No. But does it say you you shall break it to save someone's life? The message is not that it's okay to break the Law of God as we see fit, but by fact that the Pharisees in their hypocrisy accused Christ of breaking the Law to save a man's life when they would think nothing of tending to their live stock.
It was called a sin by the Pharisees, who notoriously misinterpreted the scriptures. Jesus illuminated that misinterpretation
What does the Law say? The Bible is full of references to the sabbath. One thing is clear, sabbath is to be the day of complete rest, no exceptions cited.
Of course I put them on the same level, they are ALL the inspired word of God
Correction, FK: the Gospels are the words of God. Not inspired, actual living words of God, quoted not through a dream as one remembered, but spoken. You treat the experience of mortal conduits on the same plane as the actual words God spoke in Flesh.
But that's because of how the Protestants/Baptists see the Bible. I have already told you, the Eastern orthodox Church considers the Bible is spiritually inerrant but not free form human errors.
If the Bible is without errors, then the Bible is God. Do you worship the Bible? I don't think those protestants who make little ears to mark the pages or use highliters to write all over the biblical text treat the Bible as a God. Yet we all know that only God is without errors.
What are you talking about? Only the MOST liberal (and false) interpretation of the OT could possibly be seen as to support abortion
The OT speaks of killing children as an act commanded by God. Even God himself kills all the firstborn in Exodus. Is this the same God we know saying "Blessed are the merciful..."?
The OT is clearly the primary source AGAINST abortion.
Really? Where does it say that?
And, the OT never says it is OK for men to kill infidels on their own authority. It always took a direct communication and order from God Himself. God's creation is His to do with as He pleases. He will show mercy on those whom He will, etc
God does not kill. God is Life. He gives Life. That Jews believed God kills is part of their partial revelation.
While the OCA website DOES back you up, this view is in a clear minority. The following is from the New Advent...
FK, this little chart will show you that the New Advent, which sites second and thrid century testimony as "proof." Today we have a little more proof that 2 Pater was not written by Peter, and not even in the 1st century but around 100 AD at the earliest. 1 Peter was writtne no earlier than 80 AD, so that ione as wlel could not have been written by Peter.
But Bible research shows that early proposed canons (2nd and 3rd centuries) did not include or consider 2 Peter as inspired.
| Athanasius (b. 296) |
Origen (b. 185) |
Irenaeus (b. 130) |
Marcion* (b. 85) |
| Matthew | Matthew | Matthew | |
| Mark | Mark | Mark | |
| Luke | Luke | Luke | Luke |
| John | John | John | |
| Acts | Acts | Acts | |
| Romans | Romans | Romans | Romans |
| 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians | 1 Corinthians |
| 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians |
| Galatians | Galatians | Galatians | Galatians |
| Ephesians | Ephesians | Ephesians | Ephesians |
| Philippians | Philippians | Philippians | Philippians |
| Colossians | Colossians | Colossians | Colossians |
| 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians | 1 Thessalonians |
| 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians |
| 1 Timothy | 1 Timothy | 1 Timothy | |
| 2 Timothy | 2 Timothy | 2 Timothy | |
| Titus | Titus | Titus | |
| Philemon | Philemon | Philemon | Philemon |
| Hebrews | Hebrews | Hebrews | |
| James | James | James | |
| 1 Peter | 1 Peter | 1 Peter | |
| 2 Peter | 2 Peter | 2 Peter | |
| 1 John | 1 John | 1 John | |
| 2 John | 2 John | 2 John | |
| 3 John | 3 John | 3 John | |
| Jude | Jude | Jude | |
| Revelation** | Revelation | Revelation |
* Marcion's views were peculiar to his sect. He was aware of the fact that many of the other books were read as scripture in most churches.
** The Revelation of John was first received and then rejected by many churches in Asia Minor.
Now, many say that Marcion accepted only Paul's writings. Why is that? Maybe because other books were not available at the time he was making the list.
Irenaeus was at the height of his career towards the end of the 2nd century and Origen's work is 2rd century work It's Athanasius' canon (latter 4th century) that was accepted by the Church eventually in its present form.
Correctiopn: Origen’s work is 3rd, not 2nd century work as I wrote It’s way too late. I am going to bed...Good night everyone.
No. But does it say you you shall break it to save someone's life?
There is the letter of the law, which is too simplistic in rare cases, and then there is the spirit of the law as it was intended. For example, I think we would agree that suicide is against the law and is a sin. However, Jesus tells us plainly that there is no greater gift than to die for a friend. Throwing myself on a grenade to save my buddies is suicide by the letter of the law, but it is obviously not sinful by what Jesus said. Same thing here.
One thing is clear, sabbath is to be the day of complete rest, no exceptions cited.
As BD is saying, what constitutes "rest"? And is the point of the law here really to rest, or is it to be sure to set aside time for the Lord? I think the latter.
Correction, FK: the Gospels are the words of God. Not inspired, actual living words of God, quoted not through a dream as one remembered, but spoken. You treat the experience of mortal conduits on the same plane as the actual words God spoke in Flesh.
Every word in the Bible is quoted through a human conduit. The only possible way it could matter if the conduit was relaying a dream or an eyewitness experience is if one thinks that the Bible contains error. I do not, therefore the genre of the source is irrelevant. It either IS God's word through men or it is something else. But if the Bible DOES contain human error, as you go on to say, then I can fully understand why you would focus on the Gospels. That would fit. I just don't understand why the Orthodox Church thinks that God would allow His own Holy word to be polluted like that.
If the Bible is without errors, then the Bible is God. Do you worship the Bible?
That doesn't follow. The Bible is FROM God THEREFORE it has no errors. You say that Mary was without sin. Wouldn't that make her God under this view?
The OT speaks of killing children as an act commanded by God. Even God himself kills all the firstborn in Exodus. Is this the same God we know saying "Blessed are the merciful..."?
But it was never given as a RULE. It was only in specific circumstances that God commanded that. We today can take no entitlement from that absent another appearance from God commanding the same. Apparently, that hasn't happened in quite a while.
And as to mercy, and given our shared view on how children who die are treated by God, and given the greatest likelihood that all of those OT children would have grown up to oppose the one true God, then God DID actually show them mercy by killing them when He did (or ordered it). :) He saved them from their own virtually assured future.
FK: "The OT is clearly the primary source AGAINST abortion."
Really? Where does it say that?
There are plenty of examples. Here are some showing legal personhood in God's eyes, thus making it wrong to kill the unborn:
Job 31:15 : Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?
Ps 22:9-10 : 9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. 10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.
Ps 139:13-16 : 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Isa 44:2 : This is what the Lord says — he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.
Isa 46:3 : "Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth.
Jer 1:4-5 : 4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Luke 1:41-42, 44 : 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! ...... 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
I think all of these go to show how God views an unborn baby. He or she exists as a person at conception, at which time all the OT rules against the murder of innocent life would apply.
But Bible research shows that early proposed canons (2nd and 3rd centuries) did not include or consider 2 Peter as inspired.
Thank you for the links and the chart. But as we know the Church DID ultimately decide that both were inspired. Since many still dispute the authorship of Hebrews, but apparently do not question its inspiration, I suppose I am a little confused about whether there is a difference between discussing authenticity and authorship.