Many say both.
Some insist that he was a religious progressive.
What are your thoughts on that and scripturally why?:confused:
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

I consider such labels to be modern constructs that don't have any real equivalent in the ancient world, so I don't think there's a good answer to your question.

I want to say liberal helping the poor, helping the sick. I never heard a scripture where Jesus said to the poor go somewhere else there are no free handouts here. But I could be wrong.

I'll go with Liberal.

Many say both.
Some insist that he was a religious progressive.
What are your thoughts on that and scripturally why?:confused:
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

The religious spectrum would include the fundamentalists on the extreme conservative side (the "right"). The extreme left would include the liberation theology crowd.

I think Jesus would be far more likely to be found on the liberal left of the religious spectrum. As far as we can tell by the Gospels, he sided with the poor and outcast, not the rich and the comfortable classes.

Liberal

All the answers so far seem to be based on social criteria rather than religious, which is what the OP asked about.

Many say both. Some insist that he was a religious progressive. What are your thoughts on that and scripturally why?:confused:
:) Peace and kindness,:)
Fred
Fred:

I think I would agree with dwashbur. Christ didn’t bring a message of social order, rather he brought a message of Divine Order.

JoeT

Thanks much for all of your answers so far.
I was wondering about the fact that many say that Jesus was a perfect Jew if so does that make Him a conservative?
On the other hand he stressed changes in how the establishment practiced and urged being Jews at that time such as the Sabbath was made for man, and what about working not at all ever on the Sabbath but Jesus refuted that.
There are other examples.
Does that make Him a liberal?
Also Jesus established a new Jewish religion that is called Christianity. Some say that makes Him a progressive.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I was wondering about the fact that many say that Jesus was a perfect Jew if so does that make Him a conservative?
I'm not sure how you made that link, are all jews conservative?

Fred:

I think I would agree with dwashbur. Christ didn’t bring a message of social order, rather he brought a message of Divine Order.

JoeT

GrumpyJoeT,

EXCELLENT response... :)

The Lord Jesus Christ was perfect in everything he did according to the Bible. He went out of his way to eat with sinners. Some would consider that "liberal".

When the woman that was caught in the act of adultry and was thrown before him the pharisees asked what should happen to her? According to the law she should've been stoned. Jesus took care of the problem perfectly... EVERYONE that wanted her stoned ended up walking away, because of what he wrote on the ground. Why did he defend her? Did that make him a liberal? Some may think so, but the last thing he said to her was "go and sin NO more". ( pretty conservative right there )

He was NEVER impressed by the pharisee's that had the outward appearance to be all moral and upright. In fact, he exposed them for what they really were. He called them a brood of vipers and hypocrites. ( conservative? Liberal? Or just correct)

He didn't put up with people trying to make a quick buck in the Temple... he was TICKED to say the least and physically drove them OUT. ( liberal? Conservative.. or just RIGHT)

The pharisee's and saducees considered him to be RADICAL. So much so they thought he was too dangerous to live. They wanted him dead and the rest is history.

I don't see how he could be either... He was and is just Perfect in all His ways.

...but the last thing he said to her was "go and sin NO more". ( pretty conservative right there ) .I'm not sure I understand that point, would a liberal christian tend to continue sinning?

Needkarma,

My point was he had compassion and mercy on her but he told her to go and NEVER sin again. Because that is HIS standard. It doesn't get more "conservative" than THAT.

In other words he didn't just say.. you're OK now, run along and try REAL hard not to do it again.

HIS standard is perfection... always. Even though we fall short most of the time. He is and was neither liberal nor conservative.

HIS standard is perfection...always. Can't a liberal person have perfection as their standard too?

NK,
Sure.
My point is Jesus wasn't either according to how we define liberalism and conservatives today.

Ah OK, understood. Thanks.

dwashbur agrees : Isn't that what I said?? :-)


Dave, yep... but I sounded SMARTER saying it. :D

dwashbur agrees : Isn't that what I said?????? :-)


Dave, yep...but i sounded SMARTER sayin it. :D

No, I used more words and bigger words, so I sounded smarter http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/neener.gif

I consider such labels to be modern constructs that don't have any real equivalent in the ancient world, so I don't think there's a good answer to your question.



Yes, there was no theory to go along with liberalism in the ancient world.More accurately, there was no social contract theory. Such things as, moral sense, behaviouralism and scientific naturalism did not appear until Hobbes and Locke came along. Even then the idea was subject to constant revision and change over hundreds of years. A process which is still going on today.

I guess the only political theory that existed at the time of Jesus was the theory of,' do as Rome says or pay the consequences'.

As far as Jesus and everyone else was concerned they had very few political options to choose from.

Tut

Yes, there was no theory to go along with liberalism in the ancient world.More accurately, there was no social contract theory. Such things as, moral sense, behaviouralism and scientific naturalism did not appear until Hobbes and Locke came along. Even then the idea was subject to constant revision and change over hundreds of years. A process which is still going on today.

I guess the only political theory that existed at the time of Jesus was the theory of,' do as Rome says or pay the consequences'.

As far as Jesus and everyone else was concerned they had very few political options to choose from.

Tut

Within Judaism the same was more or less true religiously, which is what the question was about. The two major factions were the Pharisees, who used the entire Old Testament, believed in a resurrection and that sort of thing, and the Sadducees, who only used the Torah and denied resurrection of the body. Which was liberal and which was conservative? It depends on who you talk to. Jesus basically rejected them both and said HE was the fulfillment of the law and the only way to God. Was that a liberal idea, or a return to a more conservative Judaic idea that emphasized repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation to God? Again, I don't think we can apply either label to him. Radical? Definitely. A departure from the status quo? To be sure. Liberal? In some ways. Conservative? In some ways. Unique? Now we're getting somewhere.

Within Judaism the same was more or less true religiously, which is what the question was about. The two major factions were the Pharisees, who used the entire Old Testament, believed in a resurrection and that sort of thing, and the Sadducees, who only used the Torah and denied resurrection of the body. Which was liberal and which was conservative? It depends on who you talk to. Jesus basically rejected them both and said HE was the fulfillment of the law and the only way to God. Was that a liberal idea, or a return to a more conservative Judaic idea that emphasized repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation to God? Again, I don't think we can apply either label to him. Radical? Definitely. A departure from the status quo? To be sure. Liberal? In some ways. Conservative? In some ways. Unique? Now we're getting somewhere.



Yes, I think these labels don't really stick all that well. 'Uniqueness' sounds like a better starting point to me.


Tut

I don’t know that I could agree with dwashbur's statement that Christ “rejected” both conservatism and liberalism – to be frank, I don’t see it. I think it’s safe to say that when Christ says ‘woe unto you,’ it’s not a good thing. Look at what is ‘WOE’ed and see if we can pick up any patterns. I’ve assumed that those ‘woes’ made by the Apostle carry the same weight as if spoken by Christ.


‘Woes’ found in New Testament verses of the Douay Reims (excluding the Apocalypse)



• Matthew 11:21; Luke 10:13 (to of towns and communities that refused to recognize the Messiah)
• Matthew 18:7; Luke 17:1 (to the world because of scandals, and the scandalous)
• Matthew 23:13 (to hypocrites who misguide the faithful)
• Matthew 23:14 (to Pharisees and hypocrites who mistreat widows, and presumably the poor in general)
• Matthew 23:15 (to scribes Pharisees, hypocrites who proselytize)
• Matthew 23:16; Luke 11:43 (to guides who don’t know the way – those who misguide the faithful)
• Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42; Luke 11:43 (to scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites who circumvent their responsibilities to God.)
• Matthew 23:25 (to scribe, Pharisees, hypocrites who give the appearance of cleanliness, yet are filled with vice.)
• Matthew 23:27; Luke 11:44 (to scribe, Pharisees, hypocrites who give the appearance of holiness, yet are unclean.)
• Matthew 23:29; Luke 11:47 (to scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites who presume holiness through by falsely honoring the Saints.)
• Matthew 26:24: Mark 14:21; Luke 22:22 (to the man who betrayes God.)
• Luke 6:24 (to the rich for materialism.)
• Luke 6:26 (to those failing their neighbor’s need.)
• Luke 11:46 (to you lawyers for burdening men they cannot bear without contributing to the community.)
• Luke 11:52 (to you lawyers befuddle knowledge)
• Corinthians 9:16 (to those charged with but don’t preach not the gospel.)
• Jude 1:11 (to them that go in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam)


I don’t see any pattern with respect to liberals or conservatives except for hypocrites and those who scandalize, do you?

JoeT

NeedKarma ,
It is the being a PERFECT Jew that triggered the thought...
No deviation from what a Jew is supposed to be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT,
Perhaps then that those who say Jesus was a liberal at times, and a conservative at times, and probably a progressive are on to something.
Unique MIGHT cover ir but that word does not explain what the uniqueness is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

All,

Jesus was (is) perfect. When he was living as a man on this earth, when mercy and grace was needed in a situation... He GAVE it. When someone needed to be reprimanded.. HE DID IT. He knew the hearts of men. He knew how to deal with each person exactly the right way.

I don't see how we could label anything he did with what we consider these terms to be today. (conservative, or liberal)

He isn't a democrat and he isn't a republican... politcally speaking either.

AND incidentally to PROVE it... When he does come back and sets his foot on the mount of Olivies and splits it into and walks in and takes his rightful place as King of Kings and Lord of Lords... there won't even BE a vote. When HE comes back... he is NOT coming as the LAMB he is coming as the LION.

Liberals and conservatives will be the thing of the past. Because there is only going to be PERFECTION.

classyT,
Thanks much for your thoughts on that.
But I do think that we can label Jesus with our modern words to some extent, but not fully.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT,
Perhaps then that those who say Jesus was a liberal at times, and a conservative at times, and probably a progressive are on to something.
Unique MIGHT cover ir but that word does not explain what the uniqueness is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred:

I’m not sure where you’re headed with your inquiry.

The terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ used in context with politics are related more towards ideologies. In a democratic society such as ours citizens are obligated (but not required) to vote. It’s an act of good citizenship. The importance for Catholics is to vote considering their Catholic morals and ethics. Catholics are encouraged, to vote a ‘formed conscience’. Catholicism extends an obligation to faithfully receive and act on the Church’s teaching whether it relates to the political act of voting or any other issue in which we are given the opportunity to shape. “We bring a consistent moral framework—drawn from basic human reason that is illuminated by Scripture and the teaching of the Church—for assessing issues, political platforms, and campaigns. We also bring broad experience in serving those in need—educating the young, caring for the sick, sheltering the homeless, helping women who face difficult pregnancies, feeding the hungry, welcoming [legal] immigrants and refugees, reaching out in global solidarity, and pursuing peace.” This is where I get the mantra ‘vote Catholic’. (I inserted the word ‘legal’ given the current situation on our nations southern border because I can’t imagine Catholic Bishops suggesting illegal activity such as smuggling or other similar illegal activity in a sovereign democratic nation whose rights and obligations are to control its borders.)

Liberalism, in context of faith or politics, is a shared conscience based on a narrow-minded assertion of the individual’s unconditional right to absolute independence from society, social norms, and authority – authority of any type. These intellectual giants postulate “their” truth, free of the restraints formed principles or ethics; after all there are no respected authorities, so why should they be constrained. Liberalism usually includes principled elements of positive law being self determined from within, progressivism that includes or demands equality of outcome, large controlling government, a majority consensus outweighs Christian moral and ethics, the greatest error of liberalism in my estimation is that mankind is capable of bringing utopia to the world – by hook or crook.

The dilemma for liberalism is that those who think as they please will do as they please. Such dysfunctional logic in our culture results in a malfunctioning society. The liberal press unwittingly reports the results of a malformed society in its reports; e.g. murderers freed because they weren’t properly informed of their rights, child rapist set free because they had an unfortunate childhood, women have the ‘right’ to kill children before their born so they can be ‘liberated’ from child rearing – I can only assume they’re being liberated from the consequence of the act of liberalism.

A humorous absurdity comes to mind; with such logical intellect one wonders how long it will be before liberals ban or imprison god – after all, any ultimate-authority outside themselves is constraining and must be illegal. Just imagine the silly vision of President Obama trying to stuff this indescribable, unknowable, blob of un-authority called “god” into a cell. Without a creator we find liberals truly absent of one human emotion; humor.

The liberal is compelled to control all matters of our society that have not come from himself; (this includes excessive cholesterol from that cheeseburger you’re eating) what he can’t control he regulates, what he can’t regulate he taxes, what he can’t tax he bans. Lastly the liberal feels that he alone has the freedom to pass judgment over politics, morals, science or religion and in doing so demands the unrestrained use of the press. Any press not willing to cooperate with the liberal is repressed.

A more concise view of a liberal person is one who holds that there are no absolute truths. “What’s true for you may not be true for me” is the usual refrain. Since there are no absolutes in truth, the liberal becomes the sole arbiter of what is true and what isn't. As illogical as this might be, a liberal can hold two contrary beliefs at the same time. However, since the liberal is the arbiter of what is and isn’t truth we often find ourselves face to face with absurdity, both truths can be true. The reason is that all truth relative to the liberal, thus truth is whatever the liberal asserts it to be.

Proclaiming a truth outside himself is to acknowledge an authority, acknowledging an authority means that he no longer passes judgment (judgments are passed by the authority), having no authority means that he no longer can control, regulate, or tax. Finally, he can no longer assert his independence – obviously a full circle of ruin for the liberal – i.e. a really bad hair day.

Rationalism is the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned by the state and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, a liberal government or religion is a SECULAR government, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life; sucha s society is a veritable atheism society.

I can’t visualize Christ has being ‘Liberal’ when defined this way.

Conservatism as we define it today is nearly the moral and ethical opposite of liberalism. I don’t have the time to elaborate, I’ll do it later. (I’ll try to expand this later).

Considering both conservatism and liberalism I find myself leaning heavily towards conservatism, yet within a group that ‘right reasoning’ (no pun intended). You see, I’m neither conservative nor liberal, but orthodox; that is I try to reason within a conscience formed by the Church:


It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. (Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, no. 4)

That is to say, I vote Catholic. I don't have a clue where Christ would fit in all this.

Resources: http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

JoeT

JoeT,
I must disagree with you UNLESS you use the word ultra radical for such liberals as you described.
Most that I know do think that feeding the hungry, curing the sick, caring for others is a necessity as do I as did Jesus.
Personally I a former Democrat and now an independent who dislikes the ultra radical on both sides. They are extremist.
Getting back to what Jesus was like, I have explained somewhat of what I was looking for, not a political point of view for Him.
Was He a conservative for being a perfect Jew?
Was He a liberal because he healed the sick and lame and blind and wanted people to be fed?
Was He a progressive in that He started a new Jewish religion?
That is the way I was thinking... No politics.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I wouldn't call Jesus a liberal or conservative. I would call him a "hell raising" lover of real social justice. Somehow I don't think "liberal" or "conservative" embody this crude definition of mine... as my old math teacher might say, there is overlap in the domains, but one is not equal to the other.

at the very core, maybe reduced to His most literal self, Christ was a "radical" who was clearly disgusted with the oppressive power structure and who saw confrontive nonviolence as the only means by which to truly change the world... a notion that would play out over and over in the past century. South africa. India. The US south. etc...

I don't want to hijack this thread... but I have a question that I think I can run into this without getting off topic...

a couple of years ago I read an interpretation of the sermon on the mount that cast a new angle (for me) on the "turn the other cheek, give up your cloak, and go the extra mile" points.

now... please forgive me here. I'm not particularly well read. I'm certainly not willing to battle in the religious boards... it gets a little too hot in here for my taste and my abilities to spar intellectually... but I love the discussion generally...

this interpretation focused on the consistent theme of Christ challenging those in power, or those benefiting from an unjust power structure...

to present the other cheek after being struck always seemed to represent a willingness to simply be injured in doing the right thing. But id read where in His time a strike upon the right cheek is more than just a simple blow.

that the laws of the time dictated what was acceptable and what was not... and a strike to the left cheek of a servant or wife or child would be considered a reprimand... not a blow to injure. A hit to put one back in one's place.

but in this reading it talked about the use of the right hand versus the left. That the blow with the right hand to the left cheek would be an open hand blow. A slap.

that the use of the left hand in this reprimand was... I don't know if "unclean" is the right word... lets say not proper?

so... you reprimand a servant with an open hand blow on the left cheek. They turn and present the other cheek. What next?

well... you could again hit with your right in a backhand, but that just shows the futility of the gesture. Power is lost. Or at least you are now an equal to the hitter...

you could hit with your left hand but there's issues with social customs of the time? So basically it isn't just be willing to take a strike... its be brave enough to show the oppressor the futility of his actions.

same with giving your cloak if one is to sue you for your tunic. That if you owed a debt, but were poor, and the creditor was callous enough to strip you of your tunic... well, why not shame him and all in the court by stripping naked and giving everything you had on your body?

and going the "extra mile"... tied to the roman custom of allowing soldiers to consign local people to help them carry their load for a set distance, but not beyond that... so a person who refused to stop, who continued and possibly made the oppressor face penalties or reprimand for not following the roman laws/customs would basically shame the soldier... make him beg you to stop carrying him load.

so... all that said and I guess my point is I LOVE that interpretation. Anybody else read this or heard of this?

to me... this resounds through the gospel... Christ, if nothing else, was a hater of oppression and injustice... and responded to that injustice in "unconventional" ways...

in ways that are sometimes hard to trust in, ways that don't always act as fast as we would like (many nonviolent changes in justice took decades, even generations), and in ways that challenge what we value the most.

I just don't think I can look at the words liberal or conservative and find enough overlap.

so HWJV?

(how would Jesus vote?)

I'm thinking He'd be putting on his steel toed sandals...

sorry if this was too far off topic... love some feedback.

Christ is the ultimate rebel and sh!tkicker, near as I can tell... and I just don't see conservative or liberal and being adequate descriptions of what he said and did.

Fred:

Rationalism is the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned by the state and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, a liberal government or religion is a SECULAR government, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life; sucha s society is a veritable atheism society.


JoeT


Hi Joe,

I've worked out the problem. You are using the term, 'rationalism' in the medieval understanding of the word. Later, when the empirical sciences developed (liberalism being one) there was a need to redefine the meaning. Before empiricism rationalism was a suitable epistemology.

Today it is not suitable because empiricism doesn't fit anywhere in a rationalist world view. To lump empirical knowledge into the rationalist basket is totally incorrect and inaccurate.

If you are going to talk about rationalism then you need to understand how the meaning has changed.

I am not saying that liberalism is the way to go, but if we are going to talk about it you at least need to have an understanding of it.

Regards

Tut

Kp,

I agree with some of your thoughts on the Lord Jesus. He was RADICAL for his time and He put all the hypocrites in their places. I believe the religious Jewish political leaders thought he was too dangerous to even live. He was turning everything upside down and showing people who THEY really were and who HE really was. They HATED him for it. He was merciful when the situation called for mercy and he called a spade a spade when he was reprimanding the hypocritcal religious pharasee's HE was and still is AWESOME.

So..

I was at an engagement last night involving a local group of "religious do-gooders"... people who focus on work with the poor and the hungry for the most part... "gospely-type" peeps. I've been slowly absorbed into their mix over the last couple of years.

And during this engagement we had a speaker who had several great stories to tell... but ill relate just one here, and I promise to tie it into the thread. If anyone here ever reads my writings on other boards they are well aware of my talent for rambling and my love of ellipses and hate for all things capitalized... but I digress...

So... the man speaking has been a deacon in the catholic church for 20 years. Done his best to be good and do good in spite of himself. His third of three stories opens with anticipation of mother theresas arriving for a brief time at his parish.

Apparently when mother theresa would come to visit it was worse than the cable guy.

That is, she would be there sometime between Thursday and early Monday. Be ready.

This was to discourage the media campouts... all the noise and fuss that had nothing to do with her works whatsoever.

So the parish is thrilled. A chance of a lifetime. All are anticipating and anxiously awaiting all day Thursday.

And Friday.

Then comes Saturday.

Tick. Tick. Tick.

To make matters worse, there are women in blue cloth fluttering about throughout the week... not mother theresa, but they are about, distracting and tricking all into thinking she is here.

Nada.

Surely she would come for Sunday service, right?

So... no sign of mother theresa. Service is over and the deacon speaking is helping a congregational member out. The member in question is very, very sick. Emaciated. Old. Sick with aids. Seizures are common. The two men helping him have a hundres lbs on him on each side. The man steps in inches... not even a shuffle... but he insists on walking. It takes 30 minutes to help the man take ten "regular" strides.

But they help. They talk to him. They help him. And he suddenly has a seizure.

One that throws him to the ground. One that stikes his body to the floor.

The deacon speaking says that there is a surreal moment at a time like this... when you are standing over someone in need of help and you don't know what to do and you don't even understand what is happening. Its maybe just a few seconds of wondering, standing over the man, looking for an answer for "what next?"

And then he sees a flash of blue come across the hall.

And suddenly she is under the man. His head in her lap. Her hand stroking his hair. And his seizure stops.

And mother theresa looks up to the deacons and says, without being scornful, "my brothers... you love Jesus from down here, not from up there"...

...

...

So... I cannot apply "liberal" or "conservative" to an act that in mere seconds plays out the entire gospel at its sacred core.

Christ gave His life tearing down barriers... so why label Him?

Does it glorify Christ? Promote the Kingdom?

kp2171,
Thank you for your interesting thoughts on this subject.
I found them to be enlightening and I understand what you think about Jesus.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I suppose it really doesn't matter...

Christ tore down many beliefs of the time and upheld the conservative ideals presented in the OT prophesies. He can be considered liberal for going against the crowd, or conservative for holding on to truths of old. Either way you look at it, he just did what he had to regardless of the political swing.

I suppose it really doesn't matter...

Christ tore down many beliefs of the time and upheld the conservative ideals presented in the OT prophesies. He can be considered liberal for going against the crowd, or conservative for holding on to truths of old. Either way you look at it, he just did what he had to regardless of the political swing.



No he didn't, where did you get a notion like that? He built up the Law, the prophet and the Church. (Cf. Matt 5:17)

JoeT.

No he didn't, where did you get a notion like that? He built up the Law, the prophet and the Church. (Cf. Matt 5:17)

JoeT.

What notion are you asking about?

No he didn't, where did you get a notion like that? He built up the Law, the prophet and the Church. (Cf. Matt 5:17)

JoeT.

I said He tore down beliefs of the time for instance Matt 5:43 (Golden Rule) He says "You have been taught, but..." How many times did He condemn the religious leaders of the time, do you think that the way they were acting was common? At this time in history the Jews weren't always as faithful as they were at other times. Christ would have gone against many of the social norms and customs. For instance, look at the good Samaritan. The Samaritans and Jews didn't exactly get along, Christ didn't care what the people thought, He just did what is right and (as you said) upheld the law, which would make Him a clash with many of the beliefs of the time.

Hi Joe,

I've worked out the problem. You are using the term, 'rationalism' in the medieval understanding of the word. Later, when the empirical sciences developed (liberalism being one) there was a need to redefine the meaning. Before empiricism rationalism was a suitable epistemology.

Today it is not suitable because empiricism doesn't fit anywhere in a rationalist world view. To lump empirical knowledge into the rationalist basket is totally incorrect and inaccurate.

If you are going to talk about rationalism then you need to understand how the meaning has changed.

I am not saying that liberalism is the way to go, but if we are going to talk about it you at least need to have an understanding of it.

Regards

Tut

Paraphrasing A. R. Lacey's definition; “any view appealing to reason as [the sole] source of knowledge or justification” is an extreme form of rationalism. The mirror of rationalism is empiricism, from the Greek school of empiric, you might say the source of knowledge is experience or measure. The former looks to define the cosmos from the interior intellect, the latter looks to define the cosmos through the measure of nature. God's Truth cannot be found or deduced from an interior intellect, nor can a Divine omniscient truth be measured. Thus, Divine Truth can only be known through God's revelation – this is knowledge of 'Truth'. (Cf. JoeT, may 2010)

Liberalism is defined best during the French Revolution; "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself;" this is relativism. The nature of a liberal truth is determined solely in the interior.

No, I don't think I need to change my understanding.


JoeT

What notion are you asking about?

The notion that Christ tore down beliefs (presumably of Judaism, i.e. God's Kingdom)

JoeT

I said He tore down beliefs of the time for instance Matt 5:43 (Golden Rule) He says "You have been taught, but..." How many times did He condemn the religious leaders of the time, do you think that the way they were acting was common? At this time in history the Jews weren't always as faithful as they were at other times. Christ would have gone against many of the social norms and customs. For instance, look at the good Samaritan. The Samaritans and Jews didn't exactly get along, Christ didn't care what the people thought, He just did what is right and (as you said) upheld the law, which would make Him a clash with many of the beliefs of the time.

First let me explain, my objection wasn't so much your conclusions, rather the objection was directed to the precept that Christ brought down Mosaic Law. At least that's how I took your post.

If correct, your examples seem to prove the point. It was the Pharisees who were the hypocrites, misleading and misrepresenting the Moses' Law. All these attributes, i.e. the Golden Rule, being good Samaritans, etc. were already part of Judaism. He didn't do 'what was just right' he expanded the Law to include everyman to the status of neighbor and instituted a new regenerative laver, baptism.

JoeT

Very interesting posts.
Thank you.
Please keep up the good work back and forth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I think its fair to say Christ put greater value on being Just than following laws about cleanliness, for ex... its not a stretch to find those who believed, but didn't act as believers.

is it really reaching to say he challenged beliefs? Maybe its semantics... maybe you are saying he didn't tear beliefs down as much as reveal the true meanings?

First let me explain, my objection wasn’t so much your conclusions, rather the objection was directed to the precept that Christ brought down Mosaic Law. At least that’s how I took your post.
JoeT



Never mind... I agree.

kp2171,
Thanks for your thoughts on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The notion that Christ tore down beliefs (presumably of Judaism, i.e. God's Kingdom)

JoeT

I didn't get that impression. I understood it to mean that he stripped away all the nonsense that had accreted onto those things, put there by a religious elite that had become quite corrupt. He said he came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. But he and the religious leaders of his day seemed to have very different ideas of what constituted "the Law."

i think its fair to say Christ put greater value on being Just than following laws about cleanliness, for ex... its not a stretch to find those who believed, but didnt act as believers.

is it really reaching to say he challenged beliefs? maybe its semantics... maybe you are saying he didnt tear beliefs down as much as reveal the true meanings?

Mosaic Law was, and still is, Divine Justice.

No, it wasn't reaching to say he challenged beliefs. Nevertheless, it was only those beliefs in a distortion of Mosaic Law that were challenged.

I do agree, he revealed Truth as he continues to do so. This is what was meant when I said “built-up,” that is establish.

JoeT

I didn't get that impression. I understood it to mean that he stripped away all the nonsense that had accreted onto those things, put there by a religious elite that had become quite corrupt. He said he came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. But he and the religious leaders of his day seemed to have very different ideas of what constituted "the Law."

I understand the Kingdom of God to be the Jewish ecclesiastical tradition, i.e. Church. This ‘Church’ wasn’t destroyed but rather given to others. Otherwise I agree.

JoeT

Paraphrasing A. R. Lacey's definition; “any view appealing to reason as [the sole] source of knowledge or justification” is an extreme form of rationalism.


JoeT


Hi Joe,

From my point of view this is pretty much the standard definition of rationalism.

I can see where you are getting confused. I am sure you are thinking that an appeal to reason (as out lined in the above definition) Is the source of subjective knowledge. In other words, the source of liberalism comes from someone doing the reasoning.

In fact it is just the opposite. Rationalism is an objective theory. It has noting to do with the subjective individual. Rationalism in a general sense is a theory of universals. Rationalism CAN'T be a subjectivist theory and on that basis rationalism can't be the basis of liberalism.

I am not sure what you mean by rationalism and empiricism 'mirror' each other.

You also claim that:
'The nature of liberal truth is determined solely in the interior.'

This being the case how do you explain liberal theories such as 'objective utilitarianism'?

Regards
Tut

dwashbur and JoeT,
In this case I agree with both of you.
I hope you can understand how I do that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I understand the Kingdom of God to be the Jewish ecclesiastical tradition, i.e. Church. This ‘Church’ wasn’t destroyed but rather given to others. Otherwise I agree.

JoeT

In the form that God intended, I agree. I think we may be saying the same thing but talking right past each other?

In the form that God intended, I agree. I think we may be saying the same thing but talking right past each other?


"In the form..." Is this 'form' of agreement in anticipation of what I might say next … about Church?

Or should I simply agree, and be done with it?

JoeT

"In the form..." Is this ‘form’ of agreement in anticipation of what I might say next … about Church?

Or should I simply agree, and be done with it?

JoeT

Uuuuuuuuhh... I'm not sure I follow.

Hi Joe,

I would like to apologize. You are not confused about rationalism.
I looked up the Catholic Encyclopedia for a definition. Your definition fits in with what is written there.

It would seem that when it comes to philosophical definitions Catholics have a 'private language'. By this I mean there is a Catholic theological understanding of what a word means and there is what modern philosophers generally understand by a word. On this basis we are talking past each other.

I think the Catholic Encyclopedia has got it roughly correct when it claims that Kant marked the end of rationalism in its early form. I would argue that it more or less marked the end of rationalism as such. By this I mean that it marked the end of rationalism as a philosophical and political force (leaving Hegel aside because we are roughly talking about the same time period).

The attempt by Encyclopedia to suggest that rationalism 'lingers on behind the scenes' only to eventually give rise to modern liberal ideas is inaccurate in my view. It is an attempt to 'grab at historical straws' in order to show that it reinvents itself as liberalism.

What is interesting about this exercise is that I got my understanding of how Catholics understand the term by exploring the net.

I think I would be right in saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia and similar documents are your main (if not your only) source of political philosophy. Perhaps you could help me out by reading wider.

There was a man who read in the morning paper there was an earthquake in China. He didn't believe it so he went down town and bought six more copes of the same paper in order to confirm the truth of the story.


Regards

Tut

First let me explain, my objection wasn’t so much your conclusions, rather the objection was directed to the precept that Christ brought down Mosaic Law. At least that’s how I took your post.

If correct, your examples seem to prove the point. It was the Pharisees who were the hypocrites, misleading and misrepresenting the Moses’ Law. All these attributes, i.e., the Golden Rule, being good Samaritans, etc. were already part of Judaism. He didn’t do ‘what was just right’ he expanded the Law to include everyman to the status of neighbor and instituted a new regenerative laver, baptism.


Sorry, I do see how it can come across that way, especially when you read the first sentence. I'm not sure what you mean by proving the point, but I do not mean by any measure that He intended to tear down Mosaic Law. I just wished to illustrate how Christ may have clashed with the powers to be, and how that can be seen as liberal philosophies, at least at the time.

I may be wrong here, but from what I've read, the Jewish law was already applicable to those outside the Jewish nation. For instance, Job was not of Jewish genealogy (Chaldean I think).

Also:

Numbers 15:22-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2015:22-31&version=KJV)

Romans 2:6-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:6-16&version=KJV)

Romans 2:25-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:25-26&version=KJV)

Romans 5:12-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-15&version=KJV)

1 Corinthians 15:56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:56&version=KJV)

1 Timothy 1:8-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:8-11&version=KJV)

The way I see it, people who have not heard the law are not punishable by it, however it still illustrates their sins. I believe it says somewhere they are judged by their own law. This doesn't make it "not sin" but rather a different sort of playing field.

As far as expanding the neighbor to everyman, He did not do, He just clarified the difference between what was being taught and what is written. No where in the OT does it say "hate your enemies" and God has commanded us over and over to love everybody as He does, not just the other Jews.

I think I would be right in saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia and similar documents are your main (if not your only) source of political philosophy. Perhaps you could help me out by reading wider.

There is a reason that I restrict my reading; it's like working on the farm. If I don't go near the pig waller during the day, it's likely the missis will let me sit at the dinner table that night – even if I don't get in it she claims she can smell it on my cloths. Likewise keeping the mind away from the waller of unholy thought allows us to go to Communion without a conflicted soul, pure of heart, worthy of His flesh that is meat and His blood that is drink, fills the intellect with Real Truth (Cf. John 6:26, 55). The blood signifies the Sacrifice, for the first born on Pasch (the time of renewal) consumed the meat signified by the blood on the door jamb. We likewise Commune in a meal which we devour with passion; it in turn assumes us, bite by bite.

And, having been lucky enough to sit at the missis' table more than once, I know not to eat junk food during the day. You need all the room you can muster for that dazzle-berry pie – it's a lot of food for thought.

If you're really interested in expanding your reading, read St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Start with Secunda Secundæ Partis and work backwards to Prima. You can probably do it in months; it took me years and I still don't have it down pat. But, don't think I'm going to read about the master philosophers of liberalism – too much junk food.


There was a man who read in the morning paper there was an earthquake in China. He didn't believe it so he went down town and bought six more copies of the same paper in order to confirm the truth of the story. Tut

You know, being more than 39 (If you don't ask how much more, I won't have to go to confession this week), you would have thought I heard that joke by now. That was great, Tut! I'll let you add humorist to your list of attributes. Well done.

JoeT

Hi Joe,

Fair enough, each to his own. I guess the difference between us is that I am happy to read St. Thomas Aquinas' 'Summa Theologica' where as I am sure you will not
Read J.S. Mill 'On Liberty'.

I am an admirer of St. Thomas. One cannot help but be impressed by the scope and volume of his work.

It is theoretically possible for us to have a discussion on St. Thomas even though you would know much more than myself when it comes to his work. On the other hand it would be impossible for us to have a discussion on J.S. Mill.

My church does not tell me how I should vote but I guess yours does.


By the way the 'joke' about the newspaper. It wasn't intended to be a joke.


Regards

Tut

TUT317,
Very interesting.
The first I head of The Joke was it was told about a blue eyed blonde and it's still funny even of not meant to be a joke.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Sorry, I do see how it can come across that way, especially when you read the first sentence. I'm not sure what you mean by proving the point, but I do not mean by any measure that He intended to tear down Mosaic Law. I just wished to illustrate how Christ may have clashed with the powers to be, and how that can be seen as liberal philosophies, at least at the time.

I probably jumped to conclusions. From time to time I have a bad habit of reading things between the lines that were never there; my apologies.


I may be wrong here, but from what I've read, the Jewish law was already applicable to those outside the Jewish nation. For instance, Job was not of Jewish genealogy (Chaldean I think).
Also:
Numbers 15:22-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2015:22-31&version=KJV)
Romans 2:6-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:6-16&version=KJV)
Romans 2:25-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:25-26&version=KJV)
Romans 5:12-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-15&version=KJV)
1 Corinthians 15:56 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:56&version=KJV)
1 Timothy 1:8-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:8-11&version=KJV)
I think he lived in the land of ‘Hus’. Hus was the grandson on Sem. Since Job’s land was open to attach from the north by the Chaldeans and since the name Hus is associated with Arm (Cf. Gen 10:23; 22:21; 36:28) many think Job was Aramaean.

But that’s not the point, is it? Judaism has always been open to outsiders. There are initiation rites such as Tevilah (teh-VEE-luh) an Immersion in a pool (essentially this is a baptism) a ritual cleansing for spiritual purification. But, before this the convert must lean Hebrew, the Jewish religion, the Jewish laws and traditions. The initiate must observe at least one of each of the Jewish feasts and holidays. The rite of passage of course includes circumcision for males. Finally, after taking on a Jewish name, the convert is introduced to the community. So, you might say that the non-Jewish believers aren’t Jewish full fledged member of the Kingdom of God until they ‘become’ Jewish.



The way I see it, people who have not heard the law are not punishable by it, however it still illustrates their sins. I believe it says somewhere they are judged by their own law. This doesn't make it "not sin" but rather a different sort of playing field.

So you don’t believe the Decalogue (10 commandments) are binding?


As far as expanding the neighbor to everyman, He did not do, He just clarified the difference between what was being taught and what is written. Nowhere in the OT does it say "hate your enemies" and God has commanded us over and over to love everybody as He does, not just the other Jews.

I agree with you. The command to love our neighbor as ourselves is clearly part of the Old Testament. But, the Jew didn’t always see the neighbor as ‘everyman’ but merely the guy next door. This charity wasn’t to be extended exclusively to the clan, the town, the region, or to Israel, but to every man. This is what I had intended to say.

JoeT

Hi Joe,

Fair enough, each to his own. I guess the difference between us is that I am happy to read St. Thomas Aquinas' 'Summa Theologica' where as I am sure you will not
read J.S. Mill 'On Liberty'.

I am an admirer of St. Thomas. One cannot help but be impressed by the scope and volume of his work.

It is theoretically possible for us to have a discussion on St. Thomas even though you would know much more than myself when it comes to his work. On the other hand it would be impossible for us to have a discussion on J.S. Mill.

My church does not tell me how I should vote but I guess yours does.


By the way the 'joke' about the newspaper. It wasn't intended to be a joke.


Regards

Tut

My Church doesn't tell me who to vote for; rather it tells me why I should vote.


Not humor? Then you must tell us how it turned out, was his fears confirmed after the 6th paper?

JoeT

Interesting
Oh, I remember a history clip I read which said the a Roman general (whose name I have forgotten) said that the Jews were an angering nation for they have given their laws to the rest of the world.
In those days of the Roman empire I can see how frustrating that might be to some.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

So you don't believe the Decalogue (10 commandments) are binding?


I am not sure. I am sure, that when it comes to the studies of the Bible, that there are points where we will never agree, and we can both submit our view points and never come to any conclusion. Anyway, I really haven't come to any sufficient conclusion on the matter. After reading Romans 2 (specifically 12 to 14ish) it would seem to me that what I posted prior is closest to what is written in the Bible, but I am still unsure of the interpretation of this passage. There are other parts of the Scriptures that seem to confirm this while I have read others that don't wholly support it. That is not to say they are in contest with each other, but I am currently incapable of coming to a conclusion.

Here's what I am seeing:

There are two things that discern sin, the Law and conscience. The Law was put into writing as a covenant between God and the Jewish nation and to show a clear difference between what is right and what is wrong. Conscience is a matter of the heart. Even before the Law people had conscience, and it is by the heart which we can see true motives. It would seem unjust to judge people by the Law if they are not part of the Jewish covenant or if they have never heard of such a thing (I will admit that things aren't always as they seem, this statement isn't a supporting factor, just a supposition). Thus, it seems necessary for God to judge people by their own conscience when they are not applicable to the Law.

Because of the nature of the Law, there in still a clear boundary as to where sin and righteousness lie. So, the Law, even in the above described circumstances, is not nullified but rather just not a playing factor in judgment. There will still be a judgment based on the law which said person sees morally, i.e.. Conscience. I also would to say that no matter how it turns out it will be perfectly just in the way God judges men of all circumstances.

I think our side conversation is getting a bit off topic, maybe it would be wise to start a thread more specifically concerning the matter.

So you don’t believe the Decalogue (10 commandments) are binding?


I don't know how far back the tradition goes, and it's probably impossible to tell, but modern Judaism doesn't consider them binding on Gentiles. They have what they call the 7 Laws of the Sons of Noah, and those are the only laws Gentiles are required to keep in order to get on God's good side. My favorite Rabbi used to say that when a Gentile comes to him and wants to convert to Judaism, he would reply, "Why? Are you a glutton for punishment?"

I don't know how far back the tradition goes, and it's probably impossible to tell, but modern Judaism doesn't consider them binding on Gentiles. They have what they call the 7 Laws of the Sons of Noah, and those are the only laws Gentiles are required to keep in order to get on God's good side. My favorite Rabbi used to say that when a Gentile comes to him and wants to convert to Judaism, he would reply, "Why? Are you a glutton for punishment?"

That’s true, they don’t encourage conversion; I’ve heard similar stories. I’ve also heard that some don’t believe in heaven and hell in the same way Christians do.

JoeT

That’s true, they don’t encourage conversion; I’ve heard similar stories. I’ve also heard that some don’t believe in heaven and hell in the same way Christians do.

JoeT

That's what the Rabbi told us. When we asked him what "salvation" means he said "living in harmony with God, with others, and with yourself." Nice and vague!

I am not sure. I am sure, that when it comes to the studies of the Bible, that there are points where we will never agree, and we can both submit our view points and never come to any conclusion.

But, you should come to the same conclusions as I do (there is but one Truth - God isn't schizophrenic, at least insofar as I know), and if that conclusion seeks objective truth I am forced to agree.


There are two things that discern sin, the Law and conscience. The Law was put into writing as a covenant between God and the Jewish nation and to show a clear difference between what is right and what is wrong. Conscience is a matter of the heart. Even before the Law people had conscience, and it is by the heart which we can see true motives. It would seem unjust to judge people by the Law if they are not part of the Jewish covenant or if they have never heard of such a thing (I will admit that things aren't always as they seem, this statement isn't a supporting factor, just a supposition). Thus, it seems necessary for God to judge people by their own conscience when they are not applicable to the Law.

Because of the nature of the Law, there in still a clear boundary as to where sin and righteousness lie. So, the Law, even in the above described circumstances, is not nullified but rather just not a playing factor in judgment. There will still be a judgment based on the law which said person sees morally, ie. conscience. I also would to say that no matter how it turns out it will be perfectly just in the way God judges men of all circumstances.

I think our side conversation is getting a bit off topic, maybe it would be wise to start a thread more specifically concerning the matter.

I don’t think we’re as far apart as you might think.

St. Chrysostom seems shed the best light on the Law found Romans 3:31. The purpose of the law is to make man righteous. But, a law held externally, is that done simply out of rote, habit, or fear has no power to make man righteous. We can burn all the flesh in the land, wash our hands from minute to minute till they’re raw, or burn incense until every man, women, and child has inflamed sinuses with little effect of making us holy. This was what Christ was telling the Pharisees; simply following one of these LAWS isn’t redemption. However, faith can do just that, the law is the effect of faith. Once faith takes hold, it establishes the LAW; it establishes it in the heart. “Faith is not opposed to the Law,” rather the law is ‘perfected’ in faith.


… For here he shows that the faith, so far from doing any disparagement to the Law, even assists it, as it on the other hand paved the way for the faith. For as the Law itself before bore witness to it (for he says, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets), so here this establishes that, now that it is unnerved. And how did it establish? He would say. What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. For all, it says, have sinned: but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified. The intention then of the Law it did establish, and what all its enactments aim after, this has it brought to a consummation. Consequently it has not disannulled, but perfected it. Here then three points he has demonstrated; first, that without the Law it is possible to be justified; next, that this the Law could not effect; and, that faith is not opposed to the Law. For since the chief cause of perplexity to the Jews was this, that the faith seemed to be in opposition to it, he shows more than the Jew wishes, that so far from being contrary, it is even in close alliance and cooperation with it, which was what they especially longed to hear proved.( Source: St. John Chrysostom, On Romans, Homily 7 CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 7 on Romans (Chrysostom) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm))

Yes we who believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church hold the faith that Christ came to fulfill (to make complete, or to perfect) the LAW. Do away with THE LAW, and you’ve done away with Christ, his sacrifice, and our redemption through him. THE LAW looks to the authority of THE LAW GIVER, so too does our faith. Thus Paul rightly says, “Do we then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law.”


Gal 3:23-24-25 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. KJV

There is a certain security in the Law, being ‘kept’ under the Law. St. John Chrysostom likens being kept as the walls of a fortress form a ‘KEEP’, keeping us confined in a comforting fear and hate used to keep the world out. So, the law forms right reasoning as a tutor forms the mind of the student of physics. The physics teacher enumerates, laws from Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, etc. to students, bound to their desks, fearing to venture into the ‘real world,’ remaining comfort, i.e. kept. (By the way – that once described no. 1 son – but we got him over that – we cut of the funds – works every time.) But, now – on graduation day – there is the realization our faith is can and will operate in the world, and quite well under the Law too. This doesn’t mean the laws of Newton or Einstein no longer work – what goes up continues to come down after graduation. (This works especially well with egos; when my ego is inflated upward, some jerk always comes along to deflate it! I learned that on graduation day). Similarly, the student in Christ graduates receiving faith learns from the Law to operate his faith in the real world day by day. What goes up with faith comes down with salvation. (Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 3 on Galatians (Chrysostom) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm) )

Scripture must always be in harmony with itself and that of Apostolic Tradition which in turn must be in harmony with scripture and be in harmony with itself. That is to say is that God is not schizophrenic. He doesn’t tell you one thing and me something else.


But now in Christ Jesus, you, who some time were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities in his flesh: Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees: that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace, Eph 2:13

The Law was given by God to the Israelite who used it to build up a wall of self-identification. The Law was a means to keep out by fear those on the other side of the wall who worshiped idols, building a wall roundabout the world as till it closed in on itself. A battment, “a middle wall, no longer establishing them in security, but cutting them off from God. Such then is the middle wall of partition formed out of the hedge. And to explain what this is, he subjoins, the enmity in His flesh having abolished, the law of commandments.” St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5 (Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 5 on Ephesians (Chrysostom) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230105.htm) ). He transforms us from our disposition of fear towards the commands of the Law to a position of charity in the Body of Christ.

I say then: Have they so stumbled, that they should fall? God forbid! But by their offence salvation is come to the Gentiles, that they may be emulous of them. Rom 11:11.

Rendering the Law dead makes an apparent contradiction in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Failing to understand the primary thrust of Paul’s message to the Roman’s we fail to see the confining externalization of the Law termed Judaizing. "Know you not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law) that the law hath dominion over a man as long as it liveth? For the woman that hath a husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man: but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of her husband: so that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ: that you may belong to another, who is risen again from the dead that we may bring forth fruit to God. Paul considers the un-baptized Jew as being “married” to the Mosaic Law and is ‘bound’ to it for life. The only way to escape the former ‘binding of the Law’ is to be resurrected into the body of Christ. The Law lives in Christ; “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.” God rules through the law of the Prophets.


But Pope Paul VI sums it best:


“Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believes in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. “Pope Paul VI, NOSTRA AETATE, OCTOBER 28, 1965

JoeT

But, you should come to the same conclusions as I do (there is but one Truth - God isn't schizophrenic, at least insofar as I know), and if that conclusion seeks objective truth I am forced to agree.


The problem has to do with the nature of the Bible; not only is it from a completely different era, written in three languages that no longer exist, but it's built on manners and customs that are foreign to us today. That uncertainty is the basis of a lot of differences of opinion.

One thing a lot of folks have trouble facing is the fact that there are actually words and terms in the Bible that we don't understand and aren't likely to any time soon. Example: the famous passage Micah 6:8, "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." The word "humbly" is a best-guess. This is the only place in the entire Old Testament where that word appears, and it seems to have some superficial relationship to a word for "humility" so we go with "walk humbly." The translators of the Septuagint thought differently: it reads "do justice, love mercy, and be prepared to walk with your God." Which is right? Is either one right? We have no idea.

For me, that's one of the things that keeps Bible study interesting, and not having all the answers really doesn't give me a problem. Your Mileage May Vary, and that's okay, too.

The problem has to do with the nature of the Bible; not only is it from a completely different era, written in three languages that no longer exist, but it's built on manners and customs that are foreign to us today. That uncertainty is the basis of a lot of differences of opinion.

One thing a lot of folks have trouble facing is the fact that there are actually words and terms in the Bible that we don't understand and aren't likely to any time soon. Example: the famous passage Micah 6:8, "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." The word "humbly" is a best-guess. This is the only place in the entire Old Testament where that word appears, and it seems to have some superficial relationship to a word for "humility" so we go with "walk humbly." The translators of the Septuagint thought differently: it reads "do justice, love mercy, and be prepared to walk with your God." Which is right? Is either one right? We have no idea.

For me, that's one of the things that keeps Bible study interesting, and not having all the answers really doesn't give me a problem. Your Mileage May Vary, and that's okay, too.

Then why bother? How can you discern which “Truth” is correct without an authority that guides you? Do you think God reveals a subjective truth; a sort of one word ‘fits all beliefs’ type thing? You might say, ‘Catholic Truth is for Catholics, the Methodist get another Truth (similar but non-the less different); and then of course Luther gets his Lutheran Truth. Is that the way it works?

JoeT

Then why bother? How can you discern which “Truth” is correct without an authority that guides you? Do you think God reveals a subjective truth; a sort of one word ‘fits all beliefs’ type thing? You might say, ‘Catholic Truth is for Catholics, the Methodist get another Truth (similar but non-the less different); and then of course Luther gets his Lutheran Truth. Is that the way it works?

JoeT

When did I say anything even remotely similar to that?

When did I say anything even remotely similar to that?

When you said, "The problem has to do with the nature of the Bible; not only is it from a completely different era, written in three languages that no longer exist, but it's built on manners and customs that are foreign to us today. That uncertainty is the basis of a lot of differences of opinion." I assumed you meant to say that biblical revelation was a matter of who interprets it.

When you said, "The problem has to do with the nature of the Bible; not only is it from a completely different era, written in three languages that no longer exist, but it's built on manners and customs that are foreign to us today. That uncertainty is the basis of a lot of differences of opinion." I assumed you meant to say that biblical revelation was a matter of who interprets it.

You assumed wrong.

You assumed wrong.

Interesting.

Do you mean that this is the first time I've ever been wrong?

Interesting.

Do you mean that this is the first time I've ever been wrong?

I wouldn't know. I'm not that familiar with you. I can only speak to this instance.

But, you should come to the same conclusions as I do

As long as your conclusions are the truths that God has established, then yes. However, there is always room for error in all of us.

There can be only one truth, and this "everybody can be right" attitude the world has these days is very disappointing from a philosophical standpoint. It seems the quest for the "truth" has lost its roots to selfish desire and the longing to be right.


Scripture must always be in harmony with itself and that of Apostolic Tradition which in turn must be in harmony with scripture and be in harmony with itself. That is to say is that God is not schizophrenic. He doesn’t tell you one thing and me something else.

Agreed...

There is no doubt of the harmony of the word here, and by no means any saying of the law being torn down.

Thank You Joe.

InfoJunkie4Life and Joe,
I agree with both of you on this.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Religiously speaking? I take this to mean in regards to OT law, as has been discussed. Not a socio-political construct that arbitrarily defines liberals as "tolerant" and conservatives as "intolerant" or any other worldly defininition.

On the one hand he is super conservative - they had all these lawful reasons for divorce, but He hates divorce. Lusting is adultery! Hate is murder! Follow me and leave the dead to bury their own? Adulteress forgiven [ not condemned = liberal ] but told to "sin no more" [ back to the law and super conservative here ] I think all to point out that following the law to gain righteousness is basically impossible; and to point out that He is the fulfillment of the law.

On the other He is liberal - that is broke the OT law. Healing on the sabbath, socializing with the unclean - lepers, tax collectors, samaritans, adulterers, women etc.- He tells the one thief that he will see him in heaven! This guy had no time to really repent or be sanctified?

And beyond:

love your enemies
mercy not sacrifice
what is in you is clean or unclean, not what you put in
eat of my flesh and drink of my blood?


So in the end I think he is neither "conservative" [retentive law follower ] or "liberal." [ no need to follow the law ]

He is "unique" as other have stated.
He is the law maker and He fulfills the law. Without the law there is no reason for Him to bother with us. Yet he desires our love and obedience. Confused? So am I, but I'll trust in what He tells us.





G&P

inthebox,
That is well thought out.
Thank you.
I go by my definition of liberal or conservative which many others have. It is not what political parties have made of it in these days.
A conservative is one who wants no changes he/she wants things to remain as they were.
A liberal on the other hand is one who does want some changes and most of them are for betterment of some folks such are good reasonable wages and equal pay for both males and females.
Food of the hungry, shelter for the homeless, healing for the sick are all a part of that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred