luke’s perspective, the men who accused Stephen of blasphemy were LIARS, men who had been PAID to bear false testimony about him (Acts 6:9-11). And even Stephen’s claim that “the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands” cannot be considered blasphemous, because what he means is elucidated by the Scripture he quotes (Is. 66:1-2). His point is that Yahweh is not dependent on human beings for anything, let alone shelter. Thus, Luke CLEARLY demonstrates that Stephen was UNJUSTLY accused of blasphemy.
Cute thought, but since you didn’t understand my previous statements about Luke, your claim to know ANYTHING about first century Judaism is, once again, questionable at best.
Miriam and Aaron are never said to see or to speak face to face with God. That’s actually the point in Numbers 12 - Moses ALONE is singled out for getting to speak with God “face to face.” Yet once again, you need to read in context, because “speaking face to face” in Hebrew does not mean the same thing as “seeing someone’s face.” Speaking face to face is a euphemism for a close, intimate relationship. In fact, Torah elsewhere CLEARLY states that Moses did NOT see God’s face; he only saw his back (Ex. 33:18-34:8). The ONLY real example you have is Jacob in Gen. 32, but there the being with whom he wrestles does NOT claim to be God; Jacob simply thinks it is. Scriptural narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, so you cannot assume from Jacob’s statement that he was necessarily correct. Moreover, and more importantly, the Jews believed that God’s angel, “the angel of the Lord,” was the one who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as well as a host of Second Temple texts you likely have no access to or interest in) and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This angel bore God’s authority and Name, thus embodying God for the people since by definition the God of Israel did NOT have a body that could be seen. When God wanted to reveal himself in visions to prophets, this glorious angel stood as his personal representative. [/quote]
So, in Numbers 12, it doesn’t say that God spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron? God doesn’t tell the two of them that He speaks directly and openly to Moses, and that Moses sees his form?
[/quote]
Again, you are misreading my statements. I was NOT saying that God didn’t speak to Aaron and Miriam, but that they did not see him FACE TO FACE or speak to him FACE TO FACE. There is a difference. God’s point in Numbers 12 is that Moses has a unique relationship with God, one in which Miriam and Aaron do not share, one in which Moses speaks to God “face to face.” As I noted previously, this means that Moses and God had a uniquely intimate relationship, not that Moses saw God’s face. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for “form” or “LIKENESS” is mareh, the same word that Second Temple Jews often used (along with the term doxa/ cabod, meaning “glory”) to refer to the Angel of the Lord. In other words, Jews in Jesus’ time believed that it was not Yahweh that Moses saw, but Yahweh’s representative, the Angel of the Lord. THAT is why Stephen says that the law was revealed by angels (Acts 7:38, 53) rather than Yahweh directly.
[quote]
I do not have a problem with context, so save your childish insults. The real fact is that anybody with any sense at all can see that the god of Israel and the Father, as exemplified by Christ, are two completely different entities. If you didn’t have the church to beat it into your head that they are the same, you would see it plain as day.
I do not doubt Christ. I do not doubt the Father. I also believe that Paul is exactly who and what the prophesies say he would be (not who he says he is).[/quote]
There are two major options when Scripture presents a difficulty - we can either try to understand how others have coped with this problem previously and see if there is a fitting solution related to the definition and use of words, etc., OR we can take the coward’s route, the route Marcion took, and redefine which texts are Scripture so that we can throw the problem out. You, JayPierce, are doing a little of both, which is the primary strategy of cultists.
That’s really how Christian cults have been started for LITERALLY 2000 years…
(1) Someone sees that a biblical text presents an apparent contradiction (the goodness of an omnipotent God and human suffering, for example)
(2) That person offers a theory that seems to simplify the problem (God is good but not omnipotent; God is omnipotent but not God; etc.)
(3) That person eventually realizes that their theory does NOT fit all the evidence (too many passages say that God is omnipotent AND good)
(4) The cultist starts cutting out pieces of Scripture or even entire books that don’t fit his model (in your case, that includes most of the New Testament and much of the Old)
(5) The cultist offers others his “simplified” form of Christianity, and the unlearned, gullible, and lonely fall for it
The sad thing, Jay, is that you aren’t even in the same league as guys like Joseph Smith, and people are more wary of easy answers today than they used to be, so your career likely won’t get off the ground. I praise our Heavenly Father for that. [/quote]
Actually, by his own admission HH is only interested in stirring people up. He has no interests in facts or honest discussion, he is incapable of it. If you answer him he just ignores it and moves on to something else to rile people up. Such is his MO. Calling him a dumbass is about as intellectual as you can get with HH. Such is the depth of his knowledge.
Actually, by his own admission HH is only interested in stirring people up. He has no interests in facts or honest discussion, he is incapable of it. If you answer him he just ignores it and moves on to something else to rile people up. Such is his MO. Calling him a dumbass is about as intellectual as you can get with HH. Such is the depth of his knowledge.[/quote]
The topic has to be interesting for me to really give it thought. Debating one chunk of scripture versus another chunk of scripture is kind of pointless.
The proof that Jesus was divine is just as strong as it is for Jesus being a space alien who took pity on a bunch of gibbering apes.
This just illustrates my point about cultism. You don’t like the fact that the bible contains passages that are difficult to harmonize, so you posit multiple referents (i.e., multiple “gods,” or one major god and an antithesis masquerading as god). The gnostics did that too, and they did it better than you. So did Marcion. Smarter, more spiritually mature and sensitive people than you have been wrestling with these issues for thousands of years, and even your most novel interpretations are but pale shadows of those other heretics made. It’s been done and said before. How then do you, in the face of 2000 years of your betters interpreting these texts, not wonder why Christians throughout history have unanimously found such answers as you attempt to provide… lacking? Deficient? Simplistic? Naive?[/quote]
Religion is cultism. So that makes you a hypocrite
You are a Protestant, are you not? You, then, are a heretic by definition. Hypocrite again.
You claim to be able to interpret the texts better than those who have published accepted versions of the Scriptures. And here you accuse me. Hypocrite.
Christians throughout history have also found the answers you provide to be lacking, dishonest, and deceitful. People know that there is something wrong here. They know they are being lied to. But like you said, the unlearned, gullible, and lonely fall for it.
What would you say if He stood before you and asked why you didn’t believe His words? Why you take the teachings of a man whose spirit is not right within him over His? Because they are only interpretations and distillations? Not really His words? You needed someone else to expound on His teachings, instead of trusting in Him?
This just illustrates my point about cultism. You don’t like the fact that the bible contains passages that are difficult to harmonize, so you posit multiple referents (i.e., multiple “gods,” or one major god and an antithesis masquerading as god). The gnostics did that too, and they did it better than you. So did Marcion. Smarter, more spiritually mature and sensitive people than you have been wrestling with these issues for thousands of years, and even your most novel interpretations are but pale shadows of those other heretics made. It’s been done and said before. How then do you, in the face of 2000 years of your betters interpreting these texts, not wonder why Christians throughout history have unanimously found such answers as you attempt to provide… lacking? Deficient? Simplistic? Naive?[/quote]
Religion is cultism. So that makes you a hypocrite
You are a Protestant, are you not? You, then, are a heretic by definition. Hypocrite again.
You claim to be able to interpret the texts better than those who have published accepted versions of the Scriptures. And here you accuse me. Hypocrite.
Christians throughout history have also found the answers you provide to be lacking, dishonest, and deceitful. People know that there is something wrong here. They know they are being lied to. But like you said, the unlearned, gullible, and lonely fall for it.
What would you say if He stood before you and asked why you didn’t believe His words? Why you take the teachings of a man whose spirit is not right within him over His? Because they are only interpretations and distillations? Not really His words? You needed someone else to expound on His teachings, instead of trusting in Him?
Got a clue as to what He would say in response?[/quote]
KingKai owned you and the evidence is in the fact that the best you could do is these silly ad hominems. His explanations were spot on. Best you can do falsely accuse him of being a hypocrite.
It may serve you best to know the subject matter a little better rather than attacking. Are your doing is falling back on your initial accusations which were false and demonstrative of the fact that you do not know the subject matter.
St. Stephen committed blasphemy…LOL!
Cute thought, but since you didn’t understand my previous statements about Luke, your claim to know ANYTHING about first century Judaism is, once again, questionable at best. [/quote]
I know that they ran him out of the city and stoned him to death for the sermon he gave before the Sanhedrin. So if it wasn’t for blasphemy, what was it?
[/quote]
Simple - READ THE TEXT IN CONTEXT! Acts 7:51-58 - He accuses them of being stiff-necked murderers of the Messiah (the Righteous One was a relatively common designation for the Messiah)! Then he goes further and says that Jesus (who called himself Son of Man) was seated at God’s right hand, just as he said he would be, thus further indicting them for Christ’s murder.[/quote]
Actually, he gazed into heaven and said “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” I guess no one else saw them.
Your idea of the context in this case differs from mine. They didn’t cover their ears and scream and rush him for accusing them of murdering Jesus. They didn’t do it because he believed Jesus was the Righteous One. They did it because in their eyes, he was a blasphemer.
Your opinion of the translation of his sermon obviously differs from many other scholars on the subject, and I have no reason to take your word over theirs.
In Exodus, God tells Moses “I am sending you to Pharaoh so that you may lead My people, the Israelites, out of Egypt.” In response to which, Moses replied “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” And he protested several more times. The context here tells me that Moses did not know.
[quote][quote]
[quote][quote]
[quote][quote]
“How is it that Jacob, Moses, Miriam, Aaron and a few more folks saw and even spoke face to face with God, but then Jesus tells us no one has heard His voice or seen Him?”
[/quote]
Miriam and Aaron are never said to see or to speak face to face with God. That’s actually the point in Numbers 12 - Moses ALONE is singled out for getting to speak with God “face to face.” Yet once again, you need to read in context, because “speaking face to face” in Hebrew does not mean the same thing as “seeing someone’s face.” Speaking face to face is a euphemism for a close, intimate relationship. In fact, Torah elsewhere CLEARLY states that Moses did NOT see God’s face; he only saw his back (Ex. 33:18-34:8). The ONLY real example you have is Jacob in Gen. 32, but there the being with whom he wrestles does NOT claim to be God; Jacob simply thinks it is. Scriptural narrative is descriptive, not prescriptive, so you cannot assume from Jacob’s statement that he was necessarily correct. Moreover, and more importantly, the Jews believed that God’s angel, “the angel of the Lord,” was the one who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai (see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, as well as a host of Second Temple texts you likely have no access to or interest in) and to Jacob in Genesis 32. This angel bore God’s authority and Name, thus embodying God for the people since by definition the God of Israel did NOT have a body that could be seen. When God wanted to reveal himself in visions to prophets, this glorious angel stood as his personal representative. [/quote]
So, in Numbers 12, it doesn’t say that God spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron? God doesn’t tell the two of them that He speaks directly and openly to Moses, and that Moses sees his form?
[/quote]
Again, you are misreading my statements. I was NOT saying that God didn’t speak to Aaron and Miriam, but that they did not see him FACE TO FACE or speak to him FACE TO FACE. [/quote]
You do your fair share of misreading, yourself. Go back and read it again. Moses talked directly with God and saw his form, god spoke directly to Miriam and Aaron, and Jacob not only talked face to face with Him, He wrestled with Him all night. Jacob even said “I have seen God face to face”
Jesus said “you have never heard His voice or seen His form.” John said “no one has ever seen God”
These are direct quotes, not inference.
[/quote]
No, sir, YOU are the one who needs to read these passages again, and ask WHAT THEY SAY AND DO NOT SAY. I know Greek and Hebrew; you don’t. Frankly, you came to battle with a wiffle bat against someone with a sword. When I provide evidence from the biblical text itself in the original languages, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that I am misreading them, you who lacks the capacity to even objectively compare the accuracy of one translation with another.
Moreover, GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS. I did not say that God did not speak to Miriam and Aaron; I said God did not speak to them FACE TO FACE! The text of Exodus 33-34 also says that Moses, while seeing the back of the divine being, NEVER SAW HIS FACE. And regarding Jacob, anyone with ANY training in the study of literature (ancient OR modern) knows that in a narrative, the LEAST trustworthy perspective (i.e., the perspective with the worst grasp on the situation) is that of the CHARACTER. Just because JACOB, the CHARACTER, interprets his confrontation with the being as “seeing God face to face,” that doesn’t mean that the NARRATOR, the one with the trustworthy perspective, thinks that he did! This is English 101![/quote]
OK, one more time, and I’ll spell it out line by line:
Aaron, Miriam, Moses and Jacob all heard his voice. Jesus said ‘you have never heard His voice…’
Moses saw his form. Jesus said “…or seen His form”
Jacob saw God face to face, and even named the place Peniel “because I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been spared.”
How very convenient.
“He saw God face to face! He struggled with Him all night and won!”
“No one has ever seen God”
“Oh, uh, I mean, he saw an angel that, uh, named him Israel “because you have struggled with God and men and have prevailed”, and he, uh, thought the angel was God… Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
And who thought up this farce and sold it to you? And you have the nerve to call someone else naive?
[quote]And stop quoting John 5:37. He has a particular audience in view there; that passage is too specific to make your point. Jesus was talking to a specific audience, not making a general comment applicable to everyone. READ IN CONTEXT PLEASE.
[/quote]
Again, very convenient to you argument. You shape context to suit your argument the same way everyone else does (myself included). Him referring to the Jews as a whole suits my argument, Him referring to those specific Jews that were standing right there with Him supports yours. There is no way for either of us to prove our viewpoint, but to me it makes more sense that He was referring to Jews as a whole.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Actually, he gazed into heaven and said “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” I guess no one else saw them.
Your idea of the context in this case differs from mine. They didn’t cover their ears and scream and rush him for accusing them of murdering Jesus. They didn’t do it because he believed Jesus was the Righteous One. They did it because in their eyes, he was a blasphemer.
[/quote]
We are arguing right passed one another. Your ORIGINAL question was why Stephen is considered a martyr if he was ultimately killed for blasphemy. My point was that CHRISTIANS, including and most especially the author of the text that tells Stephen’s story, do NOT consider Stephen to have blasphemed. Luke would not have included the story if, in LUKE’S perspective (and the perspective of first century Christians in general), Stephen had blasphemed. In Luke’s view, the Jews WRONGLY accused Stephen of blasphemy. What the particular Jews who attacked Stephen thought is, frankly, irrelevant. So THAT’S why Christians consider Stephen a faithful martyr - from the Christian perspective, calling Jesus the Son of God is NOT blasphemy, nor would be denying that God’s presence remained in the Jerusalem temple.
Name the scholars to whom you refer. I can list dozens, many of whom I have studied under, eaten meals with, and visited at their homes. What “scholars” are you referring to? The pseudo-scholar lawyer that runs the Jesus-words-only website that you have stolen so many of your interpretations from? All your supposed knowledge - all of it comes from a single website overseen by a man without ANY legitimate qualifications. So I’d like to know what credible scholars I am disagreeing with, and on what grounds.
You also don’t know what context is. What you are calling “context” is the really the notion that you’re extrapolating from Moses’ statements. That’s not the context, i.e., the narrative and discursive framework in which those statements are uttered and which ultimately regulate their meaning. What is the context in this case? The context is the narrative framework - God speaks to Moses after Moses had spent 40 years in the wilderness. Moses had gone from the heights of power in Egypt to the life of a shepherd. This is not the same Moses who left Egypt. Is it not feasible that, after the Israelites denied Moses’ role as arbitrator and savior, and after spending 40 years at a relatively humiliating job, Moses had lost faith in himself and had come to deny the legitimacy of his own calling? That is CERTAINLY a possibility, and there is nothing in Moses’ statements that conflicts with that possibility. Nothing in Moses’ protest obviates that possibility; his statements are perfectly consistent with the scenario I presented.
I am not saying this is DEFINITELY how it happened. I am saying that, if you are going to argue that Stephen was a blasphemer and a liar, you are going to have do better than that. Stephen’s statements about Moses may represent divine revelation given to him. On the other hand, they may represent nothing more than an extra-biblical extrapolation, but nothing he says CONFLICTS with meaning of Exodus 2-3. Moreover, Stephen’s point about Moses is ancillary to his greater rhetorical purpose in his speech - to show that the Israelites had continually, throughout their history, resisted the God who would save them.
[quote]
OK, so now we are tracing all of this back to your interpretation of John 5. Got it. I’ll deal with that aspect below, though for now I do want to point out that just because your ENGLISH translation uses the word “form” to translate both a HEBREW word and a GREEK word, that doesn’t mean that the Hebrew and Greek words mean the same thing.
Regarding your continued mention of Jacob, I am going to make the same point I made before, the one you just cannot wrap your mind around - the voice of the CHARACTER in the story does NOT necessarily reflect the opinions of the NARRATOR/AUTHOR, the one telling the story. Just because the text reports what JACOB believed (i.e., that he had actually wrestled with God), that doesn’t imply that the NARRATOR/AUTHOR thought that. Thus, your point is mute. It doesn’t matter how Jacob interpreted his experience; unless you can demonstrate that the NARRATOR shared Jacob’s view, then all you are saying is that, “in Jacob’s opinion, he saw God.”
You do realize that Jacob wasn’t a monotheist, right? You do realize that the monotheistic theology of Moses and the later Israelites was NOT Jacob’s? The WHOLE POINT of the book of Genesis is to demonstrate that the same God who created the cosmos was ALSO the same God who attached himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even if THEY didn’t know this fact.
That is what the VAST majority of Jews in the first century believed, sir. That is how they explained these issues. Even secular scholars agree on this.
Again, very convenient to you argument. You shape context to suit your argument the same way everyone else does (myself included). Him referring to the Jews as a whole suits my argument, Him referring to those specific Jews that were standing right there with Him supports yours. There is no way for either of us to prove our viewpoint, but to me it makes more sense that He was referring to Jews as a whole.[/quote]
Haha what’s convenient? That I just happen to have determined my position based on the various aspects of the text’s contextual field (linguistics, history, sociology, literary theory, etc.)? Yup, it’s pretty amazing how I’ve started from context and used that to determine the meaning of words. You should try that, sir. I’m not shaping the context; you are DENYING the context.
Here’s the point - Jesus was talking to specific individuals at a specific point in time. I argue that “you” refers only to those to whom Jesus was speaking. You argue that “you” encompasses the Jews as a whole. Now since context governs meaning, we have a problem. If you see me standing in the middle of the street, surrounded by a group of women, and you hear me say, “none of you are attractive,” are you going to assume that I am saying “no women anywhere are attractive?” No, it is fairly obvious based on the context, the setting in which my statements are uttered, that I am talking about a specific group of women. The case is the same here - given the setting, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that Jesus speaks beyond his immediate context. There is no way to demonstrate that; you just have to assume it. But that means I have to take your word for it. Frankly, if the only way that passage means what you say it means is if you presuppose that it does, then the problem doesn’t really exist.
But let’s go one step further. You are only quoting John 5:37, but that is only the beginning of a longer sentence. What else does Jesus say in that sentence, which carries over to vs. 38? "You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he has sent." Now if Jesus is talking to ALL Jews, not merely those standing in front of him, we have a problem, because the gospel clearly notes some Jews who did believe! John 2:11 states, "Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him." Jesus’ disciple group was composed primarily (though not entirely) of Jews; thus, if Jesus’ statements in John 5:37-38 apply to all Jews and not just to Jesus’ audience in particular, then Jesus was wrong. If, however, Jesus’ statements about no one seeing God’s form or hearing his voice applied only to Jesus’ audience, AS THE CONTEXT ITSELF SUGGESTS, then the supposed disagreement between Jesus’ words and the Old Testament disappears.
Religion is cultism. So that makes you a hypocrite
You are a Protestant, are you not? You, then, are a heretic by definition. Hypocrite again.
[/quote]
First, please define “Religion” and “cultism.” When I am referring to cults, I am employing the term as it is used in the field of sociology to distinguish a group diverging from a primary religious tradition by its emphasis on new beliefs, interpretations, etc. Based on the sociological definition, the one I am using, Protestantism is a Christian sect, NOT a cult. What’s the difference? Protestantism was a judgment (warranted or otherwise) on the legitimacy of some of the teachings of the Catholic church of the 16th century A.D. It is, in other words, a reformation movement sharing the majority of distinctive, defining Christian beliefs (divinity of Christ, Trinitarian nature of God, justification by faith, continuity of Israel’s faith and the church’s, inspiration of every part of the Scriptures, etc.). By denying the continuity of identity between the the God of Israel in the Old Testament and “the Father” of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as the authority and inspiration of all the Scriptures, you prove that you stand outside of Christianity.
Secondly, I don’t think you know what the phrase “by definition” means. That phrase is used to refer to tautologies - “all bachelors are unmarried men” is an example of a statement that is true by definition. For your second assertion to be correct, “Protestant” would have to mean “heretic.” The word Protestant itself does not, however, mean heretic; it means “one who protests.” Now some Catholics may believe that Protestants are heretics, but that doesn’t mean that Protestants are, tautologically speaking, heretics. And last I checked, since Vatican II Catholics have called Protestants “separated brethren”
Hmm, that’s not true. What I’ve most OFTEN taken issue with is your inability to understand the meaning of the English words chosen to translate the Greek. When I have disagreed with particular translations, it is because they are OUTDATED translations, ones which no longer garner any respect in critical circles. Your repeated use of the KJV in the past is an EXCELLENT example of what I am talking about. Despite the fact that the KJV is now widely recognized as a very poor translation, you still chose to use it.
That being said, even if I did disagree with the rendering of a word or phrase in a particular legitimate translation, I would not do so arbitrarily. THAT is the difference between us, JP. I am a trained exegete, trained by individuals who have worked on MULTIPLE translations. I know Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. I have a deep knowledge of Greco-Roman and Second Temple Jewish history and culture developed over several years of intense study. When I argue over the meaning of a word or phrase, I do it as someone who actually KNOWS that language. When you do it, on the other hand, it is completely arbitrary - you have no knowledge of the biblical languages or Greco-Roman and Jewish history and culture.
I could only be called a hypocrite if I was as inept of an exegete as yourself. If I knew nothing about the ancient world, like you, and I critiqued scholarly work, I would be a hypocrite. However, I am a scholar trained by scholars, so if I were to critique a particular scholar’s work, I would have a much more solid basis than you for doing so.
I’d LOVE to know who these “Christians” are, considering that, by your denial of the relationship between the God of Israel and Jesus’ “Father,” you don’t seem to know what a Christian is.
[quote]
What would you say if He stood before you and asked why you didn’t believe His words? Why you take the teachings of a man whose spirit is not right within him over His? Because they are only interpretations and distillations? Not really His words? You needed someone else to expound on His teachings, instead of trusting in Him?
Got a clue as to what He would say in response?[/quote]
I demonstrated before that your reading of Habakkuk (an interpretation which you stole from someone else) is a bunch of ridiculous, non-contextual nonsense.
You are the one who should be worried, JP. Jesus Christ himself appeared to Paul, one of the humblest and yet most gifted men this world has ever known, a man of whom this world was not worthy, and made Paul one of his apostles, charging him with the mission to the Gentiles. WIthout Paul, sir, and his revelation of God’s desire to save the Gentiles WITHOUT making them become Jews, you and I would likely remain dead in our sins. Some day you will see Paul among the apostles, and you will realize how wrong you have been.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Actually, he gazed into heaven and said “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” I guess no one else saw them.
Your idea of the context in this case differs from mine. They didn’t cover their ears and scream and rush him for accusing them of murdering Jesus. They didn’t do it because he believed Jesus was the Righteous One. They did it because in their eyes, he was a blasphemer.
[/quote]
We are arguing right passed one another. Your ORIGINAL question was why Stephen is considered a martyr if he was ultimately killed for blasphemy. My point was that CHRISTIANS, including and most especially the author of the text that tells Stephen’s story, do NOT consider Stephen to have blasphemed. Luke would not have included the story if, in LUKE’S perspective (and the perspective of first century Christians in general), Stephen had blasphemed. In Luke’s view, the Jews WRONGLY accused Stephen of blasphemy. What the particular Jews who attacked Stephen thought is, frankly, irrelevant. So THAT’S why Christians consider Stephen a faithful martyr - from the Christian perspective, calling Jesus the Son of God is NOT blasphemy, nor would be denying that God’s presence remained in the Jerusalem temple. [/quote]
My point remains. He was not killed for his belief in Christ. Whether rightly or wrongly, he was killed for blasphemy.
Name the scholars to whom you refer. I can list dozens, many of whom I have studied under, eaten meals with, and visited at their homes. What “scholars” are you referring to? The pseudo-scholar lawyer that runs the Jesus-words-only website that you have stolen so many of your interpretations from? All your supposed knowledge - all of it comes from a single website overseen by a man without ANY legitimate qualifications. So I’d like to know what credible scholars I am disagreeing with, and on what grounds. [/quote]
NIV, KJV, HCSB, NASB, ISV all say “he was placed outside”. So the scholars to whom I refer are the scholars who gave us those translations. That’s what I meant by ‘obviously’.
I quoted that one website once, because I thought it was an insightful translation. He simply reposted it for the same reason. It was not his own work. But of course, because it is critical of Paul, the scholar who wrote it is absolutely ridiculously off-his-rocker.
Name the scholars to whom you refer. I can list dozens, many of whom I have studied under, eaten meals with, and visited at their homes. What “scholars” are you referring to? The pseudo-scholar lawyer that runs the Jesus-words-only website that you have stolen so many of your interpretations from? All your supposed knowledge - all of it comes from a single website overseen by a man without ANY legitimate qualifications. So I’d like to know what credible scholars I am disagreeing with, and on what grounds. [/quote]
NIV, KJV, HCSB, NASB, ISV all say “he was placed outside”. So the scholars to whom I refer are the scholars who gave us those translations. That’s what I meant by ‘obviously’.
[/quote]
That’s not how you interpreted their statements, Jay. You misinterpreted them. Here is what you said, verbatim…
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Moses was not simply left outside the door at three months old…
[/quote]
That’s what you said. Did any of those translations add the phrase “the door?” NOPE. And Moses was placed outside - their translation in this case is very literal - but my previous point remains. That term is used primarily in other Koine texts as reference to the abandonment of a child. YOU misread them and added the phrase “the door” to the statement “placed outside.” This matters, Jay, because you accused Stephen of misrepresenting Scripture. But saying that Moses “was placed outside” is NOT an inaccuracy; it is a true statement.
Moreover, NOT all translations say that. The NRSV reads, “he was abandoned,” and the ESV translates the phrase as “he was exposed;” both translations thus support the interpretation I provided.
This is yet another case of your misreading of the ENGLISH creating a “problem” that is easily resolved in the Greek.
That “scholar” is not a scholar, but he is most certainly “off-his-rocker.” Only someone who knows NOTHING about Hebrew poetry and prophecy could EVER have so foolishly misread Habakkuk 2:4-5 as a prophecy against Saul-Paul the Apostle. The exegesis is so bad its astounding; scholars in even the most secular, God-hating institution would laugh at such poor exegesis. You may find it insightful, but that is because you know NOTHING about Hebrew poetry and prophecy.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Actually, he gazed into heaven and said “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” I guess no one else saw them.
Your idea of the context in this case differs from mine. They didn’t cover their ears and scream and rush him for accusing them of murdering Jesus. They didn’t do it because he believed Jesus was the Righteous One. They did it because in their eyes, he was a blasphemer.
[/quote]
We are arguing right passed one another. Your ORIGINAL question was why Stephen is considered a martyr if he was ultimately killed for blasphemy. My point was that CHRISTIANS, including and most especially the author of the text that tells Stephen’s story, do NOT consider Stephen to have blasphemed. Luke would not have included the story if, in LUKE’S perspective (and the perspective of first century Christians in general), Stephen had blasphemed. In Luke’s view, the Jews WRONGLY accused Stephen of blasphemy. What the particular Jews who attacked Stephen thought is, frankly, irrelevant. So THAT’S why Christians consider Stephen a faithful martyr - from the Christian perspective, calling Jesus the Son of God is NOT blasphemy, nor would be denying that God’s presence remained in the Jerusalem temple. [/quote]
My point remains. He was not killed for his belief in Christ. Whether rightly or wrongly, he was killed for blasphemy.[/quote]
I am really not sure what you are going for here, JP. I cannot even give you that point, because according to Acts 6, blasphemy was merely an excuse for them to kill him. That’s why the Jewish leaders went out of their way to get people to lie and accuse Stephen falsely (Acts 6:11-14). The charge of blasphemy was merely a pretense to legitimize killing Stephen; it was not blasphemy that made them WANT to kill him in the first place. Stephen spoke the truth and performed miracles in Jesus’ name; many Jews tried to answer him and shut him, but he was more persuasive than they were. They could not stand up against the “wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke” (Acts 6:10). THAT made them mad - the inability to answer Stephen’s claims that Jesus was the Messiah - and they used blasphemy as a pretense.
So what can we say? AT MOST, we can say that Stephen was killed for blasphemy de jure but was murdered for his testimony about Jesus de facto. Stephen’s story is fundamentally the same as Christ - Jesus too was killed because people were jealous of him, and the charges leveled against him of blasphemy were patently false, mere pretenses to legitimize their desire to kill him.
You also don’t know what context is. What you are calling “context” is the really the notion that you’re extrapolating from Moses’ statements. That’s not the context, i.e., the narrative and discursive framework in which those statements are uttered and which ultimately regulate their meaning. What is the context in this case? The context is the narrative framework[/quote]
I could pick this apart, but I am not interested in having a meta-argument.
Nothing in Moses’ protest indicates it, either. You’re reaching too far for vindication, even to the point of wild speculation.
My actual point through all of this is something you touched on earlier. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the story of Stephen ever happened. No historical reference. No corroboration.
I am not necessarily calling Stephen a liar as much as I am Paul. After all, he obviously dictated much of Luke’s writing.
