I don't see how that applies to your statement
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Paul's Opinion or the Holy Ghost?
- Thread starter Ehav4Ever
- Start date
LOL... that was a great side step to the point. (Although you are right to my misquote)
If you want to be specific then: "So they gave me all their gold and I just tossed it into the fire, and out came this calf!'
The point was that just because someone said something, though correctly established that he did say that, doesn't mean it was a God statement.
Can we stick to what we are trying to talk about?
Last edited:
I understand the differences in today's NT prophets vs TaNaKh prophets.Not always true. If something could be defined as a lie, especially about something they are advising someone to do, they would be a false prophet. If they are lying about something to protect themselves from danger that is something else. If they are actually saying something that is not a lie but would require someone to investigate further what they meant then that is another situation also. If the lied because they saw the damage that would happen due to inaction then that is another, YET they always pay a price for that.
Besides, the concept of a prophet is different for Christians than it is for Torath Mosheh Jews.
Hmmm... let me see if I can find it:
11 Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father.
12 And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen what way the man of God went, which came from Judah.
13 And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ***. So they saddled him the ***: and he rode thereon,
14 And went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak: and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am.
15 Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread.
16 And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place:
17 For it was said to me by the word of the Lord, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.
18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him.
19 So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water.
20 And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back:
21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee,
Let's see....
Both prophets? yes
One lied? true
Any false prophets? no
Did one prophet's lie cause the other to stray? yep
Did the strayed prophet suffer the consequences? sure thing.
did the other prophet stop being a prophet... apparently not, he prophesied the death of the other and it happened.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
The Hebrew text of the Torah does not state that being a Nazir affects someone being married or getting married. What you posted, even in English, does not state anything about marriage. The English word used in the translation you provided is not talking about marriage or relationships in marriage. It is talking about astaining from whatever the Nazir vowed they would not do during their vow. The Nazir's marriage or ability to get married is not effected by their being a Nazir. At the most they would not be able to drink wine at their wedding, if they were getting married. Further, there were at one time Jews who were Nazir's for life, such as Shimson(Samson) and Shmuel (Samuel). They were both married. Also, both men and women could take on such a vow. See the Hebrew below.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
LOL... that was a great side step to the point. (Although you are right to my misquote)
If you want to be specific then: "So they gave me all their gold and I just tossed it into the fire, and out came this calf!'
The point was that just because someone said something, though correctly established that he did say that, doesn't mean it was a God statement.
I didn't bring up the Gold Calf, you did. I had to correct what you wrote. Further, that still proves my point. Hashem approved of all of the content in the Torah. If you are saying that 1st Corithians chapter 7 didn't come from Hashem, and its content is purely from Paul then I can 100% agree with you on that.
This further goes back to the OP. I have come across Christians who beleive that every statement made in the NT, now what is written there was "inspired by the holy spirit." So, are you saying that 1st Corenthians chapter 7 was not "inspired by the holy spirit?"
These article seems to say if it is in NT is holy spirit inspired.
Was All Scripture Given Through the Holy Spirit?
The Men Who Wrote Scripture Were Led by the Spirit - BJU Seminary
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Feel free to correct me. Do Christians consider 1st Corenthians chapter 7 to be from the "holy ghost" or is it completely from Paul? This question is in line with the OP.
- Hashem approved of everything found in the written text of the Hebrew Torah.
- Every statement recorded in the Hebrew Torah that Aharon made that was incorrect he always corrected by Hashem.
- Every instance of this is recorded in the written Torah.
- Every statement or action recorded in the Hebrew Torah that Aharon made that required a punishment he received a punishment for it.
- Every instance of this is recorded in the written Torah.
- Every statement or action found in the text of the Hebrew Torah that Aharon made where the written text records no punishment and no correction means that what he stated was acceptable to Hashem.
- Every instance of this is recorded in the written Torah.
- Bonus: Every sitaution where Mosheh (Moses) questioned Aharon on his statements or actions and Aharon had a logical response as to why he said/did it; he (Aharon) was neither corrected nor punished. Thus, it was acceptable to Hashem.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
And to expand on that, how much of what he actually said was holy - how much of what he physically said, along with what he wrote. We only have a handful of his letters, but he strikes me as having been a loquacious person. Let's say he probably spoke a couple hours a day - how much of that was holy? How many words did he speak, or write, in his life?
Would that these letters amount to .00001 percent of his communication - and still, would that they still contain these sorts of secular spandrels that are not part of a holy reduction, though they be in the bible, strikes me as odd
The same follows for Jesus - how many words did he actually speak, compared what we have. Surely, if he was the son of god, all of those many words, were the holiest words ever spoken, and yet 99.9999999 % would be lost to the wind ?
Last edited:
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
That is a really good point. I have wondered for a while why, if he was who Christians claim, he wouldn't have written something himself. According to the NT authors he would have been educated enough to write things down for himself to make sure that nothing would be vague after he was gone.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
I'm not a scholar, but I did complete a set of books on seneca
It's highly conspicuous, that a polytheistic, stoic, rich imperial roman philosopher would write with the same metaphors, in the same season where the new testament emerged from the mists of time. I'm not the only one to notice this, you can google it as well. So if seneca was doing that, then where did he draw his ideas for the metaphors.
Last edited:
Yes, there are many people who mine truths that Jesus gave and apply it to their lives. Many non-Hindus have also done the same from Gandhi.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It doesn't, but the articles I read quite a while back stated that it was generally unmarried men who took a lengthy vow. If such a commitment was lengthy, it might not be compatible with a marriage. Basically, it was an individual's decision on not only its length but also what he might apply to himself on his own. Going into the wilderness to pray & meditate was pretty common, and Jesus doing just that may reflect that pattern at least.
So, was Jesus a nazir? I don't know, but it might be possible and thus may explain a few things.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
That is not what I was talking about. What Christians consider to be a prophet and what Christians consider prophecy to be is different then what Torath Mosheh hold that it is.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
I am not sure where the articles you were reading were from but halakha since before and after the Talmud states that a Nazir vow, a) typically 30 days and b) there are no conditions surrounding that effect a person's marriage.
Both Shimshon and Shmuel were Nazirs for life and they were married. Maybe the articles you are talking about were Christian articles? Christians do have a completely different concept of what a Nazir is.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I did not use Christian sources as they would be unreliable, imo. I tried to serf google to see if I can remember & find which articles I'd used but had no luck.
Either way, the point is moot as there's no way that I can see so as to tell if Jesus had taken such a vow or not.
I wouldn't know since you have established just what you believe I believe
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Actually, according to the Hebrew Tanakh and Jewish sources both were not real prophets; only one of them was. In the Hebrew text the older man from Beith El is considered a (נביא השקר) which is defined by Torath Mosheh as a "false prophet." His actions marked him as such because his actions described in verses 11 to 19 meets the Hebrew Torah definition of a (נביא השקר) false prophet which Torah and Halakha defines clearly.
The man who is described in chapter 13, starting in verse 1, was a real (נביא) prophet since Hashem had actually told him to do and not do something. Yet, by eating with the false prophet and listening to the false prophet the real prophet committed a transgression of the Torah. He was required to investigate the claims of prophecy of the false prophet, as specified in the Torah in Devarim (Deut.) 18:18 and the then reject the offer to eat and drink at the false prophets place, as Hashem instructed him.
The real prophet didn’t do what he was directly told by Hashem and thus the real prophet was punished for not upholding the Torah. In that particular situation it was required for the false prophet – who Hashem didn’t originally speak to – to for that moment have prophecy from Hashem, after the real prophet had been fooled by the false prophet, concerning the punishment of the real prophet. If this is what you are using in comparison to Paul then Paul's bad advice to the Corenthians then Paul would be like the false prophet who lied to the real prophet to get him off the correct path.
All of the above is covered in verses 1-34. I.e. the full context is given in the text as well as the explanations of Rashi, Radak, and the Malbim. So, what you stated was not correct both men were not prophets and this is clear based on the Hebrew text. You may want to try better next time with your examples: do a bit of background research first because the Hebrew text doesn't agree with you.
The below should help you.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
I agree, but I am saying that even if the historical Jesus did become a nazir for a short period of time or for life there was nothing in the concept, from the Torah, that would have hampered his ability to get married and have a family. In fact, if someone is claiming to be a leader of the Jewish people it would expected that they would be a leader of their own household first - with the exception of some very extreme situations.
These are explanations of a viewpoint which, logically, doesn't fit the dialogue. He was considered, by virtue of what is read. Hashem (God) called Him a prophet and we know that what was written was written by God. God didn't call him a false prophet... He called Him a prophet.Actually, according to the Hebrew Tanakh and Jewish sources both were not real prophets; only one of them was. In the Hebrew text the older man from Beith El is considered a (נביא השקר) which is defined by Torath Mosheh as a "false prophet." His actions marked him as such because his actions described in verses 11 to 19 meets the Hebrew Torah definition of a (נביא השקר) false prophet which Torah and Halakha defines clearly.
The man who is described in chapter 13, starting in verse 1, was a real (נביא) prophet since Hashem had actually told him to do and not do something. Yet, by eating with the false prophet and listening to the false prophet the real prophet committed a transgression of the Torah. He was required to investigate the claims of prophecy of the false prophet, as specified in the Torah in Devarim (Deut.) 18:18 and the then reject the offer to eat and drink at the false prophets place, as Hashem instructed him.
The real prophet didn’t do what he was directly told by Hashem and thus the real prophet was punished for not upholding the Torah. In that particular situation it was required for the false prophet – who Hashem didn’t originally speak to – to for that moment have prophecy from Hashem, after the real prophet had been fooled by the false prophet, concerning the punishment of the real prophet. If this is what you are using in comparison to Paul then Paul's bad advice to the Corenthians then Paul would be like the false prophet who lied to the real prophet to get him off the correct path.
All of the above is covered in verses 1-34. I.e. the full context is given in the text as well as the explanations of Rashi, Radak, and the Malbim. So, what you stated was not correct both men were not prophets and this is clear based on the Hebrew text. You may want to try better next time with your examples: do a bit of background research first because the Hebrew text doesn't agree with you.
View attachment 58338
View attachment 58339
View attachment 58340
He is called a prophet before he lied. And then he prophesied the death of the death of the other prophet because God did call Him a prophet. Remember, you did say that what was written was written by God
Lying and disobedience are both sin.
So, you may want to rediscover what was written and dig a little deeper before you come to a conclusion. After all, you don't want to be like Aaron and say "They threw in the gold and out popped the image"
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
I think both of my Christian tradition parents kind of like that I'm single, because they both seem to come from the standpoint that there's either something lewd about the woman in my generation, or there's something spiritually impure about too much connection between the sexes. I think my mother is naturally prudish, and I don't think she likes other woman that much, and my dad shows similar attitudes. So I take it that in the Jewish tradition, maybe these sorts of attitudes don't really come up as much, right?
I don't really know where it comes from with them. I think with my mother, she just ended up reading the bible a lot, and focused on specific interpretations that really discouraged putting "too much faith in human relationships." Conversely, her mother was married three times, and may have worked as an exotic dancer at one time
Then my dad and his sister, both turned out kinda strange with this stuff too. But their parents, my grandparents, didn't have an especially rigid idea of it, they couldn't have, because one was Protestant and the other was Catholic. And then my paternal great-grandmother I guess, may have been Jewish, but married a Christian of some kind. I guess she converted for whatever reason
I think that maybe most Christians in America don't see it as being something to take that seriously, but there are some holdouts. They see the life as Jesus as being pure, partly due to the fact that he never married. They see him as a 'bridegroom' that marries God, and that his death marries him to god in purity
Last edited: