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

[leejosepho]

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

1) What is "new" about being obedient to The One who created us?

2) How else might "war and prejudice" ever be completely put away anyway?

 

[kal-el]

1) What is "new" about being obedient to The One who created us?

2) How else might "war and prejudice" ever be completely put away anyway?

What's new about that is the Old Testament times were not love your enemy times. They were eye for eye times. Jesus was attempting to alter that and show everyone how to live fully, without war, without prejudice.

 

[leejosepho]

He didn't condone or promote slavery.

Agreed, and neither did He condemn it, as such. Rather, He simply talked about how slaves should properly act.

 

[leejosepho]

... the Old Testament times were not love your enemy times. They were eye for eye times.

There is an element of truth there, but that statement is far to broad ...

---
"Do not hate your brother in your heart. Reprove your neighbour, for certain, and bear no sin because of him. Do not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people. And you shall love your neighbour as yourself ..." (Leviticus 19:17-18);

"Let the stranger who dwells among you be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself ..." (Leviticus 19:34);

"And do not plot evil in your heart against another ..." (Zechariah 8:17).
---

At the very least, "Love your neighbor" is nothing "new".

 

[kal-el]

There is an element of truth there, but that statement is far to broad ...

---
"Do not hate your brother in your heart. Reprove your neighbour, for certain, and bear no sin because of him. Do not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people. And you shall love your neighbour as yourself ..." (Leviticus 19:17-18);

"Let the stranger who dwells among you be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself ..." (Leviticus 19:34);

"And do not plot evil in your heart against another ..." (Zechariah 8:17).
---

At the very least, "Love your neighbor" is nothing "new".

Yes, in fact the church condradicts the bible's laws. In the Bible, the laws of the OT were given to the nation of Israel only, are opressive and impossible to follow, and are replaced with one commandment and four minor laws. Whereas, the church, they follow whatever laws the leaders of that particular church decide should be inforced. These laws are enforced without any regard to their non-biblical authority.

 

[kal-el]

I should also point out that throughout the ministry of Jesus, 1 important principal was emphasized, love.

Matthew 22:35-39 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Agreed, and neither did He condemn it, as such. Rather, He simply talked about how slaves should properly act.

He did not. He used the example of a servant/master relationship to say something about the relationship of men to God. It was a PARABLE. A STORY.

 

[leejosepho]

Yes, in fact the church condradicts the bible's laws.

You bet, and personally, that is at least one reason I no longer "church"!

In [ancient times], the laws of the OT were given to the nation of Israel only ...

Yes, Abba-Father had to begin somewhere ...

... are opressive and impossible to follow ...

Whoa! Is that ever a blasphemous and heretical Christian spin, eh?!

... and are replaced with one commandment and four minor laws.

No, they are simply summarized in the two you have already mentioned.

Whereas, the church, they follow whatever laws the leaders of that particular church decide should be inforced ...

... with each man doing what seems right in his own mind ...

... without any regard to their non-biblical authority.

"Father, forgive the ones who do not know what they do."

 

[leejosepho]

He did not. He used the example of a servant/master relationship to say something about the relationship of men to God. It was a PARABLE. A STORY.

Please pardon me there. I did not mean for my statement to be exclusive of yours, and neither am I saying mine was His primary point. Rather, He used a day-to-day matter parabolically in the making of His point.

If I might ask: What is your issue here?

 

[Binary_Digit]

He did not. He used the example of a servant/master relationship to say something about the relationship of men to God. It was a PARABLE. A STORY.

Right, it's a parable. So what is Jesus' stance on slavery? The only time he ever mentioned it (at least in the Bible) was in that parable.

If I might ask: What is your issue here?

Someone said Jesus contradicted everything that existed. I only meant to point out something he didn't contradict.

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 ..."?

First, I don't understand how you can read "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division" and assume Jesus did not mean division on earth. Second, I don't know what I said about Bush that you're referring to.

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.

Jesus didn't hurt anyone when he tipped over the table. It was a symbol of disrespect in the Temple, that's why he did it. Not out of violence.

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

In my opinion? Man made those laws and put them in the Bible. But that doesn't matter, God's law is not the only reason, or even the biggest reason why we have laws against murder.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Please pardon me there. I did not mean for my statement to be exclusive of yours, and neither am I saying mine was His primary point. Rather, He used a day-to-day matter parabolically in the making of His point.

If I might ask: What is your issue here?

I don't like how it that particular verse was taken out of context to make it appear that Christ was okay with slavery. I sincerely doubt he was. It is correct that he did not mention it outside of a parabol, but I don't think we can infer from said verse condones slavery.

I'm not even a christian, but I hate it when religious texts are taken out of context and made to suit the views of a particular person or group.

 

[leejosepho]

First, I don't understand how you can read "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division" and assume Jesus did not mean division on earth.

I have not made that assumption ... and also, we might need to clarify what a pacifist means/meant by "division on earth".

Second, I don't know what I said about Bush that you're referring to.

It was not you – it was kal-el who had said:

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 ...

... and I was asking how that might be squared with “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no ...”

 

[leejosepho]

I don't like how it that particular verse was taken out of context to make it appear that Christ was okay with slavery. I sincerely doubt he was. It is correct that he did not mention it outside of a parabol, but I don't think we can infer from said verse condones slavery.

I'm not even a christian, but I hate it when religious texts are taken out of context and made to suit the views of a particular person or group.

Agreed, and thank you for that clarification.

My thinking is that The Messiah was simply expressing no specific thought, opinion or "position" about slavery, itself, while making His own point in either the temporal or eternal sense.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I don't like how it that particular verse was taken out of context to make it appear that Christ was okay with slavery. I sincerely doubt he was. It is correct that he did not mention it outside of a parabol, but I don't think we can infer from said verse condones slavery.

I'm not even a christian, but I hate it when religious texts are taken out of context and made to suit the views of a particular person or group.

You know, I hate it when people do that too. And that's exactly what it looks like to me, when they say that passage is just a "parable" and that Jesus is not really acknowleging slavery as a normal part of life.

It's all about the context. You're right that it's just a parable. The lesson is God will hold people more accountable for sins they knowingly commit, than for sins they don't know are sins. It describes the relationship between man and God. The way things should be.

But the context is also in front of thousands of people. For these listeners, Jesus made the comparison between slavery and worship. The context he presents them in is a positive one. A context that necessarily implies both are normal in the eyes of God. To say Jesus didn't acknowlege slavery as a normal part of life is to say he didn't acknowlege man's relationship with God as a normal part of life either. Jesus is the one who drew that parallel, not me.

 

[Binary_Digit]

But I guess that's off-topic, since we're looking for ways that God and Jesus didn't agree.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

But the context is also in front of thousands of people. For these listeners, Jesus made the comparison between slavery and worship. The context he presents them in is a positive one. A context that necessarily implies both are normal in the eyes of God. To say Jesus didn't acknowlege slavery as a normal part of life is to say he didn't acknowlege man's relationship with God as a normal part of life either. Jesus is the one who drew that parallel, not me.

No, no. Jesus used a relationship they were familiar with symbolize and explain a relationship they were not. It was a comparison.

 

[Binary_Digit]

No, no. Jesus used a relationship they were familiar with symbolize and explain a relationship they were not. It was a comparison.

They weren't familiar with a father-son relationship? What about shephard and sheep? King and citizen? I'm pretty sure there were plenty of other relationships they were familiar with.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

They weren't familiar with a father-son relationship? What about shephard and sheep? King and citizen? I'm pretty sure there were plenty of other relationships they were familiar with.

He was illustrating a certain aspect of the relationship. He didn't want to present God as a father figure or a shepard. He wanted to illustrate a Master and Servant relationship.

 

[Binary_Digit]

He could have made the exact same point using a father-son relationship. "And that son who knew his father's bidding and did not obey would recieve many lashes..."

But he used slavery. This is supposed to be an example of the relationship between God and man. If we had no idea whether slavery was right or wrong, and we turn to this passage for guidance, the only logical conclusion is that slavery is ok. Not because Jesus said outright that it's ok, but that he compared master/slave to God/man. Nevermind that it's only a parable. Look at what represents what. The relationship between master and slave (as it pertains to disobedience) represents the relationship between God and man (as it pertains to sin). To say that one is bad, also says the other is bad. And vise versa. The slave master cannot be a bad person, because he represents God in Jesus' own parable.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

He could have made the exact same point using a father-son relationship. "And that son who knew his father's bidding and did not obey would recieve many lashes..."

Can't you see the difference between a relationship between a father and son in comparison to a relationship between a SERVANT(not slave) and master.

But he used slavery. This is supposed to be an example of the relationship between God and man. If we had no idea whether slavery was right or wrong, and we turn to this passage for guidance, the only logical conclusion is that slavery is ok. Not because Jesus said outright that it's ok, but that he compared master/slave to God/man. Nevermind that it's only a parable. Look at what represents what. The relationship between master and slave (as it pertains to disobedience) represents the relationship between God and man (as it pertains to sin). To say that one is bad, also says the other is bad. And vise versa. The slave master cannot be a bad person, because he represents God in Jesus' own parable.

It's not a parable about right and wrong, good or bad. It's a parable about servitude to God. Nevermind that it's a parable? You have to mind that it's a parable.

The parable about the good Samaritan: Would you say that because of the parable that all Priests and Levites are evil or indifferent? No. They were simply characters in a story.