PaRDeS

[Mary]

(02-12-2011 11:46 PM)uncledawg Wrote:  I stumbled onto your blog but I frankly fail to see your point.

Dallas Seminary Professor Darrel Boch’s doctoral thesis indeed maintains that prophecy is pattern (Dr. Boch is Jewish). Dr. Michael Rydelnik (also a Jewish Christian) professor of Jewish Studies at Moody Bible Institute teaches that the church should read the scripture as Jesus and The apostles did. A litany of conservative Evangelical scholars including Dr. R.N. Longenecker, Dr. T.S. Dockerty, Dr. EE. Ellis (also Jewish), Bilderbeck & Strauss likewise maintain that the New Testament interprets The Old Testament along midrashic lines (similar to the Dead Sea scrolls) and it is how a growing number of saved theologians refute the assertions liberal higher criticism and of unbelieving rabbis that The New Testament distorts The Old Testament out of context.

Everyone knows The New Testament was authored by Jews, everyone knows that The New Testament teaches that to The Jews belongs the oracles of God , and everyone knows that The New Testament deals with The Old Testament with methods of interpretation that are not purely in the grammatical-historical vain of the Western church; just look at Galatians 4 or Jude’s epistle. Others besides Jacob Prasch have cited Pesher interpretations in the gospels, the use of Levitical typology in The New Testament, and whether anyone approves or not the term Midrash is found in scripture even though some KJV Only fanatics wrongly tried to deny it because it is not translated as such in their KJV. None of you seem to have an academic background or grasp of biblical languages yet you put yourself forward as having an expertise where you do not.

It was the Puritan theologian John Lightfoot who first wrote a commentary series in the 17th century arguing that The New Testament uses Midrash as a hermeneutic, not Jacob Prasch. The Puritans by the way refused to use the KJV but preferred The Geneva Bible because they considered the 1611 KJV to be too Roman Catholic with its lists of Roman Catholic feasts of Mary and inclusion of the apocrypha by King James who persecuted Born again Christians forcing them to flee to Holland and to America on The Mayflower.

As the son of the very Roman Catholic Mary Queen of Scots his Catholic leanings were obvious and most British historians consider him to have been a homosexual, so the Puritans rejected him.

A visit to Jacob Prasch’s website (Moriel.org) will confirm that in addition to opposing the word-faith money preachers, the ecumenical movement and unity with Roman Catholicism, the Purpose Driven agenda, inclusivist bible translations such as ‘The Message’, and the Emergent church etc. Jacob Prasch has also warned of the extreme axis of the modern Messianic movement and denounced basing doctrine on symbolism as Gnostic. Jacob Prasch openly denounces Talmudic Judaism as a false religion and calls kaballah ‘occultic’. Are we speaking about the same Jacob Prasch ?

When I go to his website and read for myself what he actually believes and read what is said about him by a seemingly very small group of people on this blog spot it appears that unless you are deliberately lying you are just plain ignorant .You do not even seem to know the difference between midrash as hermeneutics (which many Christian scholars accept) and the later rabbinic writing called midrash which Jacob Prasch does not accept.

I think you are being rather silly and some would say dishonest or maybe anti Semitic.

Cheers

I know this was posted a while ago, and there have been a lot of responses since, but as this arose because I analysed and critiqued Jacob Prasch's article of a so called biblical defense of the use of midrash I thought I would "weigh in".

Jacob Prasch and his followers make a big thing about scholarship and being learned, as if only those people who are such can know God. (please refer to Vic's response to you in this regard for a biblical refutation of that idea). One of the reasons I did the critical analysis of Prasch's article was because I wanted to take this scholarly approach and apply it and see what came out the other side... yes I confess I am an accredited scholar, and there is no reputable academic institution in the world that would refute that. Amongst a number of tertiary level qualifications I have 2 honours degrees and a masters degree, all of which at the very least trained and enabled me to make such a critical analysis. When I started the critique I had high hopes about being wrong about JP , but unfortunately things started to crumble very quickly when it was immediately apparent that he made a lot of grammatical errors and spelling errors! At the very least I expected such a renowned scholar to be able to write and spell correctly.

The next problem that arose was the spelling of Prof Bock's name and the quoting of this "prophecy is pattern idea"... as I had just read a book by Prof Bock, I picked up on it straight away. I wrote to Prof Bock, and please note, it is he and not I who refuted what JP quoted. Prof Bock's idea on Prophecy And Pattern is different from JP's. The "scholarly article" by JP just went downhill from there.

I sent JP my critique and he quickly changed some of his most glaring errors and then acted like they had never been there. A scholar should have integrity and be always prepared to respond to peer review. Other than to send an obsequious email to Prof Bock's blog (which last time I checked the Prof had not responded to) JP obliquely referred to me as someone he will ignore because I am a "KJV only cultist" . This was a very odd remark because anyone who reads my critique will see that I used the NASB (JP's preference) and at least 10 other versions besides the KJV to refute his "scholarly article".

Lastly, all scholars know that no article is scholarly unless it is referenced according to International standards of referencing. Even first year students at university will not get credits if they do not reference correctly no matter how good their work is. JP had no references at all, and his theme of "midrash must be right because other clever scholars say so" is not actually a scholarly (or even intelligent) argument.

1 Corinthians 10 vs 12
Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.