PaRDeS

[sheep wrecked]

(01-17-2009 02:11 PM)strefanash Wrote:  I might distinguish between spiritual and "spiritual realm". I was trying to make a point about the charismatic abuse of chasing supernaturals all the time.

To me this contempt for the creation and their lust for the thaumaturgics, histrionics and cheap dramatics which are the essence of their hermeneutic is gnostic attitude par excellence

yes, exactly - now I "get it"

Quote:It is about emphasis, a spiritual walk here in creation rather than their psychotic withdrawl (which afflicted me severely) into a fantasy nightmare land - well it wasnt dreamland - of demons, curses, annointings, of all manner of irrational reifications which they do because they are superstitious and naive rigid literalists whose over tight gaze at the scripture comes up with similar nonsense to the Kabbalists you mentioned earlier.

I think we attended the same "church"

Quote:To me a classic example of out of context rigid literalism coupled with and producing superstition is Derek Prince

I had to look him up - never heard of him before. He was quite the character - more charismania and shepherding movement

[Mary]

(01-11-2009 01:32 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  Levels of understanding seem to be real popular in Hebrew Roots and is slowly an accepted system for studying scripture, especially "midrash" even in Christianity

PaRDeS, a system for understanding Scripture, is an acronym for Pesha, Remez, Drash [midrash], and Sod.

Pesha is the simple or literal surface understanding of the text.
Remez is the allegorical meaning and/or cross reference to other texts.
Midrash is the moral and discussion of the text, or one's interpretation.
Sod is the deepest level - usually mystic and by special revelation aka direct revelation.

Jesus Parables have been classified as "remez". The book of Revelation is considered "sod". This is the Hebrew Roots application in which it is taught that both Jesus and Paul taught PaRDes

PaRDeS is a man-made system that comes out of kabbalah. Another one of those sneaky little anti-Scriptural concepts that are labeled as "godly", yet is anything but. Scripture clearly teaches that wisdom and understanding come from God via His Holy Spirit. Neither Jesus nor Paul depended on PaRDes - they were "inspired" by God

Those who promote "midrash" are simply teaching under the umbrella of kabbalah ......... not a good place to be

Some members of the small church group I go to are increasing their references to Midrash, a problem for me in itself, but a further problem in that the way they talk about it is confusing (to me anyway) in terms of what I understand Midrash to be. For example they say "X verse is a midrash on Y verse" . That just blurs my understanding , and from what I've been reading about midrash here and elsewhere, I think their understanding is blurred too - and I think this just leads them to accept anything that calls itself or lends itself to "Midrash".

This morning I found this article by Jacob Prasch, and thought it might be interesting to critique it and invite discussion on it - should make for a lively discussion

http://moriel.org/MorielArchive/index.ph...cob-prasch

[sheep wrecked]

(07-07-2010 03:52 AM)Mary Wrote:  Some members of the small church group I go to are increasing their references to Midrash, a problem for me in itself, but a further problem in that the way they talk about it is confusing (to me anyway) in terms of what I understand Midrash to be. For example they say "X verse is a midrash on Y verse" . That just blurs my understanding , and from what I've been reading about midrash here and elsewhere, I think their understanding is blurred too - and I think this just leads them to accept anything that calls itself or lends itself to "Midrash".

This morning I found this article by Jacob Prasch, and thought it might be interesting to critique it and invite discussion on it - should make for a lively discussion

http://moriel.org/MorielArchive/index.ph...cob-prasch

I personally think that Christians who get "high" on midrash are actually just throwing around their gnosticsm to impress and/or to feel more spiritual. It seems that we have fully reached the age of mysticism and accept it as the norm for Christianity.

I took a quick peak at the article and got instantly ticked off. He is using a Biblical definition for midrash -which means story and changing it to be acceptable within kabbalah's definition for midrash. That is deceptive. Here is what "midrash" means as used today within Judaism:

Quote:A. "Midrash" means "exposition." The Midrash (or Medrash) is probably the most referred-to collection of explanatory works on Tanach, next to Rashi. The Midrash, or Midrashim, fills in the gaps behind the oft-times sketchy, skeletal narrative of the Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim. It adds meat to its bones, telling us things we otherwise would never know, mainly the dialogues between the Torah's figures and details of their lives. As such, the Midrash is a vital, true part of the Oral Torah.

B. Here's a great definition of "Midrash" by the late great Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, author of The Living Torah: "...a generic term, usually denoting the non-legalistic teachings of the rabbis of the Talmudic era. In the centuries following the final redaction of the Talmud (around 505 CE), much of this material was gathered into collections known as Midrashim." So, "the Midrash" is like "the dictionary"--there are many dictionaries, each compiled by a different party at a different time.

C. The Midrash consists of a large number of individually written books on various sections of Tanach, or on the entire Tanach. A prominent example of a Midrash is the Midrash Rabbah, which adds critical details to the five books of the Chumash. There is also the Midrash Tanchuma on the Chumash (written by Rabbi Tanchuma, a Talmudic sage), the Yalkut Shim'oni, the Midrash Agadah... and Avot D'Rabbi Natan, Mechilta, Midrash Hagadol, Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, Sifra, Sifri and many more. Each elaborates on all or part of the Written Torah. None, however, should be taken lightly: unfortunately, the misconception exists that midrashim are mere tales or legends. They are not, and the assumption that one can write their own book of Biblical fiction on the assumption that the authors of the Midrash did the same is the most tragic result thereof.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/190,2...drash.html

As far as Prasch goes, he is a Messianic who believes that unless one has a "Hebraic mind set" one cannot understand the Scriptures. He "fronts" as a Christian who teaches against Judaism, the Talmud and kabbalah and then incorporates all of it in his teachings. Christians are none the wiser - it's called bait and switch. Most Hebrew Roots teachers [even the ones who claim they don't teach Talmud and kabbalah] incorporate these concepts in what they offer as well. It is a corrupt system and Prasch and his like have marketed it quite nicely as the truth.

See Vic's article on Prasch here, for a good "profile" on him [put your seatbelt on ]:

http://www.seekgod.ca/jpupdate.htm


More articles:

http://www.seekgod.ca/hunt.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/jacobjfj.htm


You can also do a search on her website for other associations of Prasch's.

[Rose of Shushan]

I so agree with Sheep that those who are throwing around the word midrash so glibly are doing it to either feel more spiritual or enlightened.
The word midrash as used in the Bible merely means commentary.However in Judaism circles midrash is used as Sheep explained in her quote, to refer to a wide variety of already established jewish commentary literature.
It is really misleading in my eyes to refer to any commentary as midrash.If we mean commentary why not use the english word commentary??
If we mean classical jewish midrash then the word certainly applies.But to use the term so loosely as is done in messianic circles is to mix two things which shouldnt really have been mixed.
Some may argue that they can use the word midrash since it does mean commentary but then we could apply it to everything and just insert a hebrew equivalent into our writings or speech as we see fit.Imagine if everytime I used the word heart in english I used lev instead or everytime we came across the word love we would have to use the hebrew equivalent..it would just not make sense to ordinary english language speaking people with no knowledge of the hebrew language.
It would also be confusing with those who have no knowledge of whats in the jewish midrash to have it confused with christian commentaries.Very confusing to the rosh..err I mean head

[Vic]

Actually the best information about Prasch and Midrash is in my original To Embrace Hebrew Roots series > http://www.seekgod.ca/topichr.htm#series

That is where I evaluated all his statements concerning midrash etc.

Here's a few quotes.

----------

http://www.seekgod.ca/embraceintro.htm
Jacob Prasch maintains that we need the knowledge of the Midrash, the rabbinical commentary on scripture, to rightly understand the Bible. Many advocates of the Hebrew Roots doctrine would have us believe that the Talmud, a compendium of oral traditions, is divinely inspired and of benefit to those involved in Judaism, the Hebrew Roots movement and Christianity.
-----------

http://www.seekgod.ca/embracebible.htm

In his article, Explaining the Midrash, Jacob Prasch stated that we need the knowledge of the Midrash and Jewish thought to rightly understand the Bible.

"…But Matthew appears to take the passage out of all reasonable context and twist it into talking about Jesus. We have to ask, is Matthew wrong? or is there something wrong with our Protestant way of interpreting the Bible? There is nothing wrong with Matthew, and there is nothing wrong with the New Testament. But there is something wrong with our Protestant mentality…They were reading a Jewish book as if it were a Greek book… The first step is going back to reading the Bible as a Jewish book, instead of as a Greek one." 7.

Referring to the Midrash, Mr. Prasch said:

" It takes the wisdom of the ancients to really understand these things." 8.

"Wisdom of the Ancients" bears an uneasy resemblance to Ancient Wisdom, which is the esoteric term used by occultists for Gnosis or Mysticism. .....
Are Christians unable to understand the Bibles teachings without this Ancient Wisdom?

Psalm 19: 7-11:

"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping them there is great reward."

What about other sources of Jewish thought regarding the Messiah, the kingdom of God, sin and salvation? How do teachings expounded from the "Ancient Wisdom" compare with the New Testament teachings? What differences may be found between the inspired Old and New Testament and the "Mishnah, Haggadah, Halakah, Talmud and Midrash?" Has the Holy Spirit equally inspired these sources?
-----------------

http://www.seekgod.ca/embracnokab.htm

Jacob Prasch of Moriel, however, does not seem to recognize Jewish mysticism as Gnosticism:

"People began reinterpreting the Bible, not using the Jewish method of midrash, but using Greek methods. Typology and allegory Midrash uses typology and allegory-symbols-in order to illustrate and illumine doctrine…"

" The symbolism illustrates the doctrine, which is itself stated plainly elsewhere in Scripture…In the Gnostic world of Greek thinking, the opposite happens. Gnostics claim to have received a subjective, mystical insight-called a gnosis-into the symbols. They then reinterpret the plain meaning of the text in light of the gnosis. For Gnostics, symbolism is the basis for their doctrine, contrary to the ancient Jewish methods…" 5.
-------------

http://www.seekgod.ca/embracnokab.htm

Out of the Abundance of the Heart

"Ancient haggadic motifs of the Midrash" constructed out of the text of Scripture also comprise an esoteric volume titled, "Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis" by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai. Robert Graves wrote The White Goddess and I, Claudius. The White Goddess is frequently studied by people involved in the occult and witchcraft. Raphael Patai also wrote many books and was Director of Research of the Theodor Herzl Institute in New York and also Director of the Palestine Institute of Folklore and Ethnology. The book says he was a Biblical scholar.

In a private correspondence this writer received the following description of the book's thesis that Genesis was a collection of haggadic myths:

"…The premise of the book seems to be that the Bible is a book of myths, very much like the Greek myths. And the authors attempt to show how Hebrew myths and Greek myths are related. In the course of writing about the book of Genesis they quote extensively from writings such as the Talmud, The Gospel of Saint Thomas, Midrash, apocryphal books, pagan myths, the Kabbala and various kabbalistic works, The Book of the Dead, Cave of Treasures, Sepher, Enuma Elish, Sephir Hadar Zeqenim (midrashic explanations to the Bible), Imre Noam, the Koran, Mishna, Massekhet Soferim, Megilla, Mekhilta,, Midrash Alphabetot attributed to Rabbi Akiba (second century A.D.) but actually compiled much later, lots of sephers including "Sepher Raziel, a kabbalistic work on the secrets of Heaven, creation, angels, amulets, etc", Sode Raza "a Kabbalistic work by Eleazar ben Judah of Worms,, Targum this and that, the Zohar which the authors say is the "Bible of the Kabbalists, written by the Spanish Kabbalist Moses de Leon, in Aramaic, during the thirteenth century. It is a commentary on the Bible, pseudepigraphically attributed to Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, the famous Mishna-teacher. First printed at Mantua, 1558-60, in three volumes.", and other Zohars…." 43.

The authors suggest that there are missing sacred documents which contain a more accurate record of creation than Genesis:

"The book's authors write that "All pre-Biblical sacred documents in Hebrew have been either lost or purposely suppressed...Post-Biblical sacred documents are abundant. In the thousand years after the Bible was first canonised, the Jews of Europe, Asia and Africa wrote prolifically. Theirs were either attempts to clarify the Mosaic Law; or historical, moralistic, anecdotal and homiletic comments on Biblical passages....although the canonical books were regarded as written by divine inspiration and the least taint of polytheism had therefore to be exorcised from them, the apocryphal books were treated more leniently. Many suppressed myths were also allowed to re-emerge in the unquestionably orthodox context of the post-Biblical midrashim....Lilith, Eve's predecessor, has been wholly exorcised from Scripture, though she is remembered by Isaiah as inhabiting desolate ruins. {but not in the King James Version, only in some modern versions]. She seems, from midrashic accounts of her sexual promiscuity, to have been a fertility goddess..."

The correspondent of this information remarked, "So, it seems that these two authors have used these Kabbalistic writings to make their case that the Bible is a book of myths and in quoting from these writings they reveal to the reader just how low-down and wicked the writers of the Kabbala and the Midrashim, etc. were. And so I wonder how anyone who has read this awful stuff would want to urge others to read it and give it respectability." 44.

Luke 6:45

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."

In "An Explanation of Midrash", Jacob Prasch refers to "A classical work of Midrash in Judaism is the Midrash Rabba on Genesis (Berashith). Another is Lamentations Rabba". He also upholds the Talmud as an authority for knowing what the Bible contains. "The Talmud tells us there are multiple interpretations" and "It takes the wisdom of the ancients to really understand these things…not the wisdom of the 16th century, but the wisdom of the first century." 45.

In another article, Mr. Prasch states that Midrash of the Jewish sages at the time of the second temple period is wisdom we can turn to with full confidence as these sages never deny the authenticity of the Biblical accounts.

"We have, along this line, advocated that Christians familiarize themselves with the works of those who have understood this from Alfred Edersheim to Arnold Fruchtenbaum. We have also tried to re-acquaint the church with the lost art of Jewish hermeneutics in terms of New Testament uses of Midrash, and the illustrative Hebraic models of typology and allegory …What is perhaps most absurd is the fact that contrary to both New Testament Christianity and Orthodox Judaism… In the Judaic midrashim we similarly never see a denial of the historical authenticity of biblical accounts.

"…any early examples of Judaic Midrash... It is these early examples of rabbinic midrashic writings that are closest in time frame to the authorship date of the New Testament. Having looked at New Testament narrative from a Midrashic perspective for years and read every major Christian scholar who addressed the subject …" 46.

Are we to understand that Mr. Prasch is referring to the same Genesis Midrash and Talmud referenced by Graves and Patai's "Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis"? Our correspondent continues to be amazed that the teachers of the Hebrew Roots of Christianity would promotes such works:

"What I find interesting is that the excerpts from these sources are so wicked. The "fleshing out of the Bible" that is done by these writings not only have many variations but have the persons written about in the Bible doing very evil things that we have never read about in the Bible. And God is written about as saying and doing all sorts of things that are out of character and never written about in the Bible. Very evil motives and actions are attributed to God in these writings. I am not surprised that the authors of this book who obviously do not believe the Bible is truthful would make their case using such writings, but I am perplexed that many of the Hebrew Roots people who claim to be Christians would also be using these wicked writings. 47.

I do recommend reading the update as it pursues the midrash issue indepth as well. > http://www.seekgod.ca/jpupdate.htm

[Mary]

Those are all great responses, and I pray that people who read the article, will read it carefully and also read these responses carefully. It is so easy to be deceived.

I thought I would try to ad a more "non-scholarly" response or responses (I might run out of time before I need to get ready for work) .

"Now the remainder of the deeds of of Abijah, and his ways and words are written in the ‘MIDRASH‘ [ מִדְרַ֖שׁ ] of the Prophet Iddo”. (2 Chronicles 13:22). From the Moriel "Be Alert" pages, I see that they use the NASB which uses the word "treatise".

"And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo." KJV

I take it to mean that a separate historical record was written at the time, and that it would, in archaeological terms, be a validation of Abijah's existence and life. I do not see anything that indicates that if I read it I would gain a deeper insight into God's word. I do not see anything that suggests I have to go the "story of the Prophet Iddo", nor do I see it as "permission to use extraneous sources" to understand anything in the Word.

[sheep wrecked]

(07-07-2010 04:57 PM)Mary Wrote:  Those are all great responses, and I pray that people who read the article, will read it carefully and also read these responses carefully. It is so easy to be deceived.

I thought I would try to ad a more "non-scholarly" response or responses (I might run out of time before I need to get ready for work) .

"Now the remainder of the deeds of of Abijah, and his ways and words are written in the ‘MIDRASH‘ [ מִדְרַ֖שׁ ] of the Prophet Iddo”. (2 Chronicles 13:22). From the Moriel "Be Alert" pages, I see that they use the NASB which uses the word "treatise".

"And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo." KJV

I take it to mean that a separate historical record was written at the time, and that it would, in archaeological terms, be a validation of Abijah's existence and life. I do not see anything that indicates that if I read it I would gain a deeper insight into God's word. I do not see anything that suggests I have to go the "story of the Prophet Iddo", nor do I see it as "permission to use extraneous sources" to understand anything in the Word.

[Mary]

"Such so-called “scholars” and “experts” are dangerous because they do not know Greek and Hebrew but rather pretend to have expertise where they have none." quoted from the article.

This simple sentence sets you ( the reader) up to believe and agree that an "expert" in the Bible is someone who "knows Greek and Hebrew" and that anyone who claims to have expertise, or I suppose even just shares thoughts and ideas from their reading of the Word is invalidated because they do not know Greek or Hebrew.

You (the reader) are thus also set up to come to the conclusion that if you don't know or can't learn Hebrew and/or Greek, you can at least rely on someone who does - in this case J Prasch.

But where in the Bible does it say that we have to learn or know Hebrew or Greek to receive God's word?

[sheep wrecked]

(07-08-2010 06:08 AM)Mary Wrote:  "Such so-called “scholars” and “experts” are dangerous because they do not know Greek and Hebrew but rather pretend to have expertise where they have none." quoted from the article.

This simple sentence sets you ( the reader) up to believe and agree that an "expert" in the Bible is someone who "knows Greek and Hebrew" and that anyone who claims to have expertise, or I suppose even just shares thoughts and ideas from their reading of the Word is invalidated because they do not know Greek or Hebrew.

You (the reader) are thus also set up to come to the conclusion that if you don't know or can't learn Hebrew and/or Greek, you can at least rely on someone who does - in this case J Prasch.

But where in the Bible does it say that we have to learn or know Hebrew or Greek to receive God's word?

Very good observation

The NT clearly shows that understanding of the Word is given by the Holy Spirit [1 Cor 1 and 2]. The whole, you have to have a "Hebraic mind-set" to understand God's Word is ridiculous. Did Paul teach Hebrew to the gentile converts before he preached the Gospel so they would "really comprehend what God said"? I don't think so

Yet how many thousands of people, and now Christians as well, are convinced that the Gospel is really Jewish and can only be understand through Hebraic lenses? I cannot believe that so many are accepting this deception as "truth".

[Mary]

I decided that, because the midrash "method" and teachings were becoming more and more obvious, I needed to let the people I go to church with know that I had a problem with it. I tried discussing it via email, but the response I received is that I have "problem with Jacob Prasch" . When I said that midrash was my problem, I was met with surprise, being told it is merely a personal tool some people in the church use to get a deeper interpretation of the Bible. I was invited to watch 2 DVD's in which JP shows/teaches how to use midrash, and assured that If I watch them I will understand and see that JP never uses midrash to teach doctrine. I then tried to discuss the article I linked here earlier, using the Bible to defend my points, plus some obvious indicators of "unscholarly" discussion from JP, and also discussed comments made in the article that Vic quotes from, and referred to JP's sermon(?) on The Two Adams which indicates to me that he does use midrash to teach doctrine, but gives it a biblical "twist".

I have so far been ignored, except by one person who said that the people in the church are there to help me, that JP is scholarly, outspoken and blunt, and quarrels with his wife, but that I need to forgive him. To do so would make me whole. Oh well, if we hide under the elephant in the room, we won't see it.

---

JP: "it takes the wisdom of the ancients to understand these things" and "the ancient Jewish mind that produced the New Testament"

Psalm 119: 100
I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.

Psalm 119: 140
Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.