The 3 Giants

In deciding to become Torah observant, especially in an OT sense of the phrase, I've come to identify at least three theological Giants that require overcoming (i.e. developing defensible answers for):

1. What is Legalism, and how is Torah observance not Legalism?


2. Who is a Jew, and what implications does the answer to this question have on me as a Christian?


3. What to do with the Oral Traditions such as Halachah, the Midrashic writings and the Talmudic writings?

Discussion and Debate

Recently I was drawn into a discussion about the merits of studying more than one version of the bible. The idea was put forward that all biblical study should be limited to the King James Version (KJV) bible for the following reasons:

1. Reading more than one translation only leads to different perspectives, which allows more doctrinal variation and therefore more chance of error.
2. KJV is the most accurate anyway, so using any other translation is to use an inferior translation, leading to further error.
3. KJV is somehow more inspired than any other translation.

The discussion drifted into the ethics of allowing discussion and debate, reading widely and allowing people to come to their own views based on weighing the available evidence to establish what is "true".

One KJV-only advocate put his argument for keeping one translation and prohibiting open discussion and debate, like so [spelling, capitalization etc are all his]:

one thing i have seen throughout my life, is that people say things like open your mind to this or that, if i were to do this on a broad scale, i would go crazy because i wouldnt know where i stood on anything.

how then can we make a stand if everything is open to interpetation, and we open our minds to just about anything and everything?

will divorced and remaried people with living former spouces enter into the Kingdom of God or not?

will women who teach and preach enter into the Kingdom of God or not?

am i to allow the devil a chance to sway me doctrinally by opening my mind to his attacks?

in these last days i often want to throw up my hands and exclaim with Pilot, "what is truth"

opening her mind and listening to the serpant, is what got Eve in trouble and caused sin to enter into a world that was perfect before hand.

where and when do you draw the line between good and false doctrine?

in the 70's my generation opened their minds to "free sex" the occult, drugs and rebelous [sic] music, and the same old lie of satan was used back then about keeping an open mind, thats how the little foxes spoil the vine.

i heard a new phrase to me recentlyly about being so open minded that my brains would fall out.

if i stand for nothing wont i be in danger of falling for anything?

shall we allow the enemy of our soul the oppertunity to try and shoot holes in our faith, "the Truth" will stand on its own after we are dead and gone.

having an open mind, is what has allowed for gay clergy to minister the grace of God that has no heart breaking meaning for them. having an open mind is what allows many who call themselves christians to side with pro choice.

opening my mind to other possibilities, is as good as the enemy of my soul would have it, in his efforts to seduce me away from the truth and simplicity that is in Christ.

If Jesus had been open minded during His temptation in the wilderness, would he have passed His tests or comprimised with the devil?

How many new agers are saying that christians need to be open minded? should we be open minded about abortion? what about gay clergy should we be open minded about that? what about using aborted fetus'es for stem cell research or useing aborted baby collogen in make up products?

is there a line that we should not cross, and if so, how is that being open minded, and what of doctrine? should i open myself to catholic doctrine being a protestant? if i open my mind, am i not making an allowence that the new information could change my doctrinal stance?

for me, being open minded is what will pave the way for the one world church, that will embrace all religons including the occult and all of the eastern religons as well.

will calvinists and arminians reconcile their differences, concluding that both are right?

i just cant wrap my mind around all of this, sometimes i just wish i had died as a child before the age of accountability, so that i would be with Jesus and not had to deal with such confusion and conflicting ideologies.

our way is the truth, no our way is right your way is wrong, no listen to me i know the real truth, sometimes i wish i had never been born, i cant even find a church that still practises the old ways without all this new fangled music and serve god anyway you want to, cause its all good.

would to God i had died as a young christian, then i would be at peace not knowing the war that rages over what is truth and what is lie.

One feature that we have noticed about Jewish biblical study is their openness to discussion and debate. I once brought a Jewish friend along to my church and afterward he asked me how we worshipped in spirit and truth? Huh? What about the prayers, hymns and singing? I might give you that, he said but what about worshipping in truth? The minister preached for more than 45 minutes, what about that? That is only one person's opinion, he said, where was the discussion?

His point is that we only begin to approach the truth when we open it up to discussion and debate, allowing various perspectives to be put forward and their merits promoted and weighed against each other. Another person has said that a traditional synagogue is designed as a round with the presenter in the middle, so that it is more expedient for debating.

As long as the ground rules for discussion and debate listed by Zwirn are observed, there are many advantages to such a participative learning style. How would you have answered the statements and questions posed above by the KJV-Only advocate?

The Tabernacle and the Temple

I recently came across this quotation in the Torah Club commentary (Vol 5, p393):

"Moses said to God: "Will not the time come when Israel shall have neither Tabernacle nor Temple? What will happen with them then?" The divine reply was, "I will then take one of their righteous men and retain him as a pledge on their behalf, in order that I may pardon all their sins." (Exodus Rabbah 35.4)

Immanuel Kant agrees with Zwirnor

Although he finds it absurd, Immanuel Kant also concludes that Christians must be Jews after following the same logic as Zwirner. This was sent by Anne:

I am reading The God of Israel and Christian Theology by R.Kendall Soulen and found an interesting quote from Immanuel Kant (1793). Kant arguing for an 'enlightenment' understanding of religion, believes that Christianity's retaining the history of the Jews as an essential part of its doctrine, is absurd. He is quoted from his book p. 153 Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. While the intention of the quote is in support of Kant's argument, I think it is interesting in light of your comments about the Rabbi's (of Burbank?) understanding of Christian/Jew.

" [The] procedure {of appealing to the Jewish Scriptures}, wisely adopted by the first propagators of the teaching of Christ in order to achieve its introduction among the people,is taken as part of the religion itself, valid for all times and peoples, with the result that one is obliged to believe that every Christian must be a Jew whose Messiah has come. "(,italics in original )

Another thinker from another time and another place, and choosing another paradigm, has come to a very similar conclusion to that one which we are considering. Food for thought.

Indeed.