What is a True Christian?

Hardly. You explained away the first quote by saying that it didn't belong in the canon. I was wondering what your reasoning was to explain the other examples of how Jesus contradicted what Moses said after Moses claimed that God had commanded it.

Yes, Faith and I differ on this issue of which NT Greek text is best. I side with the Greek "Critical Text", which is an attempt to get back to the original Greek text by putting more weight on earlier manuscripts, and trying to understand how later variants could have arisen (e.g. transcription errors, errors of hearing, explanatory glosses, etc.)There is a small minority of scholars who advocate for the Greek "Majority Text" as opposed to the critical text. These scholars include Zane Hodges (who was a friend of my dad's) and Art Farstad (who I've met). Although I greatly respect both of these men, I disagree with their views on the best Greek manuscripts. For a brief discussion of the issues, see this article by Dan Wallace.The KJV was based on the "Textus Receptus" which is similar to the "Majority Text", but not identical. I don't think any scholars today argue for the Textus Receptus. The KJV-only folks don't really argue for the Textus Receptus, but for the English KJV. They are essentially crackpots. For those (like Faith) who prefer the Majority Text, I would strongly recommend the NKJV (New King James) over the KJV translation. (Art Farstad was involved in translating the NKJV.)

Was I unclear in some way? I tried to explain that the account of the woman taken in adultery did not belong in the canon due to objective, scholarly issues of textual criticism, NOT because of its content.But I don't see how your other examples "contradict" Moses. Mt. 19:8 explains WHY Moses allowed divorce; it says that this was a temporary concession due to their hardness of heart. This is an "explanation", not a "contradiction":

quote:

---

Matt. 19:8 Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. Matt. 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

---

Nor do I see that Mt 5 "contradicts" Moses. Rather, it EXTENDS his commands by focusing on the motives rather than on the outward manifestations. What Moses said still applies; the outward manifestations are still wrong. Edited by kbertsche, : Comment on Mt 19:8Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : Comment on Mt 5.

I think your statement here is a little strong. What you did instead was provide an objective scholarly opinion that the story should not be considered canon. But whether or not that objective criticism is valid is an open question. Perhaps it does belong.Jesus did deal with other women of ill repute, for example, the women with many husbands and a current man who was not her husband. There was not a single incident of Jesus suggesting a stoning party. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It explains why Moses permitted it but then Jesus goes on to say how it was from the beginning. Jesus is saying that Moses used his own understanding but that he got it wrong., even though Moses claimed that it came from the Lord. That's true in some cases but here is an example where it isn't. Jesus says in Matthew 5:

quote:

---

38 You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

---

Jesus is referring to Exodus 21 and Leviticus 24 where the Bible tells us that the Lord told Moses that it is an eye for an eye etc. Here Jesus says that wasn't correct and then corrects what had been written.For that matter, once again, you can't square that statement by Jesus with a God that commands genocide and public stoning. It is either faith in Jesus as the embodied word of God or an inerrant Bible. Once again you can't have it both ways.

No, He doesn't say that Moses either "used his own understanding" or "got it wrong". He says that Moses allowed it for a reason. The implication seems to be that this was not God's ideal plan, but that God allowed it, through Moses, due to people's condition at that time. I see no implication that Moses got this wrong for his people and time. This is certainly a change from Moses. But again, I see no implication that Moses was WRONG for his audience in his time. The implication that I see is that the times have changed, and now the rules are changing. Moses' instruction was correct for his time. I don't see why not. Why can't this simply be another case of the rules changing because times have changed?

It's not simply rules changing but the very Gods changing. Jesus is marketing an entirely different God than was being marketed in Exodus or Leviticus.

In other words you are quite prepared to worship a god of situational ethics. You are prepared to worship a god that is prepared to have you and your like thinking inerrantists engage in a campaign of genocide if the situation demands it, or to execute people for minor offences against laws that you believe God has commanded.Again we have seen what war does to the men and women who fight them. PTSD is real. It destroys people's lives. As an inerrantist you believe that Yahweh personally destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Why then, when He can simply do it Himself, would He ask the people that He loved to slaughter the men women children and infants of a neighbouring community?Look at this from Numbers 15.

quote:

---

32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day.
33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly,
34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him.
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.
36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

---

You are prepared to worship a god that not only is prepared to have his people execute this poor smuck, but to do it a way that is slow and painful as well as involving the whole community in the execution.Frankly, I just don’t get it. After reading the Gospels can you really in your wildest imagination really see God as embodied by Jesus ever sanctioning such an atrocity in any time or situation?This is what comes out of making a false idol of the Bible instead of allowing God to speak through it, and using it as Paul says for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.Edited by GDR, : typo

Yes; Have you read the book of Revelation recently? Rather, your approach only allows God to speak through the parts of the Bible that you like, and insulates you from what He is trying to teach, rebuke, or correct you from the parts that you don't like.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

I don't see how the early church has any relevance to what I asked. There were already disputes in the early church about what was canonical.What I asked was whether PAUL thought HIS OWN writings were inspired (before he wrote them). Another way of asking would be, "How full of himself was he?"

Yes. I recently was part of a study of the book. You obviously insist on reading it with a 21st century mind set. It was a book written by a Jew to the Jewish members of the early Christian church. It is full of Jewish apocalyptic writing. I would also add that the writers of that time used massive exaggeration to make a point.So yes, I agree that those whose lives are totally self serving will choose a life in or of hell in both this life and the next. As C S Lewis says those that are in hell choose it.However, once again the book of Revelation is to be read through the lens of what Jesus taught and how He lived. You don't do that however when you worship an inerrant Bible instead of Jesus. No. I allow God to speak through all parts of the Bible using the lens of what Jesus taught so that I can understand how and when we get it wrong and when we get it right.
I can see when Moses said that the Lord told him that the guy should be stoned to death for picking up firewood on a Saturday that he got it wrong. When he says things like this in Leviticus -

quote:

---

15 ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. 16 ‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people. ‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD. 17 ‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. 18 ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

---

- we can see that he got it right, with the exception of that he should have pointed out that it wasn't just for their fellow Israelites but for the world. Even at that though it was a part of the progressive revelation of God and was a very good start.This is teaching, correcting and rebuking the way that God through Jesus intends.
You still haven't explained why a loving god would not only commit genocide himself but having the people he loved do the job for him knowing full well what the trauma would do to them, as well as explaining public stoning for minor offences.As a matter of fact you have left off explaining most of the points of inconsistencies concerning the nature and character of God as seen in Jesus and as we see in the OT.You just blindly going on following with a 21st century mindset that yearns to have absolute answers to all of your questions. This is a gross misuse of a collection of books that are a gift from God. It is a repudiation of the life and teaching of Jesus.Why, would you worship a god that endorses public stoning for even minor offences and that commands that the people he supposedly loves to slaughter men, women children and even infants? The only reason to worship a god like that is because you believe that he really is God and it is in your best interest to do so. This is the exact opposite of what Jesus teaches where we are to take the focus off of ourselves and live a life altruistically loving our neighbour.In the end I see an atheist that rejects that teaching could be closer to the heart of God than a Biblical inerrantist. Fortunately, the fundamentalists that I know actually do reject that god and essentially rationalize away the type of things that I mentioned and do align more with the teaching of Jesus than they do with the parts of the OT that Jesus repudiates. I have no doubt but that this is true in your case.However, in the end it is bad theology and as I say it represents Biblianity instead of Christianity and is a huge stumbling block for many who reject the Christian faith as they are led to believe that it is all Bible focused instead of Jesus focused. It turns faith and belief into a work and is the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees that Jesus so strongly criticized.

GDR, you don't know most of my positions on these issues. But instead of asking and discussing, you prefer to make unjustified assumptions and false allegations about what I believe. For example, you say that I "obviously insist on reading it with a 21st century mind set." You are simply assuming this, you don't know how I read Revelation, and you are dead wrong. I try to interpret all of Scripture in light of the historical and cultural context in which it was written.

I asked this question.Your answer was this. That isn’t an assumption, that is what you said. Based on that I have made other assumptions because you don’t answer the questions I ask so I left having to assume other things from that response. Most of it is based on the idea that you are an inerrantist so that does lead to certain assumptions. Please explain how my assumptions are wrong.
Just for starters once again how do you square the idea of a loving god with the idea that somebody should be stoned to death for picking up firewood on the Sabbath, with the added dimension how that will affect the people carrying out this atrocity.

Very briefly: God is loving, but He is not ONLY loving. He is also just, all-knowing, and many other attributes. What He does must be consistent with the entirety of His character, not only with a single attribute, like love (or worse, our modern understanding of what this single attribute means).But I don't really want to get into a discussion of inerrancy or OT genocide for a number of reasons:
1) These are difficult and complex topics, and this would start a protracted discussion which I simply do not have the time for.
2) I do not sense that anyone here really is willing to consider these views; it seems that everyone just wants to argue against them. I am not interested in arguing.
3) these are off-topic for the current thread.This thread is about "What is a true Christian?" It is NOT necessary to hold to inerrancy or to believe that God commanded genocide in order to be a true Christian.

Essentially I agree except I don't understand why you would separate His love and His justice. Perfect justice is loving. It is only difficult because there is no answer available. Jesus' teaching is totally incompatible with what God is supposed to have commanded in places in the OT. Of course in many cases it is completely compatible.If we are talking about what is a true Christian then I would think that it is necessary to sort out what is true Christianity. Anybody can call themselves a Christian I suppose and be a true Christian. It just seems to me though that it is true Christianity that is the issue. Inerrrancy is just not consistent with Christ's life or His message.