Don't Do As I Do. Do As I Say.

[Miles]

.

In Matthew 5:1-2 we read: "When Jesus saw the crowds of people there, he went up on a hill and sat down. His followers came and sat next to him. 2 Then Jesus began teaching the people. He said":

Matthew 5:22
22 But I tell you, don’t be angry with anyone. If you are angry with others, you will be judged. And if you insult someone, you will be judged by the high court. And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Yet in Mark Jesus does just that; he gets angry with people.

Mark 3:1-5
1 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.

And in Matthew insults others

Matthew 23:17
17 You are blind fools! Can’t you see that the Temple is greater than the gold on it? It’s the Temple that makes the gold holy!

And calls them fools.

Matthew 23:17
17 You are blind fools! Can’t you see that the Temple is greater than the gold on it? It’s the Temple that makes the gold holy!

So what's the deal here?

Jesus gets a bye on being angry with others, insulting them, and calling them fools? He can be angry, insulting, and call people fools all he wants, but if we dare to we'll be punished, and possibly end up in hell.



.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #8]
Wrathful...hate, either word works for me.

Of course they do, which is why your bible substitutes them for "anger" or "angry."

I don't care which word is used.

As long as it isn't "anger" or "angry."

You do know that prooftexting is frowned upon and that exegesis is the worst way to read the Bible right?

Not at all, but eisegesis is pretty bad.

What matters is what Jesus talking about. If you want to narrowly focus on only one scripture, in fact your replies to all posts have been very narrow, but that is up to you. I did notice that you didn't comment on the other scriptures that give a clearer picture of Matthew 5:22, but is to be expected of a person that uses exegesis to interpret scriptures. You have a chosen dogma and THEN go looking in the Bible for prooftext to support YOUR dogma. You do know that prooftexting is frowned upon and that exegesis is the worst way to read the Bible right?

On the other hand, there are others that use the whole Bible and many translations to get a complete picture of the message from the Bible. Including terms of the original Greek language. Doing all this to understand the what the Bible teaches us and not what we can get the Bible to say in order support in our own personal dogma, as you're doing.

And this is suppose to justify the NWT's self-serving translation? I don't think so.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Miles in post #8]
Wrathful...hate, either word works for me.

Of course they do. which is why your bible substitutes them for "anger" or "angry."

It doesn't matter to me which word is used. Even if angry is used. I don't care, it doesn't change the meaning of the scripture to me. Certainly you're not speaking for me as to what I will or will not accept? If so, stop.

I don't care which word is used.

As long as it isn't "anger" or "angry."

You do know that prooftexting is frowned upon and that exegesis is the worst way to read the Bible right?

Not at all, but eisegesis is pretty bad.

Oops! I did mean eisegesis. Spellcheck changed it to exegesis. Exegesis is what we want to use. That is not what you're using. You want to prove 'dont do as I do, do as I say' and then went looking for prooftext to support your dogma. That is eisegesis and yes, it's bad.

What matters is what Jesus talking about. If you want to narrowly focus on only one scripture, in fact your replies to all posts have been very narrow, but that is up to you. I did notice that you didn't comment on the other scriptures that give a clearer picture of Matthew 5:22, but is to be expected of a person that uses exegesis to interpret scriptures. You have a chosen dogma and THEN go looking in the Bible for prooftext to support YOUR dogma. You do know that prooftexting is frowned upon and that exegesis is the worst way to read the Bible right?

On the other hand, there are others that use the whole Bible and many translations to get a complete picture of the message from the Bible. Including terms of the original Greek language. Doing all this to understand the what the Bible teaches us and not what we can get the Bible to say in order support in our own personal dogma, as you're doing.

And this is suppose to justify the NWT's self-serving translation? I don't think so.

I'm not justifying anything. I don't care if you like the NWT or not. I have no problems any translation of these particular scriptures you have quoted. Why? Because I use more than just these scriptures to get a clear picture of what Jesus was saying. I have no dogma I'm trying to use prooftext to prove. My dogma comes from what all the scriptures say not just one. Which I keep saying but you keep not listening.

[JehovahsWitness]

...where in the Bible[...]is it said that "Jesus is Gods appointed judge and executioner and has the authority to condemn or forgive anyone he chooses"?

JUDGE

JOHN 5:22 - New Living Translation
In addition, the Father judges no one. Instead, he has given the Son absolute authority to judge,

2 TIM 4:1 - New Living Translation

I solemnly urge you in the presence of God and Christ Jesus, who will someday judge the living and the dead

EXECUTIONER

2 THESS 1:7-9

This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

AUTHORITY

MATTHEW 9:6 - NIV

But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”

MATTHEW 28:16-18 - NIV

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

RELATED POSTS

What role will the resurrected Jesus (Michael) play in the out working of God's purpose for humanity?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 86#p916886

To learn more please go to other posts related to ARMAGEDDON, DIVINE WAR and ...KILLING IN SCRIPTURE

[William]

I don't know of a scripture where Jesus calls someone a 'despicable fool'. If Jesus did, since he is the world's judge, I guess he'd know if a person truly was a 'despicable fool' deserving of everlasting death.

I would challenge anyone to construct a moral system without a Judge. If there is no Judge - if my judgment is exactly as good as yours - then how can you ever condemn me even if I commit murder?

If you're constructing a system of rules, and even if you somehow make those rules clear enough that anyone looking would be able to apply them to any situation and get the same result, you've made yourself the Judge as you created the rules. If you are not the Judge how about my rules, which are exactly as good as yours since your judgment is no more inherently morally valuable than mine?

I used to think that the solution to this was agreement: Whatever rules agreed upon by two or more parties, together, fairly and under no duress, were morally binding on those parties. This passes a basic smell test because it allows us to live in societies and have different rules. If you shook on no crack cocaine, not wanting the detriment to society of having crack cocaine in that society, then you took the drug anyway, that would be immoral. This is a concept often called consent of the governed, but it would also apply to libertarians fleeing lawless ghettos to lawful suburbia, then insisting that they should be allowed any drugs they please; they do not desire the environment free use of any drug imaginable creates, wanting to reap the benefit of the laws against drugs while taking drugs themselves. This is large part of what I mean by fairness, another part being that rules must apply equally to all.

But who has decided that the handshake - consent - is important? Who has decided that fairness is important? Well, I did. You see, I made myself the Judge. If my judgment is not more morally valuable than the libertarian's, he can tell me to puke off, fairness is not important, only rights are important, and I can't pass judgment on him, even if he's ruining my society by bringing drugs to it, wanting the safety of my drugless society instead of the ghetto society drug use creates while insisting he has the right to take drugs himself. No rights were violated by him, he says, only by me, so he is moral and I am not. My society is more desirable but again, what Judge gets to say that having a nice society or a fair society (druggos go live in the environment drug use creates) is more important than respect for rights? If I'm not the Judge I can't say that. I can use force to keep him out of my society for practical reasons but it's not moral.

You make interesting points of argument.

I don't see how the drug/drug free analogy fits in with the idea that biblical Christ is reported saying to others not to get angry other than Jesus being the one from the angry neighborhood who wants to fit into [be accepted by] the placid priesthood but also wants to direct anger at the priesthood [use drugs in that setting].

Is the Biblical Christ trying to say that "drugs are okay and won't hurt society - so stop with the elitism already."?

Is this because he understood that it was not what a man consumed which corrupted a man, but something else altogether, and to which the priesthood willed it, to remain ignorant of?

Furthermore, was the display against the shop-keepers [stall holders] selling their wares in the temple, Jesus saying "see you allow some good things but not all good things"?

[Purple Knight]

I don't see how the drug/drug free analogy fits in with the idea that biblical Christ is reported saying to others not to get angry other than Jesus being the one from the angry neighborhood who wants to fit into [be accepted by] the placid priesthood but also wants to direct anger at the priesthood [use drugs in that setting].

It's not an analogy. In my example, the druggo that wants to take drugs while enjoying the extra safety of a drug-free society instead of living in the ghetto where nobody will bother him for taking drugs, is an example of someone who doesn't like fairness. Fairness is a really great rule, right? Wrong. No matter how intuitive a rule, it requires someone to make that rule. It requires a Judge. If I'm not a Judge and don't have more moral authority than that libertarian, I can't require that he be fair or consistent. If he's an anarchist who refuses to live in anarchy, so he pursues the order of a society with government but demands the government cease to exist (at least as far as he's concerned), I can't call him wrong just because he's a hypocrite. I'm not a Judge.

All morality requires a Judge, someone with actual moral authority. In other words, what he says, goes. And once someone is a Judge they don't have to be fair because they have legitimate authority to judge themselves blameless for the same act someone else is condemned for.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #8]
Wrathful...hate, either word works for me.

Of course they do. which is why your bible substitutes them for "anger" or "angry."

It doesn't matter to me which word is used. Even if angry is used. I don't care, it doesn't change the meaning of the scripture to me.

Yeah, that's what I've pretty much come to conclude; your personal interpretation trumps the actual meaning.

Certainly you're not speaking for me as to what I will or will not accept? If so, stop.

Whaaaat? This makes no sense.

What matters is what Jesus talking about. If you want to narrowly focus on only one scripture, in fact your replies to all posts have been very narrow, but that is up to you. I did notice that you didn't comment on the other scriptures that give a clearer picture of Matthew 5:22, but is to be expected of a person that uses exegesis to interpret scriptures. You have a chosen dogma and THEN go looking in the Bible for prooftext to support YOUR dogma. You do know that prooftexting is frowned upon and that exegesis is the worst way to read the Bible right?

On the other hand, there are others that use the whole Bible and many translations to get a complete picture of the message from the Bible. Including terms of the original Greek language. Doing all this to understand the what the Bible teaches us and not what we can get the Bible to say in order support in our own personal dogma, as you're doing.

And this is suppose to justify the NWT's self-serving translation? I don't think so.

I'm not justifying anything.

Sure you are.




.

[JehovahsWitness]

And this is suppose to justify the NWT's self-serving translation? I don't think so.

Are you suggesting there is something amiss with the NWT's translation of wrath over anger in Mat 5:22? If so, what?



JW

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Miles in post #8]
Wrathful...hate, either word works for me.

Of course they do. which is why your bible substitutes them for "anger" or "angry."

It doesn't matter to me which word is used. Even if angry is used. I don't care, it doesn't change the meaning of the scripture to me.

Yeah, that's what I've pretty much come to conclude; your personal interpretation trumps the actual meaning.

No. The Bible trumps your personal dogma of the theme of this thread, 'Don't Do As I Do. Do As I Say.' That is what your quoted scripture is supposed to be proving right? But when putting this scripture in context with the rest of the Bible it doesn't support your claim. But what will you say now that dogma has been shot down using scriptures from the Bible? This whole translation thing you keep arguing about is a straw-man because translation doesn't matter in this case.

Certainly you're not speaking for me as to what I will or will not accept? If so, stop.

Whaaaat? This makes no sense.

What matters is what Jesus talking about. If you want to narrowly focus on only one scripture, in fact your replies to all posts have been very narrow, but that is up to you. I did notice that you didn't comment on the other scriptures that give a clearer picture of Matthew 5:22, but is to be expected of a person that uses exegesis to interpret scriptures. You have a chosen dogma and THEN go looking in the Bible for prooftext to support YOUR dogma. You do know that prooftexting is frowned upon and that exegesis is the worst way to read the Bible right?

On the other hand, there are others that use the whole Bible and many translations to get a complete picture of the message from the Bible. Including terms of the original Greek language. Doing all this to understand the what the Bible teaches us and not what we can get the Bible to say in order support in our own personal dogma, as you're doing.

And this is suppose to justify the NWT's self-serving translation? I don't think so.

I'm not justifying anything.

Sure you are.

Wow! I just said stop speaking for me and you turn around and do it again. Do not tell me what I am or am not doing. Please stop implying that I'm a liar. I don't care what translation you use for Mat 5:22, this scripture doesn't support 'Don't Do As I Do. Do As I Say' as your eisegesis claim says it does.
Learn to use exegesis and your Bible understanding will be better.
https://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html

[Miles]

And this is suppose to justify the NWT's self-serving translation? I don't think so.

Are you suggesting there is something amiss with the NWT's translation of wrath over anger in Mat 5:22? If so, what?

As I pointed out in post #8,

"Thing is, of the 62 versions of Matthew 5:22 I checked every one of them, 100%, uses the word "anger"/"angry" in the verse. Not one of them uses the word "wrathful" or suggests hate."

Of course all 62 could be mistaken in using "anger"/"angry" instead of the NWT's "wrathful," but considering their unanimity such a mistake is highly doubtful. So I do consider the NWT's translation to be amiss. Why would the NWT stray from the universal translation of the Greek ὀργίζω as "angry" unless it was to conform to JW's particular theology? To me this comes across as self-serving rather than honest. It reminds me of the creationist position in the cartoon below:


.................................................


.

[Miles]

Wow! I just said stop speaking for me and you turn around and do it again. Do not tell me what I am or am not doing. Please stop implying that I'm a liar.

Might want to look up what the phrase "speaking for me" means. However, in as much as I doubt you will, here's the definition from The Free Dictionary:

speak for (one) (redirected from speaking for me)
speak for (one)
1. To say something on behalf of one; to express one's opinions for them.

.