Jump to content
IGNORED

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE vs. JEWISH TRADITION


choir loft

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

For some time I've been struggling with the attempt to understand Jewish thinking in terms of Christian doctrine.    Turns out it's like comparing apples and oranges.   The philosophical systems are totally different.

Christian thinking is based upon Greek philosophy.  
Always has been.   As such Christians put emphasis on doctrine.  Christians believe this or that and compose list of beliefs to be memorized.  Christians don’t necessarily follow many of them in fact.  Many of the doctrines don’t require specific action on the part of individuals at all.  
 
The twin doctrines of the Rapture and Tribulation, for example, essentially mean nothing in terms of actionable performance of religion.  They are merely bullet points of divisive nature for endless argument and pointless conjecture.   Such minor arguments are not efficacious in terms of the need of salvation nor of defining and explaining the process of redemption.  They are beliefs only.  They may be justified by numerous references to scripture quotations, but in the end they are only statements of philosophical supposition.  
 
Christian communion is a good example of the marriage of doctrine and tradition.  Some congregations offer unleavened bread and wine during the celebration.  Others offer unleavened bread and grape juice.   Some participate by intinction using leavened bread with juice, while others substitute water for wine or juice.  Some offer communion daily while others only once a month.  Few Christians can fully explain the differences or are concerned with the underlying history or doctrine involved in the ceremony.  Is communion necessary for salvation?  Some say yes and others say it's just an observance.  In reality the ceremony, based on the Jewish seder, lies in the twilight zone between belief and tradition. 
 
Jewish thinking is based upon tradition.
Tradition dictates active performance and appearance of one's religious life - what one does or how one looks to others.  Phylacteries, for example, are the little boxes Jews might wear on the forehead or straps across the arms and chest to remind them of the Mosaic command to keep the law on one’s mind, heart and hand.  Yeshuah had problems with phylacteries because they tended to display one’s righteousness rather than actually keep it.
 
The comparison of Jewish tradition in terms of DOING one's religion as opposed to Christian doctrines of THINKING allows a clearer understanding of the differences between the two religions.
 
If one wishes to assign a label to these differences; Jewish traditional approaches are generally referred to as Rabbinic, while Christian approaches to understanding are generally referred to as Biblical.   The truth, as always, seems to live somewhere between the two.
 
I think making these distinctions goes a long way to understanding the differences in philosophy.
 
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
Edited by choir loft
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  344
  • Topics Per Day:  0.13
  • Content Count:  7,393
  • Content Per Day:  2.70
  • Reputation:   5,321
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  09/27/2016
  • Status:  Offline

That's a very good point you're bringing up. The Western mind thinks much differently than the Jewish mind. Understanding Jewish thought greatly enhances our understanding of the Bible, their traditions, belief's and culture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Without the understanding of the Tanakh, the new testament apostles' words fall flat.

It takes a while, but the second temple Hebrew scholars knew about the second person of the godhead and much was written about this. It was only after they banned the Septuagint and rewrote the Masoraic text that their theology changed. (about AD 200) Due to the advent of our Lord, they removed the 'two powers' references in their general thought and called it Heresy. But if you look at the Q documents, you will see the evidence is very much there..

Many of the 'bread-crumbs' in the apostles writings put discernible hooks into the Tanakh. They read stuff that our churches disallow. Like Enoch, the Giants and other writings that the apostles allude to and even quote. They had a different approach to the way the world has gone wrong and do not just blame Adam, but also the many heavenly beings that left their first estate. If you study Gen 6 (the abridged version) you will see that Psalm 82 and Deut. 32 and Is. 66 (and others) all fall into place with a lot of the apostles' teachings. To a first century Jew, it was all as plain as day, but the principalities have done a great job of muddying the waters and largely obliterated the words of early church fathers. So today, many are in the dark.

Later the theology of the church was well organized to remove most of the supernatural content that is very evident in the Tanakh and the later apostolic texts.

To a Jew, there are three reason for Yeshua's advent: 1) regather the scattered tribes and nations, 2) Reverse the sins of the watchers, 3) save all mankind.

Later, mankind will replace the ones that sinned and judge them in the Divine Council of Yahweh. That is why we are called 'the sons of God'.

That is why Yeshua cast out demons, was transfigured on Mt Hermon at the gates of hell, and told Caiaphas 'you'll see me as a cloud-rider' next time. Any Jew would get that and the high priest did immediately. Only divinity rode on the clouds. Also see Yeshua's reference to Psalm 82 in the same passage... Unmistakable!!

Edited by Justin Adams
  • This is Worthy 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  777
  • Content Per Day:  0.48
  • Reputation:   224
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/17/2019 at 4:50 AM, choir loft said:

For some time I've been struggling with the attempt to understand Jewish thinking in terms of Christian doctrine.    Turns out it's like comparing apples and oranges.   The philosophical systems are totally different.

Christian thinking is based upon Greek philosophy.  
Always has been.   As such Christians put emphasis on doctrine.  Christians believe this or that and compose list of beliefs to be memorized.  Christians don’t necessarily follow many of them in fact.  Many of the doctrines don’t require specific action on the part of individuals at all.  
 
The twin doctrines of the Rapture and Tribulation, for example, essentially mean nothing in terms of actionable performance of religion.  They are merely bullet points of divisive nature for endless argument and pointless conjecture.   Such minor arguments are not efficacious in terms of the need of salvation nor of defining and explaining the process of redemption.  They are beliefs only.  They may be justified by numerous references to scripture quotations, but in the end they are only statements of philosophical supposition.  
 
Christian communion is a good example of the marriage of doctrine and tradition.  Some congregations offer unleavened bread and wine during the celebration.  Others offer unleavened bread and grape juice.   Some participate by intinction using leavened bread with juice, while others substitute water for wine or juice.  Some offer communion daily while others only once a month.  Few Christians can fully explain the differences or are concerned with the underlying history or doctrine involved in the ceremony.  Is communion necessary for salvation?  Some say yes and others say it's just an observance.  In reality the ceremony, based on the Jewish seder, lies in the twilight zone between belief and tradition. 
 
Jewish thinking is based upon tradition.
Tradition dictates active performance and appearance of one's religious life - what one does or how one looks to others.  Phylacteries, for example, are the little boxes Jews might wear on the forehead or straps across the arms and chest to remind them of the Mosaic command to keep the law on one’s mind, heart and hand.  Yeshuah had problems with phylacteries because they tended to display one’s righteousness rather than actually keep it.
 
The comparison of Jewish tradition in terms of DOING one's religion as opposed to Christian doctrines of THINKING allows a clearer understanding of the differences between the two religions.
 
If one wishes to assign a label to these differences; Jewish traditional approaches are generally referred to as Rabbinic, while Christian approaches to understanding are generally referred to as Biblical.   The truth, as always, seems to live somewhere between the two.
 
I think making these distinctions goes a long way to understanding the differences in philosophy.
 
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Lots of good points!

I'd add, though, that there's nothing wrong with Greek philosophy....IF it's true.

And, the modern contributions from recent Christian philosophers (e.g., William Lane Craig) have had a profound impact upon Christian apologetics....and I'd say that's a very good thing....

I trust we agree....just wanted to add this thought...

blessings.....

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

15 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

Lots of good points!

I'd add, though, that there's nothing wrong with Greek philosophy....IF it's true.

And, the modern contributions from recent Christian philosophers (e.g., William Lane Craig) have had a profound impact upon Christian apologetics....and I'd say that's a very good thing....

I trust we agree....just wanted to add this thought...

blessings.....

 

15 hours ago, BibleGuy said:

 

Thank you for your kind evaluation of my post.

I differ on the efficacy of philosophy, Greek or otherwise.

Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I say? 

I will show you what he is like who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them: He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid his foundation on the rock. When the flood came, the torrent crashed against that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears My words and does not act on them is like a man who built his house on ground without a foundation. The torrent crashed against that house, and immediately it fell—and great was its destruction.” - Luke 6:46-49

The Roman Catholic church parses out the italicized portion of the quote above to justify their doctrine of apostolic succession.  But Christ didn't teach in bits and pieces and didn't intend his thoughts to be employed solely by an institution.  He meant them for all.

At issue is the trend of the church to abandon Jewish tradition theology and scripture from the earliest years of Christianity.  Severed from its Jewish roots, the church naturally gravitated toward the popular secular style of philosophical interpretation - specifically the Greek type.  

There are two problems with using Greek philosophy to interpret scripture.  One is the tendency to dilute Biblical thought by references to pagan ideology (Easter, Christmas & the concept of hell).  The other is the temporary subjective changeable nature of philosophy itself.  The shifting sands, or foundation, Jesus spoke of is subjective philosophy. (*)

Jewish tradition is glacial with rare application of changes.  Jewish ideology is mostly fixed.  It's objective in nature, meaning that its' basic presupposition is based upon the unchangeable nature of the LAW.  The rock Jesus spoke of is objective LAW. 

Philosophy, as a subjective tool used by the church to interpret the gospel, changes every ten to fifteen years.  

It does so in reaction to changes in secular society, which occur every ten to fifteen years.

It takes approximately five years for church theologians to realize a change in secular philosophy and to compose a religious philosophy to oppose it.  The term used to describe this process is, "making the gospel relevant."  I'm guessing the reader has heard or read this expression countless times.  It implies a constant intellectual chess game of move and counter move on the part of theologians to react to changes in secular attitudes.  One of the best chessmen today is a fellow by the name of Ravi Zacharias. I confess to enjoying his intellectual banter immensely.  But with all his remarkable skill and extensive education in philosophy, Mr. Zacharias has pinned his arguments upon the shifting sands of philosophy to interpret the gospel to the secular world and entertain the church.

When the years roll by in a man's life it becomes apparent to many that the ways of life depend on unchangeable matters.  Honesty, thrift, truth, peace, loyalty and humility toward God are objective unchangeable qualities that build a successful life.   These things do not change.  They are the rock upon which one can build one's house.  

Lies, cruelty, corruption, betrayal and violence are changeable subjective qualities secular society admires and in many cases employ to their destruction.  It is certainly a large part of secular entertainment. Philosophy is at the heart of it all whether it is expressed over a pitcher of beer at a local tavern or from a church pulpit.  It is the same chameleon view of life that leads to the destruction of one's house - one's life.

For example: The United States is currently enduring a culture war, which can be expressed in terms of a conflict between objective traditional values and subjective focus on individual failure, greed, political manipulation and overt sin.

Unfortunately, Christianity hates anything that smells of Jewish LAW and has taught its adherents to despise and reject it.  The ROCK, is therefore rejected even by the church.  SHIFTING SANDS are given as an alternative.

The words of Jesus remain as a lighthouse guide in the storm of life.   The LAW is not to be ignored.   It remains forever as a standard for living a solid life before God and man.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary;

Subjective - modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background

Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Edited by choir loft
spelling errors
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  777
  • Content Per Day:  0.48
  • Reputation:   224
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, choir loft said:

Thank you for your kind evaluation of my post.

I differ on the efficacy of philosophy, Greek or otherwise.

Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I say? 

I will show you what he is like who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them: He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid his foundation on the rock. When the flood came, the torrent crashed against that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears My words and does not act on them is like a man who built his house on ground without a foundation. The torrent crashed against that house, and immediately it fell—and great was its destruction.” - Luke 6:46-49

The Roman Catholic church parses out the italicized portion of the quote above to justify their doctrine of apostolic succession.  But Christ didn't teach in bits and pieces and didn't intend his thoughts to be employed solely by an institution.  He meant them for all.

At issue is the trend of the church to abandon Jewish tradition theology and scripture from the earliest years of Christianity.  Severed from its Jewish roots, the church naturally gravitated toward the popular secular style of philosophical interpretation - specifically the Greek type.  

There are two problems with using Greek philosophy to interpret scripture.  One is the tendency to dilute Biblical thought by references to pagan ideology (Easter, Christmas & the concept of hell).  The other is the temporary subjective changeable nature of philosophy itself.  The shifting sands, or foundation, Jesus spoke of is subjective philosophy. (*)

Jewish tradition is glacial with rare application of changes.  Jewish ideology is mostly fixed.  It's objective in nature, meaning that its' basic presupposition is based upon the unchangeable nature of the LAW.  The rock Jesus spoke of is objective LAW. 

Philosophy, as a subjective tool used by the church to interpret the gospel, changes every ten to fifteen years.  

It does so in reaction to changes in secular society, which occur every ten to fifteen years.

It takes approximately five years for church theologians to realize a change in secular philosophy and to compose a religious philosophy to oppose it.  The term used to describe this process is, "making the gospel relevant."  I'm guessing the reader has heard or read this expression countless times.  It implies a constant intellectual chess game of move and counter move on the part of theologians to react to changes in secular attitudes.  One of the best chessmen today is a fellow by the name of Ravi Zacharias. I confess to enjoying his intellectual banter immensely.  But with all his remarkable skill and extensive education in philosophy, Mr. Zacharias has pinned his arguments upon the shifting sands of philosophy to interpret the gospel to the secular world and entertain the church.

When the years roll by in a man's life it becomes apparent to many that the ways of life depend on unchangeable matters.  Honesty, thrift, truth, peace, loyalty and humility toward God are objective unchangeable qualities that build a successful life.   These things do not change.  They are the rock upon which one can build one's house.  

Lies, cruelty, corruption, betrayal and violence are changeable subjective qualities secular society admires and in many cases employ to their destruction.  It is certainly a large part of secular entertainment. Philosophy is at the heart of it all whether it is expressed over a pitcher of beer at a local tavern or from a church pulpit.  It is the same chameleon view of life that leads to the destruction of one's house - one's life.

For example: The United States is currently enduring a culture war, which can be expressed in terms of a conflict between objective traditional values and subjective focus on individual failure, greed, political manipulation and overt sin.

Unfortunately, Christianity hates anything that smells of Jewish LAW and has taught its adherents to despise and reject it.  The ROCK, is therefore rejected even by the church.  SHIFTING SANDS are given as an alternative.

The words of Jesus remain as a lighthouse guide in the storm of life.   The LAW is not to be ignored.   It remains forever as a standard for living a solid life before God and man.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary;

Subjective - modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background

Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Hello friend,

Thanks for your thoughtful thoughts!

I appreciate the many good points you've made....

I just think we don't share the same conception of "philosophy"....be it GREEK or otherwise...

I define PHILOSOPHY as THE RIGOROUS ANALYTICAL PURSUIT OF TRUTH....and so defined, ALL good philosophy is TRUE and should thus be accepted by us as disciples of the Messiah.

For example, mathematical philosophy has important contributions from Greeks (e.g., Pythagoras...)...and rejection of this TRUE GREEK PHILOSOPHY is absurd (I do trust we agree....).

Sure, Catholics have made philosophical errors....but that's no excuse to oppose all extra-biblical philosophy.

PHILOSOPHY is, thus, not SUBJECTIVE....as I've defined it.

For example, Modus Tollens is either TRUE or FALSE.....and it's TRUE!  So it's absurd to reject it, even though Modus Tollens is NOT explicitly stated in Scripture.

And Modus Tollens does NOT change "every ten to fifteen years".

"Philosophy, as a subjective tool used by the church to interpret the gospel, changes every ten to fifteen years. "

I see your point.....but "the church" is really just a generalization...and NOT everyone in the church "changes every ten to fifteen years".

And NOT everyone in the church uses philosophy "as a subjective tool".

So, I guess I'm just objecting to your generalizations by pointing out important exceptions to them.

"Honesty, thrift, truth, peace, loyalty and humility toward God are objective unchangeable qualities that build a successful life.   These things do not change.  They are the rock upon which one can build one's house.  "

True!  But then, the truth of Modus Tollens (amongst many other philosophical essentials...) contributes to the constitution of that very rock.

"Philosophy is at the heart of it all whether it is expressed over a pitcher of beer at a local tavern or from a church pulpit.  It is the same chameleon view of life that leads to the destruction of one's house - one's life."

Sure, BAD philosophy is very bad!  But that's no excuse to oppose ALL philosophy.

After all, your very posting is grounded in MANY philosophical considerations itself....

So, I think we can fine-tune your objection to "philosophy" by stating that we should oppose BAD philosophy....not ALL philosophy.

And, it turns out, even the Greeks had some TRUE philosophical points to contribute to a good foundation for ANY true worldview.

"Christianity hates anything that smells of Jewish LAW and has taught its adherents to despise and reject it."

This is a sad point....but again, not entirely true either.  After all, many Messianic Jewish Christians fully uphold the Torah of Moses.

" The LAW is not to be ignored.   It remains forever as a standard for living a solid life before God and man."

ABSOLUTELY true!  I'm so glad we agree on this essential consideration!

blessings...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

On 11/6/2019 at 1:09 PM, BibleGuy said:

Hello friend,

Thanks for your thoughtful thoughts!

I appreciate the many good points you've made....

I just think we don't share the same conception of "philosophy"....be it GREEK or otherwise...

I define PHILOSOPHY as THE RIGOROUS ANALYTICAL PURSUIT OF TRUTH....and so defined, ALL good philosophy is TRUE and should thus be accepted by us as disciples of the Messiah.

For example, mathematical philosophy has important contributions from Greeks (e.g., Pythagoras...)...and rejection of this TRUE GREEK PHILOSOPHY is absurd (I do trust we agree....).

Sure, Catholics have made philosophical errors....but that's no excuse to oppose all extra-biblical philosophy.

PHILOSOPHY is, thus, not SUBJECTIVE....as I've defined it.

For example, Modus Tollens is either TRUE or FALSE.....and it's TRUE!  So it's absurd to reject it, even though Modus Tollens is NOT explicitly stated in Scripture.

And Modus Tollens does NOT change "every ten to fifteen years".

"Philosophy, as a subjective tool used by the church to interpret the gospel, changes every ten to fifteen years. "

I see your point.....but "the church" is really just a generalization...and NOT everyone in the church "changes every ten to fifteen years".

And NOT everyone in the church uses philosophy "as a subjective tool".

So, I guess I'm just objecting to your generalizations by pointing out important exceptions to them.

"Honesty, thrift, truth, peace, loyalty and humility toward God are objective unchangeable qualities that build a successful life.   These things do not change.  They are the rock upon which one can build one's house.  "

True!  But then, the truth of Modus Tollens (amongst many other philosophical essentials...) contributes to the constitution of that very rock.

"Philosophy is at the heart of it all whether it is expressed over a pitcher of beer at a local tavern or from a church pulpit.  It is the same chameleon view of life that leads to the destruction of one's house - one's life."

Sure, BAD philosophy is very bad!  But that's no excuse to oppose ALL philosophy.

After all, your very posting is grounded in MANY philosophical considerations itself....

So, I think we can fine-tune your objection to "philosophy" by stating that we should oppose BAD philosophy....not ALL philosophy.

And, it turns out, even the Greeks had some TRUE philosophical points to contribute to a good foundation for ANY true worldview.

"Christianity hates anything that smells of Jewish LAW and has taught its adherents to despise and reject it."

This is a sad point....but again, not entirely true either.  After all, many Messianic Jewish Christians fully uphold the Torah of Moses.

" The LAW is not to be ignored.   It remains forever as a standard for living a solid life before God and man."

ABSOLUTELY true!  I'm so glad we agree on this essential consideration!

blessings...

 

 

Who defines "bad philosophy" or "good philosophy"?  

One man's meat is another man's poison.   The good of the society is not always good.   It changes according to social opinion.

The whole point of my post on philosophy is that its changeable according to individual perception.  That is the meaning of subjectivism.  You agreed with this and said it was a good thing - except it isn't.  

When a man decides to kill another for his money the act is good for the killer.   Not so good for his victim.  When a society decides to wage war upon another, rationale is employed to justify it one way or another.  War is good for the winner but not good for the loser.  When a society decides that religion is poison and that god is imaginary, such thought and activity justifies the changeable nature of SIN.

The first thing satan did in the garden of Eden was to call God a liar. (Genesis 3)  That is exactly what post-modern philosophy accomplishes.

My point is that a higher standard must be employed.  This higher standard is and of a right ought to be impervious to individual or social opinion and change.   It should be objective, as for example the Ten Commandments.

Your post is very busy justifying the gelatin substance of philosophy.  Philosophy is fine for discussions over a pitcher of beer.  As the beverage affects the speakers at table they all become wiser in their own eyes - even though their eyes cannot see as clearly as before.   Philosophy in church is killing Christendom - a point I've made numerous times before.

A NEW GENERATION HAS ARISEN THAT KNOWS NOT GOD.

This new generation is only interested in self gratification.  They are not interested in anything which remotely suggests a standard of behavior or - God forbid - objective thinking.   God is rejected completely as is morality.  Both are four letter words in their mind because they require behavior and attitudes which disagree with their appetites and passions.  In the words of the Bile they are carnal.

Philosophy lies at the root of group manipulation, which is why it is used so often in church and repressive government.  It is the enemy of righteousness and decency.  It is the friend of the criminal, the despot and the devil.

* * * *

I wish to reiterate the protestant hypocrisy of hatred of Jews and Jewish LAW.   Once upon a time long ago, all protestants gave lip service to respect for Jews as persons and Israel as their homeland.  Today the reverse is true.  All major protestant denominations except for Baptists have made public statements denying Israel the right to exist.  (BDS movement) Each of these organizations is actively involved in supporting the enemies of Israel.  Their names are registered as members of the opposition.  Those which are considered to be evangelical mouth support of Jews and Israel, but in private they believe Jews are disgusting and Jewish LAW is obsolete.  Any statement otherwise refuses to acknowledge fact.

I have personally seen the expression of ignorant evangelicals change to one of disgust when something of Jewish nature is put before them.   I have personally read and heard statements by ignorant fundamentalists that believe the LAW has been replaced by grace and that it is abolished.  Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the LAW (Matt 5:17), but these folk who claim to love the King of the Jews ignore His words.   Granted there are isolated individuals who don't hold a nameless grudge against Jews or Israel, but they are a rare bird.  Most of the time these same persons continue to support churches that are openly opposed to Israel.  This too is hypocrisy and double-mindedness.

My posting is and continues to be one of rejecting philosophy as a form of interpreting scripture.   The LAW is almost never employed in churches today to do so.

And that is the primary reason so many are leaving churches.    People who think - do not appreciate empty words.  People who don't think - won't be bothered with empty entertainment.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft.....

Edited by choir loft
  • Well Said! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

On 11/6/2019 at 11:37 PM, Tampered With said:

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE vs. JEWISH TRADITION is a red herring unless you are planning to convert to modern Judaism. 

Try Modern Christian Orthodox Doctrine vs. Messianic Jewish Faith and then you will have an interesting comparison!

Or remove the oral and written traditions of men such as the Pharisees and Sadducees added to God's actual Laws and Teachings and them compare that to say Modern Christianity. Now that might be a more interesting comparison. To do otherwise is "sand bagging the Issues."

On 11/6/2019 at 11:37 PM, Tampered With said:

 

I don't quite understand your meaning or intent.

Which orthodoxy are you referring to?  The Russian version?  The Greek version?  

The main comparison between Christian and Jewish thinking is DOING vs. BELIEVING.

Jewish tradition involves doing or acting upon the tenants of the religion.  Judaism is replete with all sorts of customs and rules and actions.   These ACTS are so involved as to allow exclusion of God in some cases.  Judaism isn't a set piece religion.   There are reform Jews and there are orthodox Jews and there are atheistic Jews and all manner of types in between.  This is possible because Judaism is about DOING.

Christian tradition is about believing.  One cannot join a church without a passing acceptance of the church creed or statement of faith.  There are many.   Believing does not normally require acting.  All that is really required is a regular donation to the local venue so as to sustain its existence.  The result is that people attend a church, agree in principle to a standard set of ideas, pay an admission tax,  and then live their lives any way they please after they hit the parking lot.  The result is a lot of differing doctrines, which in principle mean exactly nothing.  The rapture tribulation and millennium issues are a good example.  People argue endlessly about these subjects as if the rising and setting of the sun depended upon embracing a particular interpretation.   In point of fact it has nothing at all to do with acting like a disciple of Christ, or anything efficacious regarding sanctification or salvation.   It's an empty belief, nothing more.

The traditions and philosophy of the Jewish Pharisees didn't die when the legions of Titus pulled down Herod's temple in Jerusalem.  It affects much of Christian thought to this day.  Do you believe in angels?  You are a pharisee.  Do you believe in the resurrection?  You are a pharisee.  Do you believe that tithing is required of God?  Then you are a pharisee.

The bag of sand you refer to is full of meaningless philosophical ideas that change with the wind.   They allow men to do as they please and justify themselves as being religious.  God is no fool and doesn't buy this bag of sand for a moment.  One cannot compare Jewish tradition with Christian doctrines.  Its worse than comparing apples to oranges because neither tradition nor doctrine will save anybody.   Apples and oranges make for a healthy diet.

Finally I wish to ask WHICH Messianic faiths you are referring to.   The movement has become gradually more popular in the years following June 6, 1967 but not necessarily unified in thought word and deed.  Even the RC church has a messianic spin off.  Christians do not consider Messianics to be Christian and Jews do not consider them to be Jewish.   It's a group that exists in the twilight zone between major religions.  The reader should consider this when exploring the veracity of a local Messianic congregation.  I consider myself to be a Messianic Jew, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize that there are differences between us.

Therefore the issues I consider to be of major concern are those of changeable philosophy versus the immutable LAW of the Torah and the lessons of the Tanakh.   One is guided by unchangeable directions and diverted into destruction by changeable philosophy.   History of empires bears witness to this truth.

Those that do not learn the lesson of history are doomed to repeat it.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited by choir loft
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  777
  • Content Per Day:  0.48
  • Reputation:   224
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/05/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/9/2019 at 4:49 AM, choir loft said:

Who defines "bad philosophy" or "good philosophy"?  

One man's meat is another man's poison.   The good of the society is not always good.   It changes according to social opinion.

The whole point of my post on philosophy is that its changeable according to individual perception.  That is the meaning of subjectivism.  You agreed with this and said it was a good thing - except it isn't.  

When a man decides to kill another for his money the act is good for the killer.   Not so good for his victim.  When a society decides to wage war upon another, rationale is employed to justify it one way or another.  War is good for the winner but not good for the loser.  When a society decides that religion is poison and that god is imaginary, such thought and activity justifies the changeable nature of SIN.

The first thing satan did in the garden of Eden was to call God a liar. (Genesis 3)  That is exactly what post-modern philosophy accomplishes.

My point is that a higher standard must be employed.  This higher standard is and of a right ought to be impervious to individual or social opinion and change.   It should be objective, as for example the Ten Commandments.

Your post is very busy justifying the gelatin substance of philosophy.  Philosophy is fine for discussions over a pitcher of beer.  As the beverage affects the speakers at table they all become wiser in their own eyes - even though their eyes cannot see as clearly as before.   Philosophy in church is killing Christendom - a point I've made numerous times before.

A NEW GENERATION HAS ARISEN THAT KNOWS NOT GOD.

This new generation is only interested in self gratification.  They are not interested in anything which remotely suggests a standard of behavior or - God forbid - objective thinking.   God is rejected completely as is morality.  Both are four letter words in their mind because they require behavior and attitudes which disagree with their appetites and passions.  In the words of the Bile they are carnal.

Philosophy lies at the root of group manipulation, which is why it is used so often in church and repressive government.  It is the enemy of righteousness and decency.  It is the friend of the criminal, the despot and the devil.

* * * *

I wish to reiterate the protestant hypocrisy of hatred of Jews and Jewish LAW.   Once upon a time long ago, all protestants gave lip service to respect for Jews as persons and Israel as their homeland.  Today the reverse is true.  All major protestant denominations except for Baptists have made public statements denying Israel the right to exist.  (BDS movement) Each of these organizations is actively involved in supporting the enemies of Israel.  Their names are registered as members of the opposition.  Those which are considered to be evangelical mouth support of Jews and Israel, but in private they believe Jews are disgusting and Jewish LAW is obsolete.  Any statement otherwise refuses to acknowledge fact.

I have personally seen the expression of ignorant evangelicals change to one of disgust when something of Jewish nature is put before them.   I have personally read and heard statements by ignorant fundamentalists that believe the LAW has been replaced by grace and that it is abolished.  Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the LAW (Matt 5:17), but these folk who claim to love the King of the Jews ignore His words.   Granted there are isolated individuals who don't hold a nameless grudge against Jews or Israel, but they are a rare bird.  Most of the time these same persons continue to support churches that are openly opposed to Israel.  This too is hypocrisy and double-mindedness.

My posting is and continues to be one of rejecting philosophy as a form of interpreting scripture.   The LAW is almost never employed in churches today to do so.

And that is the primary reason so many are leaving churches.    People who think - do not appreciate empty words.  People who don't think - won't be bothered with empty entertainment.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft.....

"Who defines "bad philosophy" or "good philosophy"?  "

We ALL must define GOOD PHILOSOPHY properly....

We have no choice....

We ALWAYS use philosophy....

ALL coherent discourse presupposes a philosophical perspective...

Philosophy is a necessary presupposition of coherent communication.....

"It changes according to social opinion."

We need not define GOOD PHILOSOPHY in terms of "social opinion"....

So your concern is appreciated....but it's not pertinent to my position.

"its changeable according to individual perception."

ALL perceptions are subject to perception....you can't avoid this problem!

It's OK to have perceptions...

Just make sure they are grounded in GOOD philosophy....

"That is the meaning of subjectivism. "

OBJECTIVE truth exists....and GOOD PHILOSOPHY can employ this OBJECTIVE truth....

NOT ALL PHILOSOPHY is subjective....

We can define GOOD PHILOSOPHY in terms of OBJECTIVE truths....

"War is good for the winner but not good for the loser.  "

Was is good for the loser if God desires that the loser lose.

"That is exactly what post-modern philosophy accomplishes."

PLEASE stop conflating "post-modernism" nonsense with GOOD ANALYTIC OBJECTIVE PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE.

They are NOT the same....let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!

"Your post is very busy justifying the gelatin substance of philosophy. "

YOUR post is FULL of philosophical presuppositions....so it makes no sense for you to oppose philosophical discourse!

"It should be objective"

GOOD philosophy can be objectively TRUE.

"Philosophy in church is killing Christendom"

To the contrary, philosophers such as William Lane Craig are amongst the top 100 most influential philosophers alive in the entire planet!

That's a BIG HELP to the Christian Apologetics enterprise.....

"Philosophy lies at the root of group manipulation"

Philosophy lies in EVERY COMMENT YOU POST....you CAN'T avoid it...

So let's be more careful with our terminology.....ok?

" Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the LAW (Matt 5:17)"

You are QUITE CORRECT, my friend....

"My posting is and continues to be one of rejecting philosophy as a form of interpreting scripture.  "

And when you learn that ALL hermeneutics is grounded in philosophical reasoning, you will REFINE your rejection of philosophy to be a rejection of BAD philosophy.....not a rejection of ALL philosophy.

" The LAW is almost never employed in churches today to do so."

This is a consequence of many factors....but GOOD PHILOSOPHY is not one of those factors!

ok....blessings to you.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  69
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,191
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   318
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/23/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/10/1947

On 11/9/2019 at 11:38 AM, Abdicate said:

They do have a couple of things in common... Jesus is a Jew, and both have become almost useless religions since they're both departed from the truth of the scriptures. Today, the Jews listen to oral tradition as more authoritative than the scriptures, and Christians listen to their brand of preacher then the scriptures. Both have rejected, by and large, the word of God as He plainly wrote them. Both keep the others at arm's length and pick and choose what they want to keep in the way or tradition separate or mingled. But God said, we are new creatures, one new man in Christ. Anyone who rejects anything from the scriptures, is a false religion, labeling included. Frankly, I'm fed up with all organized religions. I'm sticking with the word of God as it's written not interpreted by another better-than-thou vain philosophies. :D

 

I can do nothing here except agree heartily with every word you wrote.  You are a rare bird, sir and I imagine you ruffle a lot of Christian feathers from time to time.   Keep doing it.  It's good for them.

Has anyone here been to a Jewish worship service recently?  Specifically I refer to a Reform congregation.  Sermons can be as devoid of reference to scripture as any apostate faux-Christian franchise.  Perhaps I should amend that accusation to say MOST Christian franchises.  There are two types of sermon; topical and textual.  

A textual sermon is like a seminary lecture because it steps through a passage of scripture one line at a time - never departing from the verses except to provide examples to explain them.  Textual sermons are seldom presented because they are deemed to be too exhaustive for the mentality of the average congregation.  

A topical sermon is most common.  Its subject is usually some pc subject with scripture used to support the speaker's argument in the same way he or she might employ an anecdote to lighten the mood.

Organized religion, especially the Christian type is mostly a commercialized activity - like Christmas and Easter.  Congregations are deliberately manipulated so as to provide financial support for the dog and pony show that entertains them on Sunday morning.  I'm not kidding about manipulation.  Courses are offered to educate religious leaders in how to manipulate their members.  

Apologetic speakers are very popular these days.  It might surprise some to learn that apologetic speakers are the cream of the crop when it comes to philosophical manipulation of the faithful.  Apologetics is an intellectual chess game and many of the fans of a debate contest between an apologist and an atheist thrill at the moves of each player.  It's all in the moves - JUST LIKE a chess game, but just like a chess game few get saved in the process.   It's all about crushing your opponent with a good argument, not saving him. 

Finally, I've actually met people who were shocked down to their shoes when they were told Jesus is a Jew.   Never heard about His ancestry.  What if the two witnesses in Revelation are references to Jewish evangelists?  There's another shocking suggestion.   Good church folk do not like Jews or references to Jewish LAW.  (*)

that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

(*) I wear a lapel pin on my sport coat.  It's not an American flag.  It's the flag of Israel.   When it comes time during a church service to go around and shake one another's hand I get a lot of disapproving gazes from folks who'd rather not give me a second glance.   I've thought about wearing my kippah (yamaka) to church, but that might be too aggravating for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...