Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dina Noun · 05-04-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dina Noun

These indicate that Jesus Himself says that He did not overturn the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamera

I don't think so. ... If he conceptualized the law as eternal to those who don't accept his teachings, that's not inconsistent with his teachings.

Could you try to be clearer. What exactly are you claiming as an excuse for Jesus not contradicting Himself?

Jesus - according to the gospels - explicitly said that nothing about the Law would change...

Quote:

[Jesus said,] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.”
(Matthew 5:17-18)

Quote:

[Jesus said,] “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.”
(Luke 16:17)

How exactly are you claiming that Jesus didn't mean what He said?

Oh, and why did Jesus say in the synoptic gospels that the way to obtain eternal life was to obey the commandments?

Quote:

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

“Which ones?” the man inquired.

Jesus replied, “’Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of haven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
(Matthew 19:16-24)

Gamera · 05-05-2006, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dina Noun

Could you try to be clearer. What exactly are you claiming as an excuse for Jesus not contradicting Himself?

Jesus - according to the gospels - explicitly said that nothing about the Law would change...

That's right. Those who wish to remain under law will remain under law, and will face the dire consequences of that choice, according the NT concept. Those who accept grace as an alternative are not under law, and its unchanged eternal nature is irrelevant to them.

Quote:

How exactly are you claiming that Jesus didn't mean what He said?

See above. He meant what he said, you just haven't understood the full implication of it.

Quote:

Oh, and why did Jesus say in the synoptic gospels that the way to obtain eternal life was to obey the commandments?

Provide the verse and we'll interpret it together.

J-D · 05-05-2006, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I think the NT, including the gospels, are texts and can be examined for the meaning/intent. But in any case, that's all we have are those texts, so if Jesus's teachings are important to a person, as they are to me, a hermeneutics of the text is necessary. In that regard, I think intepretations of the NT which purport that the law was not overturned by Jesus's teachings are just plain misinterpretations of plain language.

All I can say is that, taking the language of the NT as a whole, it doesn't strike me as being plain (many individual passages seem quite plain in isolation, and many don't).

But, since I don't regard the teachings of Jesus as being important to me just because they are the teachings of Jesus, this lack of plainness is not a concern to me the way it might be to you.

Gamera · 05-05-2006, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prester John

I'm an athiest, you have two very different holy books, how you reconcile them is interesting. Frankly i've got nothing against Yahweh, he just seems a bit unlikely! Anyway you don't seem to have addressed my points directly. Your god is still charged with having schizophrenic tendancies and being unfair in setting laws that cannot be followed.

It's not my job to defend God. He can handle that himself. However, I think I can reconcile the texts at issue, because I think you're misinterpreting the intent.

From the NT perspective the Law was never intended to save anybody, but rather to show people that they could not live up to the law and hence lacked the sufficiency of love necessary to end one's alienation from God and from the loving persons we are intended to be. Faith in God's love was always the one and only way to regain that relationship. The Law was simply one historical means God used to get there.

I'm not trying to argue you into faith. I'm just saying that's the essence of what the NT teaches. If you reject the premise (alienation), then the resolutioin becomes meaningless. However, it isn't incoherent.

Gamera · 05-05-2006, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

All I can say is that, taking the language of the NT as a whole, it doesn't strike me as being plain (many individual passages seem quite plain in isolation, and many don't).

But, since I don't regard the teachings of Jesus as being important to me just because they are the teachings of Jesus, this lack of plainness is not a concern to me the way it might be to you.

I think it's fair to say that some parts are plain (like Jesus' teachings about our responsibility to help the poor and needy) and some parts are obscure (like the whole concept of the trinity). I accept the plain parts and don't worry about the obscure one.

J-D · 05-05-2006, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I think it's fair to say that some parts are plain (like Jesus' teachings about our responsibility to help the poor and needy) and some parts are obscure (like the whole concept of the trinity). I accept the plain parts and don't worry about the obscure one.

Fair enough.

It's just that I think that the particular issue we're discussing here is one of the obscure ones. The way people are disagreeing with you doesn't prove they're right, but on the face of it it's evidence that the issue is not a plain one.

Dina Noun · 05-05-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

That's right. Those who wish to remain under law will remain under law, and will face the dire consequences of that choice, according the NT concept. Those who accept grace as an alternative are not under law, and its unchanged eternal nature is irrelevant to them.

What dire consequence? None, according to Jesus Himself.

When Jesus was asked how one could gain eternal life, Jesus Himself said that it was done by keeping the commandments.

Quote:

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

“Which ones?” the man inquired.

Jesus replied, “’Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of haven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
(Matthew 19:16-24)

Of course this same story (well, altered versions of it) are told in the other synoptic gospels as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Provide the verse and we'll interpret it together.

I did, in the very post you responded to. I've provided it again in this post.

Dina Noun · 05-05-2006, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I think it's fair to say that some parts are plain (like Jesus' teachings about our responsibility to help the poor and needy) ...

But Jesus Himself didn't follow his own teachings at times. For example...

Quote:

While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfumer, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

“Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.”
(Mark 14:3-7)

Gamera · 05-05-2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dina Noun

But Jesus Himself didn't follow his own teachings at times. For example...

I think you've misread Mark 14:3-7. Jesus comment, you will always have the poor asserts a responsibility of the apostles and hence Christians to the poor forever. It's true this is a unique event -- he's about to be crucified and undertake the central mystery of Christian faith -- but I would hardly call Jesus inattentive to the poor for letting one of his followers treat him to a last bit of comfort before his passion.

Note that the person who makes this claim is Judas, who wanted the money not for the poor, but to steal it. So you're not really associating yourself with good company here.

Dina Noun · 05-05-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I think you've misread Mark 14:3-7. Jesus comment, you will always have the poor asserts a responsibility of the apostles and hence Christians to the poor forever.

Unless they instead give something of great wealth to Jesus ... then screw the poor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Note that the person who makes this claim is Judas, who wanted the money not for the poor, but to steal it.

Making stuff up are you. Here, read it again.

Quote:

While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfumer, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

“Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.”
(Mark 14:3-7)

1) There's no mention of the person objecting being Judas.

2) It says they - plural - so even if we assume Judas was one of them, there were others.

Matthew's version goes even more against your 'theory'.

Quote:

While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”
(Matthew 26:6-11)

1) No mention of it being Judas specifically.

2) Not only does Matthew's use the plural form - they - it also says who they were: "the disciples".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

So you're not really associating yourself with good company here.

The disciples aren't good company to keep? Well, okay, if you say so!

It's not until the gospel of John - written later than the synoptic gospels - that the story was changed to make it Judas specifically who objects to Jesus' ignoring of the poor. Another change by John for theological reasons, perhaps.

And even then, do we consider John's account to be the same story, since it mentions the woman pooring the perfume on Jesus' feet, instead of His head as the synoptics do, and it may not even refer to the same house: is Lazarus'/Mary's/Martha's house in John the same as the synoptics' Simon the Leper's house? Did Jesus turn His back on the poor two different times?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.