[
Replying to otseng in post #2960
How do you know they want it to be genuine when they have never claimed it was genuine?
As I pointed out earlier, they have an interest in anything which would bolster their claim of ecclesiastical authority.
Just because the word "torah" isn't in a particular passage doesn't mean that the word doesn't apply to the entire law where it does appear.
This is the argument from silence. Further, there is no corroborating evidence for this either. As I've argued, the evidence is against the Torah being limited to the commandments of Moses and is locked in stone since the Torah has expanded over time.
The
Torah has not been expanded. The Prophets, Writings and Talmud have elaborated on how the law (torah) was followed, but Deuteronomy was the last book of the
Torah and remains so.
I think we agree Jesus's teachings were much more demanding than the law of Moses. Did it he literally add to the law? Yes, if one approaches it with a literal view of the law. And as I argued, even the Jews added to the law. But, I do not believe he contradicted with the intent of the law.
"
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
What was the intent of that law?
In his entire sermon on the mount, what Jesus was getting to was our heart, not our outward performances of piety. We can literally follow the law and yet inwardly we are still unclean.
That's not what Moses told them. Here it is again:
"
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Not even the Jews interprets the law literally. Go into any Jewish home and you'll find many practices that is never mentioned in the law of Moses.
If such practices aren't mentioned in the law of Moses, then they aren't
prohibited in the law of Moses.
Yes, the Jews want to build the temple at a particular spot. Modern Jews have an extremely particular spot they want to build it, but unfortunately it's occupied by the Dome of the Rock, which the Muslims control. Again, does the law of Moses state exactly where to build it?
If the law of Moses did state exactly where to build it, would you accept that as a
commandment?
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you
That, also, is a
commandment.
You're the one making the claim, not me. I've never claimed he broke any commandment.
You've conceded that he didn't follow them all, which is the same.
Your argument boils down to Jesus broke the command not to add to the commands. Again, I believe it was an interpretation of the command as you acknowledged that the Jews also did with the passages on divorce.
If commands can be interpreted, then they're not commands----only recommendations.
Jesus never commanded for her to remain alone, he said whoever marries her would also commit adultery.
I didn't say that he "commanded" her to remain alone; I said that his violation of the law
condemned her to be alone.
If the law of Moses was given by God (Deut. 1:3), how could any standard be higher?
Because Jesus is part of the Godhead and the Bible is a part of the Godhead.
Circular argument.
The Bible is not some all-powerful, inerrant, supernatural object of worship.
Does that mean that you place no stock in this statement......?
"
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
If there's any "contradiction" between the NT and the OT, Jesus's teaching would supercede them.
Jesus's teaching
is some of that contradiction.
As a matter of fact, Jesus preceded the writings of Moses. The original word was Jesus himself.
Circular argument.
Then it explains why you have a misunderstanding of scripture since you are not looking at it in the original languages.
Then what explains the fact that Jewish scholars who
have looked at it in the original languages reach the same conclusion that I reach?
It's not me that doesn't like what he said. Simply saying whatever he meant is no longer applicable is not explaining what you think he meant. So, what do you think Jesus mean by his statement:
Jhn 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
I think he meant exactly what he said.
What do
you think he meant when he said,
"
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"?
I've fully investigated the arguments against the TS and I've addressed them already. Is there any empirical evidence I've missed with the TS?
There's the empirical evidence of the image gap at the head which you've tried to dismiss with the scientifically unreproducible "cloth collapse" notion.
We can go a long time arguing through the Bible if Jesus was the Messiah or not. But that has not been my tactic so far. I've seen many debates on this, in particular things that Rabbi Tovia Singer has said. I might cover some of his arguments later, but the focus is on empirical evidence, not textual evidence.
Your focus is on "empirical evidence", presumably because you know that textual evidence fails you. And even then you still try to defend your position against the textual evidence, perhaps as insurance against the "empirical evidence" failing as well.
