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.
Or did Jesus say that? Because when he says: Therefore — anyone — who sets aside one of the least of these commands… that says anyone, it does not say, just Jewish people.
GrumpyBunny quoted a section from scripture on the grounds that it would wrap up a particular aspect of the discussion with a certain group of people.
I have pointed out that different people have differing views, based on different views and levels of knowledge, regarding the book from which it was taken.
My observation is factually correct: the selection quoted is not going to get much traction among GrumpyBunny’s target audience. Quibbling over what it “really” means or who “really” said it is not going to actually bring the discussion in this thread forward.
You know Tomndebb, I’ve gone from disliking you (for lack of a better term) to actually appreciating your comments and looking forward to reading what you have to say. We still clash on biblical matters, however. As far as I know, this passage from Matthew, in most any fancy bible, is going to be printed in red, the direct words of Jesus. So, you can say that I am playing games, or you can say that you don’t think the quote applies, but when Jesus himself is the one who said it… you don’t have, how did you say, much traction?
tomndebb! Are you blind to the irony that hypocrisy produces?! When our bright and shiny Jesus is needed to make a case for SSM or some other ideology, we trot him out and say things like, “If homosexuality is so darn wrong, why did he never utter a single word about it? huh?”
However if that same Jesus says something like this cite, he’s dismissed because he was speaking to a Jewish audience that was under a covenant that was abrogated by our [new-found] friend Paul!
My God, isn’t that convenient? (or is it god?) When we need Jesus to make our case we rely on Paul (who invalidates Jesus’s admonishments by abrogating the Law Code), and when Paul steps to the plate we neuter him by highlighting a doctrinal dichotomy between the two men that the bible never even hints at. We need to turn him into a rogue, who took Judaism v2.0 way off the reservation.
Does it make one bit of sense that Jesus would speak to those Jews knowing full well that the Law didn’t apply to them any longer, or that it would soon be abrogated? Please! Although the many scholars we have here know full well, there were roughly 600 laws in the Law Code, they only seem to remember the 10 commandments, shell fish, and mixed fiber clothing. (go figure)
Jesus didn’t specify what portion of the Law Code was soon to be no longer required; and it is absolutely true he said he came to “fulfill” the Law, not terminate it.
You can’t have it both ways. Paul can’t be a rogue cowboy when you need him to be, and use Jesus to shut him up, nor can you use Paul to shut up Jesus,
There is no dichotomy in pre Jesus Judaism (in time to be called “Christianity”) and the post Jesus Judaism headed by the elder men who saw him as the long anticipated Messiah. (where Paul was most influential and the most prolific writer)
All of the Jews felt they were following Judaism; both the Jews who rejected Jesus (who believed he was an apostate and heretic, if not a demon, and who had him killed) and those Jews who saw him as the savior they had been anticipating for centuries.
It’s quite popular around here to claim a doctrinal/ideological dichotomy between Jesus and Paul that the bible never even hints at, let alone explicitly outlines.
Any number of biblical scholars, (and hordes of posters on this board), hold wildly different views on what or whether Jesus said any particular thing or anything, at all. (If Jesus did not exist, for example, his words in deep purple, underscored with chartreuse, would still remain someone else’s words.)
My only only point was that quoting Matthew is not going to trump the opinions of people who view the text in different ways.
I certainly do not see that what I have posted has anything to do with what you have posted after quoting me.
Actually, it is all so confusing when you challenge me on things I have never said. ::: shrug :::
(ftr I support SSM, so I’m not making that argument)
Many, many times I’ve seen Paul vilified----and actually called a cowboy----because he took Christianity (which none of them saw as Christianity, but Messiah driven Judaism) off track. There’s no evidence that Paul and Jesus were ideologically opposed to each other—ever.
In fact, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) began his ministry on the road to Damascus by being “recruited” by Jesus himself. Paul always gave credit to Jesus and never took credit doctrinal issues.
In my view, you can’t play off each man when it suits an agenda.
To clarify, I’m not saying tomndebb was being hypocritical. Rather it is hypocritical to use either man simply for their utility. In other words, we assign credibility to either man when hid words or actions serve an ideological end. (while ignoring other parts of their history that might be objectionable.)
1- I am not quoting Matthew. I am quoting Jesus, from the book of Matthew. Why do you keep making this mistake of personage/authorship???
2- Do any of these people have any proof to support their wildly different views on what or whether Jesus said any particular thing or anything? Or is it just personal preference? If the bible says Jesus said “insert quote here” who are they to say he didn’t say it, when, the text says he did???
3- I am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I am pointing out hypocrisy.
Jesus, of course. Who would you think tomndebb is attributing the Matthew quotes to? There’s no evidence that he’s trying to obfuscate that. Your posts seem to suggest that you believe otherwise.
There’s been a number of counter points, and this is all you have to say? If one side is simply saying that bigotry is fine because their god said so, it really isn’t much of a debate.
