One God, One Saviour the Creator

[gsa]

*
The way I read Isaiah is God is fed up with the Jew. Which he says he still has a place for in his heart. He Created a people to bring forth his Praise. He calls on peoples from every corner of the earth to join him in covenant. He says he's done away with the old, ( who's to doubt ) and tells us of the new. All peoples all that see the light, all that believe that he is God and that there was no God before of after..

I am certain that the way you read Isaiah is wrong.

 

[Levite]

The way I read Isaiah is God is fed up with the Jew. Which he says he still has a place for in his heart. He Created a people to bring forth his Praise. He calls on peoples from every corner of the earth to join him in covenant. He says he's done away with the old, ( who's to doubt ) and tells us of the new. All peoples all that see the light, all that believe that he is God and that there was no God before of after.

That is an entirely eisegetic reading. There is simply no support for such a reading in the context of the tradition that created the text, or in the historical social and religious paradigms of its original authorships.

I read a lot of condemnation of the way religions have become. Idols, Jesus, Crosses, praying to gods that can't save.

That is egregious retrojection of anachronism into the text, which predates Jesus, Crosses, and theologies of salvation by hundreds of years; to say nothing of outrageous retrojection of Christological theology and ideology into a Jewish text.

 

[Levite]

1. The are secular and non-Jewish scholars who are capable of offering interpretations that conflict with Jewish interpretations. I am not here interested in theology, so much I am in textual interpretation, including interpretation that is informed by findings in other academic fields. They are of course subject to the same standards that apply to any scholarship in the field, including peer review. They are not final arbiters in matters theological, which is to say religious meaning, but that is because they are not working within the confines of the tradition, not because their status makes their arguments less probable.

If you mean academic, critical textual analysis and interpretation, sure. Those scholars need not be Jewish, because their findings necessarily a matter for theology, but for historical and literary interest-- the two paradigms have very little direct area of overlap, though of course the ramifications of what is put forth, discovered, and discussed in academic text study can have great reach into the shape of religious thought and theology of text.

2. I think study and interpretation sometimes requires comparative or outsider perspectives. But this is very different from what is going on in most (though not all) theological discourse.

Again, yes, as a matter of academic textual study, without question. But when it comes to religious thought, I think there is a place for comparative interpretations, but it must be carefully done. Otherwise, it risks becoming syncretism at best, or religious cultural imperialism at worst.

 

[gsa]

If you mean academic, critical textual analysis and interpretation, sure. Those scholars need not be Jewish, because their findings necessarily a matter for theology, but for historical and literary interest-- the two paradigms have very little direct area of overlap, though of course the ramifications of what is put forth, discovered, and discussed in academic text study can have great reach into the shape of religious thought and theology of text.



Again, yes, as a matter of academic textual study, without question. But when it comes to religious thought, I think there is a place for comparative interpretations, but it must be carefully done. Otherwise, it risks becoming syncretism at best, or religious cultural imperialism at worst.

I agree with all of that.

 

[roger1440]

I undoubtedly regard the Pauline letters less than even you do, but neither do I see him bastardizing Christianity either. According to Acts, Paul met the apostles at least three times plus corresponded through letters, so if Paul was supposedly so far our of the apostles' mainstream beliefs, why would they have given him the time of day? What I have seen many do is to throw Paul under the bus, which makes so little sense in regards to not only the apostles' reactions to him but also the simple fact that Paul's letters were more widely circulated in the early church than even the gospels. This is not to say, however, that I believe Paul was correct.

As far as your last three sentences are concerned, that's pretty much a repeat of my position if I'm understanding you correctly.

I don’t think Paul met any of the Apostles, but let’s say he did. Let’s say things happen just the New Testament said it happen. Paul was a highly educated, literate, city slicker. The Apostles on the other hand were a motley crew of illiterate country bumpkins. That alone would have given him the upper hand. Plain and simple, the guy was over bearing.

 

[dgirl1986]

I had the unfortunate experience of attempting to exchange words with someone from the denomination of A New Covenant.

Dont see how the OP was starting a debate but anyways...

 

[sojourner]

*
The way I read Isaiah is God is fed up with the Jew. Which he says he still has a place for in his heart. He Created a people to bring forth his Praise. He calls on peoples from every corner of the earth to join him in covenant. He says he's done away with the old, ( who's to doubt ) and tells us of the new. All peoples all that see the light, all that believe that he is God and that there was no God before of after.
*
I read a lot of condemnation of the way religions have become. Idols, Jesus, Crosses, praying to gods that can't save.
*
Makes you wonder if this prophesy is to come,
The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
13 For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the Lord of hosts.
14 Therefore the Lord will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.
15 The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.
16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
17 Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

The problem with your post here can be adequately summed up in its first four words:
"The way I read..."

 

[metis]

I don’t think Paul met any of the Apostles, but let’s say he did. Let’s say things happen just the New Testament said it happen. Paul was a highly educated, literate, city slicker. The Apostles on the other hand were a motley crew of illiterate country bumpkins. That alone would have given him the upper hand. Plain and simple, the guy was over bearing.

Even though I'm a bit as far from being a scriptural literalist as possible, nevertheless for Luke to fabricate those meeting as described in Acts would be so clearly a blatant set of distortions that so many people would see through because many different people had associations with the apostles, plus Paul's letters were in such wide circulation, so he hardly is an irrelevant figure. Now whether the verbal transactions between them were in any way accurately reported is another matter. Again, Paul was very visible in the early church, and in more ways than one.

Was he "overbearing"? Depends on how one wants to play this. I agree with you on an earlier post that he probably was the dominant "theologian" in the early church, partially due to his education as compared to the apostles in general. I obviously disagree with most of what he says, but I have to give the guy credit for being very imaginative and innovative, and it's possible that the church may not have survived without him because it easily could have broke into so many factions as to have become irrelevant.

 

[roger1440]

Even though I'm a bit as far from being a scriptural literalist as possible, nevertheless for Luke to fabricate those meeting as described in Acts would be so clearly a blatant set of distortions that so many people would see through because many different people had associations with the apostles, plus Paul's letters were in such wide circulation, so he hardly is an irrelevant figure. Now whether the verbal transactions between them were in any way accurately reported is another matter. Again, Paul was very visible in the early church, and in more ways than one.

Was he "overbearing"? Depends on how one wants to play this. I agree with you on an earlier post that he probably was the dominant "theologian" in the early church, partially due to his education as compared to the apostles in general. I obviously disagree with most of what he says, but I have to give the guy credit for being very imaginative and innovative, and it's possible that the church may not have survived without him because it easily could have broke into so many factions as to have become irrelevant.

Read the Pentecost story in the second chapter of Acts and compare it to the tower of Babel story. It’s the same theme. It’s too coincidental. It the Babel story the people try to come to God by a physical means, the wrong way. In the Pentecost story the people come to God in a spiritual means, the right way.

Anyway gotta go to work.

 

[metis]

Read the Pentecost story in the second chapter of Acts and compare it to the tower of Babel story. It’s the same theme. It’s too coincidental. It the Babel story the people try to come to God by a physical means, the wrong way. In the Pentecost story the people come to God in a spiritual means, the right way.

Anyway gotta go to work.

I agree, but I don't know what this has to do with Paul's behavior as written in Acts. Yes, no doubt parts could have been fudged, but I can't see how Luke could fudge three meetings with the apostles if none of them ever occurred. Way too many would know it would all be a fabrication.

 

[roger1440]

I agree, but I don't know what this has to do with Paul's behavior as written in Acts. Yes, no doubt parts could have been fudged, but I can't see how Luke could fudge three meetings with the apostles if none of them ever occurred. Way too many would know it would all be a fabrication.

Usually the beginning of a book sets the direction in which the remaining of the book will go in. The Book of Acts starts with the Pentecost story. Beneath the surface of this little story is a cheap shot at the Mosaic Law. The message is, the way to peruse God must be by spiritual means and not by any physical means. In other words it’s not by doing stuff we approach God. The remaining of this book follows that path. The agenda of this book has a theological aim. Therefore its historical accuracy may be off target. The book was written decades after the events in which it’s reporting had occurred. This time span would have given more than sufficient time to bend the story to fit its agenda.
The number of converts in the Pentecost story was 3000. That number is way too high to be taken seriously. Estimates for the population of Jerusalem range from 30,000 to 100,000.

 

[sojourner]

Usually the beginning of a book sets the direction in which the remaining of the book will go in. The Book of Acts starts with the Pentecost story. Beneath the surface of this little story is a cheap shot at the Mosaic Law. The message is, the way to peruse God must be by spiritual means and not by any physical means. In other words it’s not by doing stuff we approach God. The remaining of this book follows that path. The agenda of this book has a theological aim. Therefore its historical accuracy may be off target. The book was written decades after the events in which it’s reporting had occurred. This time span would have given more than sufficient time to bend the story to fit its agenda.
The number of converts in the Pentecost story was 3000. That number is way too high to be taken seriously. Estimates for the population of Jerusalem range from 30,000 to 100,000.

You're forgetting that Acts is part of Luke-Acts. it was originally one story, so if you're going to take that tack, you have to consider what's going on in Luke. Luke-Acts is a history, by its own admission -- and it reads exactly like ancient history. but ancient history isn't like modern history. Modern history is concerned with facts and minutia. Ancient history is concerned with large movements and story, including the mythic.

 

[Peaceful World 33.3]

Dear OP,
Thank you for the informational thread. It has reaffirmed why I have never looked into any form of Christianity on the level represented in the thread. I finally have beaten the "fear" from years and years of you have to do this to get here or see this. Jesus Christ, Buddha or Krishna are all the same...to me-PEACE

 

[roger1440]

With all the different Religions around the World none is based on Gods instructions in Isaiah, to keep his Sabbaths and to Praise him, to do good and resist evil, not to have Graven Images. Then top it all off with the Faith that there's One God, One Saviour our Creator the God of Noah, Moses, Abraham and Jesus

You are getting all that from Isaiah? Where do you see Jesus in any of what you had quoted?

 

[julio.2]

You are getting all that from Isaiah? Where do you see Jesus in any of what you had quoted?

Yes, from Isaiah. A light hit my Bible when I wouldn't accept the Trinity and that Jesus was God. My Bible was opened to Isaiah 42, Behold my Servant. After the light I felt guided to mark my Bible. I'm compiling the verses, I can't load it all at one time as it's over 10,000 characters. There's also some in Jeremiah. This was in 1980 and has never been far off my mind. Would you like to start a conversation? I'm guessing I could load all at one time. I'm having a little trouble keeping up with who replies and to what they are repling to.

 

[Levite]

...A light hit my Bible when I wouldn't accept the Trinity and that Jesus was God. My Bible was opened to Isaiah 42, ...

Do you understand that while that may be compelling for you personally, it is not actually objective evidence of anything?

 

[DrTCH]

sounds like preaching to me. What are you here to debate?

Hear, hear!! That first reply is pure dogma...not a genuine reply. Besides, citing scripture falls in the category of "special pleading."....or circular reasoning.

I could concoct a bunch of nonsense..say, in a news-report about a disaster in Guatemala...and a final paragraph stating, "Everything in this article may be depended upon as true, for any purposes, such as preaching, university theses and scientific monographs.."...and it wouldn't be worth a plug nickel.

 

[DrTCH]

One God, One Saviour the Creator

With respect, I have a problem with this concept. But allow me to step back from this for a moment. The authors--Evangelists--of the N.T. have a problem in that they can't seem to decide on the role/title of Jesus/Yeshua/Jeshua/ Joshua. Sometimes he is the messiah, at other times, the "king of the Jews." Sometimes a prophet..and sometimes, a simple rabbi. Then, some call him the "Son of God" (though JC himself told us that we all are "sons of the living God," and when asked, denied that he was God). To many today, he is literally God (or "Lord"). John says that he existed from the dawn of time, as "The Word." Huh?

I don't buy it. I suggest they pick ONE and stick with it. Sounds like sloppy theology to me. As I suggested above, JC did NOT claim divinity...in fact, he refused the title. If we cannot trust him as an authority, who can we trust?

I think he was a prophet and rabbi (teacher), and mystic (and, of course a JEW...and NOT a Christian). Moreover, John shifts things way out to another, more or less "tall-tale" narrative, by calling Jesus a cosmic force who has always existed...something which actually smacks of Platonism.

Naturally, there is also the problem that the God of the O.T. is Yahweh, and NOT Jesus. The Christians have essentially tacked their scripture and dogma upon the O.T. scripture....which is unfounded.

I keep spotting my neighbors' bumper stickers which proclaim "Jesus is Lord." Yet, no matter how many times you continue this rant, it is NOT true. Jesus/Joshua was a prophet and a teacher (possibly an avatar, as my SRF monk friend has suggested) but not the Lord. So, to return to the question...no, he was not One God, ..no, he was not One Savior...and no, he was not One Creator.

Although WE ALL partake in divinity.

 

[Sariel]

^I somewhat agree but I think one issue I've had with standard Christian interpretation is that many are fine with being objective about seeing hyperbole and allegory in the Tanakh, but then switch to heavy literal lens as soon as soon as we get to the NT. I pointed out in another thread that much of the statements about Yeshua mirror personified statements about Wisdom in the OT. For example, saying Yeshua is the Word/Wisdom/Torah made flesh doesn't imply a literal statement to me, it implies a hyperbolic statement about him being the embodiment of God's wisdom and will.

John's Gospel is odd in some regards. The whole pre-existence/logos concept is something I feel can be taken a myriad of ways. Philo of Alexandra identified the Logos with the Malakh haShem and Melchizedek, both of whom are messianic figures. Meanwhile, one can also find ideas of the messiah's pre-existence in the Talmud with statements like the name of the messiah predates the world, and that the messiah's spirit was over the waters of creation. Of course, one could also conclude that John's gospel was just a hellenistic/neoplatonistic document as well.

We are told God is not a man, and I have a hard time seeing the Jewish apostles believing believing a man to be God.

 

[Andywelikandy]

That's the only message you get from the New Testament? How to save your own butt from burning in Hell? How shallow.

Well, FYI the Holy Bible TEACHES all human beings the way of Salvation from an eternity in hell-fire. I am just one of those billions who accepted as true the PLAN of Almighty God to save DEPRAVED sinners like myself from going to hell on the Day of Judgment. Whether one believes it or not every religion teaches that one reaps what one sows sooner or later. Reaping what you sow is a truth taught even by nature. Ask a farmer.