Kent Symanzik

Hi tronvillain,

No offense was taken. I knew it was a mistake.

If I remember right, I think we came to agreement. If you can truly hold to the morality you explained then I do not see it as irrational.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Yes, these are God's moral laws. Yes, they correspond to the dictates of the OT. You see here that Jesus is making them even stricter.

Yes, the NT and OT God are the same. This is not to say that God does not deal with men differently as the history of redemption progresses.

Kent

tronvillain

Ah, I thought that might be it, but in the absence of a response to my last post I wasn't sure. Now, if Kent has agreed with my position, what are the rest of you arguing about?

Kent Symanzik

Hi Ierrellus,

Many people seem to think Jesus was denying his divinity here but if you look at the text closely this isn't necessarily the case. As with most literature surface readings often miss to point of the story or dialogue. Notice that the man approaches Jesus assuming that he is not the Son of God and that the way to eternal life is by works. He calls Jesus a mere good teacher which is wrong and then asks what thing he must do to be saved, which is impossible.

It is interesting the way Jesus deals with this man. He meets him right where he is at. Jesus reasons with the man on his own assumptions but he challenges those assumptions at the same time. Jesus replies, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But, if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments". Jesus is challenging the man in two ways. First, challenging the man's notion that Jesus can be a good teacher without being God. And then challenging the man's idea that he can earn salvation. Jesus is saying to him in effect, you can earn eternal life, all you have to be is perfect. We see how Jesus gets this point across as the dialogue continues.

The ruler says, "which commandments?". Jesus replies with a list of the easy ones to keep. The man gains confidence at this but makes the mistake of asking, is there any more? Jesus then hits him right where it hurts by saying yes, go sell all you have and give to the poor and come, follow me. The man went away sorrowful, realizing maybe for the first time that he cannot earn his salvation.

Jesus goes on to explain to his disciples how it is hard for a rich man to be saved but with God all things are possible. This is God's grace.

So, I hope you can see that as in any good literature, a surface reading of the text will often reach conclusions that are not warranted. We have to be careful not to read into the text what is not there. Did Jesus deny his divinity here? Only a glance at the text will reach that conclusion. What we do know is that elsewhere in the gospels Jesus identifies himself as God explicitly.

I may try to find them but if you really want them to be discussed pick some out and lay down your arguments.

I have not seen any logic that is not in conformity with Christian theism. As far as I know there is only one set of universal logic laws. And atheistic worldviews cannot justify these laws of logic. Can you provide another set of laws of logic, conventional or universal?

Christian theism is not a philosophy in flux. The scriptures are there for all to see. I not am changing Christian doctine here.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Hi snatchbalance,

I would look at what verse 1 means in light of the verses that follow. The point may be summed up in verse 5, "You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye". So, let's not be hypocrites.

Yes, Jesus Christ is God.

Kent

snatchbalance

Kent,

How does counsel to be meek, corresponde with advocateing genocide?

Why would a omniscient, omnipotent being need to change tactics? Does god just do what happens to be expidient at the time?

sb

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

snatchbalance

Kent,

Very soon after making such remarks, JC goes on to judge and damn "scribes and pharisies". Is this not hypocritical on his part? Or, at very least, isn't it a bad expample for his followers?

SB

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Yes, the verse can be interpreted as you have interpreted it--except that you already believe that Jesus was and is God.

Keith.

Kent Symanzik

It would be helpful if you gave a reference to what you are referring to when you say genocide. Remember that Jesus councils us to be meek not God. Being meek does not mean not being able to carry out God's command.

It's not that he needs to change tactics but that the history of redemption is progressive. If you look at Genesis 3:15 you will see what is commonly referred to as the proto-evangel. This is the first allusion to the coming of Christ. God could have brought Christ on the seen immediately but he chose not to work that way. Instead, he worked through chosen people and then a chosen nation to bring about the circumstances in which he would sacrifice his own Son for our sins. Before that time he instituted a sacrificial system that pointed ahead to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ. No one is saved by the blood of animals. These sacrifices were a type that pointed to Christ.

Why does God work this way? I do not know but I suspect that it is because it most glorifies him. I suppose if he did not work this way we would have to wonder why he created us in the first place.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

It's not hypocritical because his command is for the people listening not to judge. He was not including himself in the command because he is God. He cannot judge hypocritically.

Jesus is an example to us in some ways but you really cannot take that too far. Since he is the Son of God there are many things that we cannot follow him in. We cannot be a sacrifice for sin, we are not the way, truth, and life, etc.

Kent