What have we learned?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it's likely that most of the teachings of Jesus came from the house of Hillel, as they were established already by Hillel.

I do know that Jesus clearly took sides in these debates, probably tending more to one than the other.

But don't you think that it is more likely that Hillel got his teachings from God, not the other way around. Jesus didn't take sides because he thought one of them was right. He said what was right. If it turned out that one of them was right, that was great. But it wasn't that Jesus got any teaching from Hillel.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do know that Jesus clearly took sides in these debates, probably tending more to one than the other.

But don't you think that it is more likely that Hillel got his teachings from God, not the other way around. Jesus didn't take sides because he thought one of them was right. He said what was right. If it turned out that one of them was right, that was great. But it wasn't that Jesus got any teaching from Hillel.

That Jesus was raised as a Jew and didn't receive Jewish teachings sounds ridiculous to me...

Hillel died when Jesus started arguing in the synagogues as a teen. He had to know Hillel, and his teachings, and probably met him.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

That Jesus was raised as a Jew and didn't receive Jewish teachings sounds ridiculous to me...

Hillel died when Jesus started arguing in the synagogues as a teen. He had to know Hillel, and his teachings, and probably met him.

You are missing the point. If Jesus is simply a man, then you are right. If he is God, then the fact that anyone had any position is irrelevant to him. He knows what is right. He may take note of what is being taught that is correct. But that is not the same as learning his teachings from Hillel.

[OBW]

Harold,

Put a different way, Jesus, as he grew up, may have been taught what some were teaching. But he did not get what is right from that. It was in him. He wasn't taught the right answer by Hillel. Or the other guy. He knew the right answer.

[OBW]

And after many years in these forums, and 115 posts in this thread, I will repeat the question and the answer.

Q: What have we learned?

A: Evidently not much.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

And after many years in these forums, and 115 posts in this thread, I will repeat the question and the answer.

Q: What have we learned?

A: Evidently not much.

I've learned so much since the local church I couldn't begin to list 'em.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

And after many years in these forums, and 115 posts in this thread, I will repeat the question and the answer.

Q: What have we learned?

A: Evidently not much.

Speak for yourself. What makes you think I haven't learned anything?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Speak for yourself. What makes you think I haven't learned anything?

For example, could you teach us what that Chinese character for courage means?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Speak for yourself. What makes you think I haven't learned anything?

You. Probably learned a lot. My comment was not really relevant to the thread. It was a response to seeing the question at the top of every post as these crazy discussions that have gotten into so many strange things, including whether 11of101 should be left out or allowed back in go on with the strange back and forth related to it all demonstrating an almost intent to misread everything by everyone.

In other words, I made a very specific comment in a terse way that was contrarian to the immediate discussion and implied, but not intended, that we haven't learned anything. We are sticking to our guns on readings of scripture. We may have modified them a little since the LRC, but they often are just as strongly held as being "the right reading."

In other words, I stuck something in the conversation that just elicited responses that were not really related to why I put it out there. But it was not obviously so.

BTW. I will defend my readings of scripture in the following way. I mostly provide questions concerning what I cannot see in verses proposed -- by Lee or by others. I do not generally propose anything as the "right answer," but mostly suggest that there may be other ways to read and therefore nothing so certain. That does not mean that the position I hold is definitely right (to me). I am willing to entertain discussion that will change it.

But like this "Jesse taught David" issue, I'm being portrayed as the bad guy for questioning the position, and being lampooned. But I have not seen anything that changes my mind that there is a lack of evidence that it is true to a level that can be taught about. And in response to my request for evidence, one of the brightest guys on the forum pulls a strawman argument to make it go away. And begins to side with the drive-by poster.

So I would agree that you have learned a lot. There are others, many of which are, unfortunately, not participating at the present.

But in a narrow way, I would say that as a collective we haven't learned much. Especially about how to learn much. We tend to retreat to the well-worn paths in our brains of reading whatever we think is right into the scripture rather than letting scripture, with the Holy Spirit, speak out to us. I suspect that once we look beyond the forest into the trees we find those that don't fit the look of the collective. Those that have learned much. You. Ohio. SC. Jane. Terry. PC. I probably shouldn't try to be so specific because I will leave out some that I intend to name if their name would come to me. And in singling anyone out, I really don't mean that anyone has learned nothing. But in the grand scheme of things related to this forum and its topics, it is sometimes hard to see how we've done much more (collectively, again) than quit meeting with the LRC but retain much of the faulty logic even if not all of the faulty teachings.

I believe I am trying. And I'm sure someone can show me where I still fail.

David learned a lot. But he gave credit to God for being able to kill the bear and the lion. Nothing was said about his dad teaching him anything about it. That statement got ZNP's panties in a wad and he unleashed a 1,881 word epistle on the subject. Problem is that there was nothing in it that stated anything of substance about Jesse teaching David anything. Ways to infer if you make certain assumptions. But nothing more. And when I point it out, and say that it is not worthy of making teaching around it, and suggesting that it is even an improper use of scripture to make a self-help book out of it, he pulls the strawman and changes the subject. Maybe if I esteemed him less highly I would not be so irritated.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do know that Jesus clearly took sides in these debates, probably tending more to one than the other.

But don't you think that it is more likely that Hillel got his teachings from God, not the other way around. Jesus didn't take sides because he thought one of them was right. He said what was right. If it turned out that one of them was right, that was great. But it wasn't that Jesus got any teaching from Hillel.

IMHO,

Jesus is GOD.

He acknowledged the truth because He is The Truth/The Way.

God in The flesh full of all wisdom and is all Wisdom. to those who seek Him.

To those who don't seek Him, They are completely disappointed in their own folly.

Peace to those who hear,
believe and recieve The One Who is above All and In Whosoever.

Don Jr.