That leads the question you've greatly debated: whether or not Jesus broke the laws. The gospel of Mark (etc) show that Jesus only gave the thumbs up to the "heart" of the law so it is not OUR interpretation we need to debate but Jesus' interpretation.
In Matthew 5 he says it'd be wrong to disobey the slightest bit of the law yet he immediately goes on to show fresh (heart) interpretations of it. In word and action he was saying "Don't disobey it but see it in a New Light"- and not THEIR light!
Mark 2's main point, where we see the increasing hostility of the (Jewish) religious leaders to Jesus' ministry. As a hearer of Mark 2:1-3:6 the 1st Century hearer of the gospel could easily presume that Jesus' ministry was provocative towards the religious leaders - that he deliberately "broke their laws" (as some here have discussed)
But Jesus telling the leper to go show himself clean and to keep it quiet shows from the outset that Jesus was not out there with the intent of making a scene!..
It's taken me ages to read all those posts! Here are a few comments:
1) On Jesus being "angry", many translations have "filled with pity" or ".. compassion" which, based on what precedes this section makes sense:
Jesus just went off and deserted the pleading crowds who wanted healing (Mark 1:35). 1sr Century hearers of Mark's gospel would be wondering "Did he not care?!" - and the answer is immediately provided through Mark 1:40-45 - "IF you want to...." "YES I do want to!".
Hi MrVisions, see Bruce Metzger's "Textual commentary on the Greek NT". There are a few very early manuscripts which have "anger" instead of "pity", and since in Aramaic (the language which Jesus spoke) "had pity" sounds very much like "was enraged" (ethraham vs ethraem)
I must thank-you Randy, and although I must conclude that your discourse on the "Angry Jesus" theory hangs by the slightest of theological tendrils. The journey to that conclusion guided me through some wonderful websites. I never knew there could be so much written and so much time occupied by just a few words. fascinating thats all I have to say. I also loved Ehrman's summary note on theologically motivated changes to the new testament.
Wonderful! I don't care if people agree or disagree with me; the point isn't to reach consensus its just to get people digging......if I an get just one or two people to dig like you have here, this series will have served its purpose. And yeah, people rake every word and every letter of every word pretty hard over the coals---after all these are important books.
Why do you believe that Jesus was worried about his cover being blown? I can't imagine hw would have cared at all about the whole world knowing of him. He was without a doubt an alpha male who believed he was speaking the truth and didn't seem to give a damn what any of his detractors thought of him. he just shrugged them off, told them "fuck you" in so many words, and went on his way.
Hi Ben, as far as scholars can tell (when it was found there was only a few pagest of it left) it is as old as the cannonical gospels. It probably was written before the Gospel of John and around the same time or later as Mark , say somewhere between 60 and 80 ad.
Hi Ben, no, eggerton is yet another gospel which was floating around. There were apparently tons and tons of Gospels floating around out there, even before Luke wrote his (see Luke 1:1). I'm glad you brought up Thomas though, stay tuned in a few more weeks I'll discuss an interesting theory about the relationship between Mark and Thomas.
Hi heyalun, think of how many times the book of leviticus was broken in this small story. first of all, the leper wasn't shouting "unclean" and staying away from Jesus. Second, Jesus touched the Leper--something absolutely forbidden by Leviticus. (cont)
(cont, to heyalun) Jesus _does_ say to go and make an offering "as Moses commanded" but he gives a different reason for doing so than mere following of what Moses said. The NIV says : "Bug go, showyourself to the priest,....as a testimony to them". The point of the healing was to bring he leper back into the community, and the community would never accept him if he didn't pay off the priests... (cont)
(cont, to heyalun) one thing I didn't have time to mention: notice that before the story, the leper is excluded and lonely (leviticus says they should live outside the town). After the healing, the leper is reconciled with the priests and can live inside the town again---but it is JESUS who can no longer enter towns openly and stays outside in lonely places. An indication of Jesus taking the place of the marginalized, really identifying with them.
[2] "Jesus touched the Leper--something absolutely forbidden by Leviticus"
Maybe you could quote the law you're referring to. I think the real problem was with becoming ceremonially unclean -- which contact with someone unclean would do. (Lev 15:31) But Jesus had authority from God to make people clean! He used that authority in this case. You seem to be missing the forest here.
Actually, randy has it right. Remember this is about Jesus actions in Mark. Whether he has authority from god is irrellevant. The point is that he is breaking the rules of Leviticus and that is part of the story wich makes him more charismatic.
Hi heyalun, "maybe criminal activity makes people attractive to you".... umm...remember, its easy for comments to be taken the wrong way when we're not all in the same room talking face-to-face. We're all friends here.
Every revolution has a person that breaks the laws; laws that might be no longer relevant in the eyes of the revolutionist. For a biblical example: Do you blow a horn on the first of each month? christian month, jewish month? Do you wear tassles from your clothing? It depends on how you interpret what he was doing. By some interpretation, by breaking these laws, he was more perfect.
Rosie I hope you didn't mistake my comments as an attack. If so, I apologize.
Revolutions led by God's servants do not involve disobedience to him.
"My food is for me to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work." -- John 4:34
In fact, those in leadership must be more careful to obey. Jesus was anointed king. This is what happened to the first king who disobeyed: "You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!" (1 Samuel 15:26)
LOL.. nope. I figured it could be taken several ways, so I tend to assume the benign. You're missing the point, no one said he is disobeying god, he is however breaking the rules of leviticus. These are two different things. If a law is to be change, how does one go about doing it to a dogmatic text? You must have an authoriative represenative that is willing to show the change and lead by example. Otherwise christians would still not be allowed to wear clothing that mixes linen and wool.
Yes, according to the bible leviticus is from the word of god. However, the law maker can also change the law. To the uninformed (ex: the people watching jesus) it would seem as if he is breaking the law, and he is. But he is doing so with grand approval that trumphs biblical law. He is showing this through his example. The death was the grand performance and the ultimate rebelion (similar to Socrates). It was just the last nail in the coffin... so to speak.
Hi heyalun, check out Lev 13:44-48. It is strictly prohibited for lepers to have any contact with nonlepers. I suppose you could say that I'm assuming he wasn't shouting "unclean", but thats kind of like assuming he wasn't shouting "do you want some fries with that!!" because Mark doesn't mention that he was shouting either. Mark is very careful about including all the details which matter, and its dangerious to argue from what _isn't_ in the text rather than from what _is_ in the text.
The key section is: "As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp."
Again, this doesn't say he can't ever approach someone. He can't live with anyone and he's unclean.
Your argument based on assumption about what's not in the text is not good, because Jesus knew what was up with him. That was the whole point of the "unclean" alert.
Hi heyalun, don't take my word for it. Ask _any_ rabbi or christian expert in the levitical laws about whether the leper was in violation of Leviticus here when he was approaching Jesus. If you can find some article, documentation, or give me an email address of some rabbi who is willing to say I'm wrong, well, I'll be happy to change my mind!
I'm not trying to change your mind. It seemed like you were saying all kinds of laws were being broken. This strikes to the heart of the Christian faith as Jesus had to be sinless. He also had to show great regard for God's law, which it also seemed you were implying he failed to show. I was just wondering what your evidence was for these claims. Nevermind, though...
?? There's no question that Jesus broke the law--even the 10 commandments (we'll talk about the sections on Sabbath-keeping comming up in Mark). That's doesn't mean Jesus wasn't sinless. New times mean new laws--Jesus was changing the world. Christians say all the time that the ceremonial laws have been done away with. Its very puzzling to me how this possibly could be an attact on Christianity! An attack on untra-orthodox Judeism, sure, but an attack on Christianity??
Again, when I say you're attacking Christ, I'm not referring to malicious intent. But no, he can't break God's laws AND be sinless. He was under Mosaic Law, including the Sabbath and the 10 commandments. If he broke them, then his sacrifice is worthless.
I hope when you get to the section on the Sabbath you substantiate your claim.
Hi heyalun, for a sneak peek, check out Mark 2:23-28 and Mark 3:2. These texts were actually a source of great embarrassment to me when I was a theist: I was a very devout Seventh-day Adventist until I was 27. I took the 10 commandments seriously, including the 4th, and I didn't do any work on Saturdays until after I stoped believing in God...
(cont, to heyalun) other gospels are even more explicit about Jesus's disregard for the ceremonial laws: Luke 13:14. John 5:18 explicitly says that Jesus broke the sabbath.
If SDA children cut themselves on a Saturday, do their parents tend to their wounds?
Did you fast on Saturdays?
I ask, because the scriptures you referred to are of Jesus disciples eating grain from the stalk and of Jesus healing a man. Mosaic Law would not prevent either of these things. It forbade secular work, not helping people and eating. Jesus rightly felt indignation because of the insensibility of their hearts for thinking otherwise. (Mk 3:5)
Hi heyalun, you're talking to somebody who never watched saterday morning cartoons, participated in school sports, etc, because of not wanting to break the Sabbath :-) Yes, Jesus's actions were clearly outside of what the law allowed. Again, if you don't believe me, ask any expert on the mosaic law. John 5:18 says it in the most literal and explicit mannar possible: Jesus broke the Sabbath. (cont)
(cont, to heyalun) yes, medical needs were taken care of (thank god) but harvesting grain was definatly out--and jesus' disciples did that. Again, it completely flabberghasts and bewilders me.....I think you are the first Christian I've ever met who claimed that Jesus _didn't_ break the mosaic law.....that's the #1 complaint the pharasees have against him!
[1]Randy, You keep saying to ask an expert on law, but Jesus was an expert and he made it clear that what he was doing was lawful.
Mt 12:12-"It is lawful to do a fine thing on the sabbath."
And I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I'm no slouch. Any Christians who think Christ broke Mosaic Law don't know the Law nor do they understand Christ. Your SDA ministers taught that Christ broke law?
[2]John 5:18 tells what the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus for. This was based on their own rigid interpretation of God's law for which Jesus repeatedly exposed them.
Mt 23:4-"They bind up heavy loads and put them upon the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger."
Mk 7:13-"You make the word of God invalid by your tradition."
[3]"that's the #1 complaint the pharasees have against him!"
And that's the whole point! Your view is the one held by the enemies of God and Christ -- the ones that murdered him. They were wrong. Have you ever heard of the tradition that catching a flea on the Sabbath is illegal because it is hunting? Such was the ridiculousness of these men.
Hi heyalun, I know all about the rediculousness of sabbath observance, believe me. But John 5;18 says nothing about the pharasee's own rigid interpretation of God's law. It just states, flat out, that Jesus broke the sabbath. Lets take a look at it: (cont)
(cont, to heyalun) John 5:16: So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (cont)
(cont to heyalun) That's what I like about the Gospel of John: everthing is explicit and out on the table. It puts on the very lips of jesus that he is working on the Sabbath. And it explicitly says that he broke the Sabbath. For somebody, such as youself, who believes in a literal interpretation of the Gospels, I don't really see that you have any room to wiggle here. Does the Bible mean what it says or not?
[1]Ah, I get you now. You think *John* feels Jesus broke the Sabbath and blasphemed, even though Jesus said it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath and that he was not blaspheming by saying he was "God's Son" - even saying the Father is greater than he is. (Jn 10:36; 14:28)
Do you realize that the "work" he was doing was teaching and healing people? Didn't we agree that healing was ok?
[2]John is telling us is why the Jews wanted to kill him, NOT that Jesus was guilty. If you ask a person why they are on trial, and they say, "For murder," are they admitting guilt? No, they are stating the charges against them. So, yes John means what he says. Jesus was breaking the Sabbath according to their interpretation, which included things like not walking on grass, killing fleas, and healing.
[3]But Jesus taught, "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 5:19) So, like Jesus and God who was working with him, I disagree with the Pharisees. I don't believe that Jesus broke the Sabbath, blasphemed, was a sorcerer, or anything else that he was accused of.
[4]Do SDA ministers teach that Jesus broke Mosaic Law? I find that hard to believe. I think you might catch an "uninformed Christian" who would accept your interpretation. I doubt a minister would agree. Absolutely no members of my congregation would. It goes against very basic teachings of Christianity.
Hi heyalun, w.r.t. [3], yes, I do think there is a tension here between what Matthew is saying and what John is saying. If you read _both_ of these texts literally, there is a contradiction. You can't read them both literally, one or the other one of them must be reinterpreted, French postmodernist style, if you want to make them cohere.
Hi heyalun [4] SDA ministers believe that Jesus kept the sabbath, and that we should also keep the sabbath. They note that Jesus taught in the synagogs on sabbath, and that Paul also taught in synagogs on the sabbath after the ressurection, and they note that nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that we should worship on sunday. I believed them, but whenever I asked them about John 5 they looked embarrassed and mumbled that I was in danger of hell :)
Hi heyalun [2] Honestly, I don't see how you can have it both ways: either (A) you do a literal reading of John 5 and conclude that Jesus broke the sabbath (which is what it literally says) OR (B) you do a non-literal reading of the text, reinterpreting it metaphorically. I'm not saying that (B) is _wrong_, but if you choose option (B), you have to conclude that the gospels aren't to be understood literally (cont)
(cont to Heyalun, w.r.t. [2]) If you choose (B), that's OK, but you must admit you are doing what all those Frenchy-postmoderny-textual interpreting guys are doing: denying that the text can be read literally, or that its surface meaning ("He was breaking the sabbath" is a direct quote) can be a reliable guide to what it _actually_ means. (cont)
Hi heyalun, [1] I don't think it was just John who thought that way. I think all the gospels we have show that Jesus wanted to show the world a righteousness which was greater than that which was in the Mosaic laws. Of course I agree that what Jesus was doing was good!! But it was good just _because_ he was breaking the law. He couldn't have been good if he had followed the law.
(cont, to heyalun w.r.t. [2]) If you want to do a metaphorical meaning of the Gospels, hey, I'm down with that; I also think that they should be understood metaphorically and not literally. I just want to be clear about which way you take the gospels: as French postmodernists do or as literalists do :)
[1] I take the Bible literally, except for when it's clearly symbolic (e.g. parables, visions, figures of speech).
"you do a literal reading of John 5 and conclude that Jesus broke the sabbath (which is what it literally says)"
False dilemma. John 5 tells us why the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus. A newspaper may report, "Mr. Smith is on trial for killing his wife." The language can be literally taken two ways.
[3]"He couldn't have been good if he had followed the law."
Why do you say this?
The opposite is true. Jesus was a Jew, born under law. He condemned others for not keeping it and declared his innocence regarding the healing.
"Not one of you obeys the Law"
and
"If a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath?" -- Jn 7:19-24
Just like circumcision on the Sabbath didn't break it, neither did aiding someone sick or crippled.
The sabbath was about rest from labor and taking out time for spiritual things. These men corrupted it's meaning. How are you reading the gospels and missing how often Jesus called them out on this?
Hi heyalun [3] Why do I say that Jesus couldn't have been good if he had followed the law? Reread the sermon on the mount--the "eye-for-an-eye" law is explicitly rejected.
So heyalun, if you really believe that Jesus didn't work on the Sabbath, and really believe he meant that you shouldn't break any of the commandments (Mat. 5:19) then do you keep the Sabbath? Do you do work on Saturdays?
Hi heyalun, [1] I agree that the newspaper report "Mr. Smith is on trial for killing his wife" does not imply that Mr. Smith killed his wife. But listen closely to the language of John 5: its closer to "Mr. Smith is being pursued by police -because- he killed his wife". And that does carry the implication of guilt. (cont)
(cont to heyalun [1]) I think it is very significant that jesus's disciples were portrayed as harvesting grain on the Sabbath. That wasn't an act of healing; and gathering food was forbidden on the Sabbath (see Ex 16:21).
[1]Do you also think John is internally disharmonious? Because Jesus clearly identified himself as less than his Father, contrary to the other reason they wanted to kill him according to John 5:18. And he also defended his actions as lawful, like circumcision on the Sabbath. I even thought you agreed that tending to the ailing was lawful!
[2]I do see your point on the wording, but you're missing mine. According to the Pharisees rules, *to which Jesus did not adhere,* plucking grain to eat as you walk along, carrying a cot away that you needed before God's Son healed you, helping sick people, and saying you are God's Son *was* illegal. They were wrong. That why Jesus corrected them by saying, "Judge with righteous judgment." (Jn 7:24)
[3]"jesus's disciples were portrayed as harvesting grain on the Sabbath"
To be strictly legal, they were not. The Law made a distinction between gathering and 'satisfying your soul' by 'plucking off only ripe ears with your hand.' (Deut 23:24, 25) That's why Jesus said his disciples were "guiltless." (Mt 12:7)
[4]"the "eye-for-an-eye" law is explicitly rejected"
No it's not. I had this same conversation with ProfMTH. This is not just a law. It's a principle upon which laws are based. It precedes and extends beyond Moses. (Gen 9:6; 1 Ti 2:6)
"do you keep the Sabbath?"
No. Christ "died as a ransom to set [us] free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (Heb 9:15) As a disciple of Christ I obey "the Law of Christ." (Gal 6:2)
Hi heyalun, w.r.t. keeping the sabbath, I think its ok that you don't keep the sabbath--but I do think that this indicates that you don't really take Mat 5:19 as covering sabbath observance then. I'm not trying to say that your understanding of the Bible is _wrong_, I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways: either Mat 5:19 is literally true AND you should keep the Sabbath, or Mat 5:19 is metaphorical and you don't.
(cont, to heyalun w.r.t. keepign the sabbath) And saying that there is a "law of Christ" which doesn't require keeping the sabbath, as upposed to the Law of Moses which _does_, is just another way of saying that Christ rejected the law of moses! I'm very confused now :-(
Hi heyalun, [2] I agree with you that Jesus was saying that it was ok to do all this stuff on the Sabbath. But...by doing so, Jesus was contradicting the mosaic law, which prohibited gathering grain and carrying loads on the Sabbath (see Neh.13:15-18) And Deut 23:24 does say that its ok to get grain from the fields if you are hungry, but this wasn't to be done on the sabbath day--food gathering and preparation is strictly forbidden on Saturdays in the Old Testiment.
[2]Mt 5:19 is talking about *breaking* the commandments. I can't break them because I'm not now, nor was I ever under them. That'd be like me accusing you of breaking Chinese law, while you're in the States. Jesus and his disciples were obligated to keep the law though, up until the point when Jesus death removed that obligation.
Still, Christians do hold to all of the principles of Mosaic Law.
[1]Randy, the Jews that Nehemiah corrected were doing work! They were preparing and transporting goods for sale. That WAS illegal. Compare the secular work they were doing to walking along and grabbing some berries to eat right then when you get hungry. I can't stress enough the clearly stated legal distinction between this and harvesting. If that's work, then moving food to your mouth is too.
[3]The Mosaic Law and the Prophets were all about Christ. That's why he said not a letter of it would pass away until it was fulfilled. Then, right before he dies he says: "It has been accomplished." So it served its purpose in leading to Christ. He kept it perfectly and on a level that no other Jew ever had because he not only had to obey it, but to fulfill prophecy. We no longer have to keep it though. (Ga 3:24, 25)
His last words are different depending on the text you read. Also remember.. we are only discussing this as if Mark was the only gospel avaliable to the reader.
ummmm......like I said heyalun, I don't think you are doing it _wrong_; I think that it is perfectly ok to interpret the gospels like this. But heyalun, lets be honest....this is not a literal reading of the scripture, and by no means can this be reconciled with a literal reading of the gospel of john saying that Jesus broke the Sabbath. (cont)
(cont, to heyalun) also, I'm really sorry to be so contrary tonight, but the actions of Jesus's disciples when they were in the grain field clearly broke the sabbath. If you want to convince me otherwise, you'll have to provide some third party evidence--can you give me a reference from _any_ expert on the mosaic law who has been published in a peer-reviewed journal who will say that Jesus wasn't breaking the sabbath here?
Maybe it's the definition of "literal" that we're having a problem with. I don't think any text or spoken word of any length can be taken absolutely literally. Context, subtext, figures of speech, etc. need to be considered. There's a principle (I can't recall the name of it) that says a writer's intent is best revealed by the writer.
[2]If you _only_ read: "...not only was he breaking the Sabbath..." then I agree that you might conclude as you do. If you include the rest of John's gospel, you cannot -- not unless you conclude he's full of internal conflict -- and that's not even considering the overwhelming testimony from the rest of the scriptures. And you yourself said healing is legal on the Sabbath, so I really don't get you.
[3]"can you give me a reference from _any_ expert on the mosaic law who has been published in a peer-reviewed journal who will say that Jesus wasn't breaking the sabbath here?"
Not off hand. But, you can't give me a Biblical law that says you can't eat as you walk through a field. It's your shared interpretation with God's enemies versus Jesus, the Christian congregation, and God himself. (Mk 9:7)
Hi heyalun, believe me, growing up as a kid who was actually trying to _live_ this sabbath observance thing, I tried to find every loophole I could :-) I just know more about this than you do. I've given you several texts which indicate that food gathering on the sabbath was forbidden. If you don't want to take my word for it, that's fine, but if you want to convince me that Jesus _didn't_ break the sabbath, please cite some other authority.
w.r.t. reading the Bible, ok this is real progress; what you are saying is that you need to compare part of the bible with other parts of the bible, kind of round off the things which look contradictory, and come up with a consistent and livable rreligion. YES YES YES I 100% agree. I think there's only one more step: two honest, God fearing people might look at the same Bible and come up with two different understandings of who Jesus was and what christianity is. And this is also OK.
Hi heyalun, "you yourself said healing is legal on the Sabbath" that's the kicker---that wasn't all that Jeuss & co were doing on the Sabbath to break it. Honestly, these texts caused my pastors a lot of embarrassment, because they clearly indicate that Jesus broke the Sabbath, and therefore clearly indicated that Seventh-day Adventism was nonbiblical. The pastors had a comeback though; they quoted Is. 66:22 to show that we'll be keeping the Sabbath in heaven....
[1]When my old man was about 14 he wanted to live a "Christian" life, so he got circumcised. He didn't understand the Biblical teachings on circumcision. My point is that trying to do something unnecessary can't be an indication that you know what you're doing. It's the opposite! Neither the Law, nor Jesus teachings on it match your interpretation.
[2]I think you'll understand if I side with Jesus and Moses himself, who makes a distinction between gathering (not lawful) and walking through a field eating (legally differentiated from gathering and not mentioned in regard to the Sabbath, but interpreted as illegal by God's enemies).
As far as me trying to convince you, I'm not. If you don't accept Jesus' teachings as recorded by his disciples, I don't know what else to say.
[3]You're overlooking that healing was the major problem over and over again - at Mk 3:6; Lk 13:14; 14:1-6; Jn 5:15, 16; and 9:14, 16. Read these accounts and see what these men were and how Jesus responded.
"One deed I performed and you are all wondering...Are you violently angry at me because I made a man completely sound in health on the Sabbath?" -- Jn 7:19-24
Randy, you're siding with the men who murdered Jesus! (Mk 14:55)
[4]"there's only one more step: two honest, God fearing people might look at the same Bible and come up with two different understandings of who Jesus was and what christianity is"
While I'm a little uncomfortable with an atheist telling me what Christianity is, I agree to an extent. :-] I think eventually God would bring them together, though. (Eph 4:3-6)
hi heyalun "you're siding with the men who murdered Jesus!" haha its not like you're either with us or with the terrorists. I agree with the christkillers (and with John 5:18) that Jesus broke the law. I also agree with Jesus that the law sucked and needed to be broken. (cont)
(cont, to heyalun) Also, I can totally understand your discomfort with an atheist talking about Christianity and Biblical interpretation---which is another reason why I suggested you might do some reading of third-party authorities here (cont)
(cont, to heyalun) Because I think its important to understand that what I'm telling you isn't just my opinion on this; there are many many very devout christian scholars who would agree with 100% of what I've said so far.
(cont, to heyalun) which, of course, isn't to say that we're right and you are wrong ;-) its just to say that I think there is room here for genuine diversity of opinion, even among people who are all genuinly and honestly trying to read the texts as best they can. After all, we're talking about a divine story expressed in human language, and I think any human langage will lapse into contradiction at points when talking about the divine.
[1]I'm curious to see the devout scholars that claim Jesus disobeyed Mosaic Law. Do you have online works? I'm not curious enough to purchase any such books, as the authors don't have a clue if they exist. No offense intended, but I don't care how many letters they have behind their name, this shoots at the very heart of Christianity and they'd be Christians in name only. They'd also be poor at reading context.
[2]My comment about your atheism was tongue-in-cheek, but you have to admit it's a little ironic -- the whole atheist Bible study thing and telling a Christian what his faith should be. Honestly, I'm enjoying it though, except when you say stuff like this:
[3]"I also agree with Jesus that the law sucked and needed to be broken."
You've got to be kidding me! Book, Chapter, and verse please. I want to know where Jesus said this.
You can't show me, because it's the farthest thing from the truth. Jesus life was lived in fulfillment of the Law. (Lk 24:44) He taught that the Law should be obeyed until it was fulfilled.
Hi heyalun, a really awesome resource is an audio course given by Luke Timothy Johnson. Unfortunately, you have to pay for it; google for "The Teaching company" and look for his course "Jesus and the Gospels". There is another online website "early christian writings" (again, google for it) which brings together all kinds of scholarship about the gospels.
Hi heyalun, yeah I have to admit, an Atheist Bible Study is one of the most ironic things which can take place :-) But there are women urologists and there are christian experts on islam too :-) Not that I have any professional expertise in this area: I just like to talk about the Gospels like Trekkies like to talk about Star Trek :-)
Hi heyalun, chapter and verse where Jesus says that the law sucks and needs to be broken.....well, these are the very verses we have under dispute, of course. I think that when Jesus asks something like in Mark 3:4 (cont)
"Jesus asked them "which is lawful on the Sabath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" I think it is very telling that the next sentence is "But they remained silent". I read their pregnant silence as an admission that the law actually prohibited doing good and saving life on the sabbath. Of course they couldn't bring themselves to say it in just those terms (cont)
(cont, to heyalun) Jesus then gets very angry at them for their stubborn hearts (vs 5) they are stubbornly refusing to admit that the law is a bad law and needs to be changed. That this actually was Sabbath breaking, and a capitol offence is evinced by this being what triggers the Pharasees to try to kill Jesus--which was the penelty for breaking the Sabbath.
(cont, to heyalun) listen very carefully to Mark 1:22. It says that Jesus taught "not as the teachers of the law", i.e. Jesus did NOT teach the law. Its amazing how much time Mark spends, in fact, arguing with the teachers of the Law...
We know that was THEIR interpretation, but the fact that the law doesn't say this indicates you're wrong even if we just stick to Mark. If we go to Jn 7:23 where Jesus describes how the law IS NOT broken when circumcision is performed and compares his healing to that and Mt 5:19 where Jesus condemns those who break the law and teach others to do likewise, I don't think there are even two ways to look at it.
Hi heyalun, again, all I can say is that honest, devout, sincere people have looked at these same conclusions and have come to different conclusions than you have about this. Starting with Paul in Romans saying that the law is the law of death and needs to be replaced. And I think that Jesus himself is really encouraging viewpoints on his meaning: Mark 9:38-39
No sincere Christians say Jesus taught his Father's "law sucked and needed to be replaced." This is really the heart of your argument. It's extreme and you need extreme proof for it. Reading this meaning into Jesus displeasure with his enemies' lack of mercy is not it. (Mt 9:13)
Paul certainly didn't write that Christ broke God's law. THAT'S the issue -- not whether law through Christ is superior to law through Moses.
Hi heyalun, how can you say something like "no sincere Christians say..." you may disagree with them, but questioning their sincerity or their Christianity, IMO, really runs afoul of the whole "beam in my eye/mote in your eye" principle.
Randy, The issue is not sincerity as much as it is discipleship. You asked me on another thread about whether certain beliefs would exclude one from being a Christian, I told you that their attitude would be telling. Anyone who believes that anything from God "sucks" does not have a Christian attitude by any stretch of the word. You might as well still call yourself "Christian" if the word has no meaning. Besides, you never even produced a name or quote from one of these "Christians."
By law, christ would have to beat to death a person with a stone if they were to do something as "fine" as pick up sticks from grandmas yard on saturday. Moses did. jesus was just being rational and saying these laws are a little overboard and in many cases a little absurd. If he did go around bludging people do you think that would be perfect?
[2]"jesus was just being rational and saying these laws are a little overboard"
You won't *ever* read Jesus saying anything like this about God's laws. It was manmade rules that had gone overboard.
"...Moses did..."
You don't know Jesus! He punishes more severely than Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Matthew 24:51; Mark 9:43; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Hebrews 10:28, 29)
Which man made rules? There are well over 700 (probably closer to 800) rules in the old testiment alone. People can even remember the 10 commandments. This is part of the reason the golden rule was a good thing, it only needed 2 rules and personally I only think it needed 1 rule.
Does jesus punish more severely than moses... I don't disagree one way or the other who is more cruel. I'm saying that they were being commanded to kill and yes.. that's a little overboard too.
I think we're well past the "Mark-only" rule, but even using Mark, Jesus made it clear that his actions were lawful and that the Pharisees' interpretation was unacceptable. (3:4, 5)
"Which man made rules?"
In particular, don't help people or eat from the earth on the Sabbath. And I don't agree that killing is always cruel or overboard.
"And I don't agree that killing is always cruel or overboard."
And that makes you dangerous. Although I do agree. I don't agree that "picking up sticks" on a Saturday is not going overboard. It's barbaric to say the least.
Saying "picking up sticks" is the issue is like saying that "swinging a baseball bat" is the issue if people are at the end of it instead of baseballs.
The issue is obedience to God and putting him before secular concerns. Disobedience to God merits death from Genesis to Revelation according to all the prophets.
Yes. I openly admit it. But then again I don't have a dogmatic tomb that I follow to the letter, that on one page tells me to love my neighbors and on the next tell me to kill my neighbors if they clean up their yard on the "wrong" day.
My father used to tell me not to go in the pool. He was afraid I would drown. Eventually, I just went in without his permission. Soon, I was inviting my other friends to come into the pool. Everything was fine. I broke the rule but I showed I was competent and that rule no longer applied. However, If he told the same to a visitor and the guest jumped in the pool anyway, he would have went berserk and throw them out of our home. There is a difference on WHO is breaking the law.
[1]Rosie, It seems that you understood your father and had silent consent to do something that was against the rules before, but no longer. This was more like the situation the Christian congregation found themselves in AFTER Jesus death, although the consent was not silent. (Mark 14:24; Acts 10:13-16; 15:28) But, before Jesus 'poured out his blood,' there was no provision for a Jew to be released from the binding contract that nation had entered into with God. (Exodus 19:5-9)
[2]And when it comes to breaking law, God's arrangement works opposite to the way human organizations and governments work. Those with a leadership role are punished more severely, when they err. (Leviticus 10:1-3; Numbers 20:12; Luke 12:48; James 3:1) That's partly why you and Randy's belief that the one to whom "all authority...in heaven and on the earth" was given regularly disobeyed God is so farfetched and unscriptural. (Matthew 28:18)
One of the biggest issues here is the definition of "perfect". He obviously was not a perfect child. He was supposedly perfect as an adult but what does that mean? Was he a perfect construction worker? Shouldn't his structures be still standing perfectly? Was he perfect at games and could not be beat? or was this "perfect" something different? Something that transcends normal perfection, something more beautiful than following a law that would be absolved in oh a few years?
When I went in the pool I had no consent, after the fact it might have been so. The point I'm trying to make is that I was his daughter and I could break his rules to show him that they no longer applied, that we were responsible enough to handle it. It ONLY worked because I was his daughter. I could certainly see a SON showing his father something similar. And in some interpretations it was god HIMSELF. So how could you be wrong changing your self imposed creedence?
How did perfection come up? You're saying that Jesus willfully disobeyed God's law. It doesn't matter if the law was to be done away with in 1 hour. As long as it's in force it has to be obeyed and it was. And I don't believe that Jesus is God. But one of the things I appreciate most about God is that he never breaks his own standards of justice. So he would teach obedience to the Law and then set an example of disobeying it.
God has little reverence for his own laws. No killing, well he's the biggest mass murderer of all time. No adultery, he knocks up Mary (a married woman). Why would it be wrong for jesus to break the law if he is not a perfect man? He didn't even have to have faith because apparently he knew he was the son of god.
[2]"I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him." -- John 8:28, 29
Here are the logical conclusions of your argument:
1. Jesus was a liar
2. Jesus was not knowledgeable enough to know he was disobeying God.
[3]It seems you're sorta saying 3, but you also say he broke the law. If he's doing what God taught him and the law doesn't apply, then how can he break it?
That is my point. To the audience of mark, he looks as though he is breaking the law. But only jesus himself knew that mosaic law did not apply to him. He was proving his divinity and through it setting the stage for the fullfillment of the prophecy. He led by example.
Yes, murder does imply unlawful killing. But your argument is circular. According to the book, he decimated life on the planet. That is pretty unlawful. But if you say, they had it comming to them, then god is an exception to all law because he determines law. He is the judge, the jury, and the executioner. By definition, he could not break a law no matter how wacked because of this paradox. So law do not apply to him.
God impregates mary with a son. reguardless of intercourse, I would consider it rape or at least adultery, if I was impregnated by someone or something even if a penis wasn't inserted. But then again, god is exempt just like all gods like how zeus went about getting hercules as his son.
You claim that it is wrong to break laws. I promise you that you break laws all of the time. All people break laws because many laws contradict one another and the shear number of laws leaves a huge gap in the knowledge of them. It is not that we are willing to break the law, it is that in some cases it is important to break them.
To *his enemies* he broke the law, but their interpretation was unduly strict. They felt helping someone on the Sabbath was wrong when the law required no such thing. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree since you insist on interpreting as they do.
"[God] is the judge, the jury, and the executioner"
Well Mary wasn't forced and she was a virgin until she consummated her marriage. So unless you apply some strange definitions of "rape" and "adultery," you're wrong.
I never said I don't break laws. I said Jesus didn't.
So... are you saying that if your wife came home pregnant with someone elses kid, without your prior consent (intercourse or not) you would not consider it adultery (where she is not forced) or rape (where she is forced).
I'll have to continue to agree with Randy on this one, jesus broke mosaic law unless you interpret his divinity as an exclusion.
To "his enemies" he broke the law. Yes.. Laws can be broken and in some cases should. But some laws even to allies should be broken if they are no longer relevant. But your right, you can interpret it any way you like, so we will have to disagree.
And that is one of the many problems. That's a tyrany and make all logical discussion moot because it's a circular argument that would fail any test of logic. In other words, god can do no wrong because he makes the rules, which is common in almost every dogmatic religion.
If my wife was pregnant and she told me that it was Jehovah's and then he told me not to worry because she's pregnant, not due to normal means, but by holy spirit, adultery would be the furthest thing from my mind. And unless she had refused, rape would not enter into it either.
The thing that those who love God appreciate is that he is guided by morality, he doesn't just tell us to be. He always keeps to his standards of justice, even when these hurt him.
And I don't see anything circular or problematic about the Creator and Sustainer of life setting the rules for his creatures. Complaining is like the beggar criticizing you for giving too little of your money.
I'm not complaining, I simply don't believe that the bible is any more true than Beowulf or the Illiad. And yes, I do see it being circular and problematic. That is the difference between you and I. I see it in many ways as absurd, and you interpret it to fit your belief structure. Two different views are good. It means we are thinking.
god can not be guided by morality. By your believe he is the creator of morality, therefore god can not be guided by morality; unless his creation has power over him. You also claim that he can be hurt. That's not very all powerful. It means that god has a weakness and it subject to his own paradox.
I don't consider a miraculous pregnancy to be unfaithfulness or sexual violation. I would have been honored to be in Joseph's position, as I'm sure he was. Nothing was taken from him and Mary, unless you count their postponed consummation. They were privileged to raise God's Son. You can't beat that in my book.
If God creates and sustain life, he has the right to say how it operates. When it does not work as he pleases, he has the right to destroy, fix, or some combination of both. You could argue that he shouldn't destroy, but I don't think it's circular logic for me to disagree.
I think it's unreasonable to expect God to support destructive behavior, which is exactly what he'd be doing if he allowed it to go unchecked.
Yes, it says he created it, but I don't think it says he sustains it (Or at least I can't recall it say that). But you can't say he has the "right". I god creates "right" then the use of it can change more than language (courtesy of Derrida). Btw: it would very much seem that he supports destructive behavior, the tower of babble alone support that.
Why would they have to postpone the consummation? You can still have sex while one is pregnant. I suppose the story would have to go like that to have a virgin birth. I would figure virgin conception would have been enough. I'm also not talking about whether you would feel privilaged. I'm talking if you would actually believe your wife and if so struggle between the concept of adultery or rape or something else.
[2]I can only guess why Joseph made the decision to postpone consummation. Maybe he didn't want to interfere with prophecy in any way. Maybe he didn't want anyone to think the child might be his (I favor this). Maybe he thought he was protecting the baby. Maybe it was something cultural...In short, I don't know, but I don't think it was necessary.
I'll buy that for a dollar too. When I was pregnant, I wanted sex by my partner approached it way too cautiously. He thought he would dent the head of the baby or mentally scar it. :) Personally, I like what you favor as well in that story, but I doubt very highly that anyone would believe him (without stretching the imagination significantly). His actions might be moot.
Babel. It was probably one of the few times in biblical story that everyone was working together and speaking the same language to build something they felt was constructive. So what is his action, to destroy the tower and make everyone speak different language so it was difficult to maintain relations and cooperation. That is very destructive to society.
The atheist mind truly intrigues me. THE Prophet and greatest teacher of Christianity - second only to God himself - says it's lawful to heal on the Sabbath and you say it's not. God is displeased with the irreverent activity in Babel and you say it was constructive. Did I stumble onto the opposite thread? :-)
The city was part of the empire of a wicked man and they were opposing God with their actions.
Actually, I never said it was unlawful to heal on the sabbath, not once. I do believe that the no work on the sabbath has a bit of paradox in it however.
The theistic mind truly intrigues me as well. This god loves to step in all the time a few thousand years ago to punish wicked men but not anymore... But these people were cooperating and building of all things a tower. Why would a god fear a tower? Let them build it, they would find nothing or was heaven a physical manifestation back then too? Yet, no punishment for building spaceships.
"I never said it was unlawful to heal on the sabbath, not once"
Is this the same RosieDesire? What in the world have we been talking about? I thought you were saying Jesus broke the Sabbath. The whole thing was that tending to wounds and healing was against Pharisaic tradition unless a person was on the verge of death. The Sabbath dispute was concerning Jesus repeated rejection of this tradition. If you don't think healing was illegal, then just how did Jesus break the Sabbath?
"This god loves to step in all the time a few thousand years ago to punish wicked men but not anymore"
Actually God's intervention was quite rare, at least as recorded in the scriptures. Consider that from Cain's exile to the flood is 1500 years. And even when he does intervene it's not always in flashy ways. And even when it is flashy, the degree varies. The 10 plagues and the army being swallowed by the sea after a whole nation walks through is a one-time deal.
Come on... he talks to people left and right. He smites, he impregants a teenage virgin, he turns people into salt, he smashes towers. etc and so on. But now... silence. There are many cities that are far more sinful than sodom. Yet... silence.
That leads the question you've greatly debated: whether or not Jesus broke the laws. The gospel of Mark (etc) show that Jesus only gave the thumbs up to the "heart" of the law so it is not OUR interpretation we need to debate but Jesus' interpretation.
In Matthew 5 he says it'd be wrong to disobey the slightest bit of the law yet he immediately goes on to show fresh (heart) interpretations of it. In word and action he was saying "Don't disobey it but see it in a New Light"- and not THEIR light!
mark1v15 4 years ago
Mark 2's main point, where we see the increasing hostility of the (Jewish) religious leaders to Jesus' ministry. As a hearer of Mark 2:1-3:6 the 1st Century hearer of the gospel could easily presume that Jesus' ministry was provocative towards the religious leaders - that he deliberately "broke their laws" (as some here have discussed)
But Jesus telling the leper to go show himself clean and to keep it quiet shows from the outset that Jesus was not out there with the intent of making a scene!..
mark1v15 4 years ago
It's taken me ages to read all those posts! Here are a few comments:
1) On Jesus being "angry", many translations have "filled with pity" or ".. compassion" which, based on what precedes this section makes sense:
Jesus just went off and deserted the pleading crowds who wanted healing (Mark 1:35). 1sr Century hearers of Mark's gospel would be wondering "Did he not care?!" - and the answer is immediately provided through Mark 1:40-45 - "IF you want to...." "YES I do want to!".
cont...
mark1v15 4 years ago
The interpretation of verse 41 what is the source for your interpretation of 'anger'
MrVisions 4 years ago
Hi MrVisions, see Bruce Metzger's "Textual commentary on the Greek NT". There are a few very early manuscripts which have "anger" instead of "pity", and since in Aramaic (the language which Jesus spoke) "had pity" sounds very much like "was enraged" (ethraham vs ethraem)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I must thank-you Randy, and although I must conclude that your discourse on the "Angry Jesus" theory hangs by the slightest of theological tendrils. The journey to that conclusion guided me through some wonderful websites. I never knew there could be so much written and so much time occupied by just a few words. fascinating thats all I have to say. I also loved Ehrman's summary note on theologically motivated changes to the new testament.
MrVisions 4 years ago
Wonderful! I don't care if people agree or disagree with me; the point isn't to reach consensus its just to get people digging......if I an get just one or two people to dig like you have here, this series will have served its purpose. And yeah, people rake every word and every letter of every word pretty hard over the coals---after all these are important books.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
So true the battle is never belief or non-belief , but I believe it's between open or closed minds.
MrVisions 4 years ago
MrVisions, once again, I can't say it better than you have said it.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Why do you believe that Jesus was worried about his cover being blown? I can't imagine hw would have cared at all about the whole world knowing of him. He was without a doubt an alpha male who believed he was speaking the truth and didn't seem to give a damn what any of his detractors thought of him. he just shrugged them off, told them "fuck you" in so many words, and went on his way.
msa1985 4 years ago
Nevermind. I forgot we only have the gospel of Mark to take into consideration here =p=p
msa1985 4 years ago
:-) yup!
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Never heard of the Eggerton gospel. Is it as old as Mark or older?
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
Hi Ben, as far as scholars can tell (when it was found there was only a few pagest of it left) it is as old as the cannonical gospels. It probably was written before the Gospel of John and around the same time or later as Mark , say somewhere between 60 and 80 ad.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I know the Gospel of Thomas is about that age (which is almost certainly older than John, which was at earliest written 90 CE) Is Eggerton the same?
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
Hi Ben, no, eggerton is yet another gospel which was floating around. There were apparently tons and tons of Gospels floating around out there, even before Luke wrote his (see Luke 1:1). I'm glad you brought up Thomas though, stay tuned in a few more weeks I'll discuss an interesting theory about the relationship between Mark and Thomas.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Rock on! I like Thomas (haven't read it in a while though...)
rowsdowersavesus 4 years ago
Oh yeah, thomas is by far my favorite gospel. Mark is a close second :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Egerton gospel?! Wow! I had never heard of it. Very interesting. It's old.
I enjoyed your video. Just one question:
If Jesus is telling him to follow the law of Moses, how do you conclude he is disregarding it? Or did I misunderstand?
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, think of how many times the book of leviticus was broken in this small story. first of all, the leper wasn't shouting "unclean" and staying away from Jesus. Second, Jesus touched the Leper--something absolutely forbidden by Leviticus. (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) Jesus _does_ say to go and make an offering "as Moses commanded" but he gives a different reason for doing so than mere following of what Moses said. The NIV says : "Bug go, showyourself to the priest,....as a testimony to them". The point of the healing was to bring he leper back into the community, and the community would never accept him if he didn't pay off the priests... (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) one thing I didn't have time to mention: notice that before the story, the leper is excluded and lonely (leviticus says they should live outside the town). After the healing, the leper is reconciled with the priests and can live inside the town again---but it is JESUS who can no longer enter towns openly and stays outside in lonely places. An indication of Jesus taking the place of the marginalized, really identifying with them.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[1] "the leper wasn't shouting "unclean" and staying away from Jesus"
You assume he didn't shout unclean. Jesus seemed to be perfectly aware of his sickness, which was the purpose of shouting, "unclean."
I don't see how the law would prevent him from approaching Jesus.
heyalun 4 years ago
[2] "Jesus touched the Leper--something absolutely forbidden by Leviticus"
Maybe you could quote the law you're referring to. I think the real problem was with becoming ceremonially unclean -- which contact with someone unclean would do. (Lev 15:31) But Jesus had authority from God to make people clean! He used that authority in this case. You seem to be missing the forest here.
heyalun 4 years ago
Actually, randy has it right. Remember this is about Jesus actions in Mark. Whether he has authority from god is irrellevant. The point is that he is breaking the rules of Leviticus and that is part of the story wich makes him more charismatic.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
RosieDesire,
Maybe criminal activity makes people attractive to you, but that is not the issue. :-) Jesus NEVER broke any divine law in Mark or anywhere else.
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, "maybe criminal activity makes people attractive to you".... umm...remember, its easy for comments to be taken the wrong way when we're not all in the same room talking face-to-face. We're all friends here.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Heyalun,
Every revolution has a person that breaks the laws; laws that might be no longer relevant in the eyes of the revolutionist. For a biblical example: Do you blow a horn on the first of each month? christian month, jewish month? Do you wear tassles from your clothing? It depends on how you interpret what he was doing. By some interpretation, by breaking these laws, he was more perfect.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Well said RosieDesire. And tassles are soooo last testament :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
LOL... I hear they are makeing a comeback... Wild west style ;)
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Rosie I hope you didn't mistake my comments as an attack. If so, I apologize.
Revolutions led by God's servants do not involve disobedience to him.
"My food is for me to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work." -- John 4:34
In fact, those in leadership must be more careful to obey. Jesus was anointed king. This is what happened to the first king who disobeyed: "You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!" (1 Samuel 15:26)
heyalun 4 years ago
LOL.. nope. I figured it could be taken several ways, so I tend to assume the benign. You're missing the point, no one said he is disobeying god, he is however breaking the rules of leviticus. These are two different things. If a law is to be change, how does one go about doing it to a dogmatic text? You must have an authoriative represenative that is willing to show the change and lead by example. Otherwise christians would still not be allowed to wear clothing that mixes linen and wool.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
[1]"I tend to assume the benign"
You're good people.
"no one said he is disobeying god, he is however breaking the rules of Leviticus"
Who do you think gave the Levitical laws? (Leviticus 1:1)
"If a law is to be change, how does one go about doing it to a dogmatic text?"
Jesus did it by means of his death, not disobedience.
heyalun 4 years ago
Thanks... I hope I'm good.
Yes, according to the bible leviticus is from the word of god. However, the law maker can also change the law. To the uninformed (ex: the people watching jesus) it would seem as if he is breaking the law, and he is. But he is doing so with grand approval that trumphs biblical law. He is showing this through his example. The death was the grand performance and the ultimate rebelion (similar to Socrates). It was just the last nail in the coffin... so to speak.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, check out Lev 13:44-48. It is strictly prohibited for lepers to have any contact with nonlepers. I suppose you could say that I'm assuming he wasn't shouting "unclean", but thats kind of like assuming he wasn't shouting "do you want some fries with that!!" because Mark doesn't mention that he was shouting either. Mark is very careful about including all the details which matter, and its dangerious to argue from what _isn't_ in the text rather than from what _is_ in the text.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
The key section is: "As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp."
Again, this doesn't say he can't ever approach someone. He can't live with anyone and he's unclean.
Your argument based on assumption about what's not in the text is not good, because Jesus knew what was up with him. That was the whole point of the "unclean" alert.
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, don't take my word for it. Ask _any_ rabbi or christian expert in the levitical laws about whether the leper was in violation of Leviticus here when he was approaching Jesus. If you can find some article, documentation, or give me an email address of some rabbi who is willing to say I'm wrong, well, I'll be happy to change my mind!
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
I'm not trying to change your mind. It seemed like you were saying all kinds of laws were being broken. This strikes to the heart of the Christian faith as Jesus had to be sinless. He also had to show great regard for God's law, which it also seemed you were implying he failed to show. I was just wondering what your evidence was for these claims. Nevermind, though...
heyalun 4 years ago
?? There's no question that Jesus broke the law--even the 10 commandments (we'll talk about the sections on Sabbath-keeping comming up in Mark). That's doesn't mean Jesus wasn't sinless. New times mean new laws--Jesus was changing the world. Christians say all the time that the ceremonial laws have been done away with. Its very puzzling to me how this possibly could be an attact on Christianity! An attack on untra-orthodox Judeism, sure, but an attack on Christianity??
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Again, when I say you're attacking Christ, I'm not referring to malicious intent. But no, he can't break God's laws AND be sinless. He was under Mosaic Law, including the Sabbath and the 10 commandments. If he broke them, then his sacrifice is worthless.
I hope when you get to the section on the Sabbath you substantiate your claim.
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, for a sneak peek, check out Mark 2:23-28 and Mark 3:2. These texts were actually a source of great embarrassment to me when I was a theist: I was a very devout Seventh-day Adventist until I was 27. I took the 10 commandments seriously, including the 4th, and I didn't do any work on Saturdays until after I stoped believing in God...
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) other gospels are even more explicit about Jesus's disregard for the ceremonial laws: Luke 13:14. John 5:18 explicitly says that Jesus broke the sabbath.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
"I didn't do any work on Saturdays"
If SDA children cut themselves on a Saturday, do their parents tend to their wounds?
Did you fast on Saturdays?
I ask, because the scriptures you referred to are of Jesus disciples eating grain from the stalk and of Jesus healing a man. Mosaic Law would not prevent either of these things. It forbade secular work, not helping people and eating. Jesus rightly felt indignation because of the insensibility of their hearts for thinking otherwise. (Mk 3:5)
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, you're talking to somebody who never watched saterday morning cartoons, participated in school sports, etc, because of not wanting to break the Sabbath :-) Yes, Jesus's actions were clearly outside of what the law allowed. Again, if you don't believe me, ask any expert on the mosaic law. John 5:18 says it in the most literal and explicit mannar possible: Jesus broke the Sabbath. (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) yes, medical needs were taken care of (thank god) but harvesting grain was definatly out--and jesus' disciples did that. Again, it completely flabberghasts and bewilders me.....I think you are the first Christian I've ever met who claimed that Jesus _didn't_ break the mosaic law.....that's the #1 complaint the pharasees have against him!
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[1]Randy, You keep saying to ask an expert on law, but Jesus was an expert and he made it clear that what he was doing was lawful.
Mt 12:12-"It is lawful to do a fine thing on the sabbath."
And I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I'm no slouch. Any Christians who think Christ broke Mosaic Law don't know the Law nor do they understand Christ. Your SDA ministers taught that Christ broke law?
heyalun 4 years ago
[2]John 5:18 tells what the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus for. This was based on their own rigid interpretation of God's law for which Jesus repeatedly exposed them.
Mt 23:4-"They bind up heavy loads and put them upon the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger."
Mk 7:13-"You make the word of God invalid by your tradition."
Jesus never blasphemed or broke the Sabbath.
heyalun 4 years ago
[3]"that's the #1 complaint the pharasees have against him!"
And that's the whole point! Your view is the one held by the enemies of God and Christ -- the ones that murdered him. They were wrong. Have you ever heard of the tradition that catching a flea on the Sabbath is illegal because it is hunting? Such was the ridiculousness of these men.
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, I know all about the rediculousness of sabbath observance, believe me. But John 5;18 says nothing about the pharasee's own rigid interpretation of God's law. It just states, flat out, that Jesus broke the sabbath. Lets take a look at it: (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) John 5:16: So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont to heyalun) That's what I like about the Gospel of John: everthing is explicit and out on the table. It puts on the very lips of jesus that he is working on the Sabbath. And it explicitly says that he broke the Sabbath. For somebody, such as youself, who believes in a literal interpretation of the Gospels, I don't really see that you have any room to wiggle here. Does the Bible mean what it says or not?
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[1]Ah, I get you now. You think *John* feels Jesus broke the Sabbath and blasphemed, even though Jesus said it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath and that he was not blaspheming by saying he was "God's Son" - even saying the Father is greater than he is. (Jn 10:36; 14:28)
Do you realize that the "work" he was doing was teaching and healing people? Didn't we agree that healing was ok?
heyalun 4 years ago
[2]John is telling us is why the Jews wanted to kill him, NOT that Jesus was guilty. If you ask a person why they are on trial, and they say, "For murder," are they admitting guilt? No, they are stating the charges against them. So, yes John means what he says. Jesus was breaking the Sabbath according to their interpretation, which included things like not walking on grass, killing fleas, and healing.
heyalun 4 years ago
[3]But Jesus taught, "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 5:19) So, like Jesus and God who was working with him, I disagree with the Pharisees. I don't believe that Jesus broke the Sabbath, blasphemed, was a sorcerer, or anything else that he was accused of.
heyalun 4 years ago
[4]Do SDA ministers teach that Jesus broke Mosaic Law? I find that hard to believe. I think you might catch an "uninformed Christian" who would accept your interpretation. I doubt a minister would agree. Absolutely no members of my congregation would. It goes against very basic teachings of Christianity.
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, w.r.t. [3], yes, I do think there is a tension here between what Matthew is saying and what John is saying. If you read _both_ of these texts literally, there is a contradiction. You can't read them both literally, one or the other one of them must be reinterpreted, French postmodernist style, if you want to make them cohere.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Hi heyalun [4] SDA ministers believe that Jesus kept the sabbath, and that we should also keep the sabbath. They note that Jesus taught in the synagogs on sabbath, and that Paul also taught in synagogs on the sabbath after the ressurection, and they note that nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that we should worship on sunday. I believed them, but whenever I asked them about John 5 they looked embarrassed and mumbled that I was in danger of hell :)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Hi heyalun [2] Honestly, I don't see how you can have it both ways: either (A) you do a literal reading of John 5 and conclude that Jesus broke the sabbath (which is what it literally says) OR (B) you do a non-literal reading of the text, reinterpreting it metaphorically. I'm not saying that (B) is _wrong_, but if you choose option (B), you have to conclude that the gospels aren't to be understood literally (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont to Heyalun, w.r.t. [2]) If you choose (B), that's OK, but you must admit you are doing what all those Frenchy-postmoderny-textual interpreting guys are doing: denying that the text can be read literally, or that its surface meaning ("He was breaking the sabbath" is a direct quote) can be a reliable guide to what it _actually_ means. (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, [1] I don't think it was just John who thought that way. I think all the gospels we have show that Jesus wanted to show the world a righteousness which was greater than that which was in the Mosaic laws. Of course I agree that what Jesus was doing was good!! But it was good just _because_ he was breaking the law. He couldn't have been good if he had followed the law.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun w.r.t. [2]) If you want to do a metaphorical meaning of the Gospels, hey, I'm down with that; I also think that they should be understood metaphorically and not literally. I just want to be clear about which way you take the gospels: as French postmodernists do or as literalists do :)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[1] I take the Bible literally, except for when it's clearly symbolic (e.g. parables, visions, figures of speech).
"you do a literal reading of John 5 and conclude that Jesus broke the sabbath (which is what it literally says)"
False dilemma. John 5 tells us why the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus. A newspaper may report, "Mr. Smith is on trial for killing his wife." The language can be literally taken two ways.
heyalun 4 years ago
[2] (a) Mr. Smith killed his wife, so he is on trial for it. (b) Mr. Smith is on trial because he is accused of killing his wife.
Context would favor the latter meaning since Mr. Smith is assumed innocent until convicted. Context in John shows the same with regard to Jesus.
heyalun 4 years ago
[3]"He couldn't have been good if he had followed the law."
Why do you say this?
The opposite is true. Jesus was a Jew, born under law. He condemned others for not keeping it and declared his innocence regarding the healing.
"Not one of you obeys the Law"
and
"If a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath?" -- Jn 7:19-24
heyalun 4 years ago
Just like circumcision on the Sabbath didn't break it, neither did aiding someone sick or crippled.
The sabbath was about rest from labor and taking out time for spiritual things. These men corrupted it's meaning. How are you reading the gospels and missing how often Jesus called them out on this?
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun [3] Why do I say that Jesus couldn't have been good if he had followed the law? Reread the sermon on the mount--the "eye-for-an-eye" law is explicitly rejected.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
So heyalun, if you really believe that Jesus didn't work on the Sabbath, and really believe he meant that you shouldn't break any of the commandments (Mat. 5:19) then do you keep the Sabbath? Do you do work on Saturdays?
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, [1] I agree that the newspaper report "Mr. Smith is on trial for killing his wife" does not imply that Mr. Smith killed his wife. But listen closely to the language of John 5: its closer to "Mr. Smith is being pursued by police -because- he killed his wife". And that does carry the implication of guilt. (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont to heyalun [1]) I think it is very significant that jesus's disciples were portrayed as harvesting grain on the Sabbath. That wasn't an act of healing; and gathering food was forbidden on the Sabbath (see Ex 16:21).
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[1]Do you also think John is internally disharmonious? Because Jesus clearly identified himself as less than his Father, contrary to the other reason they wanted to kill him according to John 5:18. And he also defended his actions as lawful, like circumcision on the Sabbath. I even thought you agreed that tending to the ailing was lawful!
heyalun 4 years ago
[2]I do see your point on the wording, but you're missing mine. According to the Pharisees rules, *to which Jesus did not adhere,* plucking grain to eat as you walk along, carrying a cot away that you needed before God's Son healed you, helping sick people, and saying you are God's Son *was* illegal. They were wrong. That why Jesus corrected them by saying, "Judge with righteous judgment." (Jn 7:24)
heyalun 4 years ago
[3]"jesus's disciples were portrayed as harvesting grain on the Sabbath"
To be strictly legal, they were not. The Law made a distinction between gathering and 'satisfying your soul' by 'plucking off only ripe ears with your hand.' (Deut 23:24, 25) That's why Jesus said his disciples were "guiltless." (Mt 12:7)
heyalun 4 years ago
[4]"the "eye-for-an-eye" law is explicitly rejected"
No it's not. I had this same conversation with ProfMTH. This is not just a law. It's a principle upon which laws are based. It precedes and extends beyond Moses. (Gen 9:6; 1 Ti 2:6)
"do you keep the Sabbath?"
No. Christ "died as a ransom to set [us] free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (Heb 9:15) As a disciple of Christ I obey "the Law of Christ." (Gal 6:2)
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, w.r.t. keeping the sabbath, I think its ok that you don't keep the sabbath--but I do think that this indicates that you don't really take Mat 5:19 as covering sabbath observance then. I'm not trying to say that your understanding of the Bible is _wrong_, I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways: either Mat 5:19 is literally true AND you should keep the Sabbath, or Mat 5:19 is metaphorical and you don't.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun w.r.t. keepign the sabbath) And saying that there is a "law of Christ" which doesn't require keeping the sabbath, as upposed to the Law of Moses which _does_, is just another way of saying that Christ rejected the law of moses! I'm very confused now :-(
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, [2] I agree with you that Jesus was saying that it was ok to do all this stuff on the Sabbath. But...by doing so, Jesus was contradicting the mosaic law, which prohibited gathering grain and carrying loads on the Sabbath (see Neh.13:15-18) And Deut 23:24 does say that its ok to get grain from the fields if you are hungry, but this wasn't to be done on the sabbath day--food gathering and preparation is strictly forbidden on Saturdays in the Old Testiment.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[2]Mt 5:19 is talking about *breaking* the commandments. I can't break them because I'm not now, nor was I ever under them. That'd be like me accusing you of breaking Chinese law, while you're in the States. Jesus and his disciples were obligated to keep the law though, up until the point when Jesus death removed that obligation.
Still, Christians do hold to all of the principles of Mosaic Law.
heyalun 4 years ago
[1]Randy, the Jews that Nehemiah corrected were doing work! They were preparing and transporting goods for sale. That WAS illegal. Compare the secular work they were doing to walking along and grabbing some berries to eat right then when you get hungry. I can't stress enough the clearly stated legal distinction between this and harvesting. If that's work, then moving food to your mouth is too.
heyalun 4 years ago
[3]The Mosaic Law and the Prophets were all about Christ. That's why he said not a letter of it would pass away until it was fulfilled. Then, right before he dies he says: "It has been accomplished." So it served its purpose in leading to Christ. He kept it perfectly and on a level that no other Jew ever had because he not only had to obey it, but to fulfill prophecy. We no longer have to keep it though. (Ga 3:24, 25)
heyalun 4 years ago
His last words are different depending on the text you read. Also remember.. we are only discussing this as if Mark was the only gospel avaliable to the reader.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
ummmm......like I said heyalun, I don't think you are doing it _wrong_; I think that it is perfectly ok to interpret the gospels like this. But heyalun, lets be honest....this is not a literal reading of the scripture, and by no means can this be reconciled with a literal reading of the gospel of john saying that Jesus broke the Sabbath. (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) also, I'm really sorry to be so contrary tonight, but the actions of Jesus's disciples when they were in the grain field clearly broke the sabbath. If you want to convince me otherwise, you'll have to provide some third party evidence--can you give me a reference from _any_ expert on the mosaic law who has been published in a peer-reviewed journal who will say that Jesus wasn't breaking the sabbath here?
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[1]No need to apologize.
Maybe it's the definition of "literal" that we're having a problem with. I don't think any text or spoken word of any length can be taken absolutely literally. Context, subtext, figures of speech, etc. need to be considered. There's a principle (I can't recall the name of it) that says a writer's intent is best revealed by the writer.
heyalun 4 years ago
[2]If you _only_ read: "...not only was he breaking the Sabbath..." then I agree that you might conclude as you do. If you include the rest of John's gospel, you cannot -- not unless you conclude he's full of internal conflict -- and that's not even considering the overwhelming testimony from the rest of the scriptures. And you yourself said healing is legal on the Sabbath, so I really don't get you.
heyalun 4 years ago
[3]"can you give me a reference from _any_ expert on the mosaic law who has been published in a peer-reviewed journal who will say that Jesus wasn't breaking the sabbath here?"
Not off hand. But, you can't give me a Biblical law that says you can't eat as you walk through a field. It's your shared interpretation with God's enemies versus Jesus, the Christian congregation, and God himself. (Mk 9:7)
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, believe me, growing up as a kid who was actually trying to _live_ this sabbath observance thing, I tried to find every loophole I could :-) I just know more about this than you do. I've given you several texts which indicate that food gathering on the sabbath was forbidden. If you don't want to take my word for it, that's fine, but if you want to convince me that Jesus _didn't_ break the sabbath, please cite some other authority.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
w.r.t. reading the Bible, ok this is real progress; what you are saying is that you need to compare part of the bible with other parts of the bible, kind of round off the things which look contradictory, and come up with a consistent and livable rreligion. YES YES YES I 100% agree. I think there's only one more step: two honest, God fearing people might look at the same Bible and come up with two different understandings of who Jesus was and what christianity is. And this is also OK.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, "you yourself said healing is legal on the Sabbath" that's the kicker---that wasn't all that Jeuss & co were doing on the Sabbath to break it. Honestly, these texts caused my pastors a lot of embarrassment, because they clearly indicate that Jesus broke the Sabbath, and therefore clearly indicated that Seventh-day Adventism was nonbiblical. The pastors had a comeback though; they quoted Is. 66:22 to show that we'll be keeping the Sabbath in heaven....
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[1]When my old man was about 14 he wanted to live a "Christian" life, so he got circumcised. He didn't understand the Biblical teachings on circumcision. My point is that trying to do something unnecessary can't be an indication that you know what you're doing. It's the opposite! Neither the Law, nor Jesus teachings on it match your interpretation.
heyalun 4 years ago
[2]I think you'll understand if I side with Jesus and Moses himself, who makes a distinction between gathering (not lawful) and walking through a field eating (legally differentiated from gathering and not mentioned in regard to the Sabbath, but interpreted as illegal by God's enemies).
As far as me trying to convince you, I'm not. If you don't accept Jesus' teachings as recorded by his disciples, I don't know what else to say.
heyalun 4 years ago
[3]You're overlooking that healing was the major problem over and over again - at Mk 3:6; Lk 13:14; 14:1-6; Jn 5:15, 16; and 9:14, 16. Read these accounts and see what these men were and how Jesus responded.
"One deed I performed and you are all wondering...Are you violently angry at me because I made a man completely sound in health on the Sabbath?" -- Jn 7:19-24
Randy, you're siding with the men who murdered Jesus! (Mk 14:55)
heyalun 4 years ago
[4]"there's only one more step: two honest, God fearing people might look at the same Bible and come up with two different understandings of who Jesus was and what christianity is"
While I'm a little uncomfortable with an atheist telling me what Christianity is, I agree to an extent. :-] I think eventually God would bring them together, though. (Eph 4:3-6)
heyalun 4 years ago
hi heyalun "you're siding with the men who murdered Jesus!" haha its not like you're either with us or with the terrorists. I agree with the christkillers (and with John 5:18) that Jesus broke the law. I also agree with Jesus that the law sucked and needed to be broken. (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) Also, I can totally understand your discomfort with an atheist talking about Christianity and Biblical interpretation---which is another reason why I suggested you might do some reading of third-party authorities here (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) Because I think its important to understand that what I'm telling you isn't just my opinion on this; there are many many very devout christian scholars who would agree with 100% of what I've said so far.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) which, of course, isn't to say that we're right and you are wrong ;-) its just to say that I think there is room here for genuine diversity of opinion, even among people who are all genuinly and honestly trying to read the texts as best they can. After all, we're talking about a divine story expressed in human language, and I think any human langage will lapse into contradiction at points when talking about the divine.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[1]I'm curious to see the devout scholars that claim Jesus disobeyed Mosaic Law. Do you have online works? I'm not curious enough to purchase any such books, as the authors don't have a clue if they exist. No offense intended, but I don't care how many letters they have behind their name, this shoots at the very heart of Christianity and they'd be Christians in name only. They'd also be poor at reading context.
heyalun 4 years ago
[2]My comment about your atheism was tongue-in-cheek, but you have to admit it's a little ironic -- the whole atheist Bible study thing and telling a Christian what his faith should be. Honestly, I'm enjoying it though, except when you say stuff like this:
heyalun 4 years ago
[3]"I also agree with Jesus that the law sucked and needed to be broken."
You've got to be kidding me! Book, Chapter, and verse please. I want to know where Jesus said this.
You can't show me, because it's the farthest thing from the truth. Jesus life was lived in fulfillment of the Law. (Lk 24:44) He taught that the Law should be obeyed until it was fulfilled.
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, a really awesome resource is an audio course given by Luke Timothy Johnson. Unfortunately, you have to pay for it; google for "The Teaching company" and look for his course "Jesus and the Gospels". There is another online website "early christian writings" (again, google for it) which brings together all kinds of scholarship about the gospels.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, yeah I have to admit, an Atheist Bible Study is one of the most ironic things which can take place :-) But there are women urologists and there are christian experts on islam too :-) Not that I have any professional expertise in this area: I just like to talk about the Gospels like Trekkies like to talk about Star Trek :-)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, chapter and verse where Jesus says that the law sucks and needs to be broken.....well, these are the very verses we have under dispute, of course. I think that when Jesus asks something like in Mark 3:4 (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
"Jesus asked them "which is lawful on the Sabath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" I think it is very telling that the next sentence is "But they remained silent". I read their pregnant silence as an admission that the law actually prohibited doing good and saving life on the sabbath. Of course they couldn't bring themselves to say it in just those terms (cont)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) Jesus then gets very angry at them for their stubborn hearts (vs 5) they are stubbornly refusing to admit that the law is a bad law and needs to be changed. That this actually was Sabbath breaking, and a capitol offence is evinced by this being what triggers the Pharasees to try to kill Jesus--which was the penelty for breaking the Sabbath.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
(cont, to heyalun) listen very carefully to Mark 1:22. It says that Jesus taught "not as the teachers of the law", i.e. Jesus did NOT teach the law. Its amazing how much time Mark spends, in fact, arguing with the teachers of the Law...
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
We know that was THEIR interpretation, but the fact that the law doesn't say this indicates you're wrong even if we just stick to Mark. If we go to Jn 7:23 where Jesus describes how the law IS NOT broken when circumcision is performed and compares his healing to that and Mt 5:19 where Jesus condemns those who break the law and teach others to do likewise, I don't think there are even two ways to look at it.
heyalun 4 years ago
We're not even getting to the epistles and prophets, which also contradict you.
Mind narrowing down the info on second website. There's a ton of stuff there.
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, again, all I can say is that honest, devout, sincere people have looked at these same conclusions and have come to different conclusions than you have about this. Starting with Paul in Romans saying that the law is the law of death and needs to be replaced. And I think that Jesus himself is really encouraging viewpoints on his meaning: Mark 9:38-39
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
No sincere Christians say Jesus taught his Father's "law sucked and needed to be replaced." This is really the heart of your argument. It's extreme and you need extreme proof for it. Reading this meaning into Jesus displeasure with his enemies' lack of mercy is not it. (Mt 9:13)
Paul certainly didn't write that Christ broke God's law. THAT'S the issue -- not whether law through Christ is superior to law through Moses.
heyalun 4 years ago
Hi heyalun, how can you say something like "no sincere Christians say..." you may disagree with them, but questioning their sincerity or their Christianity, IMO, really runs afoul of the whole "beam in my eye/mote in your eye" principle.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Randy, The issue is not sincerity as much as it is discipleship. You asked me on another thread about whether certain beliefs would exclude one from being a Christian, I told you that their attitude would be telling. Anyone who believes that anything from God "sucks" does not have a Christian attitude by any stretch of the word. You might as well still call yourself "Christian" if the word has no meaning. Besides, you never even produced a name or quote from one of these "Christians."
heyalun 4 years ago
Actually, you can break them depending on the interpretation. That is one of the reasons why there is a zillion sects of christianity.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
By law, christ would have to beat to death a person with a stone if they were to do something as "fine" as pick up sticks from grandmas yard on saturday. Moses did. jesus was just being rational and saying these laws are a little overboard and in many cases a little absurd. If he did go around bludging people do you think that would be perfect?
RosieDesire 4 years ago
[2]"jesus was just being rational and saying these laws are a little overboard"
You won't *ever* read Jesus saying anything like this about God's laws. It was manmade rules that had gone overboard.
"...Moses did..."
You don't know Jesus! He punishes more severely than Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Matthew 24:51; Mark 9:43; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Hebrews 10:28, 29)
heyalun 4 years ago
Which man made rules? There are well over 700 (probably closer to 800) rules in the old testiment alone. People can even remember the 10 commandments. This is part of the reason the golden rule was a good thing, it only needed 2 rules and personally I only think it needed 1 rule.
Does jesus punish more severely than moses... I don't disagree one way or the other who is more cruel. I'm saying that they were being commanded to kill and yes.. that's a little overboard too.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
I think we're well past the "Mark-only" rule, but even using Mark, Jesus made it clear that his actions were lawful and that the Pharisees' interpretation was unacceptable. (3:4, 5)
"Which man made rules?"
In particular, don't help people or eat from the earth on the Sabbath. And I don't agree that killing is always cruel or overboard.
heyalun 4 years ago
"And I don't agree that killing is always cruel or overboard."
And that makes you dangerous. Although I do agree. I don't agree that "picking up sticks" on a Saturday is not going overboard. It's barbaric to say the least.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
"that makes you dangerous. Although I do agree."
So you're dangerous too? LOL.
Saying "picking up sticks" is the issue is like saying that "swinging a baseball bat" is the issue if people are at the end of it instead of baseballs.
The issue is obedience to God and putting him before secular concerns. Disobedience to God merits death from Genesis to Revelation according to all the prophets.
heyalun 4 years ago
"So you're dangerous too? LOL."
Yes. I openly admit it. But then again I don't have a dogmatic tomb that I follow to the letter, that on one page tells me to love my neighbors and on the next tell me to kill my neighbors if they clean up their yard on the "wrong" day.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
My father used to tell me not to go in the pool. He was afraid I would drown. Eventually, I just went in without his permission. Soon, I was inviting my other friends to come into the pool. Everything was fine. I broke the rule but I showed I was competent and that rule no longer applied. However, If he told the same to a visitor and the guest jumped in the pool anyway, he would have went berserk and throw them out of our home. There is a difference on WHO is breaking the law.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Interesting illustration RosieDesire.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
[1]Rosie, It seems that you understood your father and had silent consent to do something that was against the rules before, but no longer. This was more like the situation the Christian congregation found themselves in AFTER Jesus death, although the consent was not silent. (Mark 14:24; Acts 10:13-16; 15:28) But, before Jesus 'poured out his blood,' there was no provision for a Jew to be released from the binding contract that nation had entered into with God. (Exodus 19:5-9)
heyalun 4 years ago
[2]And when it comes to breaking law, God's arrangement works opposite to the way human organizations and governments work. Those with a leadership role are punished more severely, when they err. (Leviticus 10:1-3; Numbers 20:12; Luke 12:48; James 3:1) That's partly why you and Randy's belief that the one to whom "all authority...in heaven and on the earth" was given regularly disobeyed God is so farfetched and unscriptural. (Matthew 28:18)
heyalun 4 years ago
One of the biggest issues here is the definition of "perfect". He obviously was not a perfect child. He was supposedly perfect as an adult but what does that mean? Was he a perfect construction worker? Shouldn't his structures be still standing perfectly? Was he perfect at games and could not be beat? or was this "perfect" something different? Something that transcends normal perfection, something more beautiful than following a law that would be absolved in oh a few years?
RosieDesire 4 years ago
When I went in the pool I had no consent, after the fact it might have been so. The point I'm trying to make is that I was his daughter and I could break his rules to show him that they no longer applied, that we were responsible enough to handle it. It ONLY worked because I was his daughter. I could certainly see a SON showing his father something similar. And in some interpretations it was god HIMSELF. So how could you be wrong changing your self imposed creedence?
RosieDesire 4 years ago
How did perfection come up? You're saying that Jesus willfully disobeyed God's law. It doesn't matter if the law was to be done away with in 1 hour. As long as it's in force it has to be obeyed and it was. And I don't believe that Jesus is God. But one of the things I appreciate most about God is that he never breaks his own standards of justice. So he would teach obedience to the Law and then set an example of disobeying it.
heyalun 4 years ago
God has little reverence for his own laws. No killing, well he's the biggest mass murderer of all time. No adultery, he knocks up Mary (a married woman). Why would it be wrong for jesus to break the law if he is not a perfect man? He didn't even have to have faith because apparently he knew he was the son of god.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
[1]Murder implies unlawful killing which God has never done.
Where does the Bible say anything about God having sex with Mary?!
"Why would it be wrong for jesus to break the law if he is not a perfect man?"
It's wrong for anyone to break law, but you and Randy's comments imply a degree of criminal willfullness that goes beyond questions of perfection.
These are not the words of a man that disobeys God:
heyalun 4 years ago
[2]"I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him." -- John 8:28, 29
Here are the logical conclusions of your argument:
1. Jesus was a liar
2. Jesus was not knowledgeable enough to know he was disobeying God.
3. The Mosaic Law did not apply to him.
heyalun 4 years ago
[3]It seems you're sorta saying 3, but you also say he broke the law. If he's doing what God taught him and the law doesn't apply, then how can he break it?
heyalun 4 years ago
That is my point. To the audience of mark, he looks as though he is breaking the law. But only jesus himself knew that mosaic law did not apply to him. He was proving his divinity and through it setting the stage for the fullfillment of the prophecy. He led by example.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Yes, murder does imply unlawful killing. But your argument is circular. According to the book, he decimated life on the planet. That is pretty unlawful. But if you say, they had it comming to them, then god is an exception to all law because he determines law. He is the judge, the jury, and the executioner. By definition, he could not break a law no matter how wacked because of this paradox. So law do not apply to him.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
God impregates mary with a son. reguardless of intercourse, I would consider it rape or at least adultery, if I was impregnated by someone or something even if a penis wasn't inserted. But then again, god is exempt just like all gods like how zeus went about getting hercules as his son.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
You claim that it is wrong to break laws. I promise you that you break laws all of the time. All people break laws because many laws contradict one another and the shear number of laws leaves a huge gap in the knowledge of them. It is not that we are willing to break the law, it is that in some cases it is important to break them.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
To *his enemies* he broke the law, but their interpretation was unduly strict. They felt helping someone on the Sabbath was wrong when the law required no such thing. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree since you insist on interpreting as they do.
"[God] is the judge, the jury, and the executioner"
Yep
heyalun 4 years ago
"I would consider it rape or at least adultery"
Well Mary wasn't forced and she was a virgin until she consummated her marriage. So unless you apply some strange definitions of "rape" and "adultery," you're wrong.
I never said I don't break laws. I said Jesus didn't.
heyalun 4 years ago
So... are you saying that if your wife came home pregnant with someone elses kid, without your prior consent (intercourse or not) you would not consider it adultery (where she is not forced) or rape (where she is forced).
I'll have to continue to agree with Randy on this one, jesus broke mosaic law unless you interpret his divinity as an exclusion.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
To "his enemies" he broke the law. Yes.. Laws can be broken and in some cases should. But some laws even to allies should be broken if they are no longer relevant. But your right, you can interpret it any way you like, so we will have to disagree.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
"judge,jury, execution... Yep"
And that is one of the many problems. That's a tyrany and make all logical discussion moot because it's a circular argument that would fail any test of logic. In other words, god can do no wrong because he makes the rules, which is common in almost every dogmatic religion.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
If my wife was pregnant and she told me that it was Jehovah's and then he told me not to worry because she's pregnant, not due to normal means, but by holy spirit, adultery would be the furthest thing from my mind. And unless she had refused, rape would not enter into it either.
heyalun 4 years ago
I truely doubt you would believe her. You might have her committed. And if you did believe it was true... you would have been cuckold by an angel.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
The thing that those who love God appreciate is that he is guided by morality, he doesn't just tell us to be. He always keeps to his standards of justice, even when these hurt him.
And I don't see anything circular or problematic about the Creator and Sustainer of life setting the rules for his creatures. Complaining is like the beggar criticizing you for giving too little of your money.
heyalun 4 years ago
I'm not complaining, I simply don't believe that the bible is any more true than Beowulf or the Illiad. And yes, I do see it being circular and problematic. That is the difference between you and I. I see it in many ways as absurd, and you interpret it to fit your belief structure. Two different views are good. It means we are thinking.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
god can not be guided by morality. By your believe he is the creator of morality, therefore god can not be guided by morality; unless his creation has power over him. You also claim that he can be hurt. That's not very all powerful. It means that god has a weakness and it subject to his own paradox.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
I don't consider a miraculous pregnancy to be unfaithfulness or sexual violation. I would have been honored to be in Joseph's position, as I'm sure he was. Nothing was taken from him and Mary, unless you count their postponed consummation. They were privileged to raise God's Son. You can't beat that in my book.
heyalun 4 years ago
If God creates and sustain life, he has the right to say how it operates. When it does not work as he pleases, he has the right to destroy, fix, or some combination of both. You could argue that he shouldn't destroy, but I don't think it's circular logic for me to disagree.
I think it's unreasonable to expect God to support destructive behavior, which is exactly what he'd be doing if he allowed it to go unchecked.
heyalun 4 years ago
You may have a point about morality, depending on how you define it. What I'm talking about is God's uncreated nature. For example:
Deut 32:6-"All his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice." Is just behavior moral?
I don't see feeling joy or sadness as a weakness.
heyalun 4 years ago
hmmmm... good thinking point. I'll have to ponder that one. "Is just behavior moral?" very very good question.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Yes, it says he created it, but I don't think it says he sustains it (Or at least I can't recall it say that). But you can't say he has the "right". I god creates "right" then the use of it can change more than language (courtesy of Derrida). Btw: it would very much seem that he supports destructive behavior, the tower of babble alone support that.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
Why would they have to postpone the consummation? You can still have sex while one is pregnant. I suppose the story would have to go like that to have a virgin birth. I would figure virgin conception would have been enough. I'm also not talking about whether you would feel privilaged. I'm talking if you would actually believe your wife and if so struggle between the concept of adultery or rape or something else.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
[1]The energy that animates life, food, water, air, the earth -- all come from God and are his. (Psalms 104:29; Acts 14:27; 17:32)
And, of Jesus:
Heb 1:3-"He sustains all things by the word of his power."
So, yes, God would be complicit if he allowed badness indefinitely.
heyalun 4 years ago
[2]I can only guess why Joseph made the decision to postpone consummation. Maybe he didn't want to interfere with prophecy in any way. Maybe he didn't want anyone to think the child might be his (I favor this). Maybe he thought he was protecting the baby. Maybe it was something cultural...In short, I don't know, but I don't think it was necessary.
heyalun 4 years ago
I'll buy that for a dollar too. When I was pregnant, I wanted sex by my partner approached it way too cautiously. He thought he would dent the head of the baby or mentally scar it. :) Personally, I like what you favor as well in that story, but I doubt very highly that anyone would believe him (without stretching the imagination significantly). His actions might be moot.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
[3]Yeah, I would have doubts like Joseph. That's not normal. That's why I added God's confirmation.
How is God's action at Babel supporting destructive behavior? It was actually constructive.
heyalun 4 years ago
Babel. It was probably one of the few times in biblical story that everyone was working together and speaking the same language to build something they felt was constructive. So what is his action, to destroy the tower and make everyone speak different language so it was difficult to maintain relations and cooperation. That is very destructive to society.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
The atheist mind truly intrigues me. THE Prophet and greatest teacher of Christianity - second only to God himself - says it's lawful to heal on the Sabbath and you say it's not. God is displeased with the irreverent activity in Babel and you say it was constructive. Did I stumble onto the opposite thread? :-)
The city was part of the empire of a wicked man and they were opposing God with their actions.
heyalun 4 years ago
Actually, I never said it was unlawful to heal on the sabbath, not once. I do believe that the no work on the sabbath has a bit of paradox in it however.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
The theistic mind truly intrigues me as well. This god loves to step in all the time a few thousand years ago to punish wicked men but not anymore... But these people were cooperating and building of all things a tower. Why would a god fear a tower? Let them build it, they would find nothing or was heaven a physical manifestation back then too? Yet, no punishment for building spaceships.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
"I never said it was unlawful to heal on the sabbath, not once"
Is this the same RosieDesire? What in the world have we been talking about? I thought you were saying Jesus broke the Sabbath. The whole thing was that tending to wounds and healing was against Pharisaic tradition unless a person was on the verge of death. The Sabbath dispute was concerning Jesus repeated rejection of this tradition. If you don't think healing was illegal, then just how did Jesus break the Sabbath?
heyalun 4 years ago
"This god loves to step in all the time a few thousand years ago to punish wicked men but not anymore"
Actually God's intervention was quite rare, at least as recorded in the scriptures. Consider that from Cain's exile to the flood is 1500 years. And even when he does intervene it's not always in flashy ways. And even when it is flashy, the degree varies. The 10 plagues and the army being swallowed by the sea after a whole nation walks through is a one-time deal.
But God still 'steps in.'
heyalun 4 years ago
Come on... he talks to people left and right. He smites, he impregants a teenage virgin, he turns people into salt, he smashes towers. etc and so on. But now... silence. There are many cities that are far more sinful than sodom. Yet... silence.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
"Why