Who was sawn in two?

[NathanH83]

When? When he didn't list the names. If you look at the "context" surrounding you'll notice that at times he mentioned names so those people were of great importance.

He didn’t mention Daniel by name. Didn’t mention Shadrach, Meshach, or Abed-Nego by name. Didn’t mention Isaiah by name, nor Jeremiah.

Importance really has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that he didn’t want to give a rundown on every single thing in the Old Testament in order to make his point.

The people are still important.

 

[Lamb]

He didn’t mention Daniel by name. Didn’t mention Shadrach, Meshach, or Abed-Nego by name. Didn’t mention Isaiah by name, nor Jeremiah.

Importance really has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that he didn’t want to give a rundown on every single thing in the Old Testament in order to make his point.

The people are still important.

You don't get what I'm trying to say. Whenever someone makes a list and list names and then stops listing names and generalizes, those other names were not important enough to list. That's exactly what happened in Hebrews.

 

[Josiah]

Were all early Church fathers garbage to you?

1. Of course not, but on the other hand, I find it rather silly (if not hypocritical) to reference one man as Authoritative on this point but evidently on no other if that man happens to disagree with him.

2. A broad, ecumenical witness of several MIGHT reflect the belief of that day. Such is often referenced as "TRADITION" - the ecumenical belief of Christians. But it's not inerrant, authoritative or normative. But that's an entirely different issue than referencing one man (who is typically REJECTED as WRONG) to substantiate a claim.

Anyway, different topic, I just find it odd

IMO, the point is obvious. Nathan wants us to accept the belief of one man on this... a man whose belief he clearly rejects. Why should we accept that this one man is correct on this singular point (where he just happens to be of the same opinion as Nathan) but dead wrong on other points (where he happens to be of a different opinion than Nathan)?




.

 

[NathanH83]

You don't get what I'm trying to say. Whenever someone makes a list and list names and then stops listing names and generalizes, those other names were not important enough to list. That's exactly what happened in Hebrews.

It wasn’t important to list those names in order to get the point across that the author of Hebrews was making. That doesn’t mean that the identity of the one who was sawn in two isn’t important.

Now, you can say that TO YOU it’s not important IN YOUR OPINION.

But that’s just your opinion. TO ME it’s important because I want to know what he’s talking about. I actually care about what the Bible is talking about. If you don’t care, then you need not reply.

The author of Hebrews expected his audience to know who he was talking about when he mentioned people who were sawn in two, just as much as he expects them to know what he’s talking about when he says some by faith shut the mouths of lions, or when he says that some quenched the flames of fire.

I believe this is a Christianity forum, and the Bible is a big part of Christianity. If you don’t care about what the Bible is talking about, or have no interest in what the Bible is referencing, then there’s no sense in responding with “it’s not important.” That’s rude.

 

[Lamb]

then there’s no sense in responding with “it’s not important.” That’s rude.

You're not quoting me accurately which is why you're not understanding my entire point. And that's rude of you.

 

[NathanH83]

1. Of course not, but on the other hand, I find it rather silly (if not hypocritical) to reference one man as Authoritative on this point but evidently on no other if that man happens to disagree with him.

2. A broad, ecumenical witness of several MIGHT reflect the belief of that day. Such is often referenced as "TRADITION" - the ecumenical belief of Christians. But it's not inerrant, authoritative or normative. But that's an entirely different issue than referencing one man (who is typically REJECTED as WRONG) to substantiate a claim.





IMO, the point is obvious. Nathan wants us to accept the belief of one man on this... a man whose belief he clearly rejects. Why should we accept that this one man is correct on this singular point (where he just happens to be of the same opinion as Nathan) but dead wrong on other points (where he happens to be of a different opinion than Nathan)?




.

Several men said it was Isaiah.
I thought it would be interesting to discuss different ideas.

 

[NathanH83]

You're not quoting me accurately which is why you're not understanding my entire point. And that's rude of you.

I don’t really understand your point. All I hear you saying you to me is that the topic I brought up isn’t important. Like, as if my inquiry isn’t important. It’s really dismissive.

 

[NathanH83]

Why would the Bible tell us that someone was sawn in two without actually telling us who it was that was sawn in two?

And why do we have early church fathers accusing the Jews of deleting out of Isaiah a section of text that talks about Isaiah being sawn in two?

See the connection?

2 + 2 = 4

 

[Lamb]

I don’t really understand your point. All I hear you saying you to me is that the topic I brought up isn’t important. Like, as if my inquiry isn’t important. It’s really dismissive.

No, I did not say the topic wasn't important.

What did I say? I've said repeatedly that it obviously wasn't important enough for the author of Hebrews to name names.

That's not being dismissive. It's fact.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Why would the Bible tell us that someone was sawn in two without actually telling us who it was that was sawn in two?

Should we consider that maybe the Jews deleted what Jesus wrote in the sand? After all, the Bible tells us he did write in the sand, but not what he wrote. I have always been curious about this one.

 

[NathanH83]

Should we consider that maybe the Jews deleted what Jesus wrote in the sand? After all, the Bible tells us he did write in the sand, but not what he wrote. I have always been curious about this one.

Ok, but that’s honestly a different topic. I’m not asking about that.

 

[TonyC7]

Should we consider that maybe the Jews deleted what Jesus wrote in the sand? After all, the Bible tells us he did write in the sand, but not what he wrote. I have always been curious about this one.

Jesus didn’t write in the sand. He was just playing a game of Tic Tack Toe.

 

[Lamb]

Let's look at the verses:

Hebrews 11:35-37 There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—

Look at all those different things that happened to people. The writer's purpose wasn't to focus on the people, but that they had things happen to them because they were faithful believers in Jesus the Christ. That's what's always important...our Savior.

 

[NathanH83]

Let's look at the verses:

Hebrews 11:35-37 There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—

Look at all those different things that happened to people. The writer's purpose wasn't to focus on the people, but that they had things happen to them because they were faithful believers in Jesus the Christ. That's what's always important...our Savior.

What’s also important is the people who he saved

 

[Lamb]

What’s also important is the people who he saved

You're really missing the point of what the author was getting at.

 

[NathanH83]

You're really missing the point of what the author was getting at.

Thanks for your judgmental criticism.

But I’m still interested to know who it was that was sawn in two.

 

[Lamb]

Thanks for your judgmental criticism.

But I’m still interested to know who it was that was sawn in two.

You can speculate all you want but the author chose NOT to divulge all the names.

 

[NathanH83]

You can speculate all you want but the author chose NOT to divulge all the names.

I think the author was expecting his audience to know who he was taking about. Just like you would expect to know who shut the mouths of lions.

 

[Lamb]

I think the author was expecting his audience to know who he was taking about. Just like you would expect to know who shut the mouths of lions.

Since the author didn't state as such then you can't pretend to get into his head to know what he expected or didn't expect.

 

[NathanH83]

Since the author didn't state as such then you can't pretend to get into his head to know what he expected or didn't expect.

The author of Hebrews clearly expected his audience to know who shut the mouths of lions, who quenched the flames of fire, and who the women were that received their dead raised to life. We know who they are, because they’re in our Old Testament. The author of Hebrews mentions them expecting his audience to know what he’s talking about.

I’m not “getting into his head” or reading his mind or doing ESPN or anything.

I’m just using common sense.