Thank you. I only found out about the Septuagint a few days ago. This is all very new to me. I agree that it is difficult to understand the OT without taking the NT into consideration and vice versa. When I was a kid of course I knew about the Last Supper but I didn’t know that Jesus and the Apostles were celebrating the Passover. That’s important.My thoughts exactly.
I think we ought to return to the OP. We’ve been getting distracted and allowed the thread to be derailed.
I think it’s difficult to understand the OT without the NT, since the NT is the fulfillment of the Old. It’s important to understand the Jewish literature, culture/customs pertinent to the time period in which the OT Scriptures were written. This is where Fundamentalists go off the track. They focus on one or two verses, then find other verses to support these. This is also where translations can get tricky.
A good example would be our modern day term, “It’s raining cats and dogs.” It’s an expression that means it’s raining very hard, not that dogs and cats are falling outside.
When we read how Lot offered his daughters to the men clamoring for men, it doesn’t mean rape is ok, it’s meant to underline how wrong homosexual activity is.
Some things in the OT make more sense in light of the NT. The “keys” to the house of David, the Passover lamb, the Suffering Servant verses are just a few examples.
Also, Jews do not accept some of the books which Catholics considered inspired, books included in the Greek Septuagint., I would be hesitant to rely on a Jewish “Bible Study.”
I’d love to hear some more thoughts along this vein.
Yes, you could - if Jesus ever did that. And He didn’t.Ah, but there’s a bit of a supposition that a lot of what Jesus said was original, it wasn’t.
Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: “Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.”
So you could say that Jesus was just following Hillel.
Also, I have never heard of this “supposition” that “a lot of what Jesus said was original.” Certainly He repeated messages that others had stated many, many times in the past. The message of “Love thy neighbor” was not original, nor has it ever been claimed to be said for the first time by Jesus, not that “Love thy neighbor” is what Hillel stated according to the above quoted post.Ah, but there’s a bit of a supposition that a lot of what Jesus said was original, it wasn’t.
Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: “Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.”
So you could say that Jesus was just following Hillel.
Scholarly consensus is that Jesus was most original in his teaching that the Kingdom of God had arrived, “on earth, just as it is in Heaven”. No other prophet announced the definitive coming of the Kingdom and no other prophet identified his ministry as the agency for establishment of the Kingdom. Jesus’ parables of the Kingdom have been widely studied and the primary conclusion is that they are in essentials unique to Jesus. They embody an almost Buddhistic view of spirituality, and their inherent cognitive dissonance invites the listener to see life anew - as it were, from God’s point of view. In Kingdom and in parable, Jesus was and is unique.Also, I have never heard of this “supposition” that “a lot of what Jesus said was original.” Certainly He repeated messages that others had stated many, many times in the past. The message of “Love thy neighbor” was not original, nor has it ever been claimed to be said for the first time by Jesus, not that “Love thy neighbor” is what Hillel stated according to the above quoted post.
Your “supposition” is invalid.
I agree. What I’m saying is that not everything Jesus said was original to Him. The example given was the message of “Love your neighbor” (at least that’s my impression). Certainly people who lived before the time Jesus as God-incarnate walked the earth came up with the idea of “Love your neighbor.” Some of them were probably pagans and some atheists. Just because a person is a pagan or an atheist doesn’t mean he/she is wrong about everything.Scholarly consensus is that Jesus was most original in his teaching that the Kingdom of God had arrived, “on earth, just as it is in Heaven”. No other prophet announced the definitive coming of the Kingdom and no other prophet identified his ministry as the agency for establishment of the Kingdom. Jesus’ parables of the Kingdom have been widely studied and the primary conclusion is that they are in essentials unique to Jesus. They embody an almost Buddhistic view of spirituality, and their inherent cognitive dissonance invites the listener to see life anew - as it were, from God’s point of view. In Kingdom and in parable, Jesus was and is unique.
Indeed. Much of what Jesus said was to fulfill what was said in the Old Testament. In fact, these very words “to fulfill (fill in OT verse)” is repeated after many of Jesus’ sayings and actions.Also, I have never heard of this “supposition” that “a lot of what Jesus said was original.” Certainly He repeated messages that others had stated many, many times in the past. The message of “Love thy neighbor” was not original, nor has it ever been claimed to be said for the first time by Jesus,
TrueYour “supposition” is invalid.