From a discussion already in progress- Leo- >As a Jew, Jesus would have regarded the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings ALL as Scripture, even if he didn't quote from them. Ah, see, I was figuring if anybody, you'd get what I'm saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Jewish Bibles I've seen, though they contain the same books as the Christian 'Old Testament,' put them in a different order. Tanakh T N K = Torah 'The Law' Nevi'im 'The Prophets' Kevutim 'The Writings' I think there's a reason for that. There's a natural authoritative order here. Torah gives us direct instructions on what to do and not to do. The Prophets become more abstract, often giving us their lessons in metaphor. The Writings expand the scope further, giving us guidelines in story form and poetry, as well as dealing with subjects further removed (not apart) from one's relationship with G-d. Any given text doesn't have to be either 'Direct Word of G-d' or 'spiritually useless.' 'Inspired by G-d' is a fine middle ground, to me. Psalms and Proverbs really read differently than the rest of the writings, IMO, and contain much more direct instruction and wisdom. I'm not saying any of these texts are not inspired by G-d. But what is written directly by G-d Himself, which is not written through one of His chosen prophets? There is a subltely, IMO. For example, I find that at times, the writings of Paul, the Book of Enoch, the Book of Wisdom, and the Talmud, all seem to be inspired by G-d. But how can we be comfortable calling a text the Word of G-d unless its author was a prophet, or at least the scribe of a prophet? Some time after I had discovered the nature of the canon, that it cut out prophets formerly recognized(and still quoted in modern Bibles), and included many texts which never actually claim to be the Word of G-d, I decided the best thing to do was to risk being too exclusive rather than too permissive in calling a text the direct Word of G-d, while still absorbing whatever solid biblical teachings can be found within them. Perhaps Messiah never quoted the Song of Songs because it has very little to do with G-d, faith, religion, doctrines, instructions, prohibitions, worship, praise, prophecy, or other concepts one would expect a holy text to deal with ? They're simply not mentioned. It is a love poem. Quite a beautiful one at that, but it's too explicit to all just be a metaphor. I am thrilled that we have an actual poem written by the wise King Shlomo(Solomon) preserved even to this day, But was Shlomo a prophet? >The point being that all of Tanakh is the Word of God and should be consulted in regards to questions we have about life and relationships and love. *shrug* Well, I would agree 100% that all of Tanakh should be consulted in regards to questions we have about life and relationships and love.

Post edited by: MattBob_SquarePants, at: 2007/02/14 08:07