Agreeing on "Major Things"

  • Thread starter Thread starter MT1926
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RedFan said:
Yes, I’ve heard that theory. Typical inerrntist banter.
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong. I am not inerrntist. There are many flaws in the NT. The genealogy in Matthew is flawed and does not agree at all with with Luke. Such flaws are deliberate and serve a purpose. The challenge is to identify the flaws correctly. The Jeremiah/Zechariah issue is not a flaw when one analyses it and doing the analysis serves a purpose too… No doubt you will say the genealogy is not a flaw because the Luke version is reconciled by saying it’s Mary’s line even though there is no evidence to support it and that the missing generations in Matthew are for aesthetic reasons so that there are three neat blocks of 14. The flaw highlights the number 42 which is significant. The two genealogies don’t tally time-wise. There is a 240 year discrepancy, give or take.

In every day life we are expected to figure out what is true and false. What is fake news and what is not being a topical example. Fake news is there for a reason. One has to determine what is fake and why it is fake. Why not apply that to Scripture?
 
By the way, I’d appreciate a cite to whatever reference you have for the weight in grams of a silver shekel in the 7th century B.C. when Jeremiah was active. And I’d appreciate an explanation of how you know that Judas was paid off with 8-gram silver coins rather than 14-gram Tyrian shekels of the type used to pay the Temple tax.
 
TheButler said:
Shekel:: 11g, 14g and 17g are common.
Click to expand...
In the 7th century B.C.?
TheButler said:
Jeremiah says that they are even shekels. There are 15.4324 grains to a gram. Only by multiplying that by 14 gives an even whole number: 216 grains so he was using the 14g version.
Click to expand...
If the instruments to measure weights that precisely were in existence in the 7th century B.C., I’d be almost as shocked as I am at the notion that “even shekels” must be interpreted as a reference to a whole number when using 15.4324 as a multiplier.
 
RedFan said:
If the instruments to measure weights that precisely were in existence in the 7th century B.C., I’d be almost as shocked as I am at the notion that “even shekels” must be interpreted as a reference to a whole number when using 15.4324 as a multiplier.
Click to expand...
He weighs the coins on a balance and if the weight of each coin is exactly 216 grains of barley then it is an even shekel, no? 11g gives 169.75 and 17g gives 262.35 in which case the balance would be even as you can’t have a bit of a grain of barley.
 
Last edited:
TheButler said:
Once a contract is fulfilled there is no longer any obligation.
Click to expand...
That’s correct. We, Gentile Christians, have no obligations under the Mosaic Covenant.

However, we do have obligations under Christ’s New Covenant. And, those obligations are spelled out in the teachings of the Church – that is, the doctrines of the Church.
 
As it turns out, bible as ‘sole rule’ places the ego in charge of interpreting God’s word. This is a departure from the rock on which the Church was founded, and amounts to nothing more than a foundation of sand. An analogy between the innumerable denominations and now even “non-denominations” to the sands of the sea shore can easily be made.
 
Let me propose a far simpler explanation of Matthew’s reference, one which doesn’t require us to assume the technology in Jeremiah’s time to standardize the weight in silver of then-circulating currency, nor to assume that Matthew expected his readership to perform the same calculations you are trumpeting as a justification for his reference. It is this: Matthew simply made a mistake. He could have trudged a few miles down to the synagogue to check the Scrolls, but decided to go from memory instead. Why is that a problem?
 
RedFan said:
Matthew simply made a mistake. He could have trudged a few miles down to the synagogue to check the Scrolls, but decided to go from memory instead. Why is that a problem?
Click to expand...
Because if it wasn’t a mistake it’s not fair and just to Matthew’s name.
 
TheButler said:
I’ve seen Catholics quote Leviticus here.
Click to expand...
Well… it is part of the Bible, after all… 😉

But, to the point you’ve brought up: are you claiming that Catholics are telling you that we must avoid sex during menstruation because it’s part of the Mosaic law? That would be an error.

On the other hand, if they’re pointing to God’s divine law (which we follow – it’s part of our human nature to do so), and if they’re seeing that divine law in Scripture, then what’s wrong with that?
 
Gorgias said:
But, to the point you’ve brought up: are you claiming that Catholics are telling you that we must avoid sex during menstruation because it’s part of the Mosaic law? That would be an error.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Lev 18 19 is exempted. I’ve learned that.

I guess the problem is that no Protestant denomination has a catechism. Mind you the Catholic faith didn’t until 1993. Before that, if you were in doubt what did you do? Obviously looking it up in the Bible isn’t viable as not all of it is incorporated into Catholic doctrine while for Protestants if there is a law about something then to follow it is the safe option.
 
TheButler said:
I think we can agree that Jesus is anti-Pharisee.
Click to expand...
Nope I don’t agree.
Matthew 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.
Click to expand...
He isn’t anti-Pharisee, He doesn’t say don’t follow their teachings He says don’t follow their actions
TheButler said:
He’s anti-priest and anti-Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan both part of the religious establishment.
Click to expand...
The parable of the Good Samaritan doesn’t teach this. The Samaritan helping the man teaches us a moral lesson on how we must treat out neighbor. The priest and the Levite where adhering to the purity laws which forbade them from touching the half dead man. So in regards to them Jesus was giving us a theological lesson using to the love of the Samaritan to show the new standard of the New Covenant law. Where God no longer requires priests and Levites to separate from the people, but calls them to extend mercy to everyone in need regardless of the legal uncleanness required in the old law.
TheButler said:
Therefore is it likely that Jesus would simply roll over and agree with them?
Click to expand...
Seriously?
TheButler said:
“What God has joined let no man put asunder” is the foundation for marriage. However it is not rock solid.
Click to expand...
Your opinion
TheButler said:
One cannot say with 100% certainty that it was actually God that did the joining.
Click to expand...
Sure we can, it’s easy for Catholics to believe this because we believe Jesus founded a visible Church that the Holy Spirit would guide in all truths. Jesus never wrote anything down, nor did He command His Apostles to write anything down. He told them to teach. No where did He tell us to pick up the Bible, use it as an instruction manual and figure it out on our own. I’m taught by successor of the Apostles, who taught me One man and One woman is the foundation of marriage.

Even if you disagree with the successors, anyone with an ounce of common sense would be able to see this is how it was set up, by God. If the human race would limit sexual union to one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship every sexually transmitted disease would be nonexistent within one to two generations.

While you might NOT be convinced that God said ‘man and woman become one flesh’ I AM.

God Bless
 
TheButler said:
Not at all. Lev 18 19 is exempted. I’ve learned that.
Click to expand...
The reasoning for this, which I understand is because it does not fit into one of the two categories of Love God and Love neighbor.

If for example 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s flesh. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s flesh. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.

These can all be considered to be Love of neighbor. If you are undressing your aunt you aren’t being loving.

Where as 19 You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.

This verse isn’t about the woman’s nakedness or the menstruation it is referencing the “uncleanness”. This is a ceremonial uncleanness. Sure this verse would still apply if you were approaching the woman and she wasn’t your wife, but that is because of love of neighbor, but if she is you wife she can’t be ceremonial unclean because the ceremonial part of the law, like circumcision is no longer binding on us.
 
Thanks for that. Your explanation is most informative.

I’ll be honest. For me personally having so many rules and regulations feels spiritually restrictive. I’ll give you an analogy. I play piano and wearing a jacket while playing doesn’t allow me the freedom to fully express the music. I can still produce the notes in the right order wearing a jacket but there is a certain lacking in musicality. Spiritually I find all the rules laid down by the Church to be like the jacket. I would rather just wear a shirt comprising the two commandments of Jesus which you quoted. Within them I find more freedom. I’m still restricted to how far I can comfortably reach sitting on the stool but the top-end and bottom-end notes are used relatively fewer times than those in the middle and the human ear is more sensitive to the quality of the middle notes. Obviously I don’t want to play any duff notes but on occasion it happens. At least without a jacket I play the duff notes in style and musically. Sure, I hate the fact I played the wrong notes but then I practise so that hopefully it doesn’t happen again.

My point is that whether wearing a jacket or not there is still the propensity to play the wrong notes but without the jacket it’s more enjoyable and rewarding for me and those listening… And I know that the Creator is also listening.

I hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
The scriptures say otherwise. “It seemed good to us and to the holy Spirit” Acts 15.

It is very good to read and re-read, ponder and ponder this again.

It is not the flippant and incorrect men, as you say, it is the Church council with all authority, guided by the Holy Spirit - exactly as Christ said.

Bible alone is men. Pure and simple. 100% European invention. Not one of the reformers, or anyone since, has had any authority whatsoever - any divine warrant - to remake God in their own image, which is the fruits of the reformation. Sadly, this is what drove the entire reformation.
 
po18guy said:
Bible alone is men.
Click to expand...
And many men have interpretations of what "bible alone’’ means. But easy to shoot down when you frame the definition. I take it to mean one takes their bible, curls up in a ball, and says he has it all, and heaven is the next stop, right ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top