by adjusted knowledge 32 Replies latest jw friends
In this book that man saw all of those things, was given 10 rules by the being who did those things for him
There is no 10 commandments. There are at least 3 different arbitrary lists, none of which can easily be divided into 10. One of them includes not boiling a kid in it's mother's milk.
The Law was a ridiculous and arbitrary bunch of edicts written by uneducated nomads.
I could write a better list in 10 minutes.
cofty: "I could write a better list in 10 minutes."
As of this minute your time is up.
A lot is made of contradictions in the Bible ,people seem to spend time going through just to find contradictions to moan about .
Believers go deeper and find the explanations for the "contradictions " .Some of the points made here about Jesus challenging the man made rules of the Pharisees who as stated had gone mad with power .Also the fact that the rule applied to doing work and the disciples weren't working , the Pharisees were just trying to excert their power in a way that wasn't justified . The whole incident is about Jesus challenging the corruption of the spiritual leaders .
Jan
people seem to spend time going through just to find contradictions to moan about
I never did that. I just found that when I read the bible without a christian filter the contradictions, errors and deplorable morality is impossible to ignore.
I actually find many of the supposed contradictions to be trivial and distract attention from its really major faults.
From Jonathan:
"There is a pretty significsnt difference here. And this shows how insane the Pharisees rules had become. They considered the disciples actions "work" and it was not."
You should remember that the gospels were not eyewitness accounts, and that by the time they were written the followers of Jesus had been kicked out of the synagogues; the christians had an ax to grind with the jews, and as a result the gospels are hypercritical of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
We should understand this account as an argument against the law, sayings retrojected onto jesus.
From Jonathan:
"My beliefs are irrelevant. Either you believe the bible, and thus understand why he was killed. Or you don't, and its a story of a man snubbing an all powerful being and being killed for it."
That 'either or' argument of yours is flawed; it supposes that the bible is a reliable source and that the '10 commandments' really were from God, were recorded correctly, handed down without error, that a man really did collect wood, was killed for it, that Jesus collected grain on the sabbath, and that the conversations took place just as you read them in your modern printing of an old, much edited book.
You are believing it is true, when none of it can be proven, not a single shred of it, including the existence of an all powerful being (who apparently is a real dick; he can conjure up fire out of thin air, but wants us to sit on our hands one day a week).
Welcome to the 21st century; you don't have to be bound by bronze age superstitions, unless they fit your world view.
"Paul also contradicted the Law.
"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? [that is, to bring Christ down from above] or, who shall descend into the deep? [that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead]. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach....",
Rom. 10:6-8
Paul mutilated Deut. 30:12-14
"It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it? But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it".
The latter is only saying that his (Moses) commandments are easy to obtain. They are not far off but as close as one's heart or mouth. Deut. says nothing about "faith."
It refers to seeking "it" and doing "it," not seeking "him" or doing "him."
It does not even imply Christ or Jesus, let alone mention him.
Deut. is referring to Penitence and is not about believing on or bringing down Jesus from heaven or up from the dead.
Deut. is saying that God wills us to repent of sin and that you may know when you have sinned. You have only to look at his law which is very close by."
Alright so starting with the quote in Romans 10, Paul was not contradicting the law. As a side point, it would be very strange for him to do this since he was a Pharisee before his conversion. Now, at the start of chapter ten Paul says it's his hearts desire that the Israelites will be saved (verse1), he then says, recalling his Pharisee history, "For I can testify about them that that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." (Verse 2) he explains this in verse 3 by making reference to the same thing Jesus referred to in his ministry, which was that they didn't follow gods law, "but sought to establish their own." He here is referencing how the Pharisees went beyond the law and were oppressing the people, this wasn't gods righteousness - they had set up there own. He then says in verse 4 that Christ is the culmination of the law, "so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." This is because the law God gave to the Israelites could not be fulfilled or kept perfectly by any man. But Christ did keep and fulfill it perfectly, hence he was the culmination of the law, a law which served to remind them they were sinful and could never be perfect. But Christ, releases them from this because now regardless of their inability to live up to gods expectations his sacrifice redeems all sin.
He then compares righteousness by law (the law no man could live up to) with righteousness by faith (in Christ who fulfilled the law for all). But he does not contradict either one. He is only explaining Christ's place and importance and saying that he hopes the Israelites will be saved and except Jesus.
So Paul was saying the same thing you are saying about deut. Because you're right, the point being made was that "you have only to look at this law which is close by." But this is exactly Paul's point here. He's saying that Christ fulfilled this law, you no longer have this law against you showing you to be sinful and making you have to make sacrifices - because Christ died as a sacrifice for all sin. So now you no longer need to think of the law this way, but instead you think of the gospel which is not far off, profess faith in Christ as dying for your sins and being raised.
So it's not a contradiction, it's a comparison and explanations of the role Christ had just taken as the messiah.
From Jonathan:
"My beliefs are irrelevant. Either you believe the bible, and thus understand why he was killed. Or you don't, and its a story of a man snubbing an all powerful being and being killed for it."
That 'either or' argument of yours is flawed; it supposes that the bible is a reliable source and that the '10 commandments' really were from God, were recorded correctly, handed down without error, that a man really did collect wood, was killed for it, that Jesus collected grain on the sabbath, and that the conversations took place just as you read them in your modern printing of an old, much edited book.
You are believing it is true, when none of it can be proven, not a single shred of it, including the existence of an all powerful being (who apparently is a real dick; he can conjure up fire out of thin air, but wants us to sit on our hands one day a week).
Welcome to the 21st century; you don't have to be bound by bronze age superstitions, unless they fit your world view.
No, what I said was either you believe it's true or it's just a story book. And I mesmt like, a fictional book. Those are the only two options, either you think it's fiction or nonfiction. I suppose I could have been clearer though.
also as to the previous comment you made, all the gospels are presented as eyewitness accounts. I'm aware of the theory that it was a ghost writer type situation, bit it's still being presented as an eyewitness account. Also this ghost writer idea has no way of being proven. But even assuming it's true, it won't change the presentation is meant as an eyewitness testimony.
also, this theory has some serious issues. Scholars now know that the gospels were written using a sayings material known as q which was a very early record of things Christ said written down by those who actually heard it - so in other words, the gospels are a handed down eye witness testimony no matter how you choose to look at it.
The wandering around just muching grains argument may be fair enough (or not, but whatever), but the first thing that went through my mind was, so THOSE grains didn't count against you for the sabbath like all calories don't count (if you are driving, on your birthday, if you are drunk, or while you are cooking). It strikes me initially with it being a distinction without much of a difference. Gathering grains to eat is what you do during the harvest, too. I imagine some of them are "munched", too.
I continually wonder about the rules that matter to God (assuming you believe there is one and there was ever any truth to scriptures) vs. the things that man came up with over time to "clarify" his rules (like the blood transfusion teaching and the prohibition against smoking)
How much of what made it to the works we now count as scripture were actually "inspired"? Considering the history of its being written, I would submit that there is plenty that was "cleared up" the priests and teachers as they were gathering their followers and encouraging them to 'righteousness'.
The wandering around just muching grains argument may be fair enough (or not, but whatever), but the first thing that went through my mind was, so THOSE grains didn't count against you for the sabbath like all calories don't count (if you are driving, on your birthday, if you are drunk, or while you are cooking). It strikes me initially with it being a distinction without much of a difference. Gathering grains to eat is what you do during the harvest, too. I imagine some of them are "munched", too.
An actual harvest was drastically different. They actually harvested the field, it was a lot of real work - and all at a time when they had no farming equipment we'd see today. So it's a huge difference to call picking off a few grain heads working and saying it's the same as actually harvesting.
the blood doctrine is absolutely not scriptural btw. None of the scriotures they use to support it actually do, nor do any of the logical arguments. I highly suggest reading the article about it on jwfacts.com.
