|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Exactly what is sin?
|
| willful violation of a known law of God |
|
| falling short of God's perfect mark |
|
| violation of God's laws, whether known or not |
|
| The sin nature is always with us |
|
| the sin nature can be eradicated |
|
| I don't sin, but sometimes I do make "Mistakes" |
|
| Other |
|
Total Votes : 119
|
(last vote on : 8/17/2008 10:12:31 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/22/2008 7:28:18 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
I have been privileged to see Christ in places in the scripture that apparently is foreign to many people, and so I share what I see. Buried in double entendre and riddles is a picture of Christ like a repeating watermark behind the literal text.
I took the challenge to see it in Revelation, though I have mostly avoided the book since so many have so much invested in their belief systems concerning it.
A more complete example is in the thread "Jesus Wept".
Or you can go to my study notes, (not ready for prime time) at my website.
I know it sounds silly to many, but those who have actually examined it have discovered that they can discover new ones for themselves.
I learned the hermeneutic from a rabbi, who refused to look at Christ, and hence could not see the shadows of Christ himself.
The thread "153 fish " is another example.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/22/2008 7:31:57 PM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3035
Joined: 6/8/2005
Status: offline
|
Do you do this by reading the Scriptures in Hebrew or in English?
_____________________________
Abiyah
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
A tree's fruit is obvious; you have to look harder for the worm hole.
G-d has only one natural Son; EVERYONE else is adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/22/2008 7:42:13 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
There are different layers. Remez and Drash I can do mostly in English. To get to the Sod in double entendre I have to use Hebrew and Greek.
Once a riddle is exposed, the solution comes from correlation with other scripture and other shadows.
I learned Hebrew and Greek from Children's primers, so I read like a child and am heavily dependent upon dictionaries.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 1:36:16 AM
|
|
|
Annie64
Posts: 713
Joined: 6/4/2007
From: Indianapolis, IN
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
May I also make a humble suggestion. In just two sentences exerpted above, you haved used the first person "I" six times. Perhaps it would help you to change your focus to Jesus and see what He can do instead of what you cannot do. I know that Galatians 2:20 can characterize your life just as it did Paul's!
Drmark, you are the second person to count my "I's" in a post. I didn't think I was self-absorbed, but the Lord could be trying to tell me something.
Abiyah, I've been thinking about something you said, that "there is likely no one here who strives more for holy living than I do." Nevertheless it is obvious that you don't agree that the sin nature can be eradicated, because you've never observed anyone live a perfect life. And I have to admit I haven't either. But because you said you are working on it, that tells me you are not saying that you'll never be free of sin in this life, so go ahead and sin and don't worry about it. I agree that there is value in the process. And I know that we are not going to be perfectly like Christ in this life. There's a lot about this that I don't understand.
When I think about my own sin, my own struggle, and then think about what Jesus went through on the cross, I can't believe that my sin is stronger than what He did to cleanse me from it. Nevertheless these wrong thoughts still play in my mind, even though I know they do not please God. I am not free of it. But I have to believe that the blood of Jesus is sufficient for my sin and that there is deliverance for me, that God can and will help me live to please Him.
_____________________________
On Christ the solid rock I stand
ALL other ground is sinking sand.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 6:56:06 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3035
Joined: 6/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Annie64
Drmark, you are the second person to count my "I's" in a post. I didn't think I was self-absorbed, but the Lord could be trying to tell me something.
I was reading a document this week, written by a police investigator, on things written by liars. You and I know that Mark's comments were intended in love and concern toward you, but I thought I would bring this article up to you anyway. According to the investigator, when the writing is about the self or about personal experience, the fewer the Is and mes, the more likely the thoughts of the author were contrived, so the person is a liar. I thought that was interesting and something to also be considered, especially since the author was a professional.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Annie64
Abiyah, I've been thinking about something you said, that "there is likely no one here who strives more for holy living than I do." Nevertheless it is obvious that you don't agree that the sin nature can be eradicated, because you've never observed anyone live a perfect life. And I have to admit I haven't either. But because you said you are working on it, that tells me you are not saying that you'll never be free of sin in this life, so go ahead and sin and don't worry about it. I agree that there is value in the process. And I know that we are not going to be perfectly like Christ in this life. There's a lot about this that I don't understand.
Annie, I want to live before G-d the best I can, because I love and respect Him, wanting never to embarrass Him, and I am thankful to Him. That is why I do my best. I know that all my efforts are just my efforts, but I know that he is there to help and guide me. So, yes, I work on living right, and I think people horribly err to plow through sinning without concern.
We serve a holy G-d, and His Name is holy, and He wants His people to also be holy, but people place differing meanings upon the word holy. Some people think it is long hair and long skirts on women. Some think it is what we don't do. I, personally, think it is setting ourselves apart, being noticeably different from those who don't care about G-d, our "light" shining in a world to enough of a degree that people know it without our having to wear a uniform or carry about a particular religious entity's name. It is doing what the Bible says, not doing what the Bible says not to do, and not adding to or detracting from the Scriptures.
The only One I know of, who is free from sin, is Messiah.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Annie64
When I think about my own sin, my own struggle, and then think about what Jesus went through on the cross, I can't believe that my sin is stronger than what He did to cleanse me from it. Nevertheless these wrong thoughts still play in my mind, even though I know they do not please God. I am not free of it. But I have to believe that the blood of Jesus is sufficient for my sin and that there is deliverance for me, that God can and will help me live to please Him.
Amein. Amein.
Another thing to consider is the definitions of sin by the differing peoples -- those who believe one can live completely sin-free and those who see things differently. I have learned, over the years I attended such a church, that they define sin very differently than we do, and this has proven true on these boards as well. The first has a more limited definition of sin; we others have a definition that includes ideas they would not see as sin. I think that in the end, we are all living verey similar lives: they no mre separated than mine, and mine no more separated than theirs.
_____________________________
Abiyah
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
A tree's fruit is obvious; you have to look harder for the worm hole.
G-d has only one natural Son; EVERYONE else is adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 6:59:24 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3035
Joined: 6/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjones
There are different layers. Remez and Drash I can do mostly in English. To get to the Sod in double entendre I have to use Hebrew and Greek.
Once a riddle is exposed, the solution comes from correlation with other scripture and other shadows.
I learned Hebrew and Greek from Children's primers, so I read like a child and am heavily dependent upon dictionaries.
I have seen this in Hebrew, when it is pointed out to me by my instructors, but I have never seen it in K Greek, except when the Hebrew background of the writer was considered, and never in English. I am not proficient enough in either Hebrew or Greek to see it myself.
_____________________________
Abiyah
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
A tree's fruit is obvious; you have to look harder for the worm hole.
G-d has only one natural Son; EVERYONE else is adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 8:05:38 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjones
There are different layers. Remez and Drash I can do mostly in English. To get to the Sod in double entendre I have to use Hebrew and Greek.
Once a riddle is exposed, the solution comes from correlation with other scripture and other shadows.
I learned Hebrew and Greek from Children's primers, so I read like a child and am heavily dependent upon dictionaries.
I have seen this in Hebrew, when it is pointed out to me by my instructors, but I have never seen it in K Greek, except when the Hebrew background of the writer was considered, and never in English. I am not proficient enough in either Hebrew or Greek to see it myself.
I think you just haven't been told you're allowed to see it. Look at the three women by the well. Abraham (the Father) chose a bride for the Son, Jacob (the Son) wooed or called his bride (he kissed her), and the third one was gathered into the bride at Sychar. Sychar means "intoxicated" which is the Remez of the Holy Ghost from Pentecost.
Now if you compare and contrast them (Drash) you will be able to discern three sodim about the well.
Who is the water, what is his condition in relationship to the well?
Where is the stone? Who is the stone? Who removes the stone?
Who gets the water in each narrative?
Why three flocks of sheep? Who are they?
These can be discerned and answered in English. And the sod crosses between Hebrew and Greek.
Now if you pursue it further:
In what way is there a Remez of "prostitution" in Rebekah? One in English and in Hebrew 'took' means 'married'.
In the story of Rachel and Leah where is the "Remez" of prostitution?
In the story of the woman at Sychar, where is the hint of the virgin bride?
Except where noted, all can be done in English.
Now as you consider almost every other woman in the Bible, they will either be virgin brides with a Remez of prostitution, or prostitutes with a Remez of the virgin bride.
Why is this the case? It is not by accident. As you become familiar with it, you understand Mystery Babylon.
Sorry I get started...
Back to Greek.
Look at the meaning of the words involved in the story of Zacchaeus in the tree. You will find a hidden picture of Christ on the cross.
http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Dwg:Zacchaeus_as_Christ.jpg
The diagram shows how the double meanings of the words paint the picture.
Look at the first three days of Jesus ministry in John, then the first three miracles he performed "when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee". then the first three times he showed himself to his disciples after the resurrection. This can largely be done in English. The remezim (if that's a word) that ties them together are the three days and the sequence of hearing, seeing and walking. Is it just an accidental meaningless literary device, or is he talking about how we come to 'life' in Christ. We first hear His voice, then we engage our mental facilities and see the evidences of God's word, then we respond to his call upon our lives and walk with him in newness of life. As you compare and contrast them in English you will see the sod.
This is so foreign to western protestantism that you can see why I get beat up so much. It is very definitely a Jewish way of "tasting" the word rather than the Greek dissection of propositional truth.
If you would like to discuss this more, we should start another thread. Rather than just blurting out Sodim, I should learn how to guide discovery as the rabbis do.
< Message edited by rcjones -- 7/26/2008 8:29:10 AM >
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 8:19:27 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3035
Joined: 6/8/2005
Status: offline
|
Oh! I am sorry! I didn't know you intended this! I thought you intended something completely different, and in some ways, what I thought you intended scared me a little! I am sorry!!!
_____________________________
Okay, I have read your whole post now. I will check out the site you mentioned.
_____________________________
Abiyah
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
A tree's fruit is obvious; you have to look harder for the worm hole.
G-d has only one natural Son; EVERYONE else is adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 8:29:32 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3035
Joined: 6/8/2005
Status: offline
|
Jones, if I may be honest with you, please, without causing division. I am a student of the Bible, not a scholar. I see many wonderful things in the Bible that thrill me with every study. I see many underlying ideas in the Bible, telescopic prophecy, etc. But I am neither wise enough nor knowledgeable enough to go down some paths some scholars have taken. Because I am still learning, and am no longer a teacher for a very good reason, I walk a very careful path in the Bible and with works about the Bible.
I am not ready for this. Okay?
I write this with the love of a believer . . . .
_____________________________
Abiyah
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
A tree's fruit is obvious; you have to look harder for the worm hole.
G-d has only one natural Son; EVERYONE else is adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 8:33:16 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Perhaps I am explaining it in a way the scares others.
What did you think I meant by it? How should I be saying it?
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 8:44:34 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
I am not ready for this. Okay?
I write this with the love of a believer . . . .
This is fine. You were the first that even recognized the words Remez, and Drash...
And the first that was kind enough to ask rather than jump into a rant based on presupositions.
Thanks.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 9:07:38 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3035
Joined: 6/8/2005
Status: offline
|
Some people are frightened by concepts that are not familiar in the churches. Some people honestly believe that the churches retain all biblical knowledge and legitimate biblical understanding. And most of us are aware that there are many who claim to have knowledge that is hidden from the rest of humanity, believers or not, because they think they have learned special word-pronunciations and other such things, so they are special, called out from others who claim to be believers.
So when someone comes along and claims to have knowledge that is based on something hidden, something coded, etc., they are immediately suspect. There is good reason to be concerned, because some such persons take their followers down a perditious trail, taking them to places from which they will never learn Truth.
So this is what I know with regard to myself: I must walk carefully. less than a decade ago, I was extricated from a cult. For 50 years, I was fooled; for 40 of those years, I didn't know it, and for 10 of those years, I knew it and stayed.
I walk a careful line now, carefully choosing my teachers. It is out of necessity. I learn, but I learn slowly, mulling some concepts over for years before I accept them. 
_____________________________
Abiyah
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
A tree's fruit is obvious; you have to look harder for the worm hole.
G-d has only one natural Son; EVERYONE else is adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 9:42:44 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
I appreciate that.
I don't claim special knowledge or privilege. Quite the opposite. I assert no copyrights at the site and want no followers. The shadows comes to light by the application of rules and are constrained by rules discerned from the Bible.
The shadows all speak of Christ and I share what I know of Christ with others.
Children in our fellowship are finding Christ in the OT just because they've been told they're allowed to.
All of the shadows have been made plain in Christ and they all speak of Christ.
But He spoke in riddles to Israel because of the hardness of their hearts. He revealed the answer to all the riddles in Christ.
Still the old riddles are buried everywhere in the OT just where God put them originally.
Don't take my word for these things. Check out the scriptures I mentioned above and see if they are true. If you meditate on His word, He will give you delight in them as you discover pictures of Christ throughout.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 2:18:42 PM
|
|
|
2Preacher
Posts: 49
Joined: 2/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't claim special knowledge or privilege. Quite the opposite. I assert no copyrights at the site and want no followers. The shadows comes to light by the application of rules and are constrained by rules discerned from the Bible.
The shadows all speak of Christ and I share what I know of Christ with others.
Children in our fellowship are finding Christ in the OT just because they've been told they're allowed to.
All of the shadows have been made plain in Christ and they all speak of Christ.
But He spoke in riddles to Israel because of the hardness of their hearts. He revealed the answer to all the riddles in Christ.
Still the old riddles are buried everywhere in the OT just where God put them originally.
Don't take my word for these things. Check out the scriptures I mentioned above and see if they are true. If you meditate on His word, He will give you delight in them as you discover pictures of Christ throughout.
Jones:
What religious background do you come from? Are you a "messianic Jew"? I ask this out of curiosity as well as because of the fact that you mention the "rabbi's" and the Hebrew terms "drash" and "remez".
I don't know what those terms mean specifically. Am I correct that they are Hebrew terms?
I am a minister with a master of divinity degree. I have studied Koine Greek and also Hebrew. ( more Greek than Hebrew). Your method of interpretation intrigues me from a human intelligence stance on interpretation.
I believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture without reading into the text things that are not readily apparent on the surface. I use this method along with comparison of Scripture with Scripture. My Greek and Hebrew training are used sparingly due to the fact that I feel somewhat inadequate in them and the fact that the people I speak to have little or no understanding of the languages. Consequently, I make mention of them most sparingly.
One can trace the roots of many false cults and even most of the divisions within the true church today back to a man or men who "read into the Scriptures things that were not really there". Please don't misunderstand, I know and believe that there are "pictures" of Christ in all of the Bible. His coming, birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection as the Savior of the world is the central theme of the Bible. There are many side themes and subjects, but He is the Center of it all. It is just that one must be careful that the "types" and "pictures" he is seeing are really there and not the contrivances of ones own imagination.
Like Covan_Meshuga, I am very wary of any method of Biblical interpretation which is "new" as most of them are Liberal and are meant, not so much to interpret for understanding as to tear down the Bible and its tenets. Most tend to make Scripture look foolish or at least unbelievable.
Please don't take offense at this. I don't mean any, I just believe that one needs to be careful about who he listens to regarding the Bible. "Let God be true and every man a liar". "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth". (II Tim 2:15) This is where 99% of believers today fall short. They depend too much on some "teacher" rather than their own Spirit led efforts in the study of God's Word.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 2:27:58 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2052
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
I voted for "willful violation of a known law of God" because it was the closest to how I would define sin, but I think a better definition would be "to be deliberately in rebellion against God's will". I would have also voted for "The sin nature is always with us" and "the sin nature can be eradicated" if these were more clearly defined i.e. "The sin nature will always be with us until we resurrected with Christ at the end of the age", and "The sin nature is being eradicated, but this process will not be complete until we are resurrected with Christ at the end of the age"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 2:47:10 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2052
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
For those who are wondering about these terms:
פשאת Pshat » simple understanding
רמס Remez » hinted meaning
דרש Drush » allegorical explanation
סוד Sod » esoteric understanding
They are part of the teaching of Jewish mysticism, and are based primarily on the readings from the Kabbalah. Here is a link for those who would like to understand what is being said here.
This has nothing to do with a Christian understanding of the bible, nor does it have anything to do with early Hebrew thought. This is something that developed centuries after Christ.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjones
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjones
There are different layers. Remez and Drash I can do mostly in English. To get to the Sod in double entendre I have to use Hebrew and Greek.
Once a riddle is exposed, the solution comes from correlation with other scripture and other shadows.
I learned Hebrew and Greek from Children's primers, so I read like a child and am heavily dependent upon dictionaries.
I have seen this in Hebrew, when it is pointed out to me by my instructors, but I have never seen it in K Greek, except when the Hebrew background of the writer was considered, and never in English. I am not proficient enough in either Hebrew or Greek to see it myself.
I think you just haven't been told you're allowed to see it. Look at the three women by the well. Abraham (the Father) chose a bride for the Son, Jacob (the Son) wooed or called his bride (he kissed her), and the third one was gathered into the bride at Sychar. Sychar means "intoxicated" which is the Remez of the Holy Ghost from Pentecost.
Now if you compare and contrast them (Drash) you will be able to discern three sodim about the well.
Who is the water, what is his condition in relationship to the well?
Where is the stone? Who is the stone? Who removes the stone?
Who gets the water in each narrative?
Why three flocks of sheep? Who are they?
These can be discerned and answered in English. And the sod crosses between Hebrew and Greek.
Now if you pursue it further:
In what way is there a Remez of "prostitution" in Rebekah? One in English and in Hebrew 'took' means 'married'.
In the story of Rachel and Leah where is the "Remez" of prostitution?
In the story of the woman at Sychar, where is the hint of the virgin bride?
Except where noted, all can be done in English.
Now as you consider almost every other woman in the Bible, they will either be virgin brides with a Remez of prostitution, or prostitutes with a Remez of the virgin bride.
Why is this the case? It is not by accident. As you become familiar with it, you understand Mystery Babylon.
Sorry I get started...
Back to Greek.
Look at the meaning of the words involved in the story of Zacchaeus in the tree. You will find a hidden picture of Christ on the cross.
http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Dwg:Zacchaeus_as_Christ.jpg
The diagram shows how the double meanings of the words paint the picture.
Look at the first three days of Jesus ministry in John, then the first three miracles he performed "when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee". then the first three times he showed himself to his disciples after the resurrection. This can largely be done in English. The remezim (if that's a word) that ties them together are the three days and the sequence of hearing, seeing and walking. Is it just an accidental meaningless literary device, or is he talking about how we come to 'life' in Christ. We first hear His voice, then we engage our mental facilities and see the evidences of God's word, then we respond to his call upon our lives and walk with him in newness of life. As you compare and contrast them in English you will see the sod.
This is so foreign to western protestantism that you can see why I get beat up so much. It is very definitely a Jewish way of "tasting" the word rather than the Greek dissection of propositional truth.
If you would like to discuss this more, we should start another thread. Rather than just blurting out Sodim, I should learn how to guide discovery as the rabbis do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 3:13:00 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
What religious background do you come from? Are you a "messianic Jew"? I ask this out of curiosity as well as because of the fact that you mention the "rabbi's" and the Hebrew terms "drash" and "remez".
I am a sinner saved by grace. I have been an evanglist/church starter/pastor in Utah for 26 years. I am not seminary trained, but have been recruited three times for ordination, I only accepted twice, choosing to serve in unofficial positions ever since. I have taught evangelism, filled pulpits, and served in Church of Christ, Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, Nazarene, Calvary Chapel and Presbyterian churches. I taught Nazarenes this morning and Presbyterians last week.
quote:
I don't know what those terms mean specifically. Am I correct that they are Hebrew terms?
Here is a good article on them. You will notice that the author's concern is the apparent "lack of controls".
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=545
Not being familiar with controls does not mean that they do not exist. Here are the controls derived from the scriptures using the same hermeneutic:
1. Since God has said that not a jot or tittle will pass away, until one knows why each jot and tittle is there, a complete understanding has not been derived. (This keeps us humble)
2. Since man shall live "..by every word", a doctrine is not sound until it sums up and includes all that God has said about it. (This keeps us searching)
3. Since every word must be established by two or three witnesses, every shadow must have at least two supporting scripture witnesses. (This keeps us rigorous in methodology and eliminates pure allegory)
4. Since God's word is established forever, a shadow means the same thing everywhere is it used. So, since a donkey is a shadow of a prophet, everywhere there is a donkey, it is a shadow of a prophet. This rule alone makes the shadows humanly impossible to fabricate. (This keeps us an awe)
5. The riddle of Samson tells us Christ is the answer to all the riddles. If the shadow doesn't look like Christ, it isn't a good shadow. (This keeps us focussed)
6. And since we are to "let everyman be a liar and God be true", outside references are not required to solve the riddles and see the shadows. (This keeps us devoted)
If you seriously consider these rules you will recognize that they eliminate human invention.
quote:
I am a minister with a master of divinity degree. I have studied Koine Greek and also Hebrew. ( more Greek than Hebrew). Your method of interpretation intrigues me from a human intelligence stance on interpretation.
Thank you. You recognize that if the methods are not sound, then I must be one heckofa clever guy. If the methods are not sound, everything derived from them is garbage. Cleverness should not be attributed to me, but one should have awe for God's word.
quote:
I believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture without reading into the text things that are not readily apparent on the surface. I use this method along with comparison of Scripture with Scripture. My Greek and Hebrew training are used sparingly due to the fact that I feel somewhat inadequate in them and the fact that the people I speak to have little or no understanding of the languages. Consequently, I make mention of them most sparingly.
I believe that a literal understanding of Scripture is critical to understanding scripture. And as you can see from rules 1 & 2 that the shadows cannot contradict the literal. Nothing in the shadows is critical for salvation, since obviously lots of people are saved without them. Rule 6 says you shouldn't trust me for what they say, but should check them out for yourself.
quote:
One can trace the roots of many false cults and even most of the divisions within the true church today back to a man or men who "read into the Scriptures things that were not really there". Please don't misunderstand, I know and believe that there are "pictures" of Christ in all of the Bible. His coming, birth, life, death, burial, and resurrection as the Savior of the world is the central theme of the Bible. There are many side themes and subjects, but He is the Center of it all. It is just that one must be careful that the "types" and "pictures" he is seeing are really there and not the contrivances of ones own imagination.
I agree. And you will see from my website that I am hoping to find others who will corroborate my studies, or even correct them if they are wrong.
quote:
Like Covan_Meshuga, I am very wary of any method of Biblical interpretation which is "new" as most of them are Liberal and are meant, not so much to interpret for understanding as to tear down the Bible and its tenets. Most tend to make Scripture look foolish or at least unbelievable.
I agree with your position. I have nothing to do with Cabala, Bible Codes, Numerology, or any of the other faddish things that people have bought into. I did not set out to invent something. After studying with a rabbi and studying the old rabbis, the pictures just popped out. It took me some time to explain how they were there and how I was seeing them. The article above explains the right brain/left brain activity better than I can. I have been able to "reverse engineer" the process and work them bottom up rather than top down.
You will find that the shadows re-enforce the historic - literalness of the Bible. If there is no pashat there can be no sod. This is unlike the Greek allegorists who wanted to teach something other than the literal. Although much of the stuff I have written looks foreign in details, I doubt you have found anything unsound theologically.
When you examine the hermeneutic closely, you will find that it elevates that Bible, exalts Christ and gives you confidence that God works in all the details of your life as well.
quote:
Please don't take offense at this. I don't mean any, I just believe that one needs to be careful about who he listens to regarding the Bible. "Let God be true and every man a liar". "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth". (II Tim 2:15) This is where 99% of believers today fall short. They depend too much on some "teacher" rather than their own Spirit led efforts in the study of God's Word.
I have taken no offense at all. Whereas others have jumped in a mocked and scoffed without understanding, you have a reasonable position, which I fully agree with. I don't want people to believe me. I want them to see Christ in the scriptures for themselves and even be able to correct the studies I have done. If one gets sloppy, (not fully documenting according to rule 3, then there is a tendency to produce allegory. It doesn't stand long under scrutiny. It is also self-correcting under rule 4.)
I know that it is unfamiliar, but it isn't new. It complies with the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer, which have been around since the first century and some say before. Both Catholics and Jews have believed in 4 layers of interpretation. And the reformers were not opposed to typology. C.E. Macintosh and M.R. DeHaan caught glimpses of them.
I would be most appreciative if you would be willing to enter into an extended dialog to examine the methods and the results. I would consider it a privilege to have your critical eye trained upon them. This is what I have been hoping to find by sharing them in the forums.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 3:43:41 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
They are part of the teaching of Jewish mysticism, and are based primarily on the readings from the Kabbalah. Here is a link for those who would like to understand what is being said here.
Your bold assertion is contradicted by the author of the article in the previous post.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=545
Baptists look a lot like Mormons. It is not the similarities which are important, but the distinctions.
There is a parable that accompanies the Kabbalah where four rabbis are warned before entering paradise, that when they see the white rock they are not to say "Water, water". In the shadows, the white rock is Christ and "water,water" means that he is the Torah word of God in heaven and on earth. The parable continues with specific threats against those who would see Christ in the scriptures.
When the Jews could no longer kill Christians, they poisoned the well to prevent more Jews from seeing Christ in the OT.
So the Kabbalah adds extra biblical texts like the Book of Enoch, and creates mythology to distract from Christ.
Since Christ is the answer to all the riddles, the only thing that Jewish scholars could come up with, without looking at Christ, is the nonsense that is in Midrash. Midrash has no answers.
Kabbalah is an intentional distraction from Christ, and Midrash is the use of the hermeneutics without the answer of Christ. I will even say that the Gnostics used the hermeneutic but didn't have the rules.
It is not the similarities which are important, but the distinctions.
There is no boogie-man in seeing hints, comparing, contrasting and correlating scripture. And if you prefer to avoid those terms, then use riddle and double entendre.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 5:45:31 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2052
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjones
quote:
They are part of the teaching of Jewish mysticism, and are based primarily on the readings from the Kabbalah. Here is a link for those who would like to understand what is being said here.
Your bold assertion is contradicted by the author of the article in the previous post.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=545
And I would disagree with the author of this article. I am unaware of any early Jewish documents that reflect this kind of thinking, and the author of this article cites no examples of early documents that support the conclusions he made. The author of this article is projecting a rather modern Jewish viewpoint back to first century Judaism, and has not provided anything to support the idea that first century Judaism embraced these beliefs apart from his conclusion that these beliefs were the bases for the NT quotations of the OT, and that is something that is conjecture at best.
quote:
Baptists look a lot like Mormons. It is not the similarities which are important, but the distinctions.
There is a parable that accompanies the Kabbalah where four rabbis are warned before entering paradise, that when they see the white rock they are not to say "Water, water". In the shadows, the white rock is Christ and "water,water" means that he is the Torah word of God in heaven and on earth. The parable continues with specific threats against those who would see Christ in the scriptures.
When the Jews could no longer kill Christians, they poisoned the well to prevent more Jews from seeing Christ in the OT.
So the Kabbalah adds extra biblical texts like the Book of Enoch, and creates mythology to distract from Christ.
Since Christ is the answer to all the riddles, the only thing that Jewish scholars could come up with, without looking at Christ, is the nonsense that is in Midrash. Midrash has no answers.
Kabbalah is an intentional distraction from Christ, and Midrash is the use of the hermeneutics without the answer of Christ. I will even say that the Gnostics used the hermeneutic but didn't have the rules.
It is not the similarities which are important, but the distinctions.
There is no boogie-man in seeing hints, comparing, contrasting and correlating scripture. And if you prefer to avoid those terms, then use riddle and double entendre.
And I would argue that the similarities with Kabbalah are precisely what differentiates this from a valid hermetical method, and why I would reject this as a valid method of interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Exactly what is sin? - 7/26/2008 6:17:57 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 178
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would argue that the similarities with Kabbalah are precisely what differentiates this from a valid hermetical method
So you are unable to find fault with the rules. You cannot take exception to looking at larger context nor comparing scripture with scripture... which particular method is it that you take objection to?
Comparing three women at the well is considered Kabbalistic?
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
