Why do all intelligent Christians disobey Jesus?

by StoneWall 347 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • not a captive
    not a captive

    Remember that Jesus did not bind himself to scriptures. He was always in trouble for that. I've said this before--If the servant is not above his master then why would I not try to "get the understanding" ofthe scripture as Jesus said?

    Not heal a woman on the Sabbath? If we save an ox or an ass, why not a woman?

    Why would Jesus recommend singleness--because he didn't recommend ditching your existing obligations--no, he simply advised that you not incur family duties. The evangelist Philip had four daughters, disciples in Acts 21 with their wives and children saw Paul off on a voyage. His references to leaving your parental ties to custom are one thing we leave but he absolutely excoriated the Jews for creating a device-"corban"--by which they could beg off from the care of elderly parents.

    Why try to polarize , why not instead try to understand each other? We are not Witnesses now. What religion do you want me to join?

    Is it rational discussion we want or just debates?

  • StoneWall
    StoneWall
    Remember that Jesus did not bind himself to scriptures.

    I would have to disagree somewhat with this statement.

    Go back in your bible and read Matthew chapter 4(where Jesus is being tempted by Satan) and read how many times

    Jesus quoted scripture and said "it is written"

    There is many more if you need me to get them for further reference.

    Why try to polerize , why try not to understand each other.

    If you meant polarize, that is not what I'm trying to do, just to understand why people feel or think the way they do.

    Is it rational discussion we want or just debates?

    Why not both. I like rational discussions but even debates serve a purpose.

  • XJW4EVR
    XJW4EVR
    Is there anywhere in the bible record of where Jesus said to defend yourselves or retaliate?

    Luke 22:35-38: Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered.
    He said to them, “But now if you have a purse take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
    The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

    We can all recall words such as turn the other cheek:
    Matthew 5:38-39 "YOU heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 39 However, I say to YOU: Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him. (NWT)

    If someone is righthanded, and they throw a right cross (since most people are righthanded, this is a logical presumption), what cheek are they going to hit? The left. If someone is righthanded, and strikes your right cheek, what have they done? A backhanded and insulting slap. The issue here is not about pacifism in the face of all violence, but pacifism in the case of violenece done to a believer as an insult to his beliefs.

    The problem with people, like the ones that produced this video, is that they have no idea about context, and are reading the words in a wooden fashion that does not account for the historical and grammatical context.

    In other words it so easy to read in the bible about selling everything you have and disperse it to the poor, but how many
    christians will/would follow through with that part?

    I really can't believe that you have to be walked through this! This statement was issued to a specific person with a specific issue, if you have any doubts read Matthew 19:16-22. Now, is this particular situation applicable to all Christians now, and in times past? Not necessarily, but Jesus never said that money was the problem, but that making money an idol was the issue.

    Even though I don't agree with all that is stated in this video, I think the author of said work makes some valid remarks about how
    even "christians" have no problem disobeying parts of the bible or words attributed to Jesus, when it doesn't fit in
    with their perceptions.

    The author of this video makes no valid remarks, because his premises are based on a faulty understanding of scripture! It's not that the words of Jesus do not fit our perceptions, it's that the auother of this video is trying to stuff his perceptions into scripture ripped out of context in order to form a pretext of "Christian disobediance.

  • StoneWall
    StoneWall

    Talking about taking things out of context. Lets's examine this

    Luke 22:35-38: Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered.
    He said to them, “But now if you have a purse take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
    The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

    Look at the part"And he was numbered with the transgressors."

    Who at that time was known for having swords. Remember reading about roadside bandits and "highwaymen"?

    The robbers,bandits,thieves and Rogues were all well known for carrying swords. By having these swords and going about

    their way they could have just as easily been numbered in with them.

    If you continue reading further in Luke you will see that Jesus made sure they had the swords so it could take place with

    Peter about him striking the ear of the slave and taking it off. No where did Jesus say to defend him or retaliate.

    Matter of fact if you look closely at Luke 22:49 which states in part "Lord shall we strike with the sword?"

    Notice what Jesus told them.

    My point is the swords had to be there for Jesus to show them "that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword"

    That is why he instructed them to purchase them.

    Notice verse 52 gives it all away about how Jesus was reckoned in with the robbers

    "Jesus then said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and older men that had come there for him: “Did YOU come out with swords and clubs as against a robber?"

    So please read the whole chapter before trying to show Jesus was asking them to get swords to fight back with.

    The whole chapter clearly shows what his intentions were.

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    This is what happens when you strip verses of all textual or historical context.

  • not a captive
    not a captive

    I had corrected "polarize", before your post, Stonewall.

    But I am not in doubt that you understood my meaning anyway. I suggest you not waste your time proofreading my posts--they are usually filled with mistakes of various sorts. I have been used to having my grammar corrected during troublesome disputes with my vastly better educated husband; so I recognize passive aggression when I see it.

    My intent is not to debate or to improve the English on the board. I am trying to comb through the genuinely trying circumstances of life.And after 20+ years of JW life, I do still believe there is that is benevolent and powerful being that I knew before my "captivity". But it is trying to sort through the practical aspect of faith knowing my mind is limited, my time is limited, and the source material is not completely trustworthy.I found this site two months ago and I value tit for many things but mostly for the fine heckling that goes on here.

    It may be foolish to say this, but I do try to understand what Jesus teaches. I had lived for years without utilities and soon many conveniences will be lost to me again. Some would say that living like a backwoods tinker is how you follow Jesus. But I don't think it is. One disciple, Joseph of Arimathea, had money or resources enough to wrap the body of Jesus in yards of fine linen and put him in some prime real estate for burial yet a rich young ruler was told to sell what he had and give it to the poor. It isn't being broke that makes us a disciple--it's just not letting your circumstances, rich or poor, impede the call to follow. "Do not be anxious..."

    The concerns that rationalists and christians deal with are the same, these issues of fear and poverty and death. No one I know lives where these things cannot ever intrude. But internet access has put me into a realm that definitely obscures class perceptions--I know, because I definitely did not have it nor know how to use it until five years ago when the youngest of my seven children had to have it for school. And instantly I , like my daughter, could put a shine on a thought if I had the time. I could access conversations and information that was absolutely unavailable before. And while it allows me a voice in sharp forums and around well educated people I am most interested in examining the truth of Jesus teachings.

    My life has been very interesting but not prosperous.Its been physically primitive a lot of the tim and poor all of the time.I have lived alot without certain modern conveniences. And soon my precious computer will go with me when I move back into the Ozarks. I will be closely engaged with the birds of the air and the lilies of the field again --and no internet for a while at least.

    I don't know anything about you.That generally is not necessary in these debate/discussions. But there was a tone in your post ---maybe I'm wrong---that told me your words did not come from a fair place. Forgive me if I am just overly sensitive in this. Because I can assure you, though I am not afraid of having any or all of my thoughts knocked down, and I do welcome a good solid punch to a badly set idea, I only ask for good motive. I don't have much time.

    Now, I stand by my saying that Jesus did not bind himslf to scripture. Of course he used it, of course. But why be bound to them when they only poorly reflect God's mind? The Law so obviously was filtered through men's minds and words. If Jesus was there basically as God's editor as the Logos, why would he have to give place to the earlier draft of the script? Matthew 19 for example?

    What do you think of Jesus comments on the law of Moses?

  • not a captive
    not a captive

    I apologize, StoneWall,

    I feel now I was pretty reactive. I consider your last post on taking up the sword a sound,measured bit of thought--he very sort of exchange that puts a discussion forward. Sorry I was testy. Maeve

  • XJW4EVR
    XJW4EVR

    No, Stone Wall, the key to this section is in verse 35, "Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered." Here Jesus is clearly referring to some previous event in which Jesus sent out his disciples. This event is recorded in Luke 10. Verse 4 says, "Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road" (incidently, if I use the hermenuetic demonstrated in your original post, Christians are under obligation to not speak to anyone. I realize that this might make some atheists hapy, but it is clear from the context that it was a specific instruction for a specific event). Jesus is laying the groundwork for a change in the mission and the disciples are being told that the Gospel will not merely remain a sect of Judaism, but will be offered to the Gentiles. This does not rule out the idea that he wanted the swords in order to fulfill prophecy. However, I do not think that they are mutually exclusive, as you, and the producer of the video, would have us believe.

  • StoneWall
    StoneWall

    not a captive said:

    I have been used to having my grammar corrected during troublesome disputes with my vastly better educated husband; so I recognize passive aggression when I see it.

    Do you now? Under no circumstances should you take what I said as aggresive in any form.(even passively)

    I like when someone points out where I make a mistake whether it be spelling,punctuation,grammar or otherwise,as

    long as it's done with good motive or intent as you stated above. It lets me know they took interest in something I had

    to say, even if they might not agree with what was said.

    I think of this scripture in Proverbs that I like.

    Proverbs 9:8,9 "Do not reprove a ridiculer, that he may not hate you. Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you. 9 Give to a wise person and he will become still wiser. Impart knowledge to someone righteous and he will increase in learning."

    I have very much enjoyed reading your posts as of late, and the other night I read through your letters you had written to Elders,the congregation and even the society. I was very impressed that you stood up for what you saw in the scriptures and was willing to suffer the consequences.

    Very commendable. Keep on knocking.Keep on searching.

    And if I remember correctly, I think it was you on some other thread that said you had laughed more these last couple months

    than you have had in years. That resonated with me because I too have laughed very much as of late and have needed

    it for some time.

    What do you think of Jesus comments on the law of Moses?

    I will leave this for another time because I was never that impressed with the law of Moses since no one could ever measure up to it since it was pointing to something better in the future.

    But suffice it to say the law I was impresssed with is this one at Romans 2:14

    " For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves"

  • not a captive
    not a captive

    Thank you for not letting me twist in the wind over my snittiness.

    I'll take your remark on the law of Moses as evidence of two things: 1)We might agree about the Law of Moses generally--(I think was the lowest common denominator for Israelites) 2) that probably means we would agree that Jesus in his response to the Jews was saying that the Law was too low a threshold to use for anyone who wants to do God's will.

    And regarding Romans 2:14-- isn't that a common complaint among non-Christians--How often they behave better than "the people of God"!

    Actually Rom 2:14 is a sweet place in the divide between rationalists and Christians. This convergence seems to say there is a common cause can rise from our common pain. And at our best won't we both try to heal it?

    But communication is hard. This board becomes quickly polemical on any topic. And while those wild rides can be fun, sometimes they leave us in a state of dissatisfaction; robbing us of a sense of accomplishment.

    I notice thatsome try to pull disperate part together. Tammy is particularly good at drawing very skillfully and gracefully even difficult threads to a useful and satisfying point then stepping back to see if it will stand on its own. It often does. I personally think part of her gift is her confidence that there is a common resting point. She is smart and reasonable, but more : she gets the ideas to move toward each other in slow motion and gets them into position so that each person can see why and how their idea relates and fit to another's. And it helps that she has no apparent interest in a personal "win". That kind of communication just isn't the same as debate. And she has an unflappable kindness and respect for people.

    Debating is a skill that many are good at on this forum. Everyone on this forum is thinking. (I'm not so quick. But I get to tweak a thought along since I'm unemployed and moving out.)That's not enough. Eventually we all want to see our thoughts find affirmation. Isn't that why we put them out there, mainly? As I said before, yes, polemics , yes, debate, but don't we hope for moments after the debates and wranglings are done for thoughts to come together?

    Romans 2:14

    I realize this is a ramble. I realize that this forum is first and foremost a sanatorium. I am so glad.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit