Let's talk about hermeneutics

[zeek]

By hermeneutics I mean the art of interpretation. The term refers to the rules and procedures for determining the sense of written texts.

Prior to the modern era, Christian and Jewish scholars presupposed the Bible's unique status and inexhaustible truth. On that basis they sought the appropriate rules and procedures for unpacking it's significance for believers.

With the rise of modernity the theological premises of traditional hermeneutics were called into question. Historians have often created a dualistic paradigm for understanding American protestantism. The division into liberal and conservative tends to polarize religious debate into dichotomies of either or Us and Them and right versus wrong. This way of looking at it is overly simplistic and ignores the complexity of the situation. It fosters hostility between diverse points of view. It doesn't do justice to the actual situation wherein a range of views have existed in the study of the Bible in America from its beginnings.

By the beginning of the 20th century at least six hermeneutic perspectives could be identified.There are the anti critics reject critical studies of the Bible all together. there are conservative scholars who accept some form of mild grammatical and historical criticism but who to a great extent follow traditional dogmatics over newer biblical critical theories. There are moderates who attempt to integrate critical perspectives with Orthodox Doctrine. There are Evangelical liberals and challenge traditional readings of the Bible accordingly. There are historicists who apply philological, linguistic and historical criticism without interest in theological questions. And there are radicals who wish to sever ties were completely between the critical investigation of the Bible and traditional dogmatics. Finally, a seventh category might be referred to as eclectic meaning that the reader combines two or more of the above approaches to the text.

Although few if any of us are professional scholars here we probably have some awareness of these different approaches and the relationship of our way of looking at the Bible to them. I think it would be interesting to discuss different approaches to interpretation and how and why we have adopted the methods that we use.

[zeek]

To begin with, we have the issue of biblical literalism. Literal is one of those words that people throw around loosely assuming that they know what it means until they try to define it and find it more difficult than they thought. For starters here is the Wikipedia entry on biblical literalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

The Wiki article cites the dictionary.com definition which is "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense", where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical". However, the article immediately adds :"Alternatively, the term can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor)." This Wiki contrasts with the historical-critical method.

[awareness]

hermeneutic (adj.)

"interpretive," 1670s, from Latinized form of Greek hermeneutikos "of or for interpreting," from hermeneutes "interpreter," from hermeneuein "to interpret (foreign languages); interpret into words, give utterance to," a word of unknown origin (formerly considered ultimately a derivative of Hermes, as the tutelary divinity of speech, writing, and eloquence).

Hermeneutic sounds like a board game. Maybe it was, in classical Greek days, back when Hermes was the messenger of the gods.

Makes sense. To Christians hermeneutics is the delivery of the meaning of the words of God.

But it hasn't helped. It's just made it all the more confusing. There's too many of them. All the voices drown out all the messages. The message is like a needle in a haystack. We need a magnet to find it.

So hermeneutics actually hides the message. We're past hermeneutics. Now we need magnēs lithos.

The Greeks did this to us. First they gave us hermeneutikos, then they discovered magnetite, so we could find a needle in a haystack.

If we need Gods' words explained we're in trouble. Cuz we're too dense, for God to speak to us in plain words. And hermeneutics don't help.

But they are as much fun as a board game. Some think more fun than video games. The joke's on them. They have hermeneutics of video games. Keep magnēs lithos away from them.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

hermeneutic (adj.)

"interpretive," 1670s, from Latinized form of Greek hermeneutikos "of or for interpreting," from hermeneutes "interpreter," from hermeneuein "to interpret (foreign languages); interpret into words, give utterance to," a word of unknown origin (formerly considered ultimately a derivative of Hermes, as the tutelary divinity of speech, writing, and eloquence).

Hermeneutic sounds like a board game. Maybe it was, in classical Greek days, back when Hermes was the messenger of the gods.

Makes sense. To Christians hermeneutics is the delivery of the meaning of the words of God.

But it hasn't helped. It's just made it all the more confusing. There's too many of them. All the voices drown out all the messages. The message is like a needle in a haystack. We need a magnet to find it.

So hermeneutics actually hides the message. We're past hermeneutics. Now we need magnēs lithos.

The Greeks did this to us. First they gave us hermeneutikos, then they discovered magnetite, so we could find a needle in a haystack.

If we need Gods' words explained we're in trouble. Cuz we're too dense, for God to speak to us in plain words. And hermeneutics don't help.

But they are as much fun as a board game. Some think more fun than video games. The joke's on them. They have hermeneutics of video games. Keep magnēs lithos away from them.

I'll say this for you:whereas you're not alone In your love of ignorance on this forum, you're the only one that comes out and argues for it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'll say this for you:whereas you're not alone In your love of ignorance on this forum, you're the only one that comes out and argues for it.

Why? Cuz I'm not a fan of hoity-toity words?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Why? Cuz I'm not a fan of hoity-toity words?

That's what scholars call the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation. Most of the time the word interpretation will suffice. I'm not going to quibble about it. Let's keep vocabulary at the 5th or 6th grade level so Trump can join in. No doubt he's interested in this stuff.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's what scholars call the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation. Most of the time the word interpretation will suffice. I'm not going to quibble about it. Let's keep vocabulary at the 5th or 6th grade level so Trump can join in. No doubt he's interested in this stuff.

The problem I have with hermeneutics is not the word. It's what's produced by them.

Take this one :

Bible prophecy FULFILLED as first ‘red heifer born in 2,000 YEARS' signalling END OF DAYS
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/wei...m-third-temple

This hermeneutic, taken from the Torah, is an extremely dangerous one. The red heifer means rebuilding the third temple. That means a world war.

That's a hermeneutic we can do without.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The problem I have with hermeneutics is not the word. It's what's produced by them.

Take this one :

Bible prophecy FULFILLED as first ‘red heifer born in 2,000 YEARS' signalling END OF DAYS
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/wei...m-third-temple

This hermeneutic, taken from the Torah, is an extremely dangerous one. The red heifer means rebuilding the third temple. That means a world war.

That's a hermeneutic we can do without.

What's the logic behind connecting a red heifer to the end of days?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

What's the logic behind connecting a red heifer to the end of days?

It is a good example of hermeneutics gone off the rails. A red heifer is not all that rare, however, if you want one where there is not a single hair that is of a different color that is rare. The Bible never says this, but taken to an extreme you can make this a very difficult requirement. But the color is based on DNA and we breed animals to control the DNA, so if Israel really wanted to they could breed cows which would be much more likely to fulfill this criteria.

Why do you need to do this? If we say a "brown" cow we don't mean there isn't a single non brown hair, likewise if the cow is black. I see no compelling reason to take this to an extreme. Secondly they put all kinds of other requirements as well. A heifer refers to a female cow that has not been pregnant. That is a reasonable requirement. But then they add other things like never been used to do work. Again, no Biblical basis to say that.

Finally, if there is no Biblical basis that you need to have this perfectly red heifer then obviously there is no Biblical basis that such a cow is a fulfillment of any prophecy or a harbinger of end times.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is a good example of hermeneutics gone off the rails.

We agree!!! [Two exclamation points were added to arrive at 10 characters so that the program would accept the post.]

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What's the logic behind connecting a red heifer to the end of days?

The building of the third temple.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The building of the third temple.

That's not even a complete sentence, much less logic.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's not even a complete sentence, much less logic.

Only if you're trying not to understand.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's not even a complete sentence, much less logic.

Numbers 19 speaks of a red heifer and Orthodox Jews in Israel feel it is required for the purification of the temple, which would be their "third" temple. The first temple was built by David and Solomom, and was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 608 BC. The second temple was built by Zerubbabel after Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Israel. Herod enlarged the surroundings of this temple, so it is often referred to as Herod's temple. Titus, the Roman general destroyed this temple in 70 AD.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Numbers 19 speaks of a red heifer and Orthodox Jews in Israel feel it is required for the purification of the temple, which would be their "third" temple. The first temple was built by David and Solomom, and was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 608 BC. The second temple was built by Zerubbabel after Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Israel. Herod enlarged the surroundings of this temple, so it is often referred to as Herod's temple. Titus, the Roman general destroyed this temple in 70 AD.

Finally, someone trying to understand.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Numbers 19 speaks of a red heifer and Orthodox Jews in Israel feel it is required for the purification of the temple, which would be their "third" temple. The first temple was built by David and Solomom, and was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 608 BC. The second temple was built by Zerubbabel after Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Israel. Herod enlarged the surroundings of this temple, so it is often referred to as Herod's temple. Titus, the Roman general destroyed this temple in 70 AD.

Thank you. That's a start. Here's a further explanation from the people who are actually breeding the red heifers: https://www.templeinstitute.org/red_...troduction.htm

[zeek]

Over the centuries, Christians have entertained a variety of views on what constitutes divine inspiration. At one end of the spectrum we have the narrow doctrine of dictation. This doctrine is called ‘verbal inspiration’, which claims that God showed human authors exactly what words to use.

The notion of verbal inspiration appeared relatively late in Christian history after the Protestant Reformation. Ecclesiastical authorities were seen to be so corrupt that it seemed necessary to view the Christian Bible as the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. The doctrine of verbal inspiration furnished the individual believer with a stand-alone, self-interpreting Bible, by which certain truth independent from tradition and church authority could be attained.

Early Christians generally understood "God-breathed" to mean that human authors act as scribes who mediate God’s word through writing in their own cultural mode of expression. The idea of interpretation was typified by the incarnation of God in Christ.

In John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" the word declared is εξηγεομαι the word from which the word exegesis is derived. Exegesis is another word for interpretation.

The idea that Jesus is the ‘exegete’ of God, who interprets him through his own life is central to Christian hermeneutics. We only know God through the incarnation of Christ and we only know Christ through the mediation of interpretation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you. That's a start. Here's a further explanation from the people who are actually breeding the red heifers: https://www.templeinstitute.org/red_...troduction.htm

Trump's recognition of Jerusalem seen as step towards rebuilding temple.

President Donald Trump’s epic proclamation on Wednesday acknowledging Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Jewish people was a major step towards establishing the Third Temple and bringing the Messianic era, said a number of Jewish activists working to rebuild the Holy Temple.
“What he did last night was an enormous step in bringing the Temple,” Asaf Fried, official spokesman for the United Temple Movement, an association of organizations working towards making the Third Temple a reality, told Breaking Israel News.

Israel Govt sets up fund to research site of temple:

https://www.wnd.com/2017/03/israel-t...ilding-temple/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you. That's a start. Here's a further explanation from the people who are actually breeding the red heifers: https://www.templeinstitute.org/red_...troduction.htm

Talk about illogical, the Jews following their ancient mythology is going to be the death of us.

And their mythology tells nothing of using modern manipulation of genetics to create a red heifer.

Once again, as so many times in the past, the Hebrews have left God for the creation of a calf to worship.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Trump's recognition of Jerusalem seen as step towards rebuilding temple.

President Donald Trump’s epic proclamation on Wednesday acknowledging Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Jewish people was a major step towards establishing the Third Temple and bringing the Messianic era, said a number of Jewish activists working to rebuild the Holy Temple.
“What he did last night was an enormous step in bringing the Temple,” Asaf Fried, official spokesman for the United Temple Movement, an association of organizations working towards making the Third Temple a reality, told Breaking Israel News.

Israel Govt sets up fund to research site of temple:

https://www.wnd.com/2017/03/israel-t...ilding-temple/

Let's get Doug Krieger and Terry Risenhoover back, with their Jerusalem Temple Foundation, to blow up the temple mount. Like they tried to do back in the early 1980s.

And the claim is that the Jews are smart. Where's the evidence of that? After 3000 years they're still trying to take the promised land. Some gift from God that turned out to be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Talk about illogical, the Jews following their ancient mythology is going to be the death of us.

I find this more than illogical.

Kind of like what happened the other day. I hugged my wife goodbye and told her I loved her because, "If Kavanaugh was nominated, women are going to die," or so it was declared in the news.

Please tell me how the Jews following Levitical instructions -- supposed ancient mythology -- is going to be the death of us?

[OBW]

How do destroy a thread on hermeneutics in 21 easy posts.

(Sorry zeek. You seem to get no more cooperation than I ever did. And you don't even have the LC-faithful trying to derail you.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Talk about illogical, the Jews following their ancient mythology is going to be the death of us.

And their mythology tells nothing of using modern manipulation of genetics to create a red heifer.

Once again, as so many times in the past, the Hebrews have left God for the creation of a calf to worship.

Are you serious? Can you imagine what a tourist attraction this will be? How many people visit Mecca each year, if it weren't for the religious aspect no one would.

Seriously, building the temple is worse than climate change? It is worse than habitat destruction? It is worse than the sixth extinction?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

By hermeneutics I mean the art of interpretation. The term refers to the rules and procedures for determining the sense of written texts.

No better demonstration of how wild and wooly this can get than talking about end times prophecies.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Please tell me how the Jews following Levitical instructions -- supposed ancient mythology -- is going to be the death of us?

World War III.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

World War III.

The prophecies in Revelation do not suggest that the building of the Temple precipitates Armageddon. On the contrary, the sixth seal and the seven trumpets create a cataclysmic situation where all the nations attack the Middle East. It is absurd to think they were all doing this because of the temple. Survival and the need to seize the oil field seems a much more likely motive.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The prophecies in Revelation do not suggest that the building of the Temple precipitates Armageddon. On the contrary, the sixth seal and the seven trumpets create a cataclysmic situation where all the nations attack the Middle East. It is absurd to think they were all doing this because of the temple. Survival and the need to seize the oil field seems a much more likely motive.

Did they strike oil under the plains of Megiddo?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did they strike oil under the plains of Megiddo?

Israel provides the US (and perhaps Europe once they cut a deal with the antichrist to rebuild the temple) with that all important beachhead. Protected ports for our navy, airfields for our airforce. If China, Russia and India want the oil they will have to fight for it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Israel provides the US (and perhaps Europe once they cut a deal with the antichrist to rebuild the temple) with that all important beachhead. Protected ports for our navy, airfields for our airforce. If China, Russia and India want the oil they will have to fight for it.

I see growing hatred towards Israel. The UN has a severe anti- Israel bias. The resolution against them dated 12-24-16 showed this. When it was signed, I immediately wondered if it might become justification for Armageddon. Besides the ACA, that resolution was BHO's signature act, albeit snuck thru under the cover of Christmas.

Today -- realistically -- only America, behind the leadership of DJT, stands in defense of Israel and Christians. Take away the Trump led America, and Israel stands against all the nations of the earth. Not just Russia and China refused to veto that resolution, but also France and Britain.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see growing hatred towards Israel. The UN has a severe anti- Israel bias. The resolution against them dated 12-24-16 showed this. When it was signed, I immediately wondered if it might become justification for Armageddon. Besides the ACA, that resolution was BHO's signature act, albeit snuck thru under the cover of Christmas.

Today -- realistically -- only America, behind the leadership of DJT, stands in defense of Israel and Christians. Take away the Trump led America, and Israel stands against all the nations of the earth. Not just Russia and China refused to veto that resolution, but also France and Britain.

Perfect example of hermeneutics. We both see all of these nations coming to Israel to fight this big war, Armageddon, but the Bible is less clear on why. So we have to look at the prophecies and try and infer the why.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perfect example of hermeneutics.

We both see all of these nations coming to Israel to fight this big war, Armageddon, but the Bible is less clear on why. So we have to look at the prophecies and try and infer the why.

Perhaps zeek will give us a gold star?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps zeek will give us a gold star?

That would be great because we know OBW won't.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps zeek will give us a gold star?

Yeah yeah gold stars all around. But the red heifer/Third Temple connection has more leaps in it than Kermit the Frog. Wasn't the original red heifer verse in a passage about the Tabernacle? Why don't the red heifer folks just pitch a tent? Oh, and by the way welcome back Kotter I mean OBW. Yeah things don't get less chaotic on alt views. It's like herding cats and I should know.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah yeah gold stars all around. But the red heifer/Third Temple connection has more leaps in it than Kermit the Frog. Wasn't the original red heifer verse in a passage about the Tabernacle? Why don't the red heifer folks just pitch a tent? Oh, and by the way welcome back Kotter I mean OBW. Yeah things don't get less chaotic on alt views. It's like herding cats and I should know.

I think the main point is the one that Ohio brought up that rebuilding the Temple will include bringing back animal sacrifices. I had a very close friend growing up that was reformed Jewish. They didn't want to bring back the temple for exactly that reason, the idea of Priests performing animal sacrifices was a big turnoff for a lot of Jews.

It doesn't require any leaps to say that they will need a red heifer, the leaps come in when they try to say it is some kind of miraculous occurrence that is a harbinger of the Lord's return.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the main point is the one that Ohio brought up that rebuilding the Temple will include bringing back animal sacrifices. I had a very close friend growing up that was reformed Jewish. They didn't want to bring back the temple for exactly that reason, the idea of Priests performing animal sacrifices was a big turnoff for a lot of Jews.

It doesn't require any leaps to say that they will need a red heifer, the leaps come in when they try to say it is some kind of miraculous occurrence that is a harbinger of the Lord's return.

In the Hellenistic theology of the Gospel of John there's no need for a temple because they that worship God worship Him in spirit and truth and they can do that anywhere. I can't help but seeing this red heifer nonsense as a throwback to magical cargo cult thinking. And when fanatical zealots, and let's face it these people are, take matters into their own hands to fulfill prophecy it can be dangerous as many religious wars of the past have demonstrated for anybody that wants to look. Throw in the political tinderbox that is the Middle East and nuclear arms on all sides and yeah it's looking kind of scary as Aware said.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the Hellenistic theology of the Gospel of John there's no need for a temple because they that worship God worship Him in spirit and truth and they can do that anywhere. I can't help but seeing this red heifer nonsense as a throwback to magical cargo cult thinking. And when fanatical zealots, and let's face it these people are, take matters into their own hands to fulfill prophecy it can be dangerous as many religious wars of the past have demonstrated for anybody that wants to look. Throw in the political tinderbox that is the Middle East and nuclear arms on all sides and yeah it's looking kind of scary as Aware said.

There is no need for the temple for Christians in the NT, but the Lord prophesied about it being built in Matthew and said it was a major sign akin to a fire alarm going off. Likewise, it is also mentioned in the book of Revelation and Daniel. There are other references to it as well in the prophets.

So having no need of it to worship the Lord is one thing, but just because you haven't used a fire alarm for the last 10 years doesn't mean you don't need one. You only have to use it once for it to be worth the purchase price.

For example, do we need a fire alarm to teach school? No. Yet we have them, we check them every year, and we run a number of drills with them every year so that in that very rare time when we do need them we know what to do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the main point is the one that Ohio brought up that rebuilding the Temple will include bringing back animal sacrifices. I had a very close friend growing up that was reformed Jewish. They didn't want to bring back the temple for exactly that reason, the idea of Priests performing animal sacrifices was a big turnoff for a lot of Jews.

A lot of Reformed and Conservative Jews have little interest in the nation of Israel, let alone the Temple.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the Hellenistic theology of the Gospel of John there's no need for a temple because they that worship God worship Him in spirit and truth and they can do that anywhere. I can't help but seeing this red heifer nonsense as a throwback to magical cargo cult thinking. And when fanatical zealots, and let's face it these people are, take matters into their own hands to fulfill prophecy it can be dangerous as many religious wars of the past have demonstrated for anybody that wants to look. Throw in the political tinderbox that is the Middle East and nuclear arms on all sides and yeah it's looking kind of scary as Aware said.

Let's not put the problem on those who want to adhere to Torah Law, rather the problem lies with your beloved Mooslims. Why shouldn't peace loving peoples worship God as they choose?

Your comment about the Gospel of John makes no sense. The Temple is not for NT believers. If you are entitled to your dumb ideas, as are a billion Mooslims, why is the same courtesy not extended to the Jews?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let's not put the problem on those who want to adhere to Torah Law,

There is no 3rd temple in the Torah. In fact, there's no 3rd temple in the entire Bible, including Revelation.

Originally Posted by Ohio

rather the problem lies with your beloved Mooslims.

Precisely. To build the 3rd temple means blowing their temple off the rock. Then all hell will break loose.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why shouldn't peace loving peoples worship God as they choose?

I agree. The Muslims should be able to worship God as they choose. Their Mosque is on the rock. Leave it alone. Red Heifer be damned.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

There is no 3rd temple in the Torah. In fact, there's no 3rd temple in the entire Bible, including Revelation.

Matt 24:15When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), 16then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains:

and

24And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. 2But he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Verse 1 and 2 of Matt 24 says that there will not be a single stone left upon another in the Temple. That is referring to the 2nd temple being torn down, which it was shortly afterwards. Verse 15 says that we will see the "abomination of desolation that was spoken of in Daniel standing in the Holy Place". Therefore we infer that the Temple has been rebuilt.

Then

2Thess 2:3 let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.

This corresponds nicely with the Lord's word about the abomination of desolation in the Holy place, making it clear that this refers to the Temple. So although neither of these verses refer to the temple being rebuilt they both refer to the Temple at the end of the age being a place where the "abomination of desolation" will be standing and seated.

This also corresponds to Revelation:

11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and one said, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 And the court which is without the temple leave without, and measure it not; for it hath been given unto the nations: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

This is what was spoken of in Daniel:

31 And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate

We know that this is what Matt 24 was referring to, so he stands in the Holy Place and it is also referred to as the sanctuary, and is where the continual burnt offering is given.

36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods; and he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that which is determined shall be done.

And this is referred to in 2Thess, since those verses say clearly he is in the Temple then we can see that these verses in Daniel are also referring to the Temple.

Therefore there is very clearly a second Temple which the Lord said would be torn down and there is a temple at the end of the age.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

There is no 3rd temple in the Torah. In fact, there's no 3rd temple in the entire Bible, including Revelation.


Precisely. To build the 3rd temple means blowing their temple off the rock. Then all hell will break loose.

I agree. The Muslims should be able to worship God as they choose. Their Mosque is on the rock. Leave it alone. Red Heifer be damned.

That's foolish. When they returned from Babylon, the first thing they did was rebuild the Temple. There is a Temple in the Torah. That's why they want to build it.

There are three proposed locations for the temple site. Each has its merits.

Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. Show me one other country or religion on earth that can lay claim to a specific property in another country. Even embassies cannot demand certain real estate.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let's not put the problem on those who want to adhere to Torah Law, rather the problem lies with your beloved Muslims. Why shouldn't peace loving peoples worship God as they choose?

Your comment about the Gospel of John makes no sense. The Temple is not for NT believers. If you are entitled to your dumb ideas, as are a billion Muslims, why is the same courtesy not extended to the Jews?

Religion that justifies violence sucks whether it is called Islam, Judaism or Christianity. Animal sacrifice is a superstitious idea and a cruel practice. That sucks too.

Now correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see where the Gospel of John makes a provision for Jews to be saved by any other means than faith in the Christ.

Wasn't the Samaritan woman speaking to exactly this issue when she said to Jesus " Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship"?

And Jesus answered and said to her :

"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Wasn't Jesus speaking to exactly this issue and telling her that there was no need for temple worship? He doesn't say, "but this is just for non-Jews. The Jews need to go on worshipping in the temple at Jerusalem."

According to the Gospel of John's theology wouldn't it be kind of an insult to God to go on sacrificing animals, after God has sacrificed his Son once for the salvation of all?

I understand that the vast majority of Muslims hold that the Quran ‘is the speech of God, dictated without human editing’. This has made their acceptance of hermeneutics difficult.

Muslims believe an angel dictated the pre-existing Quran word for word to the prophet. To them the Quran is ‘the eternal, uncreated, literal word of God sent down from heaven, revealed one final time to the Prophet Muhammad as a guide for humankind’.

As ‘uncreated’, the Quran is divine, an extension of God himself. An eternal text implicitly ‘negates the very idea of it having a historical context’.

Traditional Muslims lean towards ahistorical, literalist readings of the Quran against modern Islamic reformers who emphasize the hermeneutic application of original Quranic statements to later historical contexts. The former strikes me as similar to the way Christian fundamentalists read the Christian Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Religion that justifies violence sucks whether it is called Islam, Judaism or Christianity. Animal sacrifice is a superstitious idea and a cruel practice. That sucks too.

Now correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see where the Gospel of John makes a provision for Jews to be saved by any other means than faith in the Christ.

Wasn't the Samaritan woman speaking to exactly this issue when she said to Jesus " Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship"?

And Jesus answered and said to her :

"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Wasn't Jesus speaking to exactly this issue and telling her that there was no need for temple worship? He doesn't say, "but this is just for non-Jews. The Jews need to go on worshipping in the temple at Jerusalem."

According to the Gospel of John's theology wouldn't it be kind of an insult to God to go on sacrificing animals, after God has sacrificed his Son once for the salvation of all?

I understand that the vast majority of Muslims hold that the Quran ‘is the speech of God, dictated without human editing’. This has made their acceptance of hermeneutics difficult.

Muslims believe an angel dictated the pre-existing Quran word for word to the prophet. To them the Quran is ‘the eternal, uncreated, literal word of God sent down from heaven, revealed one final time to the Prophet Muhammad as a guide for humankind’.

As ‘uncreated’, the Quran is divine, an extension of God himself. An eternal text implicitly ‘negates the very idea of it having a historical context’.

Traditional Muslims lean towards ahistorical, literalist readings of the Quran against modern Islamic reformers who emphasize the hermeneutic application of original Quranic statements to later historical contexts. The former strikes me as similar to the way Christian fundamentalists read the Christian Bible.

You said "correct me if I am wrong," but I doubt you meant it.

God has two covenants with man, one acc. to Law, and one acc. to Grace. Your post confuses the two. Both covenants require sacrifice, the first requires continued animal sacrifice in the Temple, the second requires the death of His Son on the cross, once for all. Forgiveness of sins demands the shedding of blood.

The Jews don't interfere with what the Mooslims do in Mecca, and the Mooslims should not interfere with what the Jews do in Jerusalem.

Mooslims can believe any superstition they like about their Koran. They prove its falsehood when they kill any and all critics of the book. Theirs is a religion of superstition and hatred.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You said "correct me if I am wrong," but I doubt you meant it.

God has two covenants with man, one acc. to Law, and one acc. to Grace. Your post confuses the two. Both covenants require sacrifice, the first requires continued animal sacrifice in the Temple, the second requires the death of His Son on the cross, once for all. Forgiveness of sins demands the shedding of blood.

Where does the Gospel of John tell us that the old covenant remains in effect after the new one is instituted?

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Jews don't interfere with what the Muslims do in Mecca, and the Muslims should not interfere with what the Jews do in Jerusalem.

Yeah, I'm sure the Trump's Saudi Arabian buddies would have no problem accepting their Palestinian bretheran. It's all so simple.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Muslims can believe any superstition they like about their Koran. They prove its falsehood when they kill any and all critics of the book. Theirs is a religion of superstition and hatred.

Yeah. The problem is, so is yours.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Where does the Gospel of john tell us that the old covenant remains in effect after the new one is instituted?

Where does the Gospel of John tell us that the Old Covenant is over for the Jews under Law?

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah, I'm sure the Trump's Saudi Arabian buddies would have no problem accepting their Palestinian bretheran. It's all so simple.

I thought it was Bush and Cheney who had all those Saudi Arabian oil buddies, but Obama and Jarrett were an improvement by colluding with their Shiite Iranian buddies?

Been a while since you claimed Trump and Putin were in bed together. Seems like it's taken you a long time to see thru the fake news and accept some truth.


But where is the hermeneutics here?

[ZNPaaneah]

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.

Clearly the old covenant has not been done away with yet, but will be done away with shortly.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.

Clearly the old covenant has not been done away with yet, but will be done away with shortly.

That's not the book of John.

It's also an epistle to the hebrew church.

Today's Orthodox Israel lives exclusively by the books of Moses.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where does the Gospel of John tell us that the Old Covenant is over for the Jews under Law?

John 3:17-18 spoken to Nicodemus, "a ruler of the Jews":
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I thought it was Bush and Cheney who had all those Saudi Arabian oil buddies, but Obama and Jarrett were an improvement by colluding with their Shiite Iranian buddies?

Since Trump became president:

1. the U.S. has enabled and supported a disastrous Saudi war in Yemen;
   
2. watched as Riyadh launched a political and economic war against Qatar that’s split the Gulf Cooperation Council and enhanced Iran’s influence;
   
3. stood by as the Saudis virtually kidnapped the pro-American Lebanese Prime Minister in a bungled attempt to weaken Hezbollah;
   
4. remained silent while the Saudis under the guise of reform cracked down on journalists, bloggers, businessmen and anyone else who dared criticize the 30-something crown prince;
   
5. and said nothing as Riyadh battered Canada—a close U.S. ally that dared challenge Saudi human rights abuses.
   

Originally Posted by Ohio

Been a while since you claimed Trump and Putin were in bed together. Seems like it's taken you a long time to see thru the fake news and accept some truth.

You wish Mueller was done don't you? He ain't. Kavanaugh, Trump's get out of jail free card isn't even in the SCOTUS yet. Be patient. Meanwhile, you're comfortable with the idea that Trump's surrounded himself with common criminals.

Originally Posted by Ohio

But where is the hermeneutics here?

They're here, interspersed with answers to questions coming from the clown car.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's not the book of John.

Thank you!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Since Trump became president:

1. the U.S. has enabled and supported a disastrous Saudi war in Yemen;
2. watched as Riyadh launched a political and economic war against Qatar that’s split the Gulf Cooperation Council and enhanced Iran’s influence;
3. stood by as the Saudis virtually kidnapped the pro-American Lebanese Prime Minister in a bungled attempt to weaken Hezbollah;
4. remained silent while the Saudis under the guise of reform cracked down on journalists, bloggers, businessmen and anyone else who dared criticize the 30-something crown prince;
5. and said nothing as Riyadh battered Canada—a close U.S. ally that dared challenge Saudi human rights abuses.

Are you serious? Is Trump now the world's policeman?

And Trump gave us Hurricanes Maria and Florence too?

Originally Posted by zeek

You wish Mueller was done don't you? He ain't. Kavanaugh, Trump's get out of jail free card isn't even n the SCOTUS yet. Be patient. Meanwhile, you're comfortable with the idea that Trump's surrounded himself with common criminals.

Sorry, your comments are just absurd. Did you know Kavanaugh drank beer and bought baseball tickets with credit cards?

Common criminals? Guys who cheated the IRS? Muller spent $20 Million and caught a guy named Manafort who cheated the US out of $1.4 Million. Great work Muller! Guys like you really save us big time!

Nice talking to you zeeky.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you!

Did I miss something? Is hermeneutics simply constrained to the book of John? Hebrews is part of the NT and makes it very clear that the Old Covenant has not been done away with yet, but will be done away with at some point in the future.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's foolish. When they returned from Babylon, the first thing they did was rebuild the Temple. There is a Temple in the Torah. That's why they want to build it.

There are three proposed locations for the temple site. Each has its merits.

Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. Show me one other country or religion on earth that can lay claim to a specific property in another country. Even embassies cannot demand certain real estate.

And you didn't even say Moooooooooslims. But show me in the Bible where the 3rd temple is mentioned.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did I miss something? Is hermeneutics simply constrained to the book of John? Hebrews is part of the NT and makes it very clear that the Old Covenant has not been done away with yet, but will be done away with at some point in the future.

Yes you did. We were talking about the Gospel of John. Apparently your hermeneutic includes the assumption that all the books of the Bible agree with each other because God is the author. So Hebrews can perform an assist for John like players do on basketball teams. But if each book is interpreted in its own right, one sees differences in the theologies and even where the books contradict each other. So what one presupposed affects how the books are interpreted. How can the God of John's gospel accept the Jews are saved on any other basis than belief in Christ given what Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3 :18?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And you didn't even say Moooooooooslims. But show me in the Bible where the 3rd temple is mentioned.

Read ZNP's Post #40


Show me in the Bible where Mooslams are mentioned.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes you did. We were talking about the Gospel of John. Apparently your hermeneutic includes the assumption that all the books of the Bible agree with each other because God is the author. So Hebrews can perform an assist for John like players do on basketball teams. But if each book is interpreted in its own right, one sees differences in the theologies and even where the books contradict each other. So what one presupposed affects how the books are interpreted. How can the God of John's gospel accept the Jews are saved on any other basis than belief in Christ given what Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3 :18?

Yes, based on Peter I understand that no book or Bible verse is understood on its own but has be to viewed in the context of the Bible as a whole.

What is your basis to say that John (and presumably all other books of the Bible) are intended to stand alone?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, based on Peter I understand that no book or Bible verse is understood on its own but has be to viewed in the context of the Bible as a whole.

What is your basis to say that John (and presumably all other books of the Bible) are intended to stand alone?

If you're talking about 2nd Peter 1:20, I think you're reading a lot into that verse. The author would have been referring to the Hebrew Bible in as much as it wasn't until the year 367 c e that any Christian of record named our current 27 books of the New Testament as part of the authoritative Canon of scripture.

Traditionally the books of the New Testament are read as standing in essential harmony with one another. But has any attempt to harmonize the viewpoints of the authors been entirely successful? If so I have yet to see that.

I'm most familiar with the attempts of Scofield and Witness Lee and somewhat with St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. I respect their efforts but do we really suppose that anyone has the point of view of God?

In any case hermeneutics recognizes that the presuppositions that one's brings to one's reading of a text effects what they see when they read. I'm not proposing that any particular hermeneutic provides the ultimate answer or method for how the biblical texts should be interpreted.

Rather, I suggest that we look at all that are available to see what insights they provide and what limitations result from their application. From a historical viewpoint the New Testament has been found to embody a remarkably diverse points of view when each authors is allowed to have their own say. Read this way the New Testament is a source of rich diversity of viewpoints.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you're talking about 2nd Peter 1:20, I think you're reading a lot into that verse. The author would have been referring to the Hebrew Bible in as much as it wasn't until the year 367 c e that any Christian of record named our current 27 books of the New Testament as part of the authoritative Canon of scripture.

Traditionally the books of the New Testament are read as standing in essential harmony with one another. But has any attempt to harmonize the viewpoints of the authors been entirely successful? If so I have yet to see that.

I disagree with your interpretation here.

Peter most definitely included Paul's epistles with the rest of scriptures, and confirms this in 2 Peter 3.15-18. Those who reject Peter's views here should be considered as the "unlearned and unstable who twist the scriptures to their own destruction" and as "those carried away by the error of the lawless."

Sounds a lot like Alt-Views.

I noticed that you now reject the "Year of our Lord, AD" and have replaced it with the "common era, CE." More "scientific," eh?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Traditionally the books of the New Testament are read as standing in essential harmony with one another. But has any attempt to harmonize the viewpoints of the authors been entirely successful? If so I have yet to see that.

Has any attempt to harmonize the viewpoints of modern science been entirely successful? No.

There still is no "theory of everything". No one has explained gravity. No one has explained dark matter. No one has explained how many dimensions the universe is. Or if there are multiple universes. Or if the universe is a hologram. What about quantum mechanics? What about Lazarus taxa?

Here is the hypocrisy. We are perfectly willing to accept that we haven't got all the answers when it comes to science, but if it comes to the Bible then the assumption is that the writers were wrong.

No one attacks Newton because he didn't discuss quantum mechanics, or Hutton because he didn't come up with laws of thermodynamics, or Pasteur because he didn't discover the theory of relativity. Each person had their own "agenda". Perfectly acceptable to all of these science embracing atheists. But if the Gospel of John doesn't present a comprehensive view of the entire revelation of God, then ...It is hypocrisy. John had what was given to him, Paul had his commission, and James had his. Each was a servant doing their part.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree with your interpretation here.

Peter most definitely included Paul's epistles with the rest of scriptures, and confirms this in 2 Peter 3.15-18. Those who reject Peter's views here should be considered as the "unlearned and unstable who twist the scriptures to their own destruction" and as "those carried away by the error of the lawless."

Sounds a lot like Alt-Views.

I noticed that you now reject the "Year of our Lord, AD" and have replaced it with the "common era, CE." More "scientific," eh?

I know II Peter is in the canon. But early on it was heavy disputed. There's a good chance that it's a pseudepigrapha. Therefore I don't think it's wise to throw blind ultimate authority behind it.

If it is pseudepigraphal it's isn't actually scripture itself, and therefore has no right to claim Paul's epistles as scripture.

If you don't believe me, start with wiki and follow that deeper into more historical research.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know II Peter is in the canon. But early on it was heavy disputed. There's a good chance that it's a pseudepigrapha. Therefore I don't think it's wise to throw blind ultimate authority behind it.

If it is pseudepigraphal it's isn't actually scripture itself, and therefore has no right to claim Paul's epistles as scripture.

If you don't believe me, start with wiki and follow that deeper into more historical research.

So we should not throw "blind ultimate authority" behind a verse which says you are not to throw blind ultimate authority over the interpretation of a verse standing alone without regard to the rest of the Bible?

So much for being a man of science. In science no one disputes that a scientific interpretation cannot violate the laws of physics. Dating of rocks in Geology has to align with Chemistry and radiocarbon dating. etc. But now that we are talking about the Bible we "should" interpret each book and each verse independently without the restraint of all those other pesky books and verses.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So we should not throw "blind ultimate authority" behind a verse which says you are not to throw blind ultimate authority over the interpretation of a verse standing alone without regard to the rest of the Bible?

So much for being a man of science. In science no one disputes that a scientific interpretation cannot violate the laws of physics. Dating of rocks in Geology has to align with Chemistry and radiocarbon dating. etc. But now that we are talking about the Bible we "should" interpret each book and each verse independently without the restraint of all those other pesky books and verses.

I think it's good that you think we should apply the scientific method to hermeneutics of the Bible.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree with your interpretation here.

Peter most definitely included Paul's epistles with the rest of scriptures, and confirms this in 2 Peter 3.15-18.

Good point. Then based on that passage, the author includes as scriptures the Hebrew Bible plus Paul's epistles. But, he doesn't mention the Gospels , the Epistles of John, Hebrews, James, Jude or the Book of Revelation. Where's the passage or passages that warrants including those books?

Those who reject Peter's views here should be considered as the "unlearned and unstable who twist the scriptures to their own destruction" and as "those carried away by the error of the lawless."
Sounds a lot like Alt-Views

It's a good thing I have you around to straighten me out, bro.

I noticed that you now reject the "Year of our Lord, AD" and have replaced it with the "common era, CE." More "scientific," eh?

To me AD and CE are synonyms I use interchangeably. I'll gladly switch to AD for your sake.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Has any attempt to harmonize the viewpoints of modern science been entirely successful? No.

There still is no "theory of everything". No one has explained gravity. No one has explained dark matter. No one has explained how many dimensions the universe is. Or if there are multiple universes. Or if the universe is a hologram. What about quantum mechanics? What about Lazarus taxa?

Here is the hypocrisy. We are perfectly willing to accept that we haven't got all the answers when it comes to science, but if it comes to the Bible then the assumption is that the writers were wrong.

No one attacks Newton because he didn't discuss quantum mechanics, or Hutton because he didn't come up with laws of thermodynamics, or Pasteur because he didn't discover the theory of relativity. Each person had their own "agenda". Perfectly acceptable to all of these science embracing atheists. But if the Gospel of John doesn't present a comprehensive view of the entire revelation of God, then ...It is hypocrisy. John had what was given to him, Paul had his commission, and James had his. Each was a servant doing their part.

It's a valid point which occurred to me as soon as I completed the post. And it just goes to show that both science and all attempts to harmonize the Bible into a coherent whole are both human endeavors. As that great theologian Paul Simon said in his song "Slip Sliding Away"

God only knows, God makes his plan
The information's unavailable to the mortal man

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know II Peter is in the canon. But early on it was heavy disputed. There's a good chance that it's a pseudepigrapha. Therefore I don't think it's wise to throw blind ultimate authority behind it.

If it is pseudepigraphal it's isn't actually scripture itself, and therefore has no right to claim Paul's epistles as scripture.

If you don't believe me, start with wiki and follow that deeper into more historical research.

Tradition is important for any understanding as a medium that shapes our consciousness and connects us to the past. So while somebody can take a critical/historical view of a text standing outside of the tradition like you did, someone can also consciously hold to the tradition and interpret the text from within it. Church tradition played an indispensable role in creating the Biblical canon and in the way the canon is interpreted by her faithful members.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I noticed that you now reject the "Year of our Lord, AD" and have replaced it with the "common era, CE." More "scientific," eh?

Yeah, that's what the Recovery is all about, going back to the year of our Lord, recovering from the corruption of science on dating.

Everyone using CE will burn in hell.