PaRDeS

[heb13-13]

This article had some good points, too.

Midrash, the Camel's Nose

[sheep wrecked]

(08-28-2010 08:41 AM)heb13-13 Wrote:  This article had some good points, too.

Midrash, the Camel's Nose

Thanx, Rick - good article. There some points I disagreed with, but over all, it showed how devious Prasch's midrash teaching is. I only wish the author had dug a little into midrash as part of the mystic process of kabbalah. It was "coined" in the middle ages due to Rabbinical, Talmudic influence. Midrash is used only twice in the Hebrew Scriptures and means "story".

2Ch 13:22
And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story [H4097] of the prophet Iddo.

2Ch 24:27
Now concerning his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid upon him, and the repairing of the house of God, behold, they are written in the story [H4097] of the book of the kings. And Amaziah his son reigned in his stead.

It is typical of the Rabbinical system to take a rarely used word in the OT and redefine it into mystical term in Talmudism.

I also objected to the author's statement that we are in the commonwealth of Israel. That is totally unScriptural, and it to me it lends to discrediting much of what he says - to the point of contradiction. If we are in the commonwealth of Israel, then we are Jews? You see what I mean?

However; I did enjoy the article for the most part - it brought up some great refutations Thanx for sharing it

[Mary]

I referred my church group to the Camels Nose article, which in retrospect was a mistake, because as you pointed out Sheep Engstrom is not Biblical. He also indicates that if JP would just drop the term midrash, he could accept (it). I was particularly interested in his point about JP's teaching that "prophecy is pattern". Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

My thoughts on this teaching by JP is that it diminishes Jesus: as God, as our Lord and as our Saviour. It diverts from the repetitive pattern of sin/disobedience by Israel, by all people/nations, by each of us individually, and thus diminishes the merciful lovingkindness of God.

At one of the bible studies I attended with the church group they discussed (and I now understand that they were using JP's midrashic teachings, although this was never referred to) that Moses is a Type of Christ. I had heard this before, and agreed there are some similarities, but as the discussion carried on and everyone else became increasingly enthusiastic about Moses/Christ I thought, hang on, there are more differences between them than similarities and I felt that the differences were much more important. I raised the point, and we discussed the differences biblically, and in the end it was a very fruitful, interesting bible study. As I have been researching midrash more, I look back to that bible study with a greater understanding of how these midrashic teachings of JP 'infiltrate' the messages given in the church group, even though I was told it is a "personal tool".

Referring back to JP's article, he name drops Prof. D. Bock:


"...From Professor Daryl Boch’s recognition (originally pioneered by Jacob Prasch in a non-academic format) that prophecy is pattern,"

"Daryl Boch" who Jacob says recognised that prophecy is pattern (Jacob's idea originally apparently). The reference appears to give JP validity and importance, but he misspells the professor's name and also misrepresents his work. It should be Professor Darrell Bock, and the work he alludes to is 'Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. I read a chapter from the book, and he does not appear to be recognising that 'prophecy is pattern' and certainly that is not indicated in the title. Also, other readings of excerpts of Darrel Bock’s works do not indicate that he attaches the same value and importance to midrash that JP does.

I was not able to obtain more than a chapter of Prof Bock's work, and a few excerpts from other online articles where he mentions midrash, so he may go on to discuss "prophecy is pattern" but I have read his book "The Missing Gospels" in which he clearly explains their gnostic ideas and themes of these so called 'missing' gospels. He has a good understanding of Gnosticism, and it would be odd and hypocritical if he gave any indication anywhere that midrash is anything but gnostic.

I think it is important to note how little biblical support JP gives to defend his teaching of midrash, and how much he either uses "important scholarly" people who seem to agree with him, or mocks other "scholarly" people who don't. He refers to John Shelby Spong (Sponge) who he disagrees with because Spong said the Nativity narrative in Matthew is midrash and therefore not historically true, but then later in the article JP says Matthew is "pure midrash". It's is very confusing. If you don't look into who these people are that JP refers to, it is easy to become falsely impressed. Although, the more you read JP's article the more obvious it becomes that it is a very careless defence of midrash.

[sheep wrecked]

(08-28-2010 06:40 PM)Mary Wrote:  I referred my church group to the Camels Nose article, which in retrospect was a mistake, because as you pointed out Sheep Engstrom is not Biblical. He also indicates that if JP would just drop the term midrash, he could accept (it). I was particularly interested in his point about JP's teaching that "prophecy is pattern". Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

My thoughts on this teaching by JP is that it diminishes Jesus: as God, as our Lord and as our Saviour. It diverts from the repetitive pattern of sin/disobedience by Israel, by all people/nations, by each of us individually, and thus diminishes the merciful lovingkindness of God.

At one of the bible studies I attended with the church group they discussed (and I now understand that they were using JP's midrashic teachings, although this was never referred to) that Moses is a Type of Christ. I had heard this before, and agreed there are some similarities, but as the discussion carried on and everyone else became increasingly enthusiastic about Moses/Christ I thought, hang on, there are more differences between them than similarities and I felt that the differences were much more important. I raised the point, and we discussed the differences biblically, and in the end it was a very fruitful, interesting bible study. As I have been researching midrash more, I look back to that bible study with a greater understanding of how these midrashic teachings of JP 'infiltrate' the messages given in the church group, even though I was told it is a "personal tool".

Referring back to JP's article, he name drops Prof. D. Bock:


"...From Professor Daryl Boch’s recognition (originally pioneered by Jacob Prasch in a non-academic format) that prophecy is pattern,"

"Daryl Boch" who Jacob says recognised that prophecy is pattern (Jacob's idea originally apparently). The reference appears to give JP validity and importance, but he misspells the professor's name and also misrepresents his work. It should be Professor Darrell Bock, and the work he alludes to is 'Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. I read a chapter from the book, and he does not appear to be recognising that 'prophecy is pattern' and certainly that is not indicated in the title. Also, other readings of excerpts of Darrel Bock’s works do not indicate that he attaches the same value and importance to midrash that JP does.

I was not able to obtain more than a chapter of Prof Bock's work, and a few excerpts from other online articles where he mentions midrash, so he may go on to discuss "prophecy is pattern" but I have read his book "The Missing Gospels" in which he clearly explains their gnostic ideas and themes of these so called 'missing' gospels. He has a good understanding of Gnosticism, and it would be odd and hypocritical if he gave any indication anywhere that midrash is anything but gnostic.

I think it is important to note how little biblical support JP gives to defend his teaching of midrash, and how much he either uses "important scholarly" people who seem to agree with him, or mocks other "scholarly" people who don't. He refers to John Shelby Spong (Sponge) who he disagrees with because Spong said the Nativity narrative in Matthew is midrash and therefore not historically true, but then later in the article JP says Matthew is "pure midrash". It's is very confusing. If you don't look into who these people are that JP refers to, it is easy to become falsely impressed. Although, the more you read JP's article the more obvious it becomes that it is a very careless defence of midrash.

Thanx, Mary! I appreciate your in-depth look. I did not have time to dig that much. I guess I was thrilled someone else had seen some flaws in Prasch's articles

I know there is a lot in the article that needs to be checked out and you make some excellent points. I think many Christians accept what is told without checking out the sources. I also agree with you that Prasch has made a very weak effort to prove "midrash" as acceptable. He most definitely does not teach with a Scriptural perspective. What "shines" through his writings is the promotion of Talmudism, yet saying that he doesn't, and all the while he quotes from Talmudic sources and the "ancients" who are Talmudic Rabbis I call it bait and switch, which is so common in false teachings

[Mary]

Thanks Sheep.
Heres more:

From Jp's article:
"Those rejecting that Midrash is found in the Scriptures boast against the natural branches – which Christians are commanded not to do (Romans 11: 18), for the covenants with Israel and patriarchal promises are the ‘”reza” or “root” of the church. They seek to turn what was given as a Jewish book into a non-Jewish one; they Hellenize a Hebraic faith and are as wrong on one extreme as Judaizers seeking to place believers into bondage to Mosaic Law and compulsory Torah observance are on the other."

This seems to be a huge leap from what Paul is saying. My understanding of what Paul is saying is that the fall of the Israelites resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles, to provoke the Israelites to jealousy and back into belief. Paul warns that Gentiles should allow the “cast off” Israelites back (receive them) if/when they believe. Paul’s desire is that ‘his flesh’ (i.e. his people the Israelites) should come to believe in Jesus. Read verses 11 to 23:

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."

I’m really not sure how JP can use this verse in isolation like that, to justify using midrash.

---

"The Apostle Paul ***** Rabbi Shaul of Tarsus makes it clear he was from the Pharisaical School of Hillel, a disciple of Gamaliel (the grandson of Hillel per

Acts 22:3, 'I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. Acts 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;)' "

So, as we know, Paul was a Pharisee before his conversion. Jesus said: “beware ye the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hyprocrisy” Luke 12.1. and Matt 16:12” ... not the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Saducees”.

Doctrine = teaching. In his article http://www.moriel.org/articles/sermons/midrash.htm JP says “Jesus was a rabbi, Paul was a rabbi, they interpreted the bible the way other rabbis did –according to a method called midrash” and later in the article he says “who did Jesus agree with, the Reformers, or other rabbis?”
Well clearly Jesus did not agree with the “other rabbis” but also Jesus was not a rabbi in the same way the other rabbis were. Yes, his disciples called him rabbi (teacher) but Hebrews tells us clearly that He is of the “order of Melchisidec.”

---

And then the big question is, why did Jesus need to 'interpret' Scripture according to any "method"?

John 1:1 : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

[sheep wrecked]

(08-29-2010 04:46 PM)Mary Wrote:  Thanks Sheep.
Heres more:

From Jp's article:
"Those rejecting that Midrash is found in the Scriptures boast against the natural branches – which Christians are commanded not to do (Romans 11: 18), for the covenants with Israel and patriarchal promises are the ‘”reza” or “root” of the church. They seek to turn what was given as a Jewish book into a non-Jewish one; they Hellenize a Hebraic faith and are as wrong on one extreme as Judaizers seeking to place believers into bondage to Mosaic Law and compulsory Torah observance are on the other."

This seems to be a huge leap from what Paul is saying. My understanding of what Paul is saying is that the fall of the Israelites resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles, to provoke the Israelites to jealousy and back into belief. Paul warns that Gentiles should allow the “cast off” Israelites back (receive them) if/when they believe. Paul’s desire is that ‘his flesh’ (i.e. his people the Israelites) should come to believe in Jesus. Read verses 11 to 23:

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."

I’m really not sure how JP can use this verse in isolation like that, to justify using midrash.

Midrash is not found in Scripture. That is where he errs. As I showed, there are two times the word is used in the OT and has nothing to do with interpretation of Scripture.

He is simply twisting what is written. The root is not Israel. The Root is Christ. The New Covenant is Christ, not the old covenant. The old covenant was a shadow - a pattern of what is Heavenly - it was prophetic of Christ. The New Covenant is not built on the old. Hebrews shows this clearly - the old covenant has passed away. What he is doing is feeding into a "renewed covenant" - very sneaky. He teaches Hebrew Roots, but denies it angrily.

He has to force the texts that he uses to line up with his thinking. A common tactic by false teachers.

Quote:

---

"The Apostle Paul ***** Rabbi Shaul of Tarsus makes it clear he was from the Pharisaical School of Hillel, a disciple of Gamaliel (the grandson of Hillel per

Acts 22:3, 'I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. Acts 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;)' "

So, as we know, Paul was a Pharisee before his conversion. Jesus said: “beware ye the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hyprocrisy” Luke 12.1. and Matt 16:12” ... not the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Saducees”.

And what did Paul say about his affiliation with the Pharisees?

Php 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Php 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Php 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
Php 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Php 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
Php 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Quote:Doctrine = teaching. In his article http://www.moriel.org/articles/sermons/midrash.htm JP says “Jesus was a rabbi, Paul was a rabbi, they interpreted the bible the way other rabbis did –according to a method called midrash” and later in the article he says “who did Jesus agree with, the Reformers, or other rabbis?”

Well clearly Jesus did not agree with the “other rabbis” but also Jesus was not a rabbi in the same way the other rabbis were. Yes, his disciples called him rabbi (teacher) but Hebrews tells us clearly that He is of the “order of Melchisidec.”

---

And then the big question is, why did Jesus need to 'interpret' Scripture according to any "method"?

John 1:1 : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"The school of Hillel" is tradition. We know Hillel existed, but Messys use him as some kind of "yeshiva" for Jewish scholars and I am not so sure he was. Yes he had students, but a pharisaical school where he was a "Rabbi" and taught Talmud and kabbalistic concepts - NOT

Jesus did not have to interpret the Word according to man's system. The Rabbinic system is not of God. Which is more sneakiness of Prasch. He like to talk big - that he does not promote Rabbinicism and here he accuses both Paul and Jesus of it!!!! Paul did not get his wisdom from his Pharisaical teachings - which deny Christ - but from Jesus Himself.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Gal 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
Gal 1:21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
Gal 1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
Gal 1:24 And they glorified God in me.

[Mary]

I've continued to look into these matters and was able to find an article by Darrell Bock which you might find interesting:
Prof Bock discusses the following point:

"The Gospels are not historical accounts, but constructed through a process of "midrash," a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture."



Evaluation: The idea the gospels are simply midrash has several problems associated with it. One is that the genre as such did not exist yet in Judaism as the Midrashim are a few centuries later. Now one might reformulate the idea to say that in spots midrashic technigue is displayed in the gospels. This claim would be true in spots, but need not mean the text's being "midrashed" are unhistorical. To associate texts can be a way of explaining what is or has taken place. However, most importantly, certain teachings in the New Testament cannot be explained as the product of midrash because they represent distinct takes on Jewish teaching. For example, the important idea of a resurrection in the midst of history is not a Jewish idea, but a Christian adaptation of a Jewish idea. No midrash of a text brings us to this fresh idea. Rather it is the claim of an empty tomb and appearances that does (see 1 Cor 15). Had a Jewish idea been midrashed, then Jesus could simply be a raised judge at the end of history such as the idea appears in a text like 1 Enoch. Such distinctions mean that something generated the new belief. One could claim it was simply made up, but if so why die for the idea? The other explanation is that soemthing happened that generated the new belief, which is what Christians claim took place. Either way midrash was not at work at this key juncture.

the article is found at:
http://blogs.bible.org/node/282

---

So Darrell Bock's arguments negates what JP has said in his article

"A classical portrayal of St. Paul writing midrashically is Galatians 4:21-31. As with the Matthean formula citations in the Nativity Narrative, there is no other way to make scriptural or logical sense of why he interprets Scripture as he does. It is pure Midrash".

[sheep wrecked]

(09-02-2010 02:05 AM)Mary Wrote:  I've continued to look into these matters and was able to find an article by Darrell Bock which you might find interesting:
Prof Bock discusses the following point:

"The Gospels are not historical accounts, but constructed through a process of "midrash," a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture."



Evaluation: The idea the gospels are simply midrash has several problems associated with it. One is that the genre as such did not exist yet in Judaism as the Midrashim are a few centuries later. Now one might reformulate the idea to say that in spots midrashic technigue is displayed in the gospels. This claim would be true in spots, but need not mean the text's being "midrashed" are unhistorical. To associate texts can be a way of explaining what is or has taken place. However, most importantly, certain teachings in the New Testament cannot be explained as the product of midrash because they represent distinct takes on Jewish teaching. For example, the important idea of a resurrection in the midst of history is not a Jewish idea, but a Christian adaptation of a Jewish idea. No midrash of a text brings us to this fresh idea. Rather it is the claim of an empty tomb and appearances that does (see 1 Cor 15). Had a Jewish idea been midrashed, then Jesus could simply be a raised judge at the end of history such as the idea appears in a text like 1 Enoch. Such distinctions mean that something generated the new belief. One could claim it was simply made up, but if so why die for the idea? The other explanation is that soemthing happened that generated the new belief, which is what Christians claim took place. Either way midrash was not at work at this key juncture.

the article is found at:
http://blogs.bible.org/node/282

---

So Darrell Bock's arguments negates what JP has said in his article

"A classical portrayal of St. Paul writing midrashically is Galatians 4:21-31. As with the Matthean formula citations in the Nativity Narrative, there is no other way to make scriptural or logical sense of why he interprets Scripture as he does. It is pure Midrash".

That was a very interesting evaluation. I agree that the historical evidence shows that midrash, as it is used for study today, was not present in the first century.

For me, the evidence is more of a spiritual reality. Jesus Christ is God. However He chose to relate the truth is pure and infinite in wisdom and understanding, needing no human process/system in the telling. It is so sad to me that teachers like Prasch take the beauty and holiness of God's Word and reduce it to a pile of mystic trash.

Did I read it right that the last quote is from Prasch? That the Nativity account is just a narrative that makes no scriptural or logical sense other than to use midrash to define it??????????

[Mary]

Yep! That quote is direct from JP's article. It comes a few paragraph's after he attacks J Shelby Spong for saying much the same thing. I think Prasch is ultimately saying that the NT is a Midrash of the OT - that all the authors (including Jesus) used 'midrash' technique to write the OT. What you call "switch and bait' Sheep is what adds to the confusion - JP takes his readers back and forth through ideas which leave the reader feeling very confused, but then gives the "assurance" that it is "in the Bible", which I think results in a lazy acceptance of what they read as being true.

---

I have felt very sad to break away from the people I have been going to church with. They have ignored my critique of Jacob's article and focused on my apparent 'attitude' towards and problem with JP, who they admit has a number of faults in his character, but they require me to see past that and love him as Jesus does. My reference to what a minister should be in Titus has been ignored. This morning my Bible reading has been this:

Proverbs 4: 11 - 27

I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths.
When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble.
Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life.
Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.
Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.
For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.
For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence.
But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.
The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.
My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.
Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.
For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh.
Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.
Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.
Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee.
Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established.
Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

It is a very lonely thing to remove my foot from evil.

[sheep wrecked]

(09-02-2010 04:39 PM)Mary Wrote:  Yep! That quote is direct from JP's article. It comes a few paragraph's after he attacks J Shelby Spong for saying much the same thing. I think Prasch is ultimately saying that the NT is a Midrash of the OT - that all the authors (including Jesus) used 'midrash' technique to write the OT. What you call "switch and bait' Sheep is what adds to the confusion - JP takes his readers back and forth through ideas which leave the reader feeling very confused, but then gives the "assurance" that it is "in the Bible", which I think results in a lazy acceptance of what they read as being true.

---

I have felt very sad to break away from the people I have been going to church with. They have ignored my critique of Jacob's article and focused on my apparent 'attitude' towards and problem with JP, who they admit has a number of faults in his character, but they require me to see past that and love him as Jesus does. My reference to what a minister should be in Titus has been ignored. This morning my Bible reading has been this:

Proverbs 4: 11 - 27

I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths.
When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble.
Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life.
Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.
Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.
For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.
For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence.
But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.
The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.
My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.
Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.
For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh.
Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.
Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.
Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee.
Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established.
Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.

It is a very lonely thing to remove my foot from evil.

Wow. I knew his perspective was skewed, but that really shows how deeply deceptive he is

I am sorry you have to go through breaking off from people that you have associated with. It is so sad when they don't see the truth and prefer to remain blinded. The unity canard is so prevalent in religious circles with people not wanting to call people out for obvious error and is a sad commentary on Christianity. But it is something that Jesus warned us would happen. I pray you are comforted in knowing that there are believers out here in the same boat and we pray we can be of some encouragement to you

The Proverbs verse is so applicable and so pertinent for all you have observed and experienced. The Bible is awesome in showing us exactly how it's going to be.