Christian Theology and the Hebrew Scriptures

[Joe Blackbird]

Jesus is recorded in Matthew as having said;
"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Mat 5;17-18)
Earth still, apparently, exists- so clearly Jesus believed in the authority of the law and that it should be followed (at least ‘until heaven and earth pass away‘).

He also reportedly declared himself to be a major subject of the Hebrew Bible;
Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

But there are elements of Christian theology that appear to be completely foreign to the Hebrew Scriptures. For example;

1-Where is it explicitly written in the Hebrew Scriptures that God must become human and die to eliminate the system of ritual animal sacrifice that it says he himself set up to atone for sins?

Lev 1:2-4 "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When any one of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or from the flock. "If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.”

2-Where is it explicitly written in the Hebrew Scriptures that Hell has been designed as a place where specifically non-Christians go to be tortured for eternity when they die?

3-Where is it explicitly written in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Messiah will actually be God himself?

These beliefs seem to form the bedrock of New Testament theology for many Christians, but if they do not have their origins in the Hebrew Scriptures, where did they come from and why were they given such authority in Christianity?

[Easyrider]

Easyrider: "Do you really believe the following from your Urgantia Book?"

Rob: "[Followed unrelated to topic quotation.]...Easyrider once again resorts to attacking the source with unrelated and irrelavant quotations..."

Hey Rob, if you don't want your Urantia space cadet manual questioned (it's your source that you're using to try to discredit Christian Theology and the Hebrew Scriptures), then please refrain from doing your massive cut and pastes from it.

Frankly, I've never seen such a more hilarious and questionable piece of trash than that book. Orange and green races? We must have missed them. LOL!

You only reveal your own ignorance and un-Christ-like behavior by engaging in ad hominem on forum dedicated to respectful debate, according to the rules of debate.

You are only debasing yourself my friend.

I didn't attack you personally, just that hilarious Urantia book you keep quoting from. Likewise, you attack Christian Theology and the Hebrew Scriptures, so is that to be considered an ad hominem and uncivil behavior too? You can't have it both ways.

Now, going forward, please provide credible archaeological and historical evidence to back up your Urantia claims. Otherwise I can't take them or that book seriously.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Intervention

Easyrider, In the Welcome message, it states that, "The overriding principle on this forum is respect. Respect for others is of high importance here. Also, building respect among fellow debaters will get you far. There are several rules that you must abide by. So, please familiarize yourself with them. Also, please be familiar with the disciplinary action that can occur if the rules are broken. "

It is one thing to question the veracity of a particular religious or secular text. That is an important part of debate. However it is not respectful nor civil to mock those sources which others find deeply meaningful. Please refrain from using terms like "hilarious" and "trash" in public debate with regard to the Urantia book.

Frankly, I've never seen such a more hilarious and questionable piece of trash than that book. Orange and green races? We must have missed them. LOL!

I didn't attack you personally, just that hilarious Urantia book you keep quoting from.

[Easyrider]

Moderator Intervention

Easyrider, In the Welcome message, it states that, "The overriding principle on this forum is respect. Respect for others is of high importance here. Also, building respect among fellow debaters will get you far. There are several rules that you must abide by. So, please familiarize yourself with them. Also, please be familiar with the disciplinary action that can occur if the rules are broken. "

It is one thing to question the veracity of a particular religious or secular text. That is an important part of debate. However it is not respectful nor civil to mock those sources which others find deeply meaningful. Please refrain from using terms like "hilarious" and "trash" in public debate with regard to the Urantia book.

Frankly, I've never seen such a more hilarious and questionable piece of trash than that book. Orange and green races? We must have missed them. LOL!

I didn't attack you personally, just that hilarious Urantia book you keep quoting from.

Ok, my bad. Sorry. But I'm glad you say it's okay to question the veracity of a particular religious or secular text, which I will continue to do if the Urantia book is used again.

Cheers...

[Rob]

Just because the UB says it does not mean it isn’t true.

Indeed, Cathar, we should not believe it without checking the claim against some outside source.

Most scholars agree that most of the 12 tribes were nations surrounding the area.

I note you don’t cite a single scholar.

The statement in question is:

There never were twelve tribes of the Israelites--only three or four tribes settled in Palestine. The Hebrew nation came into being as the result of the union of the so-called Israelites and the Canaanites. "And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites. And they took their daughters to be their wives and gave their daughters to the sons of the Canaanites." [Jg.3.5-6] The Hebrews never drove the Canaanites out of Palestine, notwithstanding that the priests' record of these things unhesitatingly declared that they did. (1071.6)

Two claims are essentially made here: 1) There were not twelve tribes that established the origin of the Israelites, and 2) The “The Hebrew nation came into being as the result of the union of the so-called Israelites and the Canaanites.” The second claim is well attested to in scholarly historical studies and is supported in the statement in Judges 3.5-6. It will be interesting to examine the DNA evidence, when it becomes available, as it seems that should shed some light on this question too.

Regarding the first claim, the following footnote is found in The New English Bible:

5-15: Although Israel as a league of twelve tribes took shape only after the conquest of Canaan (Exod.6.3 n.), here each tribe is represented as part of a united Israel in the Wilderness. On the omission of Levi, see vv. 47-49 n. 6: Simeon: see Gen.34.1-31 n. 10: Joseph is subdivided (Gen.48.5 n.) in order to keep the total number of tribes at twelve (compare Gen.22.20-24 n.).

-- Sandmel, Samuel, ed. The New English Bible: With the Apocrypha (Oxford Study Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1972; Old Testament: Numbers(1.5-15 fn): p. 135.

6.2-7.7: An alternative account of Moses' commission (compare 3.1-4.17), editorially placed so that it now serves as a reaffirmation of his call after Pharaoh's response. 3: God Almighty: see Gen.17.1 n.; 49.25. According to some modern interpreters, the Israelite twelve-tribal league (Gen.29.31-30.24 n.) arose only after the conquest of Canaan, and included clans, escaped from Egypt, who previously had not worshiped Yahweh (3.14-15 n.), and other clans who traced their worship of him back to primeval time (Gen.4.26). Later, all Israel accepted the Exod. tradition as her own (1.1-5) and identified Yahweh with her former deities (3.12 n.).

-- Sandmel, Samuel, ed. The New English Bible: With the Apocrypha (Oxford Study Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1972; Old Testament: Exodus(6.2 fn): p. 60.

Clearly, both citations point out that the twelve-tribes were an after-the-fact editorial creation, as in "Joseph is subdivided (Gen.48.5 n.) in order to keep the total number of tribes at twelve," and were composed of various ethnic groups, including the Canaanites. (see Judges 3.5-6)

Another source states:

Sometimes the tribes are listed genealogically (Gen. 35:23; I Chron. 2:1-2) sometimes in cultic formation (Num. 2-3; Deut. 27:12); and sometimes geographically (Num. 34:14-28; I Chron. 6:54 ff.; Ezek. 48:1 ff.). Usually twelve tribes are mentioned, but the identification of the tribes varies: in one Dinah is listed in place of Benjamin (Gen. 29-30), and in Chronicles both halves of the tribe of Manasseh are counted (I Chron. 2-3; 6:54-80). Some lists mention only ten tribes (Deut. 33:6 ff.; II Sam. 19:43); one gives eleven tribes (I King 11:31); and in Gen. 46:48 ff. there are thirteen.

(....)

From time to time new groups were grafted into the family tree of Hebrew tribes, and the heritage of the larger group became that of the adopted ones, as when the Calebites united with the tribe of Judah (Josh. 14:6-15, 15:13). When confronted by common problems or enemies, tribal federations were formed (see Judg. 4-5). On the other hand, when a famine or food shortage occurred, one group might leave to seek new territory (Gen. 13). Tribal activity in Canaan is portrayed as a twelve-tribe federation[19] often called an amphictyony, after Greek tribal federations.[20] However, clear distinctions between Greek and Hebrew patterns must be recognized. Greek cities united in an amphictyony centered about a shrine where peoples from the surrounding cities worshiped and where decisions affecting the participating members were made. The Hebrew amphictyony was centered in the Ark of Yahweh, a moveable shrine. Some scholars have argued that a primitive amphictyonic ritual was observed at the shrine at Sliechem,[21] but the hypothesis rests only upon probabilities. A six-tribe federation, which preceded the twelve-tribe grouping, has also been postulated involving the Leah tribes: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, udah, Zebulun and Issachar.[22]

[19] The scheme develops out of the twelve sons of Jacob -- six from Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun; two from Zilpah: Gad and Asher; two from Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin; and two from Bilhah: Dan and Naphtali (cf. Gen. 29:16-30:24; 35:16-20). The final grouping for division of the land includes: Asher, Benjamin, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Judah, Manasseh, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon and ZebuIun. More than twenty variant lists occur within the Bible.

[20] Martin Noth, The History of Israel, pp. 87 ff.; John Bright, A History of Israel, pp. 142 f.; Murray Newman, The People of the Covenant (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 102 ff.
[21] Cf. Noth, op. cit., pp. 92 f.; Newman, op. cit., pp. 108 ff.
[22] Cf. Noth, op. cit., pp. 88 f.; Newman, op. cit., p. 102.

-- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... brews.html

Two points: 1) The Twelve-tribes are an editorial creation after the fact of the Iraelite migration into Canaan, as the number varies even within the scriptures, and 2) The Israelites intermixed with the existing indigenous peoples as they moved into the area (as is stated clearly in scripture), both of which are the essential points made in the paragraph above.

I will be researching this question using the following sources:

1) A History of Israel by John Bright
2) A History of Ancient Israel and Judah by J. Maxwell Miller, John Haralson Hayes
3) The Military History of Ancient Israel by Richard A. Gabriel
4) Chieftains Of The Highland Clans: A History Of Israel In The Twelfth And Eleventh Centuries B.C. by Robert D. Miller
5) Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple (2nd Edition) by Hershel Shanks
6) Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? by William G. Dever

If you have some others to add, please let me know, as perhaps you could quote some of those scholars you speak of.

I wonder Cathar if you recognize the great harm and evil that has been done in the past when secular history is intepreted as so-called "sacred history" of a "chosen people" as claimed by some Jewish and Christian religious conservatives, fundamentalists, and fanatics?

New Testament authors and later Christian writers further complicated the distortion of Hebrew history by their well-meant attempts to transcendentalize the Jewish prophets. Thus has Hebrew history been disastrously exploited by both Jewish and Christian writers. Secular Hebrew history has been thoroughly dogmatized. It has been converted into a fiction of sacred history and has become inextricably bound up with the moral concepts and religious teachings of the so-called Christian nations. (1071.4)

....

And so does the truth about the Jewish people disclose that much which has been regarded as sacred history turns out to be little more than the chronicle of ordinary profane history. Judaism was the soil out of which Christianity grew, but the Jews were not a miraculous people. (1075.5)

But as religion becomes institutionalized, its power for good is curtailed, while the possibilities for evil are greatly multiplied. The dangers of formalized religion are: fixation of beliefs and crystallization of sentiments; accumulation of vested interests with increase of secularization; tendency to standardize and fossilize truth; diversion of religion from the service of God to the service of the church; inclination of leaders to become administrators instead of ministers; tendency to form sects and competitive divisions; establishment of oppressive ecclesiastical authority; creation of the aristocratic "chosen-people" attitude; fostering of false and exaggerated ideas of sacredness; the routinizing of religion and the petrification of worship; tendency to venerate the past while ignoring present demands; failure to make up-to-date interpretations of religion; entanglement with functions of secular institutions; it creates the evil discrimination of religious castes; it becomes an intolerant judge of orthodoxy; it fails to hold the interest of adventurous youth and gradually loses the saving message of the gospel of eternal salvation. (1092.3)

The main thrust of the Urantia Book’s argument is to distinguish between secular history and the falsely so-called “sacred history” of the “chosen people.” Even today, this erroneous way of viewing the scripture leads to the justification of war. Not long ago, while attending church, to both my surprise and disgust I sat and listened to the pastor quote the following scripture:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, an the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.

You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons. For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their alters, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire. (Deuteronomy 7: 1-5)

fn 7.1-5: This holy war is based on the fear of the corrupting influence of Canaanite culture (v. 16; Ex.23.23-33; 34.11-16). 1: On the pre-Israelite peoples, see Gen.10.15-20. 2: Utterly destroy, see Jos.6.17 n.

-- May, Herbert G. and Metzger Bruce M., eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha. Second Edition of Revised Standard Version ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1977; Old Testament: Deuteronomy(7: 1-5): p. 224.

He went on to make the following claims based upon a literal interpretation of this scripture:

1. Justification for slaughter given by Pastor was that the Canaanites "were not school teachers, but evil people, who killed their own children by sacrificing them." In an attempt to somehow make such genocidal “holy war” more palatable for the congregation, he cited the following scripture, "As surely as I live, declares the Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their evil ways and live." (Ezekiel 33: 11) In other words, God may command the holy war and slaughter, but we can take comfort he doesn't take pleasure in it.

I wonder how wicked the children and babies were? I suppose no more wicked than David's innocent offspring from an adulterous liaison, whom God killed to spare the sinner David, if one literally believes the scripture. (See: 2.Sam.12.1-31)

2. He claimed there was "No holy war in the Bible," yet claims that God ordered the slaughter of men, women, and children. Yet, the footnote in the Bible clearly calls this “holy war.”

3. Nevertheless, God commands us to sometimes go to war. He cited to support this claim that God sometimes destroys the wicked, with the following:

"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. And God said to Noah, 'I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold I will destroy them with the earth." (Gen.6.11-13)

4. Then, as further justification, he cites "God's judgment on evil people." In other words, the Canaanites were "evil people," they have sex with their brothers and sisters and children and worship false gods and sacrificed their children, so it was God's judgment that men, women, and children be slaughtered. He quotes Leviticus 18 and 2 Samuel 11:1 as evidence that when the Israelites behaved as the other nations they too were punished in God's wrath.

"You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you." (Lev.1.3)

"In the spring of the year, the time when kings go forth to battle, David sent Jo'ab and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they ravaged the Ammonites, and besieged Rabbath. But David remained at Jerusalem." (2.Sam.11.1)

But he fails to cite the rest of 2 Samuel (2.Sam.11.2-26) in which David conspires to take another man's wife, by arranging his murder. And after having bore a child to her, God punishes David by taking the child's life. (2.Sam.12.1-31)

5. He cites an example where Israelites practiced the religion of their neighbors and were punished. (Nu.25.1-3) He cites the need to maintain "monotheism" as justification for God's actions.

6. He argued that these commandments by God are based on the "old covenant," meant to maintain monotheism amongst a world filled with polytheism, but since Jesus we are now under a "new covenant." (Jer.31.31 and Zec.9.9-10) And under the new covenant we are called to be "peace makers." (Luke.2.14 and Matt.5.38-44).

In other words, the entire purpose of the scripture reading was to teach that God sometimes calls his people to war, but of course only Muslims have "holy war," and Iraq is a case were we are called by God to war.

I find this form of blind, literal interpretation of religious texts to be dangerous, and I note that the thrust of the Urantia Book's statements is to refute and counter this form of biblical literalism and abuse of religion for secular political ends.

--------------------

Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion, logic the proof of philosophy, but revelation is validated only by human experience. Science yields knowledge; religion yields happiness; philosophy yields unity; revelation confirms the experiential harmony of this triune approach to universal reality. (1106.7)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

[Easyrider]

Rob stated: I find this form of blind, literal interpretation of religious texts to be dangerous, and I note that the thrust of the Urantia Book's statements is to refute and counter this form of biblical literalism and abuse of religion for secular political ends.

Rob, you continue to reference the Urantia Book in opposition to various Biblical passages and doctrine (etc.). I need to ask you at this point what evidence you have that the Urantia Book is in any way credible. Along these lines I'd like to ask the following questions:

1. When was the first mention of the Urantia Book, and who reduced it to writing?

2. It appears that various supernatural personalities allegedly provided texts on different subjects. Do you have any evidence these "personalities" actually exist? Who received the Urantia revelations?

3. Why should people take the writings of the Urantia Book seriously? What makes their claims superior to the Bible?

[McCulloch]

3. Why should people take the writings of the Urantia Book seriously? What makes their claims superior to the Bible?

I suppose that you might have an easier time of it if you simply considered the content of what the quotes from the Urantia Book rather than its source. Pretend that it was simply a quote from some anonymous blogger. Simply agree or disagree with what is said and state your reasons. If you, like me, do not recognize the UB as authoritative, then don't.

[Rob]

Well said:

[S]imply considered the content of ... the quotes ... agree or disagree with what is said and state your reasons.

Is that not the purpose of debate? Present arguments and then evaluate them based upon the content of their internal logic and reason.

After all, is that not the spirit and meaning expressed in your tagline:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

And further it is said:

"`Come now, let us reason together,' says the Lord, ..."

True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one's belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor's attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals.

[Easyrider]

3. Why should people take the writings of the Urantia Book seriously? What makes their claims superior to the Bible?

I suppose that you might have an easier time of it if you simply considered the content of what the quotes from the Urantia Book rather than its source. Pretend that it was simply a quote from some anonymous blogger. Simply agree or disagree with what is said and state your reasons. If you, like me, do not recognize the UB as authoritative, then don't.

Turnabout is fair play, I think. I'm constantly asked for manuscript and other evidences for Biblical authorship / claims, so I think the request isn't out of bounds.

[McCulloch]

Turnabout is fair play, I think. I'm constantly asked for manuscript and other evidences for Biblical authorship / claims, so I think the request isn't out of bounds.

If someone makes the claim that the Urantia Book is an authoritative source for factual information then that someone should be required to provide supporting evidence for the UB.

[Colter]

True, the UB claims it's own authority such as Jesus did. BTW, according to the UB Jesus granted the authority for the Urantia Revelation to take place, but I presume that authority won't do the Job.



It was the RCC that granted "authority" to the 66 books of the Bible. There were originally more books (the apocrypha) which were considered inspired by early Christians such as the Book of Enoch which is sourced in the scriptures however the RCC "uninspired" them all under proper authority mind you.

The Bible itself has become a source of "worship" a kind of fetish, that's why it can't be wrong in any way.

Colter