Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God ... (correction) Message-ID: <776@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 23:05:26 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.776 Posted: Mon Jul 8 23:05:26 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:39:44 EDT References: <626@umcp-cs.UUCP> <568@hou2b.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 68 In article <568@hou2b.UUCP> gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) writes: >I would like for Charlie to give a specific instance of Jesus >revising Scripture. I believe that Charlies reference to Mark 7 has >already been shown not to show his assumption to be true. Because >Jesus gave new commandments which superceeded some commandments >given in the Old Testament, e.g. concerning adultery, does not in any >prove that He altered scripture! Since He gave the commands to >begin with, and all scripture is progressive, He certainly has the >right to give new commands and revelations. Since He is God He >certainly is not under the law but rather Lord of the law and all >else. God commanded the Jews not to kill, but the Lord certainly >kills whomever He wills. In John 10:35 Jesus specifically states: > >"... the scripture cannot be broken;", meaning it cannot be revised, >not that God Himself cannot give new instructions or laws. > >Although all scripture is profitable we are not under obligation to >keep it all. Rather we must learn to rightly divide the word of >truth. Since God gave the law, He certainly has the right to remove >it. He gave the law only to the Jews. In Col. 2:14 Paul tells us >that "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against >us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it >to his cross;". He also tells us through His servant Paul that the >law was given temporarily, because of sin, but that, "And this I >say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, >the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot >disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." > >Regarding the two genealogies given for the Lord, I'm supprised that >it is not commonly known that they are for His forebears through His >mother's and step-father's families. This last statement is a rationalization; the gospels quite specifically say that "Jacob was the father of Joseph" (Matt. 1:16) and that "Joseph [was] son of Heli" (Luke 3:24). To rid scripture of this contradiction is to edit it. As for Jesus editting/improving scripture, my reading, based on a number of places where Jesus changes the Law, is that Jesus is concerned with the *spirit* of the law, and in fact argues at one point that the law is imperfect, because it was written for imperfect men (Matt 19:1-12). Jesus certainly argues that the *spirit* of scripture is perfect, but, give the way he continually revises it, I don't think you can make a strong argument that he knew the vehicle of the spirit, namely scripture itself, to be inerrant. Citing the passage from John 10 is rather dangerous because, taken in context, it is part of passage deliberately meant to confound. If you insist on taking the entire passage the way you take that single verse, then you must conclude that we are all, equally, sons of God. Also, say that it means "it cannot be revised" is merely one reading, and one that flatly conflicts with the evidence of the gospels themselves. The gospels instead support another reading better: that the *spirit* of scripture does not change. The point about applying laws is very interesting, but it is hardly served by running about the Bible and picking up a verse here and there (although its clear to me that you can't have inerrant scripture without either revising or simply ignoring much of scripture). I once heard, in a Jehovah's Witness meeting, a learned discussion about the significance of a particular passage in Leviticus about the swearing of oaths. In fact, the whole thing was rubbish; Jesus says quite plainly: "Swear no oaths." It is this kind of thing that makes me suspicious of doctrines of inerrancy; the only way to make both of these passages apply to christians is to throw one away. Lord, defend us from inerrancy. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe