Achtung Bubba
Refugee
With Elvis' permission, I wish to continue the discussion with melon first started in "What's the deal?" The recently closed thread was concerned primarily with homosexuality, but my concerns were not directly related with topic. Rather, my concerns were about what the Bible does and does not say, and whether it is to be believed.
So, I shall begin where melon left off.
Melon, it seems to me that you use "sect" and "denomination" interchangeably. Technically, I believe "sect" often refers to a heretical denomination, so I would be very careful in the use of that term.
(I've seen "sect" defined in several places as a Christian cult, where a "cult" is strictly non-Christian. It certainly doesn't appear that you meant it in this way, but I thought I should bring this up.)
You seem to imply that I'm not forthcoming about my denomination. I admit that I do not often mention the fact that I'm Southern Baptist (although I did so here, in a thread in which you yourself posted eight times).
But there are two very simple reasons I don't often mention I'm a Southern Baptist. First, nobody asks. Second, saying I'm a Southern Baptist doesn't actually say much more than I'm an evangelical Protestant.
I will let the official site for the Southern Baptist Convention speak for me, but look how loosely associated Southern Baptist churches actually are:
"Some people feel that denominations are constrictive, and that when you identify with other churches, you suffer compromise.
"Southern Baptists are sympathetic to these concerns and so firmly hold to the principle of church autonomy and self-rule...
"The Convention is an alliance of churches working in friendly cooperation under the heading 'Southern Baptist.' A Southern Baptist church is about as independent as you can get and still be counted as part of a denomination....
"This is not a matter of moral or doctrinal compromise. You cannot believe and do just anything and remain a part of the Southern Baptist fellowship. All Baptist bodies have limits. But within those limits, there is room for significant cooperative diversity.(link)"
"A church technically becomes Southern Baptist by contributing to the mission causes of the Convention. (link)"
"Individuals do not join the Southern Baptist Convention per se. Rather, they become Southern Baptists by joining one of more than 41,500 Southern Baptist churches. (link)"
"Within the Southern Baptist Convention, the licensing and ordination of ministers is a local church matter.
"There is no denominational ordination service. The list of Southern Baptist ministers is simply a compilation from the reports of the churches. The Southern Baptist convention neither frocks nor defrocks ministers. (link)"
Further, the basic beliefs that tie these chuches together are so vague that they summarize a LOT of the unifying beliefs of all evangelical Protestantism. It's not vague to a fault, but it does keep the door open for the beliefs in faith healing, speaking in tongues, restrictions against dancing and musical instruments, AND the opposing beliefs.
If you want know more specifics, I recommend the Baptist Faith and Message, a document which Southern Baptist churches are free to ignore but almost unanimously embrace.
I was in no way attempting to be dishonest or mysterious in not mentioning the denomination to which I belong. Again, no one asked, and I don't think saying I'm Southern Baptist really helps communicate my beliefs (although I'm sure it does bias some people even further against what I say, since the convention has made some egregious PR missteps in the last decade; never mind that it is the individual church that matters, not the convention).
Now, specific quotes:
I don't think this gets to the crux of the "nature of the Bible." At best, it is a belief system about the "nature of translations of the Bible." Certainly, some translations are better than others, meaning that fallibility in transcription and translation does exist.
(Surely, not every Protestant translation is as horrible as you think it is.)
But what about the original texts? Even if what Paul and the Gospel authors hand-wrote vanished in the mists of history, one can have firm beliefs about what they wrote, whether God Himself had a hand in those documents.
You clearly don't believe in divine inspiration of that nature: THAT seems to be your belief on the nature on the Bible. Whether it's an old idea, supported by some Pope or another, or some Vatican council or another, doesn't matter to me as a Protestant: the belief could very well be wrong.
What I wonder is, do you believe such inspiration impossible, or that the Mosaic books and the Gospels (regardless of the authors) did not benefit from such guidance?
If you believe it impossible, that God could not have interfered with man on that level, how then could you believe in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ - something you MUST believe in as a Christian?
If you believe it simply didn't happen in (for example) the case of the Gospels, how do you even know Jesus Christ taught to love God and your neighbor?
Either way, ruling out divine inspiration of the Bible seems to be a very hard thing for a Christian to honestly believe.
All of this is true if divine inspiration is not. But if God intervenes, then "simple history" is no longer simple - seemingly conflicting messages can be harmonized.
It's like saying that the Gospels must have been written after the destruction of the Temple, since they predicited the event - or that the Gospels were twisted to demonstrate how Jesus fit the prophecies of Isaiah. If the omnipotent, omniscient God Almighty REALLY, ACTUALLY, HISTORICALLY became the human being named Jesus, then one CANNOT insist that the books about Him obey the normal rules of causality.
Even if Matthew is the work of multiple authors, it's still not necessarily a contradiction. The question is, does the Golden Rule replace the law and the prophets, or summarize and fulfill their meaning?
I will answer that question with a question: do you like people to lie to you, steal from you, and attempt to kill you? I certainly don't.
What Christ taught does not contradict Mosaic law: THAT would require one to teach "Thou shalt not kill" and the other to teach "Never mind, kill with abandon." Rather, Jesus Christ taught the core principles He used in composing the Mosaic law. The author of the Old Testament has come to earth to explain what He meant.
It took a moment, but I realize that somewhere along the line I was misunderstood. I apologize for the confusion. Here's what I said:
You VERY WRONGLY assert that Acts 15:19-20 overturns the Mosaic Law. Rather, James urges to write the Gentiles to KEEP THE MOSAIC LAW - as is clear in verses 19-21, Today's English Version:
"It is my opinion," James went on, "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols; to keep themselves from sexual immorality; and not to eat any animal that has been strangled, or any blood. For the Law of Moses has been read for a very long time in the synagogues every Sabbath, and his words are preached in every town."
I wasn't quoting The Epistle of James. I was quoting James AS QUOTED in Acts 15:19-20. Look at Acts 15:13: "And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me..." Acts 15:13b-21 are attributed to James.
I DID read that passage, and I quoted it more in context: James (as quoted in Acts) is urging the others to write to ENCOURAGE the practice of the Mosaic Law.
I disagree that there is such a conflict. James still emphasizes faith as the source of the works ("faith was completed by the works"), thus the ROOT of justification - even according to James - is still faith.
It seems that the gist of this passage is still justification by faith, but the faith must be so genuine that it naturally produces good works.
In his complete commentary, 17th Century minister Matthew Henry gives the following analysis:
1. When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith. Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men?s embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us; but Paul magnifies it by showing the insufficiency of any works of the law before faith, or in opposition to the doctrine of justification by Jesus Christ; James magnifies the same faith, by showing what are the genuine and necessary products and operations of it.
2. Paul not only speaks of different works from those insisted on by James, but he speaks of a quite different use that was made of good works from what is here urged and intended. Paul had to do with those who depended on the merit of their works in the sight of God, and thus he might well make them of no manner of account. James had to do with those who cried up faith, but would not allow works to be used even as evidence; they depended upon a bare profession, as sufficient to justify them; and with these he might well urge the necessity and vast importance of good works. As we must not break one table of the law, by dashing it against the other, so neither must we break in pieces the law and the gospel, by making them clash with one another: those who cry up the gospel so as to set aside the law, and those who cry up the law so as to set aside the gospel, are both in the wrong; for we must take our work before us; there must be both faith in Jesus Christ and good works the fruit of faith.
3. The justification of which Paul speaks is different from that spoken of by James; the one speaks of our persons being justified before God, the other speaks of our faith being justified before men: "Show me thy faith by thy works,?? says James, "let thy faith be justified in the eyes of those that behold thee by thy works;?? but Paul speaks of justification in the sight of God, who justifies those only that believe in Jesus, and purely on account of the redemption that is in him. Thus we see that our persons are justified before God by faith, but our faith is justified before men by works. This is so plainly the scope and design of the apostle James that he is but confirming what Paul, in other places, says of his faith, that it is a laborious faith, and a faith working by love, Gal. 5:6; 1 Th. 1:3; Titus 3:8; and many other places.
4. Paul may be understood as speaking of that justification which is inchoate, James of that which is complete; it is by faith only that we are put into a justified state, but then good works come in for the completing of our justification at the last great day; then, Come you children of my Father?for I was hungry, and you gave me meat, etc.
James "certainly proves that the Protestant belief is wrong"? Hardly.
You began your post by saying that this wasn't about Mosaic Law, yet here we are again. Let's say, for the sake of argument, the church DID mean to keep the Old Testament (and epistles from the Jerusalem church, and Matthew, etc.) as reference material.
As I showed earlier, Jesus Christ certainly thought MUCH higher of the Mosaic law, quoting it or directly referencing it over two dozen times across three gospels - and refering to it as if it actually IS the Law.
I tend to side with Christ on this, so I must draw the following conclusions about the Church's decision: they were wrong to marginalize those books, but right to keep them as canon. The Holy Spirit likely moved them to keep those books within Scripture, just as the Spirit moved Reformers to treat the entire book with more respect.
To say that Protestants and Gnostics both defied the Catholic Church is obvious - but you can't then conclude that both groups are wrong to oppose it, or wrong for the same reasons. WHY? BECAUSE THE GROUPS BELIEVE DIFFERENT THINGS. Gnostics think matter is evil, most Protestants do not.
And to say that Protestantism has been occasionally wrong in overemphasizing the influence of God on the Bible (by actually writing the texts Himself, or keeping some certain translation free from error) doesn't mean we're wrong now. Many of us simply believe that God influenced the human writers of these books. God Himself BECAME a human, so why is divine inspiration so hard to swallow when you presumably accept THE INCARNATION?
I think I understand what you're saying, but even if these ideas did first appear in the Middle Ages, they were based on MUCH older Scripture: I think that needed to be said.
Ultimately, I WOULD like a response about the fact that Jesus Christ apparently puts so much faith in the Mosaic Law, compared to your assertion that the Mosaic Law was never "condoned by God Himself."
(Again, Christ's commands to love God and your neighbor WERE quotes and paraphrases of the books of Moses.)
It was the single biggest complaint/question I had, and it is the most glaring case - I believe - of willfully misrepresenting Scripture.
Bubba
So, I shall begin where melon left off.
Melon, it seems to me that you use "sect" and "denomination" interchangeably. Technically, I believe "sect" often refers to a heretical denomination, so I would be very careful in the use of that term.
(I've seen "sect" defined in several places as a Christian cult, where a "cult" is strictly non-Christian. It certainly doesn't appear that you meant it in this way, but I thought I should bring this up.)
You seem to imply that I'm not forthcoming about my denomination. I admit that I do not often mention the fact that I'm Southern Baptist (although I did so here, in a thread in which you yourself posted eight times).
But there are two very simple reasons I don't often mention I'm a Southern Baptist. First, nobody asks. Second, saying I'm a Southern Baptist doesn't actually say much more than I'm an evangelical Protestant.
I will let the official site for the Southern Baptist Convention speak for me, but look how loosely associated Southern Baptist churches actually are:
"Some people feel that denominations are constrictive, and that when you identify with other churches, you suffer compromise.
"Southern Baptists are sympathetic to these concerns and so firmly hold to the principle of church autonomy and self-rule...
"The Convention is an alliance of churches working in friendly cooperation under the heading 'Southern Baptist.' A Southern Baptist church is about as independent as you can get and still be counted as part of a denomination....
"This is not a matter of moral or doctrinal compromise. You cannot believe and do just anything and remain a part of the Southern Baptist fellowship. All Baptist bodies have limits. But within those limits, there is room for significant cooperative diversity.(link)"
"A church technically becomes Southern Baptist by contributing to the mission causes of the Convention. (link)"
"Individuals do not join the Southern Baptist Convention per se. Rather, they become Southern Baptists by joining one of more than 41,500 Southern Baptist churches. (link)"
"Within the Southern Baptist Convention, the licensing and ordination of ministers is a local church matter.
"There is no denominational ordination service. The list of Southern Baptist ministers is simply a compilation from the reports of the churches. The Southern Baptist convention neither frocks nor defrocks ministers. (link)"
Further, the basic beliefs that tie these chuches together are so vague that they summarize a LOT of the unifying beliefs of all evangelical Protestantism. It's not vague to a fault, but it does keep the door open for the beliefs in faith healing, speaking in tongues, restrictions against dancing and musical instruments, AND the opposing beliefs.
If you want know more specifics, I recommend the Baptist Faith and Message, a document which Southern Baptist churches are free to ignore but almost unanimously embrace.
I was in no way attempting to be dishonest or mysterious in not mentioning the denomination to which I belong. Again, no one asked, and I don't think saying I'm Southern Baptist really helps communicate my beliefs (although I'm sure it does bias some people even further against what I say, since the convention has made some egregious PR missteps in the last decade; never mind that it is the individual church that matters, not the convention).
Now, specific quotes:
My beliefs on the nature of the Bible were not invented by me, but is a direct reflection of Roman Catholic teaching on the Bible. In the 1930s, way before the liberalization of Vatican II, Pope Pius XII (?) released an encyclical encouraging scholarly and scientific research of the original texts of the Bible, which was reminiscent of the beliefs of medieval Christian philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, who believed that the nature of God was revealed in science. To the credit of the Catholic Church of the time, they knew their history and knew that there were many vastly different translations of the Bible over the millennia. The mindset, of course, was in revealing the original words and translate them closely to their original meaning, we would discover the original word of God. This is why I often reduce Biblical passages to their original language, because there are often many awkward phrases (what is "unlawful marriage" supposed to mean?) that are easily twisted to any kind of devious mindset as translated.
I don't think this gets to the crux of the "nature of the Bible." At best, it is a belief system about the "nature of translations of the Bible." Certainly, some translations are better than others, meaning that fallibility in transcription and translation does exist.
(Surely, not every Protestant translation is as horrible as you think it is.)
But what about the original texts? Even if what Paul and the Gospel authors hand-wrote vanished in the mists of history, one can have firm beliefs about what they wrote, whether God Himself had a hand in those documents.
You clearly don't believe in divine inspiration of that nature: THAT seems to be your belief on the nature on the Bible. Whether it's an old idea, supported by some Pope or another, or some Vatican council or another, doesn't matter to me as a Protestant: the belief could very well be wrong.
What I wonder is, do you believe such inspiration impossible, or that the Mosaic books and the Gospels (regardless of the authors) did not benefit from such guidance?
If you believe it impossible, that God could not have interfered with man on that level, how then could you believe in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ - something you MUST believe in as a Christian?
If you believe it simply didn't happen in (for example) the case of the Gospels, how do you even know Jesus Christ taught to love God and your neighbor?
Either way, ruling out divine inspiration of the Bible seems to be a very hard thing for a Christian to honestly believe.
What is commonly thrown at me is that the Bible is not in contradiction; that, in fact, it all flows together and proves it is the "true word of God." That, in itself, is an example of willful blindness and is blatantly ignorant of even simple history. The New Testament is in implicit conflict with itself only because the Christian Church was borne of division between the Church of Jerusalem, led by St. Peter and St. James, which believed that all Christians must also follow Jewish laws and customs, and the Church of Antioch, led by St. Paul, which believed that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ had freed us from Jewish laws and customs. As the New Testament is a mixture of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian texts, to cross-quote these books is sloppy at best.
All of this is true if divine inspiration is not. But if God intervenes, then "simple history" is no longer simple - seemingly conflicting messages can be harmonized.
It's like saying that the Gospels must have been written after the destruction of the Temple, since they predicited the event - or that the Gospels were twisted to demonstrate how Jesus fit the prophecies of Isaiah. If the omnipotent, omniscient God Almighty REALLY, ACTUALLY, HISTORICALLY became the human being named Jesus, then one CANNOT insist that the books about Him obey the normal rules of causality.
To complicate this, the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, is an example of a Jewish Christian sect in direct conflict against an invading Gentile Christian sect.
Matthew 5:17 -- "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."
Matthew 7:12 -- "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets."
Don't think too hard about these statements, because it is true: they do directly conflict with each other. A textual analysis of the original writing style shows Gentile Christian edits and additions to the original Jewish Christian text of the Gospel of Matthew.
Even if Matthew is the work of multiple authors, it's still not necessarily a contradiction. The question is, does the Golden Rule replace the law and the prophets, or summarize and fulfill their meaning?
I will answer that question with a question: do you like people to lie to you, steal from you, and attempt to kill you? I certainly don't.
What Christ taught does not contradict Mosaic law: THAT would require one to teach "Thou shalt not kill" and the other to teach "Never mind, kill with abandon." Rather, Jesus Christ taught the core principles He used in composing the Mosaic law. The author of the Old Testament has come to earth to explain what He meant.
You supposedly quote from James...but where is it? It isn't in the epistle at all. And I have a feeling that I already talked about that mirror passage in Acts. Please read it, because I'm tired of repeating myself to you.
It took a moment, but I realize that somewhere along the line I was misunderstood. I apologize for the confusion. Here's what I said:
You VERY WRONGLY assert that Acts 15:19-20 overturns the Mosaic Law. Rather, James urges to write the Gentiles to KEEP THE MOSAIC LAW - as is clear in verses 19-21, Today's English Version:
"It is my opinion," James went on, "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols; to keep themselves from sexual immorality; and not to eat any animal that has been strangled, or any blood. For the Law of Moses has been read for a very long time in the synagogues every Sabbath, and his words are preached in every town."
I wasn't quoting The Epistle of James. I was quoting James AS QUOTED in Acts 15:19-20. Look at Acts 15:13: "And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me..." Acts 15:13b-21 are attributed to James.
I DID read that passage, and I quoted it more in context: James (as quoted in Acts) is urging the others to write to ENCOURAGE the practice of the Mosaic Law.
Why don't you quote this little passage from James?
James 2:19-24: "You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Here's another nice little contrast between Catholicism and Protestantism: justification through faith alone or faith and good works. James here certainly proves that the Protestant belief is wrong, so why don't you follow this? But that's right. St. Paul directly contradicts that, saying that salvation is all on faith. Note: an obvious conflict between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity.
I disagree that there is such a conflict. James still emphasizes faith as the source of the works ("faith was completed by the works"), thus the ROOT of justification - even according to James - is still faith.
It seems that the gist of this passage is still justification by faith, but the faith must be so genuine that it naturally produces good works.
In his complete commentary, 17th Century minister Matthew Henry gives the following analysis:
1. When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith. Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men?s embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us; but Paul magnifies it by showing the insufficiency of any works of the law before faith, or in opposition to the doctrine of justification by Jesus Christ; James magnifies the same faith, by showing what are the genuine and necessary products and operations of it.
2. Paul not only speaks of different works from those insisted on by James, but he speaks of a quite different use that was made of good works from what is here urged and intended. Paul had to do with those who depended on the merit of their works in the sight of God, and thus he might well make them of no manner of account. James had to do with those who cried up faith, but would not allow works to be used even as evidence; they depended upon a bare profession, as sufficient to justify them; and with these he might well urge the necessity and vast importance of good works. As we must not break one table of the law, by dashing it against the other, so neither must we break in pieces the law and the gospel, by making them clash with one another: those who cry up the gospel so as to set aside the law, and those who cry up the law so as to set aside the gospel, are both in the wrong; for we must take our work before us; there must be both faith in Jesus Christ and good works the fruit of faith.
3. The justification of which Paul speaks is different from that spoken of by James; the one speaks of our persons being justified before God, the other speaks of our faith being justified before men: "Show me thy faith by thy works,?? says James, "let thy faith be justified in the eyes of those that behold thee by thy works;?? but Paul speaks of justification in the sight of God, who justifies those only that believe in Jesus, and purely on account of the redemption that is in him. Thus we see that our persons are justified before God by faith, but our faith is justified before men by works. This is so plainly the scope and design of the apostle James that he is but confirming what Paul, in other places, says of his faith, that it is a laborious faith, and a faith working by love, Gal. 5:6; 1 Th. 1:3; Titus 3:8; and many other places.
4. Paul may be understood as speaking of that justification which is inchoate, James of that which is complete; it is by faith only that we are put into a justified state, but then good works come in for the completing of our justification at the last great day; then, Come you children of my Father?for I was hungry, and you gave me meat, etc.
James "certainly proves that the Protestant belief is wrong"? Hardly.
The beliefs of St. Paul and his Church of Antioch won out; by the time Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in A.D. 313 and made it the state religion of the Roman Empire, the Jewish Christian Church of Jerusalem was long extinct. In formulating the New Testament canon and in debate of the Old Testament, the Jewish Christian texts were kept out of reference and completeness. The same holds true for the Old Testament--kept solely for reference, as the New Testament was written with Old Testament references. In no way or capacity did the creators of the New Testament canon ever wish for these texts to be taken so seriously. To them, the Church was the possessor of truth, passed on in inheritance from the theological beliefs of the Church of Antioch. The Gnostics, who were the first Biblical fundamentalists, were destroyed as heretics, done at the hands of the same church that created the New Testament canon. Yes, these historical facts may trouble you, but it is not my job to romanticize history. It is our task to learn from it. Protestantism, while admirable for challenging the autocratic imperialism of the medieval / Renaissance Catholic Church, was heavily guilty of romanticism, giving unwarranted deification to the Bible, some going as far as to ignore the fact that the New Testament was formed in a canon by men and stating that the Bible was written directly by God.
You began your post by saying that this wasn't about Mosaic Law, yet here we are again. Let's say, for the sake of argument, the church DID mean to keep the Old Testament (and epistles from the Jerusalem church, and Matthew, etc.) as reference material.
As I showed earlier, Jesus Christ certainly thought MUCH higher of the Mosaic law, quoting it or directly referencing it over two dozen times across three gospels - and refering to it as if it actually IS the Law.
I tend to side with Christ on this, so I must draw the following conclusions about the Church's decision: they were wrong to marginalize those books, but right to keep them as canon. The Holy Spirit likely moved them to keep those books within Scripture, just as the Spirit moved Reformers to treat the entire book with more respect.
To say that Protestants and Gnostics both defied the Catholic Church is obvious - but you can't then conclude that both groups are wrong to oppose it, or wrong for the same reasons. WHY? BECAUSE THE GROUPS BELIEVE DIFFERENT THINGS. Gnostics think matter is evil, most Protestants do not.
And to say that Protestantism has been occasionally wrong in overemphasizing the influence of God on the Bible (by actually writing the texts Himself, or keeping some certain translation free from error) doesn't mean we're wrong now. Many of us simply believe that God influenced the human writers of these books. God Himself BECAME a human, so why is divine inspiration so hard to swallow when you presumably accept THE INCARNATION?
So, no, this isn't willful blindness. I cannot help it if we come from different ends of the Christian spectrum.
-- "The fallen nature of man" is different than the actual theological concept of "original sin"--that is what I was talking about. I implore that you study the differences.
-- "The cult of marriage," if you would have comprehended what I wrote, was in reference to the Catholic Church making marriage a sacrament in A.D. 1100-1200, which is different to earlier concepts of marriage. That does *not* mean that marriage did not exist before then. I implore you to reread what I wrote.
I think I understand what you're saying, but even if these ideas did first appear in the Middle Ages, they were based on MUCH older Scripture: I think that needed to be said.
Ultimately, I WOULD like a response about the fact that Jesus Christ apparently puts so much faith in the Mosaic Law, compared to your assertion that the Mosaic Law was never "condoned by God Himself."
(Again, Christ's commands to love God and your neighbor WERE quotes and paraphrases of the books of Moses.)
It was the single biggest complaint/question I had, and it is the most glaring case - I believe - of willfully misrepresenting Scripture.
Bubba