Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gymble.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet
From: bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God ... (correction)
Message-ID: <184@gymble.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 03:44:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: gymble.184
Posted: Mon Jul  1 03:44:42 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 17:11:02 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD
Lines: 34

I made a rather large error in my recent posting.  I was responding to 
Charlie Wingate who was talking about Mk 7:15 in order to show that Christ
did not see the OT as inerrant.  Charlie = >>, I = >:

>>     3) ...Moreover, Jesus a two points denies the perfection of
>>        scripture: in Mark 7:15, he sweeps away the dietary law, ...
>
>I don't think Mk 7:15 says that at all.  In context, Christ has just
>finished chewing out the Pharisees for saying things in conflict with
>the commandment to honor one's parents, and then he turns to the crowd
>and says "...there is nothing outside the man which going into him can
>defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile
>the man." (NASV)  It's clear that Christ is criticizing the P's for
>being so concerned with eating the right things but teaching (saying)
>the wrong ones.  Jesus likes to get points across by making extreme
>statements; he does so elsewhere.

But four verses later in Mk 7:19, after the disciples have gotten Jesus
to explain his statement in 15, the author makes the parenthetical comment,
"(Thus He declared all foods clean.)," so I really ought to listen more
carefully to my own advice to look at context.  It still appears to me
that Jesus' remark was prompted by his exchange with the Pharisees, but
obviously the folks on the scene got Charlie's meaning as well.

In the context of the discussion of inerrancy, however, I still
see a problem with the original argument:  Even if the OT law were imperfect
(some NT passages talk about the OT covenant as obsolete -- see Heb. 8:7), does
it follow that the record of that law was in error?

Anyway, I'll try to read more carefully in the future.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A balanced diet is important: one must | Tom Bennet @ U of MD Comp Sci Dept
occasionally change pizza places.      | ..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet