Advice For Bible Students Beware Of The Scholars

[Earthling]

It's based off the scriptures, so it cannot be absurd.

Are you serious?!

 

[Earthling]

I am so glad that we have you as our scholarly savior to correct all these people who are in error.

Then again... it also sounds like you are offering another gospel.

If I were offering my services as scholarly savior wouldn't the warning in the OP apply to myself as well?

 

[Earthling]

I consider it a matter of interpretation.

No you don't, that would be impossible. You mean to say tradition rather than interpretation.

 

[Kenny]

Ok... let's look at this carefully...

Have you had a discussion in which someone who claims to be trained in ancient Hebrew, Greek or is a Bible Scholar, or has been to seminary gives the impression that because of their education in any of the fields they must be right and you must be wrong? It happens all of the time to me. And lets put that into perspective.

Yes and no.

Yes, basically you are correct but it makes it sound like all trained people are wrong. Yes, they could be wrong, but then again, they may be right for after all, God did give people with gifts of teaching that help.

So someone who is trained in the Greek language can give you an insight that you missed. Or a teacher in Hebrew can give the correct interpretation because they are viewing it through the lens of the Hebraic understanding at that time.

Jesus as a child impressed the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Later, as an adult, he strongly criticized those religious leaders. Jesus wasn't a scholar. Nor were his disciples. Nor were nearly all of the writers of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The only scholars I can think of were Ezra and Paul, and Paul's training had him persecuting and savagely killing Christians until his conversion.

So here, you have declared my point above. Paul's training, without God, killed Christians. Paul's training, with God, produced understanding that helped everyone.

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus, the only one who could ever be proven, by legal documentation to have been the Messiah since the records were destroyed in the Roman destruction of the temple in 66 - 70 C.E.

Jehovah therefore rejected the Jewish system and expanded his approval to the Gentile followers of Christ.

Jehovah didn't "reject the Jewish system" or The Law. He used The Law as a schoolmaster. Jesus rejected much of "the interpretation" but he fulfilled the system detailed by Moses.

But Christianity is hardly any better off. Paul foretold the future apostasy of Christendom and their preference over myth and legends. The soul isn't immortal. Jesus didn't die on a cross. The Bible doesn't teach hell, the rapture, the trinity. . . if you read in the Bible that the soul is mortal, it dies, then don't let the so called scholars change your thinking. Listen to what they say but don't put your trust in them, or anyone else, including me, gurus, the Pope, Rabbis, Bible Scholars, or even the apostles and disciples of Jesus.

So this logic is definitely wrong but has some truth in it. A counterfeit bill can have a lot of truth in it and yet still have something that is a counterfeit.

You're saying that Jesus didn't die on a cross runs cross-grained to what the scholar Paul said and the non-scholar Apostles said. You're declaration that there is no rapture or hell or that the soul isn't immortal should be received just on the basis that you aren't a scholar and therefore should be received, is totally wrong.

Your spiritual growth isn't dependent upon, or the responsibility of the intellectual, the scholar, or any of those mentioned above. It is dependent upon you. It's your responsibility.

This part is true but doesn't mean that you can't learn from the scholar and correct what you wrongly interpreted

 

[Rival]

Are you serious?!

Yes, the Jewish religion is based on the Scriptures. I'm not sure why you think this is not true.

 

[Kenny]

You need some punctuation in that title, bub.

If you are a scholar or a instructor, we can't receive from what you said because, after all and according to the OP, you aren't qualified to teach him if you are.

 

[Politesse]

Jesus was a teacher.

 

[Earthling]

Hello. Yes, primarily is up to us. But I think scholars in this field have a lot to offer as well. For example, correcting translations from the original Greek (NT) and weeding out the later encrustations that have developed over the centuries (things attributed to Jesus, for example, that were likely added later).

I agree absolutely. I would be lost without their input. The point is more along the lines that that information, at least in our time, is readily available to nearly everyone and on a forum like this, the guy who has had two years of Greek or Hebrew or who subscribes to Judaism rather than Christianity tends to at least imply that anyone that doesn't have that training or subscribe to that tradition are less accurate.

It is true though that many biblical scholars (Bart Ehrman comes to mind) have an axe to grind and seem to use their scholarship to turn people away from the faith.

I don't know if I would agree with that. I think we all have an ax to grind. Confidence or knowledge anyway, shouldn't be shunned or discarded for popular appeal. People turn away from confidence and knowledge because they have their own ax to grind. I've noticed that people who don't want to adhere strictly to the discipline of the Bible and reject traditional denominational doctrine are inclined to take a vague sort of version of tradition and apply it in a way that suits them, so their ax to grind isn't due to any fault of the scholar or the denominational.

In my other thread, Should I Join The Jehovah's Witnesses? I deal with the imperfections of all of us. The people who are turned away from faith would most likely turn away regardless of anything. Maybe because of it's bloody history, or homophobia, or their own accountability. I don't worry too much about that.

 

[Earthling]

Do you need a Bible citation?

For what?

Jesus was not proud of ignorance. By all accounts, he engaged openly with the scholars of the day, and they with him. I find your post rather disrespectful to the man and his memory.

I wasn't talking about Jesus, but now that you mention him he did engage with the scholars of his day and demonstrated aptly that they were more interested in tradition than teachings. They were fools. I don't know how you managed to find my post disrespectful to the man and his memory when I wasn't even referring to him, but that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Earthling]

If you are a scholar or a instructor, we can't receive from what you said because, after all and according to the OP, you aren't qualified to teach him if you are.

I think that pretty much everyone has misunderstood the intention of the OP. Research, study, scholarly input, academic and theological pursuit is, ultimately, an individual responsibility. The warning was against putting too much emphasis on the capabilities of those with some linguistic training or familiarity with Jewish thinking. I mentioned having experienced this often in the realm of religious debate.

It doesn't mean anything to me. Like I said, it's like the Pope having some authority on Christian teaching. Part of the reason for this is pure arrogance, over confidence, but mostly due to the outside influence of tradition in the schools of religious thought. It seems the reformation didn't take us far enough away from that. In the dark ages the common folk couldn't read the Bible, but in modern day forums such as this, it is often wrongly implied that the common folk don't have the authority to estimate the traditional teachings of religiosity. It's nonsense.

 

[Kenny]

I think that pretty much everyone has misunderstood the intention of the OP. Research, study, scholarly input, academic and theological pursuit is, ultimately, an individual responsibility. The warning was against putting too much emphasis on the capabilities of those with some linguistic training or familiarity with Jewish thinking. I mentioned having experienced this often in the realm of religious debate.

It doesn't mean anything to me. Like I said, it's like the Pope having some authority on Christian teaching. Part of the reason for this is pure arrogance, over confidence, but mostly due to the outside influence of tradition in the schools of religious thought. It seems the reformation didn't take us far enough away from that. In the dark ages the common folk couldn't read the Bible, but in modern day forums such as this, it is often wrongly implied that the common folk don't have the authority to estimate the traditional teachings of religiosity. It's nonsense.

I can agree with these statements. (Not that you needed my validation -- just my thought)

 

[Kenny]

Jesus was a teacher.

Jesus is a Savior.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, the Jewish religion is based on the Scriptures. I'm not sure why you think this is not true.

I said nothing about it that I recall. Anything can be based on scripture. Charles Manson's Helter Skelter was based upon scripture.

 

[danieldemol]

No you don't, that would be impossible. You mean to say tradition rather than interpretation.

Relying on our alleged mind reading powers are we?

 

[Earthling]

Relying on our alleged mind reading powers are we?

Not at all. You can't interpret Ezekiel 18:4 or Matthew 10:28 any other way than that the soul is mortal, it dies. Now if you don't follow the Bible's teaching on the subject of the soul, that is another story altogether, but from a Biblical perspective, it isn't possible.

So, where did you get the idea that the soul is immortal? It's hard to say, but most likely unbeknownst to you, it was Socrates influenced traditional apostate Christian teachings.

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you are a scholar or a instructor, we can't receive from what you said because, after all and according to the OP, you aren't qualified to teach him if you are.

No one should take my constructive criticism solely upon my word.
The wise poster would investigate it, & only then correct it.

 

[Politesse]

Jesus is a Savior.

You may value him solely for his blood, and you would not be alone in doing so, but I have always found his teachings more edifying than any act of violence.

 

[danieldemol]

Not at all. You can't interpret Ezekiel 18:4 or Matthew 10:28 any other way than that the soul is mortal, it dies. Now if you don't follow the Bible's teaching on the subject of the soul, that is another story altogether, but from a Biblical perspective, it isn't possible.

So, where did you get the idea that the soul is immortal? It's hard to say, but most likely unbeknownst to you, it was Socrates influenced traditional apostate Christian teachings.

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.

Mathew 10:28 proves that it is possible to kill the body but not the soul - which positively identifies them as composites, and as i’ve explained elsewhere if one views the “life” and “death” of the soul as relative states, it is indeed possible to read Ezekiel as not referring to the positive end of the mortal soul.

Jesus when referring to the spiritually dead, said, “let the dead bury their dead”(Matt 8:22) this statement shows that it is possible to have a dead soul inhabiting a living body, and since if a soul were completely or absolutely dead the body would also be completely dead (assuming your philosophy of non-compositeness) it is therefore proven according to Jesus that spiritual death (or death of the soul) is a relative, not absolute state.

Like I said it is a matter of interpretation, and it appears to me that you simply accept the interpretation of one group of Jews to the exclusion of others. Things which were less explicit in the old testament were clarified by Jesus, and you should let Jesus be your interpreter of the Old Testament, not a group of those who rejected Him.

 

[Kenny]

You may value him solely for his blood, and you would not be alone in doing so, but I have always found his teachings more edifying than any act of violence.

Sometimes one sees the surgeon as performing an act of violence, but to take out a tumor, there must be some pain. And, yes, his teachings are very edifying such as "No great love hath a man but that he give his life for another".

 

[sojourner]

Of course I am, as well as my own inclinations, interpretations. What I'm saying is that people who ask for your credentials seem to imply that their superior education is infallible and your estimation is of lesser importance as if you couldn't access the same resources as they could without the formal education. It's snobbery at the least and potentially misleading since often scholars and formal education in the subject at hand are traditional.

Some of the best stuff is very difficult to locate/identify/access. Can you name two of the best resources for NT exegesis? Most who haven’t been involved professionally can’t.