Do Christians Actually Live by the Words of Christ?

Great Debates
1

My thread title may seem a bit damning towards all Christians, and for that, I apologize. It is quite difficult to fit a “Not all, but a decent portion” disclaimer within the space confines of a thread title.

Now, ahem, as I was saying. I am not a bible scholar, but everything I have seen states that Jesus’ major message, was one of forgiveness, do not judge your fellow man, and that it really is not the place of man to decide other people’s fate.

Now, it seems to me, that a lot of Christians, seem to miss this core teaching, focusing mainly on a lot of the traditions built around the messages Jesus was preaching, as opposed to actually taking to heart the messages themselves.

Take, for instance, our current president. In a lot of his speeches, the man is more than willing to include god, believing himself righteous. Of course, if one was actually taking to heart the teachings of Christ, wouldn’t that have seemingly precluded the use of force, as one would assume that the message of forgiveness should also be extended to even Saddam? I’m not necessarily saying that I believe that, but how does that figure into being a good Christian?

On that same kind of note, how would a Christian approach the death penalty?

“Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.”

How can one support what is easily the most flagrant violation of not condemning your fellow man, the death penalty, when the teachings of the man the religion is based upon preclude such measures?

2

I am only addressing a portion of your question. I realize this passage comes from Paul and not Jesus.

Romans 13

3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Personally I think there is a clear demarkation in how we are to behave as Christian individuals and what is permitted to the government. If I were to enact some form of vigilante justice, it would be wrong. The government, on the other hand, has been given the sword to bring wrath on the evil. I don’t think there is any hypocrisy in a Christian judge recommending the maximum penalty for a particularly heinous crime. Reasonable Christians will disagree.

3

modro, that is a thoughtful post.

Regarding the death penalty, I hear a lot of Christians say “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” This was an old testament idea that Jesus corrects:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ “But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also . . . Matthew 5:38-39

In my opinion, that passage means that, as Christians, forgiveness is required of us. I do not support the death penalty in any way. It is barbaric.

4

But on the other hand, as a Christian you are to take a stand against evil.

5

Yes, it does seem to me that there is a bit of demarkation there as far as what is permitted for governments and individuals. I realize that does not come directly from Jesus, but one has to assume that he couldn’t possibly have covered all areas.

I would think it safe to say, that while discretion is needed, some liberties do need to be applied to governments, since they as ruling bodies need the leeway to govern their people. The added insight is useful, as I said, I am not a bible scholar, and any bits and pieces I can gain to better my understanding of how Christians deal with these issues will assist my goal of ridding myself of my own ignorance on this matter.

6

Jesus Christ had but one message, and that was the message of absolute Love. Love of that which was created from nothingness. Nothing else has meaning.

If someone here doesn’t think so…pray tell name it.

7

Modro, I think you have it in one, and my only answer is that we’re called on to try to live up to what He taught. I know I often fall short of His standards – but that’s what the Holy Spirit is given for – to guide, comfort, strengthen, and “convict” of error (a technical term, meaning, more or less, “to convince and induce repentance for” the error).

There’s another aspect you don’t touch on – one is to live one’s own individual life adhering as closely to the commands to righteousness and perfection as one can – but one is not to assume a position of judgment over another’s life in this regard. Only when one can successfully show loving affection underlying words of correction to another should one speak up on their error; to do otherwise will be seen by them as sitting in judgment over them, whether or not it was intended as that.

Cholo, can you give a cite from the Gospels for that? I know it’s considered a commonpiece of Christian behavior, but my impression is that it’s Pauline rather than from Jesus’s own words. (Not to start an argument, just to get our facts straight.)

8

The Cliff Notes version of the NT must be pretty short.

9

Weren’t the letters of Paul written before the gospels were?

10

1st Corinthians at least was written around AD50. First gospel would be AD70.

11

Okay, fine, and I grant you the respective dating.

Paul had a particular message, which he was concerned to get across to the Greek world of his day. The Gospels, each of which has its own particular focus, are an attempt to convey specifically the teachings of Jesus and an account of His life. And, given that each has its own idee fixe of what the “important” point about His career, they coincide to give a reasonably good picture of an individual.

Ergo, if I want to know what Paul taught, I turn to his letters, and particularly Romans. But if I’m focused on what Jesus taught, I look at the Gospels – being aware that there is a 40 year gap between the Crucifixion and their probable average date, but relying on them to convey the gist of His message.

12

What do you make of the Jesus who violently drove the moneychangers from the temple?

  • Rick
13

He was standing up for what he believed in.

There’s as difference between being diplomatic and being a complete doormat.

14

Yes, I agree. But, the writers of the gospels each had particular messages they were concerned to get out too, and when you’re reading the gospels, you’re not reading what Jesus said and did…you’re reading what Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, et. al. wrote that Jesus said and did, and these accounts differ, sometimes just slightly, like the differences between the various synoptic gospels, and sometimes significantly, like the differences between the synoptics and the Gospel of John.

So, it seems to me that you have at least three main conceptions of Jesus and his life and teachings. You have the Pauline Jesus, you have the Synoptic Jesus, and you have the Johannine Jesus, and since the Pauline letters are earliest, we can say it’s possible that the Gospels themselves were influenced by Paul and the Pauline epistles. So, I don’t think you can seperate “What Paul taught” and “What Jesus taught” so easily.

It’s like the Socrates problem…all that stuff that Plato says that Socrates taught in all the dialogues…did Socrates actually teach it, or are the ideas Plato’s?

15

How do you know what’s evil?

Jesus preached unconditional forgiveness and seemed to oppose the death penalty, so that (as Poly says) should supercede anything that Paul said.

The cleansing of the temple was a largely symbolic act, not really especially violent. He certainly didn’t kill anybody, he just knocked over a few tables. You can’t really extropolate a lust for for war and the gas chamber out of that.

16

You’re right, to a certain extent, but there is at least some scholarly consensus as to a basic core of teachings, sayings and parables which are believed to stem from the historical Jesus. Multiple independent attestation is one of the key criteria for this. If more than one source independently credits Jesus with a particular saying, it is believed to have a stronger chance of being historical. “Turn the other cheek” is one of those sayings.

17

That’s the idea behind that Jesus Seminar, right? They analyzed the Gospels and figure out what parts Jesus probably actually said and did, and what parts were likely inventions of the writers?

18

Yes. They used a color coded voting system where they rated sayings of Jesus in terms of probable historicity.

19

There is a lot of ground between supporting certain wars and the death penalty and lusting for them. I think it is pretty clear how Jesus taught individuals to behave. My point, which I stated before, is that I do not think individuals and governments were meant to follow the same code. Paul certainly seems to agree and you could construe Jesus’, “Render unto Caesar,” as his argument for a demarcation of spiritual and civil duties. It seems implicit that civil law will not contradict the great spiritual law (aside from ‘Caesar is lord’). The merits of the dealth penalty aside, I think it would be disasterous if our nation’s government began acting as a Christian individual is called to act.

20

In the Jewish & Christian views, God expanded His Revelation so that one can’t take one aspect of it without considering the others-

First, God gives Torah- the basic history of Creation to the Exodus, with His Moral & Ritual Law, then through the Prophets & the Writings, God expands on how He acts in Israel’s later history & how He expects His Israelite people to treat Him, each other & the Gentiles. Rabbinic tradition as represented in the Talmuds then apply the Torah, the Prophets & the Writings onward.

In the Christian perspective, Jesus’s teachings were in context of the Jewish Scriptures and the proto-Talmudic Rabbinical traditions,
amplifying & clarifying but not usurping the Scriptures (tho at times the Rabbinic traditions). After His Ascension, God built upon the revelation of Jesus’s teachings through the writings of the Apostles.
(Catholic & Orthodox thought would add Church Councils & Tradition also.) THUS, to take a statement by Jesus & apply it without considering either Jewish Scripture or Apostolic elaboration is not the most reliable way for Christians to proceed through life.