Someone recently stated he knew the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus. That raises an interesting question. How can a person go about establishing those "genuine attitudes"? In other words, what distinguishes genuine attitudes from non-genuine attitudes?
|
Someone recently stated he knew the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus. That raises an interesting question. How can a person go about establishing those "genuine attitudes"? In other words, what distinguishes genuine attitudes from non-genuine attitudes?
The best way to distinguish what Jesus really said from what others say he said is to examine the Gospels.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Matthew says to love your enemy. He also says that hell is a place of eternal punishment for bad guys - that is the traditional position of Matthew on the subject of hell. How can Matthew's Jesus believe in loving your enemy and punishing that enemy with the most horrible of punishments? The two contradict each other.
Many believers deny the contradiction. They will offer arguments that both are possible, but in the end, it's obvious both can't be true.
Which position most represents the attitude of Jesus?
You've answered the question with a question. Do you have an answer?Quote:
Which position most represents the attitude of Jesus?
Perhaps my question was too vague. Aside from a person's own personal assumptions and prejudices, how can a person pick out the genuine from the non-genuine? Why should we accept that the words of Jesus about loving your enemy are the actually genuine words, while the words about judgment are not?
If I offer my enemy a life rope and he refuses it, should I be considered unloving?
An examination of the Gospels shows that Jesus' message was overwhelmingly about compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness. This is true of his parables and the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount and the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Even dying on the cross, Jesus could have summoned legions of angels to save him but instead he asked his father to “forgive them for they know not what they do”.
These attitudes of Jesus far outnumber descriptions like Matthew's Jesus sending people to hell for eternal punishment and they are why the associated passages are genuine.
I don't think that's true. Just in the Sermon on the Mount passage in Mt. 5 alone there are multiple references to hell and judgment. For instance:
There are also a number of verses there that place pretty exacting standards upon our personal behavior, and where Jesus labels some things as "evil".Quote:
20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
21 “You have heard that [k]the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be [l]liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be [m]guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘[n]You good-for-nothing,’ shall be [o]guilty before [p]the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be [q]guilty enough to go into the [r]fiery hell. 23 Therefore if you are presenting your [s]offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your [t]offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your [u]offering.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye makes you [w]stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you [x]to lose one of the parts of your body, [y]than for your whole body to be thrown into [z]hell. 30 If your right hand makes you [aa]stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you [ab]to lose one of the parts of your body, [ac]than for your whole body to go into [ad]hell.
There are literally dozens of places in the Gospels where Jesus references judgment and/or hell. Many of the parables reference a coming judgment. http://blog.adw.org/2017/11/parables...nt-need-ready/Quote:
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who [ae]divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a [af]divorced woman commits adultery.
33 “Again, you have heard that [ag]the ancients were told, ‘[ah]You shall not [ai]make false vows, but shall fulfill your [aj]vows to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or [ak]by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is [al]of evil.
As to the cross, it is evident that only one of the two thieves were saved and assured of a place in paradise with Jesus.
It's possible that your conclusion about the reader having to accept one teaching OR the other is not correct.
Why would Jesus representing God send his own creation to eternal horrific punishment in a fiery hell knowing beforehand that his own creation would become a murderer or an adulterer? It doesn't make sense if you think of God as a loving and just God.
Your idea of God then becomes a monster delighting in the suffering of his creatures. Better for the hell-destined not to have been created in the first place. Yet God, with his perfect foreknowledge that X would go to hell, created X anyway. No, it makes no sense.
And why would Matthew et al. (and even Jesus?) want people to go to hell for everlasting punishment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Where does it say He wants that?Quote:
And why would Matthew et al. (and even Jesus?) want people to go to hell for everlasting punishment?
If God is loving and just, then why would He allow people to live who were going to become murderers and adulterers? Think of all the pain those people have caused. Why didn't God stop that? And how could God be "just" if He just allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity?Quote:
Why would Jesus representing God send his own creation to eternal horrific punishment in a fiery hell knowing beforehand that his own creation would become a murderer or an adulterer? It doesn't make sense if you think of God as a loving and just God.
Because everyone has free will. We make our own choices. Here is Paul's answer to your question from Romans 9. "20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?.' "Quote:
Your idea of God then becomes a monster delighting in the suffering of his creatures. Better for the hell-destined not to have been created in the first place. Yet God, with his perfect foreknowledge that X would go to hell, created X anyway. No, it makes no sense.
You did not reply to the fact that your standard of Jesus using parables and the sermon on the Mount to be, "overwhelmingly about compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness," was, in fact, not true.
WG: And why would Matthew et al. (and even Jesus?) want people to go to hell for everlasting punishment?
JL: Where does it say He wants that?
WG: In many of your posts.
As you yourself said in the same post: "Because everyone has free will. We make our own choices."Quote:
If God is loving and just, then why would He allow people to live who were going to become murderers and adulterers? Think of all the pain those people have caused. Why didn't God stop that? And how could God be "just" if He just allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity?
Totally untrue. And that tactic of yours to just make it up as you go along gets old after a while.Quote:
WG: And why would Matthew et al. (and even Jesus?) want people to go to hell for everlasting punishment?
JL: Where does it say He wants that?
WG: In many of your posts.
And your point is?Quote:
As you yourself said in the same post: "Because everyone has free will. We make our own choices."
You've often quoted Bible verses that speak of the punishment of hell and eternal damnation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And you have free will to descend into insults snd nastiness.
In answer to your "If God is loving and just, then why would He allow people to live who were going to become murderers and adulterers? Think of all the pain those people have caused. Why didn't God stop that? And how could God be "just" if He just allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity?"Quote:
And your point is?
Oh please. You tell a tall tale and then you want to act like you're offended. Good grief. No one offended you and no one was nasty to you.Quote:
And you have free will to descend into insults snd nastiness.
Which was exactly the answer I gave to the point Athos made. Please keep up.Quote:
In answer to your "If God is loving and just, then why would He allow people to live who were going to become murderers and adulterers? Think of all the pain those people have caused. Why didn't God stop that? And how could God be "just" if He just allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity?"
This was entirely inappropriate and uncalled for: "And that tactic of yours to just make it up as you go along gets old after a while."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It was completely called for since it was completely what you had just done. I have never posted that Matthew or anyone else wanted people to go to hell. You just made it up out of whole cloth.Quote:
This was entirely inappropriate and uncalled for: "And that tactic of yours to just make it up as you go along gets old after a while."
But if that's not the case, then show me where I have said that and I will certainly retract my statement.
You've often quoted Matthew 25, specifically:Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Where in there does it say He wants those people to die and go to hell?
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"
Where does it say He WANTS that to happen? Or that "Matthew et al." wanted it to happen? Answer: It doesn't.Quote:
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"
We are getting off topic. I asked how any of you could determine the "genuine attitudes" of Christ such that you could throw out the non-genuine attitudes. The answer Athos gave was shown to be questionable at best. So I'd still like to see any reliable standard that can be applied to determine, objectively, if it is genuine or not.
God has NOT "allowed everyone to break His moral law with impunity". There are consequences for breaking laws - whether God's or not God's. What is being discussed here is the penalty of eternal punishment in hell for law-breakers. No infraction of any law justifies such a drastic punishment. The punishment does not fit the crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nowhere in your quote does Paul say the punishment for "talking back to God" is to spend eternity in a fiery pit.Quote:
We make our own choices. Here is Paul's answer to your question from Romans 9. "20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?.' "
If you will read the Gospels you will find that the qualities I mentioned ARE true. I have never heard anyone deny that except you. Why you are promoting such an untrue position is a mystery.Quote:
You did not reply to the fact that your standard of Jesus using parables and the sermon on the Mount to be, "overwhelmingly about compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness," was, in fact, not true.
Your question was answered. Your objections to a loving and just God have been noted. You may believe what you want. However, my answer was not questionable simply because you say so. Your reasons did not address the question - they only presented a contrary view, which is your right to do but don't expect that view to be accepted because you say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Also noted is that you never addressed the primary point of the creator damning his own creation to eternal punishment. Free will is NOT the answer.
We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen. Why else would write those words? Not everything has to be written down in order to understand the implications - an idea that seems to have escaped you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What is it you were saying earlier about beliefs not equating to evidence? How much less an assumption based, it would seem, on personal preferences?Quote:
We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen. Why else would write those words? Not everything has to be written down in order to understand the implications - an idea that seems to have escaped you.
So my reply remains true. It does not say anyone "wanted" it to happen. In fact I would think that if Jesus really "wanted" people to go to hell, He would simply have not mentioned it. His warning pretty clearly indicates He is advising us to avoid it.
You still need a standard a person can use to distinguish genuine from non-genuine. If, that is, such distinctions should be made to begin with. I think you have an enormous problem in that there is not a manuscript of a NT Gospel which is absent of the statements you consider to be non-genuine. If they were added later, you would have early manuscripts not containing them.
I never said Matthew's words were evidence. You are moving the goalposts. What I DID say was that the assumption (strong) was clearly implied. The assumption is not ("it would seem") based on "personal preferences". It is based on the several reasons I have already given on the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You did not understand my point that not everything has to be written down to be true. That explains why you mistakenly believe that your reply "remains true". That's important for you to understand so you can avoid making the mistake ongoing.Quote:
So my reply remains true. It does not say anyone "wanted" it to happen.
The standard is employing a rational approach to a problem and applying it. That is a common standard.Quote:
You still need a standard a person can use to distinguish genuine from non-genuine.
Of course they can.Quote:
If, that is, such distinctions should be made to begin with.
The problem is not as enormous as you think. There are a number of earlier writings that do not contain later passages. If you carefully examine the Gospels, you will find them. Start your research with Mark. I won't taint your search by leading you to a website. That's for you to discover on your own.Quote:
I think you have an enormous problem in that there is not manuscript of a NT Gospel which is absent of the statements you consider to be non-genuine.
If you demand I provide a link, you will refuse to go to it. If I don't provide a link, you will demand I provide one. So it's best for you to do the research on your own. If you decide not to, that is your privilege.
ALL of the early manuscripts omit passages that are found later in the Gospels. That's how it works. Not until centuries later do we possess complete manuscripts in what has become their final form. I trust that's not news to you.Quote:
If they were added later, you would have early manuscripts not containing them.
Except that your rational approach has already been shown to be not rational.Quote:
The standard is employing a rational approach to a problem and applying it. That is a common standard.
You said, "We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen." That is merely a belief of yours and a weak one at that since there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
First of all, that is basically not true. Secondly, even if it was, the early omissions would have to be the statements you consider to be non-genuine. You have certainly not demonstrated that to be the case at all, nor will you be able to. If it was true, it would be one of the most well-known manuscript facts.Quote:
ALL of the early manuscripts omit passages that are found later in the Gospels.
I have no intention of doing your research for you. But if what you are saying is true, then you will have no problem in documenting it. The passages of the NT that are in question are pretty well known. They include the latter part of Mark 16 and the story of the adulterous woman in John 8. They do not, however, include what you are alleging.
No one, especially you, has shown anything I wrote to be non-rational.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That is what an assumption is - a belief. There is plenty to support the assumption - the passage has already been quoted. Why would the author of Matthew write it if he didn't believe it? You're not making any sense by defending a weak position..Quote:
You said, "We can assume Matthew wanted it to happen." That is merely a belief of yours and a weak one at that since there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
It is decidedly true.Quote:
First of all, that is basically not true.
Not at all. The principle remains the same regardless of the statements employed to demonstrate it.Quote:
the early omissions would have to be the statements you consider to be non-genuine.
I HAVE demonstrated it to be true. It is a simple matter. Your refusal to see the obvious is your privilege.Quote:
You have certainly not demonstrated that to be the case at all, nor will you be able to.
As a matter of definite fact, it IS one of the most well-known facts re the manuscripts. You are denying the obvious. You may have whatever belief you want, but you CANNOT have your own facts.Quote:
If it was true, it would be one of the most well-known manuscript facts.
As I took pains to point out, the needed research is for YOU. And, as I also pointed out - whatever I say, you would say the opposite. That prediction has been right on target!Quote:
I have no intention of doing your research for you.
I don't have any problem documenting it. The point is for YOU to do your work and uncover it yourself. It's not very difficult, but does take some effort, which you are apparently not willing to do. Your response to research remains as it always has. "Tell me and I won't believe you". OR, "Don't tell me and I will demand you document it". You're very predictable.Quote:
But if what you are saying is true, then you will have no problem in documenting it.
Not to you.Quote:
The passages of the NT that are in question are pretty well known.
There is much, much more. Seek and you shall find.Quote:
They include the latter part of Mark 16 and the story of the adulterous woman in John 8. They do not, however, include what you are alleging.
The question was not whether he believed it. The question was whether or not he wanted it to happen. Even you said that. Post 21. There is no evidence at all for that. And please stop copying my comments. Make up your own. The compliment of being imitated, however, is appreciated.Quote:
That is what an assumption is - a belief. There is plenty to support the assumption - the passage has already been quoted. Why would the author of Matthew write it if he didn't believe it? You're not making any sense by defending a weak position..
That's ridiculous. Unless you could demonstrate that your non-genuine statements were missing from the early manuscripts, you would have nothing.Quote:
Not at all. The principle remains the same regardless of the statements employed to demonstrate it.
You have demonstrated nothing to be true.Quote:
I HAVE demonstrated it to be true. It is a simple matter. Your refusal to see the obvious is your privilege.
Your difficulty is you cannot support that statement. It simply is not true that your so called non-genuine statements are missing from the early manuscripts. It's a preposterous idea.Quote:
As a matter of definite fact, it IS one of the most well-known facts re the manuscripts. You are denying the obvious. You may have whatever belief you want, but you CANNOT have your own facts.
Except, of course, that you can't.Quote:
I don't have any problem documenting it.
Of course I did. It was so conclusive you avoided replying to it. Post 4.Quote:
No one, especially you, has shown anything I wrote to be non-rational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This entire post is so repetitive of what has already been said, it's tempting to just skip it.
One thing struck me – after I tried to teach you about proving a negative and that it can't be done, you yourself have used the same argument in another post and yet here again you revert and bring it up once more, again demanding I prove a negative. Apparently, whatever suits you at the moment is grist for your mill.
Two examples:
Unless you could demonstrate that your non-genuine statements were missing from the early manuscripts, you would have nothing.
And
It simply is not true that your so called non-genuine statements are missing from the early manuscripts. It's a preposterous idea.
Kind of blows your comment about imitation, doesn't it?
No idea what your last sentence refers to.
PS – You should never, never talk about evidence. It's another term you use only when it suits you. Talking snakes and comparing them to the resurrection belie your insistence on requiring evidence from others. Speaking about preposterous..... There, I imitated you again. Happy, now?
The silliness above needs no reply other than to say this. People prove negatives all the time. Being asked to produce a manuscript with text missing would certainly demonstrate that the text was not in the original documents. It's done all the time, so I think you don't understand the concept. Besides, providing a manuscript with the statements missing would be positive evidence that the statements are missing. So if a man is accused of slander and the defense produces a video of the conversation in question which proves that the supposed statement did not happen, then they are providing evidence concerning a negative.
To sum up, the question concerned how to distinguish the supposedly genuine attitudes of Jesus from the non-genuine. Here are the arguments put forward in response.
1. It was suggested that in the parables of Christ as well as the sermon on the mount a person sees an overwhelming preponderance of teaching on, "compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness." That was shown clearly to not be true simply by quoting from several places in the Sermon on the Mount where judgment and hell are referred to as well as other topics not pertaining to love and compassion. The same is plainly true of the parables. So that argument fell by the wayside.,
2. Next is the argument, actually first mentioned by me, that if "non-genuine" statements of Christ were added in later centuries, then those statements would be missing from the early manuscripts. That is clearly not the case, so argument 2 bit the dust.
3. A third argument alleged that beliefs in hell and in having a love of your enemy cannot both be true. Now first of all that is nonsense, but even if it wasn't, how would a person know which belief was genuine? Couldn't it be just as possibly true that the teaching on hell was genuine and not the love of enemy?
4. A final argument, and by far the worst, was the suggestion that Jesus and the disciples wanted people to go to hell. Even if it was true, it would not solve the problem of figuring out how to distinguish the genuine from the non-genuine, but it is clearly not true. First of all there is no evidence at all to support that idea. Even worse, the fact that Jesus issued so many warnings plainly indicates He was not willing to stand by and watch that happen without giving warning. In similar fashion, if my wife and I are driving along and see a sign which reads, "Speed Zone Ahead", and I say to her, "Wow! Those state highway people WANT me to get a speeding ticket," she is going to reply, "Don't be stupid. They are WARNING you to slow down so you will NOT get a ticket! If they wanted you to get a ticket, they would not put up the sign." So argument 4, which wasn't pertinent to begin with, also crashes and burns.
Why are hell and eternal damnation often mentioned (by early manuscript scribes?) as the punishment if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?
Are you suggesting they are not the words of Jesus but rather of the early scribes? If that's the case, then you need to provide some serious justification for saying that. That's what this thread is about to begin with.Quote:
Why are hell and eternal damnation often mentioned (by early manuscript scribes?) as the punishment if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?
Why are hell and eternal damnation often mentioned by Jesus as the punishment if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?
It is not for not showing love. It is judgment for sin.Quote:
if one doesn't show love, even to enemies?
I'm glad you do acknowledge it is "often mentioned" by Jesus.
Not showing love is sin. Every sin we commit is because we aren't showing love somehow.
That's not a bad point, but where does pride fit into your principle? Or how about these, and especially the last one? "lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people."Quote:
Every sin we commit is because we aren't showing love somehow.
1. lovers of self - lack of love for others
2. lovers of money - greed, lack of love for others
3. proud - preoccupation with oneself, lack of love for others
4. arrogant - having an exaggerated sense of one's importance, lack of love for others
5. abusive - physically and/or emotionally hurting others, lack of love for others
6. disobedient to their parents - lack of love for one's parents
7. ungrateful - inability to appreciate what others do for you, lack of love for others
8. unholy - sinful in itself, lack of love for others
9. heartless - having no sympathy and/or empathy, lack of love for others
10. unappeasable - inflexible, lack of love for others and their pov
11. slanderous - saying derogatory things about others, lack of love for others
12. without self-control - overindulgent for oneself, lack of love for others
13. brutal - merciless, lack of love for others
14. not loving good - sees only the evil, lack of love for others
15. treacherous - disloyal to and turns against others, lack of love for others
16. reckless - no concern for others' safety and irresponsible, lack of love for others
17. swollen with conceit - in love with oneself, lack of love for others
18. lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - lack of love for others AND God
19. having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power - acting religious and putting on a facade, lacking in love for others
Kind of interesting how you managed to make EVERYTHING end with "lack of love". Still, your point is well taken. Lack of love for others and lack of love for God is the basis of our sin.
John 13:
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Matthew 22:
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Romans 2
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
BTW that was not aimed at you individually.
And what was Paul's (or Barnabas') REAL intent?
John 14:15“If you love me, keep my commands."
And what was the real intent of Jesus?Quote:
And what was Paul's REAL intent?
We can play this silly game a long time. Or I should say "You" can play this game a long time. I have no intention of doing so. It's another of your strategies. Don't like the plain and clear meaning of a text? Just ask what the REAL intent is.
I'm sure you mean no harm. I just don't like games, so I'd rather you talk with others. I find it too frustrating.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM. |