The Sermon on the Mount

[Hobbit]

I see a lot of people quoting a lot of verses from the Sermon on the Mount, most of them in ignorance. Without a true understanding of the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, anything quoted from that sermon is meaningless and invokes false doctrine.

With an in-depth study on the Sermon on the Mount, one soon realizes one major teaching of the sermon, and that is that the rules will not save you. Anyone who looks at the Sermon on the Mount and sees another series of rules (typically in an attempt to vilify Christians as hypocrites) has missed the point entirely. Much like some people today, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus, most especially the Pharisee and Sadducee sects, saw religion as a series of rules and believed that they could save themselves through strict adherence to the letter of the law. One of Christ's main messages he gave at the Sermon on the Mount is that the letter of the law is unimportant, and that it is merely an expression of the spirit behind the law, the underlying attitudes that the law expressed.

When Christ said that if a man strikes you on one cheek that you should turn the other cheek to him, he did not mean that you should take a stance of total pacifism and allow others to walk all over you. Instead, it was a message against pure retribution. Yes, sometimes, you have to hit the guy back, but don't do it because you want to 'get even,' but because it is just and necessary. At the time, many people, when wronged by somebody, would seek 'justice' out of a sense of retribution, rather than justice, and the point of that statement was to tell people of the underlying attitude behind the law that one should not seek retribution, but to instead seek justice when it was necessary and show love to all other human beings, which goes along with what he says later in the same section that if a man sues you for your robe, to give him you coat, and if you are compelled to walk one mile, walk two.

When Christ stated that if you hate somebody, you have murdered him in your heart, and that if you lust after a woman, you have committed adultery in your heart, the point was to show that while the law told you not to kill or commit adultery, the spirit behind the law was that you should love your fellow man and respect women and the sacrament of marriage. It was also a message that no man is perfect. Along those same lines, he stated that a man who divorces his wife for any reason other that sexual infidelity and then remarries commits adultery. Much like the rule of turning the other cheek, this is not another rule to follow. Instead, it addresses a common problem of the time (which is also a major problem NOW) where men would divorce because they found somebody they liked more. This 'rule' dealt with that, impressing upon the people the underlying attitude of marriage laws, namely, that marriage was meant to be a lifelong spiritual covenant, not broken lightly, rather than simply a legal agreement that allowed the two to have sex.

Another bit of the sermon that people tend to misinterpret is when Jesus said that if your hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off, because it's better to lose a hand than go to Hell. Then he said it again, only with the eye. This, yet again, isn't another rule that can't really be followed. Instead, it addresses the saying where people blamed their sin on the body part 'responsible,' with such excuses as 'my hands just couldn't help themselves,' or 'my eyes wandered,' or 'I just couldn't control my hormones.' When faced with this saying, it not only impresses the urgency of the sin problem (losing a hand or an eye is less serious than sin), but to force people to accept the fact that their hands and eyes weren't the source of sin, only its tools, and that a person was wholly responsible for all their sin. Your hand doesn't cause you to sin, YOU cause you to sin, etc.

I'd like to address more, but I have stuff to do. Hopefully, this helps.

[PostmodernProphet]

excellent....but I couldn't rep you.....

[darin]

Hobbit, you nailed it. Perfectly. If I could rep you twice, I would.

[Nukeman]

Hobbit, you nailed it. Perfectly. If I could rep you twice, I would.
Took care of that for you D!:cheers2:

[Hagbard Celine]

Can you give an example of a situation in which one could use the Sermon on the Mount to make Christians look like hypocrites?

[JohnDoe]

I see a lot of people quoting a lot of verses from the Sermon on the Mount, most of them in ignorance. Without a true understanding of the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, anything quoted from that sermon is meaningless and invokes false doctrine.

Such as.....? or How so...?

With an in-depth study on the Sermon on the Mount, one soon realizes one major teaching of the sermon, and that is that the rules will not save you. Anyone who looks at the Sermon on the Mount and sees another series of rules (typically in an attempt to vilify Christians as hypocrites) has missed the point entirely. Much like some people today, many of the Jews in the time of Jesus, most especially the Pharisee and Sadducee sects, saw religion as a series of rules and believed that they could save themselves through strict adherence to the letter of the law. One of Christ's main messages he gave at the Sermon on the Mount is that the letter of the law is unimportant, and that it is merely an expression of the spirit behind the law, the underlying attitudes that the law expressed.

Again, please explain this more.... From my reading of the Sermon of the mount Christ said that NOT ONE LETTER OF THE LAW was being abolished by him....?

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

When Christ said that if a man strikes you on one cheek that you should turn the other cheek to him, he did not mean that you should take a stance of total pacifism and allow others to walk all over you. Instead, it was a message against pure retribution. Yes, sometimes, you have to hit the guy back, but don't do it because you want to 'get even,' but because it is just and necessary. At the time, many people, when wronged by somebody, would seek 'justice' out of a sense of retribution, rather than justice, and the point of that statement was to tell people of the underlying attitude behind the law that one should not seek retribution, but to instead seek justice when it was necessary and show love to all other human beings, which goes along with what he says later in the same section that if a man sues you for your robe, to give him you coat, and if you are compelled to walk one mile, walk two.


Revenge is forbidden because it multiplies evils a hundredfold. The Christian should "overcome evil with good". Jesus condemns the legalized Jewish custom of "an eye for an eye" (which probably means only an eye for an eye), and commands the Christian to tolerate the insult if his enemy smites his right cheek. The Christian should tolerate such humiliation because of his firm faith in God's command; he sacrifices his ego and pride with the intention of winning his enemy to Christ, making him his friend and creating in him a belief in Christ on whose commandment he is a servant.

Christian love is unique in the Gospel. Its root is absolute dedication to God's Will, from which the believer receives the power and grace not to forget his enemy but to forgive him and remember hope that some day he will win his enemy to Christ. This needs a deep understanding of sacrifice enriched and nourished ceaselessly by the grace of God. In fact, it is not the faithful one alone who forgives and loves his enemy, but also God Almighty Who has shielded His servant to convey His love and sacrifice for his enemy. Love of intimate friends and relatives is commonplace. What God expects from His believers is love for people who are either opposed to them or who are without qualities of attraction.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7110.asp

When Christ stated that if you hate somebody, you have murdered him in your heart, and that if you lust after a woman, you have committed adultery in your heart, the point was to show that while the law told you not to kill or commit adultery, the spirit behind the law was that you should love your fellow man and respect women and the sacrament of marriage. It was also a message that no man is perfect. Along those same lines, he stated that a man who divorces his wife for any reason other that sexual infidelity and then remarries commits adultery. Much like the rule of turning the other cheek, this is not another rule to follow. Instead, it addresses a common problem of the time (which is also a major problem NOW) where men would divorce because they found somebody they liked more. This 'rule' dealt with that, impressing upon the people the underlying attitude of marriage laws, namely, that marriage was meant to be a lifelong spiritual covenant, not broken lightly, rather than simply a legal agreement that allowed the two to have sex.


Adultery was a weakness of the people of the past and still remains as such among the people of the Christian era. In the past, customs and laws legalized adultery and fornication through polygamy. Solomon with many "wives" was not committing adultery. Jesus stated that adultery is sinful, not only through the actual sexual act, but even through the thought of lust.

Jesus condemns adultery in the heart. The illustration of plucking the eye is not to be taken literally; neither the illustration of cutting off the right hand. These illustrations suggest the uprooting of evil thoughts from one's heart. In Christian ethics, the only legal and sacred relation between man and women is their union in wedlock. Every other sex relation and practice is against the principles of the Gospel.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7110.asp

Another bit of the sermon that people tend to misinterpret is when Jesus said that if your hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off, because it's better to lose a hand than go to Hell. Then he said it again, only with the eye. This, yet again, isn't another rule that can't really be followed. Instead, it addresses the saying where people blamed their sin on the body part 'responsible,' with such excuses as 'my hands just couldn't help themselves,' or 'my eyes wandered,' or 'I just couldn't control my hormones.' When faced with this saying, it not only impresses the urgency of the sin problem (losing a hand or an eye is less serious than sin), but to force people to accept the fact that their hands and eyes weren't the source of sin, only its tools, and that a person was wholly responsible for all their sin. Your hand doesn't cause you to sin, YOU cause you to sin, etc.

I'd like to address more, but I have stuff to do. Hopefully, this helps.


Throughout the New Testament, the right relation of one man to another is stressed and guided not only in its external function but especially from within the heart and mind of the Christian. Any degree of hostility, any hidden thought of envy would be the great separator between the believer and God. The Christian should learn that with the grace of God he should build more bridges of communication with his neighbor, rather than construct fences of protection. A Christian is not expected to be a saint without mar of sin, but he is one who is struggling with himself to avoid the violations of God's Will and striving to overflow with the quality of Christian love which is attainable by sacrifice of pleasures, pride and riches. The Christian has no enemies; does not seek revenge; does not stop praying for people whose hearts are not yet cultivated and watered by the grace of God.


I don't see how the Sermon on the mount can be used to make any Christian a Hypocrite....?

We are to follow the Sermon on the Mount AND what Jesus was teaching....? Not as a means to Salvation, but to be closer with God and what God would like from us....


Christian love is unique in the Gospel. Its root is absolute dedication to God's Will, from which the believer receives the power and grace not to forget his enemy but to forgive him and remember hope that some day he will win his enemy to Christ. This needs a deep understanding of sacrifice enriched and nourished ceaselessly by the grace of God. In fact, it is not the faithful one alone who forgives and loves his enemy, but also God Almighty Who has shielded His servant to convey His love and sacrifice for his enemy. Love of intimate friends and relatives is commonplace. What God expects from His believers is love for people who are either opposed to them or who are without qualities of attraction.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7110.asp

[PostmodernProphet]

Can you give an example of a situation in which one could use the Sermon on the Mount to make Christians look like hypocrites?

I have seen it done many times....for example "I thought Christians were supposed to turn the other cheek!"

[JohnDoe]

I have seen it done many times....for example "I thought Christians were supposed to turn the other cheek!"

Well...... aren't they suppose to turn the other cheek, try to win over non believers to God?

jd

[Abbey Marie]

Excellent, Hobbit. Thanks for taking the time to explain, knowing full well that certain people will try to pick it apart. Rep for you.

[JohnDoe]

hobbit, do you have any links that support your analysis of the sermon on the mount that you can share....you mentioned some research of yours? Maybe this will clarify what you are trying to say, to those of us that don't understand your end all point regarding it?

For example.....are you saying non believers accuse you of not being ''saved'' because you are a sinner and fail at doing what Christ/God asked of us in the sermon on the mount...?

or are they labling Christians that fail in following God's will ''hypocrites'' because they fail?

or are you saying that Christians should IGNORE what Christ says on the sermon on the mount because none of it really means what it actually says?

please fill me in...

ty

jd

jd

[darin]

hobbit, do you have any links that support your analysis of the sermon on the mount that you can share....you mentioned some research of yours? Maybe this will clarify what you are trying to say, to those of us that don't understand your end all point regarding it?

For example.....are you saying non believers accuse you of not being ''saved'' because you are a sinner and fail at doing what Christ/God asked of us in the sermon on the mount...?

or are they labling Christians that fail in following God's will ''hypocrites'' because they fail?

or are you saying that Christians should IGNORE what Christ says on the sermon on the mount because none of it really means what it actually says?

please fill me in...

ty

jd

jd

Links?? Wha? Read his analysis. Decide for yourself, woman. :)

You need - CHRISTIANS need - to apply 'context' to what they read. When one removes something from context, they betray the intent of the author. Forgetting that fact is a bad thing.

[PostmodernProphet]

Well...... aren't they suppose to turn the other cheek, try to win over non believers to God?

jd

Christ wasn't saying this is the standard against which we were measured, he was showing those who thought they could be saved by adherence to the law that it was an impossibility.....

the standard he gave us is to love our neighbors as ourselves....

[JohnDoe]

Christ wasn't saying this is the standard against which we were measured, he was showing those who thought they could be saved by adherence to the law that it was an impossibility.....

the standard he gave us is to love our neighbors as ourselves....can you point to scripture in the sermon on the mount that states such....that those were not standards that Jesus himself wanted us to follow and were not standards that God willed for us?

and how precisely do you see the sermon on the mount different from the standard of loving thy neighbor as thyself?

i understand that we all fall short of the glory of God and I understand that this is why we need the shed blood of Jesus Christ to "save" us...

What I don't understand is how all of you seem to think that Christ was talking out his rear end at the Sermon he gave on the mount and all that He asked of us was just simply "hot air flatuance" and He really didn't mean a Word he said that day....

which is the impression that I believe most of you are giving out....

Am I just reading this wrong?

jd

[crin63]

I see a lot of people quoting a lot of verses from the Sermon on the Mount, most of them in ignorance. Without a true understanding of the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, anything quoted from that sermon is meaningless and invokes false doctrine.

Along those same lines, he stated that a man who divorces his wife for any reason other that sexual infidelity and then remarries commits adultery. Much like the rule of turning the other cheek, this is not another rule to follow. Instead, it addresses a common problem of the time (which is also a major problem NOW) where men would divorce because they found somebody they liked more. This 'rule' dealt with that, impressing upon the people the underlying attitude of marriage laws, namely, that marriage was meant to be a lifelong spiritual covenant, not broken lightly, rather than simply a legal agreement that allowed the two to have sex.


I agree in principle with what you're saying. I'm not looking for a simple reason for divorce, I'm just saying that it is not necessarily sinful and there are circumstances which allow it but its never preferred over keeping the marriage covenant.

One of the worst things that ever happened to this country is, "no fault divorce". It immediately devalued marriage and undermined the family unit.

[Dilloduck]

I agree in principle with what you're saying. I'm not looking for a simple reason for divorce, I'm just saying that it is not necessarily sinful and there are circumstances which allow it but its never preferred over keeping the marriage covenant.

One of the worst things that ever happened to this country is, "no fault divorce". It immediately devalued marriage and undermined the family unit.

I think that religions hijacked the natural way men and women relate to each other.

[Dilloduck]

can you point to scripture in the sermon on the mount that states such....that those were not standards that Jesus himself wanted us to follow and were not standards that God willed for us?

and how precisely do you see the sermon on the mount different from the standard of loving thy neighbor as thyself?

i understand that we all fall short of the glory of God and I understand that this is why we need the shed blood of Jesus Christ to "save" us...

What I don't understand is how all of you seem to think that Christ was talking out his rear end at the Sermon he gave on the mount and all that He asked of us was just simply "hot air flatuance" and He really didn't mean a Word he said that day....

which is the impression that I believe most of you are giving out....

Am I just reading this wrong?

jd

yes

[crin63]

I think that religions hijacked the natural way men and women relate to each other.

Hows that? Please explain.

[Dilloduck]

Hows that? Please explain.

Why do men and women need any kind of instruction on how to relate to each other?

[LOki]

Ceiling Cat iz liek "no buttsecks!!1!1 bad kittehz!"
but im liek "wtf? im in ur brain, watching u think about it"
if ur eye sins, scratch it out with ur claws, or uz betr off in trashcan, srsly.
if ur paw sins, bite it off, or uz betr off in trashcan, srsly.



Ceiling Cat iz liek "i 4 i, fnag 4 fang"
but im liek if bad kittehz spank u, turn otehr cheek
if bad kittehz take ur fir, give ur tail 2 41 if dogs chase u 1 mile, run 2


lolcat (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Matthew_5)

[Hobbit]

JohnDoe, you completely missed the point of the Sermon with your comments thus far. No, Jesus was not there to overwrite the law or eliminate it, but to reveal the underlying attitudes that are expressed by the law and show that adherence to the law wasn't enough for salvation.

As for it being used to call Christians hypocrites, how many times have you heard 'turning the other cheek' being used by outrageously liberal morons to try to bludgeon Christians into being anti-war? I've also seen endless bludgeoning of Christian churches for sanctioning the marriages of divorced persons. I also don't see any part of what I said that implied Jesus didn't mean what he said. He meant every word, just not the way shallow, legalistic readers interpret it to mean. It's not a list of rules or laws that must be followed, but instead a revelation of what the law represents and that what it represents is the underlying truth of the law, and that the law is not everything.

[JohnDoe]

JohnDoe, you completely missed the point of the Sermon with your comments thus far. No, Jesus was not there to overwrite the law or eliminate it, but to reveal the underlying attitudes that are expressed by the law and show that adherence to the law wasn't enough for salvation.

As for it being used to call Christians hypocrites, how many times have you heard 'turning the other cheek' being used by outrageously liberal morons to try to bludgeon Christians into being anti-war? I've also seen endless bludgeoning of Christian churches for sanctioning the marriages of divorced persons. I also don't see any part of what I said that implied Jesus didn't mean what he said. He meant every word, just not the way shallow, legalistic readers interpret it to mean. It's not a list of rules or laws that must be followed, but instead a revelation of what the law represents and that what it represents is the underlying truth of the law, and that the law is not everything.

TY Hobbit....this time, i've understood you....well said.

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

can you point to scripture in the sermon on the mount that states such....that those were not standards that Jesus himself wanted us to follow and were not standards that God willed for us?

and how precisely do you see the sermon on the mount different from the standard of loving thy neighbor as thyself?

i understand that we all fall short of the glory of God and I understand that this is why we need the shed blood of Jesus Christ to "save" us...

What I don't understand is how all of you seem to think that Christ was talking out his rear end at the Sermon he gave on the mount and all that He asked of us was just simply "hot air flatuance" and He really didn't mean a Word he said that day....

which is the impression that I believe most of you are giving out....

Am I just reading this wrong?

jd

you are definitely reading our posts wrong....nobody here has said Christ was talking out his rear end, though several have said that the interpretation of many regarding what he said is wrong.......I think the opening post did an excellent job of spelling out what the Sermon is about, I don't think I could or need to add too much to that....

[Roomy]

It never ceases to amaze me how ones own interpretation of the bible is always the correct interpretation and how easy it is to interpret it in such a way as to make your lifestyle just and proper.

[darin]

It never ceases to amaze me how one can be so afraid of the truth they refuse to interpret anything from the Bible.

[Roomy]

It never ceases to amaze me how one can be so afraid of the truth they refuse to interpret anything from the Bible.


One can study the bible and appreciate the lessons and interpret it in ones own way without believing it is the word of God or that Jesus was the son of God, do you not agree?

[darin]

If one reads and studies the bible and appreciates the lessons I find it hard to think they'll reach any conclusion BUT Christ's divinity.

[PostmodernProphet]

One can study the bible and appreciate the lessons and interpret it in ones own way without believing it is the word of God or that Jesus was the son of God, do you not agree?


it strikes me that you increase the odds that the lessons will be misinterpreted and misused if the persons doing the interpreting believe there is no God or that what is being interpreted isn't communication from Him....

[Roomy]

it strikes me that you increase the odds that the lessons will be misinterpreted and misused if the persons doing the interpreting believe there is no God or that what is being interpreted isn't communication from Him....

Life lessons and codes of conduct and morality have little room for misinterpretation, whether one believes in God or not.

[PostmodernProphet]

Life lessons and codes of conduct and morality have little room for misinterpretation, whether one believes in God or not.

I think we just proved that wrong with the Sermon on the Mount.....

[Yurt]

It never ceases to amaze me how ones own interpretation of the bible is always the correct interpretation and how easy it is to interpret it in such a way as to make your lifestyle just and proper.

who has done this here? who has said that because of my interpretation of the bible, my lifestyle is just? what i thought has been said is that, our "lifestyle" may not be just, however, by faith and continued growth in Christ, "we are justified" through Him. do you see the big difference?

[midcan5]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." JKG


I'm not sure what to make of Hobbit's strange, almost un-Christian interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me like a apology for any type of behavior as if things can mean this or that, how does that differ from flip flop morals. Jesus's remarks are more about the reality of life, I personally see it a sort of Obama speech for change as it is clear life is not just about following rules but also following your heart and doing the right thing even when it is uncomfortable or differs from the status quo. Maybe it was the time I grew up in or the difference in Catholic theology but I see the Sermon as way out there, pretty radical, yet dealing with hard human stuff.

http://ncrcafe.org/node/1193

Love your enemy..."We can never talk about this commandment enough. For me, it sums up Christianity. If we do this, we will obey Jesus fully, because it encompasses everything -- reflecting God's universal love, working for disarmament, seeking justice for the poor, practicing forgiveness, living in hope and trusting in the God of peace. I've long considered it the most radical, political, revolutionary words ever uttered. And by and large, for the last thousand years at least, we've done our best to avoid them and disobey them."

[Dilloduck]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." JKG


I'm not sure what to make of Hobbit's strange, almost un-Christian interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me like a apology for any type of behavior as if things can mean this or that, how does that differ from flip flop morals. Jesus's remarks are more about the reality of life, I personally see it a sort of Obama speech for change as it is clear life is not just about following rules but also following your heart and doing the right thing even when it is uncomfortable or differs from the status quo. Maybe it was the time I grew up in or the difference in Catholic theology but I see the Sermon as way out there, pretty radical, yet dealing with hard human stuff.

http://ncrcafe.org/node/1193

Love your enemy..."We can never talk about this commandment enough. For me, it sums up Christianity. If we do this, we will obey Jesus fully, because it encompasses everything -- reflecting God's universal love, working for disarmament, seeking justice for the poor, practicing forgiveness, living in hope and trusting in the God of peace. I've long considered it the most radical, political, revolutionary words ever uttered. And by and large, for the last thousand years at least, we've done our best to avoid them and disobey them."

Since the biggest enemy you will probably ever face is yourself, loving your enemy makes pretty good sense.

[Roomy]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." JKG


I'm not sure what to make of Hobbit's strange, almost un-Christian interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me like a apology for any type of behavior as if things can mean this or that, how does that differ from flip flop morals. Jesus's remarks are more about the reality of life, I personally see it a sort of Obama speech for change as it is clear life is not just about following rules but also following your heart and doing the right thing even when it is uncomfortable or differs from the status quo. Maybe it was the time I grew up in or the difference in Catholic theology but I see the Sermon as way out there, pretty radical, yet dealing with hard human stuff.

http://ncrcafe.org/node/1193

Love your enemy..."We can never talk about this commandment enough. For me, it sums up Christianity. If we do this, we will obey Jesus fully, because it encompasses everything -- reflecting God's universal love, working for disarmament, seeking justice for the poor, practicing forgiveness, living in hope and trusting in the God of peace. I've long considered it the most radical, political, revolutionary words ever uttered. And by and large, for the last thousand years at least, we've done our best to avoid them and disobey them."


I agree wholeheartedly, he was a visionary, he was a great politician, he was a danger to the establishment, he was murdered, he was a man.

[Roomy]

who has done this here? who has said that because of my interpretation of the bible, my lifestyle is just? what i thought has been said is that, our "lifestyle" may not be just, however, by faith and continued growth in Christ, "we are justified" through Him. do you see the big difference?

I can see once again, how personal interpretations justify behaviour.

[Hobbit]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." JKG


I'm not sure what to make of Hobbit's strange, almost un-Christian interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me like a apology for any type of behavior as if things can mean this or that, how does that differ from flip flop morals. Jesus's remarks are more about the reality of life, I personally see it a sort of Obama speech for change as it is clear life is not just about following rules but also following your heart and doing the right thing even when it is uncomfortable or differs from the status quo. Maybe it was the time I grew up in or the difference in Catholic theology but I see the Sermon as way out there, pretty radical, yet dealing with hard human stuff.

http://ncrcafe.org/node/1193

Love your enemy..."We can never talk about this commandment enough. For me, it sums up Christianity. If we do this, we will obey Jesus fully, because it encompasses everything -- reflecting God's universal love, working for disarmament, seeking justice for the poor, practicing forgiveness, living in hope and trusting in the God of peace. I've long considered it the most radical, political, revolutionary words ever uttered. And by and large, for the last thousand years at least, we've done our best to avoid them and disobey them."

What part of my analysis of the Sermon on the Mount went against anything you just said about it? I said the point was not that you shouldn't murder or commit adultery, as some people saw it because that's all the law said. Instead, the point was to...drum roll...love your fellow man, even your enemies. The point is that the underlying attitude the law represents is that you should love and respect your fellow man, not that all these new laws should be added onto the books. Anybody who sees the Sermon on the Mount as yet another list of rules has missed the point, and either you didn't really read my post, or you are deliberately misinterpreting its meaning in order to, as I pointed out was a common practice in the first post, use misinterpreted scripture as a bludgeon to get me to agree with you by claiming that not doing so agreeing with you was un-Christian.


I agree wholeheartedly, he was a visionary, he was a great politician, he was a danger to the establishment, he was murdered, he was a man.

Those beliefs are incompatible. Jesus claimed that he was the Son of God and the Messiah. That leaves you with three choices:

1) Jesus was a madman with delusions of divinity.
2) Jesus was a liar who played upon prophecy and superstition to gain popularity and credibility.
3) Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God and the Messiah.

There is no 'He was a great man, but just a man,' option. If you claim that Jesus was just a man, then you claim he was a liar or crazy, plain as that.

[Yurt]

I can see once again, how personal interpretations justify behaviour.

what behavior? (behaviour LOL english) you should go back and re-read what i posted, clearly you missed the boat....further, what i posted is from romans, have you read it? if not, you should before you critique what i say

:)

[Yurt]

Those beliefs are incompatible. Jesus claimed that he was the Son of God and the Messiah. That leaves you with three choices:

1) Jesus was a madman with delusions of divinity.
2) Jesus was a liar who played upon prophecy and superstition to gain popularity and credibility.
3) Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God and the Messiah.

There is no 'He was a great man, but just a man,' option. If you claim that Jesus was just a man, then you claim he was a liar or crazy, plain as that.

i agree, however, there are those that say that the words of Jesus were altered and the claims of divinity (if any) are manufactured

[Roomy]

What part of my analysis of the Sermon on the Mount went against anything you just said about it? I said the point was not that you shouldn't murder or commit adultery, as some people saw it because that's all the law said. Instead, the point was to...drum roll...love your fellow man, even your enemies. The point is that the underlying attitude the law represents is that you should love and respect your fellow man, not that all these new laws should be added onto the books. Anybody who sees the Sermon on the Mount as yet another list of rules has missed the point, and either you didn't really read my post, or you are deliberately misinterpreting its meaning in order to, as I pointed out was a common practice in the first post, use misinterpreted scripture as a bludgeon to get me to agree with you by claiming that not doing so agreeing with you was un-Christian.



Those beliefs are incompatible. Jesus claimed that he was the Son of God and the Messiah. That leaves you with three choices:

1) Jesus was a madman with delusions of divinity.
2) Jesus was a liar who played upon prophecy and superstition to gain popularity and credibility.
3) Jesus was, in fact, the Son of God and the Messiah.

There is no 'He was a great man, but just a man,' option. If you claim that Jesus was just a man, then you claim he was a liar or crazy, plain as that.

Link please, I don't remember him claiming to be the 'literal' son of God or the messiah?

[Yurt]

Link please, I don't remember him claiming to be the 'literal' son of God or the messiah?

if you have seen me, you have seen the father... for starters

[Roomy]

if you have seen me, you have seen the father... for starters


What are you trying to say that means?Please quote the entire passage instead of cherry picking.You know full well he never made such claims, he was ambiguous in his claim others made assumptions.

[Roomy]

what behavior? (behaviour LOL english) you should go back and re-read what i posted, clearly you missed the boat....further, what i posted is from romans, have you read it? if not, you should before you critique what i say

:)
And you should link to your sources otherwise it looks like plageuirism when you reveal it's source later, furthemore when posted out of context it reads like bullshit.

:cool:

[Yurt]

And you should link to your sources otherwise it looks like plageuirism when you reveal it's source later, furthemore when posted out of context it reads like bullshit.

:cool:

my sources? i always do, what are you blathering about? out of context? do you know what the quote button is for? i have no idea what you are talking french fry.

[Roomy]

my sources? i always do, what are you blathering about? out of context? do you know what the quote button is for? i have no idea what you are talking french fry.

If so I apologise, we must be cross referencing different posts, carry on doofus:laugh2:

I am still waiting for those links.

[PostmodernProphet]

Link please, I don't remember him claiming to be the 'literal' son of God or the messiah?

several times, actually....

John 10
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 8
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

this in a culture where the words "I am" were never spoken or even written out in the sacred texts, because it was the name of God..... in the Hebrew scriptures the letters YHWH were substituted for God's name.....


Exodus 3
3 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

[Yurt]

If so I apologise, we must be cross referencing different posts, carry on doofus:laugh2:

I am still waiting for those links.

what links genius? you bald drunk donkey, i already asked you WHAT you are talking about cheesecake

:laugh2:

[midcan5]

What part of my analysis of the Sermon on the Mount went against anything you just said about it? I said the point was not that you shouldn't murder or commit adultery, as some people saw it because that's all the law said. Instead, the point was to...drum roll...love your fellow man, even your enemies. The point is that the underlying attitude the law represents is that you should love and respect your fellow man, not that all these new laws should be added onto the books. Anybody who sees the Sermon on the Mount as yet another list of rules has missed the point, and either you didn't really read my post, or you are deliberately misinterpreting its meaning in order to, as I pointed out was a common practice in the first post, use misinterpreted scripture as a bludgeon to get me to agree with you by claiming that not doing so agreeing with you was un-Christian.

Maybe I read more into it, sorry.

[Hagbard Celine]

The Sermon on the Mizzie.
http://www.bigpawsonly.com/dog-images/snoop-dogg.jpg

Sorry, that popped into my head and I couldn't resist.

[Roomy]

several times, actually....

John 10
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 8
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

this in a culture where the words "I am" were never spoken or even written out in the sacred texts, because it was the name of God..... in the Hebrew scriptures the letters YHWH were substituted for God's name.....


Exodus 3
3 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

I seem to remember Jesus telling the jews "you are all gods, you are all sons of the almighty" or something to that effect.So he never claims sole rights for that position of favour.
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
I take this to mean that although Abraham is of great importance to you, remember, God was before Abraham.

[Hobbit]

I seem to remember Jesus telling the jews "you are all gods, you are all sons of the almighty" or something to that effect.So he never claims sole rights for that position of favour.

I'd like a book, chapter, and verse on that.

[Roomy]

I'd like a book, chapter, and verse on that.http://scriptures.lds.org/ps/82/6

Apparently God himself said it.

[PostmodernProphet]

I seem to remember Jesus telling the jews "you are all gods, you are all sons of the almighty" or something to that effect.So he never claims sole rights for that position of favour.
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
I take this to mean that although Abraham is of great importance to you, remember, God was before Abraham.
Interesting that the people he said it to didn't take it the same way.....rather, their reaction was to pick up stones and try to kill him for claiming to be God....if your interpretation were correct wouldn't they have said "oh yeah, he's just like the rest of us"......

[Abbey Marie]

Interesting that the people he said it to didn't take it the same way.....rather, their reaction was to pick up stones and try to kill him for claiming to be God....if your interpretation were correct wouldn't they have said "oh yeah, he's just like the rest of us"......

And:

1Timothy 3:16


16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[Roomy]

Interesting that the people he said it to didn't take it the same way.....rather, their reaction was to pick up stones and try to kill him for claiming to be God....if your interpretation were correct wouldn't they have said "oh yeah, he's just like the rest of us"......

No, they knew he was a danger to the establishment.

[gabosaurus]

Jesus was the most prominent radical and liberal of his time. What he preached was totally anti-establishment.
If Jesus appeared today with the same type of ideas, Fox News would crucify him.

[Roomy]

And:

1Timothy 3:16


http://www.bible-researcher.com/alexandrinus4.html

[Roomy]

http://www.bible-researcher.com/alexandrinus4.html


It takes on a whole new meaning.

[gabosaurus]

Roomy, I remember this quote from the English media not too long ago:

"England couldn't win the World Cup with Jesus at striker" :p

[PostmodernProphet]

No, they knew he was a danger to the establishment.
then why did they say "you, a mere mortal, claim to be God"?.......why didn't they say "You are a threat to the establishment"?.......

[5stringJeff]

Jesus was the most prominent radical and liberal of his time. What he preached was totally anti-establishment.
If Jesus appeared today with the same type of ideas, Fox News would crucify him.

Jesus was anti-establishment, but not for the sake of being anti-establishment, as you seem to imply. He preached God's message of salvation. And what Fox News has to do with that is beyond me.

[Roomy]

then why did they say "you, a mere mortal, claim to be God"?.......why didn't they say "You are a threat to the establishment"?.......

Like you, I wasn't there to ask them.:cool:

[PostmodernProphet]

well, despite not being there, I think it is logical to conclude, since they said "you claim to be God" that he did in fact claim to be God....even if they used that as an excuse to nail him for other reasons........that in itself should satisfy your original question about whether he ever claimed to be God.....after all, if he hadn't, logically his response would have been something along the lines of "What?....Me?.....What you smokin' dude!"........

[PostmodernProphet]

It takes on a whole new meaning.

actually, it doesn't take on a different meaning.....the most accurate manuscripts we have available now do use "he" and that is the way it is translated in the New International Version.....however, you still need to identify who the "he" is that was "manifested in the flesh" and the only "he" who is identified in the pericope is θεος - God...the words Jesus or Christ do not appear in that section......so whether you translate it as "God manifested in the flesh" or "he manifested in the flesh" you still end up with the same meaning.....

please note that your source does not argue there is a difference in meaning....

[Abbey Marie]

:)
actually, it doesn't take on a different meaning.....the most accurate manuscripts we have available now do use "he" and that is the way it is translated in the New International Version.....however, you still need to identify who the "he" is that was "manifested in the flesh" and the only "he" who is identified in the pericope is θεος - God...the words Jesus or Christ do not appear in that section......so whether you translate it as "God manifested in the flesh" or "he manifested in the flesh" you still end up with the same meaning.....

please note that your source does not argue there is a difference in meaning....

Thanks for taking the time to post, pmp.

[Yurt]

Jesus was the most prominent radical and liberal of his time. What he preached was totally anti-establishment.
If Jesus appeared today with the same type of ideas, Fox News would crucify him.

name one thing

[Roomy]

actually, it doesn't take on a different meaning.....the most accurate manuscripts we have available now do use "he" and that is the way it is translated in the New International Version.....however, you still need to identify who the "he" is that was "manifested in the flesh" and the only "he" who is identified in the pericope is θεος - God...the words Jesus or Christ do not appear in that section......so whether you translate it as "God manifested in the flesh" or "he manifested in the flesh" you still end up with the same meaning.....

please note that your source does not argue there is a difference in meaning....

My source doesn't need to argue the difference, it is plain to see, to me at least.
Do you understand and agree that they were trying to have him killed? The accusations and the defamation are what it was all about.Jesus was very careful when quoting their own scriptures back at them, pointing out their inconsitencies and hypocrisies, he was always ambiguous in his answers, leaving the conclusions to others, the trouble is, they wanted him dead so they heared and wrote what they wanted to.Do you think a court stenographer followed the man around 24/7 ?

[Roomy]

This is very interesting, please take the time to read it.


http://www.bibletruthkeys.com/bible_translated.htm

[PostmodernProphet]

My source doesn't need to argue the difference, it is plain to see, to me at least.
Do you understand and agree that they were trying to have him killed? The accusations and the defamation are what it was all about.Jesus was very careful when quoting their own scriptures back at them, pointing out their inconsitencies and hypocrisies, he was always ambiguous in his answers, leaving the conclusions to others, the trouble is, they wanted him dead so they heared and wrote what they wanted to.Do you think a court stenographer followed the man around 24/7 ?
What is plain to you?.....

I Timothy 3:14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

how do you construe that passage to say that "he" refers to someone besides God?.....if he were only talking about a human named Jesus what would have been significant about the fact that he appeared "in a body"?.....don't all people appear in a body"....no, it was significant that a deity appeared in a body.....

As far as accusations go, isn't it more effective if you accuse someone of something which is credible?......if I were to accuse you of brilliance, nobody would believe me......if I were to accuse Jesus of claiming to be God and no one had ever heard him do it, nobody would believe me.....

and no, I don't think John was a court stenographer, but I do think he followed him around 24/7......

[Roomy]

As far as accusations go, isn't it more effective if you accuse someone of something which is credible?......if I were to accuse you of brilliance, nobody would believe me......if I were to accuse Jesus of claiming to be God and no one had ever heard him do it, nobody would believe me.....



Here we go again, it all boils down to this, insults, from one so high and mighty as well.You have fucked up the entire thread now as far as I am concerned, so fuck you.:pee: I hope to return the favour some time soon.:fu::fu::laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

shucks, Roomy....you have to admit your argument doesn't have legs.....one might even say it has never manifested itself in the flesh.....I haven't fucked up the thread, I have merely fucked up your argument....

[Roomy]

shucks, Roomy....you have to admit your argument doesn't have legs.....one might even say it has never manifested itself in the flesh.....I haven't fucked up the thread, I have merely fucked up your argument....


It wasn't an argument you dimwitted moron it was a matter of interpretation, you see it one way, I see it another, I never attacked you personally, I left that to you, now I retaliate in kind, the thread is fucked:laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

I am afraid I will have to go with Roomy on this one. Obviously, he is an expert on mounting. :p