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 Gods children can find biblical principles in the Old Testament to answer the specific question of abortion, (The Old Testament repeatedly conveys Gods 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 someones animal must make restitutionlife 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. Gods 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 Gods 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 Lords 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 Lords 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; Gods mercy is an integral part of His justice and righteousness. By examining the social justice provisions in the Mosaic Law, Christians can understand Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 doesnt do it, sins.
A point of interest. Where in my remarks did you ... (