Sure. I would suggest the following website that follows the
classification by Maimonides in the 12th century. He lists 613 laws
along with their references in the Torah.
You
can tell which commands are civil, ceremonial, moral, and some that fit
under more than one heading and some don't belong to either category.
If you need some more clarity about which commands belong to what
category, we can discuss further. As for which commands are binding on
us today - they are the commands that we can follow. I'm perfectly
willing to discuss this further if more questions are being asked. I
would further say that one must remember that Jesus perfectly fulfilled
the laws and we haven't and we can't. That's not saying that the the Law
is wrong - we are. Please re-read Galatians 3:15-22 because Paul
explains what the use of the law is and how it fits in our lives today.
Mariano has written a series of articles responding to the assertion Harry McCall made on the Debunking Christianity blog that Moses did not write the Torah and because Jesus said he did, Jesus was wrong and therefore could not be what Christians believe him to be. Look at Mariano's arguments against McCall assertions.
I'm going to grant that Deuteronomistic History as a fact because most scholars seem to agree to it even though I'm not completely sold on it. Instead let's look at McCall's claims that Moses did not write Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers.
(Yet it is clear that Jesus thought Moses gave Israel the Law: “Did not Moses give you the Law,…” John 7: 19). Thus, if the modern critical view of the Bible is correct, then Jesus himself is subject to error.)
I'm glad that McCall is willing to grant the John 7:19 accurately recounts Jesus' words. It's nice to have a point of agreement to start with. I don't agree with the modern view but this post is about McCalls' alleged contradiction which he says show that Moses did not write those first books of the New Testament.
Point A: Why do latter books of the Bible totally ignore early Mosaic Laws - such as when Elijah is commanded by God to eat what unclean ravens brought (1 Kings 17:6) - especially when the Law clearly forbids eating that which has been torn by beasts?
The latter books of the Bible do not ignore the Mosaic Laws. Now a few important points:
1. Who said that the ravens brought Elijah brought meat that had been torn by beasts?
2. Does McCall really think that no one else has thought of this question?
3. There is a long tradition offering alternatives other that what McCall suggests. For Example.
1. "You shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh torn to pieces in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs." Exodus 22: 31
2. "Also the fat of an animal which dies and the fat of an animal torn by beasts may be put to any other use, but you must certainly not eat it." Lev. 7: 24
3. "He shall not eat an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, becoming unclean by it; I am the LORD." Lev 22: 8)
These three examples actually misrepresents what the Bible says.
1. Doesn't conflict with the raven because the Bible does not say that the meat came from torn animals.
2. Fat and Meat are not necessarily the same thing. The Hebrew words used for "flesh" in Exodus 22:31 and "fat" in Lev 7:24; 22:8 are not the same words at all. Again, it doesn't conflict with ravens bringing Elijah food wither.
3. Leviticus 22:8 is in context of the Levitcal priesthood. Which would have applied to Elijah. But not in context with the raven because of the aforementioned reasons.
Some more Biblcial[sic] proofs of the LATE creation of the “Mosaic Law” (Pentateuch) is listed below:
Let's see if McCall's arguments improve.
Point B: Why did Samuel hesitate to anoint a king over Israel (1 Samuel 8) when Samuel already had Deuteronomy 17: 15?
No improvement here. We just agreed that Deuteronomy may not have been written by Moses. I'll save that for another post. The passage is clear for why Samuel did not think there should be a king.
Point C: Why did Elijah build an altar to Yahweh away from the legitimate central sanctuary?
Where does the Torah say that it's wrong to build an altar away from the central sanctuary. A reference would have been nice. At the time the Torah came down there was only the Tabernacle and no Temple. There is a tradition that was certainly around in Jesus' time that Jerusalem was the only legitimate place to worship God, but Jerusalem did not come under Jewish control until David's time and we know they were worshiping Yahweh way before that. And Jesus shot down this idea in John 4.
Point D: Why can Hezekiah quote no “Mosaic Law” for his reform, whereas Josiah does (2 Chronicles 31 to 2 Kings 23)?
Who said Hezekiah couldn't? Hezekiah's reforms were in line with the Mosaic Law, just because the passages does not quote the Law doesn't mean they didn't have it.Also keep in mind that a lost book was found in the temple during Josiah reign. If the Law had not been written down, what were they reading? See
8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. 9 Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: “Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple.” 10 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.
11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. 12 He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: 13 “Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.” - 2 Kings 22:8-13
Point E: Why does Deuteronomy permit Levites to come to the altar where as Leviticus does not? Link.
Again, after McCall says he's dealing with the books before Deuteronomy, he brings up another conflict between Deuteronomy and Leviticus. So again his further arguments deteriorate.
Harry McCall even further posted the following anecdote.
Twenty-three years ago (while I was president of our humanistic discussion group here in Greenville The Lion‘s Den) I debated a young ministerial student over the truth of the Bible (one of a number of debates I did back in the 80’s). This nice young ministerial student published very well written a monthly apologetic newspaper he entitled: The Bible Trumpet.
With regard to our debate, he asked me if his wife could help in defending his conservative position on Biblical truth... one point being that Moses wrote Pentateuch. I told him I would welcome her input, however the debate did not fare well for them and they left disappointed.
A year later, he excitedly told me that he was going to attend an Apologetic Bible conference where the famed Late Gleason Archer, PhD; ThD; the renowned conservative Old Testament scholar and the editor of “The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” along with the conservative Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser would be leading a major conference on the defense of the Bible.
Dr. Archer's topic was: What Proof Do We have That Moses Wrote the
Pentateuch?
Dr. Walter Kaiser’s topic was: The J E D P Documentary Hypothesis Exploded
(I still have the audio tape somewhere in my library.)
After both apologetic lectures, Drs. Archer and Kaiser would then debate several Moslem scholars in order to exposed the Qu’ran as a false historical record (A debate I thought was like the pot calling the kettle black!).
My young friend told me he had been in touch with Dr. Archer who challenged him to have me write down any facts which I felt proved Moses did not write the Pentateuch. My friend said he would personally give them to Dr. Archer at the conference and claimed that Dr. Archer “…would put me in my place”.
My young ministerial friend told me that he was very excited about Dr. Archer’s challenge to me and he could not wait to give me my irrefutable apologetic proofs that Moses did write the Pentateuch. So I wrote down five hard facts which I felt proved Moses did, in fact, not write the Pentateuch.
A week later my ministerial friend returned, but seemed very disappointed. After all, he had used his short vacation time off from his night job (as he was a full time college Bible student during the day), plus he paid all his expenses to and at the conference with his credit card.
When I asked him what irrefutable evidence Dr. Archer provided so as to prove my facts wrong, he told me he didn’t know what had happened.
He said he gave Dr. Archer my questions, who studied them for a short time, then Archer threw them on the conference table and exclaimed: “Whose this nut?” before walking off.
That’s right! Yours truly has been declared an official declared a “nut” by the editor / author of The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (sounds a lot like JP Holding).
However, I had the last laugh since (the funny thing is) it only took a “nut” to stump the great Gleason Archer!
I found this anecdote extremely sad. McCall seems to be willing to think that Dr Archer calling him a "nut" and not even dignifying his silly ideas with a rebuttal is the same as not being able to offer counter arguments. Further it's interesting how atheists are more than willing to see Richard Dawkins' dismissal of Christians as a "win" but think that if a Christian scholar does the same of arguments that they think are not worth their time equates to the Christian "loosing". Why would McCall think that Archer was stumped. I think Archer just didn't want to waste his time. I mean he couldn't just let McCall think he had worthy arguments.I mean that is what Dawkins says. Total fail here.
What are the odds that on the same day Dr. Claude Mariottini would post an article on Biblical Minimalism as John Loftus would post a comment from a Harry McCall that attempts to prove that Moses did not write the Pentateuch? It is amazing. Mariottini's article was in my RSS feed before Loftus' post. It's like getting the antidote before the poison shows up.
Dr. Mariottini defined Biblical Minimalism as follows:
Biblical minimalists have a very low concept of the Bible. Those who hold a minimalist view of the Bible believe that the Bible was written in the Persian period and that the facts contained in the Bible cannot be used to write an authoritative history of Biblical Israel.
Dr. Mariottini goes on to explain why scholarship is moving away from that view. Juxtaposed with McCall' statement it becomes obvious that Mariottini's post addresses McCall's concerns in a general fashion. McCall is quoted as writing:
The belief that either Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that it predates the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy – II Kings) is unfounded by the Biblical facts themselves:
(Yet it is clear that Jesus thought Moses gave Israel the Law: “Did not Moses give you the Law,…” John 7: 19). Thus, if the modern critical view of the Bible is correct, then Jesus himself is subject to error.)
Point A: Why do latter books of the Bible totally ignore early Mosaic Laws - such as when Elijah is commanded by God to eat what unclean ravens brought (1 Kings 17:6) - especially when the Law clearly forbids eating that which has been torn by beasts?
1. "You shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh torn to pieces in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs." Exodus 22: 31
2. "Also the fat of an animal which dies and the fat of an animal torn by beasts may be put to any other use, but you must certainly not eat it." Lev. 7: 24
3. "He shall not eat an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, becoming unclean by it; I am the LORD." Lev 22: 8)
Some more Biblcial proofs of the LATE creation of the “Mosaic Law” (Pentateuch) is listed below:
Point B: Why did Samuel hesitate to anoint a king over Israel (1 Samuel 8) when Samuel already had Deuteronomy 17: 15?
Point C: Why did Elijah build an altar to Yahweh away from the legitimate central sanctuary?
Point D: Why can Hezekiah quote no “Mosaic Law” for his reform, whereas Josiah does (2 Chronicles 31 to 2 Kings 23)?
Point E: Why does Deuteronomy permit Levites to come to the altar where as Leviticus does not? Link.
Again while, Mariottini does not address points A-E, he does talk about why we should think of the Pentateuch as authoritative regarding the Biblical history of Biblical Israel - which McCall denies. This discussion does not depend on whether or not you believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch in his own hand or if was passed from Moses by oral tradition. The bottom line is that Jesus in various places in the Old Testament testified that the Law came from Moses and many times appealed to it as binding and authoritative. This is a point worth contending on. I will be giving a more detailed response to McCall's 5 points because they deserve some added space and time to wrestle with. I would highly suggest that anyone interested in this issue should read Dr. Mariottini's article closely at the following link.
Here is a lecture from Adan Rashid in which he tries to show that the Bible foretells the advent of Muhammad. I am amazed that he says that now that we have the Qur'an we don't need the Bible. Rashid spends quite a bit of time in the video trying to show a tradition Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible. He ends up arguing that the Bible is proof that Muhammad is what the Muslims say heas and that he had to get his knowledge from God because he could not read and did not have access to other books that he is accused of copying. I agree. Had he had access to those books, then maybe the Qur'an would not contain errors in describing the same events the Bible does or Christian theology. Then Muhammad turned around and taught that Muslims should revere the Torah, the Prophets, and the Injil (New Testament) and had he know how different his message was I doubt that he would have told his followers to read and understand them. If a Muslim is going to obey Muhammad, then he/she can't throw out the Bible. so what does the Muslim to do to reconcile this? Some ignore it, others like Rashid attempt to reconcile the Bible and the Qur'an bytrying to find events and persons from Islam in the Bible text. How well does this work?
Unfortunately, not very well. I'm not an Islamic scholar and I am willing to give Rashid some credit because he was attempting to cover a lot quickly. Let's look at two of the Bible passages he cited and see if his exegesis can bear any weight.
Isaiah 29:12
12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I don't know how to read."
Rashid said that this passage is referring to Muhammad because the prophet could not read. He interprets the scroll as the being the Qur'an. Two problems that jump out at me is I thought Muhammad dictated the Qur'an and was not handed a scroll. The other problem I have is context. The chapter is about punishment on Israel. Does Rashid really want to take verse 12 out of it's context and apply it to someone who it is not addressed to? Guess so.
Isaiah 42
Jews see the first part of this chapter as talking about the promised Messiah. Christians say it is Jesus. Rashid is arguing that it's talking about Muhammad. He seemed to focus on verse 1 - 9 so i will too.
6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;
I will take hold of your hand.
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
7 to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
How does that describe Muhammad. There are no recorded miracles of Muhammad healing blind people...but Jesus did.
Using
4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his law the islands will put their hope."
Rashid argues that the passage refers to Muhammad because at it height Islam reached the peninsula on which Spain and Portugal sit. He said that that a peninsula is the same as an island and that's not true. This just does not work. You will also notice Rashid creatively uses geography to show his point. That is also a stretch.
I noticed that Rashid's audience does not know the Bible and he basically expects them to accept him as an authority, but I hope that they look themselves to see if he is correct...because he's not.
On Mariano's Life and Doctrine blog there is a great post showing parallels of the Law in Judaism and Christianity. Mariano is truly gifted by God in communicating the truths of the Bible. This post is a great start for anyone who wants to study how the Torah fits into both Judaism and Christianity.
It has come to my attention that some people don't believe that the tradition that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible is true. Their reason? Well it breaks down to two contentions:
1. The stories were passed down orally and written down later on. Some say during the Babylonian exile. Makes sense? No, this theory does not jive with what the Bible itself says or what the historical record shows. I have two Reasons why I say this.
Had the Torah been codified I think that at least part of it would be written in Aramaic which was the exiles spoke in during captivity. Recall that parts of Ester and Daniel are in Aramaic. However the whole Torah is in Hebrew.
The words of the Torah predates the exile. When the "Books of the Law" were found during the renovations of the first Temple during the time of King Josiah (2 Chronicles 34:14-33). If the Torah was not written down before the Exile, what was they reading?
2. The other contention is that because Deuteronomy describes Moses' death, he could not have written the Torah. There is a Christian response and a Jewish response that I think that works either way. Some Christians believe that someone completed Deuteronomy after Moses died. This does not mean the Torah is not divinely inspired. It's perfect because it came from God. The other reasoning comes from Jewish teaching. They suggest that Moses wrote the passage about his own death in tears. Doesn't bother me because Moses was a prophet and why couldn't he write about his death before he died and be completely right on the details?
_(english).jpg)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t5V5U_0XUNC08p-gel5193YXCHGm8NtUJbFuydUQmSQyT63hWkqJWVq-5i2a0rBAxsLnLD-Uc5yBVb-Byi_gnt51ULhSM_G7SSloH9r2PnePOlLVhJLR3OEvQxEh3m9AsAf2zjsJy8tSJCkUP8CpS6=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uzSUAooZe926GeOYY8iVKbV89QAZlZcks1Uw12RhS2RPpaEbqoIMN1-TkeX3wnJhsQdRwRYZ2xX02D4diJhSStPIRvAWfq6DJwfqcHzH7lQ8-IhLH_Cqbw09U5Zkgk68lfgfUpKKG74DI7vaNigYg=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v_V6twmNYGNlp9FNmqU2gOM0-67WUCA70bZtzhBT793PAm3sIanLjzhgx5FShPa7dzbuKo1-lse6KRk8PcZxTwlf7AZiT1E9VA_W8wot-ITI6faE-hlISrDA7YoydsvSZcKcQCmDbbzLfja88Aa3Fu=s0-d)