 |
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:30
|
|
Ben - quote: Good question. The "Law" can mean different things depending on the context. Generally, it refers to the Mosaic law, 10 commandments. However, in Matthew 22, it seems to include the first part of the OT, the Pentateuch since the Jews called this portion the 'Law' since it summed up God's commands for good moral conduct. |
But when Jesus issued 2 Commandments, he said the entire law of the prophets was based on these 2 commandments. That would certainly exclude much the OT, especially the punishments for violating the laws issued by earlier prophets. Can you see Jesus executing someone for working on the Sabbath? Yet Moses did just that! And then there's the adulteress he defended. I'm not sure if he would speak against working on the Sabbath, much less punishing violaters, but we know he said adultery was a sin even though we are not qualified to punish adulterers/sinners. His defense of the adulteress really throws a monkey wrench into the OT and those Christians who claim it as their authority to punish sinners.
quote: He does not really get into that beyond my earlier post with the 'least stroke of the pen.' |
Yes, but he wasn't saying the entire OT should be relevant to future Christians, just the law of the prophets and while we don't know exactly which laws he meant, we do have a context - the 2 commandments he gave. If a law of a prophet, or the ascribed punishment for violating said law, contradicts the 2 commandments, then we have a serious problem for Christians. Unfortunately, the majority of Christians will reach back to the OT and ignore Jesus when it comes to what the laws should be...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:30
|
|
Ben - quote: As for the tax rate, Jesus leaves that to the civil authorities to decide what should be a fair rate and asks Christians to respect that rate. |
That's where I have a problem with interpreting what Jesus said about "render unto Caesar". Caesar was using that revenue to murder multitudes and enslave or oppress even more and I find it hard to believe Jesus would have told his followers to fund such evil. Maybe Jesus was just trying to reduce the potential for oppression of his followers, nevertheless, he didn't tell his followers to go out and create a government and "tax" other people to fulfill his wishes. On the contrary, when instructing his disciples, he told them to go to a town and preach the message. If the townspeople invited them in, give them the message, but if they rejected them, go on to the next town.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:30
|
|
Berz:
quote:
there is no indication the suit is unjust, and "forced" or "compelled" to walk a mile doesn't necessarily mean threatened with violence. In fact, it wouldn't make much sense if someone physically compelled another to walk with them. |
You're missing a piece of the puzzle. Roman legions conscripted people to carry their load for them. They could not refuse, and many Jews in Judea complained about the demands of the legionnaires.
quote:
I'm not sure if he would speak against working on the Sabbath, much less punishing violaters, but we know he said adultery was a sin even though we are not qualified to punish adulterers/sinners.
|
Couple of points here. Jesus did speak out on the Sabbath, saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
Mark 5:23-28
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Note, that Jesus cited a precedent from the OT in order to prove his point. There are certain situations in which it is lawful to do work on the Sabbath, one of them being to alleviate hunger.
Secondly, while we are not qualified to judge unbelievers, we are qualified to tell people the word of God, and what counts as sin. All we can say is that, such and such is sin, all those who sin are in need of God's blessing and repentence.
Beyond that, we are to leave to God.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:30
|
|
Ben - But Moses executed a man for collecting firewood on the Sabbath, I just can't see Jesus doing that. While I agree with your (Floyd's too) analysis wrt to a spiritual as opposed to political kingdom, I still have a problem:
quote: Now, you are right that there were many atrocities going on in Caesar's time, or even today with public funding for abortions. Does this mean that Christians are compelled to fund abortions through their taxes. Yes. What it also means is that Christians are to change the laws so that brutal practices are not funded by taxes. |
In those days Christians/Jews didn't get to vote on or abolish immoral laws and policies. And even if they did, if they didn't win then paying taxes would still be funding evil and the Bible condemns this, e.g., do not do business with sorcerers, witches, etc (I don't know the OT passage). This puts Christians in the position of financially supporting slavery and genocide or violating Jesus' teachings - there's something wrong with that interpretation even though it seems to be supported by the text.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|