Moral Codes before the 10 commandments?

[basics]

conon394,

Try Proverbs 7:2, quoting, " ESV keep my commandments and live; keep my teaching as the apple of your eye; NIV Keep my commands and you will live; guard my teachings as the apple of your eye." unquote.

If you actually read a Bible you will see that the infant churches were Jewish or synagogue orientated and therefore would never have spoken or written anything but in Hebrew, why? Because anything not Jewish was unclean. However as Gentiles were converted by their Gospel message, being put out of the synagogues, they formed house churches and so for the Gentiles who didn't understand Hebrew translations were begun. Koine Greek therefore only came long after because as I said the first letters sent out were in Hebrew but where they are now is anyone's guess.

God said that a " seed " of the woman would come, so, Who was that " seed?" First off Eve was the woman and our first mother, her line being carried on through Noah's offspring until we arrive at Jesus Christ just as prophesised. He is the promised " seed " Who took away death from the hands of Satan by His Sacrifice at Golgotha. You don't think we live in a fallen world, then have a good look around you and please stop kidding yourself?

Of course it is singular in appearance because He is One Being with Three Personalities.

[conon394]

Try Proverbs 7:2, quoting, " ESV keep my commandments and live; keep my teaching as the apple of your eye; NIV Keep my commands and you will live; guard my teachings as the apple of your eye." unquote.

That is clearly no part of the ten commandments and not some promise of eternal life. I thought we just agreed to focus on the commandments (and I suppose the immediate story of they a mythically came to be and Moses and pals) yous said we were ignoring other books

If you actually read a Bible you will see that the infant churches were Jewish or synagogue orientated and therefore would never have spoken or written anything but in Hebrew, why? Because anything not Jewish was unclean.

Odd assertion seeing a Jesus changed or ignored laws all the time.

However as Gentiles were converted by their Gospel message, being put out of the synagogues, they formed house churches and so for the Gentiles who didn't understand Hebrew translations were begun. Koine Greek therefore only came long after because as I said the first letters sent out were in Hebrew but where they are now is anyone's guess.

Nice just so story.

God said that a " seed "

The construction used as elsewhere in the bible is not a seed but eves offspring in general.

He is the promised " seed " Who took away death from the hands of Satan by His Sacrifice at Golgotha. You don't think we live in a fallen world, then have a good look around you and please stop kidding yourself?

The world is neither fall nor was it elvidated it is.

Of course it is singular in appearance because He is One Being with Three Personalities.

Err that is the a forced interpretation because you want to force the Trinity into the Old Testament.

[basics]

conon394,

That is clearly no part of the ten commandments and not some promise of eternal life. I thought we just agreed to focus on the commandments (and I suppose the immediate story of they a mythically came to be and Moses and pals) yous said we were ignoring other books.

Of course it is linked to the Ten Commandments otherwise why is it written as they were already living?

Odd assertion seeing a Jesus changed or ignored laws all the time.

What Laws did Jesus change?


Nice just so story.

A story that is written as happened.


The construction used as elsewhere in the bible is not a seed but eves offspring in general.

But not in this case.


The world is neither fall nor was it elvidated it is.

So, nothing bad has happened since the fall of Adam and Eve?


Err that is the a forced interpretation because you want to force the Trinity into the Old Testament.

Adam walked and talked with Whom? Abraham held discussion with Melchizadec and Who was He? Jacob wrestled with God, a Figure not a Spirit, so Who was that? David writes that he saw his Lord talking to the Lord so was God talking to Himself? No my friend, you don't see it because you wilfully don't want to see it yet one day you will. I just pray that it will not be too late by then.

[conon394]

conon394,



Adam walked and talked with Whom? Abraham held discussion with Melchizadec and Who was He? Jacob wrestled with God, a Figure not a Spirit, so Who was that? David writes that he saw his Lord talking to the Lord so was God talking to Himself? No my friend, you don't see it because you wilfully don't want to see it yet one day you will. I just pray that it will not be too late by then.

Well now you vered of the topic again and are not really addressing the question.

Oh well obviously my answer is nobody seeing as I do not find the Old Testament a persuasive creation myth. However taken at face value they talked (interacted) to the God of the Old Testament who made people in his image and was a singular god not the triune construction the New Testament seeks to append to the Old.

[basics]

conon394,

Sorry about the botchup of my attempt at posting but I thought I answered all your points in it. I missed a day as well because no matter what I tried I couldn't get a connection to the site.

Quote, " The Doctrine Is Not Plainly Revealed

The doctrine of the Trinity is not plainly revealed in the Old Testament. Without the teaching of the New Testament we would not be aware of this truth. Although not explicitly mentioned, the basis of the doctrine can be detected when exploring the Old Testament.
There Is A Plural Noun Used With A Singular Verb

A hint of the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the first verse of the Bible.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

The Hebrew word for God is Elohim. Elohim is a plural noun but it is used here with a singular verb bara. In the remainder of the Old Testament, when Elohim speaks of the true God, it is always used with a singular verb. The conclusion to be drawn is that in some sense God is both singular and plural. The doctrine of the Trinity states this - within the nature of the one God there are three eternal persons.
God Says "Let Us"

We find a further hint of the Trinity in Genesis 1.

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26).

The phrase "let us" again gives the idea of plurality. The word "us" cannot refer to angels because angels do not create.

Therefore, in the first chapter of the Bible we have a hint of the Trinity with the plural title Elohim used with a singular verb and God speaking and saying, "Let us."
More References To God Being Referred To As "Us"

The words "let us" is used elsewhere of God speaking in Genesis. After Adam and Eve sinned the Bible records.

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever (Genesis 3:22).

At the incident at the Tower of Babel we read God saying.

Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech (Genesis 11:7).

Isaiah the prophet recorded God saying.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me" (Isaiah 6:8).

Another Plural Name For God - Maker

There is another instance in the Isaiah where there is a second plural name for God.

For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called (Isaiah 54:5).

The word translated, "Maker" is plural in Hebrew. Therefore we have a second Hebrew word that is plural that is used of God.
The Clearest Old Testament Statement

There is one statement in the Old Testament that gives a fairly clear indication of the Trinity.

Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. "And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go (Isaiah 48:16,17).

In verse sixteen, God the Son is speaking. He identifies the Father [the Sovereign Lord] and His Spirit as having sent Him. In the next verse, the Son is clearly spoken of as the Lord. Consequently these verses identify three distinct Persons who are God without denying the fact there is only one God.
There Is A Distinction Between The Lord In Heaven And The One On Earth

The Old Testament also makes a distinction between the Lord who is in heaven and the one on earth.

Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus He overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities - and also the vegetation in the land (Genesis 19:24).

Each Member Is Specifically Mentioned In The Old Testament

In addition, each member of the Trinity is mentioned in the Old Testament.
God The Father

There are Old Testament passages that refer to God the Father.

For you are our father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our father; our Redeemer from of old is your name (Isaiah 63:16).

Malachi wrote.

Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors? (Malachi 2:10).

The Son Is Found In The Old Testament

The Son finds mention in the Old Testament. The Psalmist wrote.

Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions (Psalm 45:6,7).

In the Second Psalm we read.

I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill. I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you (Psalm 2:6,7)

Later, in that same Psalm, it says.

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in him (Psalm 2:12)

In the Book of Proverbs it says.

Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know! (Proverbs 30:4).

The Messiah Has Divine Titles

God's Son, the Messiah is described with divine titles.

"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David Or up from David's line} a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land" (Jeremiah 23:5,6).

Isaiah wrote.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).

The Angel Of The Lord

The Angel of the Lord has the power to forgive sins

"See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him (Exodus 23:20,21).

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit, or the "Spirit of the Lord," is also mentioned in the Old Testament. In the Book of Genesis we read.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (Genesis 1:2).

Isaiah recorded the following.

The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him - the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD - and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears (Isaiah 11:2,3).

Isaiah also wrote.

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners (Isaiah 61:1).

Later Isaiah wrote.

Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them (Isaiah 63:10).

The Spirit of God is distinguished from the Lord in the account leading up to the Flood.

Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years" (Genesis 6:3)

The Trinity Is Foreshadowed In Benedictions

The Trinity is also foreshadowed in the triple benediction of Numbers 6:24-27.

The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace. So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.

The doxology of Isaiah 6:3 also gives hint of the Trinity.

And they were calling to one another: Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory (Isaiah 6:3).

Jacob Blessed Joseph Three Times

When Jacob blessed his son Joseph, he used the name of God three times. Each time God's name was identified differently.

Then he blessed Joseph and said, "May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm may he bless these boys. May they be called by my name and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they increase greatly upon the earth (Genesis 48:15,16).

While this is not conclusive, the triple benedictions are consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Why Is There Not More Said?

If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, then why don't we find more explicit references in the Old Testament? Part of the answer may lie in the culture in which the Old Testament was written. Israel was surrounded by nations who were all polytheistic - they believed in many gods. It was important for Israel to realize that the God of the Bible is the only God who existed. Consequently the oneness of God was stressed. After this truth was firmly understood by Israel then the Lord revealed further truth about His basic nature - that He is a Trinity.
Summary

Although the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Old Testament, the basis of this doctrine is certainly found there. First there is the use of the plural noun for God Elohim that is used with a singular verb. This gives a hint of the Trinity. The Hebrew word for Maker, which describes God, is also in the plural.

There are also passages where God speaks of himself with the words, "Let us." This is another possible reference to the Trinity.

There are also specific passages where the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are mentioned. Add to this passages that foreshadow the Trinity with the triple benediction. These passages, however, do not reveal the doctrine of the Trinity. This was left for the New Testament to accomplish. The Old Testament does not have a developed doctrine of the Trinity. However truths about the Trinity are foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
Return to Don Stewart. " Unquote.

[conon394]

I not sure I should reply at any length. You cut and pasted an extensive apology trying to find the trinity in the Old Testament and have supplied no particular commentary to suggest that defends slavery in the 10 commandments or relates the original thread question.

In general at the most level the Elohim is an intensifier usage as a plural seeing as it is paired with a singular verb in describing god. The conclusion that is describing the Trinity only makes sense if you for after finalizing the Bew Testament orthodoxy that developed and was imposed from 2nd century AD onward.

But this imaterial when dicusinving the moral code of the 10 commandments I do not think I need kind of rebuttal of all the points raised as it off topic.

But I will let a Rabbi do it

https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

Also Consider Where are the sheep and Where is the sheep - The plurality of sheep can only be derived from is vs are

edit:

"When Jacob blessed his son Joseph, he used the name of God three times. Each time God's name was identified differently."

This a pretty forceful misleading. The text uses Elohim twice and completely different description of what is seemingly translated as angel - but is more clearly messenger. Thus references a single god twice and than his messenger.

[basics]

conon394,

It's funny that Jesus was often found in the synagogues amazong the people with His teaching yet these same people were to pin Him on a cross, why? Because they didn't like Him calling them out before the people about how they were leading them away from God rather than to Him. If your Rabbi had the same thoughts then surely his answer must fall in line with the rest because if he were to see it as it is then wouldn't he be a Christian? No, he isn't because he doesn't want to see it as you don't want to see it. I mean didn't they kill the prophets just as they killed the One they prophesised of. " Let us make man in our image, " not " let Me make man in My Image," is what is also written so how does your Rabbi get round that one? Didn't Jesus also say, " No man can come to the Father except by Me and no man can come to Me except the Father draws him." why? Because Jesus and the Father are One in combination with the Holy Spirit. If God is One in the Rabbi's case then where does the Holy Spirit fit in?

[conon394]

s

conon394,

It's funny that Jesus was often found in the synagogues amazong the people with His teaching yet these same people were to pin Him on a cross, why? Because they didn't like Him calling them out before the people about how they were leading them away from God rather than to Him. If your Rabbi had the same thoughts then surely his answer must fall in line with the rest because if he were to see it as it is then wouldn't he be a Christian? No, he isn't because he doesn't want to see it as you don't want to see it. I mean didn't they kill the prophets just as they killed the One they prophesised of. " Let us make man in our image, " not " let Me make man in My Image," is what is also written so how does your Rabbi get round that one? Didn't Jesus also say, " No man can come to the Father except by Me and no man can come to Me except the Father draws him." why? Because Jesus and the Father are One in combination with the Holy Spirit. If God is One in the Rabbi's case then where does the Holy Spirit fit in?

Well of course you have no ideal what Jesus said just what other people say he said... You do realize that the orthodoxly on the trinity was not fully established until after AD 300. In other words early Christians had rather divergent views on the issue.

It's funny that Jesus was often found in the synagogues amazong the people with His teaching

Really? If the only thing I knew about Socrates was what Plato wrote about and what he supposedly said and did I would be able to make similar statements - that he wowed everyone, easily bested other sophists, changed minds... But not so much the bits were he was a committed critic of democracy - who educated a whole bunch of treasonous oligarchs. etc. Things always look rather good when your own invested PR team is writing the copy.

Didn't Jesus also say, " No man can come to the Father except by Me and no man can come to Me except the Father draws him."

Did he you don't know nor I. Somebody said he did but those same somebodies can't agree, and make up fantastical stuff so I am meh .

If God is One in the Rabbi's case then where does the Holy Spirit fit in?

Seeing as OT is the all powerful creator god wherever and however god wants it to and in whatever form he intends. Also of course your particular understanding of the holy spirt is part of the Trinity (after editing and redactions) and is thus not part of the OT.

Still not quite understanding where you are going with this since has little or nothing to do with the morality of the 10 Commandments or any other law code. And if you are going slap in somebody else's words do at least try to defend them when they can be shown to be willfully misleading.

" Let us make man in our image, " not " let Me make man in My Image,"

Lots of potential there. God was talking to angelic beings he had created. A fragment of pre monotheism - polytheism preserved in the text. I mean once you have invented the trinity than sure you can read that into it if you want. But in say 25 BC not so much.

[basics]

conon394,

Quote, " It’s important to point out right off the bat that each of the Gospel writers had a particular intention and focus. Each of them set out to accentuate a specific and unique portrait of Jesus. Through their individual gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—focused on particular elements of Christ’s ministry and message that they felt illuminate their narrative.

Despite the writers’ varied focus, the gospels exhibit a surprising cohesiveness. They all bear witness to Jesus and his ministry, but approach the story with an individual perspective. These four panoramas don’t detract from our understanding of Jesus. On the contrary, they give us a richer, deeper, and clearer glimpse at the mystery of Christ.

For more a more in-depth discussion the gospels’ unity and diversity, check out What Are the Synoptic Gospels, and Where Did They Come From?
Four unique presentations of Jesus

The gospel writers were not only interested in exploring specific points about Jesus’ ministry, but they were also focused on speaking to particular groups. Through their presentation to these audiences, various truths about Jesus and his mission were highlighted:

Matthew Mark Luke John
The Gospel of the Messiah The Gospel of the suffering Son of God The Gospel of the Savior for all people The Gospel of the divine Son who reveals the Father
Most structured Most dramatic Most thematic Most theological

You can get a comprehensive understanding of the gospel’s unique presentations in What Are the Synoptic Gospels, and Where Did They Come From?

Keeping the intentions of the authors in mind, it becomes easier to understand why they focus on events differently. As we look at some of the reasons for the gospels “apparent” contradictions, understanding the focus of the four gospels will give us a clearer understanding.

Let’s look at some explicit explanation for the gospels’ supposed differences.
Four reasons we find apparent contradictions in the gospels
1. Paraphrasing and interpretation

There were a number of languages spoken in first-century Palestine. Throughout the region, you’d likely hear Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and even Latin. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic. It’s thought to be the primary language spoken by most Jews throughout Palestine during this era.

When you realize that the gospels were written in Greek, the fact that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic becomes very significant. This means that most of his words had to be translated into Greek—making every quote an interpretation. Languages don’t necessarily have equivalent words or phrases to make translating one vocabulary into another a trouble-free endeavor. Each gospel writer had to interpret Jesus’ words and sayings in order to find equivalents in an entirely different language. Translation is interpretation.

This is one of the reasons that scholars have long held that we have Jesus’ “authentic voice” (ipsissima vox) rather than his “exact words” (ipsissima verba). We can trust the essential meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels even though we can’t know precisely what words Jesus used.

The gospel writers’ authority as interpreters of Christ’s story meant that their translation or paraphrase of Jesus’ words would focus on the theological implications.

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is quoted as saying “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20), but Matthew records him saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3). Now it could be that Jesus said both of these things at different times, but it’s also likely that Matthew felt it was extremely important to clearly communicate the spiritual significance of Jesus’ words.

We can see another example of this at the foot of the cross. Both Matthew and Mark quote the centurion as saying “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54, Mk. 15:39), but that’s not how Luke records it. In Luke 23:47, the centurion says, “Surely this was a righteous man.” This translation make sense in light of each author’s focus. Both Matthew and Mark are focused on emphasizing Jesus’ position as the Son of God, but Christ’s innocence and righteousness is a recurring theme in Luke’s gospel. The two iterations of the centurion’s comment don’t contradict each other, they simply focus on different theological implications.

If we expect that each other gospel writers are going to give us Jesus’ words verbatim, we’re holding the gospels to a historical standard that no other historical document would be able to meet—classical or modern. Remember, no one was standing around Jesus with a tape recorder.
2. Abbreviation and omission

If you were to ask a husband and wife what they did last Saturday, you’re going to get different responses. Maybe the husband will tell you that they worked in the yard, went to the hardware store, and went out for lunch. The wife, on the other hand, might tell you, “We planted rosebushes, talked to our friends Jarrid and Allie (who they ran into at the store), and got into an argument (because the husband ordered a milkshake even though he’s lactose intolerant).”

These two stories don’t represent discrepancies; they highlight differences in perspective. For the wife, running into their friends was a bigger deal than going to the hardware store, so she focused on the important point and omitted the other. The husband had already forgotten about the argument, and remembered lunch as a high point. (One could argue that it’s in his best interest to forget the argument.)

This example represents the differences you expect to encounter with people describing the same event. We run into the same kind of thing with the gospel writers. They each focused on some details while ignoring others entirely. On the surface, it’s easy to assume that these omissions are contradictory, but that’s not necessarily so.

In Mark’s account of Jesus cursing the fig tree, it gets cursed one day and the disciples come back to find it withered the next (Mk. 11:12–14, 20–25). In Matthew’s version, the withering happens immediately after Jesus curses it (Matt. 21:18-22). For Matthew, the important part of this story isn’t experienced in its strict chronology, but in the miracle itself.

We see also Matthew omitting details in the story of the centurion’s servant. In Luke’s telling of the story, the centurion sends a contingent of Jewish elders to Jesus (Lk. 7:1–10), but Matthew reports it as the centurion himself coming to Jesus (Matt. 8:5–13). Is that a contradiction? From Matthew’s point of view, the centurion was speaking directly to Jesus through the elders. In the first century, there was no functional difference between a centurion telling you something face-to-face or through an emissary.

What about when one gospel mentions two individuals while another only speaks of one?

Two demon-possessed men (Matt. 8:28) vs. one (Mk. 5:2)
Two blind men (Matt. 20:30) vs. one (Mk. 10:46)
Two angels at the tomb (Lk. 24:4) vs. one (Mk. 16:5)

It’s important to note that Mark never insists that there’s only one person present. He simply shines a spotlight on one individual. It’s very likely that he’s highlighting the most important player and ignoring the other. But ultimately, we should see little discrepancies like these as proof of the accounts’ veracity. After all, they didn’t get together to make sure their stories were entirely free of conflict.
3. Reordering of events and sayings

Sometimes you run into gospel events that aren’t the same chronologically. You can find this when Jesus is tempted in the desert. Matthew and Luke have the order of the last two temptations reversed (Matt. 4:1–11; Lk. 4:1–13). It makes perfect sense that Luke would make the climax of the temptations occur at the top of the temple since there’s a real focus throughout his gospel on Jerusalem and the temple. Matthew, on the other hand, ends with Jesus standing on a mountain looking at all the nations of the world. For a writer who sees mountains as places of revelation and epiphany, this is understandable, too.

What about Christ’s teachings? Was the Sermon on the Mount one long message or did Matthew—like many argue—pull Jesus’ various teachings together into one place? From reading Luke, it would be easy to make the argument that the Sermon on the Mount is a compilation of Christ’s teachings. But it’s just as likely that Jesus taught the same lessons multiple times throughout his ministry. Either way, rearranging Christ’s teaching doesn’t nullify the gospels.
4. Reporting similar events and sayings

When did Jesus clear the temple? Did it happen once or twice? If it happened once, when did it happen? The synoptic gospels place this event at the end of Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 21:12–13; Mk. 11:15–17; Lk. 19:45–46), but John puts it at the beginning (Jn. 2:13–17). It’s not outside the realm of possibility that Jesus felt the need to clear the temple multiple times, but the credibility of the gospels doesn’t rest on having to believe that. There’s a possibility that Mark moved this event to the end of the gospel to emphasize its significance as an act of judgement against Israel, or that John moved it to the beginning as a historically symbolic inauguration to his ministry.

The calling of the disciples varies a lot between the gospels:

The Gospel of John: Andrew, a disciple of John the Baptist, brought his brother Simon to Jesus. (Jn. 1:35–42)
The Gospels of Matthew and Mark: Jesus calls two sets of fishermen brothers—Andrew and Peter; James and John—near the Sea of Galilee. (Mk. 1:16–20; Matt. 4:18–22)
The Gospel of Luke: Peter, James, and John experience a miraculous catch of fish and leave everything to follow him (Lk. 5:1–11)

Were these different versions of the same event? Or could they be the gradual unfolding of their experience with Jesus? Luke suggests the latter by discussing the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law before the miraculous catch of fish (Lk. 4:38–39). It’s obvious that the disciples knew Jesus prior to their decision to follow him full time.

There’s also similarities in three scenes in which Jesus is anointed with expensive perfume. Six days before Passover, John describes Mary, the sister of Lazarus who had been raised from the dead, anointing his feet (Jn. 12:1–8). Matthew and Mark tell us about the anointing of Jesus’ head by a woman at Simon the Leper’s home (Matt. 26:6–13; Mk. 14:3–9). There’s a strong likelihood that these describe the same event. Luke describes another circumstance earlier in Jesus’ ministry where he’s anointed (Lk. 7:36–50). In the case of Luke’s account, the anointing happens in the home of a Pharisee named Simon, and even though the account in Matthew and Mark’s story happens in the home of someone with the same name, it appears to be a separate occurrence. Simon is a fairly common first-century Palestinian name. Jesus displayed a tenderness and respect toward women that they were not accustomed to, and it created fierce sense of loyalty—look at the way women supported him financially (Lk. 8:1–3)—it’s not far-fetched to assume that this common sign of honor occurred multiple times.
The case of doublets

Doublets are two episodes which are typically in the same gospel that critics claim came from the same story. Examples of doublets include:

The feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand (Mk. 6:32–44; 8:1–10; Matt. 14:13–21; 15:32–39)
Matthew’s two accounts of the healing of a blind men (Matt. 9:27–31; 20:29–34)
The parable of the great banquet (Matt. 22:1–14; Lk. 14:16–24)
Matthew’s parable of the talents and Luke’s parable of the minas (Matt. 25:14 – 30; Lk. 19:11–27)

Are these all examples of cases where gospel writers treated two separate versions of a story or teaching as different events? Jesus ministered to a lot of people in a lot of different places. There’s no reason we need to believe that he couldn’t repeat a miracle or a teaching.
Differences aren’t contradictions

Consider these two sentences:

There’s a window in my office
There’s no window in my office

This is a true contradiction because for one of these sentences to be true the other has to be false. These are not the kinds of contradictions usually attributed to the gospels. Instead, the discussions tend to center around apparent discrepancies and contrary accounts, but when we look closely at them we find that they’re typically cleared up pretty easily.

Next time you run into what appears to be a conflict in the gospel accounts, ask yourself if you’re looking at one of these four issues:

Paraphrasing and interpretation
Abbreviation and omission
Reordering of events and sayings
Reporting similar events and sayings

Like those who came before us, we can put our full trust in the veracity of the gospel documents." unquote.

[conon394]

I am very much unsure of what the point of your text dump is. Again please Link by copying location and please narrate what you think you are achieving.

So you found an apology for the internal inconsistency of the canonical NT?

It is weak tea doomed by its final statement. Its starting point is an assumption that provides the basis for the handwaving. In any case they remain what unknown people wrote about Jesus after he died. They are fantasy in the level of detail they proport. They are are subset of a subset of what was written about Jesus and as subset of the arguments about his ministry. Edited and reduced by people for a specific orthodoxy. They contain fanatical events that would have been remarked in a wider literature. Jesus for all his supposed acts and crowds leaves no trace in the historical record recorded by anything other believers writing about him. .

But - this is Off Topic this dump of text says nothing about the morality of the Ten Commandments or it comparison to other law codes.

------

edit aside

"Matthew’s parable of the talents and Luke’s parable of the minas (Matt. 25:14 – 30; Lk. 19:11–27)"

Never ever trust Jesus as your financial advisor - really bad investment advice. - The last slave made the right decision in context. Also kinda suggests just how wealthy the author of Matthew was (Yes I know its a parable but read straight its bad advice from a seemingly very wealthy person).

[sumskilz]

Regarding the Holy Spirit, the word translated as “spirit” is rūaḥ (spelled rwḥ). It mainly means “wind”, as in Genesis 8:1 or Exodus 10:19, to give a couple of examples, but it also means “breath”, because what it essentially means is air in motion. Ancient Near Eastern people saw breath as that which animates a person or an animal. In Genesis 2:7, Adam comes to life because God breaths into him. So the word is “spirit” in the sense that it is the breath of life. According to Ecclesiastes 12:7, when you die, the dust from which you are made will return to the ground from where it came and the rūaḥ (breath) will return to God who gave it.

The expression in Isaiah 61:1 is rūaḥ ᵓădōnāy Yahweh, literally “the breath of our lord Yahweh”. This leads to the rather plain interpretation that to have the rūaḥ ᵓădōnāy in you, is simply to be alive, but context suggests that it can also mean to be inspired. Modern Rabbinic Jews emphasize this latter aspect, but there is no particular developed theology regarding it that is parallel to the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit.

[basics]

He is indeed the very breath of life Whom Jesus said would be to His people a Comforter.

[conon394]

He is indeed the very breath of life Whom Jesus said woulde be to His people a Comforter.

Not sure that sentence makes sense - who it the he. And have you given up on slavery and moral codes?

-----

@sumskilz

Thanks for the linguistic input - can't rep you.

[basics]

conon394,

Why He is the very Spirit of God Who fluttered over the earth at its making.

[conon394]

conon394,

Why He is the very Spirit of God Who fluttered over the earth at its making.

That is not terribly logical based on the OT

So you agree the ten commandments are terribly moral - they allow slavery and unlike other codes slavery of the in group.

[basics]

conon394,

Genesis 1:2 " And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." The word moved can be translated fluttered or hovered, fluttered giving I think better action on the part of the Holy Spirit.

Why were the Ten Commandments impossible for man to obey? Because they showed man for what he was, a sinner, quite incapable of overcoming his sin. Animal sacrifices could never cover that sin enough to ensure entry into the next world righteous in the Eyes of God and so it would take God Himself to come into the world to be the only Sacrifice capable of doing that. That Sacrifice was Jesus Christ. Did He ever advocate slavery? No, what He did was elaborate what the Commandments truly meant and so " treat your neighbour as yourself " and " turn the other cheek," go a long way in showing a person that harming anyone in any manner is wrong.

[conon394]

conon394,

Genesis 1:2 " And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." The word moved can be translated fluttered or hovered, fluttered giving I think better action on the part of the Holy Spirit.

RE sumskilz above the word is ruch. Without the developed trinity of christian orthodoxy I am not seeing any reason internal to the OT to read that as some kind of independant part of a triple god in what is a creation myth that itself is well like the rest that are made by past people with a limited understanding of the world just poetry and allegory.

Why were the Ten Commandments impossible for man to obey? Because they showed man for what he was, a sinner, quite incapable of overcoming his sin. Animal sacrifices could never cover that sin enough to ensure entry into the next world righteous in the Eyes of God and so it would take God Himself to come into the world to be the only Sacrifice capable of doing that. That Sacrifice was Jesus Christ. Did He ever advocate slavery? No, what He did was elaborate what the Commandments truly meant and so " treat your neighbour as yourself " and " turn the other cheek," go a long way in showing a person that harming anyone in any manner is wrong.

You are avoiding the direct question on the morality of them as delivered.

Because they showed man for what he was, a sinner, quite incapable of overcoming his sin

There we go Augustine's Manicheism. Anyway seeing as the commandments were just given to his chosen people at that point of the OT God was rather disinterested in 'man' - the rest of humans - as Jericho demonstrates.

Animal sacrifices could never cover that sin enough to ensure entry into the next world righteous in the Eyes of God

If that was the case why did god demand them. Why bother seems again cruel capriciousness.

and so it would take God Himself to come into the world to be the only Sacrifice capable of doing that.

A very convoluted plan to undue some as you see it something God dictated quite simply in the beginning don't you think? Why then leaving so many in the dark because this happened in a backwater of the Roman empire before printed books, recordings film etc. Why not sooner, why bother with Commandments - I assume you would assert god knew they would as you claim fail.

Did He ever advocate slavery?

Moving the goal post again. But he did advocate against it directly he could have but the people writing about him seemed to have wanted keep their slaves. Why not now you have the opiate of the masses to make them more content.

No, what He did was elaborate what the Commandments truly meant and so " treat your neighbour as yourself " and " turn the other cheek," go a long way in showing a person that harming anyone in any manner is wrong.

And yet Paul clearly does understand that to preclude slavery.

[MaximiIian]

Regarding the cluster of recent posts: to be honest, I think the attempts to discern the Christian Trinity in the Old Testament smack of some really deep antisemitism. You're basically reworking Jewish sacred texts and myths to mean something they were never meant to-- in the process, ignoring centuries of Jewish exegesis and commentary on their own texts. You're appropriating from Jewish scripture and culture, robbing it of its context and twisting its meaning to fit your own. That pretty much implies the Jews don't know what they're talking about, when it comes to their own . Do you not see how that is horribly insulting to Jews? How it's infantilizing and condescending, at best? And at its worst, has been used as a pretext for discrimination, abuse, and genocide?

[swabian]

Regarding the cluster of recent posts: to be honest, I think the attempts to discern the Christian Trinity in the Old Testament smack of some really deep antisemitism. You're basically reworking Jewish sacred texts and myths to mean something they were never meant to-- in the process, ignoring centuries of Jewish exegesis and commentary on their own texts. You're appropriating from Jewish scripture and culture, robbing it of its context and twisting its meaning to fit your own. That pretty much implies the Jews don't know what they're talking about, when it comes to their own . Do you not see how that is horribly insulting to Jews? How it's infantilizing and condescending, at best? And at its worst, has been used as a pretext for discrimination, abuse, and genocide?

You seem to have missed out the last 1600~1700 years of history or so. Christianity is not Jewish, it is Roman.

[basics]

You seem to have missed out the last 1600~1700 years of history or so. Christianity is not Jewish, it is Roman.

swabian,

Can you explain that?