Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | stjohn | 212574 | ||
Mjh I don't think I mised your point at all. But, The Talmud, is much more then just an historacal writing, fundamentaly, it's a book of rules and regulations, and we know how easily the human heart will glom onto that and shy away from the doctrines of grace and God's truth. Whether Talmud or Mishnah, were or were not around is irrelevant, we both know the oral law and tradition was around or you wouldn't have a case at all in arguing that the contemporaries of early Christianity were dealing with it. And by the way, Paul dealt with it very effectively in Galatians, and a thorough study of, that book, is all we need to understand how God feels about the oral laws and traditions. And If I may add, if we were to just stick to that (i.e. the Bible) we wouldn't be having this discussion now. ;-) John |
||||||
2 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212583 | ||
John, But this is my point. The Greek mythologies are more than just historical writing too. So is Plato. We don't studying them because we are going to follow them, but to understand the historical times. Since Christianity grew out of Judaism, and was a sect of Judaism for a period of time, I feel that knowing what first century Judaism was like and what they taught in regards to Gentiles, et al. is helpful in understanding the history. And history is a key part of the historical hermeneutic, and the historical hermeneutic is just one of many hermeneutical tools we use when studying the Bible, which is what this is all about. The only place to learn what early first century Judaism taught is by reading what they wrote. The Mishna/Talmud is only one source. The Dead Sea Scrolls is another, as are the Apocryphal and Pseudopigraphical works. Then Philo and Josephus also add to our understanding. I am not suggesting that every Christian ought to become Talmudic experts any more than I expect them to become experts in Hebrew and Greek. But there are people out there who are Christians and are experts in this area. They usually are professors at universities. I believe that their specialty can add to the discussion and understanding of the New Testament. Val asked a simple question and I tried my best to provide a simple answer. I am getting the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, but I get the sense that if I had made the same points earlier, but instead I used a non-Jewish source, then you would be alright with it. I can’t imagine that you would be apposed to the historical hermeneutic when studying the Bible. For example: if I made a point that Dionysius was the local deity in Cana where Jesus turned the water into wine, and that Dionysius happened to be the god of wine, that would be an acceptable connection to make to add to our understanding some. It is okay, not because I am using a religious writing that is not Christian, but because I am using one that didn’t come from the Jews. It’s the same point. I learned about the Greek myths and gods and culture and put the two together. (Side note: Don’t quote me on the Cana thing, I didn’t fact check.) MJH |
||||||
3 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | stjohn | 212587 | ||
MJH Please, let me be very clear, I'm not missing your point, but you are continually missing mine. THIS IS A BIBLE STUDY!!! So please, knock it off? Do your other stuff elsewhere, as every one else that comes here agrees to do when we agree with the Terms Of Use. John |
||||||