Evangelical Christians

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Matthew 5:17-20 states that law will be preserved in its entirety, and that people are expected to follow all of its precepts, including the 'least' of them. According to your theory, Jesus went on to strike down certain parts of the law. Can you reconcile this self-contradiction?

I gather you didn't look at the rest of Matthew 5. Following is a ...[text shortened]... hy you keep bringing up slavery when Zuckerman never mentioned it.[/b]

I never denied that Jesus was striking down specific OT laws. However, I hesitated to affirm it, since there is an apparent self-contradiction in Jesus' words.

Your claim that Jesus was not referring to the written law [OT] is bogus. Jesus specifically said no jot or tittle would pass away from the law. Let's examine what those two words mean.

A jot is the name of the least letter of an alphabet or the smallest part of a piece of writing. It is the Anglicized version of the Greek iota - the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet, which corresponds to the Roman 'i'. This, in turn, was derived from the Hebrew word jod, or yodr, which is the the smallest letter of the square Hebrew alphabet. Apart from its specialist typographical meaning, we still use the word jot more generally to mean 'a tiny amount'. Hence, when we have a brief note to make, we 'jot it down'.

A tittle, rather appropriately for a word which sounds like a combination of tiny and little, is smaller still. It refers to a small stroke or point in writing or printing. In classical Latin this applied to any accent over a letter, but is now most commonly used as the name for the dot over the letter 'i'. It is also the name of the dots on dice. In medieval calligraphy the tittle was written as quite large relative to the stem of the 'i'. Since fixed typeface printing was introduced in the 15th century the tittle has been rendered smaller.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/jot-or-tittle.html

In short, Jesus is referring directly to WRITTEN law, saying that not even one of the smallest written characters shall drop from the law.

Thus, you still have an apparent self-contradiction by Jesus to resolve.

I withdraw my point about the death penalty. I remembered later the story of Jesus stopping an adulterous woman from being stoned. This kind of counter-example is what I need in response to some of my other examples.

I still affirm my other examples, however. If you don't want to talk about them further, that's fine.

I brought up slavery to make my own general point that Jesus was largely silent on political issues. Apparently, I am not allowed to make my own arguments but must confine myself to only Zuckerman's examples. 😛

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I never denied that Jesus was striking down specific OT laws. However, I hesitated to affirm it, since there is an apparent self-contradiction in Jesus' words.

Your claim that Jesus was not referring to the written law [OT] is bogus. Jesus specifically said no jot or tittle would pass away from the law. Let's examine what those two words mean.[ to make my own arguments but must confine myself to only Zuckerman's examples. 😛

Your claim that Jesus was not referring to the written law [OT] is bogus

yes indeed he has attempted the same nonsense on many an occasion only to be
soundly refuted, did it in any way curtail his obstinacy, no way, he continues the same
flawed line of reasoning, denying scripture!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your claim that Jesus was not referring to the written law [OT] is bogus

yes indeed he has attempted the same nonsense on many an occasion only to be
soundly refuted, did it in any way curtail his obstinacy, no way, he continues the same
flawed line of reasoning, denying scripture!

You guys can't stand to be proven wrong. It would be wise of you to show a little
humility sometime. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You guys can't stand to be proven wrong. It would be wise of you to show a little
humility sometime. 😏

what are you talking about now? how many times must i say it, we are awesome, the
sooner you realise it, the better it will be for you. Here is a question for you RJH, see
if you can engage your mind before your mouth for once,

is God humble?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You guys can't stand to be proven wrong. It would be wise of you to show a little
humility sometime. 😏

Pot Kettle Black.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I never denied that Jesus was striking down specific OT laws. However, I hesitated to affirm it, since there is an apparent self-contradiction in Jesus' words.

Your claim that Jesus was not referring to the written law [OT] is bogus. Jesus specifically said no jot or tittle would pass away from the law. Let's examine what those two words mean.[ to make my own arguments but must confine myself to only Zuckerman's examples. 😛

Evidently I'm going to have to elaborate further. But before I do that, I still don't know where you're coming from and it'd help me to know what kind of pictures I need to paint. That said, I understand the meaning of "jot" and "tittle".

I never denied that Jesus was striking down specific OT laws. However, I hesitated to affirm it, since there is an apparent self-contradiction in Jesus' words...Thus, you still have an apparent self-contradiction by Jesus to resolve.


So if you recognize that Jesus "[struck] down specific OT laws", then how do you resolve the contradiction between that and YOUR position on Matthew 5:17-20? There is not contradiction with mine.

I still affirm my other examples, however. If you don't want to talk about them further, that's fine.

I brought up slavery to make my own general point that Jesus was largely silent on political issues. Apparently, I am not allowed to make my own arguments but must confine myself to only Zuckerman's examples.

If you aren't arguing against Zuckerman, then what are you arguing against?

My position is simple. I see Zuckerman as stating themes that run through the teachings of Jesus and juxtaposing them against views that he sees as incongruous with those themes. Views that are apparently held by many Evangelicals. Which of those themes do you see as not being taught by Jesus, if any? Which of those views do you see as not being incongruous with those themes, if any?

Also, keep in mind that the idea that Zuckerman is coming at this from a "political" point of view is also YOURS, not mine. I keep trying to point out to you that he's coming from a "sociological" perspective - to no avail apparently.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently I'm going to have to elaborate further. However, I still don't know where you're coming from and it'd help me to know what kind of pictures I need to paint. That said, I understand the meaning of "jot" and "tittle".

[b]I never denied that Jesus was striking down specific OT laws. However, I hesitated to affirm it, since there is an apparent s ...[text shortened]... that he's coming from a "sociological" perspective - to no avail apparently.

no contradiction, your simply busted - AGAIN!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently I'm going to have to elaborate further. But before I do that, I still don't know where you're coming from and it'd help me to know what kind of pictures I need to paint. That said, I understand the meaning of "jot" and "tittle".

[b]I never denied that Jesus was striking down specific OT laws. However, I hesitated to affirm it, since there is that he's coming from a "sociological" perspective - to no avail apparently.[/b]

So if you recognize that Jesus "[struck] down specific OT laws", then how do you resolve the contradiction between that and YOUR position on Matthew 5:17-20? There is not contradiction with mine.

I am frankly shocked that you can't see this. You claimed Jesus wasn't talking about OT law in Matt 5:17-20. I just proved that claim false. You need to respond to this proof, or come up with a new interpretation that makes a modicum of sense. The ball is in your court.

My position is simple. I see Zuckerman as stating themes that run through the teachings of Jesus and juxtaposing them against views that he sees as incongruous with those themes. Views that are apparently held by many Evangelicals. Which of those themes do you see as not being taught by Jesus, if any? Which of those views do you see as not being incongruous with those themes, if any?

I gave two examples: poverty and government programs to help the poor, and possession of weapons. If you wish to address them, go ahead.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what are you talking about now? how many times must i say it, we are awesome, the
sooner you realise it, the better it will be for you. Here is a question for you RJH, see
if you can engage your mind before your mouth for once,

is God humble?

I very seldom engage my mind before my mouth as you pointed out. However,
God humbled himself to take on human flesh and suffer and die to show his
love for His human creatures. So take a hint and quit shouting out how
awesome you are. Everyone but you JWs know that is not true.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]So if you recognize that Jesus "[struck] down specific OT laws", then how do you resolve the contradiction between that and YOUR position on Matthew 5:17-20? There is not contradiction with mine.

I am frankly shocked that you can't see this. You claimed Jesus wasn't talking about OT law in Matt 5:17-20. I just proved that claim false. You need ...[text shortened]... programs to help the poor, and possession of weapons. If you wish to address them, go ahead.[/b]

I opened my previous post with the following:
"Evidently I'm going to have to elaborate further. But before I do that, I still don't know where you're coming from and it'd help me to know what kind of pictures I need to paint."

Toward that end I asked the following:
"So if you recognize that Jesus "[struck] down specific OT laws", then how do you resolve the contradiction between that and YOUR position on Matthew 5:17-20? There is not contradiction with mine."

Please address the question. If you see it as a contradiction, but have no explanation for it, then just say so. Like I said above, I intend to elaborate on what I've said previously. I'd just like to have a better idea of where you're coming from before I do.

Also toward that end I asked the following:
"My position is simple. I see Zuckerman as stating themes that run through the teachings of Jesus and juxtaposing them against views that he sees as incongruous with those themes. Views that are apparently held by many Evangelicals. Which of those themes do you see as not being taught by Jesus, if any? Which of those views do you see as not being incongruous with those themes, if any?"

You don't seem to have addressed the first question. Should I take that as you see all the themes stated by Zuckerman as being taught by Jesus? Also if there are other views that you see as not being incongruous with those themes, please list them now.

Once again, I intend to elaborate on what I've said previously. I'd just like to have a better idea of where you're coming from before I do.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I opened my previous post with the following:
"Evidently I'm going to have to elaborate further. But before I do that, I still don't know where you're coming from and it'd help me to know what kind of pictures I need to paint."

Toward that end I asked the following:
"So if you recognize that Jesus "[struck] down specific OT laws", then how do you res ...[text shortened]... I'd just like to have a better idea of where you're coming from before I do.

So if you recognize that Jesus "[struck] down specific OT laws", then how do you resolve the contradiction between that and YOUR position on Matthew 5:17-20?

I cannot resolve the contradiction. Jesus' words are painfully clear. I see no valid alternate interpretations. Conclusion: Jesus contradicted himself.

Should I take that as you see all the themes stated by Zuckerman as being taught by Jesus?

Emphatically not, as made very clear by my earlier posts. If you want a comprehensive list, I'll be happy to give one. My claim is that, from the words of Jesus we can access, Jesus either took no position, or took a position of passive acceptance of things as they were, on ALL of the following issues: draconian sentencing, governmental use of torture, gun [or weapons in general, since they did not have guns in Jesus' time] ownership/regulation, institutional help for the poor, food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, and job training.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]So if you recognize that Jesus "[struck] down specific OT laws", then how do you resolve the contradiction between that and YOUR position on Matthew 5:17-20?

I cannot resolve the contradiction. Jesus' words are painfully clear. I see no valid alternate interpretations. Conclusion: Jesus contradicted himself.

Should I take that as you see help for the poor, food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, and job training.

[/b]Okay. I'm going to table the Zuckerman issues for now to focus on the Sermon on the Mount issue.

Let's recap where we are so far:
1) We agree that Jesus contradicted the OT.
2) In M 5:17-20 Jesus refers to "the law" in a way that suggests that it is written, but doesn't specify where it is written.
3) We agree that if Jesus meant the OT when referring to "the law" in M 5:17-20, He contradicted Himself in M 5:38-39.

If you take exception to any of the above, please let me know now.

I see a couple of options here:
1) In M 5:17-20 Jesus was referring to the OT, and idiotically contradicted Himself within a minute or two when giving the Sermon on the Mount.
2) In M 5:17-20 Jesus was not referring to the OT, but a law different from the OT law. A law written elsewhere.

If you take exception to either of the above, please let me know. If you have other viable options, let me know those as well.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Okay. I'm going to table the Zuckerman issues for now to focus on the Sermon on the Mount issue.

Let's recap where we are so far:
1) We agree that Jesus contradicted the OT.
2) In M 5:17-20 Jesus refers to "the law" in a way that suggests that it is written, but doesn't specify where it is written.
3) We agree that if Jesus meant the OT when re e above, please let me know. If you have other viable options, let me know those as well.[/b]

I accept your stipulations. Proceed.

Edit: Well, obviously I 'take exception' to option 2, but I would like to hear your case for it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I accept your stipulations. Proceed.

Edit: Well, obviously I 'take exception' to option 2, but I would like to hear your case for it.

I suppose Jesus could have been that big an idiot, but there is another option. I was going to say, "No one's that big an idiot", but I only needed to think of some of the posters on this forum 🙂

So let's operate under the premise that Jesus saw the law as something other than what the Jews had. Something other than the OT law. If this is the case, then in M 5:38-39 Jesus is pointing out the difference between the OT law and the law as He saw it. As such, Jesus would be contradicting OT law, but not what He said in M 5:17-20. This is the law that Jesus says must be kept.

Jesus doesn't say where this law is written, but this prophesy points to what seems to be a reasonable possibility:

Jeremiah 31
31“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

So there will be a new covenant where God's law will be written on everyone's heart.

This is consistent with Jesus' claim elsewhere of establishing a new covenent.

Here's another place where Jesus contradicts the OT (Deuteronomy 24:1) which is interesting:

Mark 10
2Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” 5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9“What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Presumably the old commandment was written in Deuteronomy 24:1 because their hearts were too hard to have the actual law written there. The law as Jesus saw it.

Comments?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I suppose Jesus could have been that big an idiot, but there is another option. I was going to say, "No one's that big an idiot", but I only needed to think of some of the posters on this forum 🙂

So let's operate under the premise that Jesus saw the law as something other than what the Jews had. Something other than the OT law. If this is the case, th re too hard to have the actual law written there. The law as Jesus saw it.

Comments?

I don't buy that theory, for a few reasons:

1) Jesus is talking about something that already exists
If the law was something that the Jews didn't even have, that had not yet been 'written on their hearts', there would be nothing to destroy [or fulfill, for that matter]. You can't destroy something that doesn't exist.

2) Consider the Audience
Jesus said "the Law and the Prophets" without getting any more specific - why? Because he assumed the audience would know what he meant. If this was not so, then Jesus deliberately used those words to mean something that the audience would not know about. He goes on to talk about preserving every written character and every commandment down to the 'least' of them. If the audience had no clue what 'law and prophets' meant, it reduces Matt 5:17-19 to nonsense.

3) The use of 'jot and tittle' does not make sense metaphorically
"Written on their hearts" is an obvious metaphor. God was not saying he would literally write laws on people's hearts. 😵 But 'jot and tittle' doesn't work as a parallel metaphor. This is a painfully specific reference to literal, written characters, to the smallest written characters in the Hebrew alphabet. "Written on their hearts" means something like "ideas planted in their minds". Consider how our brains work. When we are thinking of concepts, like laws, we typically think of them in words, not characters. The main time we think of them in characters is when we are writing or typing something.

4) It is consensus that "the Law" refers to the Torah and "the Prophets" refer to the OT books of prophecy
I can find no exception to this anywhere online. I have never heard this disputed in 2 decades of practicing Christianity and my lifetime of studying and reading scholarly opinions on the Bible.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/lawproph.stm
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/tanakh.stm

5) It does not explain the inclusion of "the Prophets"
Jesus specifically mentioned that he would not destroy "the Prophets". Your theory does not account for this.