rakow

It was impressive to hear that Worthy has a ministry in the Holy Land. A. Can we learn more specifics about Worthy Ministries and its work, like some stories about how it has gone? I found a nice article in Messianic Times about a tour George was doing in the US: https://www.messianictimes.com/news/community/j/item/1916-george-and-rivkah-whitten-share-at-beth-messiah It must be courageous work, ministering in such a community directly. The Worthy News website says: This is impressive that you are helping spiritually hungry people in the region. Were there some unfortunate obstacles to becoming a 501c3? B. Can we learn about Kehilat Matan Todah and the Project Hear O Israel? I only found this webpage summary (http://sevenfoldsministry.tripod.com/) Peace - Shalom.

These three sites also tend to suggest "behold" as a central meaning: http://www.biblelandstudies.com/Hey.html http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/137077/jewish/Hei-The-Deed.htm http://www.hebrewtoday.com/content/hebrew-alphabet-letter-hei-ה The basic image is a person with his hands up. It could be praise, beholding, or showing his hands, bringing to mind Jesus showing his hands. The Chabad website cites Isaiah 25 where it uses the word "Behold" with "Hi-" One could check Strong's dictionary for more information on Behold as "Hi-" Also, I am not the only person to notice this connection. I found out about this topic when researching the discussion on the piercing of the hands in Psalm 22, finding the claim that YHWH desciphers as ARM BEHOLD NAIL BEHOLD. One can look at the websites discussing this for more details. And one can also check the three passages of Isaiah 52-53, Psalm 22, and Zechariah 11-13 to see how these concepts repeat in each.

The result for some has been that YHWH deciphers as Arm Behold Nail Behold, and they see this as a reference to Christ showing his arms/hands pierced by nails to Thomas in John 20, whereupon Thomas says "My Lord and My God". This whole pattern strongly brings to mind Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Zechariah 11-13 that describe Messiah as pierced and talk about his wounded or pierced arm(s).

I. Jewish traditions and mystics have over the centuries tried to find inner meanings in the sacred name of the Lord using its letters. The name of the Lord itself is called the Tetragramaton, meaning the "Four Letters". For reference, a fictional movie was made on the topic called "Pi", which related the Name to the Fibonacci sequence. Reverence for the name was shown in the Old Testament period by sometimes replacing YHWH in the Biblical text with Adonai, meaning Lord. Numerous names included references to YHWH, including perhaps the Hebrew name for Jesus, Yeshua, and others like Yehoshua, Yeshayahu. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua) In the New Testament, we find numerous references to the Lord, rather than the name YHWH being explicit. The Lord's name is important in the New Testament, and that name is Jesus, and it is also Yahweh. Note also how Jesus' name is said to come from the Lord in some NT manuscripts: ^ My guess is that the original read like the footnote says, because otherwise this underlined phrasing becomes redundant: "While I was with them in the world,[b]I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept". This passage seems to be suggesting that Jesus ("Yeshua") received Yahweh's name. In looking for an inner meaning in the name YHWH, I am not looking for the plain linguistic meaning (PSHAT), discussed in Moses' talk with the Lord in Exodus 3: By the way, I do not understand what the author means in the underlined bold part above. II. One rare way to interpret the inner meaning of words in Jewish tradition and mysticism has been to use the pictoral meanings and names of the words' letters. This would have actually been the normal way to read the letters had Hebrew been a pictoral language like Chinese, or to some extent Egyptian or Sumerian. However, while retaining traces of development out of pictoral script, ancient Hebrew was not itself relying on a pictoral-based alphabet. The Chabad website has an article deciphering the words for Passover and Pharaoh in Hebrew using the words' original letters' pictoral meanings: This book below gives a long discussion on this inner meaning of Passover. Below is an excerpt: Here is another explanation: III. Using this method with YHWH, the concepts of arm, behold, nail, behold seem to appear. Hebrew letters in the time of David and, before him, the Torah, used an alphabet wherein the letters looked more like the objects they were named after. Hence, the Hebrew letter called "yod" looked more like a "hand" than it does today. According to Jewish Encyclopedia, the letter ' , pronounced y and called "yod" refers to arm/hand. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15114-yod) Also, according to the same encyclopedia, the letter l , pronounced w and called "waw" refers to nail/hook. My first problem is the question: What does the original pictogram for Heh/Hey mean? It looked like a man with his arms upraised. Below you can see the Hebrew Letter in its early form: Next here is how the letter looked like in Phoenician and in Middle Hebrew, the script in which David wrote his Psalms. This was before the current Assyrian or "Ashurite" script was adopted. Some possible explanations for the meaning of the letter Heh: A. Creating or taking/giving oneself B. Behold Do you agree with what I underlined in the quote above? C. (The meaning is unknown) D. Behold, breath, or creative breath E. Jubilation, window

Good answer, Zemke! I think this is legitimate as an explanation. There can be different good, reasonable ways to deal with the passage. Do you have to approve my Likes, before they appear? Thanks to both of you for writing in!

Psalm 40 ascribes the Psalm to David and describes the Lord hearing his cry for salvation and bringing him out of a pit. Below is the JPT translation with Hebrew: 1. For the conductor, of David a song. אלַמְנַצֵּחַ לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר: 2. I have greatly hoped for the Lord, and He extended [His ear] to me and heard my cry. בקַוֹּה קִוִּיתִי יְהֹוָה וַיֵּט אֵלַי וַיִּשְׁמַע שַׁוְעָתִי: 3. And He drew me up out of the roaring pit, from the thick mire, and He set my feet upon a rock, He established my steps. גוַיַּעֲלֵנִי | מִבּוֹר שָׁאוֹן מִטִּיט הַיָּוֵן וַיָּקֶם עַל סֶלַע רַגְלָי כּוֹנֵן אֲשֻׁרָי: 4. He put a new song into my mouth, a praise to our God, so that many may see and fear, and trust in the Lord. דוַיִּתֵּן בְּפִי | שִׁיר חָדָשׁ תְּהִלָּה לֵאלֹהֵינוּ יִרְאוּ רַבִּים וְיִירָאוּ וְיִבְטְחוּ בַּיהֹוָה: I. By ascribing the Psalm to David, the Psalm makes itself implicitly Messianic. It suggests that David, whom the Tanakh calls the "Sweet Singer of Israel", wrote the Psalm, sang it, or that it otherwise belonged to him directly. The Psalm becomes Messianic in the eyes of the Tanakh's audience, because the Tanakh repeatedly refers to the Messiah allegorically as "David". (eg. Isaiah 55, Ezekiel 34 and 37, and also in the books of Jeremiah and Hosea). The Psalm is also Messianic due to verse 4, where it says that his new song brings "many" to trust in the Lord. The "many" or "multidudes" in the Tanakh is commonly a reference to the "many nations" (eg. in Isaiah 52-53). Turning the many nations to the Lord is a duty of the Messiah (eg. in Is. 11). II. The Psalm's reference to the Lord bringing him out of the roaring pit and mire and onto a rock is a reference to resurrection. This is because the "pit" in the Psalms refers to the state of physical death. By saying that the Lord drew him out of the pit, it means that David was in that pit of the state of death and then that the Lord drew him out of it. One scholar notes how "the Pit" was a reference to the state of death: L. Bronner says something similar about the concept of the pit in Psalm 16: III. Verse 7 is interesting, because it says the Lord gouged ("Karah") ears for him. Here is the JPT: You dug (karah) ears for me אָזְנַיִם כָּרִיתָ לִּי עוֹלָה This is relevant because earlier in Psalm 22, in some text variants, it says that the narrator's enemies gouged (Hebrew: karu; Greek LXX: oruksan) his hands. Verse 7 about the gouging of the ears shows that David is able to use gouging (karah) as a verb metaphorically describing gouging performed on one's body. The gouging of the ears therefore in Psalm 40:7 opens up the possibility that David is using a similar expression of gouging the hands in Psalm 22. Psalm 40 itself has major elements in common with Psalm 22. They both describe the narrator as being "encompassed" by evil, hunted by enemies, being in a state of death (Psalm 22 has it "the dust of death"; Psalm 40 has "a roaring Pit" and "thick mire"), as crying for help, as the Lord saving him, then the narrator praising the Lord to the assembly, and the righteous praising the Lord: 10. I brought tidings of righteousness in a great assembly. Behold, I will not withhold my lips, O Lord, You know. יבִּשַּׂרְתִּי צֶדֶק | בְּקָהָל רָב הִנֵּה שְׂפָתַי לֹא אֶכְלָא יְהֹוָה אַתָּה יָדָעְתָּ: 11. I did not conceal Your charity within my heart; I stated Your faith and Your salvation-I did not withhold Your kindness and truth-to a great assembly. יאצִדְקָתְךָ לֹא כִסִּיתִי | בְּתוֹךְ לִבִּי אֱמוּנָתְךָ וּתְשׁוּעָתְךָ אָמָרְתִּי לֹא כִחַדְתִּי חַסְדְּךָ וַאֲמִתְּךָ לְקָהָל רָב: 13. For countless evils have encompassed me יגכִּי אָפְפוּ עָלַי 15. May those who seek my soul to destroy it be shamed and embarrassed together; may those who seek to harm me retreat and be humiliated. טויֵבֹשׁוּ וְיַחְפְּרוּ | יַחַד מְבַקְשֵׁי נַפְשִׁי לִסְפּוֹתָהּ יִסֹּגוּ אָחוֹר וְיִכָּלְמוּ חֲפֵצֵי רָעָתִי: 16. May they be bewildered afterwards because of their shame, those who say about me, "Aha! Aha!" טזיָשֹׁמּוּ עַל עֵקֶב בָּשְׁתָּם הָאֹמְרִים לִי הֶאָח | הֶאָח: 17. All who seek You shall exult and rejoice; those who love Your salvation shall constantly say, "May the Lord be magnified." יזיָשִׂישׂוּ וְיִשְׂמְחוּ | בְּךָ כָּל מְבַקְשֶׁיךָ יֹאמְרוּ תָמִיד יִגְדַּל יְהֹוָה אֹהֲבֵי תְּשׁוּעָתֶךָ: IV. One of the controversies about seeing this Psalm as Messianic however, is that in the course of the Psalm, it talks about the narrator's "iniquities". One possible explanation is that these iniquities are those that the Messiah is bearing on behalf of others, as the Messiah is described as doing in Isaiah 53. For more information, see: The Uses of the Old Testament in the New, By Walter C. Kaiser, https://books.google.com/books?id=k7ZKAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq="psalm+40"+messianic+OR+messiah+OR+resurrection&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6-5LZ8eXRAhVLwiYKHd_tB7MQ6AEIlgMwRQ#v=onepage&q="psalm 40" messianic OR messiah OR resurrection&f=false

You are cool, gdemoss

gdemoss: Thanks for your lengthy response. The spiritual things you said are nice, although I am not sure how that would prove or disprove transubstantiation, other than what you said " Bread is bread. Wine is wine. " This though I think cannot be said in an absolute way under the Biblical ideas, since Jesus says "this is my body", as opposed to, say, "this is only bread". As a matter of exegesis, I don't know anyplace in the Bible where Jesus pointed to a specific, real life object and said "this is", naming a second specific real life object and meant it only metaphorically. Anyway, I don't want to make too much out of this one issue. I don't have a big opinion on the Catholic v Lutheran debate as to which side is Biblical. Only if I accept a strong materialistic preference in interpreting the Bible would I prefer the Calvinist/Zwinglian answer about the food to be the Biblical one. But my point in the thread is just to see a pattern on maybe a dozen issues where Calvin or other Reformed pick the materialistic side of debates involving the supernatural. There are many writings that describe Calvin as using Reason and the Natural Order. But I haven't found anything explaining why as a rule in the Reformed system the material and naturalistic explanations for supernatural Christian traditions are by default and as a pattern seen as strongly preferable. A good example is where Calvin writes about the Lutherans and the debate over the moving rock: Their second objection is more foolish and more childish -- "How could a rock," say they, "that stood firm in its place, follow the Israelites?" -- as if it were not abundantly manifest, that by the word rock is meant the stream of water, which never ceased to accompany the people. As a matter of normal reading of literature, once I have no problem with seeing events in it as supernatural, if I accept Calvin's claim that the rock here is a visible object, I have no problem in imagining that it miraculously moved. I don't see why it is so "abundantly manifest" that the word "rock" means "stream of water" to the point where the Lutheran question about this is "foolish". As a matter of common speech, I don't see how the words can be the same. Luke Skywalker moving a rock with the Force. If Luke can do this, I don't know why as a matter of the paranormal this could not be meant to happen in the Torah if Paul actually said that a physical object, "rock", was following them and moving. Let me give a fifth example besides those I've listed. Are you familiar with the story of the dry bones rising in Ezekiel 37? Why cannot this story be an actual prophecy about a real, physical resurrection? Reformed theologian William Young writes in John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: E. A. De Boer, professor of the Theological University of the Reformed Churches, writes the same thing in his book John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel: Historical and Hermeneutical Studies : https://books.google.com/books?id=RR0_7RuCXhgC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq="Ezeki el+37"++calvin+commentary&source=bl&ots=IsCZQ-ouhb&sig=vsYxNo-dvvv9GixewLS7UOIPzzg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj3638o IfMAhUCaD4KHfJxDQAQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q="Ezekiel 37" calvin commentary&f=false In case they mistakenly misrepresented Calvin, it still means that the two Reformed theologians are promoting a reading of Ezekiel 37 that is not a prophecy of a supernatural physical resurrection. I don't know why once we accept the supernatural that such a reading of a physical resurrection being actually predicted is ruled out. Even if the context is Israel, a resurrection still makes sense in the context, as Israel's dead would get physically resurrected too in Judaism's beliefs.

Gdemoss, The way that you think about the scriptures appeals to me on an emotional level. Based on your answer, you seem to be quite open to the supernatural, having a personal preference to accept it when that is the normal meaning of scripture. Accepting scripture's real meaning, supernatural or not is your goal, and supernaturalism is not a major obstacle to you. You seem like the kind of person who, after Jesus says in John 6 " I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world... Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. ", and Jesus follows this by asking "Doth this offend you?", would be the kind of person who would answer: "Whatever you say, Jesus, I agree". In the verses leading up to Jesus' question, Jesus never specified whether he was talking about something supernatural or not. The famous Reformed writer Gill says about Jesus' question and about John 6's statement that "many disciples" left Jesus because they couldn't handle this teaching: In other words, Jesus was saying that if the "many disciples" could not handle the teaching that they must eat Jesus' body corporeally (with their mouths), then their mentality couldn't handle the teaching of Jesus' bodily Ascension either. In contrast, in being so open to the supernatural, you seem to be quite open to Jesus' teachings, whether they seem materialistically "absurd" or not. This raises a fourth issue in which the Reformed approach reveals a naturalistic reading of the text: the question of the Eucharistic bread. Communion elements Luther took the view that Jesus' flesh had become a spirit body, and so that Jesus' body in "spirit mode" could be in communion bread, just like he proposed that it went in and through the wall in John 20. Paul talks about spirit bodies in 1 Corinthians 15:44 : "They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies." Calvin's view though was that since Jesus' body was human and in heaven, it was impossible for it to be "invisible" on earth in bread, as he explained in his Institutes. For me, if I accept a supernatural idea of Jesus having a spirit body that can go into matter, I don't have a problem as an issue of logic with Jesus' spirit body going into communion bread. However, if I accept a stricter naturalistic view of Jesus' body, then I would be sympathetic to Calvin's view. In normal modern naturalistic perceptions of the human body, we don't think of it becoming invisible or going in spirit mode into bread. So for me to advocate the latter, Reformed view that Jesus is not actually in communion bread, it would lead me to ask why I should rely on more naturalistic premises on this topic.

Saved34, I should have made it clearer. You are well on the right track. Calvin over and over came back to an emphasis on the "natural order" like Hesselnik explains, and he used a test of "reasonableness" vs. "absurdity"/"foolishness" on supernatural issues that he disagreed with Lutherans and Catholics about. He took the position that the Catholics and Lutherans were "ignorant". Now, I am not necessarily arguing here that Calvin is wrong when he says that something is just natural or that it didn't really happen. I am trying to unpack his logic and find out the premises behind these kinds of judgments. For example, why does he call the Catholics' claim that they have a group of exorcists who cast out demons "a compound of ignorant and stupid falsehoods"? How does he know that the Catholics can never show anyone reasonably that they succeeded in their work? It seems to me that the unstated reason for his intense skepticism is that casting out demons is not something that can be proven in a material way. In my opening post I just gave three examples for the sake of brevity, but I can think of seven or so others. It is hard for me to claim to you that Calvinists look for natural explanations most of the time overall. However, when Calvin does argue with Catholics and Lutherans over whether something supernatural happened, it stands out to me personally that Calvin always picks the naturalistic explanation. I am not trying to claim that Reformed don't care about the Bible or that they don't believe that God can do anything supernatural. But in the late renaissance when their movement started, whenever they had a definite argument against Lutherans and Catholics on a question of the supernatural, they had a very strong pattern of picking the natural explanation. It's true that nowadays there is a section of Reformed Christians who believe we are in the End Times and they have supernatural expectations about it. But this is a different mentality than Reformed had in the 16th century. Calvin never even wrote a commentary on Revelation, even though he wrote detailed commentaries on almost every other book in the Bible.

This is a great explanation by you, Ezra. The quote you gave is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism It's a good point that Calvin came our of a movement that used scholasticism to reach conclusions about religion and reality. Knowledge was to be reached by "rigorous" reasoning, as it explains. However, to simply leave it at that is not enough. The Catholic writers who came before Calvin and who used scholasticism were fine with proposing that the preincarnate Jesus was a "spiritual rock" who was actually following the Israelites in the desert like the cloud and the pillar of fire did. They were OK as a matter of their logic with accepting that Jesus was supernaturally present there in the desert. Likewise, the scholastic Catholics did not have a logic problem with thinking that there were real demon beings who Christian exorcists succeeded in casting out with prayers in the medieval period. When I think of the issue purely in terms of logic and fully allow for the supernatural, I don't have a problem thinking that Christian exorcists succeed occasionally in their work. So it seems to be not just a matter of Calvin using scholasticism - and you are right that he did include that method -, but also a matter of Calvin reaching certain conclusions based on his strong emphasis on the natural order like John Hesselnik wrote about in the quote I gave in my first message above. So I am looking to see if Reformed writers have explained more about this. Thanks again for writing in about this.

OK, Thanks for explaining, Omegaman. I had written: "So I am looking to see if Reformed writers have ever laid out the basis for their premises in this naturalistic aspect of their reasoning." I think that it's forwards to explain your basis for judging texts. A person has certain presuppositions. Leaving them stated or unstated is not backwards or forwards. When a person turns to a text saying something like "the spiritual rock followed the Israelites, and the rock was Christ", (Cf. 1 Cor 10:3-4), the reader has a choice of how to read this. Paul doesn't say about that verse explicitly "this verse I just wrote means..." The verse requires interpreting. And the reader has a choice of whether to read that naturally or supernaturally. A person who strongly prefers a naturalistic interpretation will pick that materialistic reading. Of course, he might not admit that he is picking it for that reason or being materialistic, but that naturalistic preference can still be his guiding spirit. So in Calvin's case, his reasoning was that hard, visible, physical "rocks" don't follow people, so the word must not mean "rock" but some other piece of nature - in this case a stream - that does move. It appears to be what happened that he read the text itself as saying that a visible rock was actually moving in the desert, but then he thought that this doesn't happen, so "rock" must mean another word instead of "rock". And instead of explaining that he was using naturalistic criteria and explaining his premises, he just announced that his conclusion about rock = stream was, in his words, "abundantly manifest". It's like if I told you that I saw a ball of fire fly through the air in the Texas desert and you, not being familiar with such phenomena, said that it was "abundantly manifest" that I must mean another object instead, but without ever explaining that you were using your experience in nature as your criteria. So I am looking to see if Calvinist writers ever explained their premises when they picked a naturalistic or sensory explanation of religious phenomena or claims.

OK, how about this: I think people stopped believing in Santa not just if they caught their parents hiding presents, but if they figured Santa Claus couldn't fit down the chimney. Isn't that holding Santa to materialistic, naturalistic criteria to judge if he really goes down chimneys? When we say that the bishop in Switzerland didn't have a supernatural vision of the angels and apostle Peter or that Mary didn't bless the spring, aren't we using a kind of naturalistic test to debunk it too? When the major Reformed theologian J. Mede implies that people in the Bible didn't have actual demons, isn't he using materialistic criteria to say that? I am trying to see if Reformed writers ever explained this, instead of just saying that they were using "common sense". Because some other people use common sense to think that there were real demons in Bible times or that the bishop had a real vision. So I am trying to see what the reasoning is.

No, I know what you mean Omegaman, and so what you said was not bad. In a way Paul was reasoning by nature to show that men should wear shorter hair, but that is not what I meant by naturalistic, but instead I meant picking a naturalistic answer over a supernatural explanation. A better example I guess would be when people following J.Mede's example would say things like "Demons aren't actually real; there's a natural explanation for things; demons were just a way people talked about ordinary mental illness back in Bible times." I am trying to think how I could have posed the question better, Omega. Let me know if you can think up a couple ways.

Thanks for your reply! About this verse, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, I think, gives a fine explanation: The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Nu 6:5). In the case of the examples in my original post, I was not just asking whether a known phenomena is a normal part of nature, but why in Calvin's scheme when some religious question arises he has a strong tendency to pick a naturalistic, materialistic understanding of events and teachings in scripture and religion, instead of allowing for a supernatural one. In the question above that you cited, nature normally has man grow shorter hair then women, and Paul concludes that based on nature that this is right. However, there were no possible grounds to argue from scripture that men must grow long hair as a rule, with some exceptions. We did not have an option of arguing that someplace in the Old Testament God says for all men to wear long hair and then the question arising of whether to take this instruction literally or metaphorically. There is no question of debating supernatural vs. the natural explanations in the verse you cited whereby one must pick a supernatural vs. naturalistic mindset to choose. To find an analogy of Jesus and Paul doing the same thing, I would have to look for some case in the Bible where there was a debate whether supernatural or only materialistic phenomena had occurred and Jesus or Paul said that the supernatural explanation was wrong because naturalistic explanations must be better as a rule. To clarify, in the three examples in my opening post, there was a potential supernatural explanation or teaching and a naturalistic one, and in each case Calvin chose the naturalistic explanation. This is not to say that Calvin and Zwingli were right or wrong. At a rationalistic level, I find their naturalistic preference appealing. Nonetheless, there is a consistent pattern to that effect. In the case of the Einsedeln spring, I sympathize with Zwingli. The story goes that in medieval times when they were building the monastery a bishop visited and had a vision of apostle Peter and angels, so that they never had to perform ritual consecration. And a voice was heard when they went to do the consecration saying not to consecrate the place because God had consecrated it. Do Reformed ever "bless" objects? And then the virgin Mary blessed the spring in the story. I am simply skeptical and think that the world is naturalistic enough that this kind of thing basically doesn't happen and that the bishop was either mentally confused or made up the story. However, if I were to accept supernatural premises that this kind of thing happens and is reasonable as a matter of real world phenomena, I don't know what objections I would make. The same is true for the moving rock in the desert with the Israelites in 1 Cor 10 and the question Calvin discussed of whether Christians cast out demons on occasion in the last 1800 years or so. To give another example, the renowned 17th c. Reformed theologian Joseph Mede, whom the book Lives of the Puritans extols, commented on the stories of people possessed by demons in the Bible: "I am persuaded... that these demoniacs were no other than such as we call mad-men and lunatics... (SOURCE: J. MEDE, DISCOURSES ON DIVERS TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE) Now whether one agrees with Mede or not, the question arises of why he found that a materialistic, naturalistic explanation should have been better than a supernatural one for what is discussed in the Bible. I understand. In ancient times, I think that when some people heard lightning, they thought that the Gods were actually doing this. Nowadays, we would consider that backward. When we see some natural phenomenon like shooting stars, we look for naturalistic explanations. Some people get into astrology and think that comets are omens, etc., but that's usually not part of our mentality today. It's not even a question of whether the Zodiac is Biblical; people in the modern era (including from Calvin's time and later) have started to think that these phenomena are just natural and not to look into stars and asteroids because it doesn't matter and is just superstition. Sure, maybe the Reformed writers would consider the ancient POV as backwards, but it seems to me that if they repeatedly judge the older beliefs as superstition, that as a matter of epistemology and philosophy some of them over the last 450 years or so would write out justifications for why the existence of a naturalistic or materialistic explanation means that the supernatural one is probably wrong.

One thing that I find partly appealing in Calvinism is - and I am not sure how to put this - a naturalistic, use of reason to judge religious claims. This is not to deny the centrality of the Bible as a religious text in Calvinism, but to note this use of naturalistic reason in judging religion, including the Bible's meaning. My question here is whether Reformed writers have laid out the premises or justifications for the skeptical, naturalistic aspect of their reasoning? Please allow me to explain. First, Reason plays a major role in Calvin's thinking and approach. Jung S. Rhee writes in John Calvin's Understanding of Human Reason in His Institutes:: An inquiry has been made about why the Reformed theology tends to be rationalistic, scholastic, and philosophical. ... In his article “Calvin’s Theological Method and the Ambiguity in His Theology”, Leith contended that Calvin’s theological methodology was formally biblicism but really rationalism.[11] Calvin’s “implicit confidence in the competence of reason to theologize on the basis of’ the biblical materials” was the crucial factor in his theology. “In the second book of the Institutes Calvin left no doubt about the sinful corruption of reason, and everywhere he rejected reason as an avowed source of theology. However, reason did become a source of his theology through speculation about and organization of the biblical materials. Calvin betrays little doubt as to the full competence of reason in the systematization and rational elaboration of the biblical materials... On the basis of the presupposition that the Bible supplies infallible material for theology and that reason is competent to manipulate and theologize about those materials, Calvin was convinced that he possessed the truth.”[12] In another words, “While he avows the greatest loyalty to Scripture, he actually goes beyond Scripture as a result of an almost irresistible tendency to extrapolate rationally the scriptural data.”[13] According to Leith, this rationalistic tendency has dominated later Calvinism, though Calvin himself was relatively successful to overcome the continuing threat of rationalism. He continues: In the four chapters respectively, I attempted to prove that.... (iii) Calvin demonstrated the corruption of human reason and convinced its perfect restoration to the original condition, which happens with the re-unity of reason and faith given by the Holy Spirit at the regeneration. (iv) Calvin established his theology according to his idea of “rational theology” by the full use of both natural and redeemed reason. ... Calvin understood the equity of the divine law in the Scripture and. that in the nature: “It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.”(IV.xx.16) Second, the concept of the natural order is a major concept to Calvin. John Hesselink writes in Calvin's Concept of the Law: In close conjunction with the law of nature and natural law, Calvin uses expressions such as: "the order of nature"; the "sense of nature" ; the "voice of nature itself"; "nature itself dictates; and simply by nature, or variant forms such as the law engraven or implanted on all by nature. ... That the concepts of natural law, the order of nature, conscience, common sense, etc. assume an important place in Calvin's theology is incontrovertible. .... As is commonly recognized, the majority of these expressions are of pagan, not Christian origin. The notions of law, nature, and conscience in particular were central to Stoic thought. ... Calvin's high evaluation of natural law and his acknowledgment of natural human achievement in several significant areas is not based on humanity's inherent goodness or worth but on God's grace. ... The order of nature also refers to the "orderliness or constancy of God's will within nature." Third, Calvin may not always use modern materialism and laws of nature to judge religion, but he uses a sense of naturalism in employing reason in numerous cases. To give an example, when judging the verse in 1 Cor 10 when Paul writes that Christ was a spiritual rock that followed the Israelites, Calvin decided that this must refer to a visible physical rock. He then concluded that since rocks don't follow people, the word "rock" must mean "stream of water". He disagreed with the Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox reading that "spiritual rock" was a name for Christ himself actually directly accompanying the Israelites. He wrote in his commentary: That rock was Christ Some absurdly pervert these words of Paul, as if he had said, that Christ was the spiritual rock, and as if he were not speaking of that rock which was a visible sign, for we see that he is expressly treating of outward signs. The objection that they make -- that the rock is spoken of as spiritual, is a frivolous one, inasmuch as that epithet is applied to it simply that we may know that it was a token of a spiritual mystery. In the mean time, there is no doubt, that he compares our sacraments with the ancient ones. Their second objection is more foolish and more childish -- "How could a rock," say they, "that stood firm in its place, follow the Israelites?" -- as if it were not abundantly manifest, that by the word rock is meant the stream of water, which never ceased to accompany the people. (SOURCE: Calvin's Commentary on 1 Cor 10) http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/10.htm From a modern, naturalistic standpoint, I find his reasoning appealing. In nature, rocks don't follow people, so it is easy to think of this as a stream of water following people. On the other hand, if I put myself in a supernatural mindset, I don't see any purely logical obstacle to thinking that there was an actual physical material rock, even one that looked like a normal rock, following the Israelites. So it seems that he is using a naturalistic method. To give a second example, when Calvin considered whether exorcists of his day were able to cast out demons and could show any proofs or specimens to show they succeeded, he wrote: Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession? It is pretended that power has been given them to lay their hands on energumens, catechumens, and demoniacs, but they cannot persuade demons that they are endued with such power, not only because demons do not submit to their orders, but even command themselves. Scarcely will you find one in ten who is not possessed by a wicked spirit. All, then, which they babble about their paltry orders is a compound of ignorant and stupid falsehoods. www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xx.html As a matter of naturalism, I sympathize with him. Demons and demonic possession can be hard to prove or show in the realm of natural observation. On the other hand, it seems to me that were I to put myself in a supernatural mindset and accept the role of such beings in human affairs, then I wouldn't reject across the board that Christian exorcists occasionally succeeded in their work in the last 10 centuries or so. To give a third example, I read that Calvin forbade Genevans from make their traditional pilgrimages to a regional body of water which by legend a saint had made holy. Unfortunately, I don't remember which one this was, but I found a similar story about Zwingli. John Broome wrote in his book Zwingli & Calvin: In 1516 Zwingli was offered the post of Preacher at the monastery of Einsiedeln. This contained one of the most famous shrines in Switzerland to which thousands came every year on pilgrimage to obtain the indulgences secured by a visit to the statue of the Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Einsedeln, said to perform miracles. The monastery was near lake Zurich and the Abbot was strangely a man set on removing superstition from his Abbey. Zwingli was in some doubt whether to accept the offer as he could see himself being shut away in this mountain retreat... But on consideration he realized that in such a place he could spread the truth to the thousands of pilgrims who came to Einsedeln each year. So he accepted the offer and from the shrine of Our Lady of Einsedeln pilgrims heard the Gospel, were warned of the futility of coming to the statue of Our Lady for indulgences .... the shrine of Our Lady of Einsedeln became a centre for the propagation of the Reformed Truth. ... The Pope did not interfere. Zwingli's Bishop was only too well aware what was going on.... Here overall I sympathize with Zwingli and Calvin. I am personally quite skeptical that a saint blessed the waters in either case, especially such that they would still be miraculous centuries later. It's also ruled out by a strong or materialistic view of the natural order. On the other hand, working within strong premises of the supernatural, I am not sure what would rule it out or stop it from happening. If saints could be given supernatural blessings to imbue objects with holiness, then purely as a matter of logic, I am not sure what my objection could be, other than to go back to normal naturalistic senses of reality. These are not the only cases. I can think of numerous others where Calvin or other major Reformed writers took a naturalistic view on religious questions in ways similar to those in the cases above. So I am looking to see if Reformed writers have ever laid out the basis for their premises in this naturalistic aspect of their reasoning.

WN constantly posts news announcements that favor the ongoing oppression of Palestinians, and this constant drumroll drowns out normal discussions between posters. Christ + calls us to peace and love for eachother and the Christians who have been living in the Holy Land for centuries are Palestinian. I ask that WN stop its drumroll. Christ + calls us in the Sermon on the Mount: 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Palestinians are severely suffering in the Holy Land. They live under military control and conquest, with their water taken from them. In the 2009 Gaza War, Palestinians lost 1385 people, while Israelis lost 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War). We hear very often about the many rocket attacks from Gaza, and I don't agree with them and am sorry for the casualties, because 2 Israelis died from them that whole year. While this is announced as fact, elsewhere you can learn that Kerry threatened to cut aid to the PA. I see many headlines about how Palestinians are threatening Israelis, but hardly anything about the repression that Palestinians are faced with constantly. Not long ago a young Palestinian named Odeh was shot in the head by the israeli army when he went to collect garbage with his brother. That's certainly not the kind of suffering you would read about in the headlines, unfortunately. Instead, the WN headlines talk about how there are rockets aimed at the Israelis. If Worthy News needs a place to have these kinds of continual pro-war headlines, it should set it up elsewhere on the forum section and have a separate section for actual discussions. But what the constant drumroll of WN does is that it crowds out other discussions and guides the conversation in a way that ends up supporting the ongoing repression and crushing of Palestinians, who were conquered long ago and many times since. May Christ + the Prince of Peace + and the Spirit of mercy be our guide.

Dear Nebula, The Palestinians are being thrown into the accusations of hatred and the punishment for the accusations of being hateful bloodthirsty thugs. Where is Christ + and kindness and charity in the desire to slaughter many people, Nebula? It is the desire of slaughter and wickedness and evil day after day on Worthy Christian, a daily call to slaughter with accusations. If we were hearing about how the Israeli government are thugs and need to be purged from the earth, wouldn't it be seen as hateful? My question is where is Christ in all these accusations of hatred and desire to purge people? Glory to Jesus Christ who gives us the spiritual love inside to weather to some degree the daily accusations. He has borne them and gives us comfort.

The truth is that the hatred taught in Palestinian textbooks is beyond dispute. They have to paint the PA as a legitimate government when they are in fact, murderous, bloodthirsty terrorist thugs who need to be purged from the earth Wow. So you say Palestinians are hateful and say hatred? But you say they need to be "purged from the earth"? Are you joking? Your thinking about Palestinians is just like how you talk about Muslim extremists. Where is Christ, the prince of peace, in your life Shiloh?

I did look at the links you provided, including the quotes from the textbooks. I did not notice racial comments about Jews as pigs in the textbook quotes mentioned. I notice that this is a special website called "Pal watch". It's a well funded English website that looks for bad quotes from Palestinian sources. "Pal", by the way is often a negative term for Palestinians. Imagine if the Palestinians had a well funded organization called "Israel Watch" that pulled out every quote Israelis used. Here are some of the titles of posts on this forum thread: Isn't that the politically charged equivalent of saying "There's no Israel"?) on this forum section Worthy Christian posted a headline saying Kerry threatened to cut Palestinian funding, so this title is made up propaganda) I can keep going. Every day Worthy Christian News posts many headlines that are politically charged against Palestinians. After reading them you start to think like that. Then a well funded organization goes into Palestinian newspapers and finds political quotes like ones saying "Zionist forces attacked Palestinians". Then the organization announces that Palestinians are teaching their children hate. Hatred of Jews is of course anti-semitic racism. So Palestinians become seen as Nazis, and then this justifies putting Christian villages in pens and sniping them at night because they are Palestinian. All the while, it announces that it is Palestinians who teach hatred And on and on the news role goes. Even if I was able to disprove every claim about how bad and hateful Palestinian people are the drumroll would keep going on this forum thread proving over and over that Palestinians are so awful and teach hate because they occasionally say things like the things against them.

OK, I found where I read this: Palestinian Textbooks Don't Vilify Jews, New Study Reveals U.S.-Funded Report Says Both Sides Distort History A landmark State Department-funded study has cleared the Palestinians of demonizing Jews in school textbooks but contends that both Israeli and Palestinian teachers use classroom materials that distort the history of the Middle East conflict. The study, described by its authors as the first scientific analysis of incitement in Israeli and Palestinian textbooks, contradicts a longstanding narrative among Israelis, American Jews and others that Palestinians incite their children to violence by depicting Jews as subhuman in their textbooks. Several years in the making, the study was carried out and overseen by a team of American, Israeli, Palestinian and international education experts. It was commissioned by the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land, a consortium of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian leaders in Israel, and received $590,000 in funding from the U.S. State Department. Read more: http://forward.com/articles/170451/palestinian-textbooks-dont-vilify-jews-new-study-r/?p=all#ixzz2swCYjnth

I suppose nobody realizes that if they do take out the US and Europe, they will take out most of and the rest of the world's Jewish population. I would think that would require rational thinking...... rational thinking would not even plan for it..... At least we found something we can agree on.

I suppose nobody realizes that if they do take out the US and Europe, they will take out most of and the rest of the world's Jewish population.

Other One was talking about before Hitler started taking over Europe. All signs were there that he was building up an army with the intention of conquest, but he kept assuring the world that he wasn't, and the world believed him. After he invaded and conquered the first nation, he promised the world that was the only attack he'd be engaging in, and the world believed him. I see where you are coming from, because I too would like to think that the Allies could have done more to stop Hitler. But I could not completely say they did nothing either. Chamberlain's peace policy was something. Don't forget- blessed are the peacemakers. If the US, Britain, and France just invaded Germany, that would be seen as problematic too, because then we would be the ones attacking a country that hadn't attacked us. The Soviets couldn't attack Germany before the war either, because Poland and the West wouldn't agree to Russia sending troops through Poland to fight Germany. So what the countries did was build up their forces to fight in case of war, whih was why they won. Plus, there were three main powers, the West, the Axis, and Russia, and they could not all agree yet on how things were going to turn out. The West didn't want to fight Germany and Russia both. I prefer to think the Allies could have done more to stop the war, but it's not like they did nothing or that they had easy options, Nebula my friend.

I don't think you understand what something like the holocaust does to the mind set..... People knew what Hitler was doing and didn't do anything to stop it. We are doing the same thing with the Iran nuclear power today. We are setting by and letting them build the materials all the while telling us that they are going to exterminate Israel... When one if faced with such do they always think rationally. They don't talk like it. Dear Other One, What I would like to say is that I don't agree with having a Samson option to blow up the world, even if two countries have nuclear war. I undertstand the Holocaust was devastating, but the Japanese committed a genocide of 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 Chinese in WWII. (Statistics of Japanese Genocide, www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM). Why should we support China blowing up the world if it got into a losing battle with some other countries? I don't agree that the Allies did nothing to stop Hitler. Almost all of Europe was crushed by Hitler. They were bombing London and fighting in Moscow. The Allies had to put their efforts into fighting Germany in order to save themselves and the prisoners. If they bombed the concentration camps they would still be killing prisoners. Russia did not want tens of millions of its people to get killed by Germany. The Germans massacred whole Russian villages for supporting the Partisans, and would frequently kill or abuse Communist leaders if captured. And when the Russians captured the camps they freed the prisoners. Russian propaganda during the war emphasized that the Germans were being brutal to prisoners- it was a war motivation. So it's definitely not true that the Allies did nothing, as if they were somehow careless about this. A good analogy to the Iran-Israel confrontation is the Cold War's policy of mutual destruction. In both cases it was wrongly thought that the other side wanted to blow up the other, but that was not really a goal, nor did it happen. It would be bad for the US or Russia to blow up the entire world because of a fight they have with eachother. If Iran and Israel get the bomb, then they are in the same situation as the US and Russia. But what kind of good allies plan to blow eachother up if they lose a war? I completely reject this on a moral level.