Happy Birthday, Jesus! When you return, please pay no attention to the several million people in this country who have mistaken you for a Muslim with your dark hair, dark skin, Middle Eastern looks, and robe. They were expecting a dude who looked like a member of the Lynard Skynnard Band. In other words, a WHITE dude.
Probably best not to hang out with the poor, the sick, the meek or the peacemakers either. Before you know it, you'll be branded a social justice lover who wants to redistribute wealth and (gasp!) take away Joe Cassano's second vacation home. Yeah, I know he got that house from breaking the 8th commandment but those millions of folks who would get nervous if you were on a plane with them think that you said, "Go forth and worship the unregulated derivative."
Take heart, though, my Lord and savior. We are only human, after all, and maybe someday everyone down here will actually read and understand your words.
And understand the meaning of your birth.
91 comments:
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbors.
Except of course, his wealth.
Kleptomaniacs 3:10
dw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp19qiash2U
"Dear Jesus,
Thank you for giving me an excuse to make hateful generalizations about people, while conveniently ignoring things that don't jive with my prejudices and my narrative."
How very traditionally Christian of you, Mark. The Inquisition would be proud.
At least lots of folks on the other side of the aisle from you at least acknowledge him and his birth.
Can't even lay off the partisanship even on Christmas?
I'll remember this next time you complain about repubs not " cooperating".
Like nearly every other preacher, M can't miss an opportunity to sermonize. Kinda funny though how he spends so much time on the errors of his fellow Christians rather than on the message of redemption in Christ. Definitely brings to mind the pastor who focuses all of his attention on Satan.
So, in the spirit of non-partisanship and ecumenism, here is a critique of business, the free market and government by one of the leading libertarian thinkers of the day. And she doesn't even pull her punches for the sake of "small business". You would do well M to read this, repeatedly, until you understand everything she has to say.
I've never wanted to say "eff you" on Christmas before. But eff you for your condesending post on this holy day.
The division in this country is getting to be ridiculous. Do you lobs want the east or west coast. It's time.
I grew up in the Bible Belt, I think I've heard this tune before:
"Dear Lord, please help the Catholics, Jews, Muslims and other heretics and idolaters see the error of their ways, that they may come to Jesus, accept the literal truth of the Holy Word, and escape eternal damnation."
Compare and contrast:
Markadelphia: the Resurrection is a matter of faith, not fact and logic.
if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
— Romans 10:9
if Christ has not been raised, [In other words, if it did not actually happen, which is entirely the realm of facts and logic] then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
— 1 Corinthians 15:14–19
A trustworthy witness will not lie,
But a false witness utters lies.
— Proverbs 14:5
There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
— Proverbs 6:16–19
'nuff said?
I don't think so. Wealth is not inherently evil:
The LORD restored the fortunes of Job when he prayed for his friends, and the LORD increased all that Job had twofold. … The LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; and he had 14,000 sheep and 6,000 camels and 1,000 yoke of oxen and 1,000 female donkeys.
— Job 42:10,12
“wisdom and knowledge have been granted to you [Solomon]. And I [God] will give you riches and wealth and honor, such as none of the kings who were before you has possessed nor those who will come after you.”
— 2 Chronicles 1:12
Praise the LORD!
How blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
Who greatly delights in His commandments.
Wealth and riches are in his house,
And his righteousness endures forever.
— Psalms 112:1,3
Now 'nuff said.
Compare and contrast:
Markadelphia: the Resurrection is a matter of faith, not fact and logic.
if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
— Romans 10:9
if Christ has not been raised, [In other words, if it did not actually happen, which is entirely the realm of facts and logic] then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
— 1 Corinthians 15:14–19
A trustworthy witness will not lie,
But a false witness utters lies.
— Proverbs 14:5
There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
— Proverbs 6:16–19
'nuff said?
(Part 1 of 2)
What's the matter M? Are my comments hitting so close to home that you blocked me?
Not sure what the issue is, STI, but I don't block anyone and will not delete any comments unless they are some sort of spam (pyramid scam, porn etc...well, most of the porn:))Check your cookies on your browser or it could be a google thing. They are head up the ass lately with comments.
I challenge any of you to dispute the factual basis of this post. Many people in this country
1. View Christ as depicted from the Western bias (light skinned, blonder hair etc). Living in the Middle East 2000 years ago and not being from European descent, he had darker skin, darker hair which means
2. People would be nervous if he was on a plane, "looking Muslim" and wearing a robe. Do any of you honestly think the would NOT be racially profiled?
Correct me if I am wrong but don't many of you champion such profiling? Doesn't the GOP? Or, at the very least, massively deride anyone who brings up clear racial bias?
Now, I do know that some of you are atheists so worshiping money and materialism isn't in conflict with you beliefs. But for those of you do believe in Christ, my post also factually details your hypocrisy. You gripe about the evils of wealth redistribution, social justice etc and encourage-even champion-men like Joe Cassano (through howls for less regulation) to continue their worship of money....while all the while claiming to be "believers."
No hateful generalizations here, folks, simply repeating the message that you relay to me so often on your ideology. So, no, I'm not going to "take a break"....especially on a day when a man was born who was the very antithesis of your twisted beliefs. More than anything, today's post was an apology based on words and deeds I see every day from people who arrogantly claim to have Jesus on their side and then act in the exact opposite of His words.
I can promise you that if you cease being part of the problem, meaning that if you claim to be a believer in Christ that you actually try living by His words (loving thy neighbor, not judging others, not worshiping money), you won't see any more posts from me like this one.
Matthew 7
1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."
Matthew 22:39
"And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"
Your Christ hates the poor:
Matthew 25: 19-30
...For the man who has something will have more given to him and will have plenty. But as for the man who has nothing, even his 'nothing' will be taken away.
Matthew 26: 6-13
...You have the poor with you always, but you will not always have me.
Your Christ is a serious dick:
Mark Chapter 11:
On the following day, when they had left Bethany, Jesus felt hungry. He noticed a fig-tree in the distance covered with leaves, and he walked up to it to see if he could find any fruit on it. But when he got to it, he could find nothing but leaves, for it was not yet time for the figs. Then Jesus spoke to the tree, "May nobody ever eat fruit from you!" And the disciples heard him say it.
...One morning as they were walking along, they noticed that the fig-tree had withered away to the roots. Peter remembered it, and said, "Master, look, the fig-tree that you cursed is all shrivelled up!"
And Jesus seems to have nothing but contempt for tax collectors. Perhaps he would be a tea-partier...
dw
I cannot respond to your challenges. I've tried. EVERYTHING I've posted over 2 or 3 sentences has disappeared shortly after posting.
Well, Marxy it is and Marxy it will remain. Your words define you.
Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ–who I think was the first socialist–only socialism can really create a genuine society. Hugo Chávez
2 Corinthians 9:7
Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
Let's try something short:
The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, and he adds no trouble to it.
— Proverbs 10:22
Ah, I see. When you add "to Idiots", the software takes you for a Glenn Beck fan and deletes your comment.
*snicker*
I had tried the shortened handle earlier, and still had the post deleted.
Here's more:
Praise the LORD!
How blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
Who greatly delights in His commandments.
Wealth and riches are in his house,
And his righteousness endures forever.
— Psalms 112:1,3
DW posted this verse a number of times. This translation is more clear:
For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
— 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (NASB)
This comment thread is from another site using Blogger's comment system:
http://bit.ly/fRLP95
The takehome point from that thread which applies here is that comments can be retrieved from Blogger's bit bucket.
Interesting M.
Notice how your ideology isn't matching well with the Biblical teaching? That is called a clue.
It is all about the heart, not community and definitely not administered by an 'authority'. You have to severely twist to get that angle and I don't think Jesus thinks highly of people doing that.
GD-so, things that Hugo Chavez says are true? Hmm...sounds to me like you more Marxy than I am if you believe him. There's little difference between him and a mafioso thug. This would also mean that there is nothing Christian about him and he, too, worships money and power.
You do raise an interesting point about capitalism, though. It is Christian? I suppose our version of it comes closer than anything else. Recently, however, that may not be the case. With the vicious attack on entitlements we have seen in the last 30 years or so, a plutonomy has replaced welfare capitalism. This plutonomy is not Christian at all and that is my chief gripe.
ST-operating under the welfare mother in a Cadillac myth will get you nowhere with me. Every liberal I know works 2-3 jobs. Every unemployed person I know spends their days jacking off to right wing blogs and listening to Glenn and Rush. It is an absolute lie to state that people who get entitlements don't want to work. And using the Bible to push a lie like this is ridiculous.
Oh, and Psalms is OT. I believe you are well aware that things changed when Jesus was born. Also, really bad interpretation of that verse. People who believe in God are showered with material wealth? No.
6Kings-the problem with our society in general is that it is very selfish. We would not be having this discussion if everyone in our country was a cheerful giver. They aren't. That's where the government comes in. I'll grant you that it is slow and behemoth like...sometimes faulty...certainly not perfect...but it's not the marching Nazi Choir forcing you to pay for lazy Jeff's flat screen.
What I don't get is how many of you blast Rousseau, saying that man is inherently evil, then say that government's job is to restrain evil, and wind up at the government is forcing me, at gun point, to pay for a nanny culture. Makes no sense whatsoever and completely ignores the fundamentals of how a society works.
> things changed when Jesus was born.
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”
— Jesus, Matthew 5:17
We would not be having this discussion if everyone in our country was a cheerful giver. They aren't. That's where the government comes in.
Which means that you are demanding that the government enforce your ideals of "Christian charity", right? And you're accusing others of wanting a theocracy?
DT, self contradiction is M's normal MO. (MMO!) You expect that to actually make a dent?
Jeeezus Mark! How the hell do you get around without a minder to keep you from running into closed doors?
Are you seriously so stupid as to think I was quoting that fucking commie Chavez because I liked his fucking words?
Clue meter time Marxy - Chavez says X about Jesus. Markadelphia says the same X about Jesus. Chavez is a marxist. I make quote as comparison between marxist Chavez and possibly marxist Markadelphia.
But I take that back. You are too stupid to be a marxist. Not that you have to have intelligence to be a marxist, but you couldn't find your way to the young communists meetings without getting sidetracked by shiny objects in the street.
Jeez. Try reading and comprehending what is written specifically for you before opening your mouth and showing that you either can't comprehend the written word, or you don't care.
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”
— Jesus, Matthew 24:35
The Old Testament is also his words.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
— 2 Timothy 3:16
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
— John 8:58
We would not be having this discussion if everyone in our country was a cheerful giver. They aren't. That's where the government comes in.
And you have no idea what you are talking about.
What country gives the most government money to charity yearly?
That's right the US. What entity give ten times that amount of money to charity yearly - without coercion?
The American citizen.
Charitable Giving
* 65% of households give to charity
* The average annual household contribution is $2,213 while the mean is $870
* According to Giving USA, American giving reached $303.75 billion in 2009. This reflects a 3.6% decrease from the 2008 revised giving estimate of $315.08 billion. While giving decreased in 2009, it should be noted that 2008 was the highest recorded giving level in US history, breaking the previous record of $314.07 billion in 2007. The recent decrease in giving runs concurrent with a difficult economic recession.
* Corporate giving rose 5.5% in 2009 to $14.4 billion.
* Foundation giving dropped 8.4% in 2009 to $42.9 billion.
* The largest source of charitable giving comes from individuals, at $227.41 billion in 2009, or 75% of total giving, followed by from foundations ($38.44 billion/13%), bequests ($23.8 billion/8%), and corporations ($14.1B/4%)
* Charitable giving accounted for 2.1% of gross domestic product in 2009
* 98% of high net worth households give to charity
* 81% of high net worth donors cite “giving back to the community” as a chief motivation for giving
* 81% of high net worth donors give to organizations that provide for basic needs, while 78% donate to education and 68% to both health and religious organizations
Charitable Organizations
* In 2009 there were approximately 1,238,201 charitable organizations in the United States, a 4% increase from 2008, and a 57% increase over the last 10 years.2
Volunteering (Individuals)
o 63.4 million people volunteered in 2009, with a 26.8% volunteer rate.
o With an estimated contribution of 8.1 billion donated hours of service in 2009, volunteer time is worth the equivalent of approximately $169 billion.
o The top four national volunteer activities are fundraising (26.6%), food collection or distribution (23.5%), general labor or transportation (20.5%), and tutoring or teaching (19.0%).
But you've just proved my point for me...even if with this level of giving, we still can't solve our nation's problems. People are going to have to give more and the wealthiest are leading the charge.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Guide-to-Giving/2010/1120/Can-Warren-Buffett-and-Bill-Gates-save-the-world
But how do we actually rank?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/0908/Six-most-generous-nations-US-ties-for-fifth/Australia
Sixth, tied with the Swiss. Then we have Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
You are also making my large point for me...even with all that giving, we still aren't solving the complex problems like poverty and health care. If people gave more, we wouldn't need to have a debate about government. Since they don't, that's where the government can come in. Private organizations lack the infrastructure that our government has although the CSM article above suggests that could change.
Gee, I wonder why we haven't been able to solve all the problems.
It's because it's not solvable:
“The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”
— Jesus, Matthew 26:11
The government could take every cent from every person in the world to "solve poverty", and we would get the exact same result such attempts have always produced: even more poverty.
> Since they don't, that's where the government can come in.
I noticed that you never did answer the question about where the Bible says the government should do this, only that being wealthy is somehow inherently evil, an idea the verses I posted above destroyed.
But the Bible does explicitly warn against looking to government for answers:
The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day — in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods — so they are doing to you also. Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”
So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king. He said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
— 1 Samuel 8:7–18
When you give the government the power to take everything it will.
Sixth, tied with the Swiss
That's a poll. Is that how you respond to actual numbers? A poll?
And just what problems Mark? Poverty? How many little pot bellied Ethiopians do we have running the streets these days? You make out poverty as a relative between the rich and the poor. Can you not also then make it a relative between our poor and other countries poor, or even their rich? How about relative between the poor of today versus the poor of yesteryear?
Health Care? You're preaching to the wrong choir if you think the magic words 'health care' will prompt us to chant "oh yeah, that's a big problem we need to spend money on." You might as well have said "new ice age...errr global warming...err climate change".
GD, did you check gallup.com? It's not even a Gallup poll, as the article claimed. Those "results" are "based on" some of Gallup's work.
Those "results" are "based on"
Heh, now Mark is trading in poll derivatives....
Heh, now Mark is trading in poll derivatives....
Obviously we need govt to regulate this!
I think you guys should regulate it by posting here all the time. Consider every one of your posts regulatory activity.
Of course, all of you are missing the obvious point...if our country was so giving, why is poverty at an all time high? Your answer is the government. My answer is our culture dictated by the private sector (largely financial services and super banks).
Nice end run around the fact that your claim that conservatives don't understand the Bible doesn't stand up to, well… actual verses from the Bible.
Now, define "poverty".
if our country was so giving, why is poverty at an all time high?
Really?
Joe has a family of four and is unemployed. He receives state unemployment insurance benefits to the tune of $10000 annually. This places his family below the poverty level.
He receives assistance from his church for food and utilities at an equivalent cost of $1000 per month.
He lives at a level of $20000 per year but is still making $10000 yearly.
Does he make $10k a year or $20k? Does receiving the assistance bring his family out of poverty? If it does should the assistance be stopped because he is no longer poor? (then when stopped he is poor again - but not poor when getting assistance, then poor, then not poor)
See what I'm getting at here? The charity itself cannot be counted as part of keeping people from being poor. So it doesn't matter how much people give to charity - the poor, and the cause of them being poor is not tied to charity.
Of course, all of you are missing the obvious point...if our country was so giving, why is poverty at an all time high? Your answer is the government. My answer is our culture dictated by the private sector (largely financial services and super banks).
M, I kinda doubt your Bush-like intellect can handle this - but neither of those might be the answer. Of course as long as you want to assert what both sides must believe, and that only your side is right, I'm sure all productive discussion will be stymied and you can just feel so smug and morally superior. Rather like a leftie Jerry Falwell.
Higher taxes don't solve poverty either.
There will always be poverty, hence the struggle will continue for infinity.
"We would not be having this discussion if everyone in our country was a cheerful giver. They aren't. That's where the government comes in."
Charity as mandated by government is communism. Note that I did not call anyone a communist but that line of thinking is directly from that school of thought. In the past on this blog, Mark has equated high taxes with charity. Thought of my trickle down example of govt spending comes to mind...
ST-The Book of Samuel is OT, right? The Lord changed after his Son was born, remember? I've quoted actual verses from the Bible to back my claims that Christ was a defender of social justice and a pacifist. Problem for you?
Juris-I agree with you on higher taxes. In fact, more and more these days, I think that the problem is on a systemic level as it relates to our culture. Raising taxes and cutting spending won't solve many of the problems we have today. Until the principal drive changes from materialistic goals to improving intellect, we will be stuck. One of my first posts of the year will kick off an exploration of this...The Michael Jordan Generation.
January 17, 2007 entry on this blog is where Mark equated "giving" with "taxes paid (given) to the federal govt".
Given?
Juris-I agree with you on higher taxes.
Huh? I didn't say anything about taxes, last did.
Until the principal drive changes from materialistic goals
And that is consistent with the middle class driving the economy with endless consumption - how?
Damn M - those are your two themes and they are pretty inconsistent. Not that you appear to notice.
Also I love how you are all so preachy of late. Screw logic, you've got a moral high [hobby] horse to ride! Just a little farther down this track and I whip out my favorite C.S. Lewis quote on you.
It's interesting how things conjoin:
Of course, all of you are missing the obvious point...if our country was so giving, why is poverty at an all time high?
Every liberal I know works 2 or 3 jobs, it's the conservatives that are all unemployed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104403.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
And of course now the liberals who demanded ObamaCare "for those too poor to get insurance" all get waivers from compliance... including both your employer and your union, right Mark?
This suggests to me that if you think people aren't giving enough, the problem isn't conservatives. But then again, so far as I can tell liberals don't think of it as "giving" unless the IRS takes it out of your check, and has the authority to put you in jail if you fail to "give".
Wow… that is just amazing.
I've quoted Jesus himself stating that nothing about the Old Testament is being changed, yet Marxy just stubbornly hangs onto what he wants to believe and ignores what the Bible actually says so that he can try to throw what he doesn't like down the memory hole. Remember this?
> maybe someday everyone down here will actually read and understand your words.
So Marxy, if Jesus' arrival actually changed the state of affairs described in 1st Samuel, then there should actually be something in the New Testament that says that description no longer holds. Problem is, history since Jesus walked the earth has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the description given in 1st Samuel IS STILL TRUE AND ACCURATE!!!!
C'mon Marxy, I've been asking you over and over and over where the Bible says that government should be taking money from its citizens to "take care of the poor". Yet you still refuse.
YOU made this claim, Marxy:
> Since they don't, that's where the government can come in.
PROVE THIS IS BIBLICAL!!!
You can't. Know why? 'Cause it AIN'T THERE!!! That's why you haven't backed up your claim from the Bible despite numerous challenges. Because you know that it's not there; there isn't even anything that vaguely resembles God making this an area of government action. I'm sure you also know that if you tried to fake such an obvious distortion, I would cram the scriptures down your throat so hard that you'd be involuntarily quoting them for the next year.
It's time to correct that quote from your post:
> Lord Jesus, may Marxaphasia someday actually read and UNDERSTAND Your words.
Finally, remember that I am not the one you have to justify yourself to. I'm just trying to warn you.
For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written,
“AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”
So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
— Romans 14:10–12
He will not accept your justifications. He knows the truth better than anyone. His word is the standard.
Markadelphia is going to force you all to become more biblical. Oh wait, that sounds like everything he hates about the religious right.
"I've quoted Jesus himself stating that nothing about the Old Testament is being changed"
Seriously, when was the last time you actually read the Bible? So, I guess that means that I have to keep my beard at a certain length and I can't eat shellfish either. I'm going to give you a 4 word clue to see if you can make a connection: SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
Here's a concise explanation.
http://www.gci.org/law/otl10
"Jesus' ministry caused many changes in the law — changes so dramatic that laws were 'set aside' or declared 'obsolete' (Heb. 7:18; 8:13). Some laws remained the same, some were changed, and others were 'abolished" (Eph. 2:15).'"
Further...
Matthew 19
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21 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.” 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
As far as your assertions about government go, don't you think that there is a difference between the Roman Empire and the United States? I happen to think the latter is a darn sight more close to the teachings of Christ. The United States government has saved countless lives around the world through peaceful means. Certainly, the government isn't perfect but it has accomplished things like reducing poverty in the elderly through social security.
Do you think Jesus would've approved or disapproved of Social Security? Simple question. I realize this is a hypothetical but I am asking you to look at his words and put them into the context of today as opposed to the oppression of the Roman Empire.
oppression of the Roman Empire.
Oppression? If compared to today, but not in the terms of it's time.
Don't judge history through modern glasses as your judgment will be rife of modern bias'.
Do you think Jesus would've approved or disapproved of Social Security?
I only ask that I get to see His face when you ask him.
Seriously, do you think Jesus would approve of foisting your parents off to be supported by a bunch of strangers? That govt should provide care to the old, the infirm, widows and orphans rather than family, church and community? Wait a minute - of course you would...
I happen to think the latter is a darn sight more close to the teachings of Christ.
Wow, what an endorsement of the U.S. as a Christian nation. Talk about your theocracy! You do recall that Jesus taught that He was the way, the only way.
You sure you wouldn't prefer to go back to talking about secular topics?
So much to respond to, so little time. So I'll just start with this…
> I'm going to give you a 4 word clue to see if you can make a connection: SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
My response to that is simple: B.S.
There is not one teaching in that sermon which overturns the principles taught in the Old Testament. He did correct a lot of distortions and misuses of the O.T. and strengthened others (sin isn't just what you do physically, but also what you do in your mind), but that's not replacing the O.T. principles, that's restoring them. In fact, I've already quoted Jesus' words from that very sermon, words you're still trying to reject:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
— Matthew 5:17–19
Hold on there a sec… Aren't you the one trying to annul teachings from the Old Testament? Hmmmm…
No, I'm not.
The way I see it there are three camps when it comes to Jesus and the OT. The first says that nothing in the OT has changed and that Jesus carries forward everything in it. That would be your camp, correct? The second completely rejects the OT and claims that once Christ was born, the period of Grace began and, thus, new law. The third group says that some of the old laws are thrown out but the commandments are kept as a foundation. That is what Christ is talking about in your quote above...the law of Moses. I do agree and this is the camp in which I fall.
Christ goes on to say the following later in Matthew 5
" 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
Recall that Exodus 21:22-24 clearly states the opposite as does Lev. 24:20 and Deut. 19:21. So, honestly, it's Jesus that is annul some of the teachings of the OT. It doesn't get any plainer than this.
I just knew you would bring up that section, and screw it up just as you did.
What, specifically, were those references? What are they part of? Who are they instructions to?
Now, compare them to what Jesus said. Who was he talking to? Who do those examples apply to?
Are these two groups the same? I'll give you a hint, the answer here is "No".
I disagree. How aren't they the same? Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus Christ didn't advocate pacifism?
At least you have to admit that the ceremonial laws of the OT are no longer applicable. Odors from a burning bull? Selling my daughter into slavery? Slavery possession?
Should I put my neighbor to death because he works on Sunday to make ends meet? Can I not approach God because I wear glasses?
How about my friends who get their hair trimmed? Bound for Hellfire Lake ? Or the ones that play football? I mean, they are touching the skin of a pig.
> How aren't they the same?
If you answer the questions I asked (which should be easy to do by reading the context of the references you listed), the answer should become apparent.
Surely you recognize that getting someone to think for themselves by asking them questions is a classic teaching technique?!? Are you going to demonstrate actual thinking skills here? In this case, it's even an open book test!
I'll get to the rest of your post (which is just a general repeat of an earlier post) once we finish this topic.
If you answer the questions I asked
Ha!!
Good grief. Let's try this again. Christ is clearly stating the some of the old laws are no longer applicable. Take a look at this.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=NIV
Contained in the passage above is link to Exodus which connects the two (footnote h). There are other connections as well between Christ's statements and OT passages. What this essentially means is the Christ is the mediator of a New Covenant and that all people should follow this new law...His.
If you have a point, make it. We're back into the game playing questions again and I'm quite weary of it. If you think I screwed it up, use statements, not questions, to evaluate.
So instead of looking at the details, you just circle back and make the same assertion again? Good grief is right!
> We're back into the game playing questions again and I'm quite weary of it.
You're supposed to be a teacher, right? You're supposed to actually know, and prefer to use teaching techniques which work, right? That is exactly what I'm trying to do here, but you're apparently REFUSING to be a student and think for yourself. (What was that about your claim to be "open-minded"? You're not being open minded here!)
Look, Mark. The details matter. I'm trying to get you to look at those details for yourself because I know that if I try to explain those details to you, you will reject the explanation simply because I was the person who explained it.
It's not like the questions are hard. Just go back to Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20 and Deuteronomy 19:21 and read the context for yourself. Since you routinely reject my explanations anyway, you would have to go check them for yourself anyway.
Unless, of course, you don't want to know what the Bible actually says. Remember?
> …actually read and understand your words.
Don't you think you should be applying those words to yourself?
"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him." (Songs 5:4)
Your God is kinky.
dw
So am I. Fair's fair.
2 Kings 2:23-24
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Ummm, Mark. I apologize to you and your vengeful God for calling you baldhead.
dw
dw, You need to start using a better translation than the King James. New American Standard is the best literal translation (http://bit.ly/dJQh7K), making it the best for study. Holman Christian Standard (http://bit.ly/eg0bZB) and NIV (http://bit.ly/fIxBqd) are the best two which compromise a bit to get clearer English.
Also, pay attention to the details and context of the verses you quoted. (Just like I'm asking Mark to do.)
But that's all I'm going to say for now because I don't want to distract from the debate with Mark.
dw, two more quick thoughts: the KJV translation into "children" is about as accurate as the gun grabbers' definition of "children". The Hebrew word means adolescent males up to 30 years old.
And Bethel was about as friendly towards God's prophets as Al Qaeda is to non-Muslims.
Ah... since the 42 'kids' God killed for calling a guy bald could have been as old as 30, it's ok. My bad!
What debate? Since our only reference allowed is the Christian Bible, let's go to the tape! If Christ claims anywhere that he is NOT changing the laws of Moses, and yet seems to violate a few of the OT rules, the the only possible conclusion is that your Christ is a liar.
Debate over.
dw
dw, Why do gun grabbers use statistics of "death by gun" from "children" as old as 18 instead of restricting them to those under 12?
> If Christ claims anywhere that he is NOT changing the laws of Moses, and yet seems to violate a few of the OT rules, the the only possible conclusion is that your Christ is a liar
If Mark's interpretation is correct (it's not), then you're absolutely right.
Scroll back up to where I quoted Jesus saying that he did not come to abolish any laws. Notice that he condemns anyone who annuls the smallest of the laws.
Now notice the reference: Matthew 5:17-19. Then notice the portion Mark quoted in the very next comment. It's reference is Matthew 5:38-42. That's only 6 paragraphs later. In real time, that's probably less than 5 minutes later.
So Mark expects us to believe that Jesus A) says He did not come to destroy the law, B) condemns anyone who would try to do so, and C) He then (almost) immediately turned around and annulled one (actually 3) of the laws, making Himself "least in the kingdom of heaven" in the process.
But if there's another understanding of what Jesus was saying where He was not contradicting Himself—one which does not require distortion, as in examining all the details until they fit together properly without being forced—then that would be the preferred understanding. There is such an understanding, and that's what my questions are designed to expose without having to jam them down his throat.
Doggone it. "It's reference" should be "Its reference". Apostrophes indicate possessives, except when they don't.
Matthew 19:7-9
"Then why," they retorted, "did Moses command us to give a written divorce-notice and dismiss the woman?"
"It was because you knew so little of the meaning of love that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives! But that was not the original principle. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife on any grounds except her unfaithfulness and marries some other woman commits adultery."
Moses over-rode what God wanted? That takes guts.
dw
dw, Why are you throwing in a bunch of distractions that aren't relevant to the topic at hand? You know how hard it already is to keep Mark on point.
Whoops! My fault again, I guess. I thought the topic was Christianity. This post is titled "Happy Birthday, Jesus!"
I understood the current flavor of the debate to be whether or not Jesus 'violated' any of the teachings of the laws of Moses.
But it is late, perhaps I misunderstood.
Happy New Year to all!
dw
Correction, "violated..." would be better written as "taught or acted contrary to the Laws of Moses."
It is late.
dw
DW brings up an interesting point in his posts here. It is about faith, after all, and not logic. So, ST, whatever discussion we continue to have is about our opinions on faith which is quite different from debating the pros and cons of entitlement programs.
I say discussion and not debate because I still don't know where you stand on the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. All I know is that you have said "nothing about the Old Testament is being changed" and since that point you have refused to elaborate or offer a basis for you argument. Instead you have attempted to teach me about something I know quite a bit about as well as continue with the weasel questions.
I've read and studied the context for both of these books as well as the rest of the Bible since I was 8 years old. It's obvious to me what they mean. If you have some different ideas, state what they are. If you think my interpretation is wrong, explain why. That's the starting point of a debate. If you don't have time, that's fine. Living your life is more important than posting on this blog. I'm never the one who blows a bowel and hurls accusations of cowardice if people leave threads.
I hope you realize that this very debate has been going on pretty much since the beginning with Christian scholars. Everyone thinks they have the "right" interpretation when the reality is that there are many paths to Jesus because it is about faith, not who is right or wrong. Certainly there are a few basics that everyone should agree one (Romans 10, 9-10, the Commandments, Christ's sermon in Matthew 5 just to name a few) but whether the OT should be adhered to fully, thrown out, or looked at as a foundation with further growth from Christ is a matter of interpretation.
So don't worry about jamming anything down my throat. I don't allow anyone to insert themselves between me and the Lord. I'm very comfortable in my beliefs but am interested in the basis for yours. Explain your point so we can have a debate. Explain the details and let's see where we are at. Or don't. Either way, it's not a big deal to me. But let's not waste any more time with the game playing.
Here is an article that may be a good starting off point because it speaks to some of what you say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expounding_of_the_Law
::: Sigh :::
So in essence, you're refusing to actually think this through. I can't say I'm surprised. Annoyed, but not surprised.
> since that point you have refused to elaborate or offer a basis for you argument.
Wrong. That is precisely what my questions were. Their intention was to get you to look at the details which matter. But you continue to belligerently refuse to do so. I'll explain them, but not tonight because I need sleep.
> there are many paths to Jesus because it is about faith, not who is right or wrong
That's not what Jesus said.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”
— John 14:6
Hmmm… Who to believe? Marxy? Jesus? Marxy? Jesus!
> It is about faith, after all, and not logic.
Again, dead wrong. Jesus was a master of logic:
Paying careful attention to how Jesus made use of logical thinking can strengthen our confidence in Jesus as master of the centers of intellect and creativity, and can encourage us to accept him as master in all of the areas of intellectual life in which we may participate. In those areas we can, then, be his disciples, … We can learn from him to use logical reasoning at its best, as he works with us.
— http://bit.ly/fIhxxN
Here's another, less intense article article on the same general topic:
Today there is widespread indifference to, even downright hostility towards logic and the fundamental laws that govern it. We are sometimes told that logic is a Western construction invented by DWEM’s (Dead White European Males such as Aristotle), … and that Jesus was a prophet for the common man, not a logician for the “wise and intelligent.”
I could not disagree more. Logic comes from the very nature of God Himself,
— http://bit.ly/hFNiGJ
In fact, I completely agree with the author of that article, J. P. Moreland (one of THE leading Christian philosophers) when he says:
"If if the Bible teaches something that's a logical contradiction, you should disbelieve the Bible."
— http://bit.ly/g3HZu1
I should also point out that God does not demand blind faith, but in fact is willing to offer evidence:
Then Moses said, “What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, ‘The LORD has not appeared to you.’”
“that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”
— Exodus 4:1, 5
Read the whole chapter and you'll see numerous references to Moses performing the signs as evidence that he was actually God's messenger.
Now read Matthew 9:2-8, which includes this verse:
“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”
— Matthew 9:6
Jesus healed the paralytic as proof that He has the authority He claimed to have.
Now look at John 10:22-42. The whole thing. This time Jesus explains that He has shown them enough evidence to accept Him as the Son of God:
“but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”
— John 10:38
But don't stop there. Keep right on rolling into John 11. Verses 1-54 cover Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Notice once again, that raising Lazarus from the dead was evidence:
So Jesus then said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him.”
— John 11:14–15
And of course, the Resurrection was not exempt from Jesus' willingness to provide evidence:
To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
— Acts 1:3
In short, your claim that Christianity has nothing to do with reason, has nothing to do with reason.
So much for getting some sleep. I can't believe I actually forgot to include these two verses:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
— John 1:1
and…
And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’”
— Matthew 22:37
The word translated as "Word" in John 1:1 is the Greek word "logos". It has a number of meanings which, given the grammer, John apparently intended to apply. Those multiple definitions were routinely used in Greek philosophy and would have been familiar to his audience. Not only does it mean "word", but also "reason/logic" and "principle." As J. P. Moreland put it:
Indeed, some scholars think that the passage “In the beginning was the Word (logos)” (Jn 1:1) is accurately translated “In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational mind)”.
As for the greatest commandment, "all your mind" is one third of the command. While the heart is considered to be the seat of emotion, the mind is considered to be the seat of reasoning, or in other words, logic. If you refuse to use reason, you're actually disobeying God's greatest commandment.
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)
Would you Christians please pray that I win the lottery? Or world peace, or something I guess. Because Jebus says two of you can do it.
Jebus lied, people died.
dw
Well, since Mark isn't willing to think for himself, I'll just have to lay out the explanation of why Jesus teaching in Matthew 5:38-42 does not annul the Old Testament.
First, to restate the argument thus far (in simplified terms), part of which occurred prior to this thread:
1. Markadelphia claims that the Bible supports the government taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor.
2. I challenged him to show where this is taught in the Bible.
3. Markadelphia responded with the account of the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-27), implying that being wealthy is inherently wrong.
4. I replied with several verses which clearly state that wealth can be a blessing from God, and therefore, being wealthy is not inherently wrong.
5. Markadelphia responded by pointing out that the verses were from the Old Testament and no longer count.
6. I responded with Jesus' statement that He did not come to destroy the Old testament but to fulfill it, and condemned anyone who would try to annul even the smallest part of the law.
7. Markadelphia repeated his assertion that the Old Testament has been annulled, stating that Jesus did so in the Sermon on the Mount.
8. I challenged that claim, reminding him that Jesus' statement that He was not doing so is actually part of the Sermon on the Mount. (Oh, the irony!)
9. Markadelphia responded with the portion we're currently arguing about:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”
— Matthew 5:38–42
So to answer his claim, I'm going to start by answering my own questions, something Mark still refuses to do.
> What, specifically, were those references? What are they part of? Who are they instructions to?
The phrases "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" occur three times in the Old Testament. They are: Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. That much Mark got right. But the detail he refuses to look at is this:
All three instances are PART OF THE LAW given to the nation of Israel (much like Federal Law is to us). More specifically, all three instances are sentencing guidelines to be applied when certain laws were broken: If a pregnant wife is stuck and injury is caused, apparently to either the wife or the child (Exodus); If someone assaults and injures his neighbor (Leviticus); and If someone brings false charges in an attempt to cause harm via the legal system (Deuteronomy).
In all three cases, it is the judges who are to command these penalties if a defendant is found guilty of a crime, and the duly appointed officers of the court who were to carry out the penalty. In other words, this guideline was given to the LEGAL SYSTEM.
> Now, compare them to what Jesus said. Who was he talking to? Who do those examples apply to?
So now Jesus is talking to a large group of people about "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth". We've already seen that that guideline was for criminal law. So does this mean He was in court? No. Was He speaking at an ancient legal symposium, or teaching a course to prospective lawyers and judges? No! He was talking to a large crowd of ordinary people from all walks of life. Thus my last question and answer:
> Are these two groups the same? I'll give you a hint, the answer here is "No".
But I've skipped one question, namely, "Who do those examples apply to?" So take a good hard look at those examples.
- A slap on the right cheek. (Note: For a right handed person to strike someone on the right cheeck, it cannot be a punch. It has to be a backhand slap.)
- A lawsuit demanding a shirt.
- Compelling someone to travel a mile.
Which one of these is an assault against the legal system or a violation of any law—let alone the 3 specific laws this applies to—resulting in the legal system retaliating "in kind"? None of them. They are all personal insults; not even assaults!
It's clear that what had happened was that people had latched onto "eye for eye", "tooth for tooth", etc. in the law, and had adopted it as a code of personal revenge. Jesus was correcting this abuse of the law, and in fact, telling people to do the opposite of retaliation.
Paul also took up the same subject, though he did it much more directly than Jesus did:
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.
— Romans 12:19
You've probably noticed that some of those words were capitalized. In the translation I use (NASB) that's a convention indicating that those words are a quotation from another part of scripture, in this case, it's from Deuteronomy 32:35. Oh look! That's also from the Old Testament.
So to summarize:
- The Old Testament included "eye for eye" as a sentencing guideline to be applied by the legal system when certain laws were broken.
- The Old Testament also taught that we are not to engage in retaliation, instead leaving that to God (and to the legal system via laws).
- Jews of Jesus' day had distorted "eye for eye" to excuse personal revenge.
- Jesus corrected this distortion by teaching that we are not to engage in personal revenge (echoing the Old Testament).
- Jesus also stated that He did not come to overturn the Old Testament (what "Law and Prophets" means).
- Markadelphia's claim that Jesus overturned the Old Testament mere minutes after stating that He was not overturning the Old Testament creates a contradiction, while the definite distinction between the legal system and private action does not.
dw,
Here is the clearest explanation of these verses that I've seen:
"These two verses are among the most misunderstood in the Bible. They are traditionally taken to mean that God pays special attention to the prayers of believers when two or more gather or agree together. But such an interpretation is wrong for two reasons: (1) it takes the statements out of the context of church discipline and the pursuit of the straying brother; and (2) the conclusions that it leads to regarding prayer is contrary to Scripture.
"Nowhere in the Bible does God imply that he listens any differently to one person praying than he does to two, ten, or five hundred. If he does hear two or more people better than he hears one, then we must assume that Jesus’ prayers lacked effectiveness when he went off alone to pray (14:23; 26:36-44). James made the point that the prayer of a single righteous person is powerful enough to heal a sick person by drawing on the power of the God who listens to each of his children, together or individually (Jas. 5:14-18).
"This promise guarantees guidance for the two or three (actually a figure of speech recognizing the part for the whole) who confront a straying believer. This is also a promise to the church to claim wisdom and act with authority in the restoration process toward the sinning person. In other words, when this process is pursued as Christ outlined it, his presence and power are assured.
"Agree is from sumphoneo (literally, “sound out together”), meaning “harmonize.” Anything you ask for in this context means an appeal to God for support of the witnesses’ actions to restore the sinning brother or to excommunicate him.
"By his reference back to a few details from 18:15-17, Jesus was implying a reference to all of the details. So, in this “if” clause, Jesus was saying, “The condition upon which God will base his endorsement of your disciplinary activity is your pursuit of your brother, with the zealous love of the Father in your hearts, and with careful attention to the guidelines I have given.” If we follow these guidelines, the fulfillment of God’s will concerning the sinning brother will be done for you by my Father in heaven."
— Holman Bible Commentary (emphases in the original)
In short, check the context of those two verses you quoted.
There's also this:
You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.
— James 4:3
I'd like to start off here by thanking you for all the effort you put in to explaining your position. It truly is a testament to your faith that you dedicated yourself to all of these writings. DW's agnostic teasings aside, I think there is some common ground here that we can finally explore. To your comments...
"So in essence, you're refusing to actually think this through. I can't say I'm surprised. Annoyed, but not surprised."
"Their intention was to get you to look at the details which matter. But you continue to belligerently refuse to do so. "
"Well, since Mark isn't willing to think for himself"
I've thought it through for 35 years, looked at the details and have read the Bible many times over in multiple translations. I just don't agree with your interpretation completely. I think the mistake you make here is that you equate agreeing with you with thinking it through. Somehow I must not be thinking because I don't see it exactly they way you do. As I have said before, I don't think it's a good idea for someone to insert themselves between a person and the Lord. I have to admit that within some of comments above I did that and I was wrong. Your path to the Lord is your path, not mine, and I am not any position to judge that. If I'm going to call you to the mat for judging me, then I can't turn around and do it either. Rest assured, it won't happen again. I can disagree with you but I won't call you wrong.
Let's start with some basic common ground. Both of us believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he was raised from the dead. Both of us believe that Christ's teachings are something to aspire to on a daily basis. Certainly, we will fall short because we are human but because Christ died for our sins, God is now a loving being who forgives us our sins. His only son took His wrath for us and now we are in a period of Grace. This last bit is where we may start to part ways but I'm not sure.
"Markadelphia claims that the Bible supports the government taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor."
Slight twist of the words but I'll grant you the comment. It is Christ like to help the poor. He stated it very clearly and throughout the entire Bible we see examples of how God will judge us based on how we treat the poor.
http://encouragingbiblequotes.com/versesmercya.html
The message is pretty clear to me. So if we have a country that operates under a system that helps the poor both here and abroad, I think that is doing Christ's work on a larger scale. Our armed forces do the work Jesus when they aided the people in Haiti. Social Security has reduced poverty which is the work of Christ. Medicare has healed the sick which Jesus himself did. Our government is not perfect but they are not the Empire from Star Wars either. The government has the infrastructure that private entities simply don't have.
I think it's important to note the camel and the rich man parable is mentioned in three separate gospels. That says to me that Christ was not interested in material wealth and explained that it led away from rewards in heaven...perhaps even salvation. Again, we are judged by how we care for the less fortunate and that includes our government. I think we can both agree that the people who run the government of North Korea, for example, probably won't be well received by the Lord.
"I responded with Jesus' statement that He did not come to destroy the Old testament but to fulfill it, and condemned anyone who would try to annul even the smallest part of the law."
"It's clear that what had happened was that people had latched onto "eye for eye", "tooth for tooth", etc. in the law, and had adopted it as a code of personal revenge. Jesus was correcting this abuse of the law, and in fact, telling people to do the opposite of retaliation."
I agree that Christ came to fulfill the law. But Christ clearly defines the law as the Commandments.
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
He then goes on to explain the Commandments and His vision for how they should be fulfilled. He's talking about the Commandments and saying, as you have pointed out correctly, that the laws have been abused. That's when we get to the 11th Commandment which is to love thy neighbor as thyself...the Golden Rule. That is a marked change from what happened in the OT. It's pacifism in its purest form and it's one of the main reasons why I am a Christian.
I also don't agree with your assessment of the differences between the two groups. God was commanding Moses to tell "the people" the law. Jesus was commanding "the crowds" and "his disciples." I'm curious as to where you see the distinction between God's words to Moses and a federal system in Exodus Chs 19-23. These were all God's laws, correct?
I think that after God fathered a son things changed. In Hebrews 8 we see a clear explanation of this shift.
"But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another."
After this, the Lord explains why the new covenant replaced the old one and says
“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
This is followed by
"By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
I don't see how it can be any clearer than that. The author of Hebrews is anonymous but likely it was Paul's 14th letter.
So, I think you may have been a little over generalized when you said nothing from the OT has changed. I think you may have simply meant the Commandments. Clearly it has as the Lord says it has. The birth of his son changed all that. He is now a forgiving God and will remember our sins no more.
It's important to examine all of this because we have to look at the Bible in historical context. There are simply things that we don't do today. We have all felt lust but none of us go around poking our eyes out. Women in the Bible were treated poorly and they aren't today. In fact, the Bible was written by (flawed) men and sadly had no real female voice. Thankfully, this is changing today as we see more documents come to light from that era.
The figure of Mary Magdalene, for example, is far more important than people give her credit for. She was present at the death of Christ while the other disciples had fled (save John). She was present at the burial and she was the first person to witness the Resurrection according to all four gospels. As time has gone on, it is become very clear that her role was probably greater than has been taught over the years by a male run church.
One final thought. Jesus said
"Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."
That's a very potent statement to make with a variety of interpretations suggesting themselves. To me, this means that we can carry His word forward to our time and help more people than He did in His name. I think we can agree that Matthew 5 is the very essence of Christianity. I think many of us forget to live by these words and do not do the "greater things" that he asked of us.
From where I stand, the United States Government attempts to do these greater works. They aren't perfect but think of what our country has accomplished over the years regarding aid to people less fortunate both at home and around the world. Indeed, our founding document declares that our Congress shall provide for "the general welfare" of the United States.
This is an example of those "greater works."
Post a Comment