The Christian Hedge Around the Law

[BluePhantom]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture. It represents the hedge around the Law.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

 

[guno]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Funny that a christian thinks they really KNOW anything about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism,

And about atheists
Survey Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious The Two-Way NPR

 

[DarkFury]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Funny that a christian thinks they really KNOW anything about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism,

And about atheists
Survey Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious The Two-Way NPR

Shut up you Nazi muslim. Reading you is like watching sh8t dry.
A waste of time.

 

[chikenwing]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Funny that a christian thinks they really KNOW anything about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism,

And about atheists
Survey Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious The Two-Way NPR

Like a broken record pathological the only explanation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Except that "what it actually says" in one place is contradicted by "what it actually says" in another place so who is supposed to know which of the "what it actually says" is the right "what it actually says"?



AVG-JOE might want to address this dilemma for us since he has many profound insights IMO.

 

[TrinityPower]

This is directed primarily at sealybobo based on a side conversation on a different thread, but it's an open topic for discussion

In the early 1st Century CE there were four main political parties (so to speak) in Judea. You had the Zealots who were concerned with preserving the royal Davidic line and were pissed that Caesar was calling himself the king over the Promised Land. They were also very militant, what we might call "terrorists" today. You had the Essenes who were concerned with the sanctity of the holy land. They were pissed that the land itself was under pagan occupation. Their solution was to withdraw to communes. There were the Sadducees who were concerned with the Temple and dealing with Rome. Daily life wasn't as important to them. And there were the Pharisees who were concerned with keeping Torah in everyday life.

The Pharisees were very strict because there were things in the Law that were vague. The Law said not to work on the Sabbath, for example. Well what is work? If you are doing something you enjoy but it causes physical exertion is it work? What about cooking? What if you enjoyed cooking? Is that work? So what they did was to build a "hedge around the Law". The hedge represented the loosest possible definition of something and the theory was that if you didn't cross the hedge you would go nowhere near breaking the Law. So as far as cooking, even if you enjoy it, it's better not to take the chance. This is why some Jews do absolutely nothing on Sabbath except sit there and twiddle their thumbs. I have a friend of mine who is Jewish and he tears off toilet paper and stacks it up on Friday morning, because tearing the toilet paper off the roll might be considered work by God.

It's important to understand that the other three parties were not nearly as strict in their interpretations. But after the Second Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisees were all that was left. The Zealots were all dead from the war. Rome had taken an absolute stranglehold on the land and were ruling it far more powerfully than they had before so the Essenes lost their influence. The Temple was destroyed and Hadrian (I think it was) erected a statue of himself on top of its ruins as a sign that it would not be returning. So the Sadducees were out. So the Pharisees were all that survived and with them came their strict interpretations.

In early Christianity after the 1st century, what we had was a bunch of converts to the religion, many of which were converted Jews that were used to Pharisaic interpretations and so the hedge around the Law came with them. When we think of issues like impure thoughts being sinful, masturbation being sinful, or contraception being sinful, etc. These are not things that are supported by much in the way of actual 1st century Christian writings. Most scripture simply refers to "immoral thoughts". Well here we have the same problem as 'what is work'? Now we have 'what is immoral?' Christians in the 2nd century took on the Pharasaic tradition of the hedge around the Law and did the same thing. Anything even remotely considered immoral was the hedge and as long as you didn't cross the hedge, you were safe.

These traditions and interpretations were strengthened by later works such as The Shepherd of Hermas, wherein an impure thought once in your entire life wouldn't just fuck you for all eternity, it would fuck your entire family too. Over the centuries, these books were either not included or were thrown out of the canon and became apocryphal so people stopped reading them, but the traditions associated with them stuck. This is why you will see very conservative Christians today rail about impurity and masturbation and the sinfulness of it all. The problem is the Bible doesn't say that. You may have heard someone say "The Bible says that it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than spill it upon the road....so there" Well guess what? That's not in the Bible. Search for it all you want...it aint there. That is an interpretation from later Church leaders, perhaps centuries later, that developed into tradition, but it is not supported by scripture.

The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Funny that a christian thinks they really KNOW anything about the Hebrew Bible and Judaism,

And about atheists
Survey Atheists Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious The Two-Way NPR

Some Christians do read the whole bible not just the New Testament and to generalize otherwise just makes one look like a clown...point proven

 

[BluePhantom]

But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Except that "what it actually says" in one place is contradicted by "what it actually says" in another place so who is supposed to know which of the "what it actually says" is the right "what it actually says"?



AVG-JOE might want to address this dilemma for us since he has many profound insights IMO.

That is definitely true and that's why it is so important to take individual books of the Bible and allow them to stand on their own. In other words, in Luke and Matthew there are great contradictions regarding the genealogy of Jesus. Which is right and which is wrong? Are either right? They can't BOTH be right. Well the answer is to simply say "according to Luke, this was his ancestral line and according to Matthew that was his ancestral line." It doesn't really matter because each author crafted the genealogy in order to accomplish specific things.

In Matthew, his line is traced in sets of 14 back to Abraham. Every 14 generations something significant happens. 14 generations after Abraham came King David. 14 generations later came the Babylonian exile. Now 14 generations later comes Jesus, the next big thing, the direct descendant of Abraham who is coming in behalf of the Jews.

In Luke, the genealogy traces back to Adam. Why? Because in Luke-Acts Jesus is depicted as coming for all mankind and not just the Jews. So it is traced back to Adam to show that he is the direct descendant of Adam who has come for the good of mankind as a whole.

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

 

[TrinityPower]

But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says.

Except that "what it actually says" in one place is contradicted by "what it actually says" in another place so who is supposed to know which of the "what it actually says" is the right "what it actually says"?



AVG-JOE might want to address this dilemma for us since he has many profound insights IMO.

That is definitely true and that's why it is so important to take individual books of the Bible and allow them to stand on their own. In other words, in Luke and Matthew there are great contradictions regarding the genealogy of Jesus. Which is right and which is wrong? Are either right? They can't BOTH be right. Well the answer is to simply say "according to Luke, this was his ancestral line and according to Matthew that was his ancestral line." It doesn't really matter because each author crafted the genealogy in order to accomplish specific things.

In Matthew, his line is traced in sets of 14 back to Abraham. Every 14 generations something significant happens. 14 generations after Abraham came King David. 14 generations later came the Babylonian exile. Now 14 generations later comes Jesus, the next big thing, the direct descendant of Abraham who is coming in behalf of the Jews.

In Luke, the genealogy traces back to Adam. Why? Because in Luke-Acts Jesus is depicted as coming for all mankind and not just the Jews. So it is traced back to Adam to show that he is the direct descendant of Adam who has come for the good of mankind as a whole.

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

I agree and to be honest I have recently read 1 Chronicles 1-8 and the listing even up to that point is considerably extensive and that only lists heads of houses and noble mentions so to speak. I see it as the two accounts in Luke and Matthew as likely taken from two different family tree sources.and possible both correct. Not for me to say. It sure is a lot of ancestors to sort through.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Hmmm!

So let's see if we can decipher the theological point in this contradiction by the same author.

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Both statements are Matthew quoting Jesus. In one we have Jesus saying calling someone a fool means going to hell and in the other we see Jesus calling people fools.



Serious mixed message going on there WRT to the immortal soul of Jesus and it's ultimate destination from a theological point of view.

 

[BluePhantom]

Some Christians do read the whole bible not just the New Testament and to generalize otherwise just makes one look like a clown...point proven

First of all, Christians should be ashamed of themselves for those results. Only 50% of Christians can identify the four gospels? That's embarrassing. On the other hand, the survey isn't quite fair because it focuses on world religions largely from a historical perspective. All people of faith have a tendency to focus more on their own religion than others so if you ask a Christian a question about Islam (or vice versa) they usually won't know. Why would they? It's not their faith and they are busy studying their own beliefs and not the beliefs of others. Because atheists are not centered on a particular religion their interest tends to be more diverse, especially when considering questions of a historical nature so they are more likely to have a varied knowledge.

Now...ask the average atheist to explain off the top of their heads the Pauline Doctrine of Justification Through Faith and the vast majority wouldn't know what the hell you were talking about. Just the other day we saw an atheist claiming that the story of Lot's daughters supports incest. I will give him credit that he actually believed that, but it's a great example of someone not knowing what the hell they are talking about.

Still.....only 50% of Christians able to identify the four gospels? That's a disgrace

 

[HaShev]

" many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about. I can forgive that because they are not Christian so why would they care? But there are a lot of Christians who don't know either and that's a big problem. It seems to me that if one views the Bible as the inspired word of God and wishes to follow it accurately, they might want to find out what it actually says".

Take this a step further using that same standard and premise:
Christians do not read the OT using the Hebrew Tanakh, they read a manipulated and changed form in the NT. They do not understand biblical era use ofwords and it's context. They do not understand the Tanakh, they selectively are taught the OT out of context, & they don't know Hebrew.
If they did know the Tanakh then they would not be Christians in the first place.

Botched Transliteration butchers understanding or recognition as well.
It's why the Bible says the name would be blotted out of the Bible because the brilliant scholars all translated names to english definitions while taking Hebrew words with definition of roles and creating them into new personas through turning those term roles into names thus creating figures from mere terminology.
Like I said without a central source (main temple)that reaches, teaches, fixes, confirms then you have no pointing out of errors or verifications and validations.
Build the Temple in the name and it will be all sorted out.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Still.....only 50% of Christians able to identify the four gospels? That's a disgrace

Gospel of Matt Damon
Gospel of Mark Twain
Gospel of Luke Skywalker
Gospel of John Lennon

 

[TrinityPower]

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Hmmm!

So let's see if we can decipher the theological point in this contradiction by the same author.

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Both statements are Matthew quoting Jesus. In one we have Jesus saying calling someone a fool means going to hell and in the other we see Jesus calling people fools.



Serious mixed message going on there WRT to the immortal soul of Jesus and it's ultimate destination from a theological point of view.

Matthew 5:22 is talking about getting right with yourself and God before bringing your offering to God. It is saying if you harbor ill toward your brother by calling him names it is you who will have ill will in your heart and be apart from God's best. Matthew 23:17 is saying essentially don't be a ding dong and misunderstand. Seriously...take a few verses before and after the few words you quote and the meaning is quite clear

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BLUEPHANTOM SAID:

“The point is that many atheists don't understand what the Bible really says and what it is talking about.”

And many more persons free from faith perfectly understand what the bible really says and what it is talking about, just as well as many Christians, in some cases more so; where many Christians don't understand what the bible really says and what it is talking about – rendering your 'point' invalid.

Indeed, the vast majority of those free from faith were subject to Christian indoctrination, or the indoctrination of some other faith, where with a comprehensive understanding of that religious doctrine and dogma, they were able to realize the truth that the bible is the creation of man, along with all other religions, including 'god' as perceived by theists.

Consequently the premise of your thread fails, your errant notion that being free from faith is the result of 'ignorance' of Christianity, where that's clearly not the case.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Hmmm!

So let's see if we can decipher the theological point in this contradiction by the same author.

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Both statements are Matthew quoting Jesus. In one we have Jesus saying calling someone a fool means going to hell and in the other we see Jesus calling people fools.



Serious mixed message going on there WRT to the immortal soul of Jesus and it's ultimate destination from a theological point of view.

Matthew 5:22 is talking about getting right with yourself and God before bringing your offering to God. It is saying if you harbor ill toward your brother by calling him names it is you who will have ill will in your heart and be apart from God's best. Matthew 23:17 is saying essentially don't be a ding dong and misunderstand. Seriously...take a few verses before and after the few words you quote and the meaning is quite clear

Understood, but now you are crossing the line by saying that you must take the contextual word of God as opposed to the literal word of God.

There are a great many who believe only the literal word of God can be believed because it is too easy to change the context to suit whatever you want it to be. And to be fair, there are more than enough examples of people exploiting the bible for that very purpose by coming up with their own contextual interpretations.

 

[BluePhantom]

So the best thing to do is avoid fretting about those contradictions and simply realize that one source says one thing and another source says something else. Usually, it's because the author is trying to make a theological point

Hmmm!

So let's see if we can decipher the theological point in this contradiction by the same author.

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Both statements are Matthew quoting Jesus. In one we have Jesus saying calling someone a fool means going to hell and in the other we see Jesus calling people fools.



Serious mixed message going on there WRT to the immortal soul of Jesus and it's ultimate destination from a theological point of view.

Ok hold on. First, Jesus is not saying they are going to hell. He uses the term "geennan" (or Gehenna) which was not a place of eternal torment. It was the city dump of Jerusalem where the trash was burned. People who were banished from the city either went into the desert (where they died) or had to live in Gehenna.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat5.pdf


But it does seem interesting that he would condemn calling someone a fool one place and then does it Himself later. huh? Both are variants of the word mOre, but in Matthew 5 it is linked to the Hebrew word Raca (which means about the same as the Spanish word 'pendejo') and in Matthew it is linked to 'tuphlo' which means 'blind...in the sense of unable to comprehend' specifically toward the Pharisees who, according to Jesus, lack understanding. So in one, Matthew 5, He is saying you should not call someone "a stupid mother fucker who is so God damned stupid that they can't see shit flying straight at them" and in the other He is scolding the Pharisees telling them they don't know what they are talking about and it would really be better if they just shut up. One is a direct curse and the other is just saying 'sigh...what a dip-shit'.

I see your point though. I definately see your point

 

[BluePhantom]

Consequently the premise of your thread fails, your errant notion that being free from faith is the result of 'ignorance' of Christianity, where that's clearly not the case.

I never said that. I never said anything like that. I never said anything even remotely close to that.

 

[BluePhantom]

And many more persons free from faith perfectly understand what the bible really says and what it is talking about, just as well as many Christians, in some cases more so; where many Christians don't understand what the bible really says and what it is talking about – rendering your 'point' invalid.

Indeed, the vast majority of those free from faith were subject to Christian indoctrination, or the indoctrination of some other faith, where with a comprehensive understanding of that religious doctrine and dogma, they were able to realize the truth that the bible is the creation of man, along with all other religions, including 'god' as perceived by theists.

Usually those who engage in the indoctrination of others are radicals who have a very shallow understanding themselves. When one is the target of indoctrination they are having stuff hammered into them, but that doesn't mean that what is being preached is accurate. A friend of mine grew up as a firm believer in God and Jesus. He left the church completely because his pastor told him that rock music and rollerskating was evil, among other things. This pastor pounded this aggressively and attempted to indoctrinate his followers according to his views. Now that pastor was a nut. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything like what this jack-ass was preaching. Yet my friend still thinks the Bible is full of shit because it has a problem with AC/DC. I, personally, have searched scripture thoroughly and I have yet find where it says not to listen to Angus and Malcolm.

Shit like that is very common. There are a lot of people who turned away from faith, not because they disagreed with what the Bible actually says, but because they got pounded on by some religious nut who didn't know himself what the Bible says. Granted there are others that understand completely and just disagree, but those who were victims of indoctrination probably never got the real story in the first place.

 

[BluePhantom]

Understood, but now you are crossing the line by saying that you must take the contextual word of God as opposed to the literal word of God.

I won't speak for Trinity, but it has always been my view that the Bible should not be read literally.

There are a great many who believe only the literal word of God can be believed because it is too easy to change the context to suit whatever you want it to be. And to be fair, there are more than enough examples of people exploiting the bible for that very purpose by coming up with their own contextual interpretations.

And that is a problem and that is why I endorse scholarship as a means to enhance faith. We cannot possibly understand what is written unless we put it into the proper cultural, historical, and linguistic context and there are two ways to gain that knowledge. a) quit your job and become a full time Bible scholar, b) read what scholarship has to say and cross-reference it with a faith-based point of view. It's much harder to tell someone that the Bible says X when they understand the language it was written in, they know the history of what was happening at the time and what the text is referring to, and they know the cultural implications of what certain things meant to certain people at certain times in history.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And of course the OP represents the arrogance common to many Christians, to be so presumptuous as to propagate the ridiculous lie that to be free from faith is to be 'ignorant' of Christianity – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.