Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 12:16 am
The sacred status of the Bible in Judaism and Christianity rests upon the conviction that it is a receptacle of divine revelation. This understanding of the Bible as the word of God, however, has not generated one uniform hermeneutical principle for its interpretation.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hermen ... rpretation
This is one of the possible assumptions going into hermeneutics that can affect the interpretation outcome. So, it's important to understand at the outset what are the assumptions before starting to interpret the Bible.
As I've been stating in this thread, I have not been assuming the Bible has a sacred status and I've been approaching the Bible as any other book. Further, there is no assumption the Bible is inerrant in this thread.
Why do I do this? Because I believe it's circular logic to argue the Bible should have a special sacred status while also assuming it has a special sacred status. Also, there are no textual documents that are inerrant, so assuming the Bible is inerrant would also give it a special status. The Bible should be able to speak for itself and demonstrate it is authoritative and reliable without these special assumptions.
And therein lies the problem with hermeneutics, because it can be taken as license to interpret in one way what was actually written in another.
Actually, it's the opposite. Hermeneutics provides the methodology to try to arrive at a reasonable interpretation. But if the assumptions held from the onset are different, then it can lead to different interpretations.
When Jesus countermands the law of Moses by saying, "But I say to you: do not swear at all", that has to be taken at face value. There's no way to spin it into allegory. Any attempt to interpret it in a moral sense forces the interpreter to interpret the law being countermanded as immoral. And it must be interpreted in the context of Jesus's own assertion that the law of Moses, which he is here countermanding, is still to be kept down to every jot and tittle. The conflict is unavoidable.
No, the principles of proper hermeneutics explains your "unavoidable conflict".
There's a difference between metaphorical hermeneutics and the Appeal to Poetic Language fallacy. You can recognize symbolism, but you can't just say nice things about the symbols and have them be true because you want them to be.
I'm not claiming that passage proves anything nor am I saying since the Bible says Jesus is the truth then everyone should believe he is the truth. All I'm saying is that is my interpretation of the passage, which by the way is pretty much how all evangelicals interpret the passage. How else do others interpret the passage?
I highlighted it for you above. When you said "(Israel's)", it does not even imply it's more than Israel.
Where does it say it's only
The most straight forward reading of what you wrote meant only Israel. You said it was referring to the same thing. Also you did not say "(Israel's and the nations')", but simply "(Israel's)". Further, when I mentioned about the nations, you attribute it to confusion on my part:
"They are referring to the same thing. It's saying that all Israel will know Jehovah, and that he will remember their (Israel's) sin no more. You seem to be confusing Jeremiah's reference to Israel and Isaiah's reference to the nations."
I believed I acknowledged it. Yes, my servant sometimes refers to Israel, but other times it also refers to an individual.
And what determines which and when? Your opinion?
We have to look at the context.
And why wouldn't they know the Tanakh the best? It's written in their language.
Exactly my point. If their interpretation of the Isa 53 is they are the suffering servant (which very few Gentiles either know or believe this), then it would have to be the Jews to point this out to the nations and explain they are the ones that would suffer for them and redeem them. Nobody would be able to figure this out without the Jews teaching them.
And even so, we can see gravity working. We've never seen a resurrection.
We observe the effects of gravity, we don't see how it is working.
Nobody has seen the resurrection, but we can observe the effects of the resurrection.
Even in a court of law, there is no need to explain everything, but simply which side has the preponderance of evidence.
This isn't about civil law. It's about natural
Even in natural law, there is no requirement everything
needs to be explained.
This is a common argument laid out by skeptics. They say the Bible must hold to some high standard in order for it to be true. But, those standards are not applied to anything else. This is the special pleading fallacy. The biggest case in point is the Bible must be inerrant, which has been repeatedly been brought up by skeptics, even though the very first post says inerrancy is not assumed.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:01 pm
The Jewish Messiah and the Christian Messiah are not the same individual.
For Messianic Jews, they are the same.
But Jesus wasn't anointed with oil.
There are many things Jesus did that deviated from the Jewish traditions. He was revealing it's not the letter of the law that had to be followed, but the spirit and intention of the law.
Ultimately, the purpose of anointing was to convey authority granted by God. And we clearly see this occurred during the baptism of Jesus.
Did the voice from heaven say "This is my beloved son", as Matthew says, or "You are my beloved son" as Mark says?
If they recalled what was said was different, it doesn't matter. The intent and meaning that Jesus is God's beloved son is the same.
Did his blood end the practice of teaching neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord"? That's supposed to happen when the new covenant is established.
As Christians, we all have direct access to the Father to know him. In the OT, it required going through a priest to have a relationship with God.
The fact that there is a state of Israel is a miracle.
An act of the United Nations hardly qualifies as a miracle.
That they voted to establish a nation of Israel is a miracle. The Jews have been desiring a homeland for thousands of years and never achieved it before.
When I refer to the "ten lost tribes of Israel", I'm assuming those ten tribes of Israel exist somewhere and are in hiding because they will somehow be gathered back to Israel. So, if they exist somewhere on this planet, where are they and who are they?
Are you assuming that they don't exist?
If there's no evidence they exist, then it's not likely they do exist. Is there any evidence they currently exist?
It's a supernatural [and unwitnessed] claim, so we don't know that it happened.
That's why we have the evidence of the TS. It's not just an unsupported claim, but we have empirical evidence that we can actually see.
No one is any longer teaching his neighbor or his brother to "know the Lord"?
No Christian is telling me "know the Lord".
And if the wicked man repent of all his sins that he has committed and keeps all My laws and executes justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
All his transgressions that he has committed shall not be remembered regarding him: through his righteousness that he has done he shall live.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... ter-18.htm
Certainly repentance is necessary. But is it possible to keep all the laws after repentance? Because if he doesn't, he will die again.
[Eze 18:24 KJV] 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Though Jesus, all of our sins are atoned for. It is not just a yearly day of atonement where the sins are covered for one year. It is the final day of atonement where our sins are covered for all time.
Yes, we still need to repent when we do sin. But we are no longer is jeopardy of dying when we do sin.
There are many instances of Pagan deities doing the same.
Any of them have any empirical evidence for existing on earth?
If they do, there's probably textual evidence to refute it.
I'm just asking for a yes or no response. The answer is no, they don't have any empirical evidence for any god to have existed on earth.
As for textual evidence, if they use proper hermeneutics, only then could it be a valid interpretation.
"What we see in the development of Yom Kippur in the Jewish tradition is how the contradictory viewpoints of Numbers 15 and Leviticus 16 serve as correctives to each other."
It also states:
https://www.thetorah.com/article/does-a ... -atonement
From the perspective of Leviticus 16, Numbers 15 is overly exacting, utopian, and impossible to live by.
Leviticus 16’s near-automatic, yearly, cancellation of individual and national sins threatens to undermine any real and painful confrontation with serious failures that demand attention of the most serious kind. As a corrective to this, Numbers 15 reminds us that intentional sin is unacceptable, and that even unintentional sins must be dealt with carefully, on a one-by-one basis.
On the other hand, Numbers 15’s severity threatens to lead to dangerously negative sentiments, such as despair or self-hatred on both the personal and national levels. And it also threatens to develop into communal intolerance and heated fragmentation.
As a corrective to this, Leviticus 16 reminds us that as unacceptable as sins and wrongdoings truly are, we are flawed and wanting like everyone else, for iniquity is part of the human condition. This should not be taken as a free pass, but it should help us to temper unrealistic expectations of ourselves, our people, and the other individuals and groups within and around us.
Though the Christian interpretation of the Torah, it has solved the dilemma. We are flawed and sin all the time. But though we strive to avoid sin, when we do sin, there is forgiveness of all of our sins through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
If he was the Messiah and the Messiah's role was to be a sacrifice for people who no longer had a temple for offering sacrifices, how had his time not come?
First temple was destroyed around 587 BC. The second temple was completed around 515 BC. This is a gap of 72 years.
The second temple was destroyed at 70 AD. The third temple has not been built yet. This is a gap of 1953 years and counting.
So, it'd be better for Jesus to come before the destruction of the second temple.
If they did present empirical evidence and there were textual evidence in the BoM refuting it, which evidence would you accept?
First present the empirical evidence and we can evaluate that on its own merits. Then we can analyze the textual evidence that attests to it.