Kasper

The laws God told to Moses were rules which all Jews had to abide, ie the rituals Joseph and Mary had to do after Jesus was born. That's what the Bible says. You are making assumptions and guessing things so that you think your argument has some value.

I am not under-analyzing anything. I am reading the words written down in the Bible, and the words in Luke does not mention anything which could be interpreted as an escape to Egypt. What it does mention is rituals performed by Mary and Joseph, which we know are rules parents must obey. Then Luke tells us that after they had done what they had to do, they went back home.
Your only defense at the moment is assumptions.

I am not making myself the centre of anything. I am reading a text, then I make conclusions based on what the text is saying, I am not assuming that the author is talking about things he is not really talking about.

No rules prohibit or require Luke to say or not say anything you mentioned here. But what is your point? Do you have any evidence that gives us a reason to believe that Luke chose not to mention the escape into Egypt because it was already mentioned by Matthew? As I told you before, we could use your argument and ask why Luke bothered to write about Jesus in the first place. But these are again assumptions, and I am not a big fan of assuming things I have no knowledge about.

Well, we have 2 different views of what Luke means by "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,". I am saying these things are what Luke had mentioned earlier, the rituals done by Joseph and Mary, which Luke is actually telling us. You are saying that these things could also include the escape into Egypt, an event Luke does not mention. So you assume something not mentioned by Luke, thus adding some extra unknown stuff into your argument. That's where Occam's Razor is relevant to point out.

There is nothing logically preventing that the things could also include the escape to Egypt. But since Luke is telling us about something commanded by God, then tells us that after they had done what was commended by God, they went to Galilee, the logical explanation is that the verse is referring to the rituals already mentioned by Luke.

I determined it by reading what Luke writes.
How do you determine that Luke also meant a trip to Egypt, when he does not mention anything about it? You do not have to answer, because I already know. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Unless you have some evidence which you have held back so far?

striderlives

There's nothing 'incomplete' about it. The man asked how to be saved - Jesus answered with the steps necessary. So unless you want to propose that Jesus had a different plan for different people - based on their finances or other criteria - then it's clear from Jesus' own mouth that salvation is achieved by believing, being baptised, and giving away all possessions.

But I'm pretty sure you'll find a way to further obfuscate with your unsupported 'context' gambit.
:Cheeky:

striderlives

That's great!! Now just clear this all up and cite where Jesus says it is a free gift.

Thanx in advance.

kcdad

Salvation ? Forgiveness is a free... it takes simply someone saying you are forgiven... that is what Jesus taught. Jesus told his disciples to go and forgive sin... told them to forget about it... told them to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, etc... didn't tell them anyone had to do anything to earn it.

If salvation has anything to do with being "worthy" then that forgiveness should just about cover it, shouldn't it?

rhutchin

So, you rail about context but refuse to cite the actual Biblical passages that you are using. This tells us that you have not read the Bible and are going by what others have told you OR you have read the Biblical passages and don't have a clue about the context OR you have read the Biblical passages and realize that context kills your argument.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume (2). You read something in the Bible and not having a church background, you did not catch the significance of that which you read.

How about showing everyone the actual passage in the Bible that has grabbed your imagination so that everyone can read what you have read. Then everyone can all see what went over your head. The language of the narrative is specific; don't ignore the information it gives you. In other words, pay attention to context. You are innocently, or is it on purpose, leaving out the context for the discussion (if I am reading the same passage that you are as you have not really referred to any specific passage making me think you don't know if there even a passage that says what you claim).

rhutchin

It's more than that. The laws were those instructions which God specifically gave to Moses explaining that all Israel should follow them. Later we find that God specifically gives instructions to Joseph explaining that He was to take Mary and the baby and go to Egypt. This was God's law to Joseph. Is this guessing or making assumptions? If yes, how else do we treat a situation where God instructs a person (like Joseph) to behave in a certain manner? If the person is not bound to God's instructions as to the law, then can he disobey and not do that which God has instructed?

So, your conclusion is that the phrase, "...all things according to the law of the Lord..." means only those specific things that Luke describes Joseph and Mary to have done. My conclusion is that "all things" can include things not specifically described by Luke. What makes your conclusion right and mine wrong? You haven't said anything that would point us to one conclusion or the other.

Sure you are. You are reading the text without consideration for context (or everything else we read in the Bible especially as it applies to what Luke may have meant in using the term "Law of the Lord."). You have reduced context to that which you read in Luke 2 (i.e., to that which Luke specifically mentions) and declare that anything not specifically listed by Luke is not to be included in "all things." In other words, anything Matthew has written cannot be introduced because Luke does not specifically describe that which Matthew described. You are saying that your interpretation is the only one that can be right making you the means to (or center) what you want to believe.

So, nether one of us can say what Luke meant when he wrote his narrative. Neither one of us can impose any restrictions on him as to what he intended. Thus, both our interpretations are valid and neither is to be rejected except where it conflicts with what we read elsewhere. Since your explanation creates a conflict, it can be rejected unless you can find some rule that requires Luke to adhere to your explanation.

The phrase, "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord," could easily have been used by Luke to incorporate things he has not mentioned. He gives examples of a couple things to make his point and then summarizes broadly in order to capture all that was done and then moves on in his narrative. People even write that way today (using terms like etc, or et. al. ) For example, "John did a, b, c, etc. that were required to get an A in the class."

Then Luke could have avoided any misunderstanding by saying something like, "When they had performed these things," or "When they had fulfilled these laws." He doesn't. He uses very broad language suggesting that they did some things not specifically listed by him.

You look only at the immediate passage which means that you can't know what the phrase, "Law of the Lord," even means (to you, it can only mean those things listed by Luke and nothing more). I look at everything else we are given in the Bible starting with Moses so I, at least, know what Law of the Lord actually means. If you read a calculus book like you do the Bible, you could not understand it because it would not cover basic math operations like addition and multiplication which are prerequisites to understanding calculus.

matthijs

I think the point of the pericope (Mark 10:17-30) is non-intuitive. Jesus is speaking to what he sees as a faithless generation. And for the rich, the necessary faith is much greater than it is for the poor, since the rich have much more to lose in being wrong. The rich want to cling to what they have in this world, while the poor have nothing and can only cling to the promises of the next world.

Jesus isn't really saying it's necessary to sacrifice possessions. He's instead making a mockery of the supposed faith of a rich man, who for all appearances is law-abiding, but who's commitment doesn't stand to scrutiny. It's a didactic tale, not a recipe for salvation.

Elske.

show_no_mercy

Why do you think that Matthew was a "bible scholar"? Matthew obviously couldn't read Hebrew so he doesn't have any clearer a reading of the Hebrew text than us English speakers. Even worse, Matthew show total disregard for the context that he's quoting from. He's trying to present Jesus as the new Moses, not trying to perform accurate exegesis on his version of the LXX. Matthew's quote-mining just barely stops short of saying "Zechariah wrote the word 'the' in chapter 2. Jesus said 'the Pharisees' to fulfill the prophecy found in Zechariah 2!".

Why, if Matthew is the author of this gospel, does he write about himself in third person? Why is the identical character in Mark called "Levi"? Do you even know when the first time this gospel was titled "according to Matthew"? It most certainly wasn't in the 1st century. By all counts this "Matthew" gospel is anonymous.

kcdad

Written like a true Capitalist... of course possessions were what Jesus was talking against... The son of man doesn't even a place to lay his head... sell everything you have... give him your shirt as well... take no extra clothing just a walking stick and a cloak...

matthijs

Written like a true literalist...

Elske.