Devoted more to the Scriptures than to the God of the Scriptures?

[Guest shiloh357]

So guys, what do you see in error about this"

 

"I don’t see Jesus telling us to slack off in our scripture reading or to make up our own rules. Rather, he’s calling us to keep the purpose of Scripture in mind. Is our reading of Scripture leading us closer to love of God and love of neighbor? Is our reading of Scripture leading to spiritual restoration or exhaustion on the Sabbath?"

I think the problem lies in his misunderstanding of what was actually going on with the Pharisees.  He is expressing the classic misunderstanding of the pharisaical problem and then projecting that on to some believers.

 

The pharisees missed the point because they were not following or reading the Scriptures at all.  Jesus was not calling the pharisees back to the purpose of the Scriptures.  He was calling them and others of that day back to the Scriptures themselves.

 

I have never met anyone who was devoted to the Scriptures who didn't have a vibrant relationship with God.   I don't think there is a way to be devoted to the Scriptures and yet miss God in the process. The Bible is a living book.  It convicts us and the Holy Spirit uses the Bible to conform us into the image of Jesus.

 

If we wanted to make a comparison with the Pharisees, it would be better to compare them to peopple whose bookshelves are lined with dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, commentaries by everyone under the sun, who can tell you everything you never wanted to know about the Hypostatic union, who have church history memorized who can debate the finer points of Calvinism and Arminianism, but have no prayer life, who spend no time in the Bible iteslf.  To these people, the Bible is just another reference work and not a blueprint for living.

 

I will say that being a stickler for proper hermeneutics keeps your feet on the ground.  Most cults are able to flourish because their members are not skilled in this area.  It is easy to get led astray because the best lies are the ones that look the most like the truth.   The most successful cults are those that use the Bible, use Christian terminology and sound just "Christian" enough to fool their adherants. 

 

It's in the details, the things that don't like important enough to argue about, that the lies are ususally hidden.

[Littlelambseativy]

In reality can one separate God from the scriptures? To learn more of Him do we not study and read the Word? These are His words. They tell of Him and His love and resultant punishment for those who do not accept Him or His word. How do you separate the 2? Would we know about God if it was not for the Bible? Perhaps, because His story and love is written everywhere but to really know Him you need to learn more of Him and reading the Bible is how. The aborigines knew of a great creator but did not know of His love or salvation. Need both God and Scriptures? Yes inseparable.

[Qnts2]

 

In reading Jesus position and explanation, the Pharisees actually taught the same as Jesus in many differing areas. The disagreements are what Jesus came after, but I suspect Jesus came after the Pharisees for a several reasons. 1. They were the popular teachers of that day, and held in high esteem by the people. 2. They were the closer to the truth then the other sects of Judaism. 3. Most of the Jewish people were very familiar with the teaching of the Pharisees, and practiced that teaching.   4. The Pharisees rejected Jesus as the Messiah using mainly Jesus claim to be equal to God. And taught the people to reject Jesus.    

 

 

I have heard, too, that Jesus was a Pharisee.

 

The explanation has to do with Jesus being a rabbi, and to be a rabbi one had to discipled under a rabbi, and within the system one had to belong to one of the different groups (Pharisee, Sadducee, etc.).

 

Something like that.

 

But in any event, that would make sense for why Jesus' teaching were more in-line with pharisitical thought (as opposed to sadduceacal thought).

 

What do you think?

 

 

I do not believe Jesus was a Pharisee. To be a Pharisee meant, attending the Pharisaical schools and receiving the equivalent of ordination thru these schools. These schools were centered in Jerusalem. I once heard a number for the Pharisees (official), but I don't remember what it was. I think it was something like 2000, but these are the Rabbis, ordained (semicha), in one of the schools. There was a majority of the general population who learned from the Pharisees.  

 

A rabbi is a teacher. The lead Rabbis had students/disciples. Some of these Rabbis had their students living with them and traveling with them. So, when the Pharisees saw Jesus, traveling with disciples, they recognized Jesus as a Rabbi with disciples. Some like to compare Jesus teaching to the Pharisees and Essenes, putting Jesus among one or the other. In my personal view, Jesus being Messiah and God, who essentially wrote the book, was neither Pharisee or Essenes in thought. He was/is God. So if what Jesus taught was in many cases similar to the Pharisees, that means the Pharisees were right in a lot of areas. Jesus tended to point out the Pharisees errors, strongly, but the Pharisees teaching was the same or very similar to what Jesus taught in many other areas.  

 

I should also say, there were various groups of Pharisees who had variations in their teaching and interpretation, and also in their dress and outward actions. One group was so fearful of lust, that they would look down to avoid seeing a woman. I think that group has been nicknamed the bruised Pharisee because looking down all the time, they tended to bump into things. Sometimes you can tell which group of Pharisees Jesus is talking to by their statement, or Jesus response.

 

It was somewhat common for the various groups to strongly and vocally disagree. The best example I can think of was at one of Pauls trials, when Paul shouted that he was being accused was due to the resurrection of the dead. That immediately created a fight between the Sadducees and the Pharisees concerning that doctrine. So, the disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees arguing is not really that unusual looking in Jewish culture of that time. What was unusual was Jesus claim to be God.   

[enoob57]

In reading Jesus position and explanation, the Pharisees actually taught the same as Jesus in many differing areas. The disagreements are what Jesus came after, but I suspect Jesus came after the Pharisees for a several reasons. 1. They were the popular teachers of that day, and held in high esteem by the people. 2. They were the closer to the truth then the other sects of Judaism. 3. Most of the Jewish people were very familiar with the teaching of the Pharisees, and practiced that teaching.   4. The Pharisees rejected Jesus as the Messiah using mainly Jesus claim to be equal to God. And taught the people to reject Jesus.

 

I have heard, too, that Jesus was a Pharisee.

 

The explanation has to do with Jesus being a rabbi, and to be a rabbi one had to discipled under a rabbi, and within the system one had to belong to one of the different groups (Pharisee, Sadducee, etc.).

 

Something like that.

 

But in any event, that would make sense for why Jesus' teaching were more in-line with pharisitical thought (as opposed to sadduceacal thought).

 

What do you think?

This is incorrect as they did not from where His teaching was from

as indicated by Lk 4:16-22. Love, Steven

[nebula]

So guys, what do you see in error about this"

 

"I don’t see Jesus telling us to slack off in our scripture reading or to make up our own rules. Rather, he’s calling us to keep the purpose of Scripture in mind. Is our reading of Scripture leading us closer to love of God and love of neighbor? Is our reading of Scripture leading to spiritual restoration or exhaustion on the Sabbath?"

I think the problem lies in his misunderstanding of what was actually going on with the Pharisees.  He is expressing the classic misunderstanding of the pharisaical problem and then projecting that on to some believers.

 

The pharisees missed the point because they were not following or reading the Scriptures at all.  Jesus was not calling the pharisees back to the purpose of the Scriptures.  He was calling them and others of that day back to the Scriptures themselves.

But then why would Jesus say this:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life ; it is these that testify about Me;" (John 5:39)

 

I have never met anyone who was devoted to the Scriptures who didn't have a vibrant relationship with God.   I don't think there is a way to be devoted to the Scriptures and yet miss God in the process.

I have actually seen this happen.

It is very easy to get lost in the intellectual pursuits of the Bible and fail to pursue the Lord Himself with them.

 

The Bible is a living book.  It convicts us and the Holy Spirit uses the Bible to conform us into the image of Jesus.

I thought it was the Holy Spirit that convicts, not the Bible?

 

If we wanted to make a comparison with the Pharisees, it would be better to compare them to peopple whose bookshelves are lined with dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, commentaries by everyone under the sun, who can tell you everything you never wanted to know about the Hypostatic union, who have church history memorized who can debate the finer points of Calvinism and Arminianism, but have no prayer life, who spend no time in the Bible iteslf.  To these people, the Bible is just another reference work and not a blueprint for living.

 

I will say that being a stickler for proper hermeneutics keeps your feet on the ground.  Most cults are able to flourish because their members are not skilled in this area.  It is easy to get led astray because the best lies are the ones that look the most like the truth.   The most successful cults are those that use the Bible, use Christian terminology and sound just "Christian" enough to fool their adherants. 

 

It's in the details, the things that don't like important enough to argue about, that the lies are ususally hidden.

Perhaps "wordage" is our disagreement. How many people say "Bible" and "Scripture" when they actually mean "doctrine" and "dogma"?

After all, people can use the same passage of Scripture to argue two completely opposite positions (we see this all the time with Romans 11, for example).

[nebula]

In reality can one separate God from the scriptures? ...

 

I've encountered theologians doing this all the time - worried more about doctrine and dogma that finding God.

[Littlelambseativy]

God does say that it is the simple things that confound the wise and sad to say I have found many a theologian to be less than wise. 

They tend to split hairs in an attempt to make themselves more important than the Word of God and in so doing fool only those who choose to follow them into confusion. As I have said before the Bible was written for the simple man thus confounding the wise.

[enoob57]

God does say that it is the simple things that confound the wise and sad to say I have found many a theologian to be less than wise. 

They tend to split hairs in an attempt to make themselves more important than the Word of God and in so doing fool only those who choose to follow them into confusion. As I have said before the Bible was written for the simple man thus confounding the wise.

I believe this must be considered in one's mind to the things you are indicating

Rom 11:33-36

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord?

Or who has become His counselor?"

35 'Or who has first given to Him

And it shall be repaid to him?"

36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

NKJV

Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

But then why would Jesus say this:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life ; it is these that testify about Me;" (John 5:39)

 

In the ancient Jewish faith, and even in modern Judaism today, it is the study of the Torah that brings eternal life. The act of study.  "Scripture" in Jewish speak isn't the Bible.  It is the entire compendium of both written and Oral Torah and Oral Torah is what they study when they study the Scriptures.   It is confusing to us because they use the same terminology but mean the same thing.  Talmud IS Torah in Judaism. 

 

The Pharisees back then as modern Judaism does today, find ways around the Scriptures.   In the Sermon on the Mount,  Jesus would say, "you have heard it said..."  "but I say unto you..."   when He was correcting rabbnical excesses where they perverted the Scriptures to create a loophole for their own sin.   Yes, they read the Scriptures in one sense, but in the sense that we think of.    They read the Scriptures and reinterpreted them to make room for sin.

 

They were not following the Scriptures.  They were not legalists who were just too rigid in their observance of the Scriptures.  They found ways around having to rigidly follow the Scriptures, which is why they excused lust and frivolous divorces perverted the concept of korban so they did not have to financially support their aging parents. 

 

To paint the Pharisess as legalistic is simply the wrong approach to them and is historically inaccurate.

 

 

I have never met anyone who was devoted to the Scriptures who didn't have a vibrant relationship with God.   I don't think there is a way to be devoted to the Scriptures and yet miss God in the process.

 

I have actually seen this happen.

It is very easy to get lost in the intellectual pursuits of the Bible and fail to pursue the Lord Himself with them.

 

 

I am not talking about an intellectual pursuit, though.  I am talking about people who are devoted to studying and obeying the Scriptures.  How can someone do that and fail to pursue the Lord?   That is not the same as someone with nothing but an intellectual pursuit of the Scriptures.

 

 

The Bible is a living book.  It convicts us and the Holy Spirit uses the Bible to conform us into the image of Jesus.

 

I thought it was the Holy Spirit that convicts, not the Bible?

 

 

He does.  AND He uses the Scriptures to do it.   The Bible is His textbook and it is the means through which He reveals the Lord  to us.   The Bible is God's self-disclosure.  it is the book through which He is known.

Perhaps "wordage" is our disagreement. How many people say "Bible" and "Scripture" when they actually mean "doctrine" and "dogma"?

After all, people can use the same passage of Scripture to argue two completely opposite positions (we see this all the time with Romans 11, for example).

 

The Scriipture is doctrine.   The problem is that many people approach the Bible from different vantage points.  And in many cases, we don't always stand on even ground when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture.   Not all interpretations are equal.   I realize that it gets under people's skin, but it is the truth.   People often have an emotional attachment to a particular view and they hold to it, no matter what.

 

In other cases, there are false doctrines that are rooted in a particular approach to the Scriptures that is not hermeneutically sound and tempers flare when those false teachings are challenged or exposed.  

[Qnts2]

 

But then why would Jesus say this:

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life ; it is these that testify about Me;" (John 5:39)

 

In the ancient Jewish faith, and even in modern Judaism today, it is the study of the Torah that brings eternal life. The act of study.  "Scripture" in Jewish speak isn't the Bible.  It is the entire compendium of both written and Oral Torah and Oral Torah is what they study when they study the Scriptures.   It is confusing to us because they use the same terminology but mean the same thing.  Talmud IS Torah in Judaism. 

 

The Pharisees back then as modern Judaism does today, find ways around the Scriptures.   In the Sermon on the Mount,  Jesus would say, "you have heard it said..."  "but I say unto you..."   when He was correcting rabbnical excesses where they perverted the Scriptures to create a loophole for their own sin.   Yes, they read the Scriptures in one sense, but in the sense that we think of.    They read the Scriptures and reinterpreted them to make room for sin.

 

They were not following the Scriptures.  They were not legalists who were just too rigid in their observance of the Scriptures.  They found ways around having to rigidly follow the Scriptures, which is why they excused lust and frivolous divorces perverted the concept of korban so they did not have to financially support their aging parents. 

 

To paint the Pharisess as legalistic is simply the wrong approach to them and is historically inaccurate.

 

 

I have never met anyone who was devoted to the Scriptures who didn't have a vibrant relationship with God.   I don't think there is a way to be devoted to the Scriptures and yet miss God in the process.

 

I have actually seen this happen.

It is very easy to get lost in the intellectual pursuits of the Bible and fail to pursue the Lord Himself with them.

 

 

I am not talking about an intellectual pursuit, though.  I am talking about people who are devoted to studying and obeying the Scriptures.  How can someone do that and fail to pursue the Lord?   That is not the same as someone with nothing but an intellectual pursuit of the Scriptures.

 

 

The Bible is a living book.  It convicts us and the Holy Spirit uses the Bible to conform us into the image of Jesus.

 

I thought it was the Holy Spirit that convicts, not the Bible?

 

 

He does.  AND He uses the Scriptures to do it.   The Bible is His textbook and it is the means through which He reveals the Lord  to us.   The Bible is God's self-disclosure.  it is the book through which He is known.

Perhaps "wordage" is our disagreement. How many people say "Bible" and "Scripture" when they actually mean "doctrine" and "dogma"?

After all, people can use the same passage of Scripture to argue two completely opposite positions (we see this all the time with Romans 11, for example).

 

The Scriipture is doctrine.   The problem is that many people approach the Bible from different vantage points.  And in many cases, we don't always stand on even ground when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture.   Not all interpretations are equal.   I realize that it gets under people's skin, but it is the truth.   People often have an emotional attachment to a particular view and they hold to it, no matter what.

 

In other cases, there are false doctrines that are rooted in a particular approach to the Scriptures that is not hermeneutically sound and tempers flare when those false teachings are challenged or exposed.  

 

I simply disagree.

 

The Pharisees studied scripture. The Mishnah was not yet written. And the Gemorah was not written, so the Talmud was not yet written.

 

At that time, the Pharisees memorized large amounts of scripture. The Jewish population in general memorized scripture.

 

In Judaism, there is an order of authority, with the Torah (five books of Moses) holding the highest authority. The 'ratings' come based on the method of transmission to the human writer. God spoke or dictated the Torah directly to Moses.  The Prophets and Writings were next in authority. They were given by revelation. Then the Mishnah comes after the Torah, and Prophets and Writings. At the time of Jesus, the Mishnah was said to be orally transmitted. Additional books were added in the line of authority which were written after the time of Jesus, some 1000 years later. But the Torah, and the Nach (Prophets and writings) comes next. Nothing is above these writings. In Judaism, one must study the Torah first and a person is not supposed to study the Mishnah until they have basic understanding of Torah.