Your response is entirely predictable.

Jesus did not quote the whole passage, he left some out. Perhaps he figured we could read it for ourselves. Omission is not counter diction.

Jesus attributed this commandment to Moses, and Moses attributed this commandment to God. Are you saying that Jesus agreed that the commandment came from God but just didn't say it? If so, then why did Jesus say that this commandment was not correct? This is just so typical of fundamentalist replies. If we take the fundamentalist approach we are left thinking that Jesus is saying that God was wrong to give this commandment.

If I follow this thought process no matter where Jesus stopped quoting you could say the next sentence was omitted therefore Jesus disagrees with it.

You entirely miss the point. The point of the whole quote by Jesus is that the commandment on divorce was a wrong belief from Moses that was based on wrongful compromise by Moses. By trying to defend the view that Moses was telling what God had spoken directly, you are in effect saying that Jesus knew he was contradicting the words of God as spoken to Moses (versus contradicting Moses because Moses had his own view on the subject which Jesus condemned as incorrect).

It would seem you are willing to sacrifice integrity to achieve a desired conclusion. Who is being dishonest?

You are because it is clear from the passage that Jesus attributed this commandment to Moses and his willingness to compromise doctrines due to the stubbornness of the Israelites. The fact that you won't admit this very clear issue shows that you would deny even Jesus to keep your own inclination to worship a book rather than the Lord (which you do inconsistently since the book is very clear on commandments of the Lord which you would say no longer apply).

So because I refuse to flatten Jesus personality to love alone I will not do His love justice?

You wish to worship a book, and if this puts you in direct conflict with Jesus' words, it is obvious that the book will take priority.

• If you are looking for errors... - duordi - October 27, 2003 - 04:20 UTC
  • Whatever - harvey1 - October 27, 2003 - 04:46 UTC
    • Whenever - bible_believer3 - October 27, 2003 - 22:13 UTC
      • You said your interpretation of that scripture - harvey1 - October 27, 2003 - 23:19 UTC
    • Harvy my friend... - duordi - October 28, 2003 - 04:12 UTC
      • Unbelievable - harvey1 - October 28, 2003 - 05:39 UTC
        • Sorry Harv. Goodbye. - bible_believer3 - October 28, 2003 - 18:27 UTC
          • But, we just met - harvey1 - October 28, 2003 - 19:19 UTC
            • implication and insinuation - bible_believer3 - October 30, 2003 - 13:40 UTC
              • Eric - harvey1 - October 30, 2003 - 16:12 UTC
                • Wow, the Bible is one REALLY unChristian book, then, eh Harv? - stormcrow - October 30, 2003 - 16:35 UTC
                  • It's not correct - harvey1 - October 30, 2003 - 17:02 UTC
                    • Fundamentalism is still a threat - yanniru - October 30, 2003 - 18:36 UTC
                    • Perhaps, but it's not an aberration - stormcrow - October 30, 2003 - 20:55 UTC
                      • Nothing fun about fundies - harvey1 - October 30, 2003 - 21:37 UTC
                        • Spirituality - stormcrow - October 30, 2003 - 22:24 UTC
                          • No - harvey1 - October 30, 2003 - 23:13 UTC
                            • No? - stormcrow - October 31, 2003 - 01:23 UTC
                              • Mario - harvey1 - October 31, 2003 - 12:41 UTC
                • Yes Harv ? - bible_believer3 - October 31, 2003 - 14:38 UTC
                  • No Eric - harvey1 - October 31, 2003 - 16:15 UTC
                    • Stop, look, and listen - bible_believer3 - November 3, 2003 - 13:39 UTC
                      • Too bad Eric - harvey1 - November 3, 2003 - 18:32 UTC