Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pharoah · 05-30-2006, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

The first passage you gave says nothing whatsoever about loving enemies.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Quote:

The second does appear to, however. Regardless, I say, "so what?" Too many people around here discredit Jesus simply because he wasn't the absolute first to say "love your enemies", but so far as we know, he was the first of his culture to, which alone is impressive.

I didn't post it in order to discredit Jesus for not being first. Frankly, I don't care who said it first. I was simply correcting Gamera's statement that no ancient texts contained this teaching.

Quote:

Well that's nice, but you need to make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus. In actuality you are criticizing the biblical Jesus, something that even very few scholars would recognize as who Jesus really was, but it comes across (to me) as though you are criticizing the historical Jesus. Regardless, though, the passages you cited only indicate that if Jesus said them, he was just like everyone else: human.

How do you determine that the historical Jesus said "Love your enemy" and that he didn't say "I came to set brother against brother"? This seems to be a case of cherry-picking.

pharoah · 05-30-2006, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Most people are horrified by the view that people who marry a divorced woman is committing adultery.

Do apologists who praise the Bible do so , safe in the knowledge that not even many Christians actually read it?

I read a survey saying that many American Christians could not name the 4 Gospels.

Matthew made a significant alteration here. Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 do not contain the phrase "except for marital unfaithfulness". The original saying was even more harsh than Matthew's modified version. It's quite likely that his community found the original saying unpalatable.

Gamera · 05-31-2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

I believe that this dates from the 6th century B.C., long before Jesus.

This also dates from several hundred years before Jesus in India, although all present translations are based on Chinese copies that date at the earliest from the 2nd century AD. Both of the above passages can be found here.

Frankly, I would be a lot more impressed with this alleged saying from Jesus if he had practiced it. Instead he is quoted as saying things like "bring my enemies before me so I can slay them", "I came not to bring peace but a sword", "I came to set brother against brother", threatening towns that rejected his disciples message with a fate worse than Sodom and Gomarrah, and threatening unbelievers with hellfire. Don't get me started on his alleged future activities in the Book of Revelations.

I've been through this with others. The first doesn't reference loving ones enemies; the second is from mss well after the canon mss.

Focus on LOVING one's enemies and focus on mss that are preChristian. You'll find the two do not meet.

Gamera · 05-31-2006, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I disagree entirely, and earlier in another thread asked for comments
upon this specific issue:
See: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=160799
What is actually novel in the "spiritual advice" of the NT over the OT?

For example, quoted from the above thread:

Isaiah 50:6
I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting

Lamentations 3:30
Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him,
and let him be filled with disgrace

You claim that this [something different] was substantially
different from the OT. What specifically do you want to
use to support your viewpoint?

Pete Brown

Show us where it says to LOVE your enemies in these verses? Highlight it.

Gamera · 05-31-2006, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

Gemara:

From the viewpoint of Matthew himself, I can understand that you say "the structure of it [the Sermon] is in fact to distinguish what Jesus says from the OT." But from a historical viewpoint, the antithetical formula you cite is particular only to Matthew's sermon, and it is not ascribed to Jesus in any other source. Therefore, most view it as Matthean redaction.

But I do agree that "love your enemies" is radically distinctive. It cannot be found in any of Paul's writings or Jewish wisdom teaching. Prov 25:21 is the closest I can think of, but even that is simply a command to aid one's enemies, not to love them.

Other things as well, such as "Congratulations, you poor", don't strike me as something the OT text would embrace, since wealth was often seen as a sign of divine favor.

Well we pretty much agree except I think it is in Paul's writings:

Romans 12: 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Gamera · 05-31-2006, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

Frankly, I would be a lot more impressed with this alleged saying from Jesus if he had practiced it. Instead he is quoted as saying things like "bring my enemies before me so I can slay them", "I came not to bring peace but a sword", "I came to set brother against brother", threatening towns that rejected his disciples message with a fate worse than Sodom and Gomarrah, and threatening unbelievers with hellfire. Don't get me started on his alleged future activities in the Book of Revelations.

Ever hear of metaphor?

RED DAVE · 05-31-2006, 07:42 AM

To Gemara:

1) Many of us would be a lot more impressed by Jesus' stricture to love your enemies if we saw the slightest hint that this is taken to heart by his followers. You, for instance, constantly show a sarcastic and hostile attitude towards your "enemies" around here.

And, please, don't respond that you're a poor follower of your Master. Your Master set standards that no normal human being can follow, which lets you off the hook.

2) I notice that you have failed to respond re Jesus' nonsense about adultery. Please do so.

RED DAVE

RUmike · 05-31-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

We'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Well maybe you can point out to me where it does. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm missing something.

Quote:

I didn't post it in order to discredit Jesus for not being first. Frankly, I don't care who said it first. I was simply correcting Gamera's statement that no ancient texts contained this teaching.

Point taken.

Quote:

How do you determine that the historical Jesus said "Love your enemy" and that he didn't say "I came to set brother against brother"? This seems to be a case of cherry-picking.

I consider "love your enemy" radically distinctive, and so it is more likely to have come from Jesus. What I question about the latter passage is that it is a paraphrase of Micah 7:6. This makes the saying not distinctive, and something any Jew with a knowledge of the Hebrew bible could have put on Jesus' lips. On the other hand, though, it does cohere with Jesus' negative attitude towards family. Still, I had the feeling you were uncriticaly accepting everything Jesus allegedly said only for the purpose of discrediting him.

RUmike · 05-31-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

To Gemara:

1) Many of us would be a lot more impressed by Jesus' stricture to love your enemies if we saw the slightest hint that this is taken to heart by his followers.

No offense Dave, but this is a pretty awful argument. Unless I am misunderstanding, you are discrediting Jesus because of something his followers do. There is no rational basis for that whatsoever. It seems people around here will do anything in order to not admit that Jesus may have had a good idea here and there.

Doug Shaver · 05-31-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

It seems people around here will do anything in order to not admit that Jesus may have had a good idea here and there.

Assuming that he was a real person and that the gospels accurately record his teachings, I'll admit that he had some good ideas, and I'll admit that he had some original ideas. I am not aware of any ideas he had that were both good and original, though.

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

05-31-2006, 07:42 AM	#17
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	To Gemara: 1) Many of us would be a lot more impressed by Jesus' stricture to love your enemies if we saw the slightest hint that this is taken to heart by his followers. You, for instance, constantly show a sarcastic and hostile attitude towards your "enemies" around here. And, please, don't respond that you're a poor follower of your Master. Your Master set standards that no normal human being can follow, which lets you off the hook. 2) I notice that you have failed to respond re Jesus' nonsense about adultery. Please do so. RED DAVE

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.