Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
That is an anthropomorphic God by necessity, since God cannot be adequately comprehended or expressed in limited human capacity. What the Bible describes is not God as He is, but a God expressed in human words will fall short of what God is.
I do not reject the revelation, but I do reject the anthropomorphism of the Bible. We can not positively express what God is. WE can only do it by negation, i.e. of what He is not.
The OT is anthropomorphism based on revelations, interpreted and expressed in human terms and human capacities. The Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Apples and oranges. One is an approximation; the other is factual reporting.
God is simple and umcompound, because only that which is simple and single, a monad, cannot be divided or subdivided, and only that which is perfectly simple is in perfect harmony with itself; complexity leads to disharmony and diversity, and diversity leads to change; God doesn't change, and God cannot be subdivided, He is One.
I suppose I'll take that as a "yes". But doesn't that ruin the Orthodox view that God has nothing to do with death? You just told me that God willed death. The OT says the same thing
He willed it for Himself, so that others may live. But He is not the source of death, since death was already ushered into the world; He merely took our sins and paid with His life for them. That was His choice. He didn't will it on anyone else.
[Kosta: And what is He going to "do" after the End of Times?] Other than reign in Heaven and be our loving Father, the Bible doesn't tell us.
Clever. Of course not. It leaves it up to our fancy, FK.
So, are you saying it is impossible to be the author of something and when the expected results happen one has reason to grieve? I remember that a few years ago there was a lone rock climber who got his arm wedged between a boulder and a wall. Knowing he was going to die because he was in a remote location, he wound up sawing off his own arm to free himself. He was the author of an expected result. You are telling me here that he had no reason to grieve the loss of his arm
That is inconsistent with the Reformed view of God. God would never be caught in such a do-or-die situation. If the world turned wicked, it wasn't a "fate" that was imposed on God so that He had to do something radically to save it, but a result of His will. And if God made the world wicked, there is no reason for Him to grieve the wickedness of the world.
He [God] willed it for Himself, so that others may live. But He is not the source of death, since death was already ushered into the world; He merely took our sins and paid with His life for them. That was His choice. He didn't will it on anyone else.
I have learned through these discussions just how fervently you ignore the OT and it still amazes me. Yet Jesus referenced the OT as God's word to be obeyed hundreds of times. I'll go with Him.
It is the same God.
It often looks like the EO try extra hard to deny an omnipotent Hebrew God in favor of a pastey, passive, regressive Greek God. But that's not accurate. Christ came to save the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:25) for a reason. All those who are His are all Jews inwardly (Romans 2:29). And the Jews have always known who is in control of both life and death. "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." -- Deuteronomy 32:39
God did not change from one testament to the next; He revealed more of Himself to us, giving us a "better testament," a fuller knowledge of the exact same omnipotent, omniscient God He has always been.
As for the OT not being "reporting," tell that to Moses and Job and David.
If God is not in control of both life and death, this would be a really frightening existence indeed. Thankfully, mercifully, all of it, one way or another, is by His hand, for His glory.
The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." -- Proverbs 16:1,4"The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, [is] from the LORD...
This is from the same God who tells us...
"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." -- John 17:2"And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." -- John 6:65
The same God who gives light to all His words...
"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue" -- 2 Peter 1:3"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" -- 2 Timothy 1:9
It is the same Scripture, the same God. Men are fallen; God is all holy. Men flee God's face; God grabs hold of whom He will and drags them to Him. Men plan; God ordains. Men stumble; God is all strength and ever victorious.
Consider Egypt. Is the God of Isaiah 19 a different God from Colossians 1?
And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom. And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards. And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts... The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit." -- Isaiah 19: 1-4,12,14
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17 "The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
Thanks for the ping.
I never said anything like that. God did create satan, but it wasn't out of need. That is your addition to what you want to believe about Reformed theology.
Now you are telling me that God absolutely hates this absolutely needed accomplisher of God's "plan" and that, in fact, God created His own enemy" not only to use but also to hate! Oh boy! This is nuttier than Star Trek.
LOL! OK, from now on I will consider the Orthodox God as a satan lover. I will also assume that the Orthodox version of Christ died on the cross FOR SATAN!!! We are taught to love our brothers so I also assume that the Orthodox God wants and commands you to LOVE SATAN!!! Wonderful, and quite illuminating. The Bible says:
Prov 6:16-19 : 16 There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
satan embodies ALL of these things and more evil besides. The enemies Jesus is talking about are HUMAN enemies. According to your above we should pray for satan (Matt. 5:44), and we should do good to satan (Luke 6:27), and we should bless satan (v. 28). That sounds like a wonderfully Godly plan of salvation for you and I wish you the best of luck with it. I'm afraid it's not for me though. :)
FK: satan only acts according to his nature, pure evil.
Okay, and where does his evil nature come from? Who created that according to the Reformed theology? Was it not God? In other words, the Reformed theology teaches that God created pure evil, that He is ultimately the source and architect of evil.
I think it is fairly well accepted that satan was created as an angel, so he was not created evil but with the potential for evil. Once he chose evil over God his nature changed. If the human nature can change it certainly is possible for an angel's nature to change. Just as God did not prevent Adam from sinning, although He could have, so also He did not prevent satan from choosing the dark side. So, satan's evil nature came into being by satan's own hands.
And I thought God can simply change our hearts...but from the way you write it seems He really likes and needs evil.
That's an odd thing to say since you just told me that your God loves satan, who IS evil. :)
Oh, boy, how noble, given that average longevity in those days wasn't much past that number!
I will pass your complaint along to the manager who instituted the policy. :)
FK: Irrelevant. The will determines inheritance rights.
Irrelevant? So, adopted children are just like furniture? I don't think so.
I don't think so either, since one cannot will his estate to a chair. It must transfer one way or another into (at least) the custody of a person or people.
But slaves were exactly that, like cattle.
With evil owners such as the Egyptians, sure. But that's not what God taught. God specifically said how slaves were to be treated and it was not like cattle.
FK: You will have to say that your source for morality disagrees with what the Bible says.
Yes it does! I find the slavery of Leviticus repugnant.
OK, and may I assume it is fine for me to think that the Orthodox God (the one who loves satan) is incompatible with the God in Leviticus? :)
It amazes me that the Reformed are stuffing Christ into the OT mold. When I said "He merely took our sins and paid with His life for them," that is what He said (John 6:51)
God came to give life, not to take it away. Christian God created life not death.
It often looks like the EO try extra hard to deny an omnipotent Hebrew God in favor of a pastey, passive, regressive Greek God
I don't speak for the EO community. I speak for myself. I have said it before and you choose to ignore it. I have no credentials to speak on account of any community. I simply give my opinions. So if you are going to take shots at my opinions do so without slinging mud on the whole Orthodox community.
Christ came to save the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:25)
Yes He did. What you left out is that He also specifically forbade going into the land of the Gentiles and even the Samaritans (which the Jews subsequently accepted as Jews!).
"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal [Deut 32:39]
Who is this speaking? Zeus? Akhriman? It certainly isn't Christ!
The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." -- Proverbs 16:4
Show me where Jesus teaches that God created evil and death.
The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit." -- Isaiah 19:14
God sends a "perverse spirit?" You call that Christian?
God grabs hold of whom He will and drags them to Him
So, we should imitate this "God" by dragging others to us? What does this teach us? You call that morality? Is this what "following" the Lord is understood by the Reformed? Is this what Christ taught?
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." -- John 6:65
Okay, in that case they didn't "follow" Christ. He simply "grabbed" them with His divine tractor beam and led them blindly. Is that what you believe?
I think I will stick with my "pasty" God. I am not into S&M.
To refresh your memory I wrote: "Reformed theology says that God intentionally created Satan for His own purpose." I can only assume that's "because somehow this God of love absolutely can't accomplish anything without the evil one!"
In other words, is this the best the Reformed God cam come up with?
Surely you don't presume God does anything that He doesn't deem absolutely necessary and that what happens is the best possible choice He will come up with.
So, yes, according to this mindset, the Reformed God created the world with evil as a, no pun intended, being a necessary evil.
Kosta: Now you are telling me that God absolutely hates this absolutely needed accomplisher of God's "plan" and that, in fact, God created His own enemy" not only to use but also to hate!
LOL! OK, from now on I will consider the Orthodox God as a satan lover. I will also assume that the Orthodox version of Christ died on the cross FOR SATAN!!!
Where are you getting this from? LOL! Take a break, FK. Who said anything about God loving Satan? You called Satan God's enemy. Well, God didn't create His enemy so He can hate him. You are twisting this in a way that borders on perverse, imo.
The Orthodox believe that Christ died for all humanity; there is no mention of fallen angels being redeemed. Your conclusions are non-sequitur, unless you are trying to caricature the Orthodox without any evidence whatsoever.
Prov 6:16-19 : 16 There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes...
Wait, is this the same God who sends "perverse spirits?" You call that Christian?
According to your above we should pray for satan
There is nothing in what I wrote above that leads to that conclusion, because I never said anything like that.
I think it is fairly well accepted that satan was created as an angel, so he was not created evil but with the potential for evil. Once he chose evil over God his nature changed. If the human nature can change it certainly is possible for an angel's nature to change. Just as God did not prevent Adam from sinning, although He could have, so also He did not prevent satan from choosing the dark side. So, satan's evil nature came into being by satan's own hands.
That sounds positively orthodox, FK, but certainly not Reformed! :)
The potential for evil was his free will, which the Reformed deny. We choose our own perdition by rejecting God.
But that's just the point: the slavers were not considered people; they were property, bought and owned, like a pet or a farm animal, to do whatever you wish with a slave, even to kill him. That's what makes is to immoral.
Read Mark Twain and his account how a slave owner killed his slave and was ostracized by the community for that, but could not be charged with murder. Today, animals have more rights than slaves used to. Food for thought next time you contemplate Bible-approved slavery.
But that's not what God taught. God specifically said how slaves were to be treated and it was not like cattle.
And how were they to be treated, FK? Could they be sold? What choice did they have? They ended up with whoever bought them—like cattle.
With evil owners such as the Egyptians, sure.
There is no historical evidence that Jews ever lived in Egypt. Surely, after 450 years allegedly there they would have left some evidence of their presence. There is none. You are treating myths and legends as facts.
OK, and may I assume it is fine for me to think that the Orthodox God (the one who loves satan) is incompatible with the God in Leviticus?
For lukers, no one ever said that God loves Satan. This is FK making conclusions without any substance. And yes, Christian God is incompatible with Liviticus.
You gave me a traffic example in which you remembered getting angry at separate drivers for different offenses. You then said it was OK to bundle all of those separate sins into one, thus relieving you of full confession. That doesn't match what you say above.
If someone threatens your life with his carelessness, or causes great deal of damage, which may result in injury or even a death of a loved one, a missed appointment, flight, whatever, it is difficult not to get angry. The important thing is not to judge. We can hate the sin but not the sinner.
But let's face it, whenever someone harms us we do not make that distinction. In the moment we are angry with THAT person. That's what I thought you meant in your traffic example. Of course righteous anger at sin itself is Biblical and justified, such as how Jesus demonstrated.
FK: There are a hundred different ways of committing adultery. Are you telling me that the confession of a single person sleeping around should be the same as that of one who consistently lies to his wife about his whereabouts and pays to have unsafe sex with a brood of prostitutes?
I presume both of them are married. In which case the answer is Yes.
When I said "A single person" I meant to indicate one who was unmarried. I don't see how my comparison would make much sense otherwise.
Is one murder any less of a sin than three in the eyes of God? Are you any less of a murder if you commit one and not three?
Well, it depends on what sense of "any less of a sin" you mean. If you mean will three murders send you "more" to hell than one lie, then "no". However, it is obvious that within the theater a triple murderer is worse than a single murderer (it is irrelevant if the murderer is married :) Beyond the common sense principle that repeating a sin is worse than committing it one time, the Bible gives us clues about this. The OT is clear that there was proportionate punishment for sin. For example, in God's system then the punishment for kidnapping was death (Ex. 21:16), but the punishment for stealing livestock was its restoration (Ex. 22:1), etc. Proportionate punishment related to proportionate sin. That only makes sense. All sin merits eternal death, but beyond that some sin is worse.
FK: That is why I say content DOES matter.
I disagree. It makes no difference if one commits adultery with a blonde, brunette or both.
Hair color is not a relevant factor in determining content here. In this specific context, two teenagers mutually fooling around is not the same as a married man of 15 years cheating on his wife and three children with some bimbo with STDs. All are committing adultery and fatal sin to be sure, but they are not the same.
FK: The intention was to get away with adultery.
You don't know that.
Are you telling me that it is not clear that David had Uriah killed so that he could have his wife and conceal the child she had conceived with David??? Remember that when Uriah came to see David he never went to sleep with Bathsheba. The Bible makes a strong point of this showing that David couldn't possibly get away with sluffing it off as Uriah's child. I'd be happy to quote the passage if you like (2 Sam. 11:2-27). After reading the whole thing, there really can be no doubt as to what happened here.
Half-brother. Is there a problem with that?
I note that you have since covered this, but I was drawing a strong and important distinction between half-brother and step-brother. For your side that would make all the difference. :) "Half" is short for "half blood".
It's amazing how different mindsets come to different conclusions. I guess we all have mental blocks to varying degrees. It's a sobering realization.
My point, and I believe this is clear from the context of what I wrote, was that judgmental anger itself was the sin to be confessed and not the day-in-and-day-out traffic details. Saying "I was angry with what appeared to be careless drivers" confesses the sin of anger based on a judgment.
I really don't know where your objections are coming from.
But let's face it, whenever someone harms us we do not make that distinction. In the moment we are angry with THAT person
That doesn't make it right. Have you ever made a mistake and gave someone inadvertently wrong information (i.e. a phone number with one number reversed)? The other person may have been cursing for days for something you didn't do with ill intention. Who committed a sin here?
When I said "A single person" I meant to indicate one who was unmarried. I don't see how my comparison would make much sense otherwise.
That's what I thought. I just can't see why a single person sleeping around is necessarily committing "adultery" and comparing him to another man who is cheating on his wife.
Well, it depends on what sense of "any less of a sin" you mean. If you mean will three murders send you "more" to hell than one lie, then "no".
Then we agree that any (unrepentant) sin leads to "death" in a sense that it will result in eternal separation from God? And that means, in the eyes of God, one sin is no different than another. I believe the New Testament reminds us that if you break one law, you have broken all of them.
The OT is clear that there was proportionate punishment for sin. For example, in God's system then the punishment for kidnapping was death (Ex. 21:16), but the punishment for stealing livestock was its restoration (Ex. 22:1), etc
Sin leads to eternal punishment of separation from God, FK. I think that is the point of the whole thing, not your temporal wordily offenses.
Who cares if you had to give back stolen cattle or if you were stoned for stealing it! You are concerned with this life and not your eternal life (I guess this is because the Reformed theology teaches that you are "saved" no matter what).
I would be more concerned with what happens to my soul in eternity because of unrepentant sin, than here on earth, or so it is what Christianity teaches us.
Proportionate punishment related to proportionate sin.
Why am I not surprised you would stick to the OT and ignore Jesus? Matthew 5:38 reinterprets the OT on this ("eye for an eye"). Jesus teaches us that it is evil to return evil for evil, FK. Christian God never returns evil for evil.
In this specific context, two teenagers mutually fooling around is not the same as a married man of 15 years cheating on his wife and three children with some bimbo with STDs
That is a cultural issue. In the eyes of God, the teenagers are also committing sin, knowingly. The OT also tells us that disrespect for the parents is punishable by death. How selectively we apply biblical laws and social standards when it suits us! Why, using the Bible one can "justify" just about anything! Slavery, murder, you name it, if it suits our agenda. But when it doesn't, then we dismiss it without saying it's wrong. What hypocrisy!
In fact, the OT (just like the Koran) prescribes unfathomable cruelty, something we would never apply to our own or even to our enemies, and something that our societies have long rejected. Yet, when it suits us, we quote the horrors of the OT as something pleasing to God and, get this, "morally" right! O tempra, o moris!
Are you telling me that it is not clear that David had Uriah killed so that he could have his wife and conceal the child she had conceived with David???
Yes, that's precisely what he did. In 6320 you wrote
The murder was an after thought, and a separate sin. If she did not conceive, he would probably not have murdered her husband, and still get away with adultery.
You are right. It was my mistake based on Mediterranean concept of "half-brother" rather than the American understanding of it. I meant step-brother. Thanks for catching that.
I have no proof that you would accept, just the Bible. :) One knows they are from God, when they are, the same way Joseph knew to listen to his dream and John knew to write down his vision. They were both believers, and God made sure they knew.
FK: How about Joseph's dream in the Gospels, did that never happen?
Of course not. It "happened" right when it was needed for the Gentiles to accept the faith without having to go through Jewish customs and circumcision. Very convenient.
OK, so if that part of the Gospels is also a lie, then you must think that Joseph was just delighted to marry Mary, thinking she had just been with another man while they were betrothed?
Jesus never told anyone to write down anything when He was on earth.
How can you know that since you reject the actual evidence concerning the subject? IOW, since you reject 97% of the Bible as fact, how can you know one way or the other what Jesus ever did or didn't do? It almost seems like you know something is false BECAUSE it's in the Bible.
Revelation borders on hallucination. If you want to treat hallucinatory experiences as eyewitness accounts, that's your prerogative.
We will both have the chance to tell God what we thought of His Holy word.
Revelation was written when it was necessary, given the context of where Christianity was at the end of the first century.
So, did God not even give His little "nudge" on that one? I.e., was Revelation inspired by your definition?
And what is God's revelation, FK? Dreams and illusions and hallucinations in a trans?
Sure, sometimes. God's revelation is in His Holy word which can be communicated through the printed page or directly through the Spirit. I believe the RCC fully accepts the concept of revelation through dreams and visions. For Catholics there are rules of course, any such revelation cannot be counter to Catholic teaching, etc., but I'm almost certain they accept the concept.
That makes everything in the Bible basically wrong (and useless) except for the Gospels. However, you just told me that Joseph's dream was bogus and that's in the Gospels.
Even from the Gospels we learn that the Apostles didn't understand fully who Christ was and earlier I mentioned their misunderstanding of the time of His second coming. So, imperfect perceptions and interpretations are the norm rather than an exception.
I thought you were saying that these misperceptions were actually BUILT INTO the scriptures. Therefore, if we follow the text we are led astray, except for parts of the Gospels. That reduces the reliable Bible to a few pages, and of course for you whatever fallible men wrote later on that you like.
Where does the Bible prescribe "worship?"
Here:
John 4:23-24 : 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
We are also given more clues in verses like James 4:8 (Come near to God and He will come near to you) and Rom. 12:2 (Do not conform any more to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.).
There is no conflict between them at all? You know that for certain? Then why do we have more than one version?
I never said or implied that there were no differences at all between the versions I mentioned. I mean that there are no material differences that would lead a reader to a manifestly different faith if he followed any of the respective texts. For example, if I switched today to using the KJV as my primary source my faith would not change one whit.
Jesus never spoke of the "core" belief. Core belief is not enough. What is the core belief? It's not even a fixed entity.
Jesus spoke about many things that can be considered "core beliefs". They include His deity, His resurrection, His atonement for our sins, and His second coming. There are other core beliefs too, such as the virgin birth and the inspiration of scriptures. There's no official list, but most of them are common sense.
Well, He could have converted the hearts and not have to go through all the blood and guts and suffering, but He didn't. That shows that He chose to play the hand dealt by man. I know this may "offend" your idea of a more powerful God, but you will have to take that up with Him.
Oh, I'll take it up with Him alright. :) I'll ask Him that if you are right, why did He lie to us about His power in His word. The possibility that you don't consider is that He orchestrated every detail of everything that has happened for His own reasons, not fully explainable by us. If God is a mere reactor to man's doings, then He is also a liar, according to the scriptures.
It is pure assumption to say that the red letters of the Gospels were intended to be the complete written revelation of God. An assumption, that is, that requires that God is a liar elsewhere in scripture. The teachings of every major church in Christianity, including your own, must be thrown out to hold this view. I accept that Paul's teachings are true because they are scripture, and they do not conflict with Christ.
FK: Christ was not a salesman. The predestined elect were always going to be saved, and the lost will always be lost. Christ completed the revelation God wanted us to have.
That's nonsense, with all due respect, FK. Then what was His preaching all about? He never said what you wrote above.
Jesus said this:
Matt 5:17-18 : 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
That is what I said above. As far as the predestination, Jesus speaks of never losing one that the Father has previously given Him.
I agree that you can't find one without the others, so you lose Christ when you dismiss the Father (and Christ) of the OT and the rest of the NT. The OT was mostly written by witnesses to the events too.
FK: That's because you see Christ's singular mission on earth to be the sum of His being. I don't know why you believe that, but to believe it WOULD require throwing out the vast majority of scriptures.
The alternative is to make Christ something other than God, something lesser, which seems to be the underlying current in many so-called Christian groups outside the Apostolic Church.
But the Apostolic Church condemns your personal view of the scriptures. The Apostolic Church holds that the scriptures are Holy, and you do not. Your true Bible is only a few pages long.
This is a great statement that ought to be paid attention to. I believe that if God had not given us the Epistles, we would really not know how to apply the Gospels (Matthew through John) correctly in this age.
Revelation was progressive from Adam to Christ, and from Christ through to the Church Epistles. The mission of Israel's Messiah and King while on earth was obviously the pinnacle of revelation at that time.
But with the rejection by Israel of their King (and the consequent rejection of the Davidic Kingdom), and having murdered Him, the Resurrected Son of God, from the Right Hand of His Father, continued to give new revelation to take us through a previously unrevealed age of the Body of Christ.
This revelation is in the Epistles, and is the Holy Spirit's guidance into all truth, promised by our Lord in John chapter 16.
ALL of the Gospel records (Matthew through John)are true, but they are not ALL the truth. There is subsequent revelation -— the pinnacle got even higher.
The Epistles are just as much the Words of God as are the Gospels. The Words in Romans through Philemon (where Paul is the human writer) are no less the words of the Lord Jesus Christ than are the words printed in red (in your Red Letter Edition) in Matthew through John. The Gospel records are the Son of God speaking from Earth. The Epistles are the Son of God speaking from the Glory, by the Holy Spirit, through Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude.
No, FK, the OT says that any work is prohibited on a Sabbath. It couldn't be more plain. [several supporting scriptures]
It is obvious then that Jesus did not consider "doing good" to be "OT work", as in the passages you cite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.