Problems with strict inerrancy and a question

[HeteroDoxical]

It appears that you don’t have any clue at all what I’m talking about and so I’ll try to clear it up for you.

You wording on the first half tweaked me. Your explanations fix it for me.

This comment, shows your Atheist Hubris bent still remains. There is a certain arrogance required for that mindset. And for some theological mindsets. You show a high propensity for it. I’ll watch and chuckle.

When you have to resort to STATING you are more than me, it shows me you have an agenda more than the facts. I pity people that insecure, ESPECIALLY when they don’t realize it. I hope you find peace.

As for the repeated jabs at me for being Protestant…

I am Protestant because I am not RCC.
I am ULTRA CONSERVATIVE because I take the Bible as written first, and research modifications only upon necessity

What you call Protestants, I have little in common with. Thus the chosen name. You are so much more learned than me, you should have caught that already…

I am ultra conservative, but I hardly fit into the box with the Conservative Christians, who technically are very liberal.

I’m a Soteriology student, and I hit that harder than most in my studies and lifestyle. That doesn’t make me right, but it makes me wrong for a reason when I’m wrong.

I’ve made major theological changes in the last 10 years. By example I’m not ashamed to change my views when something is revealed as more true than I had understood before.

I tend to defend RCC against Protestants as they are mostly bigots and uneducated, or misinformed about RCC beliefs. But, I’d rather debate your theology with you and learn something.

I don’t learn much by standing in a circle patting someone on the back saying, “attaboy”.

Iron can’t rub iron without agitation, look the word up. I have that spiritual gift of agitation.

I don’t have to be right, but I have to understand. You seem to have to be right, so you can convince yourself and others you understand.

I worry about substance, others posture for projected facades they can control.

I want to bump heads on these topics, test my thinking, and test your thinking.

I get annoyed with people who PRESUME superior intelligence, argument, belief, facts, when it’s untested. In general it makes them a colossal waste of time to try to deal with.

 

[Jeremyah]

Jeremyah,
Are you saying the online Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong?

“The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical ‘because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church’. The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.”

That’s what you say, but that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches. If there are contradictions in the Bible, more so if there are absurdities, then God could not be its author. But the Catholic Church teaches that God is the author of Scripture.

Meriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:
inerrant- free from error
infallible- incapable of error

When I say there are no errors in the Bible, is it the same as saying the Bible is infallible?
Certainly, because if it is incapable of error, then it must be free from error.

Fuego, You make a good point and I’m willing to concede but only to a limited use of the word inerrancy.

I do believe that the Church is the final authority and infallible in it’s teachings on the Bible and Christianity and so I certainly don’t mean these statements to contradict the Church.

In saying that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant, I was disagreeing the Church’s use of semantics, not Church doctrine.

The kind of ‘inerrancy’ that leads people to abandoning faith in the Bible and the God of the Bible is not the same kind of inerrancy that the Church attributes to the Bible.

It’s been my experience that most people that claim belief in Biblical ‘inerrancy’ specifically mean a belief that the Bible, even when read without the guidance of the Church (or more accurately, specifically without the guidance of the Church), is 100% accurate in every detail.

The ‘inerrancy’ that the Church attributes to the Bible is an understanding of the Bible under the guidance of the Church itself.

The Church maintains that the Bible is not to be read and interpreted outside of the guidance of the Church. It is the precisely the reading and interpreting of scripture outside of the guidance of the Church that leads, but also to people rejecting the Bible as the Word of God.

My solution to the problem of ‘inerrancy’ is, not to defy the Church, but to submit to the Church. The entire explanation I gave about the written and Oral Torah and the Holy Tradition is just the details, the mechanics and history of how the Church is in fact right.

The Bible, when read under the guidance of the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition/The Church can objectively be show to be the infallible Word of God.

Does that clear it up?

 

[HeteroDoxical]

Fuego, one with narcissistic tendencies won’t let the facts get in the way of their awe inspiring minds. Who cares what Rome teaches. Just listen to him.

 

[dronald]

When I speak of Biblical inerrancy I don’t necessarily mean the Bible is completely literal, just not false in any way.

The discussion was on the punishment of rape. I’m not going to pretend there is some metaphorical or symbolic explanation, because it’s obviously cut and dry literal. But there is a historical explanation.

 

[Jeremyah]

You wording on the first half tweaked me. Your explanations fix it for me.

This comment, shows your Atheist Hubris bent still remains. There is a certain arrogance required for that mindset. And for some theological mindsets. You show a high propensity for it. I’ll watch and chuckle.

I’m confident but not prideful. Or if I am prideful, my pride is in that I am always willing to abandon whatever I believe to be fact if it can be demonstrated that what I hold to be fact is not true.

You have made repeated attacks on my character without having any knowledge of me as a person at all. That says more about you than it does about me. I suspect that in me, you recognize someone that is much more educated on these matters than yourself and who has come to different conclusions than yourself. This threatens you and so as a defense, you write it off as pride.

When you have to resort to STATING you are more than me,

Which I never did. I only stated that you arguing from demonstrably false positions and I am all too willing to demonstrate just that. But instead of taking me up on the challenge, you call insist that I am full of ‘hubris.’

Quite frankly, I think it’s because you are afraid of getting your butt kicked.

I pity people that insecure, ESPECIALLY when they don’t realize it. I hope you find peace.

I’m the one that challenged YOU to to debate Biblical ‘inerrancy’ and sola scriptura and other nonsense, protestant doctrines. It’s YOU that runs away from these challenges and hides behind person insults.

It’s plainly evident to anyone reading this who the insecure one REALLY is.

Try taking that log out of your eye first.

As for the repeated jabs at me for being Protestant…

I didn’t take any jabs at you for being a protestant other than just starting the fact that you are starting from a demonstrably false position. If someone is a flat-earther and plans to argue some aspect of science, I can say with the same level of confidence that they are arguing from a demonstrably false position.

Just be clear, the phrase, ‘demonstrably false,’ means “can be demonstrated to be false.”

I am Protestant because I am not RCC.

I know what Protestant means. Regardless of how you arrive at protestantism, it’s still a demonstrably false position.

I am ULTRA CONSERVATIVE because I take the Bible as written first, and research modifications only upon necessity

Actually, that would make you somewhat of a liberal, not a conservative. The conservative approach is to read the Bible within the Historical and cultural context in which it was written.

This is the conservative approach because this approach predates leaving behind the historical and cultural context and just reading the Bible ‘as written.’

What you call Protestants, I have little in common with. Thus the chosen name. You are so much more learned than me, you should have caught that already…

By Protestant, I mean anyone that is not Orthodox/Catholic. Which is pretty much what anyone and everyone means by that term. If there is some other use of the word ‘protestant,’ I’m not familiar with it.

Going by that definition, it doesn’t matter what brand or flavor of protestantism it is, it’s still demonstrably false because all flavors of protestantism are demonstrably false.

It’s the counterfeit principle. I don’t have to be intimately familiar with each and every brand of counterfeit to know that any particular counterfeit is fake. All I have to know is the genuine article and that anything that is not the genuine article is a fake.

Or to put it another way, I know that your particular brand of Protestantism is false, not because I know specifically how each and every brand of Protestantism is false, but because I know that Catholicism is fact. And if Catholicism is fact, that anything that stands in opposition to Catholicism is false by virtue of contradicting a demonstrable fact.

 

[Jeremyah]

I am ultra conservative, but I hardly fit into the box with the Conservative Christians, who technically are very liberal.

I’m a Soteriology student, and I hit that harder than most in my studies and lifestyle. That doesn’t make me right, but it makes me wrong for a reason when I’m wrong.

I’ve made major theological changes in the last 10 years. By example I’m not ashamed to change my views when something is revealed as more true than I had understood before.

My main area of study is history, culture and literature.

I have likewise made major theological changes in the last ten years.

I grew up protestant and deconverted because a number of Biblical ‘truths’ I was taught growing up were demonstrably false. Also, no one could provide any reason whatsoever as to why we should even accept the Bible as the Word of God. Also, no one could even agree on what specifically the Bible even meant.

I was an atheist and read through the protestant Bible some years later. I was reading it then as if it was just a piece of ancient literature instead of trying to make it fit into some preconceived theology and was surprised to recognize that the God of the OT was the real God of the universe. But I didn’t recognize the God of the NT as being the same God. And so I concluded that the Jews had been right all along and spent the next year attending synagogue and studying to convert.

After about a year, it really started to sink in that the protestantism I had grown up with was so completely far removed from Judaism, the source religion, that I knew that that couldn’t have possibly have been the religion that Jesus intended. I started doing a lot of historical and theological study into early Christianity and that’s what brought me into the Church. (That’s the short version of the story).

I might have assessed you wrongly. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I respect anyone that is willing to admit that they are wrong upon be shown.

Likewise, I know that you have assessed me wrongly. You are mistaking confidence for pride.

I have the same level of confidence that all people arguing for any protestant position are wrong as I do that all people arguing holocaust denial or flat-eartherism are wrong. And for exactly the same reasons. That being that the facts simply contradict these positions at every turn.

I tend to defend RCC against Protestants as they are mostly bigots and uneducated, or misinformed about RCC beliefs.

That’s been my experience. I never set foot in an Catholic parish in my life until August of
2011 and came to find out that it was completely different from what I had been taught in every respect.

Without exception, every last protestant I have EVER met that has claimed to be an expert on the RCC, in fact, didn’t know anything whatsoever about the RCC. Nowadays, I’m convinced that there are no experts on the RCC that are not themselves Catholic.

But, I’d rather debate your theology with you and learn something.

Alright, start a new thread and provide a link, either here or you can pm it to me. I am ALWAYS up for a good theological debate.

I don’t learn much by standing in a circle patting someone on the back saying, “attaboy”.

If you learn anything at all from that, it’s more than I ever did from doing that.

No, give me a fight, a debate. I would rather get my butt kicked from here to Timbuktu and learn something than I would have someone endless agree with me and I learn nothing.

Iron can’t rub iron without agitation, look the word up. I have that spiritual gift of agitation.

I know what agitation means but I’ll look up the term anyway.

I don’t have to be right, but I have to understand. You seem to have to be right, so you can convince yourself and others you understand.

No, I WANT to be right. If I am not right about something, I want to be shown so that I can dispense with the falsity in order to have the truth.

I am very skeptical and so when I come to the conclusion that I AM right about something, I usually have very good reasons for thinking so and so I’m usually pretty confident in my conclusions.

I worry about substance, others posture for projected facades they can control.

I want to bump heads on these topics, test my thinking, and test your thinking.

Same here.

I get annoyed with people who PRESUME superior intelligence, argument, belief, facts, when it’s untested. In general it makes them a colossal waste of time to try to deal with.

I agree with you but you’ll find that’s not me at all. I am a hardened skeptic and test everything.

Also, I have Asperger’s Syndrome and along with it the abnormally high IQ that usually accompanies Aspies. This is not a point of pride for me. As I have no other experience to compare it to, the fact is as unremarkable to me as my hair color.

My life has not been made better by this in any way that I know. Quite frankly, it’s been more of a curse than a blessing. Given a choice, I wouldn’t have chosen to have an abnormally high IQ at the expense of being autistic and if you ever show me anyone that would, I will show you a fool.

If ever want a good representation of the emotional experiences of being an aspie, watch the movie Constantine with Keeanu Reeves sometime. That is what the world is like from our POV. Yes, it really is that disturbing for us.

I know the kind of people you are talking about. People that pride themselves on their supposed superior intelligence instead of their accomplishments are rarely actually very intelligent.

 

[Jeremyah]

Fuego, one with narcissistic tendencies won’t let the facts get in the way of their awe inspiring minds. Who cares what Rome teaches. Just listen to him.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” - Inigo Montoya

 

[Jeremyah]

When I speak of Biblical inerrancy I don’t necessarily mean the Bible is completely literal, just not false in any way.

The discussion was on the punishment of rape. I’m not going to pretend there is some metaphorical or symbolic explanation, because it’s obviously cut and dry literal. But there is a historical explanation.

Gotcha.

There IS a historical explanation. But what I’ve found to be true is that people that have a problem with that particular verse simply won’t, or can’t, take their minds out of the 20th/21st centuries.

 

[dronald]

Gotcha.

There IS a historical explanation. But what I’ve found to be true is that people that have a problem with that particular verse simply won’t, or can’t, take their minds out of the 20th/21st centuries.

Oh, I agree completely. However, often the explanations are terrible and make the Bible sound even worse. “God permitted rape” or, “it’s metaphorical” are silly answers in my opinion.

If we look at the historical reasoning it becomes apparent that a woman would have her life ruined when her virginity was taken. Therefore the man was forced to take care of her, pay a big fee, or be killed. Of course the protection of her father would still ensue if he was untrustworthy, but that doesn’t change that such a man shall pay up and leave his inheritance to her as a punishment; if the father so chooses.

It was for protection of the woman, not in defense of the rapist.

 

[Jeremyah]

Oh, I agree completely. However, often the explanations are terrible and make the Bible sound even worse. “God permitted rape” or, “it’s metaphorical” are silly answers in my opinion.

If we look at the historical reasoning it becomes apparent that a woman would have her life ruined when her virginity was taken. Therefore the man was forced to take care of her, pay a big fee, or be killed. Of course the protection of her father would still ensue if he was untrustworthy, but that doesn’t change that such a man shall pay up and leave his inheritance to her as a punishment; if the father so chooses.

It was for protection of the woman, not in defense of the rapist.

Yeah, I understand all that. I didn’t read past the first couple of paragraphs of the OP before jumping in. The opening statement:

"I know many Catholics are trying to convert Evangelicals by emphasizing the inerrancy of the bible, but I would point out that these views are without a doubt the most common reason I see for people to give up faith in Christ entirely. "

This actually covers a lot of ground. For example, the earth was NOT literally created in 6 24 hour days, is billions of years old, not thousands, snakes can’t talk, neither can donkies, rabbits don’t chew cud, and the list goes on. When I say that the Bible is not inerrant, it’s these matters that I am referring to.

I should have read more of the OP.

The supposed moral attrocities of the OT were initially one of the reasons I deconverted and later, were actually one of the reasons I became a believer again. I had simply grown up a little and come to understand that all this stuff was taking place at the beginning of civilization, not on the tail end of history, and so the ‘right thing’ to do was what was necessary for the survival of the Hebrew Nation, regardless of whether or not we or anyone else found it to be distasteful.

But the explanation I gave is still useful because one of the functions of the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition is to serve as a guide on how to properly update the keeping of the law to new conditions and circumstances.

 

[PJM]

=joemccarron;11770584]Hello
I know many Catholics are trying to convert Evangelicals by emphasizing the inerrancy of the bible, but I would point out that these views are without a doubt the most common reason I see for people to give up faith in Christ entirely. "

What your expressing dear friend is NOT understanding what you’re reading. The same issue our Protestant Brethren have [but likely a different cause].

We must understand IN LINE with what the CC teaches. Two points in this part of your post.1. Yahweh & Christ ARE the same God. Look carefully at this “mean-God” and you will discover that it is always a retribution; a pay back for sins. Then READ Isa. 29:16-17

I just read this in a blog. I could give quote after quote of people losing there faith due to some relatively obscure passage in the old testament because inerrancy was taught as if it were a foundation of the faith

My friend either God is in charge or we are and the responsibility can’t be shared. I’ve read the bible multiple times W/O loosing my faith as have countless others. I SUSPECT it may have something to do in what we;re looking for.

Now for my question.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in the NIV version says:
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

Now I realize it does not explicitly say rape in the Catholic translations. For example this is how its worded:

"25 But if it is in the open fields that a man comes upon the betrothed young woman, seizes her and lies with her, only the man who lay with her shall die.
26 You shall do nothing to the young woman, since the young woman is not guilty of a capital offense. As when a man rises up against his neighbor and murders him, so in this case:

So in our bible it is interpreted as “seizes her and lies with her” which is not necessarily rape. Now I am not a Hebrew scholar but I do note that the same “seizes her and lies with her” language is used above at verse 25 which does indeed seem to mean rape.

But even if we accept that this does not mean rape it does indicate that a man must marry a woman who he lies with. This clearly contradicts Catholic teaching

.

It IS RAPE by another name…

BUT the OLD TESTAMENT HAS NO CATHOLICS!; the New Covenant; and the RCC would follow long after these rules were written and enforced. So what’s the problem:shrug:

Now I understand that as a Catholic we believe these rules of deuteronomy were essentially overruled by the new covenant. (although I would love to see some clear authority on this)

Jer.31: 31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,”

Heb.8: 8, 13 ” For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. ***And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” ***

THERE ya go my friend.

And what of the people in the past before Christ. Did God require that they marry if the man “seizes her and lies with her” (whatever that meant) or not?

If we do then it seems we have to read “seizes her and lies with her” to mean rape in one sentence but something different in a few sentences above. Or we are saying God requires a woman to marry her rapist.

I SUSPECT these rules are a part of the 613 additional commandments; WHICH ARE APPROVED by God.

What your NOT understanding is that this was NOT 2,000 AD ; BUT WAY Before Christ.
It was held that a women who lost her virginity was no longer “marriage material”; was it fair? NO! But that was the way it was thousands of years ago in their tradition.

Are these laws to be considered laws from God that are “not good” Ezek 20:25–26?

From the DOUAY bible:
" : [24] Because they had not done my judgments, and had cast off my statutes,-{LAWS} and had violated my sabbaths, and their eyes had been after the idols of their fathers. [25] Therefore I also gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments, in which they shall not live.

**[25] Statutes [LAWS} that were not good: Viz., the laws and ordinances of their enemies; or those imposes upon them by that cruel tyrant the devil, to whose power they were delivered up for their sins.[/COLOR]

[26] And I polluted them in their own gifts, when they offered all that opened the womb, for their offences: and they shall know that I am the Lord"

As I said in the beginning this “mean God” is ONLY Just and Fair.

From Haydocks:
"Ver. 25. Not good. The laws and ordinances of their enemies: or those imposed upon them by that cruel tyrant the devil, to whose power they were delivered up for their sins; (Challoner) which may be styled the statutes of your fathers, &c., ver. 18. God is often said to do what he only permits. — He abandoned them to their own perversity. If God had spoken of the Decalogue, &c., would he say such laws were not good, after he had testified that the observers shall live in them? "I have given them up to their foolish desires. They have established bad statutes and laws which will not give them life." This seems the best explanation. (Calmet) — end quote**

 

[Protector]

Jeremyah;11779623] …Again, I am very skeptical. If you want to take me on, I’ll give you a go. I am kind of curious to see if actually have some tricks in your hat that I haven’t seen before. But, again, I’m also extremely skeptical of that.

You are, after all, a protestant and so I already know from the get go that your arguing from a demonstrably false premise.

And you have found this to be true of all of the (estimated) 30,000 Protestant denominations, is that so?

Protector.

 

[Jeremyah]

And you have found this to be true of all of the (estimated) 30,000 Protestant denominations, is that so?

I addressed this in another post but it’s a matter of all positions that are in contradiction of the facts and the truth are already known to be false but the fact that they contradict a known truth.

It’s the same as holocaust denial. There are multiple alternate versions of WWII history that exclude the Holocaust. I don’t have to know the specifics of each and every one of these “alternate histories” to know they are false. All I have to know is that the holocaust did happen and so I already know that any version of ‘history’ that excludes the holocaust is false.

Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church really is the Church that Jesus started. This is demonstrable fact. And so any version of Christianity or Christian history that claims otherwise, we already know is false.

Does that clear it up for you?

 

[joemccarron]

I just wanted to post and say thank you to everyone who posted. I enjoyed all the posts and various perspectives and learned quite a bit in the process. I am very grateful for these forums.

Jeremyah
Can you recommend an introductory book on the oral tradition?

PJM

Thanks for responding.

I said:
“Now I understand that as a Catholic we believe these rules of deuteronomy were essentially overruled by the new covenant. (although I would love to see some clear authority on this) The reason these could be overruled is that that these were evidently not moral teachings (God’s moral teachings never change right?) Well then is the Catholic Churches teaching (that people should not get married just because they lie together) that overrules this, a moral teaching? Can that change?”

Thank you for the biblical references about God making a new covenant. But they are fairly general and could mean just about anything. Why do you think this old testament law is one overruled by the new covenant? I was wondering if there was anything that more directly suggested these particular passages from Deuteronomy were overruled by the new covenant. Some church teaching or quotation from a father etc.

Also you point out that Christ and Yahwe are the same God. I, of course, realize that. Would you say the churches teaching that people should not automatically marry just because they lie together is a moral teaching? If so then would this rule that they must marry be a moral teaching as well? It seems odd if we say one is a moral teaching and the other is not. If the answer to both is yes then they would seem to contradict, wouldn’t they?

I really don’t have a big position on inerrancy of the church or bible. I generally think these discussions rarely draw people closer to understanding God. I generally just concede that neither are inerrant (at least in any sense they might have of it) when I am trying to reason with non believers. Arguing about much of this minutia is not worth anyone’s time. I, of course, think the Holy Spirit works through the Church and inspired the bible. But I tend not to hold very firm views on how exactly the Holy Spirit does this. And when people try to get too technical/specific about this I tend to doubt them.

Anyway thanks again to everyone who posted here.

 

[Jeremyah]

I just wanted to post and say thank you to everyone who posted. I enjoyed all the posts and various perspectives and learned quite a bit in the process. I am very grateful for these forums.

Jeremyah
Can you recommend an introductory book on the oral tradition?

I first learned about it by being told at a Rabbinical Jewish Synagogue and so I would suggest looking in the phone book and calling your local synagogue and ask them to recommend some books. Be careful to call a Rabbinical Jewish synagogue and not a “Messianic” “synagogue” as that’s not real Judaism in any way, shape or form (they’re actually protestant Baptists playing Jewish dress-up) and will have nothing useful to tell you.

I also read about it in “The History of the Jews” by Solomon Grazel and “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus” by David Klinghoffer. “Judaism for Dummies” also covers it.

The best thing to do really is just to attend synagogue and get familiar with it by experience. If you attend mass every week, you’re already familiar with it because the Holy Tradition and the Oral Torah are the same thing. Attending synagogue would just confirm this.

I said:
“Now I understand that as a Catholic we believe these rules of deuteronomy were essentially overruled by the new covenant. (although I would love to see some clear authority on this) The reason these could be overruled is that that these were evidently not moral teachings (God’s moral teachings never change right?) Well then is the Catholic Churches teaching (that people should not get married just because they lie together) that overrules this, a moral teaching? Can that change?”

Thank you for the biblical references about God making a new covenant. But they are fairly general and could mean just about anything. Why do you think this old testament law is one overruled by the new covenant? I was wondering if there was anything that more directly suggested these particular passages from Deuteronomy were overruled by the new covenant. Some church teaching or quotation from a father etc.

Also you point out that Christ and Yahwe are the same God. I, of course, realize that. Would you say the churches teaching that people should not automatically marry just because they lie together is a moral teaching? If so then would this rule that they must marry be a moral teaching as well? It seems odd if we say one is a moral teaching and the other is not. If the answer to both is yes then they would seem to contradict, wouldn’t they?

The New Covenant ended the Kosher Law and the temple sacrifices but the Moral and Ethical observance of the Law still stands. The Kosher law were cultural laws and existed to preserve the Hebrew Nation against outside influence.

When Jesus came, the goal was no longer just to preserve against the world but to go into the world and convert all people of all nations.

Jesus, himself, said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. As Christians, we are to die to ourselves so that Christ can come and live within us and through us, fulfill the law.

Also, Jesus taught to observe the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees, the keepers of the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition.

I really don’t have a big position on inerrancy of the church or bible. I generally think these discussions rarely draw people closer to understanding God. I generally just concede that neither are inerrant (at least in any sense they might have of it) when I am trying to reason with non believers. Arguing about much of this minutia is not worth anyone’s time. I, of course, think the Holy Spirit works through the Church and inspired the bible. But I tend not to hold very firm views on how exactly the Holy Spirit does this. And when people try to get too technical/specific about this I tend to doubt them.

Anyway thanks again to everyone who posted here.

The Holy Spirit is made manifest through the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition.

For example, the canonization of the Bible.

The canonized scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. We know this because the canonized scriptures are written in the language of the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition. We can safely rule out the Gnostic Gospels and all other excluded books because they were not written in the language of the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition.

It was Holy Tradition that served as the guide for canonizing both the OT and the NT.

 

[joemccarron]

I first learned about it by being told at a Rabbinical Jewish Synagogue and so I would suggest looking in the phone book and calling your local synagogue and ask them to recommend some books. Be careful to call a Rabbinical Jewish synagogue and not a “Messianic” “synagogue” as that’s not real Judaism in any way, shape or form (they’re actually protestant Baptists playing Jewish dress-up) and will have nothing useful to tell you.

I also read about it in “The History of the Jews” by Solomon Grazel and “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus” by David Klinghoffer. “Judaism for Dummies” also covers it.

The best thing to do really is just to attend synagogue and get familiar with it by experience. If you attend mass every week, you’re already familiar with it because the Holy Tradition and the Oral Torah are the same thing. Attending synagogue would just confirm this.

The New Covenant ended the Kosher Law and the temple sacrifices but the Moral and Ethical observance of the Law still stands. The Kosher law were cultural laws and existed to preserve the Hebrew Nation against outside influence.

When Jesus came, the goal was no longer just to preserve against the world but to go into the world and convert all people of all nations.

Jesus, himself, said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. As Christians, we are to die to ourselves so that Christ can come and live within us and through us, fulfill the law.

Also, Jesus taught to observe the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees, the keepers of the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition.

I really don’t have a big position on inerrancy of the church or bible. I generally think these discussions rarely draw people closer to understanding God. I generally just concede that neither are inerrant (at least in any sense they might have of it) when I am trying to reason with non believers. Arguing about much of this minutia is not worth anyone’s time. I, of course, think the Holy Spirit works through the Church and inspired the bible. But I tend not to hold very firm views on how exactly the Holy Spirit does this. And when people try to get too technical/specific about this I tend to doubt them.

Anyway thanks again to everyone who posted here.

The Holy Spirit is made manifest through the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition.

For example, the canonization of the Bible.

The canonized scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. We know this because the canonized scriptures are written in the language of the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition. We can safely rule out the Gnostic Gospels and all other excluded books because they were not written in the language of the Oral Torah/Holy Tradition.

It was Holy Tradition that served as the guide for canonizing both the OT and the NT.

Thanks for the information.
On the discussion of these laws in Deuteronomy:
I vaguely understood the same thing - that the new covenant did away with dietary and ceremonial law. But are these passages from Deuteronomy to be considered Kosher or ceremonial laws? They sound more like moral laws. That is why I ask for some sort of Church authority that these laws are in fact considered part of the old covenant, as PJM suggests.

I wonder if the answer lies in the fact that we are just changing the punishments, not the fact that it is a sin. Like Christ seemed to to with the adulteress. He did not say what she did was moral, (he indicated it was a sin) but he did not give the punishment stated in the Old Testament.

 

[Jeremyah]

Thanks for the information.
On the discussion of these laws in Deuteronomy:
I vaguely understood the same thing - that the new covenant did away with dietary and ceremonial law. But are these passages from Deuteronomy to be considered Kosher or ceremonial laws? They sound more like moral laws. That is why I ask for some sort of Church authority that these laws are in fact considered part of the old covenant, as PJM suggests.

I wonder if the answer lies in the fact that we are just changing the punishments, not the fact that it is a sin. Like Christ seemed to to with the adulteress. He did not say what she did was moral, (he indicated it was a sin) but he did not give the punishment stated in the Old Testament.

The Laws in Deuteronomy that didn’t have specifically to do with Kosher law stills stand. Also, so do the ceremonial laws. They have just been updated. When Christ became the sacrificial lamb, it ended the need for temple sacrifices but then it was replaced with human sacrifice. That is, every person now presents themselves as a living sacrifice to God and in doing so, Jesus, the sacrificial lamb, comes to live within them.

Jesus ended the Sadducee sect by combining the Priest class and scribe class back together. He did this within the Pharisee sect, the scribe class, not the Priest class, or Sadducee sect, because the Priests had abandoned the correct teachings while the Scribes upheld them.

The belief that Jesus didn’t give the prescribed punishment is false. If you read the text carefully, you’ll see that Jesus did, in fact, give the order for the woman to be stoned.

The set up was that the crowd were acting as the woman’s accusers, her prosecutors, and Jesus, being a Pharisaical Rabbi, was acting as judge. They presented their case and so Jesus orders the woman to be stone, in accordance with the law.

He added the qualifier that the one who was without sin begin the stoning. The specific law being referenced is Deuteronomy 22:22 and is as follows:

“If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.”

Since the law called for both the man and the woman to be stoned and they only brought the woman, they were all guilty of breaking the law and so none of them were without sin.

Since they were all guilty, they dropped their prosecution instead of being confronted as individuals that they were also guilty of breaking the law. With no prosecution, there was no case against the woman.

So the belief that Jesus changed the punishment is completely false. Instead, what applies here is that mercy and forgiveness will be shown to those that show mercy and forgiveness. Those that do not will have to face the full penalty of the law themselves.

Jesus never once bended or broke the law in any way, shape or form. As he was the Word made flesh, he was the very embodiment of the law, himself.