Featured Jesus and the Books of Moses

I consider God the author.

 

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.

Was there no gift of tongues?

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.

 

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Who claimed that? No one here.

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

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.

Who here is making a contrary claim?

 

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.

 

. . . dashing one's foot.

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.

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."

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

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.

 

Right, Satan's interpretation...

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

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

Not good theology at all, nor biblically based.

Trying to twist my words I see...

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

Sure.

"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.

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

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

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

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?

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