rumitoid

"Have some parts of the Old Testament that really don’t sit well with you? You’re in good company– Jesus seems to have felt the same way.

"In Mark 10 when Jesus is asked about the law, he prefaces his comments with “Moses only gave that to you because your hearts were hard”, which shows that the OT law wasn’t something perfect, but the opposite– a concession to sinful humanity.

"In other parts Jesus completely rejects some things such as the permissiveness of violence. Jesus tells his listeners: “You have heard it said an eye for an eye, but I tell you do not resist an evil person”. What his listeners would have heard was, “I know the Bible says that when we use violence it should be fair and limited, but I’m telling you that’s wrong– don’t use violence at all.”

"Also, Jesus was a rule-breaker with things like being a friend of gluttons (instead of following the book of Proverbs), and did good works instead of resting on the Sabbath (one of the things that got him killed).

"So don’t worry if stuff like stoning people in the OT turns your stomach– Jesus felt the same way."

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

First, nice paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/10-things-your-childhood-pastor-didnt-tell-you-but-should-have/ Better known as the blog of Benjamin Corey. This is a good jumping off point for those who are just starting to try to understand the bible. There is another Islam/Muslim web site that lists the contradictions within the bible http://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/101-contradictions-in-the-bible/ Many times Muslims will point out difficulties within the written word. And often Christians will listen to a single quote and agree. It takes more than just reading the words to understand both the old and new testaments. It takes not cherry picking, but preponderance of linked verses, the meanings of terms during the time of Moses or Jesus, languages, and intent of the chapters.

This was a statement of fact, not intended to say or mean that the author of this post did not handle this matter carefully.

However, I am driven to clear up the misunderstandings of the cited difficulties.


Mark 10 was concerning divorce. What you have neglected, is the Pharisees came to him and asked if it is lawful for a man to put away his wife. And Jesus answered, what did Moses command of you? When in Jesus responded as you quoted, and then went on to say that in divorce and remarriage, the man is committing adultery. He here shows that the reason why Moses' law allowed divorce, was such that they ought not to use the permission; it was only for the hardness of their hearts. God himself joined man and wife together; he has fitted them to be comforts and helps for each other. The bond which God has tied, is not to be lightly untied. Let those who are for putting away their wives consider what would become of themselves, if God should deal with them in like manner. This is not in contradiction to the law, but rather a way of causing people to think of the consequences. He did not say that the old law was erased or replaced, but rather stated that the law was valid, but one should consider the consequences of their action.

Moving onward to the next statement. There is a mistranslation of the word for kill and murder. The Hebrew word for murder (ratsach, which appears in Ex. 20:13) is translated by the King James as murder/murderer 17 times, slayer/slain/slayeth 21 times, kill/killing 6 times, manslayer 2 times, and death once. The Hebrew word for kill (which appears in Ex. 13:15-harag) is translated by the King James as slay/slayer/slain 132 times, as kill 27 times, murder/murderer 3 times, destroyed once, out of hand once, and made/put/surely 3 times. I find it interesting that each time Jesus speaks of murder, he links murder with anger, forgiveness (or the lack of it) and lack of unity amongst brothers. (The word kill is not addressed by Jesus.) Perhaps that is the key to his teaching on "permissiveness of violence" if we control our anger, can we not control the urge to hurt others? Is it not anger that he was teaching us about?

On friendship with sinners. 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance' " (Mark 2:16, 17). So, from this one would think that Jesus spent all his time with "sinners." Luke 5:27-32 – And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. 28 And he left all, rose up, and followed him. 29 And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them. 30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? 31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. 32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 15:1-3 – Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. 3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying, “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Luke 7:31-35 – And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? 32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. 33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. 34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! 35 But wisdom is justified of all her children. Here is the key points: Jesus told Matthew (Levi) to follow him – not only did Matthew follow him, but Matthew invited many of his friends to follow Jesus also, inviting them to a meal at his home. The sinners and publicans came to Jesus – he did not come to them. (See all four texts)

The Pharisees found fault – Sinners did not deny they were sinners.

Pharisees spoke to the disciples in order to confuse them and cast doubt on their motives and the motives of Jesus. The Pharisees did not speak to Jesus.

The meal was not a social gathering. Sinners did not ask Jesus to come to their home to eat. They did ask Jesus to come and heal their sick, raise their dead, so forth.

Luke 19:5 – Jesus told Zacchaeus he would eat with him that day. This is the only time I can find in the Bible where Jesus invited himself to eat with a sinner. The result of this meeting was the salvation of Zacchaeus and fruits of repentance (Verse 8). In verse 7, Jesus is once again accused of eating and drinking with sinners. Zacchaeus is accused of being a sinner because he is one continually and habitually. In verse 8, Zacchaeus declares he is going to stop being a continually sinner.

The Sabbath, the day of rest. First, all Christians see Jesus as God, or better understanding an extension of God through the Trinity. God did not put this day aside because He needed rest. It was put aside so humans can rest and be grateful to God. By the implications of the topic, I suppose humans no longer need to rest; a 24/7 workday is justified. Humans no longer need to set aside time to pray or consider God and his authority over us, so the Sabbath is OBE. I will make one further comment, breaking the Sabbath was not one of the charges against Jesus (often cited by Islam as a reason). Mark and Matthew cite: (Mark 15:2; Matt. 27:11). Pilate’s question implies that the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of claiming to be the king of the Jews. Luke elaborates more on the accusation:“We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar and claiming that he himself is Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2). John’s account differs yet further. When Pilate asks the people about Jesus’ charge, their reply was simply to stress his guilt: "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you. (John 18:30)" Read for yourself, do not take my word. But, breaking the Sabbath is not mentioned as a reason.

True, the 10 Commandments have given way to modern, revised, and enlighted ways of seeing the universe and our place in it.

The big 10 have not changed, it is mankind and their unwillingness to obey that has changed. Truthfully, the 10 Commandments of the Old Testament is repeated in the New. So, the laws are still the framework, should be taken seriously, and God requires us to obey. http://godmadeus.com/tencommand/10command.php/

rumitoid

Thank you for your comments; nicely put. As to the part about the Ten Commandments, we could have a very good discussion: Law versus Grace is not well understand by many Christians. Hmm, perhaps I will write one to explain the theology.

rumitoid

Was just closing the theatre when I saw your post; I can now respond in detail.

You wrote "First, nice paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/10-things-your-childhood-pastor-didnt-tell-you-but-should-have/ Better known as the blog of Benjamin Corey...There is ANOTHER Islam/Muslim web site that lists the contradictions..."
Benjamin Corey is not a Muslim and Patheos is not another Muslim site.

The post was not offering a dissertation on scripture but merely noting that Jesus disagreed a number of times with the Scribes and Priests (Pharisees and Sadducees amongst them) on the true spirit of God's word. Not every comment demands that one must garner a "preponderance of linked verses, the meanings of terms during the time of Moses or Jesus, languages, and intent of the chapters." To say the lack thereof in the article somehow suggests the writer is "cherry-picking" and has not studied in great depth is misleading. He has been through seminary and knows the various means of interpretation, his answers are just different than yours.

You wrote "The meal was not a social gathering. Sinners did not ask Jesus to come to their home to eat. They did ask Jesus to come and heal their sick, raise their dead, so forth."
Jesus was said to be sinless. Just one meal with a glutton, in a strict interpretation of Proverbs, would make that claim a lie. So, Jesus did disagree with the OT.

You spoke earlier of Muslims offering contradictions; you do so as well in this paragraph, showing three markedly different and seemingly counter presentations: "Mark and Matthew cite: (Mark 15:2; Matt. 27:11). Pilate’s question implies that the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of claiming to be the king of the Jews. Luke elaborates more on the accusation:“We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding us to pay the tribute tax to Caesar and claiming that he himself is Christ, a king” (Luke 23:2). John’s account DIFFERS yet further. When Pilate asks the people about Jesus’ charge, their reply was simply to stress his guilt: "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you. (John 18:30)"

You wrote "So, the laws are still the framework, should be taken seriously, and God requires us to obey." My understanding is different and I will demonstrate more fully in a separate thread, but suffice to say here the law in no longer, and never really was, "the framework": Christ is, and always was, the framework. We are "to live and move and have our being in Christ," and through him by Grace and the HS, not our effort and intent to obey, do we become as Christ was in the world.

The Mosaic Law was yet another concession by God, like giving in to the demand for kings, that recognized the free, but stubborn, will of his chosen people. Law is the antithesis of Grace.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Technically, you can't rely on any of that because Jesus didn't write any part of the bible. Everything in it about Jesus is based on what others remember about him. So if Mark had a bias about Moses' law, it would appear in his writing about Jesus there but not in the other gospels. Who really knows what Jesus said and thought? If he really wanted you to know, he would've wrote it down. But Jesus never wrote anything to mankind - - that is the most important message of all from Him.

So God becomes man and never leaves a letter, note or postcard. The message: leaving a writing for us is insignificant and inconsequential to the task, which he accomplished.

So Jesus never instructed his followers to take notes, keep a diary or write a book. Despite that, they decide it is popular and do it anyway.

Next thing you know, the government in Rome decides to hold a committee of popular bishops to vote on which writings should be kept or destroyed. Wah lah, the bible is created.

Next thing you know, folks start calling the government committee's work, "The Word Of God".

Next thing you know, folks start worshiping it.

That's why Jesus never left a book, note or message to us...He knew we'd end up worshiping it.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

A point of interest. Where in my remarks did you see me say that Mr. Corey is Muslim? I wrote: “First, nice paste from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/10-things-your-childhood-pastor-didnt-tell-yo... Better known as the blog of Benjamin Corey. This is a good jumping off point for those who are just starting to try to understand the bible.” Where do you see that I said Patheos is a Muslim site? What I said “There is another Islam/Muslim web site that lists the contradictions within the bible http://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/101-contradictions-in-the-bible/” Separate thoughts, ergo the reason for the “Period.”

The scriptures are dependent on verses before and after. Otherwise, the bible would be written as bullet statements rather than in a narrative or quoted stories. So, to gain full understanding one must understand the circumstances the remark, teaching, or scripture is being written. And yes one must be diligent and do the appropriate research. Much of the teaching of Jesus come directly from the Torah. He was a Jew, he was not of any other nation. He was taught by his Jewish mother and his Jewish father. Therefore, a cross reference of teachings becomes necessary. When the author of your post merely pointed out one verse, he did not expound on the purpose of the verse or the question posed. Therefore, he picked one verse that supported his stand, he cherry picked. Pure and simple. No disrespect intended to Benjamin, just a statement of fact. Perhaps he did go to seminary school, I do not personally know him nor have I seen a diploma. That is immaterial, the point I was making is not all people who read the bible take the time to understand the issues associated with interpretation and translation of select words. Going to school does not ensure understanding or proficiency.

Jesus’ dining habits, well I gave you the circumstances of the meal. Yes indeed, there are 81 verses in the bible that says that he was without sin. The Torah teaches separation, but not total separation. It teaches that association is possible unless you are tempted to sin. Now, was Jesus tempted to sin with those he dined? If you say no, then where is the sin? There is none. Therefore, his eating with sinners was not part of his trial.

The verses from the text I offered is not a contradiction. To properly interpret the bible, we must understand that its authors, although inspired by God, were not mindless robots taking divine dictation. They always had a purpose for writing, an intended audience, and a message to convey. To understand, one must become familiar with when the text were written and which text is dependent text. I offer you from National Geographic an excerpt: “The New Testament Gospels were written between A.D. 65 and 95, though scholars have no way of knowing exactly who the books' authors were. These four Gospels tell similar, but not identical tales of Jesus' life and teachings. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are so similar to one another that they are sometimes called the Synoptic Gospels. The Gospel of John differs the most from the others.“ For those that are interested, the term synoptic is derived from a combination of the Greek words συν (syn = together) and οψις (opsis = seeing) to indicate that the contents of these three Gospels can be viewed side-by-side, whether in a vertical parallel column synopsis, or a horizontal synoptic alignment. These first three books have been called the synoptic Gospels since the 18th century and are so called because they give similar accounts of the ministry of Jesus. This too provides a corundum. The synoptic gospels often recount the same stories about Jesus, though sometimes with different and more or less detail, but mostly following the same sequence and to a large extent using the same words. The question of the relationship between the three is called the synoptic problem. This problem concerns the literary relationships between and among the first three canonical gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke collectively known as the synoptic Gospels. Similarity in word choices and event placement shows an interrelationship. The synoptic problem concerns how this interrelation came to pass and what the nature of this interrelationship is. Any solution must account for the similarities and differences in content, order, and wording. Possible answers speculate either a direct relationship (one Evangelist possessed one of the gospels) or indirect (two Evangelists having access to a shared source). Am I saying that any one or all are not correct, emphatically No! I quoted all of them because I felt that had I not, then you or another scholar would call my attention to my omission.

Lucky for you, I will not be responding to your post or thread on the Commandments. I will just mention to you that all of the 10 Commandments are in the New Testament. Should one say that the New Testament is the new covenant and the commandment are no longer of importance, then why would Jesus have ratified them in Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20 when He said, "You know the commandments."

Finally, I am not sure of the nature of your god, but my God understands his people, He gave us the Laws not because we will be perfect, but to teach us the nature of sin. In the same way that God’s children can find biblical principles in the Old Testament to answer the specific question of abortion, (The Old Testament repeatedly conveys God’s abhorrence of child sacrifice. God commanded the Israelites through Moses, “Do not give up any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech [a Canaanite god], for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.”) they can find the principles of justice and righteousness that help clarify biblical teaching on social justice. The place to start is the Mosaic Laws. The law is the touchstone for understanding social morality and is replete with provisions meant to ensure an equitable society. If asked about these provisions, many Christians today would think of the commands that ensure fairness and impartiality. For example, the law not only prohibits stealing outright but even includes details such as the prohibition against moving a boundary marker between properties. In the judicial process, the law forbids both perjury and partiality. The law also includes sundry other stipulations for fair conduct between husbands and wives, and masters and slaves. Perhaps no other command sums up the fairness prescribed in the law as the phrase “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” recorded in Leviticus 24:17
“If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native- born. I am the Lord your God.”

All the provisions aforementioned describe a strict standard of justice in a purely legal sense. God’s standard of justice is not only characterized by fairness, but also by generous mercy and grace. The social justice provisions in the Mosaic Law go beyond fairness and impartiality--
They teach the character of God as one who protects the weak and vulnerable from oppression and fills the hungry with good things. As Moses explained to the Israelites: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the case of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing.” Truly, God is fair and impartial in His judgments, but thankfully He is more than that. He is merciful and gracious, with a special eye for those who are desperate to receive His salvation and peace. Jesus Himself taught that God’s special favor was consummated in the incarnation of His Son, but that this favor was for the poor and needy, the weak and oppressed, and all who desperately hoped in Him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

“The year of the Lord’s favor” in the passage refers to the Year of Jubilee, an important social justice provision in the Law of Moses that provided an economic salvation for poverty-stricken Israelites, but Jesus referenced it to describe his own ministry to the weak and marginalized. He later expanded this merciful characterization of His ministry, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous [or, rather, those who consider themselves righteous], but sinners [who acknowledge themselves as such and admit their need of a Savior] to repentance.”


The same God that demands absolute fairness and impartiality also mercifully sent His Son to die for an undeserving and wretchedly sinful humanity. Yet God is not a Janus with two natures. His justice is not in contrast to His mercy, but an integral part of it. The opposite is also true; God’s mercy is an integral part of His justice and righteousness. By examining the social justice provisions in the Mosaic Law, Christians can understand God’s standard of justice and righteousness as more than legal fairness or religious purity, but also encompassing mercy and grace. Unfortunately, many Christians miss the message of mercy and grace portrayed in the Law of Moses and instead focus on what it teaches about God’s holiness and wrath against sin. In the worst cases, Christians see the God as exhibiting different natures in the Old and New Testaments —punishing sin in the Old and extending mercy in the New. But, more commonly, Christians simply do not understand the full extent to which God reveals His grace and mercy in the Old Testament, especially through the commands He gives in the Mosaic Law. As a result, they see sins of commission as clear breaches of God’s command in the Old Testament, but not the equally condemned sins of omission. Yet, in regard to justice and righteousness, the Old Testament fails to distinguish between sins of commission such as stealing, sexual deviance, or idolatry, and sins of omission such as the neglect of those in need or failure to protect the weak. As James puts it in his epistle, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.”

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Very well said! In truth, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke was written years after the death of Jesus. I do not know about you, but I have problems remembering a conversation from last week. Some 60 plus years to remember enough to directly quote......




:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

rumitoid

You remain from your opening comments just as deceitful as always. There is no way to engage you; you have no moral compass. You excluded, conveniently, the statement at the start about "another Muslim site": honest and clear seeing people will observe this gross and purposeful negligence. Typical of you. Separate thoughts do not end with a period, if contained in the same paragraph. However, you resolve all difficulties with your self-incriminating "“There is another Islam/Muslim web site." You mention only this man's blog and Patheos and then say, "“There is another Islam/Muslim web site..."

As earlier stated, you remain the worst person I have ever had the misfortune, or fortune, to met. Great mind and dark soul. I was naive enough to think, before I met you, that everyone could be saved; I can only hope that I am sorely mistaken.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Again, where did I say that the blog Patheos is Muslim? Where did I say Corey is Muslim?

You can not respond to comments or marshal a defense for your point of view, so you do the only thing you are programmed to do, and that is to attack on a personal level. What rule is that? * RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. or is it * RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.???

Neither rule is working on me. So either defend your position regarding Jesus or abandon another failed topic.

jetson

You people seem to act like Jesus Christ was just a man. Every thing in the Bible was inspired by Him, to write by Holy men, of the Bible. Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the old testament, the creator of every thing that is and the creator of every thing that will ever be. He is the mighty God. He is the visible image of God, whom we can see, when He was on earth and will see again when He returns the second time. No one has seen God in His Spirit form, for the Bible states he is invisible. Moses was allowed to see the hinder parts of God, But that was Jesus heavenly form, not God the Father, who is a Spirit. He is the first born of God. After being sent here By God the Father of all and being born as a baby through Mary, He has become a man God. He became a man, but was still just as divine as He was in heaven before His earthly birth. When He returns He will be the same as He was when He left. Jesus the Son of God, Almighty God, Jesus the Son of man. The Jews in their foolishness think they don't worship Jesus, yet he was the One leading them out of Egypt and the one that would send them a Savior. When God finally sent Him to earth as a Savior they denied Him and kill Him. But it was impossible for Him to stay in that tomb. God the Father, had just made it possible for all humans, to have an open door back to the grace of God. The salvation plan for man was complete. Accept it or deny it. It is our choice. No forcing it on no one. Rightly choose or lose. Where we place your eternal soul is left to each of us.

numenian

Supposedly there was a Q (quelle, German for source) document from which all gospels got their Jesus story going back to the time of his death or shortly after. Paul was writing 5 to ten years after Jesus died.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I assume that you are talking about the autographs and not inclusive of manuscripts. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D. As for the "Master" version you reference, are you talking about the Textus Receptus? (Textus Receptus, or Received Text, is a printed Greek New Testament that provided the textual base for the vernacular translations of the Reformation period.) Or perhaps you are referencing the Luther Bible, or is there another document that you are thinking of? eine Übersetzung was translated in the 1466 as a printed bible. The earliest Germanic version of the Bible was Ulfilas' Gothic translation from Latin and Greek. Later on Johannes Gutenberg's so-called 42-line Bible, printed in Mainz, was in Latin in 1455. So, I am at loss to the document you reference. Can you supply more detailed information?