I think this is my new favourite bible passage! Thanks.
Send me to Hell if you must, but I will never give up my popcorn penguin.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me!”
“Huh. So there are other gods?”
“Of course not! I am the LORD thy GOD!”
“Doesn’t really seem worth mentioning then, does it?”
<sigh> “Look, I don’t think you realize exactly who you’re dealing with, here.”
By that logic, he didn’t really have a problem with murder either, since he told Joshua to kill his enemies, including the noncombatants. Some say this doesn’t count as murder, but those people are either extremely naive, deliberately ignorant, or flat-out liars.
IIRC, God throws rocks at people who are retreating from battle during that conquest.
In any event, yes, it would appear that God - at least at times - did not have a problem with murder.
As to rape, I think the OT pretty much views women as property. You win the battle, you get the spoils, which include the women.
That said, I think God does have a problem with rape, in that it lowers the value of the woman - which is why some prescriptions say that the woman has to then marry the rapist, cause no one else will take her. I think the rapist still has to pay a dowry to the father, but my memory is hazy here.
Also, as to the OT and dietary restrictions (another poster brought this up), it completely depends which gospel you read. Matthew would say that you have to follow the OT laws better than the Jews did. Paul would say all that matters is if you are saved (ie, believed in Jesus, you could not do works to get into heaven).
We have to remember that, in early Christianity, there were various groups of Christians with various beliefs. It’s not like all the Christians, circa 100AD, had all the gospels. Some had Mark, others Luke, and others a combination. So really the dietary restrictions all depend on which Gospels you take as authoritative.
Your point being? If you think that I think that massacring the entire populations of cities down to the baby born yesterday isn’t murder on a grand scale, you have me confused with someone else.
Exactly.
This line of questioning reminds me of the Joshua Challenge.
I disagree about what Matthew would say.
Okay.
Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 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.
5:19 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: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
One thing to keep in mind is that Jesus was not a pharisee. Pharisee’s were known for interpreting the law - outside of what it said. Bart Ehrman brings up the example of what constituted work on the Sabbath. Obviously gathering your crops would be ‘working’, but would picking a few things to eat be considered working? How about if you brushed up against some of your crops and they came down, accidentally, is that working?
This is what the Pharisee’s were known for. So unless there is a certain prescription in the old testament for washing one’s hands, I’d say this is Jesus criticizing their interpretation of the law - not the law itself. Notice it’s the prescription of the elders, not of the lord or of scripture.
If there is a prescription then it seems that jesus flip-flopped.
“And then Jesus’ disciples became greatly ill, for there was a foul bacteria upon their unwashed hands that afflicted them all.”
Fair enough, but Matthew 5:17-20 is usually understood to mean that no one can enter the Kingdom on their own merits since righteousness is an impossible standard. In fact the rest of chapter 5 consists of Jesus taking a bunch of commandments and making them even harder to follow. Jesus’ point seems to be that trying to follow the Law is futile - but admittedly that’s only one possible interpretation.
Just as an aside, when we have these threads, why do so many people use quotes from the KJV? It neither the most accurate translation nor the most widely-used. I have no problem with it but it just seems kind of odd and sometimes hard to decypher.
Majority US forum with an even greater proportion of posters from the anglosphere. Anglosphere is mainly Protestant or formerly so. Isn’t the KJV the most common Protestant Bible?
Which version would you like to use?
Perhaps now it is, but I think it’s fairly clear that this was not the author’s intent. The modern interpretations attempt to harmonize all the gospels, as though they were all written to the same groups of Christians. Early on, when Paul is preaching to the Gentiles, it’s fairly clear that among the Christians (Jame’s sect?) there were varying degrees of what one must do. Paul chastizes Peter for having dinner with only the Jews (excluding the gentiles), for instance.
Your view (the modern view) is Paul’s view.
So, again, it all completely depends one what you take as authoritative.
The source i go to is in KJV and it’s easier to C&P, otherwise I have to C&P from blue letter bible and remove all the numbers.
I agree with the idea that it’s not the most accurate - I don’t think any of them are, to be honest. Most modern bibles have forged letters of Paul in them, interpolations, and a whole lot of other things that were not in the ‘original’.
I think the NIV is the most widely-used English version today, but that’s anecdotal. I’ve attended dozens of churches from a diversity of denominations (and non-denominations) and none of them used the KJV in regular practice. But now I’m curious and I’ll do some research.
Whether or not it was the author’s intent is not clear; it’s certainly arguable. But it’s funny that you consider Paul’s view the “modern” one. 
Fair enough. I use BibleGateway.com – and yes manually removing the verse numbers and footnotes is a pain.
I know about half of Paul’s letters (and other bits and pieces) are pseudographical, but it depends on your definition of ‘original.’ I’m satisfied with calling the canon that was agreed upon in the third century as the original New Testament - the actual author of Ephesians or Timothy (e.g.) is of secondary importance.
I think that the majority of scholars would probably side with me here. As to Paul’s view and the modern one, I meant with regard to what you were saying. Then again, it completely depends what you are referring to.
His ‘view’ was changed (ie, timothy, as an example).
None of what we have is ‘original’. That aside, I would suggest that the letters forged in Paul’s name are not original at all, since they are not Paul’s words.
I don’t understand how you could be satisfied, but to each their own. Also, which Canon are you referring to? Some of them, such as the Sinaiticus have different books than what we have today, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. I think most of them have the false ending of Mark in them as well. Why be satisfied with forgeries?
It depends what you mean by ‘original.’ We don’t have the first manuscripts, no. But the canon today is pretty much what was considered authoritative by Athanasius in the 360s and confirmed by the church councils a few years later, and had been in use in similar form for up to two centuries earlier. So when I refer to ‘the canon’ I mean the modern one, which goes back to the early church. There were competing canons, but over time those were weeded out.
The books erroneously credited to Paul don’t bother me (or church people in general) because they don’t derive their authority from Paul. So it doesn’t really matter who wrote them. We don’t know who wrote Hebrews either but that doesn’t seem to bother anyone. The church Patriarchs, for the most part, agreed that those books represented the tradition that had been handed down from the first generation of apostles.
This is a good conversation but we’ve wondered pretty afar from the OP so I’ll just leave it at that. I’ll let you have the last word if you wish :D.
The Canon that survived is pretty much the same - but I don’t really see that as being a relevant factor. Why should I take Athanasius’s word on the matter? He didn’t even seem to be aware that Mark had a forged ending.
As to two centuries earlier, you are saying 160AD? On what basis can you make that claim? Some of the pastoral epistles were still being written around then.
Some of those books contradict Paul (such as with matters pertaining to women and salvation).
IIRC, Hebrews was originally thought to have been written by Paul up until the reformation.
As to bothering people - that’s subjective - most Christians, I would guess, are not aware of these issues. The Church Patriarchs were not aware of how the books came into being - most of them assumed Church tradition was correct, which modern scholarship is at odds with. The majority of scholars do not think that the the gospels were written by eye witness sources.
Fair enough.
Unicorns, man! Unicorns! 
Only if you don’t mind when our country does it.
So one interpretation of this could be break the commands and teach others to do so gets you into heaven.
I’m not saying that’s my interpretation, but it certainly seems plausible. And we have this:
[QUOTE=Matt 11:11]
Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
[/QUOTE]
So putting the 2 together (Matt 5:19 and Matt 11:11), everyone on earth is presently ‘lower’ then the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, so moving from any position on earth to the ‘least’ position in heaven is a sizable promotion. And that specific promotion is for everyone, as we all have broken the commandments and to some degree taught other to do so. The one who does the commandments and teaches others would appear to be Christ, who receives the greatest place in Heaven.