Do we Christians interpret the Bible consistently?

  • Thread starter Thread starter icamhif
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, SavingGrace. Good answers regarding the reliability of the New Testament.

Now, I want to focus this thread on the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. If one only knows the Old Testament and Jewish tradition before the 1st century, can he figure out that Isaiah 53 is meant to be Messianic, not just a description of Israel?
 
Wouldn’t Muhammed trace his lines back to Ishmael, not Isaac and through the tribes of Israel?
Yes. You are right that there is good reason to disprove that Acts 3:22 is talking about Muhammad. What troubles me though is in general, we don’t allow Muslims the same fluidity of Scripture interpretation that we apparently demand from Jews on the Tanakh. SavingGrace is right that it comes down to whether God gave the Church the authority to interpret Scripture.

Now, can one discern from the Old Testament and pre-Talmud Jewish traditions alone that Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 were in fact meant to be Messianic? This is an important question for any Jew considering Christianity.
 
SavingGrace, if I were an outsider trying to decide between Judaism and Christianity, I would question whether the Apostles made up facts about Jesus, including His claim to be God, in order to justify their discontinuity from traditional Judaism at the time.
One of the classic observations to this question is that people generally lie to advance their own position and power: If the Apostles lied, they did a rather horrid job of advancing their position - most of them remained poor and died gruesome deaths with the name of the Lord on their lips.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Okay there’s more. Apparently “semikhah” can be used in two senses. 😃

"Of Judges, Elders, and Rabbis

All Jewish religious leaders had to be ordained before they were permitted to perform certain judicial functions and to decide practical questions in Jewish law. The Bible relates that Moses ordained Joshua by placing his hands on him, thereby transferring a portion of his spirit to Joshua (Num. 27:22, 23; Deut. 34:9). Moses also ordained the 70 elders who assisted him in governing the people (Num. 11:16–17, 24–25). The elders ordained by Moses ordained their successors, who in turn ordained others, so that there existed an unbroken chain of ordination from Moses down to the time of the Second Temple (Maim. Yad, Sanh. 4:2). For some centuries the tradition of ordaining by the laying of the hands was continued, but the rabbis later decided to ordain by merely conferring the title “rabbi” either orally or in writing (ibid., 4:2).

Ordination was required both for membership in the Great Sanhedrin, and the smaller Sanhedrins and regular colleges of judges empowered to decide legal cases. Three rows of scholars always sat before the Sanhedrin, and whenever it became necessary to choose a new member, a scholar from the first row was chosen and ordained (Sanh. 4:4). During the time of Judah ha-Nasi it was decreed that any religio-legal decision, including decisions relating to purely ceremonial law, could only be given by those properly authorized (Sanh. 5b). While any qualified Jewish person could serve as a judge in civil cases, only Jews of pure descent were eligible to adjudicate in criminal matters involving capital punishment (Sanh. 4:2). Ordination was also required to judge in cases involving corporal punishment and fines, to intercalate months and years, to release the firstborn animals for profane use by reason of disqualifying blemishes, to annul vows, and to pass the ban of excommunication (*ḥerem). Only a transfer of the Divine Spirit which originally rested on Moses empowered the ordained person to make decisions in these crucial areas. Ordination could be limited to only one or some of these various functions. The lowest degree of ordination entitled the rabbi to decide only religious questions, while the highest degree entitled him to inspect firstlings, in addition to deciding religious questions and judging criminal cases (Sanh. 5a; Maim. loc. cit. 4:8). The complete formula of ordination was “Yoreh Yoreh Yaddin Yaddin. Yattir Yattir” (“May he decide? He may decide. May he judge? He may judge. May he permit? He may permit”). Rav, the founder of the academy of Sura in Babylonia, was authorized to exercise only the first two of these three functions since it was feared that his excessive knowledge of blemishes might enable him to declare a blemish permanent and the animal thus be permitted for profane use, where to the bystanders it appeared transitory (Sanh. 5b). The privileges of ordination could also be limited to a specific period. R. Johanan only ordained R. Shaman for the duration of his Babylonian visit (ibid.).

The ordination itself, which required the presence of three elders, one of whom was himself ordained, was originally performed by every ordained teacher upon his pupils (Sanh. 1:3; tj, Sanh. 1:3, 19a). Nevertheless, as the influence of the Babylonian exilarch increased, it became necessary for the ordinants to obtain his authorization before serving as judges in Babylonia (Sanh. 5a). In Ereẓ Israel it also became necessary for individual scholars to obtain the consent of the patriarch before ordaining their pupils. On account of the high regard entertained for the patriarchs of the house of Hillel, who were the recognized heads of the Jewish community of the Holy Land during the centuries subsequent to the demise of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, no ordination was considered valid without the patriarch’s consent. The patriarch himself was at first permitted to confer it without consulting the Sanhedrin. Later the patriarch could only grant the degree in cooperation with the court (tj, Sanh. 1:3, 19a). The term used in the Holy Land in the days of the Jerusalem Talmud for ordination was minnui (literally “appointment” to the office of judge). In Babylonia the designation of semikhah (semikhuta in Aramaic) was retained (ibid.). On the day of ordination, the candidate wore a special garment (Lev. R. 2:4). After the ceremony, the scholars present praised in rhythmic sentences the person ordained. At the ordination of R. Ze’ira it was sung: “No powder, no paint, no waving of the hair, and still a graceful gazelle”; at the ordinations of Ammi and Assi: “Such as these, such as these ordain unto us” encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-2587518015/semikhah.html
Yes, your first post was about semiKah
This post is about semiKHah

So the question is that with semikhah, “Classical semikhah refers to a specific type of ordination that, according to traditional Jewish teaching, traces a line of authority back to Moses and the seventy elders”

What authority did Jesus have to over-rule such “authority”?
It is authority passed down from Moses after all.

.
 
And this presupposes that Jesus is God and gave the Church such authority. That argument, all by itself, would not fly to a non-Christian. He/she can just as well claim that either God preserved His truth through the Jewish tradition or revealed more of His truth through the Muslim tradition
Please let us not stop there, as if Islam is the final truth 🙂

.
 
Yes, your first post was about semiKah
This post is about semiKHah

So the question is that with semikhah, “Classical semikhah refers to a specific type of ordination that, according to traditional Jewish teaching, traces a line of authority back to Moses and the seventy elders”

What authority did Jesus have to over-rule such “authority”?
It is authority passed down from Moses after all.

.
Jesus created Moses, after all. :rolleyes:
 
Jesus created Moses, after all. :rolleyes:
Of course He did, but He gave Moses authority. Why should the Jews forsake that authority (the authority to interpret His own Scripture) for someone who “claims” to have created their Prophet, Moses, the greatest Prophet in history?

.
 
Icamhif, you can drive yourself crazy wondering who has authority or the correct interpretation. Pray to God and ask for guidance. It’s His will.
 
Icamhif, you can drive yourself crazy wondering who has authority or the correct interpretation. Pray to God and ask for guidance. It’s His will.
Indeed. God is good. He understands my doubts and everything. As a Christian, I believe by faith that Jesus is my God is Savior. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not considering leaving Christianity because of my questions. I don’t think I’ll ever renounce Christ. I just find this forum to be one of the best places to voice my deepest doubts and seek answers to them.
 
Indeed. God is good. He understands my doubts and everything. As a Christian, I believe by faith that Jesus is my God is Savior. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not considering leaving Christianity because of my questions. I don’t think I’ll ever renounce Christ. I just find this forum to be one of the best places to voice my deepest doubts and seek answers to them.
Oh, I understand now.
 
Indeed. God is good. He understands my doubts and everything. As a Christian, I believe by faith that Jesus is my God is Savior. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not considering leaving Christianity because of my questions. I don’t think I’ll ever renounce Christ. I just find this forum to be one of the best places to voice my deepest doubts and seek answers to them.
Indeed! This forum and the people on it are a blessing.

From my perspective profound doubt is part of he Christian life - even those that walked with Jesus doubted:

John 20:25

So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believ
 
With a world like we have today, it takes focus to be firm in thought on many issues.

I mean, what’s right for you might not be right for me, right? :eek: :banghead:
 
When I hear Christians debate Jews, I hear it implied that Old Testament passages can have more than one meaning: the original meaning in its context and its Messianic interpretation.

However, when I hear Christians debate Muslims, they seem to insist that a New Testament passage can only be interpreted one way in its context. They give no room for the possibility that a passage in question can also have hidden Islamic meaning.

The best examples that come to my mind are Psalm 22 an Acts 3:22. Is Psalm 22 both a description of David’s trials and a Messianic prophecy, or just the former? We all know what the Christian and Jewish answers are. Now, is Acts 3:22 just a prophecy of Jesus, or is it also a hidden prophecy of Muhammad? We all know what the Christian and Muslim answers are.

So, unless I’m missing something, consistent Bible interpretation would force me to give either Jews or Muslims some more apologetic ground.

Thoughts?
Interesting question but perhaps you are asking it out of curiosity.

IMO your question is not valid simply because it does not work that way. Christians, especially Catholics, read the Bible together with Sacred Tradition and its understanding or rather interpretation as you said, is to be found in the Church teaching office or the Magisterium. IOW, interpretation of the Bible has to be inline with Christian theology and the Bible is always considered as books in written form that support this theology rather than not. In this way, we interpret the Bible consistently. That is the reason why, as long as interpretation contrasting the Church’s theology or belief, it is considered not a right interpretation. These include whoever interpret it that way, not just the Muslims.

God bless.

Reuben
 
Interesting question but perhaps you are asking it out of curiosity.

IMO your question is not valid simply because it does not work that way. Christians, especially Catholics, read the Bible together with Sacred Tradition and its understanding or rather interpretation as you said, is to be found in the Church teaching office or the Magisterium. IOW, interpretation of the Bible has to be inline with Christian theology and the Bible is always considered as books in written form that support this theology rather than not. In this way, we interpret the Bible consistently. That is the reason why, as long as interpretation contrasting the Church’s theology or belief, it is considered not a right interpretation. These include whoever interpret it that way, not just the Muslims.

God bless.

Reuben
Your point is valid, but with one caveat: If I were a non-Christian, I would take the Sacred Tradition argument as a convenient cop-out from putting our Scriptural hermeneutics under fair scrutiny. How would you take it, for example, if a Jew told you that the Old Testament was written by Jews, so it could only be interpreted in light of the Talmud and other Sacred Jewish traditions?

I’m all for Sacred Christian tradition, but I believe that if I’m going to be honest with myself and the Jews, the Old Testament is not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus is the Messiah. At best, it can only defend the Christian faith, for there is no way to know for sure from a purely exegetical standpoint that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 were meant to be Messianic prophecies. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that they are Messianic prophecies. But I believe it for a different reason: because Jesus revealed that to me through His Word in the New Testament, a set of documents that we can reasonably claim to be reliable accounts of Jesus.
 
When Muslims point to John 14 as “proof” of Muhammad, Christians rightly point out that the context shows that the Helper is the Holy Spirit. Yet, an unstated assumption is that there is only one interpretation of that verse: the historical, contextual, and literal meaning. The Holy Spirit is literally inside us. Muhammad can’t be literally inside us. Case closed? I think not. One can suggest that Muhammad is “inside” his followers in that he is spiritually guiding them through the teachings of Allah. This metaphor doesn’t sound any les reasonable than Paul saying that Christ is in him in the sense that Christ sanctified him (Galatiabs 2:20).

When Christian apologists debate Jews, however, we take an entirely different approach to Biblical hermeneutics. We insist that Isaiah 53 has to be a Messianic verse, even though there is nothing from the context of Isaiah that makes that clear. Jews are comfortable in saying that Isaiah 53 is merely referring to Israel, and the context supports that interpretation. Yet, we continue to insist that the verse has multiple meanings, including a Messianic meaning.

So it seems to me that Christian apologists are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. When we debate with Muslims, we take a very conservative and often literal approach to Biblical hermeneutics. Yet, when we debate with Jews, we take a more fluid, multiple meaning, and often metaphorical approach to Scripture interpretation.

Any one has an answer to this perceived double-standard?
 
Paul is talking about the Spirit that comes through Christ from the Father. It’s not a metaphor. It is really the Spirit. Divine.

See Galatians 4:6:Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
A good argument. However, it does not refute the possibility that the New Testament can have hidden Islamic or Bahai meaning, just as the Old Testament has hidden Christian meaning.
 
Icamhif #36
But I believe it for a different reason: because Jesus revealed that to me through His Word in the New Testament, a set of documents that we can reasonably claim to be reliable accounts of Jesus.
Obviously you don’t interpret the Bible consistently, like so many others, “we Christians” being a false assumption of a diverse group of many thousands of different sects, all teaching something different.

What the New Testament testifies is that Christ founded His Catholic Church on St Peter to lead the Apostles, giving him all authority to teach, sanctify and rule, and all other sects or Churches are deficient in His teaching as shown by their errors in teaching faith or morals.

Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalists and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, Sheehan/Joseph p 89, 93].

The facts of Jesus miracles were recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top