Re: another heresy?

Michael,

Thank you for acting as a spokesman for Bob; but the trouble with this
arrangement is that none of my questions get answered - unless you are
prepared to have a go, that is.

Clearly, Luke 16:19-31 is more than _parable_; it is _revelation_ concerning
that which interests all believers. And, since it is the Lord himself who
says "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be
convinced even if someone rises from the dead." (NIV), why wouldn't it be
fair to conclude that he believed Moses to be the author of the Torah? On
what possible authority can Bob and yourself claim "Jesus' statement has
nothing to do with historical facts about authorship."?

Vernon

-----Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; "Robert Schneider"
<rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
Cc: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: another heresy?

> Vernon
>
> Bob's comment is totally reasonable. He does not question our Lord's
> veracity as that has to do with what Moses taught and not whether or not
> he wrote the whole of the 5 teuch. Those verses are irrelevant to the
> authorship question. For myself I don't care whether or not Moses actually
> wrote the Pentateuch, but what is important is the reliability of what is
> written and that means that the Mosaic law came through Moses.
>
> I liked Bob's imagery about the tree. never heard it before
>
> People like Mackay think they know it all and are incapable of listening
> to the word of God and hence never hear what 1 Cor 13 says to them and us.
> Having experienced Mackay in action I find nothing in anything he says and
> does which is remotely Christian.- hence heavy sarcasm in a previous post.
>
> Michael
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
> To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; "Chris Barden"
> <chris.barden@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA list"
> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 8:35 PM
> Subject: Re: another heresy?
>
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Your recent reply to Chris, published in this - a Christian forum - is
>> IMO a matter of great concern, and warrants clarification.
>>
>> (1) Apparently you doubt the Lord's veracity and sincerity in respect of
>> the parable recorded in Luke 16:19-31. Did you really mean to say that?
>> If so, wouldn't that imply that we are under no obligation to believe
>> anything he ever said, or did?!
>>
>> (2) "Jesus' statement has nothing to do with historical facts about
>> authorship." But you must agree that that is how the message comes
>> across to the unbiased reader! Why are you so sure that Mackay is wrong?
>>
>> (3) "This is latching on to a tree and missing the forest." I find this
>> statement completely incomprehensible. Can you please elucidate?
>>
>> (4) "One of the frustrating things about people like that is that they
>> just don't get it." As a person 'like that' what, precisely, don't I
>> get?
>>
>> Vernon Jenkins
>> www.otherbiblecode.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
>> To: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA list"
>> <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:30 PM
>> Subject: Re: another heresy?
>>
>>
>>> Chris, I would say to Mackay, "What else would any believer expect Jesus
>>> to say to his fellow Jews?" Jesus' statement has nothing to do with
>>> historical facts about authorship. This is latching on to a tree and
>>> missing the forest. One of the frustrating things about people like
>>> that is that they just don't get it.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
>>> To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
>>> Cc: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "ASA list"
>>> <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:45 AM
>>> Subject: Re: another heresy?
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur that we don't need Moses to have been the author. But it's
>>> clear that for the creationists Mosaic authorship is, if not a
>>> necessary argument, at least a useful hammer. I saw John Mackay of
>>> Creation Research talk a few weeks ago, and he made a big deal out of
>>> Moses writing Genesis so he could cite Luke 16: "If you won't believe
>>> Moses, you won't believe even if someone comes back from the dead"
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/7/05, Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> Michael writes:
>>>>
>>>> "That view I have long held but cant see why it matters when the
>>>> Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many times
>>>> before
>>>> the final form."
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Historical questions of authorship, composition, etc., are
>>>> interesting, and may provide hermeneutical aids, but in the final
>>>> analysis
>>>> it is the text as we have it that matters. What are its stories and
>>>> what do
>>>> they mean theologically and spiritually?
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>>>> To: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>; "ASA list"
>>>> <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:50 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: another heresy?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Theological students in the 50s had four coloured pencils and
>>>> > coloured the
>>>> > Pentateuch according to whether it was JEP orD! When I did theology
>>>> > in the
>>>> > 70s my non-conservative OT teacher said JEPD didn't work and combined
>>>> > J
>>>> > and E.
>>>> >
>>>> > There is much question about this now , but still it is taught .
>>>> >
>>>> > The likes of Gordon Wenham dispense with it and reckon the Pentateuch
>>>> > was
>>>> > collated in about 1000BC thus dispensing with both JEPD and Mosaic
>>>> > authorship. That view I have long held but cant see why it matters
>>>> > when
>>>> > the Pentateuch was written and it may well have been modified many
>>>> > times
>>>> > before the final form.
>>>> >
>>>> > Mathematicians will be interested to know that Euclid's geometry only
>>>> > partially derives form Euclid and was collated over centuries. Does
>>>> > that
>>>> > disprove geometry?
>>>> >
>>>> > Michael
>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>> > From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
>>>> > To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:51 AM
>>>> > Subject: JEDP: another heresy?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> Hello all,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've been wondering lately what the status of the JEDP documentary
>>>> >> hypothesis should be in light of its "evolutionary" character. It
>>>> >> is
>>>> >> cited approvingly in plenty of Bible commentaries and is lambasted
>>>> >> by
>>>> >> Answers in Genesis (see
>>>> >> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp) so my
>>>> >> assumption is to treat it with some plausibility. But I don't
>>>> >> really
>>>> >> know much about it, so I thought I would ask experts on the list if
>>>> >> it
>>>> >> is a firm explanation of "textual origins" or something weaker.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Chris
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 9 18:31:05 2005