It's the heart versus the Bible

townhall.com ^ | 3/16/04 | Dennis Prager

[RonHolzwarth]

this site offers a used copy for sale, $35.00 - but ONLY! VOL. V. - DEUTERONOMY

http://www.used-and-rare-books.com/pi/25678.html

Author Name: ISAIAH, RABBI ABRAHAM BEN & RABBI BENJAMIN SHARFMAN
Title: THE PENTATEUCH AND RASHI'S COMMENTARY - DEUTERONOMY

but, instead of looking and looking for other used copies to complete the set,
I think you should visit this website:

http://www.learningisworship.org/default.asp

[RonHolzwarth]

to find something quick, you can't beat this:

Revised Standard Version:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/r/rsv/

King James Version:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/kjv/

[familyop]

Thank you very, very, very much! This will be a good learning experience for a whole family.

[RonHolzwarth]

http://www.biblio.com/browse_books/author/a/51/291.html

has the complete set of five available, first edition, $123.75

[California74]

Ecclesiastes, Chapter 10:
[2] A wise man's heart inclines him toward the right, but a fool's heart toward the left.


I thought you were made that up, but it's there. I have to remember that for my next debate about why God is a Republican. LOL.

[RonHolzwarth]

I sure hope the webmaster at "Learning is Worship" can keep it up - I now see he is only to Genesis Chapter 24 so far, I didn't realize that when I posted.

http://www.learningisworship.org/default.asp

[RonHolzwarth]

King James Version:
Ecclesiastes, Chapter 10:
[2] A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

Revised Standard Version:
Ecclesiastes, Chapter 10:
[2] A wise man's heart inclines him toward the right, but a fool's heart toward the left.

[qam1]

Your ignorance of the subject is breathtaking. To understand the difference, you would have to understand the difference between the Abrahamic, Mosaic and New Covenants: The fact that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law. HE is our Ten Commandment.

Translation: When it suits our purpose the Old Testament counts when it's embarrassing it doesn't.

Matthew

5:17

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

5:18

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

Luke

16:16

The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

16:17

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

The Greek word for "servant" used in these verses you cited is doulos which can be translated as "slave" "servant" or "employee."

Only by someone who wishes it doesn't say what it does. Employees call their bosses "Boss" not master.

In now way can these verses be construed that the Apostle Paul favored slavery. Nowhere in these writings does he endorse the system. In fact, in 1 Timothy 1:10 "menstealers" or "slave traders" are classified with "whoremongers," "liars" and other evildoers. The Roman world at that time was full of slaves. Some historians estimate that about 1/3 of the population of the Roman world consisted of slaves. Paul did not recommend outright revolt by slaves but rather advocated faithful service, as to the Lord.

What about Onesimus the run away slave in the book of Philemon that Paul finds.

Does Paul do anything to free or hide him? Does he at least tell the owner (His friend) slavery is wrong and to free him.

Nope our "Hero" Paul returns him.  

Jesus and Paul were supposedly working for God, They went into pretty much everything else so you think if God hated slavery he would have had at least one of them say something negative about it.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your hatred.

LOL! The ole Liberal tactic that Fundamentalist love to emulate. Accuse your opponent of what you are doing. It wasn't an Atheist who wrote this article.

[ahayes]

Since you keep on posting this list. . .

A. Yes, the existance of flawed people who were polygamists due to the pagan influences of the time do not render this ideal invalid.

B. Once again, those passages only said what was, not what ought to have been. The I Kings one is especially telling--"and his wives turned his heart away." I guess your biblically educated and impartial source also forgot Deuteronomy 17:17--"[the king] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray."

C. Oh, are you living as part of God's Chosen People, ruled by him directly and set apart from the nations around you? No? Then I guess you don't have to follow this law applying only to God's Old Testament theocracy.

D. Once again, not a law now but still a good idea.

E. Interesting that the source was trying to find something to make the Law look bad, and instead came across the law protecting a woman falsely accused of adultery from abandonment by her husband. If a man accused his wife of adultery and it was found to be false he was never allowed to divorce her for the rest of their lives so her financial wellbeing would be secured. However, others did divorce, and it was not forbidden because, as Jesus said, of the "hardness of your heart." Jesus went beyond this and said that divorce should not occur, but he was far from writing any laws about. The laws that Jesus gave are to rule a believer's heart, but not necessarily be codified.

E. Once again, a tradition to provide for a woman's wellbeing. If her husband died and left her childless, his brother was supposed to marry her so they could have children to care for her in her old age and to inherit her husband's money. This tradition now no longer applies.

Now you see why we ignore it when you post this list?

[Skooz]

You are very good a copying/pasting verses you do not understand, and very poor at arguing your point.

Christians do not live under the Mosaic Law. If we did, we would sacrifice sheep, goats and turtledoves regularly. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, and by doing so, He essentially did away with the tenents of the law.

In other words, He is the one sacrifice for all sins from then on. Therefore, the entire Mosaic Law is, in essence, invalidated by Christ. You might want to try reading the books of Galatians and Hebrews. They explain it far better and in more detail than I can here.

Christianity ended the Western slave trade in the 18th Century. That is incontrovertable historical fact. No Historians dispute that. To do so betrays an astonishing ignorance of history.

[ahayes]

How about the NASB? It's generally recognized as the most literal translation, although that strictness sometimes hampers the flow of the text.

I Cor. 6:9-11

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

[Wallace T.]

In the Old Testament, there were three types of law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. The civil law were the statutes that governed ancient Israel, a nation with a unique, covenantal relationship with God that no modern nation has. The various statutes decreeing punishment for crimes, establishing weights and measures, etc., were applicable only to the nation of Israel. With the fall of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD and the expulsion of the Jews from the Holy Land, ancient Israel ceased to exist, and therefore the statutes did as well. The ceremonial laws, with their sacrifices and rituals, presaged the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. When Jesus declared, "It is finished" before He died, the sacrificial and ceremonial character of the Old Law was ended. The tearing of the veil of the temple upon His death also symbolized the ending of the Jewish church.

However, the stipulations of the moral law were not abolished. The moral law applies to all men at all times, while the civil law applied to one nation only and the ceremonial law was rendered void by the Cross and Jesus' Resurrection. We are saved by grace and not by works, which would include obedience to the moral law. "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." (Romans 3:31) Without the moral law, we would lack guidelines to know whether we have transgressed. "for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation." (Romans 4:15) We express our love for our Savior by obedience. "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:15)

To deny the continued applicability of the moral law in this church age is to fall into the antinominalism that has plagued much of the evangelical church. Poor teaching in all too many churches and failure to condemn sin in the congregation from the pulpit have led to the abominable statistics regarding the moral behavior of supposedly born-again Christians in sexual, business, and other ethical matters.

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his observations about early 19th Century America, noted that the secret of America's greatness could be found in its pulpits on Sunday mornings "aflame with righteousness." He observed that America is great because she is good. When she ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.

[steve-b]

Er, nope. The West has a "Christian Tradition" when it was burning heretics at the stake. The difference between the West and certain other cultures (coughfundamentalistislamcough) is that the former secularized the machinery of political power.

[steve-b]

The Greek word for "servant" used in these verses you cited is doulos which can be translated as "slave" "servant" or "employee."

While we're on the subject, what translation do you use at the moment for the words "alone", "sex" and "is"?

[mdmathis6]

Thanks...I'll book mark the links!

[Skooz]

The West has a "Christian Tradition" when it was burning heretics at the stake.

Uh, huh. Attempting to reason with such willful ignorance is pointless. I leave you to your delusions and hate.

[Wallace T.]

No language is precisely the same as another. Nor are languages static. One of the problems many readers have with the KJV is that a number of words that had different meanings in 1611 than they do in 2004, not to mention other words that have become obsolete. It is therefore quite possible for a Greek word such as doulos to have three potential meanings in English, just as the English word "love" can be rendered with one of three different koine Greek words.

[tdadams]

The fact remains, slavery was opposed by Christians on a moral basis.

I don't argue with that, but where did that moral basis come from? Certainly not the Bible, since the Bible condones and justifies slavery.

This moral basis must have been extra-Biblical, but you can't get some here to admit that morality is based on more than the Bible. It must cause a lot of cognitive dissonance for them.

[ahayes]

Here's a passage none of the "Bible is pro-slavery!" people have turned up:

Deuteronomy 23:15-16

"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him."

And here is the text of Philemon, emphasis mine:

"Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker, and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

"I thank my God always, making mention of you in my prayers, because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints; and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ's sake. For I have come to have much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother.

"Therefore, though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do what is proper, yet for love's sake I rather appeal to you--since I am such a person as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus--I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. I have sent him back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me.

"But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well). Yes, brother, let me benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, since I know that you will do even more than what I say.

"At the same time also prepare me a lodging, for I hope that through your prayers I will be given to you.

"Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit."

It appears that Onesimus ran away to Paul and was converted while with him. Apparently Onesimus consented to return to Philemon's service, as it's hard to believe Paul, who looked on him as a son, would force him to go back if he didn't want to--especially as he had Old Testament law to back up his refusal to send him back. It isn't hard to read the subtext of this letter: "If you don't do as you should and free him, you will be sinning and spurning my counsel."

The Old Testament allowed the Israelites to purchase slaves from the surrounding countries, but had laws to protect them from mistreatment. It was absolutely forbidden and punishable by death to sell another Jew into slavery. Israelites who went into service to pay off debts were freed in the year of Jubilee and their debts were forgiven.

The New Testament once again holds God's people to a higher standard. While the early Christians were not required to revolt and try to end the Roman practice of slavery any more than they were to revolt against the Roman's oppression of their people, they were encouraged to free their own slaves. If they refused to free their slaves they were reminded that in God's eyes they were all equal (Gal. 3:26-28, Eph. 6:9, Col. 4:1).

The relative silence of the New Testament on this topic probably arises from the New Testament emphasis on the dignity of service to others--all were to be servants (Mark 10:43-45). As well, the New Testament teaches us to be content in whatever situation we find ourselves in (Phil. 4:11-13). I Corinthians 7:20-24 says, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to."

[breakem]

Thanx for telling me what God intended.