I’m reading a wonderful little book by Mitch Albom. The book is called Have a Little Faith. Every now and again a book sort of creeps up on me and disturbs me…in a beautiful and wonderful sort of way. So far this book is doing just that.
I read this today and thought I would offer it up to you for your thought and consideration.
Albom is telling the story of being in class one day in 1974 when the teacher began discussing the Red Sea crossing by the just emancipated Hebrews.
“There is a Talmudic commentary here,” the teacher says. … “After the Israelites safely crossed the Red Sea, the Eyptians chased after them and were drowned. God’s angels wanted to celebrate the enemy’s demise.”
“According to the commentary, God saw this and grew angry. He said, in essence, ‘Stop celebrating. For those were my children, too’” (76).
Be blessed, my friends.
215 Comments(+Add)
Ephesians 2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
That commentary stands contrary to scripture. The tradition is extra-biblical. The Egyptians were drowned following their stiff necked Pharoah, to the glory of God. If the angels celebrated, it was to give that glory to God.
i cannot recall anyone who so consistently and routinely sucks all the joy and light out of most any disussion. you really do see the dark lining in everything. you are like a black-hole…
on the other hand… i was gonna point out that this would have been within a year of the yom kippor war. similar results, same point.
jerry,
this is a good reminder that even the most delusioned child of wrath also contains the very same, and same amount, of imago dei as i (and as pb as well).
I am sorry that I find neither Joy nor light in the misinterpretation of scripture.
I disagree about the imago dei thing also.
When God sends our friends and loved ones to Hell on the day of judgment, there will be no tears, no regrets, only praise to God for His worthiness and His holiness and His grace in saving us.
Eph 4:5-6:
one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Great thought, Jerry.
Perhaps one of the most twisted, demented beliefs I have ever heard.
Well, that might be overstating it a bit. But it’s quite close.
That honestly makes God sound worse than Hitler. Thankfully it’s utterly wrong.
God has lovingly made a way for all of His children to come back to Him. I believe that He is saddened beyond anything we can imagine by those who choose to reject His love.
some mysteries are too deep for me, even if pastorboy has them figured out.
of course you do… and the burden of proof is on you. genesis 1 twice says the original human were created imago dei… and genesis 9:6 continues that sub-lapse and makes no distinctions.
of course, just like demonizing you human enemies during war (gooks, krauts, towel-heads, japs, ad nauseoum) depriving the lost of their imago dei makes them easier to damn.
as do we all… but what is as bad is the misapplication of it as well.
I can say without batting an eye that if PB is right I would be the most ardent and vocal atheist the world has ever seen.
#9 You already are pretty much an ardent athiest when it comes to the God of the Bible. But it is good to have goals.
#6 no, that makes God holy, which the Bible makes abundantly clear.
But He has given us, in Christ Jesus, the opportunity to become perfect in His sight.
You should really be careful about being blasphemous towards God.
#5
This is Christians. This is not the whole world. This is those who USED to walk after the Prince of the Power of the Air.
Of course, we all have the image of God, for He created us. But sin has darkened that image.
Well, PB, maybe I can find some sweet comfort in your words as I watch you dance and sing for joy as I and billions of others make our home in hell.
#12 – No, it is ALL. Which includes Christians.
no, read the whole chapter. It is written to the CHURCH at EPHESUS..for one thing…which has been established as those who are part of the BODY OF CHRIST.
2 j And you were k dead in the trespasses and sins 2 l in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following m the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and p were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—v by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us (CHRISTIANS) up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (CHRISTIANS)
Of course, studying your Quran at Duke would not allow you to know this.
#14 I will be busy praising God for his goodness in saving me, and, I hope, you.
Your god is too small, PB. Paul is speaking cosmically – not to just a handful of folks. And you should hope that is the case.
Don’t be silly. We aren’t allowed to read the Quran ourselves until we speak fluent Arabic, which every MDiv student has to learn. Until then we are just fed the truth from our residing Imam.
so you DO agree with me then… the hebrew has as much imago dei as the egyptian.
as i said, i cannot recall anyone who so consistently and routinely sucks all the joy and light out of most any discussion. you really do see the dark lining in everything. you are like a snarky black-hole…
Neil, don’t be so hard on him. After all, he’s following the true Christ.
As a pathetic (I was pathetic) high school student I would drive my car close to the curb after a rain and if timed right would splash the other students walking down the street past the school.
It was my way of getting them not to walk close to the curb. It worked but they didn’t stop walking close to the curb because of potential splashing. They stopped because the ass driving the car who intentionally splashed.
Same result. Different thought about the method.
Carry on…
One last thing. A recording of a homeless man singing in the gutter. It was recorded, forgotten about, and then dubbed to music. This IS the imago dei, the plan of God, and his hope for all mankind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnYA0w4cWiE
The more complete story:
Now that’s street preaching.
Even more of the story.
#21
“I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace.” C.H. Spurgeon
“I cannot understand the reason why God saved that guy, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in all the world why I should determine who is in and who is out of Divine grace.” C.H. Paytas
#18
“If we spent only one minute in the torment of hell, we would see how unloving this ‘gospel’ is that is in missions today.” – K.P. Yohannan
So K.P. Yohannan was there and has come back to tell us about it? Wow!
No, but KP read the Bible, as a Christian, and understood how horrible Hell is.
You do not get that in the Quran readings I take it.
How did you guys go from a beautiful quote about Gods’s love to bickering about who God loves best? Amazing…
Jerry, love the quote. Truly reminds us that God doesn’t have an “us vs. them” mentality towards anyone. He loves us all.
30 Because God is just, and even though he loves, he must judge the wicked. The Egyptians were wicked. His judgement of them brongs Him glory.
Who says what God “must” do? Is there some authority above God?
If God chooses to have mercy on someone it doesn’t mean He’s broken some law, it simply means He can choose to be mercifu because He’s God. That’s essentially the argument Paul makes in Romans 9.
Question: does anybody see the difference between the Talmudic commentary mentioned in the Op and the Biblical Account in Exodus 15?
Says who?
Additionally, was God equally saddened when David killed Goliath and then proceeded to cut off his head?
Paul,
That’s not the point. The point is that God does not celebrate the demise of the lost, even if they are lost. It is no joy for God to condemn. Your question is beside the point, with all due respect.
And, yes. But I also think God was saddened by Goliath’s behavior long before David ever took up the sling and stone.
I find no joy, whatsoever, in the loss of a single person.
jerry
even though i am part of the bickering – i agree… this reflects my sentiments in comments 2 & 20.
OK, I get this point and I agree with you. He says this in Ezekiel 33:
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that God relishes destroying mankind though.
I guess I’m a little suspicious of the Talmudic reference’s liberties here. Surely the scriptures by themselves give us insight into God’s character and mercy – and His justice.
So would you also argues against lessons taught by talking vegetables?
1. Imago Dei is not the same as salvation. All are made in His image…even those in hell.
2. “His judgement of them brongs Him glory.” – I understand that who God is, as a complete being, brings Him glory. Justice is a facet of Him. So justice being issued would bring him glory, but we need to make sure we realize that it wouldn’t necessarily bring him pleasure.
3. Chad – “Your god is too small, PB. Paul is speaking cosmically” – ummmm…..no. Go back to your 6th grade sentence diagramming. I know Paul likes to use pronouns in excess, but go back, and literally, sit down with a paper and pencil, and diagram that paragraph. Where you see a pronoun, like “you”, substitute the appropriate object. In order to change the referencing object of a pronoun, the proper name must be stated before a “us” or “they” can be used. So……Paul never references “cosmically” anything.
I love lessons taught by talking vegetables! especially ones with plungers on their heads!
the point i was trying to make…
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, I see.
Paul is speaking cosmically. And as I said to PB, we should all hope that is the case (for our own sakes).
PB, does your Bible even have Proverbs 24:17-18 in it?
Sorry, thought that tool that automatically links verses was active in the comments section too. Proverbs 24:17-18:
Uh…oh, nevermind.
Paul is speaking to the church at Ephesus…which may have been more than one congregation. But to those who are/were not the church, Paul’s words would mean little. One really has to stretch a long way to make Ephesians anything remotely close to cosmic.
But the point is true: Imago Dei is different, as Zan points out than ’salvation.’ It’s probably enough to leave it at that without this conversation taking a steep nosedive into something none of us can answer concretely.
#40: Neil, I think you are missing my point.
Read Exodus 15. Then read the Talmudic reference in the op.
Angels? Where is the authority here. It’s a fairytale.
What I meant was that there is ample OT scripture to support God’s view towards mankind (ie: Ezek 33, the book of Jonah, etc).
I don’t see the validity of Jewish fables here. Sorry.
yeah, Jerry, leave my tree alone! (He lives in Colorado, anyway! and I consider that as a HUGE compliment, btw!)
#42
What Zan said in # 38- there is a difference between pleasure and glory.
They may mean little to them (at present) but they do not make them untrue.
Paul is making a categorical claim that God is Father of ALL. Some may not believe that is the case, but it doesn’t change reality.
Same as saying “Jesus is Lord.” That may not mean something to many folks outside the church but it does not mean Jesus is not Lord of all.
I think you’re missing the point, Paul.
The Talmud was generally considered authoritative by the Jews alive when Jesus walked the earth. It was not necessarily at the same level as Scripture, but I do not think Jesus would have considered it a “Jewish fable”.
Actually, from what I can tell, I would say Jesus may have been referencing this story in Luke 15.
So as He often did, Jesus took something that was familiar to the Jewish audience and expanded or clarified it.
How many times did Jesus quote from the Talmud? The apostles?
I believe the quote in the op would have fallen into this category:
Amazing. Simply amazing that you can make this leap. Speechless.
I see no reason that Jerry (or any Christian) should refrain from reading and/or applying observations/lessons from the Talmud (particularly the pre-Christian observations on the Hebrew Scriptures, our Old Testament). The early church had no problem with application of such lessons (with evidence that both Jesus and Paul borrowed from sources that were incorporated into the Talmud).
Much of the suspicion of and outright revulsion toward the Talmud came about during the antisemitic “cleansings” of the church in the 4th and 5th Centuries.
PB (#47), can you please explain the relevance of your comment to the OP? I’m apparently a little slow.
Well, the Talmud didn’t really exist in an organized, written form until around 200 A.D., so it may not be correct to say Jesus “quoted” the Talmud. He certainly interacted with the rabbinical commentary around at the time, though. So, if this story was part of the collective Jewish oral history, it’s not a big leap to think that Jesus knew of it.
This verse is referring to the same type of Judaizers Paul refers to in Galatians. It was referring to Jewish Christians who were trying to enforce circumcision as the way for Gentile Christians to become members of the covenant family. It is not a sweeping away of the entire Jewish law.
Correct. But he’s not speaking about Jewish Law – he’s speaking about myths or fables.
I understand the Talmud to be more or less an oral history. But where it diverts from the scriptures (or adds illegitimate commentary as in the case of Angels wanting to rejoice in the case of the Egyptians), we ought not to pay much heed to it.
In this particular case, did the Talmud reference shed more light on the nature of God that we otherwise might have missed? No.
To be a little bit more precise, Phil, before someone does a wiki-search on the Talmud:
1) Part of the Talmud is the “Oral Torah”, which the pious Jews believed was authoritative, and the Sadducees and secular Jews did not. Jesus never violated Oral Torah (or Written Torah), and his answers to a number of questions were affirmations of Oral Torah (including his answer about the resurrection of the dead).
2) Other parts of the Talmud contain observations and debates from pious ones (called “Rabbis”, but not identical to post-AD70 “Rabbis”, so most scholars refer to them as “Sages”) starting a couple of hundred years before Jesus up through the 6th or 7th centuries. Most Jews did not consider these “authoritative”, but rather ‘illustrative’ or ‘instructional’, but also for use in rabbinic debate.
3) The “Talmud”, itself (which is a misnomer, since there are two – the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the fourth century and the Babylonian Talmud in the early sixth century – each pulling from different libraries) was later compiled to consolidate the existing Jewish libraries and to prevent their contents from being lost.
Jesus quoted from a number of sources that were incorporated into the Talmud, as did Paul. If you want a semi-exhaustive list of the ones Jesus used, I would suggest Brad Young’s Meet the Rabbis.
Actually, yes it did, because it gives a concrete picture to an abstract truth, that God does not rejoice in the deaths of the wicked.
I would say that it is probably more useful than many sermon illustrations (with no pedigree) I’ve heard.
I don’t really think that there’s anything in this particular story that would contradict Scripture, or to be more to the point, that would contradict anything Jesus said. Actually, I noted before, Jesus would seem to agree with the basic point of this story, and in fact He takes it further. He says that the angels rejoice over the repentance of a sinner, in contrast to the death of that sinner or that sinner receiving what he deserves.
Certainly Scripture does acknowledge the existence of angels. What exactly do you find dangerous about this particular story.
FYI, Paul, “Jewish Myths” and “genealogies” mentioned by Paul are most likely the mystical numerologies developed by a number of diaspora Jewish sources post-exile (some of which are in the non-Mishanaic Babylonian Talmud and adapted in modern Kabbalah). Much like portions of modern Kabbalah, there were a number of odd practices (primarily involving numerology) that some of these Jews followed. This is likely one of the reasons that the Babylonian Talmud was not consolidated with the Jerusalem Talmud.
What I am saying is that OT scripture is quite clear that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked – even when he is responsible for it. No high-fives, no re-runs. It is justice, plain and simple, but without the human element of elation. Of course, this becomes even more obvious with the first coming of Christ.
I believe in angels of course. But the reference in the op is obviously not factual whereas what occurs in Exodus 15 is.
Did God condemn the “Song of Moses” in Exodus 15? Did he rebuke the children of Israel for breaking into song? And yet, the commentary says “he grew angry” with the angels? Come on.
#58: Chris L, I appreciate the insight here.
But looking at Titus (and then considering that Paul doesn’t pull from the Talmud), here’s what it says (in the Amplified):
You don’t build your faith on the musings of men. Again, it might have a lovely story to it, but it is not based in reality.
Yes, thanks for the clarification. I was just being a little lazy before. I did realize there were two different ones, and what you said regarding the use of the word “authoritative” is very helpful.
This is ridiculous, really. The “musings of men” have probably built up many people’s faith. What is a commentary on the Bible but the “musings of men”?
It seems to me that you’re getting up on the actual historical accuracy of this particular commentary, and the truth of the matter is, that I do sort of doubt that it’s historically accurate, but in essence, that’s not the point. The point is whether or not what it says about the character of God is true. To me, it rings true, so I would, for instance, have no problem using this in a sermon or a Bible Study to get a point across.
Zan (#38 – part 3):
Paul’s plethora of pronouns is perplexing, but his preponderance of prepositions is positively painful.
Not so. A commentary on the Bible uses the Bible as its foundation. But the commentary author does not have the leverage to pull things out of thin air like the Talmud reference in the op.
No kidding. That’s an understatement.
It is a fable. If you think it does a better job of relating the character of God than, say, the Book of Jonah or Ezekiel 33, then go ahead.
The fact of the matter is that this little story somewhat contradicts the Biblical account.
The angels get rebuked.
The Israelites – led by Moses, a friend of God – get off the hook so to speak.
Wouldn’t it have been a good object lesson to rebuke the Israelites?
Was God angry when He himself gave Samson the strength to kill more Philistines in his death than he did his whole life?
Was God frustrated with Elijah when he hacked hundreds of false prophets to death?
What about Samuel cutting Agag to pieces?
Yet he gets angry at angels…
Again – it’s a lovely story and it does have a message, but it lacks authority and any factual basis. When it comes to the character of God, I think the Bible and Christ Himself are a better depiction than the Talmud (especially where contradictions arise).
Brendt…
very good! And I HAVE actually had to go and almost diagram his writings in order to follow the P’s….especially in Romans!
what a disappointing thread…
such personal potshots…from almost all of you…
sheesh.
sorry Jerry…this could have been a lovely discussion. this quote reminds me of some of the stories from the Desert Fathers and Mothers and their notions of compassion, respect, etc…
i’ll be adding this story to my repertoire.
thanks.
Blessed Epiphany to you all today.
I hope Jesus manifests himself to you in a powerful way this season.
thank you, nathan – and to you.
I think the reason Jerry’s beautiful story gets so mangled in the comments is because God’s reckless, illogical love of creation (ALL of it) is far too scandalous to conceive.
oh, Chad…the Love of Allah is so real in you.
Nathan, 5 times a day I keep an empty prayer mat beside me which you are welcome to any time.
Assalaamu alaykum
i do not understand the necessity of setting up what i see is a false dichotomy. so far I have seen no one advocate that the talmud is equal (let alone superior) to the scriptures. and no one is saying that it really happened historically – as per the scriptures. so the whole comparing of exodis to the talmud is moot.
it’s a simple illustration and warning.
and it is on line with the proverbial saying quoted by Brendt (cf. #43)
now, if the op had been about the authority of the talmudic commentaries, then all this quibbling might me relevant.
but it was not.
so it is not.
the story is a good reminder that god is both just and the father.
in his justice he will judge.
but in his fatherliness this may bring him sorrow…
be that as it may, it behooves us not to rejoice in the judgment brought upon others – there but by the grace of god go i.
Psalm 7:11
To me, the more interesting question would have to be what Albom’s teacher’s point was in relating this illustration and also what Albom’s point was in relating this illustration. Since I wasn’t in Albom’s class and haven’t read his book, I am left to wonder.
It seems that there is some merit in the illustration as it stands by itself. It could, however, be taken and held against truths in Scripture. Specifically, I could envision a scenario where this illustration would be spun into a defense of universalist doctrine.
Jerry, can you give some further context for this illustration in the book? Is there a greater point that Albom is striving for?
#73: Neil I agree with this comment. Where I’m having a hard-time (perhaps nitpicking to some) is in the fact that we might as well take a story from Greek mythology, African folklore, a Hindu fable or a Norse god myth and find some relevance to character of God.
I am not accusing Jerry of doing this. I am just a little bewildered that this is offered as an alternate or contemporary view as to what happened.
For example, while on earth Moses and the others were shouting, dancing and singing (and were never chastened or rebuked for this by the way), in heaven God was mourning and rebuking the angels who got a little giddy and gave each other a few high-fives.
So, while I understand the balance being conveyed in the story, I think it’s off-base to use such liberty to make a point. Call me crazy, I guess.
But this is getting at the point of the entire story, and it even more in line with the teaching of the New Testament. The Jews probably assumed that God was rejoicing with them because of their deliverance. While in some sense, I would suspect He was, on the other hand, I do not believe He delights in delivering justice.
In other words, the Jews were assuming God was on their side, and as a people, it’s something they took for granted. As I noted before, this is the same argument that Paul makes in Romans.
I’m not calling you crazy, I just think that you’re applying a level of scrutiny to this little story that is beyond what it warrants. I guess it would be one thing if it completely contradicted the Scriptural, but as I read it, there’s nothing contradictory in it.
Not being sarcastic here, but there are tons of gospel accounts that didn’t make the cut. There’s one in which Jesus makes his little friends disappear, puts bread in his mother’s cupboard and so forth.
To make the angels look like a fickle bunch of schoolgirls, giggling like fools, is out of place to me. Again. That’s just me.
Yes, He most likely was, but not because “we got those suckers!”
But all the way through the OT, God shows His love and longsuffering to pagans, culminating in the sending of Christ.
My issue is more with the license taken to make a point. Again, feel free. Honestly speaking, who am I to argue with 1000s of years of Jewish tradition?
Eric, from the book:
“Someone else answers. But I know what I think. I think it is the first time I heard that God might love the ‘enemy’ as well as us. Years later, I will forget the class, forget the teacher’s name, forget the girl across the room. But I will remember that story.” (76)
In our hurry and rush to be right, saved, and God’s friends, we often forget the God who created us in his image. And then there’s this beautiful passage from the Prophet Amos, 9:
7 “Are not you Israelites
the same to me as the Cushites ?”
declares the LORD .
“Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt,
the Philistines from Caphtor [d]
and the Arameans from Kir?
8 “Surely the eyes of the Sovereign LORD
are on the sinful kingdom.
I will destroy it
from the face of the earth—
yet I will not totally destroy
the house of Jacob,”
declares the LORD.”
Yeah, so much for ‘being special.’
Jerry,
Thanks for the contextual quote. I do find very valuable the appreciation and consideration of the fact that there is nothing deserving about me. I am in fact a sinner in need of salvation by God’s grace. The fact that God chose me is humbling. Yet it is easy for me to be haughty in my heart, if not my words and actions.
this was my thinking in pointing out the proximity of this story to the yom kippur war.
two thoughts; the first is the difference between norse, hindu, basically pagan myths and stories based in jewish tradition.
the second would be the different between “finding” and “fortifying” our concept of god. the talmudic story is only valid as ling as it does not contradict scripture… which (contra pastorboy) i do not see that it does.
in other words, the story fortifies not creates our imagine of god… the lost are as much his children as we, they carry as much imago dei as pastorboy.
as would most americans today.
Paul, the extended teaching in the Talmud on this particular item (which is not an authoritative portion of the Oral Torah, but part of Exodus Rabbah, a commentary on Exodus and a form of midrash – a story or parable) compares the two groups (angels & the children of Israel). It says that the children of Israel were rejoicing on behalf of their deliverance by God – which was a good thing, because its aim was to give credit and gratitude to God for his grace. It then goes on to say that God told the angels (who should have had a more holistic, detached view, and typically understood God’s actions, but not always his intentions) not to rejoice, because of the tragedy that befell his other children (the Egyptians).
Later rabbinic teachers, like Choni the Circle-Drawer, his grandson Hillel, and his grandson Gamaliel (the teacher of Paul), and Jesus as well, altered the method of midrash (parable-telling) to use non-specific characters in their parables, so as not to confuse God-fearers (non-Jews) and the less learned. They used kings and masters in the place of God, and other characters to replace the use of God’s servants and the listener.
A) I didn’t take that from the OP, at all; and
B) That’s not what the story tells
As for angels, the Bible says very little on the subject of angelology, but the writers often assume that the reader understands them better than direct Biblical passages support. Intertestemental Jewish literature [some of which is in the Apocrypha (Jubilees, I Enoch) and in Talmudic sources] says much more on the subject. Peter’s comments on Jesus witnessing to the spirits in Tartarus pulls directly from these Talmudic references, and the references to Gabriel and Michael also pull from these sources. In general, angels are God’s servants who follow his commands, and serve in the roles they are given, but do not always understand God’s intent in the actions He takes. This is why they are not at all equal to God, the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) or the Word (Jesus), but are still a little ‘higher’ than man.
there’s a kid who got beat-up regularly…
Chris L – thanks again for the background here. Much appreciated.
Here’s my point: to those of you who believe in hell as a place of torment, burning and the like, do you perceive any damage from false accounts like the book “23 Minutes in Hell”? Or conversely, “90 Minutes in Heaven”?
Assuming most don’t put too much weight on these accounts (I really hope I haven’t opened a can of worms here), do you see them as A-OK since it doesn’t “contradict” a point of view you hold to be true?
If a Christian today came up with an account of the “Lost Years” of Jesus that didn’t necessarily detract from the gospel, would you see that as valid? After all, it’s a Christian (as in, the Talmud was Jewish).
Can you direct me (just a link) to these sources?
Actually, Choni (or Honi) was famous for his Moses-like chutzpah in his discussions with God. One of these instances occurred during a severe drought where Choni drew a circle in the dust and told God he would not leave it until God brought rain to the people. When it started drizzling, he asked God for a downpour. So, God brought a downpour, which Choni had to ask God to calm when the Temple priests came to him to complain of the flooding in the city.
This is precisely what I’m driving at. Pure folklore with zero basis in reality.
From the link Chris L provides:
Plain rubbish. Now I can see why Kabbalah, Oprah and New Age gurus have such a following today.
Putting any weight whatsoever on the words of the Talmud is foolhardy in my opinion.
“midrash” – two words: ouch!
Paul, Enoch 20 has the names of a number of angels and their roles, including Uriel who is over the world and Tartarus (the place named in 2 Peter 2:4 – the only place it is used in the Bible). The Talmud and other Apocryphal books identify Tartarus as the place where the Nephilim were sent after their death. There is also reference to this teaching in Jude 6.
You realize, Paul, that the same argument you’re making is not that far removed from the argument that people like Richard Dawkins would make about the Bible itself. Floating axe heads, talking donkeys, etc., – they could all just as easily sound like “folklore with no basis in reality”.
I’m not saying that we accept everything that comes down the pike as true, but I don’t think it really benefits Christians all that much to be so tied to a rationalistic worldview. There’s clearly a lot in the universe that defies explanation.
PB. I, too find, comment #4 to be incredulous and unnerving (in a bad way). I think you’ve missed it there.
I took a detour in Reformed theology also, but got out because in the end their concept of God is not what I see in the Scriptures.
God’s trophy’s are the redeemed souls of the Saints, not chariot wheels and bones of the damned.
1) I would take them with a huge grain of salt (as I would any contemporary accounts of ethereal prophecy)
2) I wouldn’t even put them in the same league with the early Jewish literature on angelology, which – even if it is not canonical – was referenced without criticism in canonical works.
3) I wouldn’t put them in the same league with the early midrashim in Talmudic literature, either, since the purpose of midrash (parable) is to use a concrete story to illustrate an abstract truth (not to create a new ‘true’ story for the purpose of conversion/proselytization).
Anne Rice wrote Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, which does just that. I do not see it as “valid” (in terms of literal truth), but I think she does raise some interesting questions about what we don’t know. She doesn’t treat it as midrash, though, but simply as prose, so I’m not sure “validity” was something that the author was even searching for.
I guess it was only a matter of time before insanity entered the debate.
I asked about Talmudic references, not apocryphal.
Again, thoughts on “23 Minutes in Hell”?
John, there is a huge difference between God taking joy in punishing the damned (He does not) and their punishment bringing Him glory (it does) Both the redeemed and the unredeemed bring glory to God. The redeemed bring glory for what God has wrought in their lives, it elevates His grace and His mercy and His love! and the unredeemed bring Him glory because they demonstrate his truth, his wrath, and His righteous judgment.
Paul,
I think your arguments here to be very sound and logical.
Sorry – just saw 93…
Guys, I’m bewildered that Christians would put any weight on extra-biblical, fable-like stories.
For goodness sake, we have a difficult enough time with the Bible without further introducing mythology (that’s what it is) and Druid-like characters (our friend Honi).
But hey, if you think it draws you closer to a revelation of who God really is… who am I?
Don’t say that too loud… Phil-the-Inquisitor is working diligently to paint me the unbeliever and I’m sure Chad is lurking in the wings somewhere, backing up his truck with a customary load of garbage.
Nice way to interact with what I actually said…
Fair enough. However, you original comment was jarring and didn’t take one naturally down the path you just described.
What I’m getting here is that truth is no longer all that important. As long as we can use of finite minds to conjure up images of God that seem to suit our fancy, then it’s all good.
Biblical authority? It’s outdated and so unfashionable.
Elijah and Choni the Circle Drawer were distant cousins, except Choni seemed to have a stronger connection with God since it didn’t take all that long for the rain to come in his case. Fascinating.
I’m just wondering exactly why you think there’s much of a difference between these. Enoch, Jubilees, etc. all have corresponding Talmudic commentary. Among the many things I’m not well-versed in is the indexing and organization of the Talmud (which is massively huge), so I can only point to works, not “verses”. Enoch and Jubilees both appear to have been partially derived from earlier Talmudic works, including Deuteronomy Rabbah and Genesis Rabbah, and have additional commentary in the Talmud after they were authored.
it’s an illustration, a story, what’s the big deal?
instead of the irrelevant tangent of the source, let us discuss the nature of the story’s point.
100: Phil, you are basically using Chad’s line of reasoning: “Who are you to determine what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is false?”
I could care less for Dawkins and what he thinks. We’re discussing the validity of Talmud fable and myth as it relates to true revelation of God.
I discard it wholly, believing the Bible to give me more than I can handle.
I’m not saying you’re an unbeliever at all.
All I’m saying is that basing an argument on the supposed mythological nature of a story doesn’t seem like the best place to start as a Christian. There are plenty of things in the Bible that require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief for a modern audience.
To a person not that familiar with the Bible, I don’t think a story like the one about the circle drawing dude would sound much more fanciful than the account of fire coming from heaven when Elijah encountered the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel.
seriously? NO ONE has put ANYTHING up AGAINST the BIBLE…
you are fabricating a whole argument that no one is making…
this is the similar tactic john employed in the opening comments of Thought for the Day #44 when he accused brett of denying the bible should be used for christian norms.
That’s not what I’m doing at all, actually. I believe there are things that are true, and there are things that are false. I believe Scripture is true because I trust Christ, and Scripture testifies of Christ. Also, Jesus, believed Scripture, so I place my belief in His belief.
As far as the Talmud, specifically the Oral Torah, I’d say that there are probably multiple times in the Gospels where Jesus interacts with things contained in it. That’s why I think there may be things that are worthwhile in it. If Christ thought it worth His time to interact with, than I don’t think I should just write it off completely.
I don’t see anybody making this argument (though it seems that you’re pitting a strict definition of sola scriptura vs. prima scriptura). In the broadest sense, every time a pastor uses an illustration – or any words apart from direct exposition of Scripture, for that matter – we are using “finite minds to conjure up images of God that seem to suit our fancy”.
Nobody’s claiming that the Bible is lacking in authority.
I’m not sure why it’s so offensive that God would have religious leaders among His people prior to Jesus’ coming who were able to pray to God for miracles, and that He would grant those prayers. There are a number of stories of rabbinim prior to Jesus who are reported as having done miracles (see here for a previous article I wrote on the subject, and how it actually helped differentiate Jesus from the other rabbinim).
#106; the difference between Honi and Elijah is the difference between Pharoah’s priests and Moses.
It takes God to reveal what is true from what is false.
For Christians the Talmud is completely unnecessary and reveals nothing about God that the OT and Christ do not – anything true that is.
Call me narrow-minded.
Excuse while I go and read the Book of Moroni and trace my roots back to the lost tribe of Nephi.
As false conceptions of God abound today, so did they in yesteryear.
The entirety of the OT is filled with accounts of the Jews mixing their religion with paganism.
I trust God that what we have through the scriptures and the living Word are sufficient.
paul, you continued insistence on addressing arguments no is making is becoming increasingly irritating.
please stick to arguing against what people have actually said!
How so? What is it that makes Honi somehow a “faker”? Why would God not perform miracles outside of strict Christian canon? Where has He limited Himself in this regard?
Again, how do you know this was false? The people Jesus taught certainly believed the stories about the rabbinim were true – many of them would have known Hillel (who died just prior to Jesus’ birth) personally, and their parents would have known Choni (or at least second-hand of him). So, whether he actually successfully petitioned God for rain or not, the people believed he did (and did not believe him to be the Messiah, or God or anything more than a pious teacher).
Spoken like the true antisemitic Christian voices of the past 1700 years…
I’m not sure how Mormonism has anything even tangentially related to the religion that Jesus and Paul believed in and practiced…
Then I trust that you will denounce every preacher you hear who says anything apart from strict exposition of Scripture as “mixing his religion with paganism”.
Which is not what we’re talking about. Jesus, as a first century Jew, did not limit his commentary and teaching only to the Written Torah, but to the Oral Torah and additional Jewish writings – which were all part of the Jewish faith. He never broke the Oral or the Written Torah, and he affirmed a number of teachings from the Oral Torah. I wouldn’t characterize Jesus as “mixing his religion with paganism”, but he used the same sources we’re currently discussing.
Jerry – Somehow I wonder if Oswald Chambers would have told that story in “My Utmost for His Highest”, would we be having the same discussion as we are with the quotation being from a pre-Christian Jew?
There is certainly an irony in railing against the trustworthiness of Jewish writing when in many cases the same people that were passing down what we call the Bible were passing down these other writings and stories as well.
As far as canonicity, I’d say that when the canon was agreed upon, the standard was not necessarily the truthfulness of the writings, but rather their testimony to Christ and whether or not they should be considered authoritative. So to outright reject these other writings completely takes a certain amount of chutzpah.
No one is saying they’re authoritative for Christians. All I’m saying is that they probably do contain some truth.
Guys, here’s my stance (though I know it will be attacked as missing the context, so on and so forth):
Pretty straightforward. Also, notice Titus. It’s a common warning by the looks of it (made to teachers/pastors).
Chris, a little advice for next time: don’t introduce utterly ridiculous accounts as factual. It’s a wonder this scripture doesn’t read:
Such as? Please reference the Talmud.
Small wonder… I’ve been linked to Dawkins and now Hitler in the same thread. Shouldn’t there be some sort of rule that Hitler must be incorporated in a thread before it closes?
Paul, just wondering – did you read the link I posted earlier?
Already explained – as the indication of “genealogies” specifically points to a popular practice of diaspora Jewish mystical sects which were focused on numerology and the numbers that specific genealogies from Abraham would produce. This sect completely relied on mystical visions and gnostic teachings (and was likely the way that gnosticism was influencing the early Christians, leading to Paul’s warnings about it). Paul is definitely not denouncing the Oral Torah or the Talmud, as he quotes from it/applies Talmudic principles, as well as does Jesus. What Jerry cited was a midrash and not a myth in the Jewish lectionary.
You are conflating one thing (mythologies) with something completely different (historical Jewish teaching). (For more, see Paul the Jewish Theologian).
Paul, a little advice for next time: don’t be a pompous ass.
Questions:
1) Why is it not possible or even probable that God would work miracles through the pious teachers in Israel, prior to Jesus?
2) The people of Jesus’ believed the stories about Choni, since he died only 63 years before Jesus was born. Whether his prayers actually brought rain or not, the people believed this. How is something like this that was “common knowledge” in Jesus’ day “ridiculous”?
3) The story about Choni sleeping 70 years came about a number of centuries after his death in the Babylonian Talmud. The commonly known story in first century Israel is the same one relayed by Josephus (i.e. Around 63 BCE, Choni was captured by the followers of Hyrcanus besieging Jerusalem and was asked to pray for the demise of their opponents. Choni, however, prayed: “Lord of the universe, as the besieged and the besiegers both belong to Your people, I beseech You not to answer the evil prayers of either.” After this, the followers of Hyrcanus stoned him to death.)
Not at all – even with contemporary examples (typically used in rabbinic discussion), you primarily cite written Torah in public teaching. To cite someone that people may have personally known or be directly related to would be presumptuous.
a few examples:
1) Parts of the Sermon on the Mount, and most of the Lord’s Prayer come from the Shemoneh Esreh (”The Eighteen”), which are enumerated and discussed in multiple parts of the Talmud.
2) When Jesus heals the paralytic, the words he says are a quotation from Sukkah, which is attributed to Choni.
3) In the article on Just War, we discussed Pikuach Nefesh (part of the Oral Torah) at length, along with Jesus’ support for and application of it in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, picking grain on the Sabbath, and healing on the Sabbath.
4) In Jesus’ lessons with children, he appears to reference (and the words describing his actions mirror) Chanan Hanechba’s words/actions in the Talmud
5) Almost all of Jesus’ parables, with a couple of exceptions, have similarities (and some identical sections) to earlier parables from earlier sages/rabbis.
You might want to check out Brad Young’s The Parables (Preview available here) and Meet the Rabbis (preview)
No linkage to Hitler.
The antisemitic linkages I am referring to are more in the tradition of Luther and the early church fathers, some of whom denied that Jesus was even Jewish. The antisemitic bent within church literature from the 300’s on came at a time that the church, as a whole, had begun to persecute Jews as killers of Christ and deniers of faith. This particular bent continues today in much of the church where early Jewish writings (including the Apocrypha) are treated with vehement disdain compared to other writings. You and PB are a case in point on this one (seeing PB’s comment on the “apostasy” involved with the Catholics including the Apocrypha in their canon).
“Choni”…i remember reading about him at div school.
i always thought of “underwear” when i read that since i had a friend who called his boxers “chonies”….
Sorry Chris, but when someone presents utterly ridiculous evidence, and then gets into a fit when its not accepted, what can one do? Don’t mean to be pompous as there’s nothing to be pompous about.
I didn’t know you subscribed to fables and myths, that’s all.
I’m surprised no one called on the expertise of Peter Rollins here!
Consider: if today false teachers and prophets abound, and there were warnings of such in OT times, then not every account is factual just because the source was Jewish?
Read the link you linked to. The man died or whatever, then woke up after 70 years. But he grew frustrated that no one believed it was actually “the” Honi, those unbelievers. So he asked God to whisk him away in frustration, and God took him up to heaven. False.
Sorry, not buyin’.
What evidence do you have for this statement?
BTW, do you mean the same people John says: “He came to his own and his own rejected him”? (Generally this was the case, though a small portion actually believed). The mass of Jewish religion was spiritually dead at the time of Christ.
He came as a “root out of dry ground” from God’s perspective. Sadly, from man’s perspective, just like today, the field was as green as ever.
If you say so Chris. Judging by how you finish your statement, you make completely false connections. I have the utmost respect for Jewish people and regard them as the people of God.
#115–I seriously doubt it. Although, I will say, this is one of the more mature conversations we have had here recently. And I, for one, really appreciate all the background information that you and others are giving on this subject.
I think people are putting too much stock in where the story comes from (Talmud) instead of what the story is saying (God loves his children–all). That’s really all I was saying and that I agree with Albom that it does give us quite a picture of God–the same on Amos spoke of in the quote I posted above.
Look guys, I’m trying to understand this God I have followed since I was baptized as a Methodist and immersed as a repentant sinner later. I have had to rethink everything I have ever believed and stories like this, regardless of where they come from, are giving me clues and, as it were, pointing me back to Scripture.
Haven’t you ever wondered, for a minute, what God does? I have never liked the portrait I was given of God’s aseity (sp). I like that God is flexible and cares but that’s because I want to know how I am to act and respond to people. Stories like this will help me be a better pastor should the Lord call me back to that someday.
I won’t apologize to you if you are offended by the source. But this goes to what I asked the other day in thought #44 and whether it is fortunate or not. We are blessed, IMHO, to know God as deeply as we can. And if the story helps, so be it.
I do appreciate all the conversation.
Utterly ridiculous evidence?
You mean like stories written by Jewish sources 2000 years ago recording the words of a famous rabbi who performed miracles? [Think about the irony in your statement.]
Unlike Scripture (which I believe 100%), I believe that it is possible that the recorded history of rabbis previous to Jesus are correct, and do not immediately dismiss them as “ridiculous” based on my own predispositions not based in Scripture. And even if they are not true, I am relatively certain that the people Jesus taught believed they were true (including his disciples). Part of your problem is that you’ve based your view of Jesus’ Judaism on your treatment of Christianity, which is (and can only be) contained within Scripture. The problem with this view is that it does not match that of first century Judaism, the early church, or its purpose in authorizing canon. (Noting that “canon” is different between Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions).
I don’t. And Paul was not referring to Oral Torah or the pre-Talmudic Rabbah texts when he referred to “myths” and “genealogies”.
There’s some logic for you, Lou. There are numerous sources about Choni (and Hillel, and Gamaliel, etc.), who we know lived in the first century BC, was a Rabbi, and whom people – living in Jesus’ day – had personal knowledge of. Not exactly why this fact seems to be a burr under your saddle, Hoss.
This one? I wrote it, and apparently you didn’t read it.
You dodged this question. The answer is: there is no indication whatsoever in Scripture that this was impossible, and (if you read my link above) the evidence of Jesus’ miracles suggests that it is rather likely that other Rabbis performed miracles (or at the very least the people believed they did).
So – why would God not answer the prayers of the religious leaders in Israel during the intertestemental period? What Scriptural evidence is there that 400 years went by and God did absolutely nothing with His Chosen People?
That’s a pretty interesting assumption. A bad one, but an interesting one, nonetheless.
In actuality, the Galilee region was incredibly spiritually active and alive, even if the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was mostly secularized. According to Josephus and other first century sources, hundreds of thousands of Christians in Palestine left Jerusalem before the Roman army arrived in 69 AD. The Judeans (who were primarily Herodians and Sadducees) rejected Jesus – and didn’t believe in a coming messiah. The Galilean Jews, though, were highly religious and their time was “just right” (according to Paul) for Jesus to come. If the people had been “Spiritually dead”, Jesus wouldn’t have had the following, or the impact, that he did.
It is this particular view of the Israel of Jesus (spiritually dead, completely wrong in their religion, etc.) that was bred of the early antisemitism of the church, in doing everything they could to demonize the Jews. Within the Pharisee party, the same criticisms of the Six “bad types” of Pharisees were made as Jesus’ criticisms. (See here). The primary mistake of the Jewish people was in expecting that the Messiah would be a military one, not in that they had their entire religion “all wrong”.
Blah, blah, blah. You’re displaying a pretty good imagination about a time period you’ve obviously never studies.
From the assumptions you’ve made based on an absence of study, I wonder…
paul c,
it is still beyond me how you can take someone quoting the talmud and turn it into denying the scriptures… then get all indignent when we disagree with you.
the main problem is you are continuing a line of reasoning against an argument no one is advocating.
A couple more thoughts:
1) You’ve presented no evidence to the contrary, apart from an assertion that the concept of a Jewish rabbi performing miracles 2100 years ago is “utterly ridiculous”. That’s it. Your assertion of “utterly ridiculous”. And that’s your evidence to contradict numerous written records from the period and documented Jewish teaching from the religion practiced by Jesus less than a century later.
2) Maybe a better tactic on your part would be to say “That’s something I’ve not heard before. Before I assume that it is ‘utterly ridiculous’, perhaps I should do a bit of in-depth study before potentially bandying about false accusations.”
3) I can point you to a number of Christian sources on early Judaism which support Jesus as a first century Jew in a religious Jewish culture, and can give you a decent background into practice and belief in the first century. Here’s a good website, or this one, or this one. I would also recommend books by Brad Young, Marvin Wilson, Robert Moseley or some of the videos by Ray VanderLaan.
A couple of things that I’ve probably been poor in communicating:
1) None of the pre-Christian rabbinic figures we’ve been discussing have claimed that they performed the miracles associated with them. All of them were considered obedient, gracious, pious men who the people came to in times of distress (particularly in regards to healing ills or providing rain), who petitioned God on behalf of these people, and whom God answered.
2) I do not consider these accounts authoritative, particularly in the way that Scripture is authoritative, but I do not discount them out of hand as “utterly ridiculous”. There is significant evidence that these men existed, and who am I to say that God did not work through them, particularly in light of the fact that the Judean priests (who managed the Temple) were corrupt during this time period.
3) An ethnic disagreement we often overlook in looking at the first century only through the English translations of the Bible is this: The Jews of northern Israel – primarily in the Galilee and Jezreel regions – were intensely religious and considered pious, and were at constant odds with the Judeans in Jerusalem. What is often (but not always) translated as “Jews” in the English Bible is actually “Judeans” (see David Stern’s Jewish New Testament for a translation that preserves this difference along with some other Biblical indications of this internal disagreement in Israel). The Judeans were corrupt and secularized (John the Baptist was in Judea when he delivered his scathing remarks prior to Jesus’ ministry), but not the Jewish people as a whole.
4) Dismissing (what later became) Talmudic references out of hand as “myths” and “fables” is not something that Jesus or his apostles did. Christian scholars who study Talmudic references (the ones I’m most familiar with, at least) are very careful separating pre-Christian sources from post-Christian sources within the Talmud, primarily for reconstructing Jewish thought at the time of Christ.
Although Jesus lived among the Jews and probably spoke in a limited Hebraic context, and although some Jewish customs and contexts can help us understand certain points of truth, Jesus as the Incarnate God operated outside all “boxes” and His truth is transcultural, transgenerational, and trans-everything.
We must be extremely careful and even suspicious to give any weight to outside “sources”. And the Talmud is completely irrelevant as it pertains to interpreting Scripture, and there is a danger that those versed in such things can come to believe they have a “Rosetta Stone-esque” insight into truth.
The committed Brazilian believer who knows nothing of the Talmud or early Jewish and/or Christian thought processes has every bit as much Holy Spirit illumination into Scripture as does a converted Jewish rabbi (orthodox) who was versed in the Talmud and Jewish thought.
Knowldge of such Jewish things can provide some edification or food for thought, but they can be a major liability when given some level of interpretive authority. There is only one scource that has the divine authority to interpret Scripture – Scripture itself through the guidance of God’s Spirit.
#126. Hear, hear!
126–at what point did I say I was using the Talmud to interpret Scripture? I did say, however, that stories like this continue leading me, or point me, back to Scripture. Who said the Brazilian believer needed these things to understand scripture? Not I. But I read the story, posted it here, and have been edified by it. I’ll bet the Brazilian believer can tell stories about things too.
John shouts a hardy ‘hear, hear’ and it is much ado about nothing because your comments, while true in and of themselves (and from your point of view), are beside the point of the story. Suspicious? Really? Is that what Paul was when he quoted pagan poetry? Or when John quoted the OT at length in the Revelation?
And, Rick, (even though I hope you won’t get mad at me and stop talking to me because I point this out), did you not just post an essay here that included ‘outside’ ’sources’? With all due respect I think you are making way, way, way too much of this.
I simply do not understand the antagonism and angst being displayed over a once sentence story that teaches us that, yes!, We ought to love our enemies and not rejoice at their demise.
Is this not what Jesus himself taught? So what if this story mentions angels and God in a context we are unfamiliar with? I find this story to be refreshingly anti-just war.
Seriously, I think some of us are way too worked up about the source of this story (and its apocryphal nature) and not nearly worked up enough about what the story teaches.
**No words in this comment are meant to be taken as ‘combative’, ‘hostile,’ or as having any element of ‘oh I have had a bad year and need to work out my aggression against the unsuspecting.’
Your idea sounds nice on the surface, but in practice, I don’t see how it can play out. Everyone who interprets Scripture gives weight to “outside sources” whether they know or it not. We’re all trusting translators knowledge of certain idioms and customs to some extent.
As far these Jewish sources, I’d say it makes perfect sense for Christians to view them as things that give us some insight into the lives of Jewish people that lived around the time that Jesus lived. Seeing how they looked at the world can be helpful in shedding light on some the things that Christ and even the Apostle Paul talked about.
I appreciate you underlining the impact this particular story had for you and that it did indeed remind you of God’s love toward His creation. I appreciate your sincerity here and would like to take note of your kind approach.
My point from the beginning – and this is just my opinion – is that God demonstrates His unfailing love in so many ways, as revealed ultimately in Christ. I know you know this, and the story just kind of allowed you to see the Lord from a different perspective.
Where my carefulness comes in is in the fact that though in this case, the story is relatively harmless (though completely baseless), there is a danger in using the Talmud for a deeper understanding of God.
We could have evaluated how God sends “His rain on the just and the unjust” or the wonderful story (chock-full of lessons) of Jonah. We could have looked at Ezekiel 33 or some of the prophecy in Isaiah. These all give accurate accounts of the mind of God toward His wayward creation.
Not telling you what to post about, BTW, just saying that the Bible gives us some wonderful depictions of our God. Yet, at the end we see through a glass darkly.
Chris L – forgive my mockery of your example of Honi the Circle-Drawer. I simply put zero amount of stock in such accounts. There were tons of false prophets and several false messiahs that were trotted out by the Adversary, and were able to gather a following in and around the time of Christ.
Religion was abounding. Yet, I do maintain that Christ came as a “root out of a dry ground.” Not sure why you would argue with this – I’m not the one that came up with it.
This is EXACTLY my point. “Activity” and vibrancy are not necessarily indications that God is at work. Read Isaiah 1. Read Isaiah 58. I could care less what has been reported historically. The people in Isaiah’s day would swear they were doing everything right – afterall, the activity levels were at an all-time high.
This is not logical. When He came, the people were in one state. Christ came, awakened people to the truth. It is this awakening, followed on by the apostles’ work, that led to the embracing of the gospel by some, the rejection of it by most.
Chris L – really? How do you arrive at this conclusion? I put more weight on your word “relatively” than “certain”.
The reason I edited this scripture:
is because, to me, it shows the absurdity of your argument.
Read the link again: Honi went to sleep for 70 years, then woke up. People didn’t believe it was him, so he got upset. In his frustration he asked God to take him. God jumped to and whisked him off to heaven.
126: Rick I agree. Excellent points and very concise.
Amen. Good info, makes for nice discussion, but not necessary for an understanding of the gospel.
Jerry – My comment was not directed at you. We can use outside sources and poems etc. to illuminate a point we are making. My comment was an advisery against outside sources being used as clarifying prisms for interpreting Scripture.
Those sources which I was most prominently addressing were the Jewish writings, customes, and thoughts that were written and expressed without the illumination of God’s Spirit. Only the Old Testament is God breathed and they now have a supportive role for the New Testament.
Heck, I was even edified and drawn closer to God’s love through the Harry Potter novels.
This sounds like a mere breath away from joining in Christmas Eve book-burning bashes. Let’s torch everything that is not holy writ (KJV, of course).
How do any of us know that nothing else is “God breathed”? If something is true, is it not of God? Do “true” things exist outside of the Bible?
As the old addage says: And if the blind lead the blind…
No surprise here.
Paul C,
Imagine a group of people 2000 years from now from the planet Mars reading “Going Rogue” by Sarah Palin (God help them). Dontchya think it would be helpful for them to know the surrounding culture and politics and arguments and social tensions going on in America during the decades leading up and after that book?
I opted to share that so that you could get your daily snark in before you jones by lunch. Maybe it’s out of your system, now.
You are welcome.
Full well I knew why you threw that up there.
I found much of what was in the HP novels edifying also. Then again, I find much edifying stuff in Dumas, Shakespeare, An Introduction to Persons with Moderate and Severe Disabilities, The Bible, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, and the list goes on and on and on and on…
Here Chad and I are in complete agreement. Truth is truth whether it was written by JK Rowling or Annie Dillard or Anne Lamott or Rick Freuh. I don’t really care the source as much as the content.
And that’s not to say that every person spouting off the truth is entirely credible or that all they write or say is worth while. It is to say that beautiful truth is beautiful truth and resonates deep within the hungry heart search for truth under every stone and in every cranny and behind ever pen.
#140 – Even the ant reveals some truth, that is not the question. How do you know what is truth?
By it’s beauty Rick. It’s beauty. I can’t explain it any other way, for now. And I don’t suppose you would understand me if I tried (not because you can’t understand, but because I can’t explain). It’s got something to do with grace.
The answers are revealed in book 7
i think even this shows you are pouring more meaning into the story than jerry meant it to have… this does not give us deeper understanding of god, as if it adds or expands, or deepens…
…it simply illustrates.
it adds nothing.
I have a hard time understanding how this conversation became a matter of saying that we’re accepting something as true against Scripture. I’ve heard pastors quote people like Vince Lombardi or some other famous person quite often. I don’t think that means they accept Vince Lombardi’s word as having more weight than Scripture.
i think outside sources serve a purpose in helping clarify the context into which the original scriptres were delivered. and while i agree that everyting about jesus is trans-everything…
…the first step in biblical interpretation is to determine what a passage meant to the original audience. and in this case the outside sources can help… can serve as a tool.
#142 – One man’s “beauty” is another man’s “ugly”. Only Scripture is truth. Sources that agree are supportive; sources that disagree are lies.
“the first step in biblical interpretation is to determine what a passage meant to the original audience.”
Again, not always true. Most of the Jews thought Messianic refernces had a nationalistic essence. They knew nothing of the cross.
So, are the laws of motion that Newton discovered a lie? Clearly, they’re not talked about in Scripture. What about things like trigonometry and calculus. I could have saved myself a lot of time had I know I was studying lies.
The statement “only Scripture is true” is a standard that cannot possibly be lived out in real life.
How the original audience thought about a passage can many times reveal how blind they were, not that they had a handle on truth.
#149 – Spiritually, of course.
is this statement truth?
while i certainly agree all scripture is truth. i cannot agree that only scripture is truth.
**sigh** ok…
the first step in biblical interpretation is to determine what a passage meant to the original audience who correctly interpreted it.
#152 – See #151.
“the first step in biblical interpretation is to determine what a passage meant to the original audience who correctly interpreted it.”
Disagree. The first step to Biblical interpretation is to see what other Scriptures say about that passage or issue.
How do you determine which original audience hearers “correctly” interpreted a passage?
ok, i’ll grant ya this point. how about
of critical importance to biblical interpretation is to understand what the passage meant to it original audience.
I will gract you this: Sometimes the culture in which Scriptures were given can be useful to more fully understand the depth of meaning. But those cultural contexts are not the deciding factor and can sometimes take away from the true meaning.
I have been to churches that are completely Hebrew complete with caps, and Torahs, and Talmuds, and stars of David etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum. They have seriously missed the point by tethering their faith to Jewish customs and practices.
The church is neither Jew nor Gentile but is mostly made up of Gentiles.
I agree, though I would add that he was not a complete cultural oddity, independent culturally and contextually from the people he ministered to. As such, it behooves us to understand the culture he lived in, so that the “transcultural, transgenerational, and trans-everything” truths are most accurately described and not simply products of our 20th/21st Century, English contexts (which have distinct differences and similarities to Jesus’ cultural context).
No more “irrelevant” than the latest John Piper book, or Luther, or Augustine, or Origen, or Tertullian, or Polycarp… Additionally, per my comment above, it is valuable in understanding the religious beliefs and practices of the church Jesus grew up in, worshiped in, and taught in. We are grafted into Israel, not a completely separate tree. When we assume that the Hebrew Scriptures are the only part of the tree to which we are connected (with some of us even tossing them out as “irrelevant”), we are exhibiting the very arrogance Paul warns about.
Because it came from the Jews, Jerry.
Something that both VanderLaan and Pryor point out when using Jewish literary sources and context is “level of certainty” when dealing with them. “Completely Baseless” is generally reserved for whole-cloth inventions, which the Talmud (primarily the early-dated material) does not fit. We treat the Bible (as Protestants) as if its canonization were handed down along with its words. In reality (particularly with the OT sources), we generally chose to use what the Hebrew people chose to put in the Septuagint. By Jesus’ day, the Sadducees & Priests in Jerusalem generally only considered the Pentateuch as authoritative, and the more religious Jews included all of the books in the Septuagint along with additional writings (some in the apocrypha), though the Christians were the first to treat the Ketuvim (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel, and I & II Chronicles) as being fully inspired and authoritative on the same level as the Pentateuch and the Nevi’im.
So, while I have to trust that the early church councils chose wisely in which books to canonize, this does not automatically render the other writings used by early Jewish Christians as “completely baseless”, but simply ‘non-authoritative’ but potentially true.
Which is sad that you would use this blanket categorization. None of the pre-Christian sages claimed to be Messiahs – or prophets, and a number of them were killed when they refused to bless wannabe-Messiahs. In fact, it was the people that these teachers instructed in the century or so prior to Jesus who ultimately made up much of the base of his followers. At the end of the OT, the notion of a Messiah was virtually nonexistent. After the Revolt of the Maccabees, the notion of an ‘anointed one’ was developed from OT sources (primarily Isaiah and some of the minor prophets) and some pre-Talmudic sources, as well. The sages taught that there would be a coming messiah using the same proof-texts we use for Jesus, and set the stage for his coming in the hearts of their listeners. The common thread tying all of the “false messiahs” together was that their purpose was overthrowing Rome, and the common thread between the “false prophets” (who came after Jesus, not before) was their denunciation of the Christian sect of Judaism.
Yes, Jesus was a “root in dry ground”, as the nation of Israel was largely secular, with the Temple-based worship completely corrupted after Hyrcanus and the replacement of the priesthood (leading to the Sadducee/Pharisee split). However, there was a significant minority in the Galilee region who were intensely religious and we ready for him when he arrived on the scene (though their belief that he would also conquer Rome was misplaced).
One example, in terms of teaching, is this, from Hillel (about 50 years before Jesus’ ministry), where he taught a version of the Golden Rule (”What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man” – Shab 31) which Jesus later restated in a positive (and more encompassing) manner.
It is not logical per the extrabiblical construct we’ve created (which you’ve pretty much summarized above). According to Paul, Jesus arrived “when the time was right”. Any earlier, and the people would not have been looking for a Messiah; any later, and the people would have been caught up in the physical conflict with Rome. The phrase Paul uses “when the time was right” is rooted in a Near-East farming concept, where seeds are planted “when the time is right” – where the ground is properly prepared and the weather conditions are set to bring the right amounts of rain and sun. The “ground” of the people where Jesus taught (noting that 75% of his teachings and miracles that can be geographically placed were within a 3-mile radius of the NW corner of Galilee) was prepared to hear Jesus’ message, and the political/cultural conditions were right for it to grow and spread.
In actuality, a majority of the Galilee region converted to Christianity, having a great impact on the Decapolis-region, as well. Most of the rejection of Christianity in Israel was politically motivated and centered in Jerusalem. Josephus records 100,000+ Christians fleeing Jerusalem to Pella in AD69, and most of the Galilee Christians fleeing in AD66 (prior to the Roman advance in northern Israel).
The Galilee region was populated by intensely-religious Jews from the Babylonian diaspora who returned to Israel after the defeat of the Ptolemaic Greeks in the second century BC. It was the “home base” of the sages, with Choni and Hillel as the most famous ones. Both are mentioned by Josephus, and the stories of their piety and God answering their prayers were part of the Galilean culture (which was looked down upon by the Judean Jews – The phrase “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” is nice compared to other comments made by the Judeans regarding their northern brethren, with the tone being similar to the way city-based “blue staters” refer to the backwater “red staters” in the modern US).
One of the key calling-cards of authoritative rabbis was their ability to call on God to perform miracles, within certain limitations. Jesus fit the cultural mold of a sage/rabbi, but he was able to surpass the limitations ascribed to the contemporary sages that came before him.
This makes no sense, because John the Baptist, Elijah and Jeremiah were all considered prophets (as noted by “or one of the prophets”). None of the sages were considered prophets – they were pious teachers who were highly devoted to serving and teaching about God.
I don’t really think we could ever determine what was going through an audience’s mind. We can however arrive at the meaning of a text by looking at culture and language of that period.
A simple example I would give is this:
We know the meaning of Lincoln’s words because we know the historical context of what was going on at the time. If someone not familiar at all with US history or the English language and its idioms at that time were to try interpret that, who knows what they’d come up with. That’s the same type of thing I see happen when people interpret Biblical passages with no thought to the cultural and linguistic surroundings.
Apples and oranges, Rick. The first step in biblical interpretation is to determine what a passage meant to the original audience.
The Messianic references were not written to the first-century audience. They were written by Isaiah (primarily) and prophets 700+ years prior to the first century. However, knowing that the interpretation of these passages 700 years later pointed to a physical, military messiah IS something good to know when reading NT passages dealing with people asking about a Messiah.
with the tone being similar to the way city-based “blue staters” refer to the backwater “red staters” in the modern US).
or the way “real americans” talked about blue staters…
there’s plenty of that to go around…
just say’n…
Rick,
You asked: How do you know what is truth?
It is a good question. And I am sure the answer is we appeal to Scripture as the “norming norm” for what is truth. Would you agree?
However, in a previous discussion about just war vs. nonviolence, you and I were convinced that at the heart of the NT is an ethic of nonviolence. Both of us appeal to Scripture. Others took a very different stance and they too appealed to Scripture as their benchmark. In fact, one could argue that their case is even more “scriptural” (black and white) than ours. At the very least, we must conclude that both parties appeal to Scripture for the truth of the matter and both parties come away with different conclusions.
What do you make of that?
Where is your evidence for these blanket statements.
I thought God sent John the Baptist to “prepare the way of the Lord”. I never read anything about Honi the Circle-Drawer. This is not an accurate statement Chris.
And again, “he came to his own and his own received him not.” Of course, some did, but the vast majority either rejected Him outright or faded when the show stopped.
Isn’t this the same line of reasoning that has Jesus living in India for the 18 years prior to His ministry?
Let’s compare:
with the words of Jesus:
Aren’t all these cities in the Galilee Region?
and
Chris, your argument is not holding any water at this point.
You are arguing your case from a secular source which observed religious ebb and flow, with no basis in the scriptures.
Who probably carried with them numerous pagan practices and folklore which would only be natural. So what?
The funny thing about this coming from you, Paul, is that Chris has provided all sorts of evidence to back up what he’s been saying here, and you haven’t really given any reason to support your position other than that you are suspicious of these source. On what are basing your suspicion exactly?
There are all sorts of good books available on the subject of the Jewish roots of Christianity. In addition to the ones that Chris has already mentioned, I’d recommend Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus by Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg or Our Father Abraham by Marvin Wilson. Generally, the authors who wrote these books are very conservative theologically, and they are not “out there” by any means. I think if you did some reading on your own you might be pleasantly surprised.
Nathan – That of course is a result of our fallen natures and our finite understandings. It is a struggle.
A man, freshly saved, and given a Bible and banished to an island can be led by the Spirit into truth without any knowledge of Jewish/Hebrew/early people and their perspectives.
Most of Christianity has never and still does not know these “finer” historical points. We don’t even obey the obvious, much less having to dig through things that only educated Americans can ever understand.
The hearts and ears of anyone at anytime have no bearing on infinite and eternal truths. These truths were truth before Adam was formed, much less when Abram was called.
Rick, was that an answer to my question in 163?
“No more “irrelevant” than the latest John Piper book, or Luther, or Augustine, or Origen, or Tertullian, or Polycarp…”
Exactly. Thank you.
Chad – Yes. We are all personally accountable for our interpretation.However most cults say they are founded on Scripture. So deception is always a danger.
See “Jesus the Jewish Theologian”, among other references for the sources.
John the Baptist was a prophet who announced the coming of the Lord. None of the sages claimed to be prophets (and thus they could not proclaim his coming). Without them, though, the people would have had no expectation of a coming Messiah. The teachings that pulled together Scripture and other references to point to a coming Messiah occurred during the intertestemental period, and the Jewish sages were the driving force behind this set of teachings.
Which is not what History bears out – from both early Jewish and Christian accounts.
I never heard that. I suspect that Jesus lived in Capernaum or Nazareth during those years. There are conservative Christians who reject the idea that Jesus borrowed or built upon earlier Jewish teachings (insisting that it makes him “less God” if his teachings weren’t ex nihilo), while some liberal scholars point to Jesus’ borrowing & building on earlier Jewish teachings as indication that he was just a constructed amalgam of earlier Jewish teachers. Neither are right. Jesus was a first century Jewish teacher who lived in, and was a complete member of, the first century Jewish culture. His teachings were no less important than the role he played on the cross, though selfishly we prize the latter while often paying lip-service to the former.
The cities in the Galilee were looking for a military messiah (which can be easily seen in John 6, and in the synoptic sections on Jesus teaching in Nazareth). The lack of faith in Nazareth was a lack of faith in Jesus and a faith that they (the Nazarenes) were the “chosen” people of Israel. This is not a generalized lack of faith (in God), but a specific lack of faith that Jesus was the Messiah. After his resurrection, much of the Galilee region converted to Christianity, and became the hotbed of its activity. Jerusalem was still primarily persecuting Christians, but the Galilee region accepted them.
Wow. Your ignorant arrogance and stupidity know no end, do they? How about you go study ancient Israel for awhile, and come back when you have a clue what you’re talking about.
Rick,
So if we are “personally accountable” and we don’t put much if any weight on what the saints before us think or what the cultural climate brings to the table, how do we know we aren’t being deceived?
How do you know that your personal perception of truth is really true? And you said we are held accountable for that. What happens if your perception is wrong?
Sorry about the last quip there, though I can’t erase it.
Perhaps you should follow Phil’s advice and do some reading on this particular topic before discussing it any further. Spangler and Tverberg’s book is an excellent starting point (and they’re both pretty conservative, Reformed Christian writers).
Chris has failed to differentiate between the dead, though religious state of Israel and the tiny minority that actually had their eyes open. He references secular sources (ie: Josephus) which is good info from a historical perspective, but gives no insight into the spiritual condition of the people. I think the Bible accurately shows the mind of God on the matter – it diverges vastly from what historians saw and see.
Furthermore, I find his references inaccurate. See my comments (#164) above comparing Chris L’s comments about Galilee and what Jesus had to say about the region when He was there.
I really admire Chris L’s deep research and grasp of the history though. Very educational.
But when I look at the Bible, some of the parallels he’s trying to draw don’t seem to exist.
He says that parable communication was so widespread and Jesus simply picked up on that. Yet his disciples seemed to see this as a new mode of communication to some degree:
The masses failed to recognize Christ for who he was, considering him a prophet maybe, but no more. It was a vast minority who saw Him for what He is (Matt 16; John 6).
Nathan, while I understand your point, I was specifically referencing the way that “enlightened” city folks tend to examine the “flyovers” as unsophisticated, backwater hicks – this is parallel to the way the “sophisticated” Judeans looked at the folks from the Galilee region. They talked funny (w/ a Babylonian accent), and they were ultra-religious (which was an embarrassment to the Judeans).
“how do we know we aren’t being deceived?”
E-mail me your doctrinal statement and I will compare it with Scripture and let you know. The short answer is that deception can and does capture sincere seekers. It is the nature of the battle. The easy answer is everyone will be saved anyway.
The difficult answer is we know in part and that God knows what He is doing.
And yet they largely rejected him…
This statement is false. The Jews were expecting a military Messiah which prejudiced them to receiving the Lamb of God.
“He came unto his own and his own received him not.” This is a summary statement of how Israel responded.
Chris, you are arguing in circles.
You said that Galilee was essentially a unique region, differentiated from apostate Jerusalem. When I present biblical evidence from the mouth of Jesus, you tie yourself in another knot. Come on.
Apparently not.
But didn’t you just say that any number of people can appeal to Scripture and be deceived? Even the demons know Scripture.
.
Agreed. So how do any of us know we are not part of that number? I have no doubt you are a sincere seeker. I have no doubt that I am as well. How do we know?
Agreed. But this doesn’t change any of the questions I asked above. Of course God knows what God is doing but you have said we are held “personally accountable” for our understanding of “truth.” So while God may know what God is doing it seems that you think we humans should be pretty sure of what we are doing as well….or else.
How do we even know these 66 books are what should be in the collection? Faith.
God is not a Jew. (This is not meant to be anti-sematic)
The disciples question is not one of a “new mode”, but one of purpose and setting. One of the first parables in the Bible is used by the prophet Nathan when confronting David about Bathsheba, so the concept and usage of parables was not something ‘new’.
Parables were typically used in small teaching settings (with disciples) rather than in large group settings, because the Parable teller usually included the “keys” to interpreting the Parables within the discussion (which Jesus does not always do). (See more here). If you are actually interested in knowing the answer to your question, I’d suggest Brad Young’s book “The Parables”, which is a textbook in a number of Seminaries. It goes into the library of Jewish parable teaching (w/ 3,000 – 4,000 parables existing at the time of Jesus).
Rick, is 178 your response to my questions?
#180 – In part, beacuse I only can know one thing.
I think therefore I am.
Where do you think the concept of a Messiah came from (military or otherwise)? This is my point. When you read the OT w/o presupposing Jesus on top of it, you do not come away with any sense of a “coming messiah” – military or otherwise. The emphasis on a messiah and the scriptures about “the Coming One” came about during the intertestemental period.
You are conflating being a pious Jew, following Torah with (rather immediate) accepting of Jesus. The people of the Galilee region did not accept his messiahship (or understand it) until after his death, burial and resurrection – in pretty much the same fashion as his disciples. Part of what you’re missing is the early church records apart from Acts (which was penned by Luke as part of a defense of Paul’s ministry, and thus concentrated on the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles). It is rather interesting, I would at least think, that Paul looks to the church back in Israel for direction on a number of occasions.
Well, then, I apologize for thinking we were having a discussion.
The evasiveness around here to direct questions never ceases to amaze me.
There is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. The gospel is to sinners, not Jewish or Gentile sinners. The Greta Commission is ethnicly neutral.
Cahd – I was just joking. Sorry. There is no real answer to your question exept faith. I realize you are accurately identifying certain problems with arriving at truth.
And I do, to some extent, lean on the unmistakeable miraculous nature of my conversion. That is why I hold redemptive truth as paramount and even exclusive.
Salvation comes from the Jews, Rick.
While on the other side of Easter we are “neither Jew nor Gentile” but all found equal in Christ (which is Good News to Gentiles, btw), we know nothing of this God outside of how God has chosen to reveal God’s self – which is through Israel.
Outside of that story we are all deceived.
185 – thank you.
I agree that our own redemptive story can bolster our perception of what is “true.” But you understand that this is an appeal to experience and not Scripture, right? And I am sure you also understand that many others who would disagree with you (and with me) on very profound, scriptural matters can also point to a “redemptive truth” that they “know”, right?
I was trying to touch on this earlier with John Chisham. I think you are right to say your faith is in God. However, as we dig deeper I think we see that our faith is really in our ability to perceive the truth. That is not something any of us would readily admit, but I think you can see from the questions I am asking that this is problematic. You are right that we see through a glass darkly – so do Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc. Do you think they are any less sincere in their desire to know Christ than you or I? I don’t.
You offered an “easy answer” before that I did not comment on. I would suggest the “easy answer” is that we have an intercessor at the right hand of the Father whose name is Jesus and that this intercessor died for the sins of the world (which just so happens to include you, me, and even John Chisham and everyone else – Jew and Gentile). This Jesus is fully aware of our limitations in understanding the ineffable and loves us all the same. God does not hold our ignorance against us or hold us “accountable” in the way I think you mean that term. We are all ignorant. If perfect knowledge was a requirement for salvation we’d all be damned.
Chris L. You are taking a lot of time on this. Thank you. Your input is very much appreciated. That being said, although you later apologized for it:
only underscores that you have changed over this past year. You did not used to be this way. Perhaps you should examine the root cause of this explosive anger being demonstrated with such hateful, hurtful comments of late.
I vote we all adopt the following verse as the official verse of Poets, Priests and Prophets”:
Chad, I don’t have absolute assurance that I am right, but I do have absolute assurance that you are wrong.
John,
I’ve got a couple thoughts on root causes, and I’m trying to take care of/mitigate them (but they’re not overnight things). Where I tend to run aground is when I seem to be answering the same question for the umpteenth time, but phrased in increasingly snarky fashion (or, all too often, I tend to give as I get). I’m trying to limit the issues I comment on (noting that I’d probably engage some of the other threads more if I were feeling more patient), but I’ve not yet got a good grasp on when to toss my hands up in the air and just let nudniks be nudniks…
#189 – I like this verse:
Rick the wordsmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
I have some great stories about Buddhists and Hindus too. Can’t wait to share those.
Chris, your comments and insight are always appreciated and I usually learn a lot. I’m just seeing an uncharacteristic and escalating trend of late.
Yes, Hindus and Calvinists have a lot in common.
For example on the environment:
Hindus: God is all in all so garbage and pollution is just as much a part of god as clean mountain streams. Each has the right to exisit where they occurr so no need for environmentalism.
Calvinist: God ordains everything and it’s all going to be burned up any.
#196 Amen.
chris l., 191 was real good right up to, but not including, the last line…
#196 – strawman
#198 – there are a number of times I am a nudnik, as well…
Hindu strawmen get reincarnated as hats…
Or straw cows?
Calvinist strawmen are easily pushed over or burned. What John characterizes as Calvinism is really Hypercalvinism. (at least as he characterizes in #196)
#201 is quite clever.
In other ramblings…nudnik – I learned a new word today.
“Or straw cows?”
Only if they are really good strawmen.
Me too…but I’m still wondering how something can be both “boring” and a “pest”. ??????
I thought it was “Calvinist burn up every strawman” Servetus
I wasn’t aware that Servetus was a strawman. Did he play in the Wizard of Oz?
“there are a number of times I am a nudnik, as well…”
This is an example of outside sources that I consider credible.
The more you know.
I was unaware of the full definition – I’ve always seen a nudnik as someone who asks lots of accusatory questions about something they know less about than they let on. Typically, HS sophomores tend to fall into the “nudnik” category (and yes, the first time I heard it, it was applied to me, though the most recent uses have been in some lectures by RVL, applied to himself when relating stories of him speaking to Jewish and Jewish-Christian scholars).
Servetus was a strawman who was burned up by the wicked warlock of West Geneva.
“Have some fire, strawman!”
I knew it was only a matter of time until Rick weighed in on Servetus – and the re-writing of history goes on and on and on….
Servetus certainly desires that history could be re-written.
To copy Chad’s line of inquiry: how do you know which “flavor” of Calvinism is the true one?
“how do you know which “flavor” of Calvinism is the true one?”
The Arminian flavor.
#214 The biblical flavor.