Faith in the living, resurrected Word (while the scriptures are only 50% historically accurate).

Saint Steven said:

I agreed with you that he said "the law or the prophets" in the Matt verse. My 'point of question' was based upon you assuming that "the law" without mention of it being "the law of Moses" in the Luke verse made it correct to assume they were the same "law". I still don't know. But don't feel like I'm saying 'you're wrong'.

But the Law of the prophets doesn't necessarily mean the "law of Moses".

MAT 7:12 So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Do you know where that the above bold is in the "law of Moses"?

Time for bed.

Click to expand...

I would say that every one of these passages you quoted below in your post, mostly refers to the books of 'the law of Moses'....mostly.

Matthew 5:17
“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.

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 11:13
For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

Matthew 22:40
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Luke 16:16
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.

Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Acts 13:15
After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”

Acts 24:14
However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.

Romans 3:21
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Click to expand...

But I have a comment to make on two verses of your list above.
Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Since when is "the Psalms" part of 'the law'? I agree it was part of 'the scriptures'....(I'm still thinking about the OP question).

But I also have lots of verses you never looked up and quoted. Verses which made me start down this bunny trail to begin with.

1CO 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law.

Is not "the law of Moses" you're thinking of, separated in this verse comparing it WITH the "law of Christ". And is Paul really worried about those outside "the law" of Moses here? I'm of the persuasion he cares not about 'the law of Moses', he cares about those outside the law of Christ.

ROM 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.

Here we again have TWO comparative "the laws" in one verse. I hope you can see where my thinking has merit...for me anyway. Not claiming revelation mind you. Just claiming the liberty 'to think outside the box'.

Question; do you think this "law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus" is an OT law, or a NT law? Did Jesus fulfill the law of Moses by fulfilling the resurrection life which "Christ Jesus" was called to. Remember there was no 'Christ JESUS the man' in the OT.....IMO, IMHO.

ROM 7:23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.

Again we have TWO COMPARATIVE laws in the same verse and one of them LIVES in me/us. IS that the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES of the TORAH? Of course not.

OK, I'm not really wanting to keep beating what is really just a 'question for me'. I just threw it out initially because 'the take' you first expressed on the two verses has always set off a ping in me. Maybe it's just 'me', I admittedly don't know. But there's plenty of other stuff to dwell on here for you guys to play with.

And besides 'that reason' to move on, I also have another. I'm bracing for my next holiday onslaught with the arrival of my brother in law and his kids, in-laws and grand kids which end up overflowing from Grandma's into my house as they come EVERY YEAR to see Grandma....always the week AFTER CHRISTMAS. So I get to start beating that holiday drum again with 8 of his family living in my house. I know, I know....pray for this Scrooge....yes I do need it....every stinking year. But only do so as 'the Sspirit leads'.....

Hillsage said:

OK, I'm not really wanting to keep beating what is really just a 'question for me'. I just threw it out initially because 'the take' you first expressed on the two verses has always set off a ping in me. Maybe it's just 'me', I admittedly don't know. But there's plenty of other stuff to dwell on here for you guys to play with.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that there are MANY kinds of "laws" in the Bible. Romans seven and eight refers to about five or six different kinds. And it's good that you get a "ping" when you see the phrase "the law". Although, for the most part it needs to be "the law of..." (fill in the blank), to be something besides "the Law of Moses", as you put it. Which would still be a reference to the books. IMHO --- Usually when it is "the law" (with no "of") it means the law that God gave to the Israelites alone through Moses. Not the books, but the actual laws. And I would discluded the narrative, history and prophetic statements. Just the laws themselves. This scripture uses the term BOTH ways.

Romans 3:21
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But when the phrase is "the Law or the Prophets", it is abundantly clear to me what it means. And I have seen many claim that Matt.5:17 says that "the law" (the law that God gave to the Israelites alone through Moses) has not been abolished, or set aside.

Many years of debate with Sabbatarians led me to develop a stance on this subject.

Hillsage said:

Question; do you think this "law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus" is an OT law, or a NT law? Did Jesus fulfill the law of Moses by fulfilling the resurrection life which "Christ Jesus" was called to. Remember there was no 'Christ JESUS the man' in the OT.....IMO, IMHO.

Click to expand...

No, that's not the OT law.

The word "of" after "the law" means it is not the law of Moses, or the law God gave to the Israelites through Moses, contained in the book of Moses. Just to be clear.

Galatians 3:1-5
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

Saint Steven said:

Yes, I agree it's a bit sketchy. - lol
The fact that they were both prophets seems to account for the similarities.
I look for more than that to call something a "type" of Christ. But I'll have to admit, I'm certainly not well studied in that area.

Click to expand...

Come on Steve, be a little generous.

The multiplication of loaves:
scripture

That's a pretty bang-on precedent. He's not just loafing around.

The purification of Jericho's water with 'a new bowl and salt':
scripture

Jesus with 'salt of the earth', 'salted with fire' and 'new wineskins'. Jericho's dirty land and water symbolising the flesh polluted with sin.

The pattern of salvation/ restoration in many of Elisha's miracles shows the Spirit of Christ alive and well in Elisha.

Saint Steven said:

Which reminds me of a nagging thought. It seems to me that references in the NT to OT passages are oftentimes misquotes, or have nothing to do with the context of the passage quoted. Have you noticed that? This might actually feed us back into the OP subject. Does that detract from inerrancy? OT misquotes.

Click to expand...

I've heard that's because the NT writers are quoting from the Septuagint, but haven't verified that's the case.

The real issue here imho arises from the difference between an oral and written tradition. Trying to capture a dynamic living form of expression is kind of like trying to show the beauty of a butterfly by pinning it to a board. It's then further garbled by translations, textual variants and so on. Knowledge may increase, but men run to and fro!

So I'd go as far as to say if inerrancy is merely a literal concept, it's like putting a clean suit on a corpse. Only the spirit gives life!

Shrewd Manager said:

Come on Steve, be a little generous.

The multiplication of loaves:
scripture

That's a pretty bang-on precedent. He's not just loafing around.

The purification of Jericho's water with 'a new bowl and salt':
scripture

Jesus with 'salt of the earth', 'salted with fire' and 'new wineskins'. Jericho's dirty land and water symbolising the flesh polluted with sin.

The pattern of salvation/ restoration in many of Elisha's miracles shows the Spirit of Christ alive and well in Elisha.

Click to expand...

Sure, I'll give you that is a generous sense.

As I read your post I was remembering Moses doing some of these things. (water purification, manna/bread, etc.)
So I tend to assign these things to the office of Prophet.
Perhaps I hold "type of Christ" as a high office, if you will. And as I said, not very well studied in that area.

Shrewd Manager said:

I've heard that's because the NT writers are quoting from the Septuagint, but haven't verified that's the case.

The real issue here imho arises from the difference between an oral and written tradition. Trying to capture a dynamic living form of expression is kind of like trying to show the beauty of a butterfly by pinning it to a board. It's then further garbled by translations, textual variants and so on. Knowledge may increase, but men run to and fro!

So I'd go as far as to say if inerrancy is merely a literal concept, it's like putting a clean suit on a corpse. Only the spirit gives life!

Click to expand...

Yes, that happens too. But I am talking about citations that completely miss the mark.
Like this pair. In context this was to be fulfilled in the lifetime of Ahaz. Therefore not a messianic prophecy.

Matthew 1:22-23
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Isaiah 7:14-16
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

Saint Steven said:

As I read your post I was remembering Moses doing some of these things. (water purification, manna/bread, etc.)

Click to expand...

The manna is a type/ shadow of Christ. 'I am the bread of life!'

Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. (Jn 6:32)

The rock of Horeb is a type of Christ. The rock in the desert that is smote and gushes forth water.

Jesus even tells us that the brazen serpent is a type. Is the brazen serpent elevated enough for you?

This is how Jesus himself interprets the scriptures. Like the KJV, if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

So our challenge is to find Christ in EVERY prophecy, miracle and event in the OT. That was what was revealed to the disciples on the Emmaus Rd.

Saint Steven said:

Yes, that happens too. But I am talking about citations that completely miss the mark.
Like this pair. In context this was to be fulfilled in the lifetime of Ahaz. Therefore not a messianic prophecy.

Matthew 1:22-23
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Isaiah 7:14-16
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

Click to expand...

I think we're supposed to interpret it with a generous spirit. They named him Jesus (God's salvation), not Immanuel (God with us). Details, mere details lol.

Shrewd Manager said:

I think we're supposed to interpret it with a generous spirit. They named him Jesus (God's salvation), not Immanuel (God with us). Details, mere details lol.

Click to expand...

The virgin birth is of creedal importance. I don't think we can just brush it aside with a shrug. Makes me wonder who the virgin mother and godchild of Ahaz' time was. I don't think they were even named. I'll have to go back and read it again. And what land of two kings was laid to waste when the child was old enough "to reject the wrong and choose the right"? (Isaiah 7:14-15)

BTW: I got a copy of The Message Bible and have begun reading it. I started with the Gospel of John.

Shrewd Manager said:

I think we're supposed to interpret it with a generous spirit. They named him Jesus (God's salvation), not Immanuel (God with us). Details, mere details lol.

Click to expand...

But back to the OP for a moment here.
Those who claim inerrancy revere these details as being 100 percent accurate. I know you don't care one way or the other, but how does this effect the question of the OP? Let's review that.

"Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that only 50% of the scriptures are (in some sense) historically accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. Assuming this were true, how would this affect they way you think about the scriptures?" - public hermit

Saint Steven said:

The virgin birth is of creedal importance. I don't think we can just brush it aside with a shrug.

Click to expand...

What am I missing? I don't see how the accounts of the virgin birth in the Gospels are diminished by a historicist reading of Isaiah's prophecy?

Saint Steven said:

BTW: I got a copy of The Message Bible and have begun reading it. I started with the Gospel of John.

Click to expand...

Okay, be interested to know how it compares to the more traditional versions, especially on the damnation scriptures.

Shrewd Manager said:

Okay, be interested to know how it compares to the more traditional versions, especially on the damnation scriptures.

Click to expand...

It's not a study Bible and not intended to be particularly UR friendly. But is in some cases.
Frankly, I'm still trying to get used to it. The contemporary language is pretty casual. - lol
It is helping me to read these stories with fresh eyes though. I'm hoping to gain from it, once I settle into it.

Shrewd Manager said:

What am I missing? I don't see how the accounts of the virgin birth in the Gospels are diminished by a historicist reading of Isaiah's prophecy?

Click to expand...

I know it doesn't matter to you. I am referring to those to whom it is VERY important. The biblical inerrancy folks.

And seriously, any facts that erode the standard creed ARE a BIG deal.
In this case the messianic prophecy of Jesus' virgin birth is in question.
Just to be clear, not the virgin birth itself.
This is the claim made here, right in our Bible.

Matthew 1:22-23
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Saint Steven said:

But back to the OP for a moment here.
Those who claim inerrancy revere these details as being 100 percent accurate. I know you don't care one way or the other, but how does this effect the question of the OP? Let's review that.

Click to expand...

Inerrancy is really a bit of a legalistic red herring. The real issue is how we understand scripture and communicate the gospel. So to say it's inerrant and then preach turn or burn, well what does that achieve? The Pharisees compassed land and sea to make converts, who then became twice as much sons of hell as them. Believing in inerrancy doesn't get anyone closer to God, and probably just the opposite.

Plus as you point out, there are anomalies and inconsistencies on a literal inerrancy approach. It's fraught, don't you think?

Saint Steven said:

It's not a study Bible and not intended to be particularly UR friendly. But is in some cases

Click to expand...

With any translation, I generally check the hell texts first to see how 'conditioned' the translator is lol. A good barometer of the slant of translation generally..?

Shrewd Manager said:

Inerrancy is really a bit of a legalistic red herring. The real issue is how we understand scripture and communicate the gospel. So to say it's inerrant and then preach turn or burn, well what does that achieve? The Pharisees compassed land and sea to make converts, who then became twice as much sons of hell as them. Believing in inerrancy doesn't get anyone closer to God, and probably just the opposite.

Plus as you point out, there are anomalies and inconsistencies on a literal inerrancy approach. It's fraught, don't you think?

Click to expand...

Right, I don't agree with inerrancy. I'm trying to get us back on topic. Which requires considering the view from the perspective of inerrancy to address the issue.

"Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that only 50% of the scriptures are (in some sense) historically accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. Assuming this were true, how would this affect they way you think about the scriptures?" - public hermit

Shrewd Manager said:

With any translation, I generally check the hell texts first to see how 'conditioned' the translator is lol. A good barometer of the slant of translation generally..?

Click to expand...

I couldn't recommend it from that perspective. Eugene Peterson is only partially UR. I don't think he was totally settled on the issue when this work was done.

You should run your check list on it and let me know how it rates.
Right after you finish the outline for Revelation. - lol

Saint Steven said:

I couldn't recommend it from that perspective. Eugene Peterson is only partially UR. I don't think he was totally settled on the issue when this work was done.

You should run your check list on it and let me know how it rates.
Right after you finish the outline for Revelation. - lol

Click to expand...

You can't hurry revelation lol. But don't get me wrong, I don't just cast Bibles contemptuously into the pit the moment I see 'Gehenna' translated as 'Hell', but it does instantly enlighten me as to the theology and background of the translators especially in the critical fields of eschatology and soteriology.

Saint Steven said:

"Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that only 50% of the scriptures are (in some sense) historically accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. Assuming this were true, how would this affect they way you think about the scriptures?" - public hermit

Click to expand...

If the Bible is only half accurate then how would I (an a hypothetical 'inerrantist') be confident I had the right gospel? Only by leaning more heavily on personal revelation? But that's my point, the inerrancy brethren are generally damnationists. So the problem is not with the scriptures, but with the reader. So breaking the rubric created by Calvinist-type thinking might actually have them open their hearts and minds to the spirit?

Shrewd Manager said:

If the Bible is only half accurate then how would I (an a hypothetical 'inerrantist') be confident I had the right gospel? Only by leaning more heavily on personal revelation? But that's my point, the inerrancy brethren are generally damnationists. So the problem is not with the scriptures, but with the reader. So breaking the rubric created by Calvinist-type thinking might actually have them open their hearts and minds to the spirit?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think this whole subject makes a good point about "putting all our eggs" in the inerrancy basket, if you will. There are obvious problems with "inerrancy", so where does that leave them? It seems to me that "inerrancy" is the fastest way to create a house of cards out of your faith. Pull one card and the whole thing comes down.

Matthew 7:24-26
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.