Luke 6:29-30

by Anti-Christ 60 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Word:

    Leaving aside the anti-semitic overtones of some of your later posts, I would like to address what seems to be the deepest problem in your initial argument (which I would sum up as, "what Jesus taught to do, he taught only to show that we couldn't do it").

    Not only is it conspicuously absent from Jesus' teaching in the Gospels. In Matthew (which is more theologically consistent than Luke in this respect) it is flatly rejected. The whole point of Matthew's Gospel being that Jesus' radical teaching (not "sacrifice") fulfills the law provided it is put into practice. E.g. 7:16ff:

    "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.
    "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers (lit. workers of lawlessness).'
    "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell--and great was its fall!"

    This directly opposes the Pauline view that people (actually Gentile Christians) can be saved, not by doing anything ("works") but by acknowledging Jesus as Lord (Romans 10).

    When you choose to read Matthew through the Protestant generalisation of the Pauline prism, as you do, you actually choose to disregard what Jesus explicitly said (according to Matthew), in favour of your understanding of what Paul meant. Iow, you choose to put your trust in (Luther's) Paul rather than in (Matthew's) Jesus. Right or wrong, the responsibility is yours.

  • fresia
    fresia
    Good one. I wonder what the GB would say if I ask theme to give me everything they have, they are the brothers of Jesus, right? So they are supposed to follow his teachings.

    The GB don't have anything that is not given them by donations from the r/f, the r/f give to Jehovah, so the GB must think they are Jehovah to take what they need out of donations to support themselves. Now they do offer a service, similar to the politicians, they are providing a service, so the GB are imployed by the r/f.

    The money they get from donations should be accountable for in monthly statements, or three monthly statements. Where is the money going to, has any of our money been paid to victims of child abuse, we should be informed.

    The GB are employed by the b/s, we feed them, we cloth them, they don't work and we want to know what they do with our money.

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    True the WTS made most of its wealth through donations and the selling of its products through an immense but unpaid salesforce. It's strange and unacceptable that how they invested this money and what became of these investments is a total mystery.

    Paul's statements should be seen in the context of his total statements and the larger picture they paint and in this way the salvation through faith doctrine can not stand. Eg whatever you do and achieve if you have no love it is a pointless exercise.

  • Word
    Word
    Now your are insulting my intelligence, you want me to believe that god never instructed people to be executed for disobeying god's law? Let me refresh your memory. First, the flood, god kills every thing except 8 people and some animals. What about Sodom and Gomorrah? And then lot's wife. Now what about these verses Ex. 21: 17 Ex 32: 27-29 and there are a lot more. So I think the Israelites knew god pretty well.

    I am ?

    "First, the flood, god kills every thing except 8 people and some animals".

    Now we know this not to be a historic fact don't we

    So why should the rest of it be ?

    The true knowledge about God is not found in the old testament.

    The truth about God is is displayed in Jesus Christ.

  • Word
    Word

    Narkissos :

    Interesting, you believe that Paul didn't get it right.

    To acts on Christ's words is to give up the law-doing and become one with Him

    Like he said,

    On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?

    This didn't qualify them did it ?

    You must be in Christ to qualify.

    This goes for all of us.

  • JCanon
    JCanon

    Hi Anti-Christ (for real?). You asked me to comment on this...

    27 “But I say to YOU who are listening, Continue to love YOUR enemies, to do good to those hating YOU , 28 to bless those cursing YOU , to pray for those who are insulting YOU . 29 To him that strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him that takes away your outer garment, do not withhold even the undergarment. 30 Give to everyone asking you, and from the one taking your things away do not ask [them] back.

    My take on this is that it is in the context of someone who acts against you as an enemy. For instance, say you are a black person in the South during slavery times, or even now. Whites expect to be treated special. They want you to sit in the back of the bus, not look them into the eye, not look at any white women, etc. Sometimes they are violent against you. I don't think this means, if you can, to allow them to just abuse you, sometimes it can't be helped. But in the end, you're still not allowed to hate that person. But in general, like the old rules of ettique were that if you were black, you always had to get off the boardwalk to allow white person, old or young the right of way. Whites were told that, of course, a younger person gives right of way to an older person, a man to a woman. If, the woman is an elderly Indian woman, than a younger white man would give respect. Otherwise, he had the right of way. But even if the woman was elderly and black, in no way was she to be respected by him. Those were the rules. So what black people did, not that they had much choice, was give in. They turned the other cheek, hopefully to have that person reflect back on what type of person and culture the white culture really was. And eventually, they came around to see that all that was unnecessary and that it is better and more noble to respect all individuals as equally as possible.

    So I think I'd remember this rule in those situations where I'm dealing with white racists or people in the white culture who sometimes will expect certain things from me as a black man, for me to step back and wait, or not expect to ever be in a position of leadership. It's not fair, but I would turn the other cheek, take less and be happy with that, while at the same time not hating him for acting out rather infantile cultural prejudices. You know, consider them imperfect and flawed as we all are and still consider that God values their humanity and perhaps at one point they will no longer feel a need to impose their inferiority complex on others.

    Plus I think it's practical and certainly the common advice when you do have someone being aggressive against you. Like when you're being robbed! They want to take your wallet. They have a gun pointed at you, then offer that. If you have on a watch, it might not be a bad idea to offer that too. You want to satisfy them so that they don't shoot you.

    Which is the other thing. What if your enemy strikes you in the cheek and you strike him back? You've got a fight going and your enemy usually is the one who wants to win at all costs so it might end up you'll have to decide to kill him. Then you have all that baggage to deal with. If you can turn the other cheek though, take the insult without cursing back or antagonizing, usually things simmer down and turn out better for you and for them.

    Now there are some practicalities too. For instance, I was thinking about the robbery. That person is robbing you, maybe you have five dollars in your wallet and a $25 dollar watch you offer him. I was going to say, offer him your CAR. But that would not be advised unless he comes up with that idea first, since if he steals your car and he gets caught its a stiffer penalty, or at least an additional charge which will result in their having to serve a longer sentence, etc.

    I also think Christians must be in mind to help others see that the Christian way is the better way, and by their example of showing what is truly important, the other person is won over. And certainly striking back or arguing back would clearly aggravate things, right?

    So in the end, I do think lots of people, given the situation, see this as being quite practical, especially when someone who is striking you has a gun or has a tendency to violence or has 18 of his gangbangers with him. What you want to do is to appease them for the moment and then get the hell away from them! So it definitely works.

    Now the Bible says ENEMY here. So someone with some legal issue against you. If this is some bum on the street who just wants to slap you around and take your clothes, well... Use your own discretion.

    And by no means is one to presume the "cheek" here is a reference to the buttocks. Christ was not saying is at the Kingdom Hall some aberant elder slaps you on the cheek you're supposed to turn around with a gay grin and present him the other one to slap, perhaps taking off your belt to hand to him with a wink. That's NOT what this is about. Of course, if the elder is kinda cute and you're a young single woman, you might want to turn the other cheek in that case, but make sure he's single and actually interested in a relationship first!

    DISCRECTION. Each individual situation depends.

    JC

  • snowbird
    snowbird

    I agree with JCanon that Jesus was referring to the enemy of His Jewish audience. And who was that enemy? The Roman authorities. The parallel account in Matthew bears this out. See Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7. If at all possible it is better to appease one's enemies than provoke them. And believe you me, as a child of the South, I have done my share of appeasing.

    Sylvia

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    Interesting, you believe that Paul didn't get it right.

    That was not exactly my point.

    Let's say that if he was right Matthew's Jesus was wrong.

    But who got the other "wrong" is not as simple a question as it first seems, because (by the vast majority of scholarly reckoning) the Pauline epistles predate the canonical Gospels by several decades.

    It is moot to say that Paul "got Jesus wrong" because he practically never refers to his teaching.

    Otoh Pauline theology (especially anti-legalism) is woven into the very first Gospel (Mark). Matthew doesn't ignore it, he reacts to it.

    What remains there is the evidence for (at least) two very different types of "Christianity". Whence my remark that, ultimately, you choose (one against the other). So much for "Bible authority".

    To acts on Christ's words is to give up the law-doing and become one with Him

    Like he said,

    On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?

    This didn't qualify them did it ?

    You must be in Christ to qualify.

    The "in Him" theology has it roots in Paul but really thrives in what is often considered as post-Pauline (Colossians, Ephesians) and Johannine literature. It is hardly apparent in the Synoptic Gospels (unless it is read into them, that is).

    If perchance your highlighting the word "deeds" in Matthew 7:22 was meant to interpret it as a Pauline-like "anti-works" polemics, notice that "deeds of power" translates the simple word dunameis, "miracles" (characteristic of Hellenistic Christianity and unrelated to "works of the law"). The passage actually condemns "giving up the law-doing" ("evildoers" = "workers of lawlessness," ergazomenoi tèn anomian). Cf. 5:17ff:

    Do not think that I have come to abolish the law (nomos) or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
  • heathen
    heathen

    greendawn - that of course would be what most people would do .I would think the first thing that would come to mind to a christian would be to restrain the intruder tho you would have the right under human law to kill . Taking a human life was not granted under christian law as it was mosaic law. To die under the conditions of the christian law as was the main objective , being innocent as doves and cautious as vipers . The early christians layed down their life for their beliefs as martyrs . Even when peter cut the ear off the slave that abducted jesus in the garden he was reproved for his actions . As I'm not a christian I would shoot first and ask questions later tho ... HE HE

  • Word
    Word

    Narkissos :

    Let's say that if he was right Matthew's Jesus was wrong.

    But who got the other "wrong" is not as simple a question as it first seems, because (by the vast majority of scholarly reckoning) the Pauline epistles predate the canonical Gospels by several decades.

    It is moot to say that Paul "got Jesus wrong" because he practically never refers to his teaching.

    Otoh Pauline theology (especially anti-legalism) is woven into the very first Gospel (Mark). Matthew doesn't ignore it, he reacts to it.

    What remains there is the evidence for (at least) two very different types of "Christianity". Whence my remark that, ultimately, you choose (one against the other). So much for "Bible authority".

    The "in Him" theology has it roots in Paul but really thrives in what is often considered as post-Pauline (Colossians, Ephesians) and Johannine literature. It is hardly apparent in the Synoptic Gospels (unless it is read into them, that is).

    I see no conflict here, its just different ways of putting it.

    Matthew was written to the Jews

    Luke was written to the Greeks

    John was written to the Gnostics

    Mark was written to the

    Paul wrote to the Christians

    There are of course higher and lower forms of christology to.

    For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Here we go again, what does He want us to understand ?

    Have you read this book, you would love it.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit