Luke 7:50

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
[b]Let me ask you this simple question: Do you think that the Holocaust was part of God's plan?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
No. Do you? But I am now thinking, could it have been? I don't know, but I would tend to say no, at least not that He caused it.

Well, if you believe that nothing come ...[text shortened]... ost certainly believe the latter. I bristle every time someone says 'God's Plan.'

Nemesio[/b]

While I agree that God is not in control of every thing that happens, I do think He has an "ultimate" plan. It may not be the one traditional thinking has labeled, but I think He does have one.
Do you think God created man and then just left him without answers and to fend for himself?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by vistesd
[b](1) There was no [b]formal Jewish canon at the time, except for the Torah (the five books of Moses). Psalms was certainly recognized, for example, but I’m not sure that Esther was (there was some later dispute over admitting Esther to the Hebrew canon).[/b]

Of course not, but there were widely accepted books w ...[text shortened]... eads or topics or anything, so if you have a
summary handy, I wouldn't mind it. 😉

Nemesio[/b]

Of course not, but there were widely accepted books which comprised the various local canons. It is my (limited) understanding that most of the Septuagint was

Agreed. In a sense, the LXX itself could be viewed as an attempt at comprising a canon. The final Jewish canon was not in place until about 200 C.E. (This is an interesting article on the development of the Jewish canon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Jewish_canon.)

Excerpts from a couple of other wiki articles--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint:

“Several factors finally led most Jews to abandon the LXX, including the fact that Greek scribes were not subject to the same rigid rules imposed on Hebrew scribes; that Christians favoured the LXX; and the gradual decline of the Greek language among Jews after most of them fled from the Greek-speaking Roman Empire into the Aramaic-speaking Persian Empire when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Instead, Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts compiled by the Masoretes, or authoritative Aramaic translations such as that of Onkelos, of Rabbi Yonasan ben Uziel, and Targum Yerushalmi, were preferred. The LXX translation began to lose popular esteem after differences between it and the accepted Hebrew scriptures were discovered. This contributed to the growing renunciation of Hellenization among Jews. All these factors combined and the Jewish people returned to the Masoretic text.

Ethiopian Jews are the only Jewish community today who accept the Septuagint (minus Ecclesiasticus).”

Note: This wiki article seems a bit confusinf regarding the LXX versus the Masoretic text, since the Masoretic text was complied much later. The Masoretic text is not used in Torah scrolls, which remain “unpointed.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh:

“The Hebrew text originally consisted only of consonants, together with some inconsistently applied letters used as vowels (matres lectionis). During the early middle ages, the Masoretes codified the oral tradition for reading the Tanakh by adding two special kinds of symbols to the text: niqqud (vowel points) and cantillation signs. The latter indicate syntax, stress (accentuation), and the melody for reading.”

You are engaging my point mesoscopically, and I am looking at this macroscopically.

Actually, I’m just being a troublesome Hebrew “chauvinist,” and I think I’m distracting from the main points between you and CB. My only real argument is that Jesus was probably familiar with the Jewish “midrashic” approach to exegesis, and that only really works with the Hebrew. Discounting some of the polemic, Jesus arguments with the Pharisees seem very much like the kind of argument that is the form of rabbinical Jewish Torah study (talmid torah); true Torah study requires at least two persons, both searching out (e.g., from Talmud) and “spinning” possible meanings from the Hebrew text.

I’ll let the point go, since I think it was really off the main point to begin with.

I know you aren't busy with any other threads or topics or anything, so if you have a summary handy, I wouldn't mind it.

Most of what I’ve read is from the hellenistic side too. Thomas Wright (an Episcopalian) views Jesus as an apocalyptic Jew in the prophetic style; if memory serves, so did E.P. Sanders. Geza Vermes (noted Oxford Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, and the only Jew that I am aware of among the “historical Jesus” scholars) views Jesus as a peripatetic Jewish teacher and holy man (hasid), along the lines of Haninah be Dosa and Choni “the Circle Drawer.” Vermes discounts those scholars who have suggested that Jesus may have been in the Pharisee camp, since the Pharisees apparently had little presence in Galilee.

At this point in my studies, I changed course to actively study Judaism—and so I can offer no more…