Jesus and the Books of Moses

[Revmitchell]

I consider God the author.

 

[Aaron]

(2) If Jesus was working in Joseph's shop as a child and accidentally hit his thumb with a mallet while he was learning to join pieces of wood, would that mean He was not divine?

This question supposes that there was nothing that differed in the common, mundane experiences of a divine Person from those experiences of carnal, corrupt and cursed individuals.

We're told that God gave His angles charge over Christ lest He dash His foot against a stone. Who reading this post has never stubbed his toe? Yet Christ did not. He never had a broken bone. His only bruising was what He received in judgment of our sins. Be careful about what you imagine about Christ. It is the tendency of fallen men to make Christ into our own fallen image. (Is it any wonder you equate the process of inspiration with the writing processes of natural men?)

But if there is nothing we can see in the day to day experiences of a divine man that sets him apart from the rest, what commends his divinity? Since we have only one example that walked the face of the earth from which to glean the criteria, one sign appears to be that He has no accidents and makes no mistakes.

(4) If a biblical writer was not a seasoned writer in the Classical Greek tradition, and instead made clumsy use of a version of Greek that was used on the streets for trade and communication between cultures, does that mean his words are uninspired?

Was there no gift of tongues?

(5) If a biblical writer was writing a grand thesis on a doctrine and chases a rabbit in his writing and never actually returns to the subject at hand, does that mean his work is not inspired by God?

Inspiration means that it is the work of the Spirit, and one of the main evidences is a sound mind. One who chases rabbits and never returns to the subject is not being guided by the Spirit in his writing or discourse.

It is not faith to say the development of the Pentateuch differs nothing from the development of any other work world literature, yet believe it to be inspired. On the contrary, it is unbelief pure and simple, and the assertion is lip service only. We're told plainly that God spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. He didn't speak by the redactors. No redaction carries doctrinal or moral authority. The authority of the Pentateuch cannot be divorced from Mosaic authorship.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This question supposes that there was nothing that differed in the common, mundane experiences of a divine Person from those experiences of carnal, corrupt and cursed individuals.

No it doesn't. That, logically, does not follow from anything I have written.

We're told that God gave His angles charge over Christ lest He dash His foot against a stone. Who reading this post has never stubbed his toe? Yet Christ did not. He never had a broken bone. His only bruising was what He received in judgment of our sins.

That's a huge assertion, and a misapplication of scripture. Satan said that about Jesus, but we have no evidence either way, although we should note that Jesus resisted the temptation to test the Father. If Jesus truly became human, He would have to learn how to use His body and develop muscle memory in order to do certain things with it. Bumping your finger with a mallet, falling when learning to walk, and practicing how to form syllables when learning how to speak is not sinful or evidence that one is not divine.

Did Jesus have calluses on His hands and feet from work and walking? If so, then your assertion fails. Did He get damage to His skin (a tan) from the sun shining down upon Him as He taught and ministered? We should expect that.

Be careful about what you imagine about Christ. It is the tendency of fallen men to make Christ into our own fallen image.

God made the Son an unfallen human, so I have to go with that.

(Is it any wonder you equate the process of inspiration with the writing processes of natural men?)

Beyond the backhanded attack on my alleged view of inspiration, I find it relevant that you refer to fallen humankind as "natural men." Fallen humankind is in an unnatural, condemned state. Jesus became a full man in the natural state, while also fully God.

But if there is nothing we can see in the day to day experiences of a divine man that sets him apart from the rest, what commends his divinity?

Wow. You make a huge assumption that I assert there is no evidence of His divinity from day to day... The character, intelligence, faith and wisdom of Jesus was notable in His childhood. We see a glimpse of that with the incident in the Temple - even people who barely knew Him were amazed (Luke 2:47).

Since we have only one example that walked the face of the earth from which to glean the criteria, one sign appears to be that He has no accidents and makes no mistakes.

So what is the scripture reference for this, and why do you assume that angels would prevent Jesus from learning how to use His body? The specific things I mentioned (for instance, falling while learning to walk and hitting His finger with a mallet) are not things that prevent Him from fulfilling His calling.

Was there no gift of tongues?

Tongues seemed to be for oral communication. Moreover, you need to deal with the reality that a number of the New Testament documents are written in poor Greek. Don't confuse the medium with the message.

Inspiration means that it is the work of the Spirit, and one of the main evidences is a sound mind. One who chases rabbits and never returns to the subject is not being guided by the Spirit in his writing or discourse.

Not necessarily.

When Paul writes:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God... (Romans 3:1-2)​

Have you noticed that Paul never gives us the rest of the list? He starts a list and does not continue it, moving on to other things. Yet Paul is obviously being led by the Spirit.

It is not faith to say the development of the Pentateuch differs nothing from the development of any other work world literature, yet believe it to be inspired.

Who claimed that? No one here.

On the contrary, it is unbelief pure and simple, and the assertion is lip service only.

Fortunately, we don't have people like that here.

We're told plainly that God spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. He didn't speak by the redactors. No redaction carries doctrinal or moral authority.

That's a weird viewpoint. It demonstrates you do not have a clear view of the role of an editor. An editor serves the author and the text, and that does not mean that it is not the work of the original author once the editor finishes with it.

The authority of the Pentateuch cannot be divorced from Mosaic authorship.

Who here is making a contrary claim?

 

[Covenanter]

Article by Charles Taylor in creation.com

This particularly concerns the toledoth passages:

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;​

The expression occurs in Gen. 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 37:2 and can be understood as the record of the person cited. That 'book' of generations would end with Adam. Then it would begin the next record. "In the day ..."

That theory in no way questions the Mosaic authorship. He gives his sources.

See the occurrence of the expression.

There are basically four theories concerning how Genesis was written and by whom.

1. There are those who say Moses wrote it by an automatic dictation method, entirely supernaturally.
2. At the other extreme, Mosaic authorship is denied in favour of a late composition during the 4th century BC.
3. Some say Moses compiled Genesis from ancient sources, oral or written, with toledoth passages (‘These are the generations of …’) marking the boundaries, and that these toledoth are the titles of the segments following them, except for the first segment, Genesis 1:1-2:3.
4. Finally, there are those who accept the toledoth hypothesis, but regard them as colophons, that is, as subscripts or bibliographical references at the end of each segment, including the first one.

This article favours the fourth theory and argues the case, with particular reference to the creation segment.

 

[Aaron]

If Jesus truly became human, He would have to learn how to use His body and develop muscle memory in order to do certain things with it. Bumping your finger with a mallet, falling when learning to walk . . .

. . . dashing one's foot.

Did Jesus have calluses on His hands and feet from work and walking? If so, then your assertion fails. Did He get damage to His skin (a tan) from the sun shining down upon Him as He taught and ministered?

Did Adam get sunburned?

Oh, wait. You don't even know if Adam was real, or the garden, or the nakedness of our first parents in their innocence.

We should expect that.

Only if the mundane experiences of a divine man are the same as sinners.

A better theologian than you wrote, " . . . but little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes."

God made the Son an unfallen human, so I have to go with that.

No. God did not make His Son. The Son is begotten. God made a body for Him.

Wow. You make a huge assumption that I assert there is no evidence of His divinity from day to day... The character, intelligence, faith and wisdom of Jesus was notable in His childhood. We see a glimpse of that with the incident in the Temple - even people who barely knew Him were amazed (Luke 2:47).

Was this Wisdom learned? And if so, as a child growing in wisdom, did He ever entertain a foolish or untrue notion?

You need to be careful what you imagine about Christ. Your tendency, as you confessed, is to expect Him to be subject to the same failures you've suffered in your learning experiences, and you have no basis at all for that assumption.

 

[Baptist Believer]

. . . dashing one's foot.

Right, Satan's interpretation...

Did Adam get sunburned?

In the garden? No. In the fallen world? Likely.

Oh, wait. You don't even know if Adam was real, or the garden, or the nakedness of our first parents in their innocence.

You just can't resist throwing in a personal attack, can you?

A better theologian than you wrote, " . . . but little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes."

Not good theology at all, nor biblically based.

No. God did not make His Son. The Son is begotten.

Trying to twist my words I see...

God made a body for Him.

Jesus became fully human as well as being fully God. It wasn't just an external shell.

Was this Wisdom learned?

Sure.

And if so, as a child growing in wisdom, did He ever entertain a foolish or untrue notion?

"Entertain"? That's a vague word. He certainly thought through the implications of things He heard, including incorrect teaching before it was rejected. Jesus did not engage in, nor teach, error.

You need to be careful what you imagine about Christ. Your tendency, as you confessed, is to expect Him to be subject to the same failures you've suffered in your learning experiences, and you have no basis at all for that assumption.

I did NOT "confess" that Jesus suffered "failure." You are making things up to justify your presuppositions. The incarnation of Christ, as taught in the New Testament (Luke and Philippians in particular) in the biblical basis for my views. You have offered up the text of the Christmas carol, "Away in a Manger", and a general twisting of words and personal attacks for your attempted rebuke.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have skated by the main question though. The simple fact is that there are grammatical errors/mistakes in the New Testament. If we insist that there can be no error (in the modern sense of perfection), then we have a major problem with scripture. If we assert that the scriptures are reliable and trustworthy for their purpose of revealing God and explaining His Kingdom through various forms and styles of writing, through various authors, then we stand on solid ground.


If we go with the hyper-literal scientific worldview that shapes our times, then I think we could make a case for it. For instance, when Jesus was telling a parable depicting the Kingdom of God, He used the image of a mustard seed, saying it "is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil" (Mark 4:31). Growing up, my parents grew orchids as a hobby, and I happen to know that orchid seeds are smaller than mustard seeds. But the point of the parable was not to give a lecture on botany, and it was likely that Jesus and His hearers were not familiar with orchids since they are usually found on other parts of the world. The point was that the mustard seed was extremely small, but within it was the potential for something huge.

If we go with the intent of what Jesus said, I think we can be confident that He did not err.

Was Jesus not God while here upon the earth? If yes, how could he ever err on anything ever stated/said?

 

[Yeshua1]

The incarnate Jesus did not necessarily know things that the normal human being does not unless the Father or the Spirit had revealed it to Him.

The incarnate Jesus did not necessarily know things that the normal human being does not unless the Father or the Spirit had revealed it to Him.

He was God Incarnate though, so surely he would be always saying what was the truth! For example, when he talked about Demons are real, they were, and they were a real Adam and Eve, as he was not just stating what they thought of at the time, but what really was the truth?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Was Jesus not God while here upon the earth? If yes, how could he ever err on anything ever stated/said?

I did not make a claim that Jesus erred. I'm not sure where you are getting that.

 

[Baptist Believer]

He was God Incarnate though, so surely he would be always saying what was the truth!

Sure.

For example, when he talked about Demons are real, they were...

Yes. Moreover, He dealt with them directly.

...and they were a real Adam and Eve, as he was not just stating what they thought of at the time, but what really was the truth?

He was referencing the story that was known to all. That does not necessarily mean that Adam and Eve were literal people just like you or me. They could be archetypes of foundational humanity and the human condition. That would not have been out of bounds for the ancient Hebrews. They were less literal than our culture, for they were primarily an oral culture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sure.


Yes. Moreover, He dealt with them directly.


He was referencing the story that was known to all. That does not necessarily mean that Adam and Eve were literal people just like you or me. They could be archetypes of foundational humanity and the human condition. That would not have been out of bounds for the ancient Hebrews. They were less literal than our culture, for they were primarily an oral culture.

You are basically saying here that Jesus was accommodating his views to what was believed of at that time, but paul agreed with Jesus on a literal and real Adam, correct?
And thus how would we know what was the real truth, and just him giving what was held back then?

 

[rlvaughn]

...I have extensive experience ghostwriting for other people, both in technical documents and for publication to the general reader. In the case of technical documents, the engineer, architect or planner provides technical expertise, while I organize the materials and write the information...

In other cases, I have worked with teams of other writers and content experts, creating a larger work with so much back and forth and editing/refining of each other's materials, that is was difficult to figure out who wrote what, but everyone had a hand in the creative effort and the final product.

...I would often have to call the writer and interview them about their story and fill in some gaps, then completely rewrite the story with a new approach. In those cases, the person who brought me the story was still credited as being the author, but often very little of their original written work remained.

Therefore, I come to the question of authorship with a more nuanced view...

I can't think of any reason I find in the Bible that Moses's or Jesus's contemporaries would have nuanced views of authorship as complicated as those we have today. Those who take dictation, edit or make copies maybe, but going beyond that seems a little far-fetched -- for example, where very little of their original written work remained (which I don't think you were necessarily suggesting in the case of Moses?).

We certainly are reading a work written under the editorial rules of the ancient world and not our own, but what is the biblical evidence of the rules under which they were written? Ultimately, the larger question is whether this was written in Moses's day, or only a few hundred years before the birth of Christ and Moses could have had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 

[Covenanter]

I can't think of any reason I find in the Bible that Moses's or Jesus's contemporaries would have nuanced views of authorship as complicated as those we have today. Those who take dictation, edit or make copies maybe, but going beyond that seems a little far-fetched -- for example, where very little of their original written work remained (which I don't think you were necessarily suggesting in the case of Moses?).

We certainly are reading a work written under the editorial rules of the ancient world and not our own, but what is the biblical evidence of the rules under which they were written? Ultimately, the larger question is whether this was written in Moses's day, or only a few hundred years before the birth of Christ and Moses could have had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Have you considered my post #64 ? That Moses wrote Genesis using Patriarchal source material.

 

[rlvaughn]

Have you considered my post #64 ? That Moses wrote Genesis using Patriarchal source material.

Yes, I saw that earlier. I think this is the position that there was already inspired source material -- such as the book of the generations of Adam -- which Moses compiled and added to, right? I wouldn't exclude that as possible, but I don't suppose there is any way to prove that.

 

[Aaron]

Right, Satan's interpretation...

Also David's, of whom it was said he was prophet.

Not good theology at all, nor biblically based.

LOL. Chapter and verse please for your notions about Jesus' fumbles and mistakes.

"Entertain"? That's a vague word. He certainly thought through the implications of things He heard, including incorrect teaching before it was rejected. Jesus did not engage in, nor teach, error.

So he believed a lie.

Is His geocentric statement a matter of His human weakness? (Matt 5:45) Or did He understand that the earth really rotates on its axis?

And is the reason He ascribes the Pentateuch to Moses due to the notions he was taught growing up?

I did NOT "confess" that Jesus suffered "failure."

Yes you did. Would his hammering his thumb as an unskilled, fumbling apprentice be a success?