Bible verse by verse

[_Bret Ripley]

inept Mosaic law

Inept Mosaic Tile:

[_consiglieri]

You can only be a Christian if you didn't commit the unpardonable sin. That sin is the rejection of truth in the leading of the Holy Spirit which declares the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit are One God totally united in every thought, word, and deed ---- to the glorification of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your definition of the unpardonable sin is unbiblical.

Why am I not surprised?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

Hawt diggity dog, that means I'm a Biblical Christian, too!

Little Nipper has swung wide the doors!

All are welcome.

All welcome.

This house has many hearts.

[_consiglieri]

You will note that Little Nipper is avoiding answering these simple but specific questions.

And interposing vast chunks of Old Testament verbiage in order to do so.

[_subgenius]

So:
Option 1 - hide from the question.
Option 2 - claim it's no longer relevant today.

Got it.

Or, for the literate Christian -
Option 3 - Realize what the atonement means in relation to the Old Testament. For example, Moses was never allowed in the promised land....because his way was not sufficient...was not enough. Perhaps you have a different view of this, but the scriptures are pretty clear about this notion.
If you are still unclear on the concept - Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18

Is it your position that Mosaic law is the present day "rule" for Christianity? for Mormons?...if yes, then it would be interesting to understand why you believe that rather inept view of the scriptures.
such as the entire Acts 15.

The 613 moral, social, and ceremonial laws from Moses have been specifically addressed by the perfect law of liberty (Jam. 1:25), “the royal law” (Jam. 2:8), the Law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), and the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2-4).
and Romans 6-8

Does not the book of Hebrews teach that Mosaic law is only temporary?

are you yet not able to discern between these 2 testaments? or how the Mosaic law and Gospel Law relate to each other?...are you confused about why today's Christian do not marry the widow of their brother?...really?

[_Roger]

Going back to July 17, Huckelberry wrote:

To Whom?

It may be influenced by my being a firstborn child , i am revolted by the idea and view it with outright hostility no matter to whom it may be conceptually intended. If one considers ones own child however the same negatives arise. If I consider even a bit obnoxious neighbor child the reaction continues. No, it is unacceptable whether to twiddle dumb or some other.

Agreed.

I suspect that the Biblical speakers who refer to sacrifice to some other Gods are expressing their understanding that God does not desire such sacrifice so it functions as sacrifice to idols no matter who the devotee calls upon or intends the sacrifice to be for. To say it is for Molok does not require a special belief in a Molok diety, it is the speakers rejection of the idea that it is an acceptable sacrifice. ( even the Ezekiel passage makes clear however the command was made, received or understood , it was not life giving and thus would not be an acceptable sacrifice to God)

Yes, I agree. But what I am understanding mak (and I believe Bret) to be saying is that there was a time when Ex. 22:29 existed apart from the substitution disclaimer found in 13:13, which means that YHWH would have commanded child sacrifice to himself sometime in the distant past. Then hundreds of years later, guys like Ezekiel find the practice despicable and have God saying that the command he originally gave in Ex. 22:29 was a bad command.

If my understanding of their take on this is correct and if that is the correct interpretation of both Ex. and Ez., it is the greatest threat to the Christian faith I have seen yet. After looking at it for some time, however, I really don't think that is the correct interpretation. It really looks to me like Ez. 20 is not referring to Ex. 22.

I think Ezekiel makes clear he views having received the command as a mark of condemnation and that condemnation originates from God.

But it is critical to have a clear understanding of whether or not God is referring to sacrifices to him or to idols in Ez. 20. The meaning changes radically from one way to the other. The problem is, there seems to be enough ambiguity in the text to leave room for doubt.

All the best.

[_Roger]

Hi Gunnar:

That does not follow at all. If Christ's resurrection could have occurred even without incorporating the remains of his original corpse (for example, if it were entirely destroyed), that would have been an even more impressive and miraculous conquering of death, as I see it.

That's fine. Apparently either God or the Biblical authors saw it differently.

This assumes that the story of the empty tomb, including the appearance of the angel is actually true, and not fabricated by zealots long after Christ's death.

Correct.

I still think the latter is considerably more likely. They may even have deluded themselves into believing it to be true. That it is possible for even rational people to fabricate detailed, false memories without realizing their falsity is well documented--especially about something they fervently wish were true.

Possibly. I just have a difficult time thinking the delusions of at least one in the group wouldn't suddenly clear up when faced with the choice of confessing or immanent death.

Then why go to the trouble of resurrecting his physical body in the first place?

What trouble is it either way for an omnipotent being?

Why was it so important to the resurrected Christ to demonstrate that he had a physical body if that was not going to be his true form from then on?

I suppose for the real answer you would have to ask him, but, for whatever it's worth, it seems to me the whole point of Christ's coming, death and resurrection was to benefit humanity. So it would seem to follow that seeing the actual nail prints in a raised physical body might better remove the doubts of the disciples than seeing a restored and glorified body.

Isn't that at least somewhat deceptive on his part?

I don't see how. Why is it deceptive to raise a body from the dead which is later glorified?

All the best.

[_Bret Ripley]

Hi Roger! How was your vacation?

But what I am understanding mak (and I believe Bret) to be saying is that there was a time when Ex. 22:29 existed apart from the substitution disclaimer found in 13:13

More precisely: Ezekiel is referring to something in the Law, and Exodus 22:29 may preserve the tradition to which Ezekiel refers.

which means that YHWH would have commanded child sacrifice to himself

Right. There is nothing in the Law (as we know it) that even hints at consecrating/sacrificing to other gods.

sometime in the distant past. Then hundreds of years later, guys like Ezekiel find the practice despicable and have God saying that the command he originally gave in Ex. 22:29 was a bad command.

If my understanding of their take on this is correct and if that is the correct interpretation of both Ex. and Ez., it is the greatest threat to the Christian faith I have seen yet.

for what it's worth, I don't see it that way at all. I can see that it is a threat to particular views regarding the nature of inspiration (such as inerrancy), but it needn't be a threat to Christian faith. This assumes the object of faith is Christ and is not simply dedication to a specific hermeneutic (this is a distinction Nipper seems to struggle with).

[_Roger]

Hi Bret:

Hi Roger! How was your vacation?

Exhausting. Good thing I'm back home to recover. : )

Going back in time...

I think I do see your point, and I understand why you'd want to adopt that particular reading. In fact, there was a time when I may have taken that same approach.

Fair enough. Why don't you take it now? What is it about Ez. 20 that makes you think it is definitely referring to Ex 22?

Right, but I would point out that in other places Ezekiel explicitly and repeatedly references idols, but not in the place where he describes YHWH's bad statutes. Moreover, shortly before this passage (verse 18) Ezekiel portrays YHWH as explicitly prohibiting Israel from defiling themselves with idols -- the very thing your proposed reading of verse 26 has YHWH commanding.

Sure. Which is why it is described as a bad command that does not lead to life. Either way, Yahweh is saying he gave a bad commandment which is difficult to fathom. The question is whether the bad command was to sacrifice children to him or to sacrifice children to idols. It looks to me like it's bad either way, but, the sacrifice to idols interpretation makes sense to me, not only because the context seems to support it, but also because the idea of YHWH commanding child sacrifice to him seems completely out of character with what we see in the rest of the Bible.

Actually, this reading injects nothing into the text. This reading has the advantage of not injecting a "to idols" clause into verse 26, nor does it portray YHWH doing a 180 from what he had said in verse18.

I disagree. Here is the way mak interprets the verse in question:

The sentence literally reads, "I defiled them in their gifts and in the causing to pass through of the firstborn in order to desolate/appall them . . ." The verb has reference to turning over an offering or sacrifice to the altar or fire and is the same exact verb used in Exod 13:12 (KJV):

Who is "in their gifts" directed toward? The text is ambiguous. It says neither "to idols" nor "to me." To whom was the "causing to pass through of the firstborn" directed? The text is ambiguous. It says neither "to idols" nor "to me." Your interpretation requires "to me" but it isn't there. It is, at best, implied. I'm saying "to idols" appears to be the better implication given the context.

It is not "no longer extant" -- it is preserved in Exodus 22:29. Exodus preserves more than one iteration of the legal code (which is why there seems to be so much repetition), and the version preserved in 22:29 did not contain the substitution clause.

Well that's the key point you're trying to prove. Obviously the substitution clause is there now, and mak agrees (if I understand correctly) that it is included in the earliest manuscripts we have of Exodus. So the argument that there was a time when 22:29 stood on its own with no 13:13 preceding it seems to be speculation without tangible support.

Before even thinking about launching into that, it would be helpful to know how familiar you are with source criticism.

Not very.

Is not.

Well, the translation you quoted above certainly says that -- but the Hebrew text does not.

I'm referring to what Ez. 20 actually says in the entire chapter. He does say idols quite a lot.

That same context includes YHWH telling his followers not to sacrifice to idols. To make verse 26 about YHWH commanding Israel to sacrifice their children to idols makes YHWH out to be sort of ... well, schizophrenic.

Not really. It makes him fed up.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that it's more than just a case of YHWH allowing child sacrifice -- Ezekiel describes it as a formal statute or ordinance (something appearing in a law code, for instance).

Yes, and that is the troubling part for me.

Also: keep in mind that in the cultural setting we are discussing folks believed that these other gods actually existed, and that making sacrifices to them was somehow empowering to these gods.

I think you can make a case that some of the people bought into the notion that other gods had power. I don't think you can make a compelling case that any of the Biblical writers did.

This is partially what I mean when I say it would be nonsensical for Ezekiel to portray YHWH as commanding sacrifices to competing gods.

I see it as more unexpected than nonsensical.

While I agree that YHWH is portrayed as expressing exasperation, the reading you propose portrays YHWH issuing contradictory commandments (don't sacrifice to idols, you must sacrifice to idols) which simply isn't explicit in the text.

Neither option is explicit.

Switching gears a bit: do you think it more probable that the Ezekiel text means that God literally commanded child sacrifice, or that it means that Ezekiel thought that God commanded child sacrifice?

My religious background requires that I see Ez. as writing under the inspiration of God, which means when Ez. puts words in God's mouth they must be what God actually said or I had better change my views. If the latter turns out to be the best option, then I would question whether there ever was a YHWH before I would question whether Ezekiel was merely misguided.

I think the way the text reads, the best interpretation is that YHWH is saying: don't sacrifice to idols. In the past your rotten forefathers wanted to be like the nations surrounding them and were constantly building high places to sacrifice their children to idols. So much so that I finally gave in and gave them a bad commandment - sacrifice your firstborn to idols - so that they would be defiled and horrified.

Even if that's what Ezekiel is saying, I still don't like it. It's very troubling either way.

Human sacrifice to El became sacrifices to YHWH (in Exodus 6:2-3, God says to Moses: "I am YHWH. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them"). These sacrifices were incorporated into YHWH worship as reflected in the version of the code recorded in Exodus 22:29.

That would harmonize with what we see in the rest of the Biblical texts (i.e. that many of the Isrealites were constantly moving into idol worship) but it would also seem to imply that Ex. 22:29 was given and received as scripture without 13:13. Again, I don't think it is possible to conclude that without some level of doubt.

for what it's worth, I don't see it that way at all. I can see that it is a threat to particular views regarding the nature of inspiration (such as inerrancy), but it needn't be a threat to Christian faith. This assumes the object of faith is Christ and is not simply dedication to a specific hermeneutic (this is a distinction Nipper seems to struggle with).

Well that is an interesting take on it I'd like to explore a bit. I don't conclude that inspiration requires inerrancy in subsequent transmission, but it certainly requires something close to inerrancy in the original communication. I don't expect God to be making grammatical errors, for example. What does seem to me to be crucial is anything having to do with the nature of God. If one writer has God commanding something and another says God thinks the command is abhorrent and he never commanded it, we have a problem. So then we have to ask who is to blame for the problem? God? I don't think so.

From the article you posted earlier I find this:

For instance, Jeremiah 32:35 (a part of the Deuteronomistic redaction of the text[9]) reads, “And they built high places for Baal, which are in the valley of ben Hinnom in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through the fire as a mlk sacrifice. This I did not command them, nor was it in my heart (for them) to do this abomination…” The other passages in Jeremiah are similar.

So here's the problem... if your interpretation of Ez. 20 is correct, then God is saying, "yes, I did in fact command them to sacrifice their children to me, but it was a bad command" and Jer. is having God say: "no I never commanded such an abhorrent thing." This seems really problematic. Again, it raises questions of the authority of the canon. Either Ez. or Jer. is falsely putting words in God's mouth and yet somehow both books have become accepted into the current Christian canon. On the other hand, if Ez. is not referring to child sacrifice to YHWH but to idols, then that problem goes away (but raises others).

but it needn't be a threat to Christian faith. This assumes the object of faith is Christ and is not simply dedication to a specific hermeneutic (this is a distinction Nipper seems to struggle with).

The Christian faith is based on the canon (Bible). If we reach a point where we are forced to question what should and should not have been included in the canon, it seems to me the whole thing becomes questionable because the canon loses its authority. How is that not a threat to the Christian faith?

All the best.

[_LittleNipper]

You can only be a Christian if you didn't commit the unpardonable sin. That sin is the rejection of truth in the leading of the Holy Spirit which declares the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit are One God totally united in every thought, word, and deed ---- to the glorification of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your definition of the unpardonable sin is unbiblical.

Why am I not surprised?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the “unpardonable sin,” a sin unforgivable. The very thought of committing it even haunts many Christians. Clearly, our emotional outlook can affect how we listen to Scripture. There are even Christians who fear that they blasphemed the Holy Spirit.

Jesus’ teaching on the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is delivered in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but in Matthew is found the most thorough and cohesive presentation by Christ. In Matthew 12:22 we can see that Jesus healed a demon possessed man who was blind and mute. We cannot understand the significance of what follows unless we understand the wonder of this moment in first-century Palestine. A blind mute person was considered—someone dirty, someone to avoid—and this man was even demon possessed. However, Jesus healed him! Suddenly the man was able to speak and see. Instantly he was able-bodied. He could care for himself and express what he was thinking... The spectators were shocked. This was a wonderful thing! What an amazing joy and relief this must have brought to those who cared for him.

But in response to this wholesome, restorative, and undeniable miracle—undeniable even to the Pharisees—the Pharisees sneered, “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” The Pharisees attribute this miraculous healing to Satan—the “lord of the flies,” the “Prince of Darkness,” the “evil one.” The Pharisees’ response demonstrates an unequivocal hardness against God.

To refute this, Jesus spotlighted the obvious in verse 26: “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?” Such schizophrenic behavior would undermind Satan’s kingdom. But then Jesus kicks it up a notch by pointing out that no one plunders a strong man’s house without first binding the strong man, and so Jesus demonstrates that he must be casting out demons by an “authority greater than Satan.” In short, Jesus’ power over evil demonstrates what only hardheartedness would refuse to accept: Jesus healed by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Following is one of the Bible’s most sobering statements: “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (v. 31–32).

It is important to realize that the Pharisees never mention or “speak” the words “Holy Spirit” or anything even close related. It must be feasible to commit the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit without ever even uttering the words “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit.” What did the Pharisees do? Notice the context. They attributed the undeniable, unambiguous, healing work of the Holy Spirit (in this case Jesus freed the man from demonic control that had resulted in the man’s being blind and mute) to the power of Satan. This wasn’t just a misunderstanding. These Pharisees’ blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of the “truth in full awareness that that is exactly what one is doing—thoughtfully, willfully, self-consciously, and with contemptuous malice rejecting the work of the Spirit even though there can be no other explanation of Jesus’ exorcisms than that. For such a sin there can be no forgiveness.

In verses 33–34, Jesus further focuses on the Pharisees’ hardened condition. Jesus tells them that a “tree is known by its fruit” and that they are a “brood of vipers” who are “evil” and who speak out of the “abundance of the heart.” This blasphemy isn't a hastily uttered slip of the tongue or simply a mistaken apprehension of reality. It is a deliberate, and final rejection for which such will give an account of themselves on the Day of Judgment.

Those tenderhearted toward God would panic after hearing Jesus’ logical rebuke, and warning of eternal condemnation ---- not so with the Pharisees. Instead, in v. 38 we may read, “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, ’Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.’” As if to say, “Even though you have healed a blind and mute man in our presence, demonstrated your dominance over spiritual beings, and have refuted our arguments—we still need proof that what you do is of God.” In verse 39, Jesus tells them that this request further demonstrates their hardened wickedness: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign.”

The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is more than a onetime, or perhaps even a frequent, rejection, whether verbal or not, of the Holy Spirit’s testimony to Jesus.

Consider two examples in Scripture of people who initially rejected the Spirit’s testimony to Christ, but later accepted it. Jesus’ brother James grew up with Jesus, was present during the inauguration of Jesus’ miracle working ministry (John 2:11–12), and was probably present at this miracle (Matt. 12:46), but James thought that Jesus was, at the least, confused or mentally unstable (John 7:3–5). Later, however, James became a leader of the Christian church (Gal. 1:19). Then there is Paul. Who not only initially rejected the gospel of Christ, he sought to imprison and kill those who actively proclaimed it (Acts 8:1; 9:1). Later, Paul would became an apostle. It is clear the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit isn’t simply failing to acknowledge the Spirit’s testimony to Christ. Rather, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit occurs when one knowingly, intentionally, and permanently rejects the Holy Spirit’s testimony to Jesus. The blasphemy of the Spirit is a by-product of rejecting Jesus Christ.

The difference between blaspheming Jesus and blaspheming the Spirit is that blasphemy of Jesus is a moments rejection, while blasphemy of the Spirit is a permanent rejection….Once the Spirit’s testimony about God’s work through Jesus is permanently refused, then nothing can be forgiven, since God’s plan has been rejected.” Consider this rationale for why the unpardonable sin is what it is. Christians don’t believe that the Father and Son are to be less revered than the Holy Spirit. What makes sense then of why the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable is that it is the ultimate hardening of oneself against the Holy Spirit whose very work is to convict the world of sin and the truth concerning Jesus (John 16:7–9).