I have to apologize, I've never heard of your guest. Neither his name or his congregation. Didn't know there was a Messianic Synagogue in La. I'm assuming your guest is a Messianic teacher
At around 1:13:03, Matt, are you trying to say that the survivors from the nations *will not keep* Sukkot, and that the entire passage is to be understood symbolically? If so, are you an amillennialist? Do you deny that Yeshua will return before the 1000-year reign? If not, what’s your stance on the millennium?
I'm saying we should keep the passage within the context of the literature of Zechariah and the passages around it. We love to assert a hierarchy of prominance through verses like the Sukkot passage in Zechariah. We can say, "You better do what we are doing! If not, you won't be blessed when Yeshua comes back!" But we ignore the very next vereses where horses have bells with the inscription of the High Priest diadem and the inhabitants of Israel at that time are told to bring their cooking pots from their common homes to the Temple to be used in the Temple service. These pots also have the inscription of the High Priest diadem on it. If you know anything about Temple service in the Torah, this is completely unacceptable, and the ancient audience would have never understood this to be something that would concretely happen. Our exegesis of the text cannot start with what we think about it. It must start with what the original author intended and the original audience understood. It must also comply with the literary and theological contexts. The idea of the last chapter of Zechariah as a concrete happening does not hold up to any of those measures.
@@ccrwm Thanks for the response, Matt, even though you did not fully answer my questions! I would like to address some of your statements, but first, can you please answer my questions?: “At around 1:13:03, Matt, are you trying to say that the survivors from the nations *will not keep* Sukkot, and that the entire passage is to be understood symbolically? If so, are you an amillennialist? Do you deny that Yeshua will return before the 1000-year reign? If not, what’s your stance on the millennium?” Would you answer “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know?”
Question please, will Yahshua offer sacrifices when he comes again? according to modern teaching he will establish a 3rd temple in his 1000 year reign is this true?? They're quoting Ezekiel & Zachariah prophecy...
Matt Nappier, I think, views this issue differently than me, but I believe that the temple system will be reestablished in the future during Messiah's reign on earth. However, I mainly base that belief on how I understand the Book of Hebrews rather than Ezekiel and Zechariah.
Great question! Ezekiel 40-48 and the vision of the Temple is visionary literature and more specifically symbolic reality. We have to understand the literature in order to understand the message. Visionary literature, by definition, is not literal. There are some queues for us today that would have been more obvious to the original audience to indicate a symbolic message about their situation and God’s promise to rectify it. The measurements are meticulously given for all the Temple except for one vital measurement - the heights of any walls. It is a Temple with no walls which means it is no Temple at all since a Temple was built to separate holy space from common space. This is the same thing Zechariah does with Jerusalem. It’s the city with no walls. Today we have cities with no walls. Anciently, a city was defined by a place with walls. No walls? No city. The sacrifices listed in this section are completely different than found in the Torah. We push people to obey the Torah as listed, but then we ignore these very important features of a future Temple on this earth that changes the Torah’s instructions on the sacrifices. If Jesus is coming back to institute and operate in the Temple spoken of in Ezekiel, He is going to break the Torah to do so. Is that ok for Him to do? This would have tipped the hat hard to the ancient society that this wasn’t an instruction for a physical Temple. They were just punished for improper worship and sent to Babylon (see chapters 8-10). Why would God punish them for the thing He promises to institute? In the passages for the Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, and the Temple after the Exile, God instructs someone to build it. There is no instruction to build the Temple in Ezekiel. It only tells Ezekiel to behold it and measure it and let it be something to shames the generation of the Exile for their sins (see Ezekiel 43:10). Of course, if they were told to build it, they could not have done so without the measurements for the heights of walls. Ezekiel is prophecy given to the generation at the time of the Exile. Solomon’s Temple has been destroyed. The second Temple had not been built. Why did they build the Temple they did? Why didn’t they build the Temple of Ezekiel? We have no indication from Scripture or other accounts that anyone at that time that anyone understood those chapters as being an instruction to build the next Temple. It was no considered literal by them. Further, there is nothing in the text of Ezekiel that states there will be another Temple that will be built before the one being viewed by Ezekiel. It will be destroyed but thousands of years later we need to build this one. There are many other points that were very obvious to the original audience that this Temple in Ezekiel is a visionary passage that has no intent of a concrete reading. And the most misunderstood sections of the Bible, IMHO, are these very passages that use non-literal genre. Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation. We must understand the literature to properly understand the rhetorical goals of those books and the message God is communicating to us. Hope this helps!
@ccrwm I'm blessed with this views even though im already opposed to Yashua's making sacrifices during his supposedly a thousand reign, your statement made it more clearer, thank you, 😇🙏 So, much of it are likely to be symbolic? All including the sacrifices they claim to be made after the second coming?
@@ccrwmI don’t see a problem with Ezekiel’s sacrifices differing from the Torah’s prescription, because in the 1000-year reign, heaven and earth have started to pass away (2 Peter 3, for example), meaning that some jots and tittles of the Torah can as well (Matthew 5). I don’t see how your observations from the Ezekiel texts *demand* a symbolic interpretation at all; it just seems like multiple non-sequiturs. For example, there’s no textual reason why a structure without walls *must not* be literal. You begin your comment with telling us the vision is symbolic, rather than letting the text demonstrate as much. Let me ask you this question, Matt, because I genuinely do not know the answer to it: Do you believe that some of the Torah’s more neglected commandments, such as the Sabbath, dietary instructions, appointed times, circumcision, and tassels, are still applicable to believers today? I’m *not asking whether you keep these things* to the best extent you can. (I know that you co-pastor a messianic congregation). I am asking whether you believe these have carried over into the present New Covenant age, or if they are no longer expected of believers in Yeshua. Yes or no?
@@CDB-Now I undestand Ezekiel 40-48 as visionary writings, things that are given by God to people throughout the Bible that had no intention of a literal understanding. It's like the vision to Ezekilel earlier in the scroll where he is told to cook bread of human feces and eat it. He protests, and God reminds him t that his visions are not literal. Ezekiel is rife with visionary writing - chapters 1, 8-10, 37, 40-48, and some in between those. We see this in the NT with Peter who has a vision of animals in a sheet. Peter did not wake up and think that this was to be understood concretely. He was perplexed at the meaning of the vision. It was revealed to him later at the house of Cornelius. Glad this helps!
Hey, Scott. There certainly is a difference between the two. Theology is the study of God and how He revealed Himself in the communication we find in the Bible. If there were no difference in the two, there would have been no need for a continuation of God revealing Himself and His divine plan over time. The fact that the disciples had to be shown what the missed before is a hint that something wasn’t so simple about the theology of the Old Testament. The theology of the New Testament expands that discussion. One good example is the use of Hosea 11:1 as a “prophecy” about Jesus. This was in no way understood to be a prophecy in the time of Hosea or it’s composition. Yet, Matthew quotes it to be a prophecy about Jesus going to Egypt after His birth. That’s not understood through the theology of the Old Testament; it is something different in the theology of the New Testament. If you mean that both “speak” if God, then I guess that’s true, but that would ignores the foundation of what theology is and the differences that happen between the first and second testaments. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@ccrwmI would agree in sense but it's not new theology really. It's an elaboration on the old and fulfillment of promises from the OT. Nothing changed but it was corrupted by man and it didn't include the nations very well. It did include them but there was no 'edict' to spread the Word. I think the main comment was just saying that. Just because no one knew Hosea was a prophecy of 'Jesus' doesn't mean the theology changed. I agree that men have gotten a lot wrong in their understanding and have bent a lot to fit their belief system but I think the main comment is saying the revelation didn't really change so much. Obviously he would agree there's a lot of bad theology out there considering this channel is in a very small minority of being able to understand the bible fairly well and anyone watching most likely knows that but it's great that such a small comment sparked so much out of you.
Theology is a field of study. It’s not something within the text itself. There’s is Biblical Theology, Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, and Practical Theology. With Biblical Theology, we have Old Testament Theology and New Testament Theology. There’s also other fields like Pauline Theology and Lukas Theology. You can disagree with the need for different fields of scholarship, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I’m speaking about the fields of scholarship that exists, not something inherent in the text itself. I hope this helps. I sometimes say things with the assumption that people know what I’m referring to. If I was unclear in my reference to the scholarly fields of study, I apologize.
15:03 "slave owners in the south would say the same thing." About having a KJV and the Holy Spirit guiding them. Wow, what a shot at a group or class of people. I would argue that if you can actually find a quote from a slave owner from the south about the Holy Spirit and a KJV and that's a big if, that they probably didn't read that bible and more likely relied on a pastor or seminary professional to pull that out of scripture some how. That's modern lefist liberal ideology arguments against conservative Christians. That's the same as the argument that the transatlantic slave trade was started on the back of the curse of Ham, which it's the curse of Canaan to begin with but also that's another issue where we're not talking abour people who actually read the bible but people who carry one and let someone else tell them what it means. Plus that argument isn't true, the reason it happened was because their own people were selling them and the convenience of not having to gather them and get them acclimated to what they were going to have to endure is why it happened. Otherwise they would have just done it to the Natives here which they did in some cases but rarely. If anything the real argument is the common people becoming able to read and understand the bible on their own is what led to the end of slavery and basically every freedom the west understands today. That's the truth. That's the impact of common people learning to understand the bible for themselves with a true and open heart and mind. Once again I'm not saying biblical scholarship is useless but these arguments are sort of strawmen like they are while being used for a democrat platform for politicians or really any politician. It's just the left is the most adept at it currently. (Timestamp)David trying to articulate why people don't trust 'experts' while trying not articulate why people don't trust experts. Trying to be careful to save face but also at some point the truth is the the truth and you either say it or you're basically complicit. I mentioned this at the top and you both FULLY agree with how far Christendom as a whole has gotten way way off track so it's crazy to try to argue it's not indoctrination. (Timestamp) as Matt says until you're post graduate, PhD level it's LITERALLY indoctrination. They are teaching you what to think and what to believe verbatim and if you don't agree, you're basically not passing the grade. If you go to a seminary that believes in pretrib rapture, friday-sunday cruc-resurrection, Sunday mass, OSAS, and all the other fun things, you can't take tests or write papers on opposing views and expect to pass. Then when you're choosing where to go you already have a presuppositional belief system and the people or church helping you also has that same belief then you go to a place that reinforces that belief. Idk how that's not indoctrination. That's textbook indoctrination. It's literally pressing doctine on someone. That's kind of a funny exchange because how do you say or not say it without admitting it because it's just the truth. (Timestamp)so the answer to every challenge about the truth of indoctrination is "have you ever been to seminary? Then you're speaking out of ignorance." Hmmm... it would just be better to say 'Yes, there is tons and tons of indoctrination and many many scholars have bad intentions or misguided ones at the least but you have to know there are ones you can trust and you see that in their works plus there understanding based on what your beliefs are in principle." 28:46 Acts 20:7 is actually a very interesting topic especially considering the Greek. I've heard arguments for the rendering of 'on one of the Sabbaths or on the Sabbath one of the weeks" which I don't totally agree with but it's interesting that they use mia(one) and Sabbaton (sabbath or week according to English translations of the bible). This is an area I've been digging deep right now because the 'scholarly' argument is that's how the Greek writers would have wrote the first day of the week but Mark 16:9 uses prote hemera and protem to mean the first day. Acts 20:18 also uses protes hemera. The NT also uses Tn tritn hemera to say 'on the third day' MT 16:21, 17:23, 20:19 LK 9:22, 24:7, 46 and since they clearly use first and third instead of one and three like they explain for mia sabbaton plus they use hemera to mean day it really makes no sense why acts 20:7, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 translate Sabbaton and it's plural form once and the word Mia to mean 'the first day of the week' when they could and so use the word first and day often enough in the NT. Plus none of this accounts for the Septuagint not using Sabbaton to mean week. It also uses words like hebdomada to mean week and then insert prote or tritn to mean first or third and they don't use mia. These are very very interesting issues that NO one talks about or addresses and the excuse is those are latter Greek writings and pre 'Jesus' they didn't have their own word for weeks or at least one that was separate from Sabbaton which sounds like a mainstream church lie. This is something they are not teaching at seminary. It's something no one is looking at or at least very very few. Now I'm stuck on finishing this Koine Greek session. I'll have to come back. At the very least, if you take the bible's English translation at face value. Using Mark 16:1, Luke 23:56, John 19:31, Leviticus 23:5, and Matthew 12:40 you would have to assume that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and rose on Saturday either pre nightfall or just post nightfall and not Sunday morning but if this Greek is mistranslated because of tradition maybe He was crucified on Tuesday, Wednesday was a Sabbath the Mary's bought spices and prepared them on the day after the Sabbath and the day before the Sabbath per Mark 16:2 and Luke 23:56 then they arrived at the tomb on Saturday morning to find it empty. The 2nd version is a big if but the first version is solid if the translation is solid... it doesn't look good either way.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! The way you present them is not really conducive to a conversation. I’ll just start with your first part of the comment. If you’re interested in first-hand comments about slave owners and the Bible, one good resource is found in the book listed below. Reasonable Google results could also give you the content you’re questioning. . I didn’t say every slave owner would make certain comments. Some certainly did. But to argue against my comment the way you are demonstrates you’ve completely misunderstood the rhetorical and goals of those comments. The Great Stain: Witnessing American Slavery
Are we back patting and validating our credentials today "I'm a biblical scholar with a PhD." This feels very much like a continuation of the Sean Griffin situation. I could be wrong but let's see. So far it seems like we're proving why we need biblical scholars. While I agree, someone needs to be an expert, it helps. We've also went very veey far off of course because of biblical 'scholars'. When 90% of western christendom thinks the Sabbath is a joke basically and that it's meant for someone else, that the soul is immortal, the 'Jesus' spent 3 days in the tomb on Friday evening to just before sunrise on Sunday, it's easy to question biblical scholarship and it's actual value. Tradition sometimes is the problem and mocking people for saying "I have my KJV and the Holy Spirit" is not really valuable to this discussion. It further fuels my belief that this is a congratulatory circle session. Now, with that all said, I agree with you on a vast vast majority of biblical issues but it doesn't do anyone any good for me to congratulate you for the easy part. I really hope this doesn't go where I think it's going. If I'm wrong, I will be the first to admit it.
We recorded this interview before I posted my response to Griffin. We were not mocking anyone, just explaining the value of scholarship. Tradition is not the same thing as scholarship, which often challenges tradition. Blessings!
![Natanael Cano - Amor Eterno [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EO4prCs6WpM/mqdefault.jpg)
Check out Pastor Matt Nappier's congregation here: lighthousemessianicfellowship.com/
I have to apologize, I've never heard of your guest. Neither his name or his congregation. Didn't know there was a Messianic Synagogue in La. I'm assuming your guest is a Messianic teacher
Yep!
@DavidWilberBlog it's amazing, people attempt to pass along truth. And they get blocked. Apparently truth means nothing here.
Bye...
Good luck
@@Yaaqov777 Not sure what you're talking about, my friend. You're clearly not blocked. :)
Wonderful video. I love Matt so much. And David too of course. ❤ Matt is a fantastic teacher. I love his classes.
Incredible interview, David. WE LEARNED SO MUCH!
Great discussion and tremendous info thank you David and Matt
At around 1:13:03, Matt, are you trying to say that the survivors from the nations *will not keep* Sukkot, and that the entire passage is to be understood symbolically?
If so, are you an amillennialist? Do you deny that Yeshua will return before the 1000-year reign? If not, what’s your stance on the millennium?
I'm saying we should keep the passage within the context of the literature of Zechariah and the passages around it. We love to assert a hierarchy of prominance through verses like the Sukkot passage in Zechariah. We can say, "You better do what we are doing! If not, you won't be blessed when Yeshua comes back!" But we ignore the very next vereses where horses have bells with the inscription of the High Priest diadem and the inhabitants of Israel at that time are told to bring their cooking pots from their common homes to the Temple to be used in the Temple service. These pots also have the inscription of the High Priest diadem on it. If you know anything about Temple service in the Torah, this is completely unacceptable, and the ancient audience would have never understood this to be something that would concretely happen.
Our exegesis of the text cannot start with what we think about it. It must start with what the original author intended and the original audience understood. It must also comply with the literary and theological contexts. The idea of the last chapter of Zechariah as a concrete happening does not hold up to any of those measures.
@@ccrwm Thanks for the response, Matt, even though you did not fully answer my questions! I would like to address some of your statements, but first, can you please answer my questions?:
“At around 1:13:03, Matt, are you trying to say that the survivors from the nations *will not keep* Sukkot, and that the entire passage is to be understood symbolically?
If so, are you an amillennialist? Do you deny that Yeshua will return before the 1000-year reign? If not, what’s your stance on the millennium?”
Would you answer “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know?”
The truth is that they should keep Succoth and we will continue to follow the festivals even into the eighth day.
Question please, will Yahshua offer sacrifices when he comes again? according to modern teaching he will establish a 3rd temple in his 1000 year reign is this true?? They're quoting Ezekiel & Zachariah prophecy...
Matt Nappier, I think, views this issue differently than me, but I believe that the temple system will be reestablished in the future during Messiah's reign on earth. However, I mainly base that belief on how I understand the Book of Hebrews rather than Ezekiel and Zechariah.
Great question! Ezekiel 40-48 and the vision of the Temple is visionary literature and more specifically symbolic reality. We have to understand the literature in order to understand the message. Visionary literature, by definition, is not literal.
There are some queues for us today that would have been more obvious to the original audience to indicate a symbolic message about their situation and God’s promise to rectify it.
The measurements are meticulously given for all the Temple except for one vital measurement - the heights of any walls. It is a Temple with no walls which means it is no Temple at all since a Temple was built to separate holy space from common space. This is the same thing Zechariah does with Jerusalem. It’s the city with no walls. Today we have cities with no walls. Anciently, a city was defined by a place with walls. No walls? No city.
The sacrifices listed in this section are completely different than found in the Torah. We push people to obey the Torah as listed, but then we ignore these very important features of a future Temple on this earth that changes the Torah’s instructions on the sacrifices. If Jesus is coming back to institute and operate in the Temple spoken of in Ezekiel, He is going to break the Torah to do so. Is that ok for Him to do? This would have tipped the hat hard to the ancient society that this wasn’t an instruction for a physical Temple. They were just punished for improper worship and sent to Babylon (see chapters 8-10). Why would God punish them for the thing He promises to institute?
In the passages for the Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, and the Temple after the Exile, God instructs someone to build it. There is no instruction to build the Temple in Ezekiel. It only tells Ezekiel to behold it and measure it and let it be something to shames the generation of the Exile for their sins (see Ezekiel 43:10). Of course, if they were told to build it, they could not have done so without the measurements for the heights of walls.
Ezekiel is prophecy given to the generation at the time of the Exile. Solomon’s Temple has been destroyed. The second Temple had not been built. Why did they build the Temple they did? Why didn’t they build the Temple of Ezekiel? We have no indication from Scripture or other accounts that anyone at that time that anyone understood those chapters as being an instruction to build the next Temple. It was no considered literal by them. Further, there is nothing in the text of Ezekiel that states there will be another Temple that will be built before the one being viewed by Ezekiel. It will be destroyed but thousands of years later we need to build this one.
There are many other points that were very obvious to the original audience that this Temple in Ezekiel is a visionary passage that has no intent of a concrete reading. And the most misunderstood sections of the Bible, IMHO, are these very passages that use non-literal genre. Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation. We must understand the literature to properly understand the rhetorical goals of those books and the message God is communicating to us.
Hope this helps!
@ccrwm I'm blessed with this views even though im already opposed to Yashua's making sacrifices during his supposedly a thousand reign, your statement made it more clearer, thank you, 😇🙏 So, much of it are likely to be symbolic? All including the sacrifices they claim to be made after the second coming?
@@ccrwmI don’t see a problem with Ezekiel’s sacrifices differing from the Torah’s prescription, because in the 1000-year reign, heaven and earth have started to pass away (2 Peter 3, for example), meaning that some jots and tittles of the Torah can as well (Matthew 5). I don’t see how your observations from the Ezekiel texts *demand* a symbolic interpretation at all; it just seems like multiple non-sequiturs. For example, there’s no textual reason why a structure without walls *must not* be literal.
You begin your comment with telling us the vision is symbolic, rather than letting the text demonstrate as much.
Let me ask you this question, Matt, because I genuinely do not know the answer to it: Do you believe that some of the Torah’s more neglected commandments, such as the Sabbath, dietary instructions, appointed times, circumcision, and tassels, are still applicable to believers today?
I’m *not asking whether you keep these things* to the best extent you can. (I know that you co-pastor a messianic congregation). I am asking whether you believe these have carried over into the present New Covenant age, or if they are no longer expected of believers in Yeshua.
Yes or no?
@@CDB-Now I undestand Ezekiel 40-48 as visionary writings, things that are given by God to people throughout the Bible that had no intention of a literal understanding. It's like the vision to Ezekilel earlier in the scroll where he is told to cook bread of human feces and eat it. He protests, and God reminds him t that his visions are not literal. Ezekiel is rife with visionary writing - chapters 1, 8-10, 37, 40-48, and some in between those. We see this in the NT with Peter who has a vision of animals in a sheet. Peter did not wake up and think that this was to be understood concretely. He was perplexed at the meaning of the vision. It was revealed to him later at the house of Cornelius. Glad this helps!
major "quibble"
there is NO difference between "old" and "new" ... theology
Hey, Scott. There certainly is a difference between the two. Theology is the study of God and how He revealed Himself in the communication we find in the Bible. If there were no difference in the two, there would have been no need for a continuation of God revealing Himself and His divine plan over time. The fact that the disciples had to be shown what the missed before is a hint that something wasn’t so simple about the theology of the Old Testament. The theology of the New Testament expands that discussion. One good example is the use of Hosea 11:1 as a “prophecy” about Jesus. This was in no way understood to be a prophecy in the time of Hosea or it’s composition. Yet, Matthew quotes it to be a prophecy about Jesus going to Egypt after His birth. That’s not understood through the theology of the Old Testament; it is something different in the theology of the New Testament.
If you mean that both “speak” if God, then I guess that’s true, but that would ignores the foundation of what theology is and the differences that happen between the first and second testaments. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@ccrwmI would agree in sense but it's not new theology really. It's an elaboration on the old and fulfillment of promises from the OT. Nothing changed but it was corrupted by man and it didn't include the nations very well. It did include them but there was no 'edict' to spread the Word. I think the main comment was just saying that. Just because no one knew Hosea was a prophecy of 'Jesus' doesn't mean the theology changed. I agree that men have gotten a lot wrong in their understanding and have bent a lot to fit their belief system but I think the main comment is saying the revelation didn't really change so much. Obviously he would agree there's a lot of bad theology out there considering this channel is in a very small minority of being able to understand the bible fairly well and anyone watching most likely knows that but it's great that such a small comment sparked so much out of you.
Theology is a field of study. It’s not something within the text itself. There’s is Biblical Theology, Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, and Practical Theology. With Biblical Theology, we have Old Testament Theology and New Testament Theology. There’s also other fields like Pauline Theology and Lukas Theology.
You can disagree with the need for different fields of scholarship, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I’m speaking about the fields of scholarship that exists, not something inherent in the text itself.
I hope this helps. I sometimes say things with the assumption that people know what I’m referring to. If I was unclear in my reference to the scholarly fields of study, I apologize.
Origen? Uh oh.
15:03 "slave owners in the south would say the same thing." About having a KJV and the Holy Spirit guiding them. Wow, what a shot at a group or class of people. I would argue that if you can actually find a quote from a slave owner from the south about the Holy Spirit and a KJV and that's a big if, that they probably didn't read that bible and more likely relied on a pastor or seminary professional to pull that out of scripture some how. That's modern lefist liberal ideology arguments against conservative Christians. That's the same as the argument that the transatlantic slave trade was started on the back of the curse of Ham, which it's the curse of Canaan to begin with but also that's another issue where we're not talking abour people who actually read the bible but people who carry one and let someone else tell them what it means. Plus that argument isn't true, the reason it happened was because their own people were selling them and the convenience of not having to gather them and get them acclimated to what they were going to have to endure is why it happened. Otherwise they would have just done it to the Natives here which they did in some cases but rarely. If anything the real argument is the common people becoming able to read and understand the bible on their own is what led to the end of slavery and basically every freedom the west understands today. That's the truth. That's the impact of common people learning to understand the bible for themselves with a true and open heart and mind. Once again I'm not saying biblical scholarship is useless but these arguments are sort of strawmen like they are while being used for a democrat platform for politicians or really any politician. It's just the left is the most adept at it currently. (Timestamp)David trying to articulate why people don't trust 'experts' while trying not articulate why people don't trust experts. Trying to be careful to save face but also at some point the truth is the the truth and you either say it or you're basically complicit. I mentioned this at the top and you both FULLY agree with how far Christendom as a whole has gotten way way off track so it's crazy to try to argue it's not indoctrination. (Timestamp) as Matt says until you're post graduate, PhD level it's LITERALLY indoctrination. They are teaching you what to think and what to believe verbatim and if you don't agree, you're basically not passing the grade. If you go to a seminary that believes in pretrib rapture, friday-sunday cruc-resurrection, Sunday mass, OSAS, and all the other fun things, you can't take tests or write papers on opposing views and expect to pass. Then when you're choosing where to go you already have a presuppositional belief system and the people or church helping you also has that same belief then you go to a place that reinforces that belief. Idk how that's not indoctrination. That's textbook indoctrination. It's literally pressing doctine on someone. That's kind of a funny exchange because how do you say or not say it without admitting it because it's just the truth. (Timestamp)so the answer to every challenge about the truth of indoctrination is "have you ever been to seminary? Then you're speaking out of ignorance." Hmmm... it would just be better to say 'Yes, there is tons and tons of indoctrination and many many scholars have bad intentions or misguided ones at the least but you have to know there are ones you can trust and you see that in their works plus there understanding based on what your beliefs are in principle."
28:46 Acts 20:7 is actually a very interesting topic especially considering the Greek. I've heard arguments for the rendering of 'on one of the Sabbaths or on the Sabbath one of the weeks" which I don't totally agree with but it's interesting that they use mia(one) and Sabbaton (sabbath or week according to English translations of the bible). This is an area I've been digging deep right now because the 'scholarly' argument is that's how the Greek writers would have wrote the first day of the week but Mark 16:9 uses prote hemera and protem to mean the first day. Acts 20:18 also uses protes hemera. The NT also uses Tn tritn hemera to say 'on the third day' MT 16:21, 17:23, 20:19 LK 9:22, 24:7, 46 and since they clearly use first and third instead of one and three like they explain for mia sabbaton plus they use hemera to mean day it really makes no sense why acts 20:7, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1 translate Sabbaton and it's plural form once and the word Mia to mean 'the first day of the week' when they could and so use the word first and day often enough in the NT. Plus none of this accounts for the Septuagint not using Sabbaton to mean week. It also uses words like hebdomada to mean week and then insert prote or tritn to mean first or third and they don't use mia. These are very very interesting issues that NO one talks about or addresses and the excuse is those are latter Greek writings and pre 'Jesus' they didn't have their own word for weeks or at least one that was separate from Sabbaton which sounds like a mainstream church lie. This is something they are not teaching at seminary. It's something no one is looking at or at least very very few. Now I'm stuck on finishing this Koine Greek session. I'll have to come back. At the very least, if you take the bible's English translation at face value. Using Mark 16:1, Luke 23:56, John 19:31, Leviticus 23:5, and Matthew 12:40 you would have to assume that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and rose on Saturday either pre nightfall or just post nightfall and not Sunday morning but if this Greek is mistranslated because of tradition maybe He was crucified on Tuesday, Wednesday was a Sabbath the Mary's bought spices and prepared them on the day after the Sabbath and the day before the Sabbath per Mark 16:2 and Luke 23:56 then they arrived at the tomb on Saturday morning to find it empty. The 2nd version is a big if but the first version is solid if the translation is solid... it doesn't look good either way.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! The way you present them is not really conducive to a conversation. I’ll just start with your first part of the comment. If you’re interested in first-hand comments about slave owners and the Bible, one good resource is found in the book listed below. Reasonable Google results could also give you the content you’re questioning. . I didn’t say every slave owner would make certain comments. Some certainly did. But to argue against my comment the way you are demonstrates you’ve completely misunderstood the rhetorical and goals of those comments.
The Great Stain: Witnessing American Slavery
Are we back patting and validating our credentials today "I'm a biblical scholar with a PhD." This feels very much like a continuation of the Sean Griffin situation. I could be wrong but let's see. So far it seems like we're proving why we need biblical scholars. While I agree, someone needs to be an expert, it helps. We've also went very veey far off of course because of biblical 'scholars'. When 90% of western christendom thinks the Sabbath is a joke basically and that it's meant for someone else, that the soul is immortal, the 'Jesus' spent 3 days in the tomb on Friday evening to just before sunrise on Sunday, it's easy to question biblical scholarship and it's actual value. Tradition sometimes is the problem and mocking people for saying "I have my KJV and the Holy Spirit" is not really valuable to this discussion. It further fuels my belief that this is a congratulatory circle session. Now, with that all said, I agree with you on a vast vast majority of biblical issues but it doesn't do anyone any good for me to congratulate you for the easy part. I really hope this doesn't go where I think it's going. If I'm wrong, I will be the first to admit it.
We recorded this interview before I posted my response to Griffin. We were not mocking anyone, just explaining the value of scholarship. Tradition is not the same thing as scholarship, which often challenges tradition. Blessings!