Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 05-14-2009, 01:05 PM

"according to the law of the lord"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 2:39

39και ως ετελεσαν παντα τα κατα τον νομον κυριου επεστρεψαν εις την γαλιλαιαν εις πολιν εαυτων ναζαρεθ

"the law of the lord"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exodus 13:9

καὶ ἔσται σοι σημεῖον ἐπὶ τῆς χειρός σου καὶ μνημόσυνον πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου ὅπως ἂν γένηται ὁ νόμος κυρίου ἐν τῷ στόματί σου ἐν γὰρ χειρὶ κραταιᾷ ἐξήγαγέν σε κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐξ Aἰγύπτου

"law of the lord"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 5

24 διὰ τοῦτο ὃν τρόπον καυθήσεται καλάμη ὑπὸ ἄνθρακος πυρὸς καὶ συγκαυθήσεται ὑπὸ φλογὸς ἀνειμένης ἡ ῥίζα αὐτῶν ὡς χνοῦς ἔσται καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτῶν ὡς κονιορτὸς ἀναβήσεται οὐ γὰρ ἠθέλησαν τὸν νόμον κυρίου σαβαωθ ἀλλὰ τὸ λόγιον τοῦ ἁγίου Iσραηλ παρώξυναν

"law of the lord"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amos 2

4 τάδε λέγει κύριος ἐπὶ ταῖς τρισὶν ἀσεβείαις υἱῶν Iουδα καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς τέσαρσιν οὐκ ἀποστραφήσομαι αὐτόν ἕνεκα τοῦ ἀπώσασθαι αὐτοὺς τὸν νόμον κυρίου καὶ τὰ προστάγματα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐφυλάξαντο καὶ ἐπλάνησεν αὐτοὺς τὰ μάταια αὐτῶν ἂ ἐποίησαν οἷς ἐξηκολούθησαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν ὀπίσω αὐτῶν

There are a lot more examples of these in the LXX. So it seems as though Christians weren't the only ones who used the phrase "law of the lord".

Of course, this brings us back to the Hebrew tradition of not saying "YHWH"... in the Hebrew version of these LXX passages it's actually "law of YHWH"; YHWH when spoken in Hebrew prayer is "adonai" (Lord) so that Jews wouldn't say the name YHWH out loud. This prayer convension was carried over to the LXX so that every instance of YHWH in the Hebrew bible is written as "lord" in Greek.

kcdad · 05-14-2009, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think the Jew would say this. I don't think the Christian necessarily think this. They would identify "Lord" with Christ and not in the more limited OT view of God as held by the Jew.

"limited" view of God...??? What are you thinking here?

and what a racist word choice... "I think the Jew would say this" and "by the Jew". The Jew... wow.

Ben C Smith · 05-14-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

To repeat, except that Luke appears to purposely change the language.

The problem with this is that he changes it from an expression commonly used to indicate a source in Hebrew scripture to an expression commonly used to indicate a source in Hebrew scripture.

Quote:

I think it is significant that Luke does not say, "all things written in," or "said in." The Jew would certainly understand this exactly the way you do. Would the Christian also understand it this way?

The Christian that matters most for this discussion is Luke himself, and Luke himself uses the law of the Lord to indicate the scriptures and in accordance with to indicate the scriptures. So in accordance with the law of the Lord is a cinch; Luke is saying that Mary and Joseph did as they intended to do.

[Special note for (the author or redactor responsible for the posts on this forum that belong to) spin: For every instance of the word Luke above please substitute the phrase whichever author(s) or redactor(s) was (or were) responsible for writing the relevant verse(s) in the gospel known, in its extant form, as the gospel according to Saint Luke.

]

Quote:

Or, after 30 years, had the Christian culture redefined certain terms so that they could speak openly in front of the Jews without fear of persecution.

Had they? And, more to the point, had they done so with the phrase law of the Lord by the time Luke wrote? I can point you to where this phrase definitely means the Jewish scriptures. Can you point me to where it definitely does not?

Quote:

Thus, the term, "Law of the Lord," could easily have expanded in meaning for the Christian requiring Luke to qualify the first two instances of his use of this term so that people would know he meant the law given to Moses.

Could? Do you have the evidence?

Ben.

rhutchin · 05-15-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

"according to the law of the lord"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 2:39

39και ως ετελεσαν παντα τα κατα τον νομον κυριου επεστρεψαν εις την γαλιλαιαν εις πολιν εαυτων ναζαρεθ

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amos 2

4 τάδε λέγει κύριος ἐπὶ ταῖς τρισὶν ἀσεβείαις υἱῶν Iουδα καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς τέσαρσιν οὐκ ἀποστραφήσομαι αὐτόν ἕνεκα τοῦ ἀπώσασθαι αὐτοὺς τὸν νόμον κυρίου καὶ τὰ προστάγματα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐφυλάξαντο καὶ ἐπλάνησεν αὐτοὺς τὰ μάταια αὐτῶν ἂ ἐποίησαν οἷς ἐξηκολούθησαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν ὀπίσω αὐτῶν

There are a lot more examples of these in the LXX. So it seems as though Christians weren't the only ones who used the phrase "law of the lord".

Of course, this brings us back to the Hebrew tradition of not saying "YHWH"... in the Hebrew version of these LXX passages it's actually "law of YHWH"; YHWH when spoken in Hebrew prayer is "adonai" (Lord) so that Jews wouldn't say the name YHWH out loud. This prayer convension was carried over to the LXX so that every instance of YHWH in the Hebrew bible is written as "lord" in Greek.

I don't think that the issue is how a Jew would understand the term, "law of the Lord." The issue is how the Christian in 60 AD, 30 years after the death of Christ, would understand the term. To the Jew, Lord = God. To the Christian, Lord = Christ (God). Thus, Paul says:

Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

and

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Christian mindset is entirely different than the Jewish mindset and Luke was writing not to that person with a Jewish mindset but to that person with a Christian mindset.

You are carrying that Jewish meaning of the term into the NT as if the Christian should read Luke as the Jew would. I don't think this is necessarily the right thing to do.

rhutchin · 05-15-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think the Jew would say this. I don't think the Christian necessarily think this. They would identify "Lord" with Christ and not in the more limited OT view of God as held by the Jew.

"limited" view of God...??? What are you thinking here?

and what a racist word choice... "I think the Jew would say this" and "by the Jew". The Jew... wow.

To the Jew, the OT is all that there is and it is the OT that the Jew uses to identify God. That is much more limited than the Christian who adds the NT to the OT and gets the fuller message from God.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,...

rhutchin · 05-15-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Thus, the term, "Law of the Lord," could easily have expanded in meaning for the Christian requiring Luke to qualify the first two instances of his use of this term so that people would know he meant the law given to Moses.

Could? Do you have the evidence?

Ben.

I think the evidence is in the understanding of the word, "Lord." To the Jew, Lord = God. To the Christian, Lord = Christ (God) who spoke through Moses, then, the prophets, and finally through Christ.

Amaleq13 · 05-15-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

You are carrying that Jewish meaning of the term into the NT as if the Christian should read Luke as the Jew would.

Bullshit. We are quite clearly accepting the meaning the author gives the phrase both from his other uses and the surrounding context of this particular usage.

Stop pretending that you aren't arguing against the plain meaning. It is disingenuous at the very least.

kcdad · 05-15-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

"limited" view of God...??? What are you thinking here?

and what a racist word choice... "I think the Jew would say this" and "by the Jew". The Jew... wow.

To the Jew, the OT is all that there is and it is the OT that the Jew uses to identify God. That is much more limited than the Christian who adds the NT to the OT and gets the fuller message from God.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,...

THE JEW! THE JEW! <edit>

Jewish people have much more than just the Old Testament... there are hundreds of Mishrash and Talmudic writings that make up their religious beliefs.
<edit>

show_no_mercy · 05-15-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Of course, this brings us back to the Hebrew tradition of not saying "YHWH"... in the Hebrew version of these LXX passages it's actually "law of YHWH"; YHWH when spoken in Hebrew prayer is "adonai" (Lord) so that Jews wouldn't say the name YHWH out loud. This prayer convension was carried over to the LXX so that every instance of YHWH in the Hebrew bible is written as "lord" in Greek.

I don't think that the issue is how a Jew would understand the term, "law of the Lord." The issue is how the Christian in 60 AD, 30 years after the death of Christ, would understand the term. To the Jew, Lord = God. To the Christian, Lord = Christ (God). Thus, Paul says:

Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

and

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Christian mindset is entirely different than the Jewish mindset and Luke was writing not to that person with a Jewish mindset but to that person with a Christian mindset.

You are carrying that Jewish meaning of the term into the NT as if the Christian should read Luke as the Jew would. I don't think this is necessarily the right thing to do.

If the Christian mindset is different from the Jewish mindset, then the Christians aren't following the god of the Jews - ergo they are following some other god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 13

1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

But you're right, the only way to validate Christianity is to read Jewish scripture in a non-Jewish way. This is what the most popular evangelist Paul did. He read Jewish scripture in Greek.

Which is why the vast majority of Christians were - and still are - gentiles to begin with. Pauline Christians. They had no problem not following the god of the Jews and following some other god.

rhutchin · 05-17-2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don't think that the issue is how a Jew would understand the term, "law of the Lord." The issue is how the Christian in 60 AD, 30 years after the death of Christ, would understand the term. To the Jew, Lord = God. To the Christian, Lord = Christ (God). Thus, Paul says:

Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

and

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Christian mindset is entirely different than the Jewish mindset and Luke was writing not to that person with a Jewish mindset but to that person with a Christian mindset.

You are carrying that Jewish meaning of the term into the NT as if the Christian should read Luke as the Jew would. I don't think this is necessarily the right thing to do.

If the Christian mindset is different from the Jewish mindset, then the Christians aren't following the god of the Jews - ergo they are following some other god.

Yep. To the Christian, Christ is God. To the Jew, Christ is not God.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.