Is this a fair statement by Jesus?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Is this a fair statement by Jesus?

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?�

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Is that a good summary of the law? Can we do either thing well enough to satisfy God?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #2

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

I think it's fair for what he was teaching. It's certainly not fair for the Pharisaical traditions.

This summation is what makes me believe that God never desired things like sacrifice. Where does sacrifice fit into love? Where do sacraments and belief fall into love? Seems to me that Jesus promoted a God who was equivalent to love/goodness. Anything and everything that was loving, kind, or good would be that of following God while anything opposite would be following the devil. This is why if you are not for him you are against him. It's one or the other. This is why "good" cannot be done "in the name of bad" (i.e. casting out a demon by the power of Beelzebub). Jesus flipped the religion on its head, said the Pharisees had it all wrong, and God simply wants us to follow doing what is right.

As for doing it well enough to satisfy God, well, if he is loving, kind, and good, he could hardly expect perfection any more than it is loving of us to expect perfection of our kids, ourselves, or anyone else. Expecting perfection is itself imperfect.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Is this a fair statement by Jesus?

Post #3

Post by ttruscott »

Wootah wrote: 34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?�

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Is that a good summary of the law? Can we do either thing well enough to satisfy God?
Of course we can't keep the law including the commandment to love. The law was given to convict us of sin: Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin. and how could that work if we were able to keep it? It is the lack of ability to keep it when we should be able to keep it that points us to our need to repent.

The law is not given to those who are righteous such as the holy angels who can keep it, but to sinners who cannot in fact keep it: 1 Timothy 1:8-10 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the ...

[ASIDE: Funny, if Adam and Eve were innocent, ie, NOT lawless and disobedient, why were they put under the command not to eat?]

Every failure to keep the law or to love is another reason to repent.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

I personally see this as an overall contradiction of this theology.

For one thing, humans aren't even supposed to have the ability to love anyone on their own. One of the things that Christians continually harp on is that "God is Love" and that all love comes from God. God is the source of love.

If that's true then it's an absurd law that we are to love God with all our heart mind and soul. That would imply that we are the source of love.

After all, if God is the source of love, then all this would amount to is God loving himself.

So I see this entire scenario as being quite ridiculous to be perfectly honest about it.

As far as I can see, this Jesus character was some kind of hippy who was apparently infatuated with love and pacifism. And he was trying to bring those qualities into a religion that was clearly lacking them.

After all, where does it say this in the Ten Commandments? It doesn't mention loving God at all.

In fact, this is yet another contradiction in this religion. Atheists often argue with theists that this God is demanding that we must love him lest he'll hurt us. And that's clearly seen as a criminal trait in humans.

So then the Christians claim that God isn't demanding that we love him, but instead that we simply recognize him as being the ultimate authority and do as he says. That's not love. A person can recognize a horrible dictator as the ultimate authority with no need to love him.

Christian women also often also talk about wanting a "God-fearing man". Why would you fear a God that is deserving of love? :-k
Can we do either thing well enough to satisfy God?
And by the way, if God is going to judge our love in terms of whether or not he deems it to be satisfying, then that's a pretty perverted picture of "love"".

But then again, Christians seem to have no problem at all proclaiming that what God means by "Love" and what we mean by "Love" are entirely different thing.

The problem with that argument is that then we can't have a clue what love means to God.

Why call perversion of the concept of love "love"?

How would this be any different from Hitler proclaiming that we must "love" him to his satisfaction? If it's such a gross perversion of what we mean by "love" then it's not love at all.

You don't threaten to cast people into a state of everlasting punishment if they fail to love you. That's already a reason why no one should love you.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Post #5

Post by Overcomer »

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
This summation is what makes me believe that God never desired things like sacrifice.
Then why did God give humanity list after list of what sacrifices were needed to atone for various sins as listed in the Book of Leviticus?

When Adam and Eve sinned, what did God do? He killed an animal and clothed their nakedness with the skin, the first sacrifice done to cover them physically, the ensuing sacrifices done to cover them spiritually.

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
Where does sacrifice fit into love?
Christ's sacrifice was done in love so that nobody had to remain separated from God for eternity.

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
Where do sacraments and belief fall into love?
Protestants observe two sacraments -- baptism and the Lord's supper. The first is a symbolic cleansing of sin, done when one accepts Christ and his atonement for those sins. The second is done in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Jesus Christ himself asked us to engage in it. We perform both sacraments out of love.

Belief rests in our understanding of God's love for us and the sacrifice of Jesus done in love.

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
Anything and everything that was loving, kind, or good would be that of following God while anything opposite would be following the devil.
Martin Luther noted that anyone who did what were considered "good works" apart from God was still a sinner. So-called "good works" don't impress God if the person performing them has not recognized their sins, confessed and repented of them, and accepted Christ's atonement of them. Such a person remains dead in his sins, with a spirit that is dead to God. Good deeds do not earn salvation. It's a gift given to those who recognize that they cannot earn salvation.

ElCode Monkey wrote:
Jesus flipped the religion on its head, said the Pharisees had it all wrong, and God simply wants us to follow doing what is right.
Yes, he condemned the Pharisees for their hard hearts and empty rituals, but it wasn't and still isn't a matter of a person attempting to do what is right. As I noted in another thread, God didn't send Jesus to make bad people good. He sent Jesus to make dead people alive. This is what people fail to understand -- that they're dead in sin, that their spirits are dead and will remain dead unless they accept Christ and he brings them alive.

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
As for doing it well enough to satisfy God, well, if he is loving, kind, and good, he could hardly expect perfection any more than it is loving of us to expect perfection of our kids, ourselves, or anyone else. Expecting perfection is itself imperfect.
It isn't a matter of God accepting our imperfections. It's a matter of him being sin-free and unable to have sinful human beings live with him for eternity. We are all born with sin natures that we cannot change no matter how kind we are to children, how much money we give to charity, how many times we shovel snow from the driveway of the old woman next door, etc., etc., etc. We can do all of those things and remain sinners, dead in sin. When we accept Christ, he exchanges his righteousness for our sins and brings us alive in him. This gives us right-standing with God.

Until people recognize their sinfulness and the fact that they cannot change it, they will never see the need for the Saviour who is the only one who can and will and does change it. People who think they're good enough for God without Jesus don't understand that and that misunderstanding is their downfall. Entering into a relationship with Jesus is what it's all about.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Post #6

Post by 1213 »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: ...This summation is what makes me believe that God never desired things like sacrifice. Where does sacrifice fit into love? ....
Desiring sacrifices would mean that God desires us to make sin. I think God didn’t want that and He doesn’t want sacrifices. I have understood that people wanted to sacrifice, and that is why God gave rules for it.

But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mat. 9:13

For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. But they, like Adam, have broken the covenant. They were unfaithful to me, ...

Hosea 6:6-7

The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.
Acts 17:24-25
ElCodeMonkey wrote:...Expecting perfection is itself imperfect.
Sorry, I don’t see, why would it be imperfect to require perfect.

However, I think there is not requirement for perfection, there is requirement that people should be righteous to get eternal life, but that is not same as perfect.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #7

Post by Elijah John »

Overcomer wrote: ElCodeMonkey wrote:
This summation is what makes me believe that God never desired things like sacrifice.
Then why did God give humanity list after list of what sacrifices were needed to atone for various sins as listed in the Book of Leviticus?
Remember the context, the ancient Hebrews had just emerged not only from slavery, but from polytheism and idolatry.

The great Jewish sage Maimonides explains those sacrifices were transitional. That YHVH accomodated his people's inability to make such a drastic change in mode of worship all at once. Blood sacrifice is associated with pagan polythieism. It was enough for the time being for the Hebrew people to make the transition from idolatrous polytheism to ethical monotheism, worship of the Living God YHVH. Asking them to abandon blood sacrifice all at once would have been too much for them to absorb at the time. More enlightened forms or worship would happen latter, with the help of the Prophets, ("I desire mercy not sacrifice") and of necessity with the exile and the destruction of Solomon's Temple. More enlightened forms of worship include simple repentance (Pslam 51.16-17, Ezekiel 18.27-28), obedience (1 Samuel 15.22,Jeremiah 7.23), being merciful (Proverbs 16.6, Hosea 6.6), prayer (Psalm 141.2, Hosea 14.2), mercy and humility (Micah 6.8), praising the name of God (Psalm 69.30-31) acknowledging, knowing and knowledge (depending on the translation) of God, (Hosea 6.6) and so on.

But curiously, nothing about "believing in the blood sacrifice" of the coming Messiah. That would have been human sacrifice, unthinkable to the Jews of the time. And far from enlightened, and in fact, primitive and barbaric.
Overcomer wrote: When Adam and Eve sinned, what did God do? He killed an animal and clothed their nakedness with the skin, the first sacrifice done to cover them physically, the ensuing sacrifices done to cover them spiritually.
I have heard that incredible (lacking credibility) theory before from Evangelicals. Seems a stretch, a stretch which bursts the seams of credulity. By that logic, hunters would be sacrificing to God every time they killed an animal, and slaughterhouses, every time they slaughtered a cow for food and leather.
Last edited by Elijah John on Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Post #8

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Elijah John wrote: The great Jewish sage Maimonides explains those sacrifices were transitional. That YHVH accomodated his people's inability to make such a drastic change in mode of worship all at once.

EXODUS 29:41-42 - NWT

You will offer the second young ram at twilight, along with the same grain and drink offerings as in the morning. You will render it as a pleasing aroma, an offering made by fire to Jehovah. It is to be a regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the tent of meeting before Jehovah ,
Does the above sound like a concession to accept something unclean, offensive and essentially displeasing or a divine requirement for something God Himself designed and requested? The law is full of dozens of specific sacrificial requirements, it's one thing to make a concession but adding so many would only serve to make them an embedded part of the culture.

When a woman had a baby YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when a man made a vow YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when the people harvested their crop YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when the nation wanted forgiveness for sins YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when a person was healed of a serious illness YHWH asked for a sacrifice, when a person celebrated a blessingYHWH asked for a sacrifice, ... and on and on. Does that SOUND like a reluctant concession to something God disliked but tolerated?
If a father is against his children watching television, he may have one in the house as a concession, but what message would be communicated if he put a tv in every room and MANDATED they watch tv at least three times a day?
Elijah John wrote: It was enough for the time being for the Hebrew people to make the transition from idolatrous polytheism to ethical monotheism, worship of the Living God YHVH. Asking them to abandon blood sacrifice all at once would have been too much for them to absorb at the time. .

Is it reasonable to conclude that Jehovah (YHWH) would tolerate something if it were inextricably linked with idolatry because a complete break with such notions would have been "too much for [the early Israelites] " when the first commandement was explicitly stated God's requirement of exclusive devotion and the laws unequivalent commands to put idolators to death? This is like a coach suggesting a 5k walk is "too much" for his athlete then instructing them to complete a Marathon in less than 4 hours. If idolatry was prohibited under pain of death, the hardest part had already been demanded from the outset!

My regards to the "great" Maimonides,


JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #9

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]
22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
Jeremiah 7.22-23

And this:
Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?
Psalm 50.13

(rhetorical quesiton, answer, a resounding "NO"!)

It amazes me that so many people would rather cling to the most primitive and barbaric ideas about God when the Bible itself offers clear and more enlightened alternatives. Jesus also tried to bring enlightenment, but don't it beat all, Paul and his disciples (the RCC and it's offshoots) just went and made a "blood sacrifice" out of him!
For the sake of your name, YHVH, forgive my iniquity, though it is great.
Psalm 25.11

(note, no appeal to blood, or to Jesus but rather to Jehovah by virtue and merit of His name.)
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Post #10

Post by Mithrae »

Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]
22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
Jeremiah 7.22-23
Jeremiah was evidently not familiar with or simply did not accept the P source of the Pentateuch - estimated by some scholars to have been added as late as the 5th century BCE. But if one treats the whole Pentateuch as given by God, whether to Moses or otherwise, JW's argument seems to be a compelling rebuttal to what you've said of Maimonides' views. Most of the passages about sacrifice command them to be made rather than saying "IF you feel you must sacrifice, here's how to do it." If fact many of those sacrifices are commanded to be made forever throughout all generations: If those blood sacrifices commanded are indeed "primitive and barbaric" as you say, why not just be up front and honest enough to say that parts of the Torah are primitive and barbaric? Maimonides' attempted rationalization makes even less sense than the Christian one vis a vis Jesus' death.

As for the man himself, despite the heroic revisionist efforts of the author of 'Matthew,' from the other gospels and even from Matthew itself all indications are that Jesus was about as up front and honest as he could be in that culture: He broke and taught his followers to break at least two of the ten commandments (Sabbath and honor for parents), proclaimed himself superior to them, declared that he had better answers about divorce than Moses also, and insisted that the kingdom of God was replacing or 'fulfilling' the Torah.

He found some good in there, and emphasized that.

Post Reply