I don't mean negatively, but positively as in the scholarship is intense and therefore helps put more of the pieces on the table as you try to put the puzzle together. It forces you to refine your thoughts and express them clearly.
@DanO'Day if you're happy I'm happy. (On this point, I mean. :-) )
@SarahNoll that's something I wrote on meta. It hasn't been adopted as site policy; it's a proposal. If you agree you should vote up; if you disagree you should vote down. (For anything on meta, not just this.) Voting on meta signals agreement/disagreement, not correctness/usefulness like on main.
@swasheck if the links @DanO'Day pointed out aren't what you're looking for, please say more about "satisfaction of deserved wrath". (I mean, I know what all those words mean of course, but I suspect they mean something specific here and I don't recognize it.)
@swasheck And from the timestamp, I'd say I was chasing a cat prior to stuffing him into a carrier to go to the vet. :-)
@swasheck I wasn't sure whether to pick off-topic or not constructive. I followed the herd.
@JonEricson hmm, I don't know and don't see anything obvious in MY's mod tools. Try TL?
What has been the understanding of this "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" and why is it unforgivable? Since other blasphemies will be forgiven (those against the Father and the Son), why will blasphemies against the Spirit not be forgiven?
That's what I'm wanting, but I don't think that has been picked up on so much.
Hi all. I think this answer from a new user starts out well and would be worthy of an up-vote but for all the evangelizing toward the end (the last paragraph in particular). I'm not supposed to edit doctrine, I'm not supposed to leave constructive criticism in comments to new users, and my flag was declined, so I'm bringing it here. Anyone care to help him fix it?
@JackDouglas "the superiority of the NT model is clearly outlined in the epistle to the Hebrews" (etc) claims that (a) it is superior, (b) there's something wrong with the law that was in place (versus how people were behaving), and (c) that this has anything to do with the question, which was about tithing under the original law. Also the "perfect sacrifice" stuff, and supercession in general.
(I would also want him to stop using "our" in a way that presumes we all agree, but that's a weaker concern.)
btw there is a story behind this answer: Jonathan emailed me with the PDF book he links to mistakenly thinking I was the OP (I'd edited). I emailed him back and encouraged him to summarise the book and link to it which is what he has done (I think—I didn't read the whole book)
@JackDouglas I agree. Just for calibration, in terms of offensiveness this is about 50% or so of the "Precious Blood" [sic] post. And I'll bet he doesn't mean it; other than that it's a well-written and -argued answer. Let's help him.
@JackDouglas Thank you! I've added a comment that connects the final dots in my mind. I have actually gone back-and-forth on the definition of this sin many times. I've never been happy with anything I've found. I am happy with the dots you've put ont he paper.
@MonicaCellio @JackDouglas well, he is asking about how the new covenant impacts the practice of tithing, but the question is focused to specifically ask about this statement of Jesus. I would think bringing in other NT writings and doctrine is somewhat fair game here
@MonicaCellio @JackDouglas I do agree that the last paragraph isn't necessary for his argument, but he seems to think it is (since he concludes with it). If it were present in a question, I'd suggest an edit ASAP. But since it's an answer, and the question is from a Christian perspective (asking if tithing is also for followers of Jesus), I'd say it's fair game.
@MonicaCellio @JackDouglas and I have somewhat of a double standard. He's a brand new user, so I'd go easy on him. If an established user like @JonEricson were to write the same response, I'd be more in favor of an edit :P
@DanO'Day @JackDouglas I was hoping that an established user from his own tradition (writ large) would offer him some gentle guidance about that last paragraph. Does he realize that we aren't a Christian site and even a Christian-flavored question shouldn't dive into doctrine unnecessarily?
@DanO'Day Waiting risks teaching bad habits, which may frustrate him even more when he figures it out. (I know I would be horrified if I found out I were violating the norms of a place and nobody took me aside to tell me.)
@DanO'Day if someone else were to chime in that would be good. Note that AFAIK we don't actually have a policy on any of this; I got tired of the flak I was getting when I tried to fix things (edit or comment) and after discussion in here I've backed off. But that's me, not policy, so you can decide on your own what to do.
@DanO'Day I don't want to chase him off either. I think SE in general and BH in particular has some counter-intuitive expectations and we should explain them, maybe going as far as linking to Friends, we are not Christian.
@DanO'Day but I think specific guidance about that last paragraph would help him and us, if you're up to providing it.
@MonicaCellio Looking at the last paragraph, it seems to generally line up with the argument found in Hebrews, which really is an attempt by an anonymous early Christian to understand how the Torah should be kept in the face of the destruction of the Temple. Obviously, the author's answer diverged from the standard Jewish answer (which we were talking about earlier in the week).
Also, the letter seems to be written before the physical destruction of the Temple.
But that paragraph does not do the argument justice since the letter to the Hebrews contains many nuanced arguments.
Hmm... this is certainly not a case where the back-it-up principle would change the answer. The Wikipedia rules would, I suppose.
8:6 - "But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises."
@JackDouglas "So, was Jesus implying that all his followers tithe? Or was he only speaking specifically to the Pharisee who was trying to live under the law? " The last paragraph is about a new system replacing the whole system but doesn't actually talk about whether that means tithing is still on.
@JackDouglas Mike's answer says Paul never talks about tithing and it's just not on the radar. I can't speak to the accuracy of that, but it sounds like one "give" tradition was replaced with another but not necessarily that they have anything to do with each other.
That's like saying that kashrut was replaced with communion because they both involve eating.
I think it would be be helpful for Jonathan to know that some find his post offensive as it stands. I think the best way to do that might be for me to superping him and invite him in here, and suggests he reads through this thread—do you think that would be good?
@JackDouglas I think it would be good for someone to alert him to the issue. As I said, I presume the best of intentions and that he has no idea that his words have this effect. He probably thinks we're a Christian site and doctrine is a given. So yeah, direct him to this chat or summarize the issues in comments or whatever you think is best. All I was trying to do with the flag in the first place was to get someone to talk to him about it.
Is this in reference to Jesus? If so, are verses 5 and 6 about the second coming? Or are they referring to something else?
Micah 5:2-6 (ESV)
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Isra...
@JonEricson oh, I wondered about that -- assumed the edit was a retag rather than a reopen and didn't look. As written I think it's off-topic; if it were rewritten as "what does this mean?" it could be on-topic (but check whether any answers need to be adjusted).
This morning a question arose about whether Jesus fulfills a prophesy in the Old Testament. From a Christian perspective, this a fairly standard lens through which to look at the Tanakh. Obviously, the question is quite foreign (and potentially offensive) from the Jewish perspective. Richard c...
@DanO'Day that meta post is more than a year old. I don't know how well the votes even reflect the current participants' views. If it had been settled that would be one thing, but it wasn't then either.
@JonEricson I re-tagged the post yesterday while going through the exegesis questions. It seemed like an exegesis question, so I voted to re-open it, since those are on topic. I was a little surprised to see it actually re-opened this morning, though.
My vote was also influenced by the fact that it had a couple good answers already attached.
And that the meta question specifically about it had popular support for re-opening it.
This is an old question that has been re-opened. I wonder if we could rephrase it to be more general and open to a variety of hermeneutical approaches (such as Jewish interpretations)? — Jon Ericson4 mins ago
The OP still logs in once in a while, so we might need to wait for a response.
@Soldarnal instead of "does this mean (outcome I prefer), or does it mean something else?", why not just revise to "what does this mean"? Opinions/preferences of the asker aren't really relevant in answering, are they? (Background etc yes, but that's differnet.)
@MonicaCellio I'm not sure what the rule is here, but on SO you're supposed to show that you've made some attempt at answering your own questions, so I usually give the options I've at least considered.
If this question was "Who is the little horn in Daniel 8:9?" And someone started off the question "Is the little horn here in Daniel 8:9 Antiochus IV Epiphanes? Someone else?" would that question be off-topic?
@Soldarnal I would view "here are several options" differently from "here's one, is it that one?". I do want people to share the work they've already done. And in this case (old-conversation alert), where the one offered interpretation is counter to the original context of the text, I would hope people would be more careful. We should assume that Micah was comprehensible to Micah's original audience, yes?
@MonicaCellio Part of the problem is that the questioner assumes the Christocentric position that Micah 5:2-4 is a prophesy fulfilled in Jesus and then asks if verses 5-6 are also about Jesus somehow. There's not much of a question if you think that Micah's prophesy was fulfilled before Jesus was even born.
@JonEricson My logic was simply "it starts from the text". I didn't realise I'd answered myself (and perhaps I should edit my answer a bit). The "Is this in reference to Jesus?" part of the question I interpreted as "I'm interested in 'Christian' perspectives primarily", which is helpful to know if we are interested in answering the OP, rather than in answering a theoretical 'better' question about the same text.
I'm not sure though: what would we do if someone else came along and asked "What is Micah 5:5-6 about?"
By my logic we couldn't automatically close it as a duplicate.
@JackDouglas yes, that absolutely could not be closed as a dup. I'm tempted to ask the neutral question to force the issue, but I'll hold off.
@JonEricson if he wants a Christian interpretation then he should say so but then it's a "duh" question -- of course the Christian hermeneutic will say it's Jesus. That's not very interesting. As asked now it kind of straddles a line. This is a very old question and I'm not faulting OP for not foreseeing future events, but now that it's on the front page we should fix it somehow.
@Soldarnal Gak! I misread the profile information. :-(
@MonicaCellio Actually, I think it's an interesting question from the Christian perspective. If one part of a prophesy applies to Jesus, does the whole thing? I'd argue (and did argue obliquely) that it does not.
@JonEricson if the question laid it out like that I'd feel differently: "according to X hermeneutic, verse A means Jesus. In that context does that mean that verse B, which is related to A by (whatever), is also about Jesus?"
That's a "consistenty apply a hermeneutic" question.
But this question doesn't lay out the premise. It probably assumes it but even that isn't clear -- you knew it but I didn't. To me it looks like a random "can I find Jesus here to, can I?" question without the context.
@JackDouglas I think the only way to keep the current answers relevant is to generalize the question and remove the Jesus presumption. But wouldn't that violate the "don't change OP's intent" goal? (Remember, OP isn't around to be asked.)
@JackDouglas it's a good answer. He'd have to massage the second half of the second paragraph. It could be patched, at least temporarily, to add "Christians see this as a ref to Jesus because..." since you allow any hermeneutic in an answer. But I think most of his answer (which I agree is well-done) would stand, wouldn't it?
@MonicaCellio Ugh. 5:1: "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days."