To scherzo - about the OT

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actualy thinkofone, the Hebrews distorted the law to such an extent that it was unrecognisable, this plus there adherence to an oral tradition blinded them to what the law was really about. which particular teachings of Christ had you in mind, which contradict the teachings of the Hebrew scriptures? for one must keep in mind that there is a differe ...[text shortened]... or it is at once both interesting and instructional! lets see what our friend Scherzo will say?

I just found it odd that you took exception to the idea that the OT has issues. But it seems now that you recognize the fact. I was primarily thinking of the Sermon on the Mount.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I just found it odd that you took exception to the idea that the OT has issues. But it seems now that you recognize the fact. I was primarily thinking of the Sermon on the Mount.

i do not think that Christ ever broke the law, nor did he instruct anyone else to break it. for example when he healed the leprous man, he stated that he should go and show himself to the priest, in accordance with the law, it was the Pharisaical interpretation of the law tht he had real trouble with, not the law itself. For example, he cured on the sabbath, this was construed by the Pharisses as constituting work, in one instance, he spat on the ground and made a poltice from clay and applied it to a mans eyes, this was also breaking the Pharisaical interpretation of the law, for he had applied a remedy to a non life threatening ailment, in this case, the blind mans eyes! Jesus showed that the Pharisees had turned the law into an unbearable burden, something which it was never intended to be, for it was supposed to be, in the case of the Sabbath, a time for happiness and rejoicing, rest and relaxation, not a burden.

Originally posted by scherzo
Is the Genesis 15 covenant still binding and operational or not?

It is. But Ishmael is a son of Abraham as well.

3 If so, who then is the modern beneficiary of that covenant?

Arabs and Semitic Jews.[/b]

Wonderful. I think we are making some real progress here.

So we have established that the Abrahamic covenant is valid and applies to both Arabs and Semitic Jews.

Now we just need to define a little closer exactly WHO these two groups are.

It seems reasonable to assume that current Israel are descendants of "Semitic Jews".

I am not quite clear who you call "Arabs" if (according to you) they only settled in Palestine quite recently (a few centuries after Christ).

You seem to agree that they are descendants of Abraham. But are they also the descendants of the Biblical nations living in that area, e.g. Lebanon, Assyria, Persia (now Iran)?

Let's just settle that one and then we can continue to probe whether the current conflict between the "sons of Abraham" is a continuation of the conflict in OT times between Israel and Judah and the surrounding nations.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i find this incredible Scherzo my friend, for the Hebrew scriptures were faithfully transmitted over thousands of years, for if you compare a portion of the dead sea scrolls, for example the book of Isaiah, its is almost identical to the modern day book of Isaiah, the only discrepancies being the spelling of proper names, in this instance a musical i ...[text shortened]... ubt that what we have in the form of the Hebrew scriptures is what the Ancient Hebrews also had.

When were the Dead Sea scrolls written?
When was the 'modern day book' written?
What date range is the 'Ancient Hebrews'?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i do not think that Christ ever broke the law, nor did he instruct anyone else to break it. for example when he healed the leprous man, he stated that he should go and show himself to the priest, in accordance with the law, it was the Pharisaical interpretation of the law tht he had real trouble with, not the law itself. For example, he cured on th ...[text shortened]... the case of the Sabbath, a time for happiness and rejoicing, rest and relaxation, not a burden.

I'm not sure why you think whether or not Jesus ever broke the law is relevant. Like you said, "The Hebrews distorted the law to such an extent that it was unrecognisable...". Jesus contradicted a number of such distortions in the Sermon in the Mount, for example, "An eye for an eye".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not sure why you think whether or not Jesus ever broke the law is relevant. Like you said, "The Hebrews distorted the law to such an extent that it was unrecognisable...". Jesus contradicted a number of such distortions in the Sermon in the Mount, for example, "An eye for an eye".

i thought that this is what you were asking, why the discrepancy? what did Christ say in this matter? the Law is fulfilled in these two statements, you must love your God and you must love you're neighbour as yourself, this does not appear to be a contradiction, but an affirmation of the Laws validity, what do you think?

Originally posted by twhitehead
When were the Dead Sea scrolls written?
When was the 'modern day book' written?
What date range is the 'Ancient Hebrews'?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were most likely written by the Essenes during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D.

The Isaiah Scroll, found relatively intact, is 1000 years older than any previously known copy of Isaiah. In fact, the scrolls are the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found.

http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

When was the 'modern day book' written? they are one and the same, that is the point

What date range is the 'Ancient Hebrews'?

The designation “Hebrew” is first used for Abram, distinguishing him thereby from his Amorite neighbors. (Ge 14:13) Thereafter, in virtually every case of its use, the term “Hebrew(s)” continues to be employed as a contrasting or distinguishing designation—the one speaking is of a non-Israelite nation (Ge 39:13, 14, 17; 41:12; Ex 1:16; 1Sa 4:6, 9), or is an Israelite addressing a foreigner (Ge 40:15; Ex 1:19; 2:7; Jon 1:9), or foreigners are mentioned (Ge 43:32; Ex 1:15; 2:11-13; 1Sa 13:3-7).

As the above texts show, the designation “Hebrew” was already familiar to the Egyptians in the 18th century B.C.E. This would seem to indicate that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had become quite well known over a wide area, thus making the appellative “Hebrew” a recognizable one. When Joseph spoke of “the land of the Hebrews” (Ge 40:15) to two of Pharaohs servants, he doubtless referred to the region around Hebron that his father and forefathers had long made a sort of base of operations. Some six centuries later the Philistines still spoke of the Israelites as “Hebrews.” During the time of King Saul “Hebrews” and “Israel” were equivalent terms. (1Sa 13:3-7; 14:11; 29:3) In the ninth century B.C.E. the prophet Jonah identified himself as a Hebrew to sailors (possibly Phoenicians) on a boat out of the seaport of Joppa. (Jon 1:9) The Law also distinguished “Hebrew” slaves from those of other races or nationalities (Ex 21:2; De 15:12), and in referring to this, the book of Jeremiah (in the seventh century B.C.E.) shows the term “Hebrew” to be then the equivalent of “Jew.”—Jer 34:8, 9, 13, 14.

In later periods Greek and Roman writers regularly called the Israelites either “Hebrews” or “Jews,” not “Israelites.”

When did the designation end, hard to say, the destruction of Jerusalem, in 70C.E. at the hand of the Romans?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i thought that this is what you were asking, why the discrepancy? what did Christ say in this matter? the Law is fulfilled in these two statements, you must love your God and you must love you're neighbour as yourself, this does not appear to be a contradiction, but an affirmation of the Laws validity, what do you think?

I'm not sure how you intended this to tie into what I posted. Can you be more explicit and connect the dots for me?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not sure how you intended this to tie into what I posted. Can you be more explicit and connect the dots for me?

Lol, its really funny, for i myself am unsure of what it is i am supposed to be addressing! what are you saying my friend, that there is incongruities with the teaching of Christ and the Law? for this is what is in my mind!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, its really funny, for i myself am unsure of what it is i am supposed to be addressing! what are you saying my friend, that there is incongruities with the teaching of Christ and the Law? for this is what is in my mind!

No, that there are incongruities between the teachings of Jesus and the OT just as there are incongruities between the Qur'an and the OT. I don't know where you got your idea. Maybe it'd help if you read back through the chain of posts.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No, that there are incongruities between the teachings of Jesus and the OT just as there are incongruities between the Qur'an and the OT. I don't know where you got your idea. Maybe it'd help if you read back through the chain of posts.

Hey Robbie and ToO,

Now that you both agreed that you've lost the plot, why don't you start your own thread on the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever. Scherzo and I have a worthwhile (I think!) discussion going here, and I am anxiously awaiting his next response!

😉
😀

See? You've scared off scherzo now!

Originally posted by CalJust
See? You've scared off scherzo now!

As we was scared off Palestine when it grew too heated for him, letting his family and friends behind...

Originally posted by CalJust

However, if so, what do you do with all the pro-jewish, anti-palestine passages?

Such as the injunction to destroy the Amalekites and their descendants (a message that still inspires the spiritual kindred of Baruch Goldman).

Originally posted by CalJust
Wonderful. I think we are making some real progress here.

So we have established that the Abrahamic covenant is valid and applies to both Arabs and Semitic Jews.

Now we just need to define a little closer exactly WHO these two groups are.

It seems reasonable to assume that current Israel are descendants of "Semitic Jews".

I am not quite clear wh nuation of the conflict in OT times between Israel and Judah and the surrounding nations.

I wasn't scared off. I didn't really post for a while. I need some breaks from the constant flaming that I get from generalissimo, Rajk999, and FabianFnas.

It seems reasonable to assume that current Israel are descendants of "Semitic Jews".

No, not necessarily. Many Israeli Jews are not from the Middle East, but from Europe, Africa, or Latin America.

I am not quite clear who you call "Arabs" if (according to you) they only settled in Palestine quite recently (a few centuries after Christ).

After Mohammed received his Revelation (or, if you're not Muslim, his "Revelation" ), the Muslims began a large expansion of their faith. The Arabian peninsula had soon become Muslim, and then the Arabs (previously confined to the Arabian Peninsula) spread outward, into the Levant, Africa, and Asia.

To me, an Arab nowadays is a native resident of or a person descended from an Arab League country, or someone who speaks Arabic as a native language.

You seem to agree that they are descendants of Abraham. But are they also the descendants of the Biblical nations living in that area, e.g. Lebanon, Assyria, Persia (now Iran)?

Yes and no. When the Arabian tribes moved into the Levant, Asia, and Africa (including Phoenicia, Persia, and Assyria), they interbred with the people already living there. I am one of the descendants of this interbreeding. Many others are not.