Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Christianity (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=421)
-   -   Religiously thinking was Jesus a liberal or a conservative? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=467346)

  • May 3, 2010, 09:36 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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
  • May 3, 2010, 09:39 PM
    arcura

    Very interesting posts.
    Thank you.
    Please keep up the good work back and forth.
    Peace and kindness,
    Fred
  • May 3, 2010, 09:45 PM
    kp2171
    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?
  • May 3, 2010, 09:46 PM
    kp2171
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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.
  • May 3, 2010, 09:53 PM
    arcura

    kp2171,
    Thanks for your thoughts on that.
    Peace and kindness,
    Fred
  • May 3, 2010, 09:55 PM
    dwashbur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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."
  • May 3, 2010, 09:56 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kp2171 View Post
    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
  • May 3, 2010, 10:02 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    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
  • May 3, 2010, 10:26 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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
  • May 3, 2010, 11:54 PM
    arcura

    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
  • May 4, 2010, 08:37 AM
    dwashbur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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?
  • May 4, 2010, 02:53 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    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
  • May 4, 2010, 04:05 PM
    dwashbur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    "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.
  • May 4, 2010, 05:45 PM
    TUT317
    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
  • May 4, 2010, 07:39 PM
    InfoJunkie4Life

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT
    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

    Romans 2:6-16

    Romans 2:25-26

    Romans 5:12-15

    1 Corinthians 15:56

    1 Timothy 1:8-11

    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.
  • May 4, 2010, 08:11 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    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
  • May 4, 2010, 08:41 PM
    TUT317
    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
  • May 4, 2010, 09:40 PM
    arcura

    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
  • May 4, 2010, 10:39 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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
    Romans 2:6-16
    Romans 2:25-26
    Romans 5:12-15
    1 Corinthians 15:56
    1 Timothy 1:8-11

    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.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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
  • May 4, 2010, 10:42 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    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
  • May 4, 2010, 10:53 PM
    arcura

    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
  • May 5, 2010, 08:55 AM
    InfoJunkie4Life
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT
    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.
  • May 5, 2010, 02:49 PM
    dwashbur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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?"
  • May 5, 2010, 03:05 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    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
  • May 5, 2010, 06:05 PM
    dwashbur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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!
  • May 5, 2010, 08:42 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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))

    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) )

    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) ). 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
  • May 9, 2010, 02:31 PM
    dwashbur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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.
  • May 9, 2010, 04:17 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    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
  • May 9, 2010, 04:25 PM
    dwashbur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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?
  • May 9, 2010, 04:36 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    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.
  • May 9, 2010, 05:04 PM
    dwashbur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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.
  • May 9, 2010, 05:17 PM
    JoeT777
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
    You assumed wrong.

    Interesting.

    Do you mean that this is the first time I've ever been wrong?
  • May 9, 2010, 06:58 PM
    dwashbur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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.
  • May 9, 2010, 10:26 PM
    InfoJunkie4Life
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
    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.
  • May 11, 2010, 03:44 PM
    arcura

    InfoJunkie4Life and Joe,
    I agree with both of you on this.
    Peace and kindness,
    Fred
  • May 16, 2010, 10:42 AM
    inthebox

    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
  • May 16, 2010, 09:23 PM
    arcura
    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

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:07 AM.