"Who would've thought that the religion of Jesus would have things in
common with the early Christian faith. Gee. If you wish to
anachronistically deny the historical period of Judaism and what
Pharisaic Jews of the first century believed then be my guest, I'll on
the other hand look at the historical context and do proper exegesis.
Quite honestly I don't understand your views since they're all over the
place. First, one shouldn't look towards Judaism? The religion that most
of the Bible is based upon? Rather, we should just make our inferences
from scripture alone? That is craziness, we wouldn't even be able to
discern the basics (Like a Monotheistic Deity in the Torah) without
looking at the historical Jewish belief and reading "back into" the
text. And I'm not a coward. That's another false accusation. What have I
ever done that is cowardly? I have attempted to dialogue and dissect
your rabid fundamentalism and all you have done so far is failed to
engage in dialogue and go and make childish names up like "Romanist."
Also, it was you who adminned in Fitzy's room, despite his despicable
un-christian behavior, and participated in a room that meant to mock,
clone, and attack Catholic rooms and Catholic users on Paltalk. Those
are things you'll have to answer to before God, not me"
Firstly, I haven't adminned in fitzy's room since 2013. While fitzy allows me in his room, he doesn't make me the admin anymore. I do remember admining last year in his room before but:
A. That was long before I began my apologetic videos on YouTube.
And B. I do not admin in other rooms or his anymore except mine. Know what that means, I haven't admined in his room for MANY MONTHS.
I don't even admin in rooms except mine these days. Also I have spoken with fitzy himself, he doesn't clone Catholic rooms.
Also, You don't stand against savedbybaptism or anyone else who has lied about me (cbd94, Dk Man and MustphaShagsAisha) and rebuke them when I have been in the room, namely when I was accused of attacking Shamoun, YOU JOINED IN, thus guilty by association and cooperation, thus you are a coward for not speaking against them. Though you have warned me about some individuals, why is it when I was in the room attacked by them you didn't oppose them, but joined in with them? In fact as I have said in a comments page on this blog:
"you threatened to tell Sam Shamoun
that I was accusing him of cloning me (who said that i cant remember)
but when I made it clear i never accused Shamoun and what I actually
said in the room was "the Sam I knew wouldn't do that." You threatened
to dob me and jonnykzj in for something he and I never said"
I think cbd was the first now that I think about it but I could be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact you and Dk man were willing to join in with his false accusation. As you said "Those
are things you'll have to answer to before God, not me" :)
Furthermore, fitzy is not online all the time so and I don't go on Paltalk all the time. There are better things to do than spend your existence in a chat room.
Christ himself took the Pharisees' back to the Biblical text whenever he was confronted on an issue, so obviously Jesus held to Sola Scriptura and again Sola Scriptura has no problem using tradition, SOLO Scriptura as you have already been told denies the usage of tradition.
You can easily discern there is a monotheistic deity in the TANAKH anyway from the Shema (Deuternomy 6:4), Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:5 etc. There is nothing wrong with looking at 1st Century Judaism either, Sola Scriptura doesn't reject historical study either.
Answering Judaism.
Well it's fantastic that you replied on your blog rather than directly to me in youtube so I wouldn't be made aware of the things you said. Anyways, first off, you stated that Fitzy "never" cloned a catholic room. I guess when he copied Silk's room (Catholic Answers Live) and opened it, that was my imagination. More than that, Fitzy has been attacking Catholics in that room for years on end, with childish remarks, calling catholics 'gay', and dotting people which doesn't allow for a fair discussion. You sat there and accepted such behavior without making any public statement against his unchristian actions. That isn't justifiable, sorry. You will have to answer before God for your past behavior and your association with that sort of people. You have been rebuked for your anti-catholic statements time and time again (like my long-winded reply against your horrendous video series concerning iconography) and instead of recognizing your errors, you still continue to repeat them. I'm sorry but that is not christian behavior.
ReplyDeleteThen you make some comment about savedbybaptism and me not combating him. Again, which world do you live in? I've debated SavedByBaptism before you even came on Paltalk and have had discussions with him way back in 2009 and 2010 when we were both on Yahoo. As for MustphaShagsAisha, I have no idea who that is but I have never seen that ID in chat. Perhaps I know them on another ID. I also didn't get involved in the sam shamoun situation, I do know you were rumored to have attempted to call his family on multiple occasions. Whether that's true or not, I don't know since I wasn't there in the situation. I do know we had some powerful witnesses like cbd and DK-man that seemed to confirm these rumors. But again, I take no stand on the issue since I wasn't around and don't really know Sam like those two do.
Should fitzy call people gay? No he shouldn't. For that matter, You haven't rebuked savedbybaptism for his lies and deception about me, I didn't ask you about discussions you had with him before I came on Paltalk. Did you rebuke savebybaptism on what he said about me?
DeleteYou did expose his false church which is commendable.
For that matter, cbd and Dk Man are both liars and have no idea what they are talking about. I told cbd that I NEVER attacked Shamoun and he STILL kept repeating the claim in the room despite correcting him.
I don't even have Shamoun's number in the first place. How in the world does a British man have the means to find Shamoun's number IN CHICAGO. Even if the means were present I still wouldn't use the phone to contact him.
Oh, AND FYI, I kept telling YOU that I didn't attack by cloning Shamoun and because of a typo on my part, You then claimed I admited to it which I didn't.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Well it's fantastic that you replied on your blog rather than directly to me in youtube so I wouldn't be made aware of the things you said."
DeleteThe fact this paper it had your name means that you could find it, as well as the general public.
First off, you say Jesus quoted the scripture whenever dealing with the Pharisees or discussing the Pharisaic faith. This is simply not the case, Jesus affirms the Pharisaic authority in Matthew 23:2, where he states:
ReplyDelete"The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. (NLT)
Affirming the Pharisees as being the true successors of Moses in contrast with the Sadducees and Essenes and other various Jewish sects of the era would be an extrabiblical assumption. Something found strictly within the Oral Torah but with no direct reference in the written Torah. Moreso than that, Christ's seemingly simple statement that has been dismissed by Protestant apologists has deep and profound implications recognized by Protestant academia.
Professor Brad Young has this to say:
"While Jesus disdained the hypocrisy of some Pharisees, he never attacked the religious and spiritual teachings of Pharisaism. In fact, the sharpest criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew are introduced by an unmistakable affirmation, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2-3). The issue at hand is one of practice. The content of the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees was not a problem . . . The rabbis offered nearly identical criticisms against those who teach but do not practice . . . Unfortunately, the image of the Pharisee in modern usage is seldom if ever positive. Such a negative characterization of Pharisaism distorts our view of Judaism and the beginnings of Christianity . . . The theology of Jesus is Jewish and is built firmly upon the foundations of Pharisaic thought . . ."
(From his book Jesus the Jewish theologian)
As a further cause for boasting in Philippians, Paul claims to be a Pharisee. Here the term was defined with precision. The expression 'as to the Law a Pharisee' refers to the oral Law. . . . Paul thereby understood himself as a member of the scholarly class who taught the twofold Law. By saying that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat (Mt 23:2), Jesus was indicating they were authoritative teachers of the Law. . . . In summary, Paul was saying that he was a Hebrew-speaking interpreter and teacher of the oral and written Law
ReplyDelete("Jew, Paul the", 504)
Christ, apart from biblical works, clung onto the Pharisaic tradition that they were the successors of Moses and were divinely appointed to interpret biblical law. It's the clear affirmation of an extrabiblical tradition.
Besides, the evidence is quite clear that Jesus himself followed the Oral Torah as authoritative. For example, Christ's statements on Adultery were not new innovations, they were mirrored within the pre-existing Oral Torah:
“Not only is he who sins with his body considered an adulterer, but he who sins with his eye is also considered one.” [Leviticus Rabba 23:12]
Jesus's statements on praying without ceasing yet no praying repetitiously in vain are a long-standing Jewish tradition:
“If a man realizes that he has prayed and not been an-swered, he should pray again.” [Babylonian Talmud, Berekhot 32b]
Christ's golden rule was echoed a century prior by Rabbi Hillel. His famous statement about cutting one's right hand off to prevent sin directly stems from Pharisaic thought:
“The hand that fre-quently touches [the genitals]…in the case of a man, should be cut off.”
Here is what Floyd V Filson says about the Pharisees:
The scribes, mostly Pharisees, copied, taught, and applied the Mosaic Law. They were pledged to obey and teach both the written law and the oral tradition, which they claimed was an integral part of the Law, received through a direct succession of teachers going back to Moses . . . Moses' seat [was a] synagogue chair which symbolized the origin and authority of their teaching. Jesus does not challenge their claim; he seems here to approve it.
(A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, New York: Harper & Row, 1960, 243; emphasis my own)
You then go on to state that I'm somehow unaware of the difference between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura. I guess with all my years of studying the matter and my debates with Calvinist apologists like Matt Slick, I somehow did not know the difference between the two. I'm well aware that Sola Scriptura adherents can take tradition as authoritative. But the problem for you is that the very concept of an Oral Torah means you would have to take the sacred traditions as an equal authority to the written scripture. And the fundamental presupposition of the Apostolic authors of the NT and the authors of the OT was of a binding oral tradition that was of an equal authority to the written tradition. Otherwise, we would literally have no clue what the Hebrew of the Torah says, for the vowel markings themselves were purely extrabiblical and apart of the oral tradition. For example, "God made the heavens and the earth" could easily read, "Go destroyed the heavens and the earth." The Oral Torah is to thank for the intelligiblity of the Torah. The Oral Torah was instrinsic to followers of the Torah. This is how the Pharisaic Jews, Jesus, and the Apostles viewed such matters as well. That would affirm the Catholic worldview, not the Protestant one.
ReplyDeleteAnd Christ's usage of Scripture does not equate to sola scriptura. I have literally no idea where you pulled that from seeing as how I never heard a Protestant ever use that argument before. You apparently are unaware of the Catholic view on the matter that Scripture is authoritative, as it's the Word of God. And the Word of God is the final authority. It's your unproven presupposition that the Word of God is bound to scripture alone, a view which is ahistorical, anachronistic, unjewish, unchristian, and simply unbiblical. Christ make frequent use of the oral traditions and applied them in most memorable teachings. Does that mean Christ viewed oral traditions as his only authority? Of course not! Nor did Christ's frequent usage of scriptures mean scriptures are his only authority. Likewise, when Apostolic authors quoted Enoch, or when Jesus quoted from Sirach (As Protestant scholar Witherington claims) does that mean they viewed those books as authoritative? Your logic is all over the place. Furthermore, you assume that there was some sort of canon at that point of time. Which is laughable and flies in the face of Jewish & Christian scholarship on the matter. We know from the Talmud, Church fathers, and the NT authors themselves that the Jewish canon was in a time of fluctuation. With no agreed-upon consensus for more than a century or so after Christ died. So if Jesus viewed the Bible as his final authority then which Bible was it?
Now concerning the validity of the Oral Torah and the precedence it sets for apostolic Sacred Tradition: How does one perform Kosher Slaughter? Which calendar system does one use? Is it wrong for Moabites and Israelites to marry like the Torah says? Why does Ruth marry then? What is Deuteronomy 6:9 and Deut 6:10 talking about? What does it mean to not work on the Sabbath, what does or does not constitute work? How do you know the Temple ought to be in Jerusalem with the Torah being absolutely silent on the issue? And most importantly, how can you read the written Torah or anything in pre-christian Hebrew? The vowel markings were purely extrabiblical and without them (being given to us via the Oral Torah) the scriptures would become an unintelligible mess. All of this shows the clear precedence being given to us through Judaism: That Scripture and Sacred tradition are intrinsic to one another and fundamental to the Jewish faith. You can't say, "Oh well we accept some tradition so Christ's acceptance of tradition was fine" Because Christ's acceptance of Tradition, like other Jews of that time, meant that he held it in equal regard to said scripture. Otherwise he wouldn't even be able to quote said scripture in the first place.
ReplyDeleteFinally, the SHEMA in Deut 6:4 reads more like a Henotheistic creed on face value rather than a monotheistic creed. Infact, this is how secular scholars would interpret the theology in the five books of Moses. Monolatrism is also a rather good possibility. But certainly Monotheism isn't even hinted at, but instead you have to acknowledge the high context society of Hebrews at the time, and that important theological beliefs were often left unmentioned in the written text due to the assumption of the readers and the authors.
One more thing, although it is a bit off-topic. Even when scholars claim the Jews eased into Monotheism (somewhere in the Deutero-Isaiah, post-babylonian period) it's a giant assumption to think the Jews subscribed to our philosophical tradition of Monotheism. Like Bart Ehrman says, the Jews of that time period didn't see Monotheism and worshiping other beings in a God-like manner or exalting beings to the status of God to be offensive. We have several cases of this, most notably Philo's exaltation of Moses and referring to Moses as "Theos." But like I said previously, the evidence from the Torah seems to point towards a Henotheistic or a Monolatristic religion. The assumption that me and you have that they were Monotheists is due to our reading into the text. And not that that is a bad thing, but it goes to show that even fundamental and basic concepts in the ancient Hebrew faith are assumed by its modern day adherents. That is why the Jews of that time period were a High Context Society, not a low context one. And I would argue that it's impossible for a doctrine like sola scriptura to be applicable in a society that is of a higher context.
ReplyDeleteBut anyways, I apologize for leaving so many comments but it wasn't letting me post in one big post. So I'm going have to wrap things up here and possibly talk further on my blog after my thoughts are collected. But a few questions for you:
1) How does one know infallibly what scriptures are when said scriptures have to rely upon an external authority to compile them? This would be a fundamental disaster for sola scriptura as you can never infallibly know for 100% certainty that the scriptures compiled were the correct ones. There's many controversial books in the Protestant canon that were hotly debated in the early christian centuries by both Jews and Christians alike.
2) You claimed that Jesus was an adherent to Sola Scriptura because he used Scripture as authoritative. Does that mean you think Catholics, Orthodox, and Rabbinic Jews adhere to sola scriptura as well since these three groups use scripture in an authoritative means? That doesn't make sense.
3) Going off of question 2, you stated that Jesus adhered to sola scriptura. Can you show me what Christ's canon of scripture was and cite some actual evidence that the Hebrew canon was compiled in the time Christ? Quite literally everything we have and all scholarly sources seem to point against this. Books like Esther, Song of Songs, Job were being debated well into the formation of the Talmud. Sirach was quoted several times in the talmud was scripture. NT authors make use of Enoch, Testament of Moses, Sirach, the Maccabees story. Sadducees who were of high authority in the Temple only seemed to here to the five books of Moses with the possible inclusion of Sirach. To say there was some unified canon at that point of time seems like revisionist history if I may be so frank. So which canon did Jesus use?