Elijah John wrote:
Realworldjack wrote:
[
Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]
I would like to thank you for this OP, because it has certainly helped me in another thread where an unbeliever is insisting that I, as a Christian am held accountable to the, Ten Commandments, and he is also insisting that I would be on an island by myself to believe that Christians are not held to any sort of moral law, as far as God is concerned.
So then, you and I would be in agreement here for the most part, accept for the fact that it is not simply "believing in the stories of Yahweh and Jesus." Rather, it would be as you say, we as Christians giving up on our efforts to appease God, by attempting to live up to some sort of moral code, in order to demonstrate our morality, and to rather grab ahold of what God has done on our behalf, through Christ.
In spite of whatever Paul may have said,
Jesus said:
If you would enter into life, keep the Commandments.
How do you work that into Paul's theology?
First, and foremost, I would like to point out that my point has been made. In other words, it has been clearly demonstrated by "Divine Insight" that it is extremely possible to come to the conclusion that Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with, morality. This is what I have been saying all along.
On the other thread I referred to, I was accused of having an, "unilateral declaration of independence from God's commands", (meaning I would be the only one who held this idea) but as we can see, according to "Divine Insight" this would not be the case, since he has come away with the same understanding, with a natural reading of the Biblical text. Moreover, there would be a multitude of Christians, who would hold the same idea.
Next, I was accused of, "picking and choosing", but if one can come away with the same understanding as "Divine Insight" then those of us who understand ourselves not to be bound to any sort of moral code, as far as God is concerned, cannot be accused of such a thing.
In fact, it could be those who are making the accusation, who are the ones who "pick and choose." In other words, these folks simply look at the laws given to Israel, which had specific stipulations, tied to the land of promise, and assume these laws must, and have to apply to Christians as well, while ignoring the fact that we are later said to, "have been freed from the law."
So then, while you may be under the impression that Christianity deals with morality, there is no way you can say, "that it is not possible to come away with the impression that, Christianity would have nothing to do with morality", seeing as how "Divine Insight" as articulated this so well, and has done so using the Biblical text.
I could stop right here, and declare victory, because this was the only point I was attempting to make, both here, and in the other thread. But allow me to tackle your objection, noting that you are not in any way objecting that, one could come away with such an understanding, but rather that, the words of Jesus, need to be reconciled with the theology of Paul.
Well, I think we have already clearly established that one can come away from the Biblical texts, with the idea that Christianity would have nothing to do with, morality. Now the question would be, "would it be possible to come away with the idea that, Christianity would have everything to do with morality?"
My answer would be, yes! It is possible to come away with this idea, when one extracts one sentence from the whole of the Bible, completely, and totally, out of its surrounding context.
In other words, if one were to simply read this one sentence quote, attributed to Jesus, which says, "If you would enter into life, keep the Commandments", then they could surely come away with the idea that Christians are bound to certain laws.
However, the question would be, who was Jesus speaking to at the time, and would this apply to all people? Or, would it only apply to the those being spoken to, at the time? I can assure you, I can demonstrate that a lot of what Jesus is reported to have said, would only apply to those he was speaking to at the time.
So then, as we look at the one sentence you extract, completely out of its surrounding context, what would it mean, if we place it back into the context?
This sentence is part of what has been entitled, "The Rich Young Ruler." This story is recorded in both, Matthew, and Luke. The text tells us this man was very rich, which means this man had himself taken care of his physical existence here on this earth, through his own efforts, and did not have a care at all about how he would be taken care of, here in this world that we know, because he had taken care of that.
Since then, he was satisfied, he had taken care of all these things in this life, he now turns his attention to the next life. He must have perceived Jesus as some sort of prophet, who could answer the question, and so he asks Jesus, "what shall I, (emphasis on the I) do to inherit eternal life?
The point is, this guy, by his own efforts, has taken care of all his needs in this life. Now his question is, "what must I do?" So then Jesus is saying, "well if it is up to you, you know the commands." The man of course reponds, "all these if have kept from my youth."
It then says, "When Jesus heard this." In other words, instead of Jesus arguing with this man, to demonstrate to him he had not kept all these laws, Jesus simply cuts to the heart of the matter and says, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.� It is then said, "But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich."
You see, this man had been very successful being in control. Therefore, he wanted some sort of gauge, something he could measure, to determine how he was doing. However, Jesus refuse to give in, and explained to him, "give up the possession you have accumulated in this life, come follow me, and trust me to take care of this life, along with the life to come." However, this man could not do this.
The point is, when Jesus is said to say, "If you would enter into life, keep the Commandments", he was not speaking to you, or to me, but was rather making a point to the one he was speaking to at the time.
This is not in any way something new. It goes all the way back to, Genesis. We do not have the space to work through all of this, but it goes back to Cain, and Abel. Cain killed Abel, and Seth took the place of Abel. The line of Cain is said to begin to, "build the city of man." In other words, they were attempting through their own efforts, to reverse the curses placed upon them, while the line of Seth, "began to call of the name of the Lord", who is the only one who can save. Ergo, give up on your own efforts, and grab ahold of the only one who can save.
Of course, you could disagree, and have a different interpretation, and I am fine with this. However, I am using the whole of the Biblical text, while you are simply using one sentence, from the whole of the Bible, completely stripped from its context.
The point is, while you can use one sentence out of the whole of the Bible to defend your position, you cannot possibly insist that your position must, and has to be correct, when there are other very possible, and more likely interpretations.
