bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (07/01/85)
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
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/02/85)
Tom Bennet rightly criticizes my use of Mark 7 to defend liberalism. If all you are interested in is simple contradiction, however, I would simply note that (for instance) the lists of Jesus' ancestors given in the Gospels do not agree. My point about the Mark passage is that the whole notion of inerrancy is suspect if Jesus himself is willing to revise scripture. I should also point out that the liberal position is that one cannot assume that a passage contains no errors, or that (for instance) a passage should be taken as historical. The inerrancy position seems always to be saying that if there is ANY error, that the whole thing is junk. I don't think this is true, but I'd rather not triple the length of this article by trying to defend that belief. Charley WIngate umcp-cs!mangoe
gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) (07/05/85)
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. ...in Him who works all things after the counsel of His Own will: Gary McNees Subject: Re: About Literalism: in what sense is God ... (correction) References: <184@gymble.UUCP>, <626@umcp-cs.UUCP>
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/07/85)
> 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. It is amazing the lengths to which people will go to rationalize a plain contradiction in scripture. "...known that they are...?" By whom? Where is the evidence for this? The words in scripture are clear enough: Matt 1:16 says: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary" Luke 3:23 says: "Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/09/85)
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
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/13/85)
> > 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. > > It is amazing the lengths to which people will go to rationalize a > plain contradiction in scripture. "...known that they are...?" > By whom? Where is the evidence for this? The words in scripture are > clear enough: > > Matt 1:16 says: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary" > > Luke 3:23 says: "Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." ...Judah the son of Jacob ...Judah the son of Israel ...Joshua, son of Nun ...Oshua, son of Nun Reuel, the father-in-law of Moses... Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/13/85)
In article <1278@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > Matt 1:16 says: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary" > > > > Luke 3:23 says: "Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." > > ...Judah the son of Jacob > ...Judah the son of Israel > > ...Joshua, son of Nun > ...Oshua, son of Nun > > Reuel, the father-in-law of Moses... > Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses... Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41? Each with a "begat" or "son of" between? That can't be accounted for by name changes. Matt: Joseph, (9 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (14 ommitted), David. Luke: Joseph, (18 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (20 ommitted), David. I guess fundamentalists have to reject counting as well as evolution, since it contradicts with their biblical interpretation. :-) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/14/85)
>>> 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. >> >>It is amazing the lengths to which people will go to rationalize a >>plain contradiction in scripture. "...known that they are...?" >>By whom? Where is the evidence for this? The words in scripture are >>clear enough: >> >>Matt 1:16 says: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary" >> >>Luke 3:23 says: "Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." > ...Judah the son of Jacob > ...Judah the son of Israel (1) > > ...Joshua, son of Nun > ...Oshua, son of Nun (2) > > Reuel, the father-in-law of Moses... > Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses... (3) [DUBOIS] (1) involves two names for the same person. (2) involves an alternate spelling for a name (apparently) (3) forgive me if I'm off base here, but doesn't a man with two wives probably have two fathers-in-law? (and two mothers-in-law!! No wonder they outlawed polygamy! :-) In any case, still sounds like plain old wash-it-away rationalization of contradiction to me. -- Like a bourbon? (HIC!) Drunk for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (07/15/85)
First of all concerning the genealogies: We have in Luke 3:23: "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, ...[genealogy]" (NASV) Now, the question at hand is what does the phrase "the son of Eli" modify? If it modifies Joseph, then we have a genealogy going Jesus<-Joseph<-Eli... . On the other hand, if we take the phrase "being supposedly the son of Joseph" as parenthetical, being set off with commas like this one, then the phrase "the son of Eli" modifies "Jesus", giving a genealogy Jesus<-Eli... . Obviously, the second interpretation would permit the genealogy given to be through Mary. Is there any reason to prefer that interpretation? Well, of all the Gospels, Luke spends the most space telling us how Mary had Jesus without any help from Joseph, so it would seem unlikely that Luke would proceed to list Joseph as Jesus' father. Why is Mary not listed then? Because the form of genealogies in Luke's culture generally omits listing the women. So I think this passage at least allows the interpretation of the genealogy as through Mary; if someone knows enough about the Greek text to provide more information about the grammatical question, please speak. One other note about this. Halley's Handbook says: "Mary's genealogy [in Luke], in accord with Jewish usage, was in her husband's name." Such a convention is plausible, considering the treatment of women in that time and place, but does anyone know for sure if this is actually the case? Halley gives no source or argument to support it. Now on to an argument that Charlie Wingate has raised: >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.... > >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. > I think there is a confusion here between the idea that the Law is imperfect and the idea that Scripture is imperfect. The NT says that the OT Law is imperfect in the sense of obsolete. Hebrews 8 quotes a prophecy from Jeremiah talking about the establishment of a new covenant and then concludes in v. 13, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (NASV) Now if Christ at some time uses His authority to change (as in update) the Law, it does not mean that the OT is somehow an imperfect record of that now obsolete Law, or even that the Law was imperfect previous to the time of the update. Concerning Jesus' view of the Scripture itself, I have earlier cited Matt. 22:23-33 in which he makes an argument based on the tense of a verb in a passage from Exodus. Otherwise I don't know what to say but to point out Jesus' repeated use of the OT as conclusive to justify his actions and sayings. (A quick look through Luke gives: Lk 6:3-5; Lk 7:27; Lk 11:30-32; Lk 18:32-3; Lk 20:41-44.) Even when Christ wants to assert truths that we might refer to as the "spirit" of the Law, He often does so using the OT Scripture. For instance, in the famous passage about the greatest commandment in Matt. 22:36-40, Jesus is not being original here, but rather He quotes Deut. 6:5 (...love...God...with all...) and Lev. 19:18 (...love your neighbor...). He then goes on to assert "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Christ asserts that the spirit of the Law upholds the Law. In Lk 11:42, Jesus gives this criticism of the Pharisees: "But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every king of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others." (NASV) Note that Christ criticizes the P's for ignoring the big items, but still asserts that their meticulous observance of details is correct. This shows that Christ had a high regard for the OT Scriptures. This, by itself, may not show that Christ thought the Scriptures were inerrant, but I think you would have hard time showing that He ever made any criticism of them; instead He taught from them and carefully relied on their contents. I don't think you can damage inerrancy with the words of Christ. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/16/85)
In article <193@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: >First of all concerning the genealogies: We have in Luke 3:23: > "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty > years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, > ...[genealogy]" (NASV) >Now, the question at hand is what does the phrase "the son of Eli" modify? If >it modifies Joseph, then we have a genealogy going Jesus<-Joseph<-Eli... On >the other hand, if we take the phrase "being supposedly the son of Joseph" as >parenthetical, being set off with commas like this one, then the phrase "the >son of Eli" modifies "Jesus", giving a genealogy Jesus<-Eli... . I'm sorry, but you can't analyze scripture this way. For one thing, my JB sets off only the "supposedly" ("as it was thought") parenthetically. But really, Luke was written in Greek first, not english (especially not the NASV). To really resolve that question, you need to look at the Greek. >Obviously, the second interpretation would permit the genealogy given to be >through Mary. Is there any reason to prefer that interpretation? Well, of >all >the Gospels, Luke spends the most space telling us how Mary had Jesus without >any help from Joseph, so it would seem unlikely that Luke would proceed to >list >Joseph as Jesus' father. Why is Mary not listed then? Because the form of >genealogies in Luke's culture generally omits listing the women. This is quite groundless speculation. One could just as well argue that Joseph WAS included because Luke (in his culture) could not conceive of running a lineage through a woman. It seems to me that this stretching to assert the literal truth of a passage whose literal truth isn't very important suggests a willingness to sacrifice the literal word on the altar of inerrancy. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Support the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/16/85)
> First of all concerning the genealogies: We have in Luke 3:23: > > "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty > years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, > ...[genealogy]" (NASV) > > Now, the question at hand is what does the phrase "the son of Eli" modify? If > it modifies Joseph, then we have a genealogy going Jesus<-Joseph<-Eli... . On > the other hand, if we take the phrase "being supposedly the son of Joseph" as > parenthetical, being set off with commas like this one, then the phrase "the > son of Eli" modifies "Jesus", giving a genealogy Jesus<-Eli... . > > Obviously, the second interpretation would permit the genealogy given to be > through Mary. Is there any reason to prefer that interpretation? Well, of all > the Gospels, Luke spends the most space telling us how Mary had Jesus without > any help from Joseph, so it would seem unlikely that Luke would proceed to list > Joseph as Jesus' father. Why is Mary not listed then? Because the form of > genealogies in Luke's culture generally omits listing the women. > > So I think this passage at least allows the interpretation of the genealogy as > through Mary; if someone knows enough about the Greek text to provide more > information about the grammatical question, please speak. You are hanging all this speculation on a very slender reed. The genealogy goes on and on, and it is *obvious* that the genealogy is that of Joseph. Do you claim that the continuation of the line, "Joseph, the son of ..." really refers to Mary? Hardly. The attempt to explain the conflict between these two genealogies *of Joseph* is rationalization, plain and simple. There is *absolutely no* scriptural authority to support the idea that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/17/85)
> In article <1278@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > > Matt 1:16 says: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary" > > > > > > Luke 3:23 says: "Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." > > > > ...Judah the son of Jacob > > ...Judah the son of Israel > > > > ...Joshua, son of Nun > > ...Oshua, son of Nun > > > > Reuel, the father-in-law of Moses... > > Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses... > > [Mike Huybensz] > Then how do you account for the fact that in Matt there are 26 generations > between David and Joseph and that in Luke there are 41? Each with a "begat" > or "son of" between? That can't be accounted for by name changes. > > Matt: Joseph, (9 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (14 ommitted), David. > Luke: Joseph, (18 ommitted), Zerub'babel, Sheal'tiel, (20 ommitted), David. > > I guess fundamentalists have to reject counting as well as evolution, since > it contradicts with their biblical interpretation. :-) My posting was only a hypothesis. It seems to have been disproven by another posting. However, I'll address the point of your remarks, since they show your over-literalism. :-) "Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly". It may mean, and sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/17/85)
> In any case, still sounds like plain old wash-it-away rationalization of > contradiction to me. Now, Rich, if we're going to be objective (and *you* are even if I'm not, right?), then we won't just *assume* immediately that it *is* a contradiction, but will instead investigate the hypotheses that are easily conceived of. But no, not you. You just *know* it's a contradiction, so any attempt to explain it (even wrong ones, like mine) are "wash-it-away rationalizations". Wishful thinking. Preconceived conclusions buttressed by augmented wishful thinking. Presuppositions. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/18/85)
> "Begat" and "son of" do not always mean "directly". It may mean, and > sometimes *does* mean, more distant descendants. I will point out that the NEB uses "was the father of" instead of "begat" in the relevant passage from Matthew. But never mind. It seems to me that Paul has implicitly recognized that (in this case at least) a literal interpretation of the words of Scripture cannot be sustained; which is all that I and (I think) Charlie have been saying. If you say that "son of" doesn't always mean "son of", and "father of" doesn't always mean "father of", then you are no longer upholding a strictly literalist interpretation of scripture. You are now saying that the Bible has to be interpreted, and the question then becomes one of degree. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/85)
>>In any case, still sounds like plain old wash-it-away rationalization of >>contradiction to me. > Now, Rich, if we're going to be objective (and *you* are even if I'm not, > right?), then we won't just *assume* immediately that it *is* a > contradiction, but will instead investigate the hypotheses that are easily > conceived of. > > But no, not you. You just *know* it's a contradiction, so any attempt > to explain it (even wrong ones, like mine) are "wash-it-away > rationalizations". Wishful thinking. Preconceived conclusions buttressed > by augmented wishful thinking. Presuppositions. [DUBOIS] Not "any". Just the ones that have been offered. If a contradiction exists, it exists. If there exists a real explanation for it, fine. If one has to be contortedly constructed, well, that speaks for itself. Of course, a contradiction in the Bible would make god (the "real" author) into a liar, and we can't have that. One of the assumptions behind it all has got to give. That's all. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr