Passage from the Bible

[holymoly]

I'm reading a book by Sam Harris, which quotes the following passage from the Bible:

 

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God"

 

Deuteronomy 13:7-11

 

I'm wondering if the Christian guys on the board can explain why they believe in the Bible when it has stuff like this in it.

 

Disclaimer - I know this may come across as hostile to Christianity! I really don't mean it to be, I'm reading a lot about faith these days, mostly from the athiest viewpoint, and I feel I'm not getting the religious perspective on the subject, so I thought I'd ask you guys, I know there are some religious folk on here

[The Doctor]

Hey! You'd not have got a bet on who'd reply first would you?

 

I think you need to understand the context of this first and foremost. Moses gets the law whilst the Israelites are wandering in the wilderness, looking for and waiting to be led to the promised land. They are a people who are dispossessed, nomadic, they are refugees. They have had hundreds of years of influence from Egypt where they had been slaves and are surrounded by tribes who worship idols and other false gods. A huge part of the Israeli psyche is to keep that nation pure in their allegiance to Yahweh against pressure from all sides to conquer them and from within as these refugee people had their faith tested during the years in the wilderness.

 

The exclusivity of God's place in their society was central and crucial to their teaching and thinking. They'd just got the 10 commandments, the first and so most important of which was "You shall have no other Gods before me". Whilst Moses was getting the commandments the people had made an idol in the shape of a golden calf! They were under a great deal of pressure, they needed led and they needed these strong and definite rules to survive as a society.

 

To us today they seem extreme, harsh, unforgiving, but in context, to me they make sense. It was necessary for the nation of Israel to survive.

 

For me as a Christian it is far less relevant. The sacrificial death of Jesus, anathema to Jews, allows Christians to be free from the law. I am not under or bound by the law of Moses. All the law can do is convict people, it can only find them guilty, believing in Jesus allows me to be found not guilty! That doesn't mean that the OT is irrelevant or false, or even that the NT supersedes it. It compliments it. What the law was powerless to do, to make people free of guilt, Jesus achieved. Paul writes in Romans 2 that the law is written on the hearts of Christians.

 

It would probably be better if you got a Jew to answer your question HM. I don't know any who post on JKB though. It's really their faith, their religion, not mine!

[holymoly]

Hey! You'd not have got a bet on who'd reply first would you?

 

I think you need to understand the context of this first and foremost. Moses gets the law whilst the Israelites are wandering in the wilderness, looking for and waiting to be led to the promised land. They are a people who are dispossessed, nomadic, they are refugees. They have had hundreds of years of influence from Egypt where they had been slaves and are surrounded by tribes who worship idols and other false gods. A huge part of the Israeli psyche is to keep that nation pure in their allegiance to Yahweh against pressure from all sides to conquer them and from within as these refugee people had their faith tested during the years in the wilderness.

 

The exclusivity of God's place in their society was central and crucial to their teaching and thinking. They'd just got the 10 commandments, the first and so most important of which was "You shall have no other Gods before me". Whilst Moses was getting the commandments the people had made an idol in the shape of a golden calf! They were under a great deal of pressure, they needed led and they needed these strong and definite rules to survive as a society.

 

To us today they seem extreme, harsh, unforgiving, but in context, to me they make sense. It was necessary for the nation of Israel to survive.

 

For me as a Christian it is far less relevant. The sacrificial death of Jesus, anathema to Jews, allows Christians to be free from the law. I am not under or bound by the law of Moses. All the law can do is convict people, it can only find them guilty, believing in Jesus allows me to be found not guilty! That doesn't mean that the OT is irrelevant or false, or even that the NT supersedes it. It compliments it. What the law was powerless to do, to make people free of guilt, Jesus achieved. Paul writes in Romans 2 that the law is written on the hearts of Christians.

 

It would probably be better if you got a Jew to answer your question HM. I don't know any who post on JKB though. It's really their faith, their religion, not mine!

 

Thanks for the answer Sweeny! Still trying to figure it all out

 

This stuff taxes my intelligence!

[Sheriff Fatman]

To us today they seem extreme, harsh, unforgiving, but in context, to me they make sense. It was necessary for the nation of Israel to survive.

 

Maybe, apart from the "If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother" bit. The son of your father or of your mother is your brother, so why mention it twice.

 

The sacrificial death of Jesus, anathema to Jews, allows Christians to be free from the law

 

So why did Jesus say "You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete. This means that whoever now relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do the same will himself be called least in Heaven."

 

Why do so many Christians pick and chose those bits of the Law that they like and say that they are the ones that are still to be adhered to whilst ignoring the ones that are vile and disgusting?

[Commander Harris]

Maybe, apart from the "If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother" bit. The son of your father or of your mother is your brother, so why mention it twice.

 

it is refering to half brothers as well. Therefore it says brothers(natural brothers) and goes on to say "son of your father or of your mother" as this would include half brothers.

 

 

So why did Jesus say "You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete. This means that whoever now relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do the same will himself be called least in Heaven."

 

Why do so many Christians pick and chose those bits of the Law that they like and say that they are the ones that are still to be adhered to whilst ignoring the ones that are vile and disgusting?

 

jesus here is speaking in his introduction to the sermon on the mount. He is setting up what he is about to say - it is not enough to follow the letter of the law, we have to go further than that. Where the letter of the law says do not murder, the spirit of the law goes even further, do not be angry with your brother. Where the letter of the law says do not commit adultery, the spirit of the law goes even further, do not even look at a woman with lustful intent. The letter of the law allows for divorce, but the spirit of the law says that this is only appropriate in cases of adultery - for other purposes it is adulterous.

 

Jesus goes on telling us to go further than the letter of the law. That is what he is meaning in his introduction. The ceremonial law has been fufilled in Jesus but there is a law that is greater and that we keep, not for the purpose of ticking boxes and keeping rules, but to keep in the right spirit and for the right reasons.

 

In answering your questions - there are laws that were given just to the nation of Israel - they were laws for that time and for that people. The ceremonial laws of cleanliness for example, other laws that were there to show the distinctiveness of Israel in that time(like the example cited in the OP), there are other things that are clear prinicpals for all - these we do keep, but not for legalistic reasons.

 

sorry, if that's a bit rambly

[The Doctor]

Commander, you put that better than I could ever.

[neobis]

from the Bible:

 

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God"

 

Deuteronomy 13:7-11

 

Well written bit of fiction the above.

 

It love's people to make their own interpretation on it. Whatever the slant they may make on it .............

 

[Sheriff Fatman]

it is refering to half brothers as well. Therefore it says brothers(natural brothers) and goes on to say "son of your father or of your mother" as this would include half brothers.

 

 

 

 

jesus here is speaking in his introduction to the sermon on the mount. He is setting up what he is about to say - it is not enough to follow the letter of the law, we have to go further than that. Where the letter of the law says do not murder, the spirit of the law goes even further, do not be angry with your brother. Where the letter of the law says do not commit adultery, the spirit of the law goes even further, do not even look at a woman with lustful intent. The letter of the law allows for divorce, but the spirit of the law says that this is only appropriate in cases of adultery - for other purposes it is adulterous.

 

Jesus goes on telling us to go further than the letter of the law. That is what he is meaning in his introduction. The ceremonial law has been fufilled in Jesus but there is a law that is greater and that we keep, not for the purpose of ticking boxes and keeping rules, but to keep in the right spirit and for the right reasons.

 

In answering your questions - there are laws that were given just to the nation of Israel - they were laws for that time and for that people. The ceremonial laws of cleanliness for example, other laws that were there to show the distinctiveness of Israel in that time(like the example cited in the OP), there are other things that are clear prinicpals for all - these we do keep, but not for legalistic reasons.

 

sorry, if that's a bit rambly

 

Half brothers are still brothers, so needless repetition if you ask me.

 

Can you point out the bit that says 'You must not think I have come here to abolish the law (except the Ceremonial Law, you can forget that bit now)'

 

Again with the picking and chosing the bits you like or you think fit in with modern times. If the Bible is the unchanging infalible word of God, then it is all true at all times. If it isn't, then it is a book written by fallible men and none of it is a good basis for a religion that tries to say that it is the one and only truth.

[Commander Harris]

Half brothers are still brothers, so needless repetition if you ask me.

 

Can you point out the bit that says 'You must not think I have come here to abolish the law (except the Ceremonial Law, you can forget that bit now)'

 

Again with the picking and chosing the bits you like or you think fit in with modern times. If the Bible is the unchanging infalible word of God, then it is all true at all times. If it isn't, then it is a book written by fallible men and none of it is a good basis for a religion that tries to say that it is the one and only truth.

 

When he says he is not here to abolish the law, he explains what he means by that statement in the next few chapters. it is you that is taking a verse in isolation and making it say what you want it to say. If you read it as a whole then you can see what he is saying about "not abolishing the law"

[Sheriff Fatman]

When he says he is not here to abolish the law, he explains what he means by that statement in the next few chapters. it is you that is taking a verse in isolation and making it say what you want it to say. If you read it as a whole then you can see what he is saying about "not abolishing the law"

 

I think the third sentance says what he means quite well.

 

"Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete."

 

I can't remember reading where he said that any of the Law's purposes were complete.

[Commander Harris]

I think the third sentance says what he means quite well.

 

"Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete."

 

I can't remember reading where he said that any of the Law's purposes were complete.

 

"until it's purpose is complete." The New Testament teaches that the sacrificial and ceremonial purposes were completed in the death of Jesus. (early chapters of romans and most of hebrews, especially 8,9,10)

[Sheriff Fatman]

"until it's purpose is complete." The New Testament teaches that the sacrificial and ceremonial purposes were completed in the death of Jesus. (early chapters of romans and most of hebrews, especially 8,9,10)

 

Ah, Romans and Hebrews, books written by either Paul who never met Jesus, so isn't the best authority on what Jesus meant, or by one of Pauls followers who is yet another step away from Jesus.

 

Paul wasn't exactlly popular with those that had met Jesus either, especially with those that were the founding members of the Early Church.

[The Doctor]

Ah, Romans and Hebrews, books written by either Paul who never met Jesus, so isn't the best authority on what Jesus meant, or by one of Pauls followers who is yet another step away from Jesus.

 

Paul wasn't exactlly popular with those that had met Jesus either, especially with those that were the founding members of the Early Church.

 

So would you put less stock in the writings of Paul than John?

[Commander Harris]

Ah, Romans and Hebrews, books written by either Paul who never met Jesus, so isn't the best authority on what Jesus meant, or by one of Pauls followers who is yet another step away from Jesus.

 

Paul wasn't exactlly popular with those that had met Jesus either, especially with those that were the founding members of the Early Church.

 

we are not going to agree as we have completely different beliefs on what the bible is but I would definitely disagree with your later point.

 

Peter, the very same Peter who did meet Jesus and to whom Jesus said "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." called Paul a "beloved brother". You can't get much more foundational than Peter and you can't get as far from "not exactly popular" as "beloved brother".

 

"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." 2 peter 3 v 15ff

 

He also accepted the writings of Paul as Scripture, he says it is twisted like other Scriptures, i.e. old testament writings. Not "twisted like the Scriptures", but "twisted like the other Scriptures."

[Sheriff Fatman]

So would you put less stock in the writings of Paul than John?

 

If you are talking about the writer of the Gospel of John, then I would put about as much stock as it wasn't written by John the Apostle. Conservative estimates put it at AD 90-100, well after anybody old enough to have heard and met Jesus and remembered what he said would have died.

[Sheriff Fatman]

we are not going to agree as we have completely different beliefs on what the bible is but I would definitely disagree with your later point.

 

Peter, the very same Peter who did meet Jesus and to whom Jesus said "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." called Paul a "beloved brother". You can't get much more foundational than Peter and you can't get as far from "not exactly popular" as "beloved brother".

 

 

 

He also accepted the writings of Paul as Scripture, he says it is twisted like other Scriptures, i.e. old testament writings. Not "twisted like the Scriptures", but "twisted like the other Scriptures."

 

From what I remember of reading about the Early Church, Peter converted to Paulian thought quite late in his life, in fact was quite vehement in his disagreement with Paul for quite some time. Before that he was quite defiantly in the James and John camp.

[The Doctor]

If you are talking about the writer of the Gospel of John, then I would put about as much stock as it wasn't written by John the Apostle. Conservative estimates put it at AD 90-100, well after anybody old enough to have heard and met Jesus and remembered what he said would have died.

 

Some scholars have suggested a far earlier date, around AD 55, but even the conservative estimates start at AD 85. As Jesus disciples were young men, young teenagers, during his ministry circa AD 26-30 even with the conservative estimate John the Apostle would only be in his 70's when the gospel was written making a nonsense of your assertion that he couldn't have written it.

 

So what parts of the bible do you put stock in if you discount Paul and you discount John?

[Sheriff Fatman]

Some scholars have suggested a far earlier date, around AD 55, but even the conservative estimates start at AD 85. As Jesus disciples were young men, young teenagers, during his ministry circa AD 26-30 even with the conservative estimate John the Apostle would only be in his 70's when the gospel was written making a nonsense of your assertion that he couldn't have written it.

 

So what parts of the bible do you put stock in if you discount Paul and you discount John?

 

None of it, as it was written by fallible men trying to make sense of a confusing world.

 

Given that the average life span in 1st century Judea was around 40, to say only 70 is a bit of a stretch. A man of 70 would be a miricle in itself.

[The Doctor]

I'm confused, in post #4 you were quoting the words of Jesus.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I'm confused, in post #4 you were quoting the words of Jesus.

 

I was quoting words from a book that Christians use as their basis for law and morality. I was pointing out where there were contradictions in thier own book.

 

Just as a side point, I do not comment on anybodies 'faith' or 'belief' as that is their own business and really has nothing to do with historical accuracy.

[The Doctor]

I was quoting words from a book that Christians use as their basis for law and morality. I was pointing out where there were contradictions in thier own book.

 

Just as a side point, I do not comment on anybodies 'faith' or 'belief' as that is their own business and really has nothing to do with historical accuracy.

 

You did actually quote Jesus, you used quotation marks and attributed those words directly to Jesus, but yes they are "words from a book that Christians use as their basis for law and morality".

 

How can you say that you don't comment on anybodies 'belief' after suggesting that I pick and choose parts of the bible to suit myself? Surely you are suggesting then that my belief system is inherently flawed, not just because I am a Christian, but by the way my personal belief system is constructed.

[Sheriff Fatman]

You did actually quote Jesus, you used quotation marks and attributed those words directly to Jesus, but yes they are "words from a book that Christians use as their basis for law and morality".

 

How can you say that you don't comment on anybodies 'belief' after suggesting that I pick and choose parts of the bible to suit myself? Surely you are suggesting then that my belief system is inherently flawed, not just because I am a Christian, but by the way my personal belief system is constructed.

 

You could say that I didn't quote Jesus, I quoted what somebody else wrote down paraphrasing what Jesus said, as it wasn't written down by Jesus or anywhere near to at the time and so possibly wasn't Jesus's exact words.

 

Actually, now you mention it, my wording was wrong. I meant to say that Christianity as a whole seems to pick and chose the bits it likes and ignores the bits it doesn't.

 

And by not commenting on anybodies 'faith' or 'beliefs' I meant that I would not deride anybody for having them as that is their business and not mine.

[BigC]

How can you say that you don't comment on anybodies 'belief' after suggesting that I pick and choose parts of the bible to suit myself? Surely you are suggesting then that my belief system is inherently flawed, not just because I am a Christian, but by the way my personal belief system is constructed.

 

Are you saying you don't pick and choose?

 

You have said that you believe in evolution, and that you don't think that god created the world in 6 days.

 

Surely that is picking and choosing?

[Jamboross]

I'm reading a book by Sam Harris

 

'The End of Faith' by any chance? Started reading it the other week and it seems very interesting. Haven't got far as I have had a massive pile of uni work and exams but I'll get back reading it in a day or two.

 

Another interesting read is 'God is Dead' by Steve Bruce. It's about secularization in Western society. Again I've not read the whole thing yet, only been dipping into the bits that were relevant for an essay I was writing, but I plan on reading the whole thing.

 

Never been particuarly interested in religion before but I've been finding the whole relgious history thing, how the different religions came about, how they relate and secularization fascinating of late.

 

Can anyone reccomend any other books?

[DikT.]

Maybe, apart from the "If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother" bit. The son of your father or of your mother is your brother, so why mention it twice.

 

 

 

So why did Jesus say "You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete. This means that whoever now relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do the same will himself be called least in Heaven."

 

Why do so many Christians pick and chose those bits of the Law that they like and say that they are the ones that are still to be adhered to whilst ignoring the ones that are vile and disgusting?

 

Did he really say that? Cannot remember ever seeing that before. Not even sure they used full stops and commas then:confused:

[BigC]

'The End of Faith' by any chance? Started reading it the other week and it seems very interesting. Haven't got far as I have had a massive pile of uni work and exams but I'll get back reading it in a day or two.

 

Another interesting read is 'God is Dead' by Steve Bruce. It's about secularization in Western society. Again I've not read the whole thing yet, only been dipping into the bits that were relevant for an essay I was writing, but I plan on reading the whole thing.

 

Never been particuarly interested in religion before but I've been finding the whole relgious history thing, how the different religions came about, how they relate and secularization fascinating of late.

 

Can anyone reccomend any other books?

 

If you're going for the objective view them The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is your first stop, followed by the even less polite Christopher Hitchens. His book "God is not Great" absolutely savages the three great monotheisms. Perhaps the greatest quote from the book: "Anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

 

I'm reading Sam Harris at the moment, which is very similar to "Breaking the Spell" by Dan Dennett in that they use the softly softly approach to convincing people of faith that they are wrong.

 

I'm getting the the point where I'm not really getting anything new from these books so I may venture over to the other side.

 

The main names in the pro-god lobby Alastair McGrath and Dinesh D'Souza (sp?) but having watched them both in debates with Hichens on youtube, I don't really see them making any valid points that haven't already been answered by the "New Atheists" - Some of Richard Dawkins responses to McGrath on his website leave me in no doubt who is the better thinker.

 

If anyone can suggest a better alternative then I'm open to suggestions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.....apart from the bible. (Admit it Todd, that's what you were going to suggest).

 

[Jamie_the_Jambo]

So would you put less stock in the writings of Paul than John?

 

Ah, back to the lennon/mccartney debate are we?

[Craigieboy]

The thing that amazes me about those who feel that the mosaic law(s) are fine & dandy, is that they were supposedly inspired of god. Yip. Not humans making them up or anything. Inspired. By god.

 

There are literally hundreds of them in the OT but one of my favourites has to be the one where the parents of an unrepentant fornicator were to cast the 1st stone in their childs death sentance.

 

If you look up stoning online you will see in graphic detail what it is like for a person who is stoned to death. I wouldn't advise anyone to look at such pictures. It is awful.

 

Yet that is what god (at one time) wanted his people to do.

 

Among other 'god inspired' moments in the OT comes my 2nd favourite. The one where gods prophet has a number of children ripped apart by bears. Their crime? The were calling the prophet a baldy *******.

 

There are many other passages in the bible which are quite frankly vile.

 

Why anyone would want to worship such an angry, horrible god is beyond me.

 

 

.