« first day (505 days earlier)      last day (3079 days later) » 

12:10 AM
@JonEricson well, this was the one that stood out to me as wise: •Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion.
I interpreted that that if something is generally revered as fact to not expect it be stated as one view.
@SarahNoll That point is especially contentious here.
LOL! I can't win for loosing!
I'll find myself in the middle of contention without even trying!
@SarahNoll It's not really your fault. We have been discussing this for a few months.
LOL! Let me know when you figure it out!
Anyways, this site is like Seminary to me.
It puts your thoughts through a wringer!
@SarahNoll No doubt. I feel bad for new users who have to learn so much so quickly.
12:23 AM
@SarahNoll same here, I actually started as an exercise in maintaining my Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic
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.
I've ended up learning more than I brought to the table. I often spend hours researching questions. I love learning new stuff
Keeps me sharp
Sometimes I research but don't answer (would be too much work) - but I still learn
12:51 AM
@Soldarnal and @MonicaCellio: I thought I could delete tags as a ♦, but I can't actually see how. I might need to ask for help if I can't find the magic button.
1 hour later…
1:56 AM
@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?
6 hours later…
8:25 AM
@JonEricson tags delete themselves if they aren't used iirc
5 hours later…
1:47 PM
@MonicaCellio Thank you @MonicaCellio
2:46 PM
How might I make this question more clear as to what I am seeking? hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4230/…
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.
@FrankLuke I think the question is very clear
it's the 'seeing good as evil and evil as good' sin (at least that's the answer I usually get to that question)
aka 'saying no to forgiveness'
the difficulty with answering is that it is not readily clear from the text what the answer is: I guess the best answers would perhaps be backed up with respected sources?
3:18 PM
@FrankLuke I've has an amateurish go myself in the hope of provoking someone else to put the effort in ;)
4:06 PM
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?
@MonicaCellio can you spell out what you have against the last paragraph (and sorry if I'm being dense!)
He seems to be more or less paraphrasing Hebrews
@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 appreciate and want to reward a well-sourced answer, which the first half to two-thirds mostly is. If he would just stop there it'd be a good answer.
are you familiar with Hebrews?
4:14 PM
@JackDouglas no.
Is the revised (Christian) law relevant for this question?
yes, I think so
but it would be good to get some other opinion on this
@anyoneelse what to chip in?
@JackDouglas sure, but first a link to the response so I can read it myself
@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.
@DanO'Day we're talking about this
Weird, I've linked this twice and the links weren't the same. I wonder what I did.
4:36 PM
@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?
4:52 PM
@MonicaCellio I agree to some extent, but being that this is his first answer ever, I'd wait till he answers again. Perhaps this is the wrong attitude.
@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.)
@MonicaCellio true. I'm willing to make a comment
@DanO'Day thanks!
@MonicaCellio what was @JackDouglas 's thoughts?
@MonicaCellio nm I just scrolled up
hmm, @JackDouglas doesn't seem to be in agreement with this either
perhaps one more opinion would be in order :P
@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.
5:04 PM
@MonicaCellio like I said, I have no problem doing it - my only concern is chasing off a new user
@MonicaCellio and one who potentially will be a great asset to this site
@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.
5:22 PM
@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.
@JonEricson but is it relevant for answering this question?
But that would be going to far, in my opinion.
I think his last paragraph lays out an answer to a different question.
@MonicaCellio It seems more like taking the answer he gave and pushing it to its logical extreme.
Perhaps the answer is too ambitious.
@JonEricson which is all about application.
I don't see "logical conclusion" there so much as "here are some later sources that talk about this general subject too and here's what they say".
5:35 PM
@MonicaCellio I can see what you mean.
@MonicaCellio Are you objecting to his language (i.e. "superiority")? Cause that's the language of the actual text.
I guess the issue is that the broad framework of Hebrews helps explain Jesus' attitudes toward tithing.
@Soldarnal which text, Hebrews, which doesn't appare to bear on this question, or Matthew and Luke?
@Soldarnal My biggest problem with the answer, by the way, is that it tosses out a lot of verse numbers, but never quotes a Biblical text.
@MonicaCellio Yes, Hebrews.
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."
5:40 PM
@JonEricson in contrast, I up-voted Mike's answer and that doesn't happen often.
@MonicaCellio It is a widely accepted practive to bring other texts to bear on the text in question "let scripture interpret scripture" (also widely abused imo but that is a different matter)
@JonEricson yes, I think some at least of the texts should be quoted and linked
@JackDouglas when relevant, sure. Is there some reason to believe that the Pharisees should have been bound by what's laid out in Hebrews?
@JonEricson Reads like a standard commentary to me
@MonicaCellio from Jesus perspective?
"Did Jesus endorse tithing..."
@JackDouglas yeah, from the "I come not to change the law" person.
5:42 PM
@MonicaCellio that is a very interesting question in itself ;)
@JackDouglas Perhaps the issue could be resolved if the final paragraph were preceded by "The author of Hebrews comments on Jesus' relationship with the law..." Or some such.
@JonEricson that would be a good thing to suggest in a comment perhaps?
@Soldarnal Heh. That's true.
@JackDouglas I've gotten brushed off by enough Christians in asking that question that I don't do it any more.
@MonicaCellio the answer is close to the heart of Christianity and widely misunderstood. Including by me.
5:44 PM
@JackDouglas If it would actually help make the final paragraph more accessible to non-Christians, sure!
@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.
@MonicaCellio "Thus, the "disannulling" (Heb 7:18) of every ordinance pertaining to the Levitical priesthood and temple service included tithing--its chief means of financial support."
@MonicaCellio he's implying that some deeper principle is at stake (at least I think he is).
which is a kind of answer
@Soldarnal ok, I see youre point. Strike the first and last sentences and it gets closer to being relevant.
not just 'give', but 'give cheerfully'
5:48 PM
@JackDouglas maybe he could spell it out more clearly then?
@JackDouglas sorry, lost you there
The quote seems to be saying "no more tithes", so give how?
@MonicaCellio no it isn't saying that I think, rather that the rule for tithing is fulfilled in a new, 'deeper' obedience
which is why he quotes Hebrews, to support the general line of reasoning
@FrankLuke You are far too kind, thanks :)
@MonicaCellio Off-topic, but the practice of tithing varies widely in Christianity. Some still tithe and others believe all giving should be "from the heart".
@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.
@MonicaCellio it's the usual Christian understanding that the Christian message is a 'fulfilment' of the Tanakh rather than a replacement as you just quoted Jesus
so anger v murder in Matthew 5 for example
tithing and generosity is a similar link
@JackDouglas a closer analogue to generosity would be the poor's gleaning rights or the general support the community owes to the weak, not the 10% fee to the levites.
Gah. Never mind. Not trying to start a fight. I can see I don't have support.
5:59 PM
:8211423 I think we should ask a question in the comments to see if we can get the OP to clarify his meaning in the last paragraph. ;-)
Just because all the Christians in the room grok it doesn't mean it's understandable.
And we might have the wrong idea. Who knows?
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.
@JackDouglas That sounds good to me. I was thinking of pointing to the first message about the answer in a comment.
@JackDouglas That sounds good.
@jonathan Hi, I hope you don't mind me pinging you in here to draw your attention to the conversation we've been having. Please take a minute to read through if you have time :)
(starting from here)
1 hour later…
7:30 PM
On a different topic, I'm curious why this question was re-opened:
Q: What is Micah 5:5-6 talking about?

stringo0Is 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...

@JackDouglas, @DanO'Day, @Soldarnal ^^^
7:53 PM
@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).
8:11 PM
@JonEricson hmm... I clearly only read the title and not the first line ;) My bad
@JonEricson I thought he was asking what the verse is talking about
@JonEricson I saw some existing reopen votes so I just skimmed it quick and reopened it
@DanO'Day It was the subject of this meta-question:
Q: Are questions about the Old Testament from a purely Christian perspective off-topic?

Jon EricsonThis 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...

@JonEricson yeah I'm not really sure how to interpret the results of meta questions (the majority vote prevails until someone comes along and upvotes something else?)
@JonEricson how authoritative is meta? especially if the person who asked the question gets to 'accept' their own answer?
@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.
8:30 PM
@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.
@Soldarnal I remember. ;-)
8:50 PM
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 Ericson 4 mins ago
The OP still logs in once in a while, so we might need to wait for a response.
@JonEricson It seems open to other interpretations to me: "Or are they referring to something else?"
@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?
9:10 PM
@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.
@MonicaCellio The answer to your last question is doctrinal. Some believe that the prophets did not understand even themselves what they were writing about.
9:30 PM
@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 I thought we had that too. But I can't find it.
@JackDouglas It certainly meets the "start with the text" criteria. At least I think so.
@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.
@JonEricson They've not been seen here, though, since 2011
Although, I see you added a comment anyway, so can't hurt to wait
@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.
9:47 PM
@MonicaCellio it is currently being pushed down the front page :|
@JackDouglas We're above 3 questions per day on Area 51, which is the first I've seen it that high in a long while!
Almost high enough to be classified as "needs some work"
so we are! though that number does fluctuate quite a lot :)
Yeah, it's no doubt a moving average, but can't tell how far back it looks
@Soldarnal 7 days, I think.
10:06 PM
@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.
@MonicaCellio But that would force me to change my answer. ;-)
@JackDouglas push harder.
@JonEricson life is not without some bumps along the way. :-) But you could move your answer to the general question that I will ask if this one isn't closed or fixed.
@MonicaCellio Yes. We should fix that. Either remove the premises or make them clear.
@JonEricson yeah, either make it a question based in a single explicit hermeneutic or make it general and remove the Jesus preference. Either's fine.
I vote for making them more clear without obsoleting the answers
I think
10:17 PM
@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.)
@MonicaCellio not for questions in my view
I'm all for making the question body match the question title (generalize), but I thought I was hearing objections to that.
@JackDouglas ok.
my concern is only that Jon's answer is well argued and sourced
and he's busy ;)
we don't want to give him too much work: but I'd be happy for him to have carte blance to edit the Q
@JackDouglas I've got several questions I'd like to straighten up. I guess this will be the first, since I've just thought a lot about it. ;-)
@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?
10:22 PM
@MonicaCellio I was suggesting changing the question to make the request for 'Christian' answers more explicit
but I don't mind whatever Jon thinks is best
@MonicaCellio Does this passage present any particular interpretation problems outside of the Jesus fulfillment angle?
@JonEricson no. As you said in your answer, by the time of the Christian writers the prophecy had already been fulfilled. Done. :-)
BTW, interesting theory about ushpizin and I don't know how old that is.
@MonicaCellio I have no idea how I arrived there. (I didn't record my source.)
@MonicaCellio Ok. I'll make the Christianity angle more clear. By the way, I think a Jewish answer (we see this as already being fulfilled) would be welcome too.
10:46 PM
@JonEricson you mostly wrote that one already. :-)
@MonicaCellio Is Micah 2:2 considered messianic? It looks forward to "one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days."
11:13 PM
@JonEricson 2:2? "And they covet fields, and seize them; and houses, and take them away; thus they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage."?
(gotta drop off; back later)
11:25 PM
@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."
11:52 PM
@JonEricson Are you still around?
@Soldarnal Yeah. What's up?
I already flagged this answer which I think you looked at.
Seems to be a professor, but he's having trouble perhaps getting setup
He registered another account and added another answer
@Soldarnal FYI: moderators aren't able to merge accounts anymore. :-(

« first day (505 days earlier)      last day (3079 days later) »