"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Can we agree that the above meets your subjective, personal criteria to be considered a "Teaching of Jesus"?
One question, one simple answer, nothing else but the simplest and most direct answer will survive moderation.
A second simple question with an equally simple answer.
Can we agree that Jesus was referring to something specific when He referred to the Law and the Prophets?
A third simple question, with an equally simple answer.
Can we agree that by looking at the Greek word translated as Law it is possible to draw some objective conclusions about what Jesus was referring to?
A fourth simple question with an equally simple answer.
Are you suggesting that looking to experts in Biblical Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew for the probable meaning of the term Law is of absolutely no value in determining what Jesus meant?
22 comments:
Does for me!
"Can we agree that the above meets your subjective, personal criteria to be considered a "Teaching of Jesus"? "
Yes. That IS a literal teaching of Jesus.
What do you imagine it means?
Are you simply incapable of answering a simple direct question in a simple direct manner?
What I imagine it means, is irrelevant. What Jesus was trying to communicate, seems more relevant.
Moving on to your second question. ..
"Can we agree that Jesus was referring to something specific when He referred to the Law and the Prophets?"
Yes. The question isn't: Did Jesus mean something specific with His words? The question is: What do you personally think it means in your head for yourself? Or, contrariwise, what do you know that it means with some objective proof?
What I think it clearly means can be understood in the context of the passage. This, coming from the Beatitudes early in Jesus' ministry as it appears in Matthew 5. Jesus is already, this early in his ministry, coming into conflict with the religious legalists, that is the Pharisees.
As Jesus notes towards the end of the passage that you quoted, "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven..." Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees here, contrasting his message of grace with the message of legalism from the Pharisees.
Agreed?
The Law, to Jesus, is, as Jesus said himself, boiled down to "love God and love your neighbor." That is the Law and the point of the Law, according to Jesus.
Agreed?
So then by Jesus making clear that you come to fulfill the law, he comes to be the best representation of God to humanity, letting us know that the point of the law is to love God and love humanity. If you have rules that you are creating that are not of love, not of God, not of love for humanity, then you're misunderstanding the rule.
Agreed?
The Pharisees, we know, tend to be quite good at following the letter of the law as Jesus said. The problem was there was a lack of love for God and humanity in their legalism. Thus their legalism became deadly, not of love or grace but of death and destruction.
Agreed?
Failing to understand the context, the circumstances of Jesus differentiating His message of love and grace with the message of legalism and death in the lack of love or grace of the Pharisees... Failing to understand that, we would fail to understand the passage.
Agreed?
If you don't agree with these then by all means tell me what the passage means to you in your imagination and understanding.
Dan,
Your answer to the question was fine. It's your inability to simply answer a question directly without going off on a tangent. I'm very sorry of the concept is difficult for you to understand or if you simply lack the self control and are unable to restrain your question.
Obviously, that's one comment aborted.
I approved your comment with the answer to the second question. However, your comment with your hunches and additional questions will have to wait for a while before I do anything with it. Again, your inability to control yourself is troubling.
I'm going to leave this for now, as it is instructive as to your inability to follow my requests or control yourself.
Your answer to the question is "Yes", and that is all you needed to say. The fact that you took it upon yourself to go beyond the question asked and to inform me that my question is somehow wrong or invalid speaks volumes about you, your arrogance, and your lack of self control.
Do better next time.
Now you have question #3, let's see if you can answer it without the BS.
"What I think it clearly means can be understood in the context of the passage."
This one sentence in your comment is why I am strongly considering aborting your content.
Your inability to comprehend the simple fact that what you "think it clearly means" is wholly irrelevant to the conversation. The simple reality is that words have meaning regardless of what you "think" they "clearly mean" or what you would like them to mean. Your inability to comprehend that I have no interest in what you "think" when much more objective sources of information exist.
"...Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees here..."
That's funny.
Jesus to the Pharisees: " For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of...yourselves...???"
Dan proves that he cannot answer a "yes" or "no" question without adding his opinions and subjective ideas. One word answer, "yes" or "no," is beyond his ability.
"Your answer to the question was fine. It's your inability to simply answer a question directly without going off on a tangent."
Y'all are weird. I LITERALLY and DIRECTLY answered the exact question with a precise, YES.
Period.
That IS a clear and direct answer.
I then followed up that question with a reasonable question for you... What do you think Jesus meant in this passage.
Men, that is simply conversation... how adults talk and pass on opinions.
You're acting like I've behaved in some weird and unpredictable and uncalled for manner. It's just polite respectful adult conversation.
WHY is it wrong to ask a reasonable on topic question?
Also, Glenn, asking a question is literally not adding an opinion or subjective idea. It's asking a question.
Deeply strange.
Craig...
"Your inability to comprehend the simple fact that what you "think it clearly means" is wholly irrelevant to the conversation."
Really? In a conversation about reading Jesus' words for understanding, what YOU think and what I think Jesus' meaning is, is irrelevant? How insulting to Jesus' teachings! Are you not willing to engage your brain and reason when it comes to studying Jesus' teachings?
Surely you don't mean that. Please explain.
Craig...
"The simple reality is that words have meaning regardless of what you "think" they "clearly mean" or what you would like them to mean. "
Yes, yes they do. And we humans who are reading his words for understanding are obliged to use our brains and reasoning to try to sort out Jesus' meaning, right?
Or, when Jesus commands his followers to not store up treasures on earth, do you take that literally and go empty your bank account?
Of course, we use our reason to understand Jesus' meaning and intent.
We should be a responsible adults, yes?
Dan
That would appear to be the case.
Yes, what you think is irrelevant at this point.
Your theories and hunches might be relevant at some point, but right now I’m hoping for direct scientific answers to specific questions.
The wisdom of my choice to structure this post this way is becoming clearer and clearer as you simply are compelled to insert your hunches into the conversation when they’re not welcome.
Well, I’m hoping to determine what the words actually meant in the context. Unfortunately you are obsessed with inserting what you think they might mean based on your hunches and biases. We can also use the resources compiled by experts instead of your hunches.
This wasn’t supposed to be out of jail yet, but thanks for pointing out the most obvious idiocy.
Congratulations Dan, you’ve managed to stop answering simple direct questions as asked, after a grand total of 2 questions.
I guess it’s more about you imposing your control over this thread than going along with what I’m trying to do.
To answer your third question, just to complete these questions.
"Can we agree that by looking at the Greek word translated as Law it is possible to draw some objective conclusions about what Jesus was referring to?"
No.
We might make reasoned conclusions about what Jesus was referring to but not objectively or authoritatively. We do not have Jesus here to clarify specifically what he meant.
That is a direct answer and it has the benefit of being objectively obvious and clear.
Dan
Dan, you can either do this my way in this specific instance or not, I don't care. But the self serving, self congratulatory, BS is going to get aborted every time.
"Once again, anyone can see that I literally directly answered them. Clearly."
If you would just read my comments when you copy/paste them and take a tiny bit of time to think before you spew, it would be helpful.
I never said you didn't answer the two questions, although you couldn't just answer the questions without adding a bunch of other BS.
That you find my request that you answer simple direct questions, simply and directly too confusing, but need to have that explained to you like a 5 year old and explained to you in your own words, then there really isn't much point.
As if an adult conversation is ever what you are looking for. I'm literally trying to establish a baseline and you are determined to use every excuse possible to make this about you and what you want.
Answer the damn question as asked simply and directly. If you do and we get some sort of baseline agreement, we can go from there.
1 aborted.
Interesting, I guess we'll just have to guess since Jesus isn't here to give us specifics. Heaven forbid we consult experts in Biblical Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew to give us the benefit of their expertise on these topics.
Ooooooooooooo, Dan answered 3 whole questions.
Post a Comment