Does Jesus' teahings conflict with "God's?"

[leejosepho]

I know you didn't - I am. If you can find crazy interpretations, so can I.

How could common sense and clear thinking be a "crazy interpretation"? Crimes bring punishment, there are long-standing systems for imposing that and not everyone is a cop, judge or jailer. Hence, I have no right to (and should not) seek vengence of my own accord ... and when I once did that in a big way many years ago, I was rightly "gaoled" for my crime.

But of course, I readily defend anyone's right to consider, to believe or to even teach that all gaol is somehow wrong even though The Messiah did not, and I am grateful the man who judged and sentenced me showed some mercy.

Also, I don't think it's that difficult to figure out [what is my religion].

Possibly not, but that is of no concern to me unless/until you might show some good reason as to why it should be.

 

[leejosepho]

Christ was a pascifist. I'm sorry I just don't see him sicking peter on anyone for any reason.

---
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Pacifism, noun
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

Pacifist, adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war
---

You might be completely correct there, but the present question was related to "WWJD" about a man with a gun blowing children away ... where "pacifism" is about the specific matter of war and disputes, not the slaughter of children.

So then: Did The Messiah teach against the capital punishment His Father had previously ordered?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

---
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Pacifism, noun
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

Pacifist, adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war
---

You might be completely correct there, but the present question was related to "WWJD" about a man with a gun blowing children away ... where "pacifism" is about the specific matter of war and disputes, not the slaughter of children.

So then: Did The Messiah teach against the capital punishment His Father had previously ordered?

I can't recall him speaking about capital punishment, but if apply what he said about eye for an eye...

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

Does Jesus' teahings conflict with "God's?"

:lol: , I dont know how they could confilct seeing as they are the same person.

God the Father(God)
God the Son(Jesus)
God the Holy Ghost(spirit)

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Re:

:lol: , I dont know how they could confilct seeing as they are the same person.

God the Father(God)
God the Son(Jesus)
God the Holy Ghost(spirit)

Read the passages I mentioned. You'll find my case there.

 

[leejosepho]

I can't recall him speaking about capital punishment, but if [we] apply what he said about eye for an eye...

... we will likely end up drawing a wrong conclusion. At least in principle, The Messiah was simply telling "regular citizens" (not serving as cops, judges and executioners) to not demand capital punishment or whatever else for the sake of personal vengence ... such as when today we see victims in courtrooms spewing anger and hatred and essentially demanding "torture" for those who have committed whatever crimes against them. That, I believe, is what The Messiah was speaking about without ever saying even a single word against the continuation of murderers being put to death for their crime.

 

[9TH]

... we will likely end up drawing a wrong conclusion. At least in principle, The Messiah was simply telling "regular citizens" (not serving as cops, judges and executioners) to not demand capital punishment or whatever else for the sake of personal vengence ... such as when today we see victims in courtrooms spewing anger and hatred and essentially demanding "torture" for those who have committed whatever crimes against them. That, I believe, is what The Messiah was speaking about without ever saying even a single word against the continuation of murderers being put to death for their crime.

So what you're saying is that Jesus' teachings, at least the eye-for-an-eye passages, only apply to "regular citizens" and not to those who rule over them? I must have missed the part where he said to offer your other cheek and then, if you're hit again, call the cops so they can kick the guy's ass. Or the part where he followed "love your enemies" with "but if you see one hurting someone else, ... let the authorities KILL HIM!"

By saying that we will likely reach the wrong conclusion by applying these passages in an attempt to show Jesus' absolute dedication to non-violence, I think you really mean that we wouldn't reach your conclusion.

 

[y not peace?]

Christ was a pascifist. I'm sorry I just don't see him sicking peter on anyone for any reason.

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
someone who agrees with me!

JESUS WAS A PACIFIST...NOBODY CAN honestly AGRUE IT!

 

[kal-el]

Jesus came in to revolutionize everything. He contradicted Everythingthat existed. God gave Moses the barbaric message of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth". Jesus replaced that caveman-esqe message with "Love your enemy".

 

[Binary_Digit]

Jesus came in to revolutionize everything. He contradicted Everythingthat existed.

He didn't contradict slavery. See Luke 12:47-48

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

He didn't contradict slavery. See Luke 12:47-48

That little snipet you mention comes out of a parable. Servants being you and me and master being God. He doesn't mean go buy a black person and beat them if they're not good.

 

[Binary_Digit]

That little snipet you mention comes out of a parable. Servants being you and me and master being God. He doesn't mean go buy a black person and beat them if they're not good.

That may be true about what the master and slaves represent in the parable, but Jesus didn't contradict slavery. In Luke 12 he acknowledged its existance and talked as though it's an acceptable part of life.

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."

Jesus seems to be saying that it's more of a sin to knowingly disobey God's law than to disobey because you didn't know, but both are sins. The problem I have is how he used slavery to make his point. Jesus used the "normal" relationship between master and slave to illustrate the way things should be between God and man. Because of this, it implies that slavery is a "normal" part of life. Imagine if it actually said this:

"And that woman who knew her husband's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."

It's still a parable representing God and man. But it also implies that wife abuse is acceptable, because it is using that to illustrate the way things should be between God and man.

Oh, and Jesus didn't contradict paying taxes either.

 

[leejosepho]

So what you're saying is that Jesus' teachings, at least the eye-for-an-eye passages, only apply to "regular citizens" and not to those who rule over them?

To a point, yes, but no, not completely. Rather, I was trying to say The Messiah's teachings do not eradicate laws like "Thou shalt not murder" and capital or other due punishments.

Maybe I should have been more careful earlier, and maybe this will help now ...

Roman soldiers had a right to demand "regular folks" carry their loads for a mile, and The Messiah taught those folks to voluntarily go another. The matter of a slap on the cheek was also a legal right of some kind when someone had been offended, and The Messiah said the offender should go ahead and accept a second slap also.

I must have missed the part where he said to offer your other cheek and then, if you're hit again, call the cops so they can kick the guy's ass.

He did not say that, but neither did he say the Roman soldier should not be reprimanded by his superiors if he treated a citizen wrongly, and neither did he say homicide should be accepted in the place of a mere slap.

[I must have missed the part] where he followed "love your enemies" with "but if you see one hurting someone else, ... let the authorities KILL HIM!"

How did you miss that? That is precisely how He died.

By saying that we will likely reach the wrong conclusion by applying these passages in an attempt to show Jesus' absolute dedication to non-violence, I think you really mean that we wouldn't reach your conclusion.

No, I meant precisely what I said.

 

[leejosepho]

JESUS WAS A PACIFIST...NOBODY CAN honestly AGRUE IT!

Agreed ... but just be sure you understand that pacifism -- no war to settle conflicts -- does not do away with punishment for sin.

 

[leejosepho]

Jesus came in to revolutionize everything. He contradicted Everythingthat existed. God gave Moses the barbaric message of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth". Jesus replaced that caveman-esqe message with "Love your enemy".

Then are you saying any and every system of criminal justice is now in conflict with The Messiah's teachings?

 

[leejosepho]

He didn't contradict slavery. See Luke 12:47-48

You got it, and oh, some folks are really gonna like this one:

The Messiah did not come to change the world.

 

[leejosepho]

That little snipet you mention comes out of a parable. Servants being you and me and master being God. He doesn't mean go buy a black person and beat them if they're not good.

I could be wrong here, but I believe our concept of "slave" is not exactly the same as the state of the actual slaves about whom The Messiah was speaking. "Indentured servants" might be a bit more accurate, and He taught that they should complete their terms obediently.

 

[kal-el]

Then are you saying any and every system of criminal justice is now in conflict with The Messiah's teachings?

Not entirely, though Jesus is hardly a prospect for a political office. C'mon the OT's "eye for an eye" was taught to be wrong by Jesus and was replaced by "love your enemy". Our President, who claims to read from the bible every morning, somehow missed this most famous message of Jesus, and if he really followed Christ, he would strive to lead the world towards peace and not war.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The Messiah did not come to change the world.

Jesus told us why he was here:

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! "But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three." - Luke 12:49-52

Sounds to me like he intended to change quite a bit...

I could be wrong here, but I believe our concept of "slave" is not exactly the same as the state of the actual slaves about whom The Messiah was speaking. "Indentured servants" might be a bit more accurate, and He taught that they should complete their terms obediently.

We're talking about Roman slavery here. Most were prisoners of war forced into slavery, not indentured servants. I would post a link, but there are literally thousands. It's not hard to verify this with a bit of effort.

Agreed ... but just be sure you understand that pacifism -- no war to settle conflicts -- does not do away with punishment for sin..

Pacifism is non-violence in general, not just anti-war. So a pacifist would also be against violent punishment. I don't understand how your statement applies anyway, because God is the one who punishes for sin. We punish for breaking our own laws, not God's.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

We're talking about Roman slavery here. Most were prisoners of war forced into slavery, not indentured servants. I would post a link, but there are literally thousands. It's not hard to verify this with a bit of effort.

Guys... It was a parable...

 

[Binary_Digit]

Guys... It was a parable...

A parable that acknowledges (Roman) slavery as a normal part of life. See post 37.

 

[kal-el]

You got it, and oh, some folks are really gonna like this one:

The Messiah did not come to change the world.

Actually, Jesus came to inaguarate a new way of living, to put war and prejudice away Completely.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

A parable that acknowledges (Roman) slavery as a normal part of life. See post 37.

Do you know what a parable is? Along time ago when I was in bible school, I was told it was an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. It's a story, THAT ISN'T REAL, with FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. It's like an anecdote or a metaphor. It's just a story.

He told a story using things they were familiar with in order to explain other things...

He didn't condone or promote slavery.

 

[leejosepho]

... are you saying any and every system of criminal justice is now in conflict with The Messiah's teachings?

Not entirely, though Jesus is hardly a prospect for a political office. C'mon the OT's "eye for an eye" was taught to be wrong by Jesus and was replaced by "love your enemy".

Your "not entirely" is a key thought here, although in fact, The Messiah did not do away with any laws at all. Capital punishment still stands, but He has made it clear that one's personal hatred for and seeking vengence against the murderer is not (or will not be, depending upon one's view) acceptable on His watch.

Our President, who claims to read from the bible every morning, somehow missed this most famous message of Jesus, and if he really followed Christ, he would strive to lead the world towards peace and not war.

---
From: "President Declares 'Freedom at War with Fear'"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

THE PRESIDENT:
... Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world. (Applause.)

... The advance of human freedom - the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time - now depends on us. Our nation - this generation - will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. (Applause.)

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal ...
...
Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice - assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.
Thank you. (Applause.)
END 9:41 P.M. EDT
---

The President well understands what is written in Scripture -- see just above -- and "world peace" is not his goal.

 

[leejosepho]

Jesus told us why he was here:

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! "But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three." - Luke 12:49-52

Sounds to me like he intended to change quite a bit...

Yes, but not the world, itself, and I am trying to say that same thing His Father said: He was not sent to condemn it -- not to "do away" with it. Also, how might you attempt to square this statement with what you had said about Bush:

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no ..."?

Pacifism is non-violence in general, not just anti-war. So a pacifist would also be against violent punishment.

As I understand things today, that is a mis-application of pacifism. I suppose we could spend some time discussing what either is, or is not "violent", but even The Messiah was far from "passive" when He cleared the Temple.

I don't understand how your statement applies anyway, because God is the one who punishes for sin. We punish for breaking our own laws, not God's.

Who made the law against murder, and who said the murderer should be put to death?