diana

This strikes me as simple redirection, seebs. Look at the birdie while I slip this hand in my pocket, y'know. When all is said and done, you still haven't dealt with the problem that heaven and earth are still here.

Also, does your argument imply that every usage of the phrase "kingdom of God" refers to the same thing,* regardless of author and audience? That seems to be the argument you're making with "when all is fulfilled."

* I think all references to "kingdom of God" do refer to the same thing, incidentally, which seem to carry precisely the same meaning as "kingdom of heaven." I think they all mean precisely what they sound like they mean: the kingdom that will be established when Christ comes again. However, those who would argue that Jesus wasn't full of it when he said "Some of you will not taste death until the kingdom of God comes" must, perforce, reinterpret "kingdom of God" in these passages.

I'll add to no one in particular that most of the verses that have been pointed out, even as you point them out, are still being "overlooked" by those who would argue for the coherence of Christianity. It's as though they wish to prove your point through example.

d

Steven Carr

Assuming Jesus was God, then we must expect to be surprised and astonished by his teachings.

I would be very surprised and astonished by a claim that we really should cut off our arms , rather than allow them to commit sinful acts which would drag us down to hell.

But then I imagine people of 2,000 years ago would be equally surprised and astonished by claims that there were black holes where all of time and matter were squashed into an infinitely dense region.

How can we second-guess the teachings of a being so far ahead of us in terms of knowledge that his teachings seem baffling and bewildering to us?

If such a being says 'Cut off your arms', then is the only appropriate response 'Well, he must know what he is talking about.' or should we consider ourselves to be the final judge of what such teachings mean?


Should we set ourselves up as beings who can say to God - 'That makes no sense. You must mean something other than what you actually did say.'

I would say 'Yes' - that is exactly what we can do.

If God says 'For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.', we have the ability to say this is wrong, just as have the ability to say that cutting of our arms is wrong.

seebs

Yeah. Well, we have what strike me as flatly contradictory expressions, but we have substantial support for my interpretation. Consider Peter's vision of the unclean animals...

That's an excellent point, and I am not sure it always refers to the same thing.

I tend to assume it always means the same thing, and that the thing it refers to has indeed been around for some time.

I don't think "have a specific and considered reason not to live according to a given rule that one might infer from a verse" and "overlook a verse" are the same thing at all.

The Bible is full of Law that Christians are not under, and I think the main problem is that people like to cite bits of that law for their own convenience (gay-bashing, for instance) rather than admitting that they will have to make do without it.

It is much scarier to try to love every living human than it is to love only the ones who don't gross you out, frighten you, or threaten your personal well-being.

seebs

It was not obvious to me, and even granting it, I'm not sure why I care. Jesus said any number of things which do not make anything clear outside the specific point being addressed right there.

In Matthew 5, yes. But the Luke example with the Sabbath shows that there is no wrongdoing at all in violating the Sabbath rules, if there is a compassionate reason to do so.

I have gotten the impression that, in some cases, Jesus may have spoken metaphorically or allegorically. If this is the case, the question of what exactly Jesus meant by a given comment may be hard to answer without looking at other passages.


That these passages are "utterly unrelated" is a bald assertion. It seems to me that they are discussing related themes, and shed light on how the speech in Matthew 5 is best understood.

The use of the word "desperate" is totally inappropriate here. We are not primarily here to be insulting. Perhaps it would be more productive to refrain from insulting characterizations, and either make an argument or don't? Insulting my argument is a poor substitute for rebutting it.

Anyway, I believe that the Gospels are best understood as a whole. With any person other than Jesus, I would think it ludicrous to refuse to consider other discussions of a man's views or teachings in trying to understand a given speech. Why should I do that here?

The whole Gospel is "context", not just a single passage. Matthew 5 is not the only information I have available about the statements attributed to Jesus. I firmly agree that Matthew 5 holds people to a higher standard than the Law, but in at least some cases, I believe this implies ignoring the demands of the Law in favor of obedience to the teachings of Jesus, which supplant it.

In particular, consider the change from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek". This is not merely a higher standard. Under the old Law, administration of retributive justice was an affirmative duty. To turn the other cheek and reject retributive justice is to abandon a requirement of the Law! Clearly, something fundamental is being changed, here.

Philadelphia Lawyer

It should have been. All of the examples I discussed were from Matthew 5.

If you don't care, then don't respond. My original post was not directed to you.

Perhaps, but the specific point being addressed in Matthew 5 was whether the Law would ever change.

Um, you gave no such example from Luke. Maybe you are referring to the example you gave from Matthew 12. But this seems more a case of Jesus saying that, like David and the priests, it was OK for him to break the law, and, perhaps, to authorize his immediate companions to do so. But, assuming that the convenient, general exception from the Sabbath rules which you derive is a legitimate interpretation of Matthew 12, it cannot be harmonized with Jesus' statements in Matthew 5.

It's not the case in Matthew 5. The Law will remain unchanged until heaven and earth pass away. No need to look at other passages. Unless, of course, you have an agenda that requires (1) finding rationalizations for not following the Law and (2) harmonizing all of Jesus' statements.

You brought them up and have done nothing to show that they are related.

They aren't and they don't. You are just seizing on the similarities in language about fulfillment and accomplishment and things being at an end. The verses you quoted (1) are not even found in the same book as Matthew 5, (2) relate to the crucifixtion and not to the speech that Jesus gave in Matthew 5, and (3) don't even mention the Law. It is unpersuasive to suggest that Jesus somehow intended that the people who heard the speech described in Matthew would make the connection you are making. He told them that the Law would remain unchanged until the end of the world, not for only another year or two.

In addition, as another poster has pointed out, the phrase "till all is fulfilled" could just as easliy refer to the end of the world as to Jesus' death. If you really want to hop around the New Testament and read one book against another, why don't you accept that when Jesus referred to all things being fulfilled in Matthew 5, he meant the same thing as was meant by that phrase in Revelation, namely the end of the world. Certainly, this would mesh better with the first part of the verse in Matthew 5 (the part about heaven and earth passing away), than would your strained interpretation that "till all is fulfilled" means Jesus' death.

Are you wearing your moderator hat here? If not, it is not for you to say what is and isn't appropriate. I find your interpretations to be strained. To me, they seem to be the product of desperation. I believe I have every right to say so. If you disagree, take it up with the other moderators. And I have made plenty of substantive arguments. For you to seize upon one word and try to use that to accuse me of being insulting is a sign of. . .

But you don't want to "understand the given speech." You want to sweep it under the rug because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Oh, and by the way, your implication that my interpretative strategy is "ludicrous" is highly insulting and inappropriate. Try to stick to substantive arguments and our exchanges will be more productive.

You may believe this, but it's not what Jesus said in Matthew 5.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. The way I read Deuteronomy 19: 16-21, it is the judge's duty to enforce the lex talionis, not the plaintiff's.

So, now you are saying that Jesus was actually changing the Law in Matthew 5. Even if one were to buy your theory that the Law would no longer apply after Jesus' death, that had not yet happened when Jesus discussed the lex talionis. Therefore, wouldn't Jesus' statement that the Law would not change a jot or a tittle still have been in effect?

diana

Perhaps I'm slow here...how does this explain "Til heaven and earth pass"?

How do you see a kingdom that is within you coming in glory? That just doesn't make sense, seebs.

I guess, then, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for having specific and considered reasons to not live according to given rules.

The onus, then, is on the Christian to demonstrate that they do not fall under scripture like, oh, the 1 Cor bit in the OP.

Amen, brother.

d

diana

This came up in conversation this afternoon. I think it fits under another verse that Christians ignore:

Act 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there].

I remember thinking as a kid that it was most convenient that all those people in the same house all obeyed the gospel at once. Try explaining that to someone who points this coincidence out to you, though, and see if you don't feel silly claiming they all believed and obeyed at once--men, women, children and "servants."

d

pharoah

Why do fundamentalists consider the dismemberment section exaggeration but take the "throw into hell" part of the same verses literally? This sort of logic speaks volumes about their mindset.

Helpmabob

Hi Noah

I hope I don't ignore any parts - I regard all of the bible as useful for learning (although lessons from some books such as Numbers are harder to garner). There are plenty of instructions given in the bible which on my own I do not and cannot follow, however.

I can't possibly do proper justice to God's Word, everyone should read it for himself, but I would say the main message is simply that man cannot follow God's laws, but - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [John 3:16]

Paul realised that man could not avoid sinning, but preachd abstimence. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? [Romans 6:1-14] {http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/00/091000.html }

noah

Originally Posted by Liviu


It looks as though we have another example of pick and choose Chstianity.

Pharoah asks a good question. Why take "hell" seriously but interpret Mt5:29-30 as exaggeration. Does JC say he's exaggerating? There's no mention of any exaggeration when hell is described in the bible. Why not take the same liberty with hell that you do with Mt5:29-30?
In fact, I don't like the Pauline doctrine of Original Sin. So let's call that an exaggeration. It's certainly unsupported by scripture. And, like Mt5:29-30 there is no hint that Paul is exaggerating.
You tell me which is more outlandish, cutting off your arm or some guy named Paul condemning (erroneously) with one stroke of a pen, the entire human race for something that might not have even happened thousands of years ago.

Regards,

noah