Out of context...really..

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

So recently I did a presentation for my philosophy class. I decided to debate whether religion (in particular Christianity) should be taught to children. So I set up the best possible arguments from both sides. On the athiest/secular side I quoted this verse as proof that the old testament laws (as brutal as they are) will not be removed or ignored...thus Christianity in particular (religion as a definition is too general) cannot be moral.

Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I could not believe my instructor's response..."that verse is out of context.".

My instructor in PHILOSOPHY happens to have a degree in divinity and theology...

Biased much? Unqualified? I think so!

Which leads me to this video...

Enjoy!

[ThatGirlAgain]

So recently I did a presentation for my philosophy class. I decided to debate whether religion (in particular Christianity) should be taught to children. So I set up the best possible arguments from both sides. On the athiest/secular side I quoted this verse as proof that the old testament laws (as brutal as they are) will not be removed or ignored...thus Christianity in particular (religion as a definition is too general) cannot be moral.

Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I could not believe my instructor's response..."that verse is out of context.".

My instructor in PHILOSOPHY happens to have a degree in divinity and theology...

Biased much? Unqualified? I think so!

Which leads me to this video...

Enjoy!

My Catholic school religion teacher had a better answer. Jesus was talking to a Jewish audience, who would be bound by Jewish Law. Followers of Jesus did not have to be Jewish, as Paul tells us, but they could be. Someplace in Paul it mentions Jewish Jesus followers continuing to follow Jewish rituals and customs. This not being a debate forum I am not going to track it down but it is in fact someplace in Paul.

This is not necessarily a good answer if you dig into it. But it does what Catholic answers generally do: Knock the ball back into your court.

[McCulloch]

Theology is a subset of philosophy. It is the branch of philosophy about god and things to do with god. Therefore, I suggest that the prof is qualified to state that the text you chose was taken out of context. This particular text has been interpreted a number of different ways by believers. Don't you enjoy it when, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God, the believers cannot agree among themselves about the meaning of the Divine Revelation?

To be fair and honest, you did not make any reference to the textual context, the cultural context or the theological context of this passage. This puts you in good company, since seldom do any of the New Testament writers show respect to the context of the Old Testament passages that they cite.

You might want to read up about Covenant theology, a methodological framework that many apologists and theologians use to give passages such as this context.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Theology is a subset of philosophy. It is the branch of philosophy about god and things to do with god. Therefore, I suggest that the prof is qualified to state that the text you chose was taken out of context. This particular text has been interpreted a number of different ways by believers. Don't you enjoy it when, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God, the believers cannot agree among themselves about the meaning of the Divine Revelation?

To be fair and honest, you did not make any reference to the textual context, the cultural context or the theological context of this passage. This puts you in good company, since seldom do any of the New Testament writers show respect to the context of the Old Testament passages that they cite.

You might want to read up about Covenant theology, a methodological framework that many apologists and theologians use to give passages such as this context.

There is Covenant Theology and there is Covenant Theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenantal ... _Catholic)

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

Theology is a subset of philosophy. It is the branch of philosophy about god and things to do with god. Therefore, I suggest that the prof is qualified to state that the text you chose was taken out of context. This particular text has been interpreted a number of different ways by believers. Don't you enjoy it when, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God, the believers cannot agree among themselves about the meaning of the Divine Revelation?

To be fair and honest, you did not make any reference to the textual context, the cultural context or the theological context of this passage. This puts you in good company, since seldom do any of the New Testament writers show respect to the context of the Old Testament passages that they cite.

You might want to read up about Covenant theology, a methodological framework that many apologists and theologians use to give passages such as this context.

There is Covenant Theology and there is Covenant Theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenantal ... _Catholic)

All interpretations are subjective, unless they can be proven objective without a doubt. Even my statement is subjective regarding the law and Jesus. Theology itself is the biggest joke of all, attempting to make sense of non-sense, and utterly failing. As atheists and non-believers in Christianity, all we can do is interpret the bible one way as to show that the bible itself can be interpreted in innumerable ways. Hence why we have so many denominations!

Not to mention the fact that Jewish Theology lacks a heaven or hell, defined as a destination for the souls of the dead. There is only sheol, or the dark place in the ground, as I see it. It is called the place of the dead, for those who will never live again. Unless of course you are into Cabala, in which reincarnation is prominent.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Not to mention the fact that Jewish Theology lacks a heaven or hell, defined as a destination for the souls of the dead. There is only sheol, or the dark place in the ground, as I see it. It is called the place of the dead, for those who will never live again. Unless of course you are into Cabala, in which reincarnation is prominent.

Jewish Theology may not have much to say about an afterlife, but Jew often do. My Jewish girlfriend (ex-Conservative) says that it is not uncommon for Jews to refer to “the life to come� but without much detail.

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm