prisonchaplain

Thank you. This assessment matches up well with my experience here...everything from your "liberal Methodist/Lutheran" perspective to the almost fundamentalist approach of others. The demographics you suggest may or may not be accurate. However, it is worth noting that a more liberal understanding of the Holy Bible creates far less challenge to basic Mormon theology than it does to evangelical beliefs. So, a Mormon achieving higher education might be much more maleable to adopting such views than an evangelical. Bravo! I think you've hit the essential issue, here. The Mormon canon is extremely open, and the issue is less essential, anyway, since scripture is always subject to the living prophets' interpretations and pronouncements. Since the evangelical canon is closed in practice, and has been unchanged for roughly 1600 years, we have much more writing on the reliability of the Holy Bible vis a vis archeology, etc. The catch phrase you are looking for is "Bibolatry." I might accuse anti-Pentecostal fundamentalists of this, since they will fall on the sword of every miracle in the Bible, yet deny that God would let one take place today. Don't mess with the Bible! We don't need miracles today, because we have the Bible and it's complete. Yes, that comes close to bibolatry. Evangelicals also have a much higher view of scripture, to be sure. However, I liken the Bible to an anchor. Humans may fail, interpretations may vary...but the Word itself remains there. The beauty of the priesthood of all believers is that you are not subject to the interpretations of men...even those who may be more theologically versed than you. Sometimes the simple do confound the wise. If you're able to discern the essential truths with this approach, it's still a blessing. My sense is that I simply see God as much more aggressively willing to intervene in our affairs, in sometimes fantastic ways. This is perhaps the most useful post of yours I've read to date. Many thanks.

This is perhaps the clearest explanation on this matter I've seen to date. Thank you. Let me see now if I have, in fact, understood: 1. Catholics claim apostolic authority rests, first, with the Pope, through the line of Peter. The Pope has the authority to speak ex cathedra (sp?), or with infallibility. He does not always do so, however. 2. Mormons claim priestly and apostolic authority, in that Joseph was a latter day prophet, and God used him to restore the Christian church. He also restored two orders of priesthood, the apostolic line, and the prophetic line. 3. Protestants (not all, of course) claim that Jesus' granted authority to all his followers, charging them with making disciples. They were all, through holy living and declaration of the good news, to point the lost to him. Concerning scripture then... 1. Catholics treat scripture and tradition equally, and claim that the church has the ultimate authority to interpret. 2. Mormons treat scripture as sacred, and claim that it must be understood in light of the living prophet's declarations. 3. Protestants rely on scripture as the ultimate source for understanding God's will, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, of course. Pastors and teachers are gifted by the Holy Ghost to present these words for people, but each believer also can study and understand individually, and is expected to do so. Haven't I gotten at least the overview right?

You raise an interesting question. Like I said, a true quandry. Most college students get $1000s, if not $10,000s in grants and scholarships. So, in addition to student loans, do we suggest to college graduates that they have a tithe-debt that may add additional thousands? I am not saying we should not. However, for many college students this would indeed be huge. Just to muddy the waters more. Most public universities use tuition for about 20-25% of its costs. So, even a student that paid full tuition, in reality, is getting 75% support from the state. Is that increase? If s/he pays $8000 per year in tuition (WA State), does that mean that in reality there was a $16000 increase--that the student "owes" God $1600? In my own case, I won $1000 in a writing contest a few years back, and did tithe $100 on it (in addition to paying taxes on it). But, scholarships? Maybe. Or maybe the reality that I'll be tithing on a much better income as a result of the education suffices? I wonder how many college graduates at this site suddenly find themselves running for calculators?

Well...I didn't forget--that's why I included the link to the official site. I also know that in any faith movement there will be a range of views on any given subject--all of which may be within the confines of that group's orthodoxy. So, I'm trying to see what that range is concerning the Holy Bible. So, Ray, did God speak through a donkey, did God send animals to kill children who insulted a prophet by calling him baldy, was the world literally flooded up to the mountain tops? What is your view on these controversies? Is the an official Mormon perspective on biblical interpretation, when it comes to supernatural miracles? This revelation hit me today, quite strongly. The doctrine of Restored Gospel means that Mormons reject everything that happened in the church from about 100-1820 AD. So, of course, all the councils, the forming of the canon, etc. would be deemed without authority, and church history would be considered more or less a study of a non-Christian cult. Furthermore, as Traveler has intimated, even the Old Testament, being compiled by religious authorities who's descendents would reject the Messiah, are not considered fully authoritative. So, who defines the canon? Of course, the restored Christian church. So, yes, Ray, I get it. By way of contrast, we evangelicals speak of a Judea-Christian tradition. We do not see the Christian church as having broken off from Judaism, but rather, having fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies. We are not divorced from Judaism, but have been grafted into the seed of Abraham. Additionally, we do not divorce ourselves from church history, because we do not believe the church became apostate beyond redemption. Rather, we Protestants would agree with Martin Luther's call for reform. In fact, one of my history professors argued that Luther probably saved the Roman church, by forcing it to reform in reaction to the rising Protestant movement. So, when the Church finalized the canon between 200-400 AD, we see the hand of God in that. When, in the 1500s the Roman Catholic church tried to bolster its tradition against the emerging Protestant theology by canonizing the Apocrapha (which does have passages supporting Purgatory, etc.), over 1000 years after the canon had been finalized and left unchanged, well, to Protestants it seemed to be a clearly defensive moved--rather than an inspired one. So, Blomberg is right (in How Wide the Divide?). The canon cannot be definitely declared closed by referencing Scripture. However, those of us who accept the continuity of our religious heritage from Genesis to today--those of us who do not agree with the idea that God would allow his church to be dormant for 1700 years--can point to the reality of church history and say that, at minimum, anyone who would claim to be a prophet with writings that must be canonized has the burden of proof.

Or, better yet, some extra spending Sounds like she enjoyed the card that spends.

Update on my views: 1. We'll be tithing on our social security income when the time comes. While there may be some "overpaying" of the tithe, the Lord will look on it as offerings, and surely bless it. 2. Tax returns that are greater than the amount paid in might be seen as government assistance. Suddenly, I'm in a quandry here. I did not pay tithes on the grants I got to attend college. The government recognizes the social good of families raising children, and supports that endeavor with reduced taxes, and, in some cases an "earned income credit." Do you tithe on scholarships? Straight cash awards? I still tend to agree, it is more blessed to over-tithe than to risk undertithing. However, I did not tithe on college scholarships or grants.

I'm aware of this teaching. You believe human souls not only are immortal, but have always existed. We are not merely God's creation, but we are actually his "literal" offspring. This teaching helped me understand why Mormons actually prefer theistic evolution to creation science models--an ancient earth fits your teachings much better. I understand that Mormon theology portrays the Fall as an essential part of God's plan. I do not believe this. Yes, God had a plan for when we would fall, but Adam and Eve were free not too. So, whereas I believe that I shall be glorified at the 2nd coming, Mormons believe they shall RETURN to their glorified state. Traditionally, this discussion has been framed as: Is God's general revelation enough to bring humanity to salvation, or must they experience a special revelation (through gospel presentation, drawing of the Holy Spirit, reception of the written word, or other such specific interactions)? Romans 1 lends me to believe that God will judge everyone according to what they have received, and what they have received is indeed enough for him to do the judging. Scripture, regardless of what makes it up, is God's written word to us. It is a spiritual writing, spiritually discerned. If, for a moment, you believe that Christians rely merely on the written word--that we would dare believe we can handle God's message, without his Spirit enlightening our understanding, you woefully misjudge us. The Spirit of God can change a life with a single verse, a single phrase. More people have turned towards God through John 3:16 than through the whole of Psalms, very likely. You see canon as a limitation, but I see it as a reassuring boundry. These I can rely on. These God will use. Many believers have been inspired by hymns, songs, choruses, phrases. I've found incredible truth, peace, and strength in the simple verse, "Jesus wept." To know he feels my pain is most comforting! I'm not sure I'd call such canon, but I get what you mean, and it does resonate powerfully.

I think Ray is right. I've further confused things by posting yet another new thread.

Here is a brief summary of the LDS Church beliefs about the Holy Bible, as I understood it. Note the link to the official church site, beneath my summary. 1. The Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, are a collection of sacred writings, revelations and historical accounts. 2. Many Old Testament prophets foretold the coming of Jesus Christ. http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1091-1,00.html Some key words that stand out for me are: HOLY, SACRED, REVELATION, HISTORICAL, and PROPHETS FORETOLD THE COMING OF JESUS. 1. That which is holy and sacred, should, of necessity, also be true. After all, Jesus claimed in John 14:6 that He is The Truth. 2. Revelations, historical accounts, prophets foretelling–again all of these aspects speak to accuracy, correctness, truthfulness. Compare the above with a recent teaching I gave on the Holy Bible: 1. Faith Statement: We believe the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and that it was verbally inspired, authoritative, and without error in the original manuscripts. 2. While we are not sure we have the original manuscripts, we find that with the large number we do have, the areas of contention are so relatively few, and the various readings are so inconsequential in terms of doctrine or understanding, that we can confidently say we do have God’s Word. 3. What the Bible claims for itself: A. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 B. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:20-21 C. 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. Matthew 5:18 6. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. ... I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. John 8:31-32, 37 Conclusion: We believe the Bible is true, that it has God’s wisdom for us today, that we must obey the Bible if we say we are Christians, that both the Old and new Testaments are equally inspired of God, and that when we are uncertain how to understand a certain passage we ought to patiently seek greater understanding from those more knowledgeable, and of course, through prayer and meditation. Obviously, I’ve said more than the Mormon website did. However, should there be much disagreement over these matters? Yet, apparently there is. So, perhaps I’m missing something? In our discussions about canon (the books that makeup the Bible), and about the veracity of biblical accounts, I’ve sensed a subtle undercurrent of reticence to fully embrace the authority of the Holy Bible. Maybe it wasn’t compiled right? Who says it’s only suppose to have 66 books? How can we be certain God told the writers what to write? Inspiration doesn’t have to mean it’s accurate in its telling, does it? I could expect such questions from skeptics, but find them peculiar coming from those for whom the Bible is one of the Standard Works of scriptural canon. Unless... 1. The current prophets truths supercede and redefine biblical truths. 2. The other Standard Works are held in somewhat higher esteem than the Holy Bible, and, in fact, also redefine biblical truths. 3. The Bible is somewhat suspect because the New Testament was authorized by an apostate Catholic church leadership, and the Old Testament was compiled but Jewish leaders who failed to recognize the Savior when He came. And, if the above three are true, then a skeptic might postulate that the main purpose of the biblical writings (for Mormons) is not to explicate God’s Word to humanity, but to bolster the truths found in Joseph Smith’s triad, and to offer a bridge for investigators with Christian upbringing. Yet, I’ve seen too many at this site quote from and refer to biblical passages with reverence, appreciation, and sincerity. Nevertheless, I’m cognizant that LDS apologists might be compelled to both defend and diminish the authority of the Holy Bible at the same time.

You're right of course. And there was a day, not so long ago, when people would refrain from cursing God in public, for fear of offending any religious folk who might be nearby. Too bad we've "self-censored" ourselves so much, we're afraid to say, "Excuse me, that's my Savior you're talking about. Do you mind?" Sad to say, in our "85% Christian nation" most Americans would side with the curser's right to curse, over my request for a little ettiquette. These rioters are way off the deep end on the other side, but it would not be so bad if our modernized society would move 1-2% back towards respect for the sacred.

First, I already got my refund back--last week! Second, do you tithe on your income or on your "increase?" We just went through this too. We had sold our house about three years ago, and made a good amount of money. At the time I said, "We're supposed to tithe on our income. Everything else is discretionary." This year we both sensed that we were wrong, that we should tithe on our "increase." So, we had to budget quite an increase on our giving this year (we're spreading it over 12 months). On the other hand, praise God, the monies are there for us to do it. So, yeah...I'd tithe on the "increase." On the other hand, what about Social security--since you pay into the system during your working years, haven't you already tithed on it?

I've actually read this theory too...so it's not merely a Mormon idea, and I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the Masons. My guess is the "no rain mist canopy" theory is speculation as to how a Pre-Flood world could have been so different as to account for the longer lives (no damaging sun rays getting through the mist, etc.). Bottom-line: It's not doctrine, nor serious scientific theory, but rather speculation as to how to explain in rational-sounding ways some of the mysterious aspects of the Old Testament.

For Muslims, any depiction of the Prophet, no matter how "respectful," is blasphemous. There is no nice way to draw a picture of their prophet. So, you either produce it with knowing disrespect, or you do not. We really don't want this string to degenerate into opinions about El Rushbo, do we? Yes, there are some passages in the Old Testament, that taken by themselves, would paint Judaism as a violent religion. Furthermore, the New Testament passages about hellfire, about hating parents, about gouging out eyes, cutting off hands, etc., taken out of context, could paint Christianity as violent. Let us not forget the accusations that our Scriptures endorse slavery. We should be mightily careful about non-Muslim interpretations of snippets from the Qur'an.

I am going to respond to this post over again. In my previous efforts I used hyperlinks with references. Frankly, I don't like being forced to wade through material not by posters either. So, I'll answer these myself. We've grappled in other strings about what constitutes the canon of Scriptures, and whether said canon is open or not. I've come to an interesting conclusion in my recent studies: Protestants do, in fact, largely rely on the early Catholic church's authority in declaring the 66 books of the Bible to be canon. Furthermore, we implicitly rely on the Hebrew religious leaders for the Old Testament canon. Three points here: 1. We see the Christian church as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and so continue to respect our Judeo-Christian heritage. 2. We do not condemn all that is Catholic, nor do we believe that the Church was apostate for 1400 years. Rather, we believe the Catholic system became corrupt to the point that Luther's reform efforts, and the Reformation that followed, were justified. 3. Since God clearly inspired Scriptures, it is not so hard for us to believe that there would be finite set of writings that He would reveal as his message to us, nor that God would use religious leadership to build a consensus as to what that would be. I am claiming that when he said Scripture was given by inspiration of God, he did so under the inspiration of God. It is quite reasonable to assume that he was referring to the Old Testament Scripture accepted by the Jews of that era, plus any New Testament writings that might already have been accepted, however informally. I'm not claiming that Paul knew how the Bible would finally look, since it was still being written in his day. It does not take much faith to believe that Paul had in mind the Old Testament, and whatever New Testament writings were accepted at the time. That Jesus, or other New Testament writers, or even some Old Testament writers, make reference to extrabiblical literature, does not indicate that the entire document referenced was considered inspired of God. Those readers who have done academic writing are well aware that information is sometimes found "diamond in the rough" style. A particular book or report might be quite mediocre over all, but have an important nugget of information. So, we cite the information, and reference it. The "characteristics" in 2 Timothy are indicative of writing that is likely to be accurate in its quote, in the accounts it gives, and in the truths it teaches. Furthermore, to say God inspired something--you'd think it would be without fabrications, at minimum. So, you don't believe God spoke to Paul. Or, are you saying that because you can't prove it, you can't say it? We're Christians. Yes, by faith I believe God spoke to Paul, and that He speaks to us through the Bible. Well, you've obviously never been to Capital Hill, or heard a politician speak. Seriously, why wouldn't God speak through a donkey. Why wouldn't he thoroughly embarrass the prophet--who was suppose to be the mouthpiece of God--by speaking his truth through a donkey? Well, we might question or test some modern-day claims, but I generally assume that when Scripture recounts a supernatural intervention by God, then God supernaturally intervened. Your view of the Bible seems awfully uninspiring, imho. God - rather than speaking up and clearing up the confusion, remains silent on the matter.

It will never catch on... unless you give it a catchy name like the Rothchild Diet, and charge lot's of money for it. With all proceeds going to the tax-deductable Chaplains' Entertainment Fund.

I'm claiming that Timothy certainly had in mind, at minimum, what we now call the Old Testament. I'm not quite certain which of the New Testament writings would have been included in what he called Scriptures at that point--most likely at least Mark, if not Luke and Matthew as well. See the following response to the question, "What Bible did Jesus use?" What Old Testament did Jesus use? Since Christianity is based on the identity of Jesus, the Old Testament Jesus used is the Old Testament his church should use. There is internal evidence that reveal the Old Testament used by Jesus is composed of the same books used in the Jewish Bible today. This would exclude seven books known as the Apocrypha to Protestants and Jews and the Deuterocanonical books to the Catholics. See the following article for a reasonable explication as to how the Bible came into existence. It explains how the Old Testament canon was developed, based largely on prophets "passing the test." The process of Old Testament canonization would obviously set the stage for a similar process for the New Testament. http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apolo...ebiblefromGod7/ The fact that New Testament writers refer to extrabiblical literature does not mean that the entire reference should therefore be considered Holy Scripture. Likewise, just because the LXX was the source of Scripture for New Testament writers, does not mean that the Apocrapha (which neither Jews nor Protestants accept) must be deemed Holy Scripture. This we know for certain: The writer of Timothy is claiming that Scripture is good enough for: 1. Doctrine 2. Reproof 3. Correction 4. Instruction in righteousness 5. Preparing the man of God to be perfect 6. Throughly furnishing us unto all good works. Those are some powerful claims, if inspiration simply means that the writers felt a warmth they attributed to God as they wrote their own opinions and recollections. If it's good enough to teach from, and it truly is "God-breathed," then 'inspiration' has to mean more than that it is inspirational. In the sense you are speaking, I suppose you're right. Your standard for saying "God spoke" is that you literally hear his audible voice. And indeed, such a hearing would have to be irrefutable, because you'd have to be certain you were not hearing something that could otherwise be explained. Nevertheless, many people claim to have heard from God--some literally. We hear the claims, do some rationale discerning, do some spiritual discerning, and ultimately buy into the claims--or not.

As the story goes, the U.S. military spent several million dollars, thousands of personnel hours, and finally came upon a diet that is 100% effective. There are two important elements to this amazing program. #1. MOVE MORE #2. EAT LESS Those individuals who followed this program experienced almost immediate weight loss. In addition, cholestrol, blood sugars, and blood pressure all reduced. Stamina increased. Sleep became more regular. And, the body consumed more calories, even at stand still. Has anyone heard of this, or tried it? Personally, I hate to jump in on something so radical, until I've heard a few testimonials from people I trust. B)

That would be like saying that when Jerry Falwell speaks about the Word of God, since he does not specifically mention the 66 books of the Bible, we cannot be certain that is what he is referring to. When Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, at minimum he was referring to the available Old Testament of his day. Sure it does. It says, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 You don't believe in miracles? You don't believe that God, on certain occasions, chose to supernaturally intervene in the lives of his people?

Perhaps not. However, as Christians, are we trying to rally our own sense of righteousness vs. the infidels, or would we hope to win a few of them over to our side? If the latter, than those cartoons probably won't be too helpful. Likewise, as Americans, do we want to stoke our own sense of patriotism and nationalism, or do we want to win the minds of Muslim moderates who just might prefer some form of democracy to radical Islamofacist theocracy? If the latter, once again, the cartoons won't prove effective.

We might vehemently disagree with what some actions of some Muslims. However, a people that pray for 15-20 minutes on five different occasions a day, a people who dry-fast 10-16 hours a day for a whole month each year, a people who are passionately enraged when that which is holy to them is mocked, are a people hungry for God. Can we not see this hunger, even as we condemn actions? I'll not for a moment defend the response. However, I've got to respect the passion they feel towards their faith. So-called artist urinate or defecate on our holy symbols and we mumble some nonsense about, "Oh well...I guess that's artistic expression." Do you not feel rage when you see snippets from the God Makers? Again, without justifying their responses, it's one thing to publish vile political cartoons, it's quite another to knowingly publish cartoons that are deemed blasphemous is, as one columnist put it, "to intentionally poke the eyes of a specific religious group." Objectively, there is incredible hypocrisy and evil in what some of these Muslim rioters have said and done. However, my argument is that Christians ought to tap into the religious hunger that underlies all that, and see if some souls might be won in the midst of this mess.

The violent response to political cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed in unfavorable caricatures has surpised, amused, and yet enraged Westerners. We are quite used to ridiculing our political leaders, and venerable institutions--including churches. Just recently the University of Kansas went to court to defend student freedom of expression. The issue, a permanent display of student statuary, that include a Catholic cardinal shaped like a male private part. We all recall government sponsored art shows that included the likes of crucifixes set in urine, or in dung. When people of faith protested, we were belittled as know-nothings, thin-skinned, too be ignored, if not further mocked. Note the double-standard. Now its Muslims who are offended. Well, we would not want to intentionally offend a signficant number of people in our community. No no, we shall not publish. Yes, political correctness rankles us, because we know that's what it is: a blatant double-standard that is more about politics than truly trying not to hurt feelings. Note also, all the Baptist churches that have been burned down recently. Yet the hate-crime professionals (they must be--it's how they make a living) are saying "NO hate crime, here." The churches are multiracial...must be something else. I guess it's not a hate crime if you target Baptists (after all, most of them probably vote for the other party). Sorry for the sarcasm...but it's important to express how I feel, before I offer my solution. My suggestion is that Christians should indeed OPPOSE the publishing of the cartoons. Why? Jesus told us to love our enemies. When Paul met with the philosophers, he did not berate their polytheism, he used their religious traditions to build bridges. "I see you have an altar to the Unknown God. I know who He is. Let me tell you about him, and his Son." Muslims may have the wrong god that they worship, but they are clearly God-seekers. Our role should be to draw them in, not to enrage, antagonize and belittle them. Jesus gave a cup of water, he offered healing, he delivered from demons...he blessed sinners. Let's bless our enemies, and see God work a miracle.

I have not seen this movie yet. We use Netflix, and even Brigham City is yet to be available. The two LDS movies I have seen are The Other Side of Heaven and God's Army. My thoughts: The Other Side of Heaven is one of those non-sectarian productions that give Mormons a good name. It showed the struggles a missionary of any faith might endure--especially in an area that was largely brand new the Christianity in general. My one complaint was that the missionary's love relationship with the girl back home was trumped up in the publicity, but played a very background role in the film. God's Army catered almost exclusively to a Mormon audience. As such, it was quite impressive. From the outside looking in, I was impressed that it grappled with a missionary who had a crisis of faith, and apparently left the church. How very biblical to deal with failures and struggles, rather than sugar-coating everything. Bravo.

Quite often Christians, evangelicals in particular, are accused of arrogance, elitism, etc. for claiming that all nonbelievers will be damned. However, Jesus said he was the only way to the Father, and that none could come to the Father, except through him (John 14:6). I understand that Mormon theology says, "Right. So, only the worthy will go the Celestial Kingdom and see the Father." Then, sincere good people go to an eternal reward that looks much like evangelicals describe heaven anyway. It just strikes me as a rather forced reading in John 14 to suggest that Jesus was merely extoling himself as a way to the BEST REWARD, rather than warning the people that they needed to follow him. The Bible says there is none righteous, not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We are without excuse. Those who sin, have given themselves over to such sins, even though the knew God is. I say with confidence--I have this testimony in my heart--that on the Day of Judgment no protests, no questions will be raised. When we see who is blessed and who is damned, all will say "Yea and amen. God is good, God is just, God is merciful." BTW, this testimony did not come to me easily. Someone close to me converted to Christ, then three days later committed suicide. My question to God, of course, "Where is he?" After three weeks of seeking God's face, I got an answer much like Job got: God says, "I am good and just." So, did he pretend to convert to give me peace? Was he sincere, but did not endure to the end? Will God see his mental state, and have mercy on a soul that cried out to him in sincerity? The answer: God is good, God is just. My peace is not where he is at, but in whom I worship.

Yeah - I knew you would say that... and the way the law was fullfilled was by changing it - obviously, seeing how it changed and all. Are trying to prove Jesus contradicted himself? In this case, what's the point? If we follow Jesus, we'll obey his commands. Our understanding is that Jesus completed some of the law (thus, we're no longer obligated--such as the food laws you mentioned earlier). He explained some laws (lust = adultery). And, yes, he certain 'changed' some of the mistaken interpretations. Perhaps THAT was his real point. Perhaps what he was getting at is: I know what my Father had in mind. Y'all mussed it up, and I'm here to tell you what He had in mind. I'm changing nothing God intended--only your skewed applications. Well, the letter to Timothy tells us that all Scripture is inspired by God. It's pretty clear that at the time of writing, he was referring primarily to our Old Testament. So, unless Paul was a false prophet, I'm not sure how we can say God is silent.

Rich