Did Jesus practice what he preached?

[Jagella]

According to Matthew 5:22 (NRSV) Jesus tells us:

...if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.

Yet he says exactly that in Matthew 23:17 (NRSV)

You blind fools!

And in Matthew 5:39 (NRSV) we are told:

But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also...

In John 18:23 (NRSV) Jesus is struck. Did he turn and offer the other cheek?

Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?�

No, he didn't!

Question for Debate: Why didn't Jesus take his own advice?

[1213]

According to Matthew 5:22 (NRSV) Jesus tells us:

...if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.

Yet he says exactly that in Matthew 23:17 (NRSV)

You blind fools!

If we look the whole Matthew 5:22, it says:

But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca ["Raca" is an Aramaic insult, related to the word for "empty" and conveying the idea of empty-headedness.]!' shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna
Matthew 5:22

There is the “…without cause…� and “…in danger…�. I think Jesus had right cause and therefore I don’t think he has to worry about hell.

But I wonder, why you need to cherry pick like that? If Bible, Jesus and God are wrong, I would assume you wouldn’t need this kind of stuff.

And in Matthew 5:39 (NRSV) we are told:

But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also...

In John 18:23 (NRSV) Jesus is struck. Did he turn and offer the other cheek?

Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?�

No, he didn't!

Question for Debate: Why didn't Jesus take his own advice?

That doesn’t tell Jesus didn’t turn his other cheek and more importantly, he didn’t hit the one who hit him. It tells Jesus asked why.

[Avoice]

Notice he gets others to break the law but he doesn't. He didnt pluck corn on the Sabbath. But condoned his disciples doing it. Oh yeah, he loved them alright. Not much he did. If he really loved them he would have told them not to do it

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Spiritual axioms are not absolute. They are often best practice, but each situation has its own set of details and need not be acted apon in a reflexive manner.
You practice what is necessary when its necessary.
I would say that analyzed as a whole, Jesus walked the talk.

[Jagella]

If we look the whole Matthew 5:22, it says:

But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca ["Raca" is an Aramaic insult, related to the word for "empty" and conveying the idea of empty-headedness.]!' shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna
Matthew 5:22

There is the “…without cause…� and “…in danger…�. I think Jesus had right cause and therefore I don’t think he has to worry about hell.

I never cease to be amazed at what Christian apologists come up with! I'm afraid your apologetic here won't work, however, amazing or not. The "without a cause" stipulation applies only to being angry with one's brother and not to calling somebody a fool. If you call somebody a "fool," having a cause or not having a cause, you are in danger of Jesus' Father of the Sky tossing you into his furnace. Since Jesus called the Pharisees fools, he was in danger of going to his own hell.

But I wonder, why you need to cherry pick like that?

I'm reading your Bible, and I'm finding a lot of nonsense in it. Would you prefer I not read the Bible? If people read the Bible and come up with conclusions about what it says that upsets you, then maybe you should encourage people not to read the Bible. Tell them that if they do read it and repeat what they've read, then you may become very "angry with your brother"!

If Bible, Jesus and God are wrong, I would assume you wouldn’t need this kind of stuff.

Again, I'm getting "this kind of stuff" from the Bible. So allow me to offer another suggestion: tell people that yes, they should read the Bible, but they should be very careful when reading it because it is very easy to misunderstand it. Offer to guide them with your own "correct" interpretation.

And in Matthew 5:39 (NRSV) we are told:

But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also...

In John 18:23 (NRSV) Jesus is struck. Did he turn and offer the other cheek?

Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?�

No, he didn't!

That doesn’t tell Jesus didn’t turn his other cheek and more importantly, he didn’t hit the one who hit him. It tells Jesus asked why.

Again, I'm just going on what I'm reading in your Bible. Since John 18:23 does not mention Jesus "turning the other cheek" after being struck, I conclude that he didn't turn the other cheek. If Jesus did turn the other cheek offering to be struck again, then John should have reported it.

So what is it here? Did Jesus fail to practice what he preached, or is John leaving out very important details from his story demonstrating his incompetence as a historian?

[Jagella]

Notice he gets others to break the law but he doesn't. He didnt pluck corn on the Sabbath. But condoned his disciples doing it. Oh yeah, he loved them alright. Not much he did. If he really loved them he would have told them not to do it

In other words, Jesus endangered his disciples while keeping himself safe.

Doesn't it seem odd that Jesus never bothered to explain just what his Father Of The Sky meant by "keep the sabbath holy"? How to keep the sabbath was obviously an issue with the Pharisees so you think Jesus would have clarified that issue for them.

[1213]

Notice he gets others to break the law but he doesn't. He didnt pluck corn on the Sabbath. But condoned his disciples doing it. ...

Please tell, where is that told in the Bible?

[1213]

Would you prefer I not read the Bible?

I would prefer that you read the whole book and don’t cut away parts that you don’t like.

… it is very easy to misunderstand it. ...

Especially if one ignores parts that explain what was said. Any book can be difficult to understand, if half of all sentences would be cut of.

…John 18:23 does not mention Jesus "turning the other cheek" after being struck, I conclude that he didn't turn the other cheek. …

Why? You could as well conclude he did turn the other cheek, because that is what he taught.

[Jagella]

I would prefer that you read the whole book and don’t cut away parts that you don’t like.

May I add that we should not assume from the start that the Bible says or does not say something we want it to say? In the context of this discussion I think we should read the gospel to see if Jesus acted consistently with his morality. We should not assume before we read it that he was not and could not have been hypocritical.

Do you agree with this approach to reading the Bible?

Another good question to ask: can you accept that Jesus may have been a hypocrite, or do you by faith insist that he was perfect?

… it is very easy to misunderstand it. ...

Especially if one ignores parts that explain what was said. Any book can be difficult to understand, if half of all sentences would be cut of.

I admitted that I can misunderstand parts of the Bible. Can you admit that you can misunderstand parts of the Bible? If not, then you are making yourself out to be a god of sorts--1213, the god of Biblical understanding!

In any case, I never deliberately ignore any parts of the Bible, but I freely admit that there are many parts of the Bible I might not take into consideration when trying to make a point about it. The Bible is an enormous work, and I doubt if anybody can completely understand it or know it. So if people are misunderstanding the Bible or are ignorant of what it says, then that's more of a problem with the Bible than with its readers.

…John 18:23 does not mention Jesus "turning the other cheek" after being struck, I conclude that he didn't turn the other cheek. …

Why? You could as well conclude he did turn the other cheek, because that is what he taught.

I already addressed this issue in Post 5. I noticed that you did not answer my question there: did Jesus fail to practice what he preached, or is John leaving out very important details from his story demonstrating his incompetence as a historian? It's not hard for me to see why you didn't answer this question because if you did, then you would need to admit that either Jesus is a hypocrite or John fouled up his report of Jesus before the high priest.

So frankly, 1213, I can see that you have difficulties reading what I've posted on this thread. You ignore much of what I've posted and have refused to answer at least one very important question I asked you. If you read the Bible anything like you've read my posts, then I can see how you might misunderstand what it says.

[1213]

….
Another good question to ask: can you accept that Jesus may have been a hypocrite, or do you by faith insist that he was perfect?

I think everyone is innocent, until proven guilty. I have no reason to think Jesus was hypocrite.

I admitted that I can misunderstand parts of the Bible. Can you admit that you can misunderstand parts of the Bible?

I can misunderstand things.

In any case, I never deliberately ignore any parts of the Bible, but I freely admit that there are many parts of the Bible I might not take into consideration when trying to make a point about it. The Bible is an enormous work, and I doubt if anybody can completely understand it or know it.

Yeah, but I think usually it would be good to look at least whole sentences or paragraphs, when they are connected and explain the matter.

I already addressed this issue in Post 5. I noticed that you did not answer my question there: did Jesus fail to practice what he preached, or is John leaving out very important details from his story demonstrating his incompetence as a historian?

Firstly, I am sure Bible has only small part of all that happened in the time of Jesus. It would be enormous work to write every single detail that happened then. Luckily, I think it is not necessary to have everything written in the Bible. I think there is all that is important. For example, the teaching “turn another cheek� is good to have. If Jesus would not have done that, I think it would have been recorded, because it would be weird. Actually, if Jesus would not have lived as he preached, I think we would not even have the Bible.

To me it is obvious that Jesus lived as he preached. That is why I also understand if obvious things are not written in the Bible. However, I understand also that because everything is not confirmed, you can believe whatever you want. I don’t believe that Jesus was hypocrite, because no evidence for that.

If you think John is incompetent historian, because didn’t write everything, then I accept that as your opinion. I think John did good work. Only if Jesus would have not turned other cheek, and John would not have told it, I think it would be bad. But if John didn’t report obvious matters, I think it is not a problem.