Board index ‹ Christianity

[diamond Girl]

> He was quoting and affirming Deut. 6.13-14, prohibiting the worship of any God but Hashem Elokim.

Interestingly, he also skipped over 4-9, which tells us that the Lord is one and just how important his instructions are.

> I don't know what text in Deut. you're referring to here.

See Deuteronomy 28. I know that there is another more explicit one but I can't find it right now.

> His figures , in reality, have a modicum of credibility, but don't begin to tell the whole story.

I can't argue this anymore, since I haven't studied Christian early history in depth.

> Now this is just ludicrous.

I'm speaking of the general population, not its great minds. What percentage of the Christian population outside the clergy know their texts in the original language? Has read through all of scripture every year? Studies commentaries from the past 2000 years on their texts instead of reading it by itself? I'm pretty sure it's a miniscule amount, far below Judaism and Islam. Christianity emphasizes faith in Jesus, Islam emphasizes submission to God, and Judaism emphasizes the covenant with God (it shows in all the names). This is not an insult, just a description.

> C.S. Lewis

You will have to summarize it for me, since I don't think I understand his viewpoint enough to get this text.

> Plural pronoun "us" used several times in Genesis, as well as Isa. 6.8
Elohim is plural used with a singular verb.
Ps. 110.1
Isa. 9.6
Ps. 2.7
Dan. 7.13-14
Only once, and the Jewish understanding is that God is speaking to the angels.

1. So? It's to distinguish it from El, to show that god is not like pagan gods, to be confined to a singular place.
2. So David, or whoever wrote this, believed in the Trinity?
3. Good Jewish response on Isaiah 9
4. God calls David his son in [2 Samuel 7:14]
5. ...I see nothing here about multiple parts of God.

Also note that none of these actually say anything about the Trinity, aka 3 in one.

> Adherents became so afraid of transgression that they piled on more requirements to avoid getting close to infraction that they created a system of impossible conformity.

Not true, I don't see Orthodox Jewry today as a system of impossible conformity. It seems to work pretty well.

> It turns out to have been impossible. No one was able to keep the whole law all the time without flaw.

Why is "without flaw" a requirement? And don't quote "the wages of sin are death." Something from the OT please. And if God knew it would be an impossibility, why was it assigned?

Counterarguments to without flaw as a requirement and keeping it becomes an impossibility.

1. The Torah knows that people will transgress, and it sets up a system of repentance for when it happens.
2. Rabbinic ordinances are never punished on the same levels as commandments from the Torah, if they are punished at all.
resurrection

Since resurrections are so important, what was the resurrection in 2 Kings 4 about? Was there a sacrifice for something? I think you already know my rejoinder for Isaiah 7:14, and my refutation of Isaiah 53 as messianic can be found in this thread.

> The covenant expressed to Noah built on the one given to Adam, to Abraham built on the one given to Noah, to Moses built on that one,

And what is the similarity between all of these? Commandments are added, not taken away. David is promised kingship, there is no covenant. And I don't see anyone accept anything with Jesus, which is what a covenant (contract) requires.

> It's the nature of the covenant to be be filled up until all is complete.

What does this mean? What is filled up? Where is this nature described? What is "all" of a covenant? How can a contract with no expiration be completed? Or changed?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for an interesting conversation.

> Interestingly, he also skipped over 4-9, which tells us that the Lord is one and just how important his instructions are.

Exactly. Jesus even quoted Dt. 6.4 in Mk. 12.29. he was obviously familiar with it, but perceived no contradiction in God being a singularity and a plurality at the same time. John 1.1 would express the same comfort with the concept. The Son was the heir of all things (Ps. 2.8) and co-creator (Prov. 8.22ff.).

> Deut. 28.

Yes, the Jewish people have suffered tremendously and have endured far more than their "fair share" of persecution. But my point still stands: They still exist as a nation and as a people.

> "C.S. Lewis" — You will have to summarize it for me...

Basically he is saying all religions fall into two general categories: those based in emotions (mysteries, ecstasies, orgies, spells, mindless meditation, etc.) and those based in the intellect (philosophical, ethical, theological). Then he continues that a true religion would actually be holistic, encompassing all of what a human is: emotional and intellectual. That a true religion speaks to a child in their own way, and to adult equally capably and fulfillingly. That a true religion engages the person and the culture, the individual and society, the intellectual and the commoner. He says Christianity fulfills the mark, engaging the mind and body, the intellect and the emotions, asking us all to think AND feel, to consider theology and mystery. Hope that helps.

> Only once, and the Jewish understanding is that God is speaking to the angels.

Gn. 1.26; 3.22; 11.7, to name a few.

> "Ps. 110.1" — So David, or whoever wrote this, believed in the Trinity?

No, I don't think so. I think David was speaking of himself as king, but at the same time acknowledging that the king of Israel sat on the throne of G-d, and was his visible representative. G-d, however, commands this person on the throne to take the highest place of honor at his right hand (cf. 1 Ki. 2.19). Jesus interprets the passage as being Davidic, but also prophetico-Messianic—that a king besides just David was in mind, and actually foresaw the messiah as the one who would sit on the throne of David forever (1 Sam. 7.11b-14a).

> Isaiah 9

I'm familiar with the various interpretations of Isa. 9. My point is that El Gibbor is used of Adonai in Isa. 10.21, equating the Son in Isa. 9.6 with G-d in Isa. 10.21. It's a legitimate interpretation.

> "Ps. 2.7" — God calls David his son in [2 Samuel 7:14]

Yes he does. Psalm 2 is considered messianic by MANY rabbis, including Rashi, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, David Kimchi, and Maimonides. Not a list of slackers, for sure. Psalm 2 is the enthronement of the son as king of the universe.

> Dan. 7.13

The son of man is a different person than the ancient of days. While the Ancient of Days and the son of man are not interpreted for us, The Ancient of Days is generally accepted as G-d. The interpretations of the "son of man" are wide and varied. Rashi and Ibn Ezra interpreted him as the messiah, and v. 14 would seem to endorse that identification.

The point behind all of this is that you said "Nowhere in the OT is the Trinity even hinted at", and I'm giving evidence that it's hinted at.

> Also note that none of these actually say anything about the Trinity, aka 3 in one.

You're right, they don't.

> Why is "without flaw" a requirement?

The Law required the full, continual, and actual *doing* of all its demands, not one being excepted. It makes no exceptions for any clause or any person. Its requirements are never ending ("...who does not continue..."). It requires complete obedience ("all things"). It requires actual fulfillment ("to do them"). And failure brings a curse. My point is: who has successfully done this?

> And don't quote "the wages of sin are death." Something from the OT please.

2 Kings 21.8.

> The Torah knows that people will transgress, and it sets up a system of repentance for when it happens.

Exactly, but the system was only a temporary fix, and had to be repeated year after year. It didn't really solve the problem, but only provided for temporary atonement.

> what was the resurrection in 2 Kings 4 about?

I would say that G-d is not primarily in the business of healing, though on rare occasions he does so. G-d is in the business of raising the dead, and of giving life where there is none. This is one example of it, and also what the message of Jesus is all about.

> Isa. 53

I know there are many interpretations of Isa. 53 as well. Before Rashi, most rabbinic interpretations applied Isaiah 53 to the messiah. We could discuss and debate forever on this one, but we both know that the messianic interpretation is a legitimate one.

> And what is the similarity between all of these [covenants]?

This similarities between the covenants is G-d's program of revelation. G-d has a plan in history that he is sovereignly executing. The goal of that plan is for him to be in relationship with the people whom he has created. It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a G-d whom they do not know. If his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, G-d has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know him. The mechanism that drives this program is the covenant, and the instrument is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal G-d.

> David is promised kingship, there is no covenant.

The narrative of 2 Sam. 7.5-16 doesn't use the term covenant, but it contains the elements of a 2nd millennial BC international treaty/covenant. Later references (2 Chr. 21.7) indicate that it was indeed a covenant. It didn't replace the Mosaic covenant, but is a special arrangement under the Mosaic covenant to establish the Davidic dynasty, an important element in the eventual installation of the Davidic king who will reign forever.

> How can a contract with no expiration be completed? Or changed?

Obviously the covenant keeps getting added to as it progresses through history, as we have noted with Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Jer. 31.31-33 makes this lucidly clear.