• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Question(s) for Christians

lvbuckeye;1701891; said:
because they asked 'is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar.' lawful being the key word. the question is WHAT LAW? Roman or Moses? if He said to pay tribute to Caesar, He would have been advocating breaking Mosaic Law, namely "Thou shall not have any other gods before Me." paying tribute was viewed the same as idol worship. and that stance would most certainly had Him in front of the council.

Let me rephrase the question. What evidence do you have that during the time of Jesus, the Sanhedrin taught that it was wrong to pay taxes to the Romans? I'm unaware of any such teaching/ruling by the Sanhedrin. In addition, where in the writings of either the early rabbis or the apostolic fathers do you find that paying tribute to a foreign occupier was interpreted as a violation of the first commandment? (Note: I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I would just really would like to know.)
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1701943; said:
Let me rephrase the question. What evidence do you have that during the time of Jesus, the Sanhedrin taught that it was wrong to pay taxes to the Romans? I'm unaware of any such teaching/ruling by the Sanhedrin. In addition, where in the writings of either the early rabbis or the apostolic fathers do you find that paying tribute to a foreign occupier was interpreted as a violation of the first commandment? (Note: I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I would just really would like to know.)
Ask Cinci, I think that was in his time. :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1701941; said:
Muffler, just interested in knowing why you are placing an emphasis on Jesus performing every mitzvoh? I'm unaware of such a teaching in any version of Christianity. The general idea is that he didn't violate any of the commands, which is very different than carrying every one of them out.

Couple things:

1) Many Christians make the blanket statement that Jesus fulfilled the Whole/All/Entire Torah. This is simply not the case considering the manifold differences between the mitzvoh. Thus, it may be a difference in terminology; however, I believe adding clarity to that determination may be of assistance.
2) Jesus didn't fulfill one of the first commandments given to mankind: be fruitful and multiply. He didn't marry, didn't have chidren/offspring. Outside of the metaphorical/spiritualization argument, the context surrounding the mitzvoh throughout history shows it to be a physical mitzvoh.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1701923; said:
It's impossible for one person to perform every mitzvoh in the Mosaic covenant. This doesn't have anything to do with ability either as there are mitzvoh that pertain to men, women, husbands, priests, etc. Jesus never had a menstrual cycle, Jesus didn't marry, there are certain things he simply did not do; thus, he didn't fulfill every mitzvoh.



I'm well aware of the messianic prophesies through out the Tanakh (I'm also well aware of the ones that aren't; yet people describe them as).



IF Josh were a Jew; then he would be bound to follow the mitzvoh that pertain to him and just those (not the superfluous ones that don't).

i didn't say Jew. :wink:
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1701956; said:
1) Many Christians make the blanket statement that Jesus fulfilled the Whole/All/Entire Torah. This is simply not the case considering the manifold differences between the mitzvoh. Thus, it may be a difference in terminology; however, I believe adding clarity to that determination may be of assistance.

Well, that does get into the difference of opinion on what "fulfill" actually means when Jesus said he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. My own understanding is that the idiom "fulfill the law" in first century Judaism meant "interpret correctly".

2) Jesus didn't fulfill one of the first commandments given to mankind: be fruitful and multiply. He didn't marry, didn't have chidren/offspring. Outside of the metaphorical/spiritualization argument, the context surrounding the mitzvoh throughout history shows it to be a physical mitzvoh.

Unfortunately, I don't have a source for this and I'm only going by memory; but I read once that in Judaism there is acknowledgement that one can be exempted from this mitzvah if he dedicates his entire life to the study and teaching of Torah. Do you know of any such teaching?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1701943; said:
Let me rephrase the question. What evidence do you have that during the time of Jesus, the Sanhedrin taught that it was wrong to pay taxes to the Romans? I'm unaware of any such teaching/ruling by the Sanhedrin. In addition, where in the writings of either the early rabbis or the apostolic fathers do you find that paying tribute to a foreign occupier was interpreted as a violation of the first commandment? (Note: I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I would just really would like to know.)

my evidence is that the Pharisees came in seeking to trick Him, and asked the very question we are discussing. if you are looking for me to link a commentary or something, i'm out of luck. taxes are one thing. TRIBUTE* is another.

*a gift, testimonial, compliment, or the like, given as due or in acknowledgment of gratitude or esteem.

and the word they used was didomi which is GIVE, not PAY.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1701965; said:
Well, that does get into the difference of opinion on what "fulfill" actually means when Jesus said he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. My own understanding is that the idiom "fulfill the law" in first century Judaism meant "interpret correctly".

You and I are both familiar with this idiom. I should have stated when talking about Christianity that I am talking about the vast majority of Christianity (not the Judaic sects that are taking a much deeper look into the traditions and times). Does that clarify?

bg said:
Unfortunately, I don't have a source for this and I'm only going by memory; but I read once that in Judaism there is acknowledgement that one can be exempted from this mitzvah if he dedicates his entire life to the study and teaching of Torah. Do you know of any such teaching?

As I understand it, there are exemptions to most (if not all mitzvoh). In particular, when dealing with "fruitful and multiply", there is the considerattion of impotence (naturally or otherwise); thus, one can be observant wthout "fulfilling" this requirement. Obviously, this isn't the only consideration either. I was simply showing that even one of the most fundamental commandments was not "fulfilled/observed/whatever you want to call it" by Jesus.

Here's an interesting link I just found by googling:

Celibacy - My Jewish Learning

Reprinted from The Jewish Religion: A Companion, published by Oxford University Press.
It is a high religious obligation to marry and have children, so that the question of whether it is religiously proper to he celibate is really a question of whether there are circumstances when the religious injunction of procreation can be set aside.
The classical text in this connection is in the Talmudic tractate Yevamot (63b). Here the story is told of the Palestinian teacher Simeon ben Azzai (early second century CE), who preached an eloquent sermon on the duty of procreation. When his colleagues reproached him for not practicing what he preached since he himself was unmarried, he replied: 'What can I do? Mv soul is in love with the Torah. The world can be populated through others.
Ben Azzai's vocation as a diligent student of the Torah did not allow him to shoulder the responsibilities of married life. His love of the Torah prevented him from being a proper husband to a human wife. (The idea of the Torah as Israel's bride is found in many Talmudic and Midrashic passages.)
Does the Jewish tradition extend this exemption from the duty to marry to other students of the Torah, or is the case of Ben Azzai treated as unique because of his exceptional qualities? A number of medieval authorities did not treat the case of Ben Azzai as exceptional. They are followed in the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh (Even Ha-Ezer, I. 4): "Anyone whose soul is constantly in love with the Torah like Ben Azzai so that he cleaves to it all his days without ever taking a wife such a one commits no sin, provided that his [sexual] inclination does not get the better of him."
The later commentators, however, do tend to see Ben Azzai as exceptional and some point to the less than categorical formulation in the Shulhan Arukh: "commits no sin," implying, perhaps, that if such a student were to ask his Rabbi whether he might remain single he should be told that it is his duty to marry.
Others again note the qualification that celibacy is only allowed where the student is fully able to control his sexual urge and they hold that nowadays such total dedication to the ideal of chastity no longer exists. Even among his rabbinic colleagues Ben Azzai's attitude was not accepted. Evidently, although they were also in love with the Torah, they did not feel that a celibate life was possible for them.
In practice, throughout the ages, only a very few scholars remained unmarried and there are only a very few instances of a community seeing no objection to appointing a bachelor as its Rabbi (but this is not entirely unknown). The weight of the tradition is against the celibate life even for the most dedicated students of the Torah. With the possible exception of the Essenes, there has never been anything like a religious order of celibates in Judaism.

I find it particulary interesting that one who "loves" Torah should abide by the commandment to marry (and subsequently, "be fruitful and multiply"). It's hard to argue against that.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1701466; said:
Looks like you've mastered the art of only caring about the parts (in this case passages) which protect your incomplete scope and demeaning ridicule.

Either the Bible is the "word of god", or it isn't. You can't ignore the distasteful parts and treat it as a cafeteria plan, then claim the book has validity because it supposedly came from god through the apostles.

Actually, I guess you can since that's what you're doing, but it's not a credible argument. Instead, it's a desperate attempt to cling to something near and dear to your heart, that your brain knows is nonsense.
 
Upvote 0
Jake;1707244; said:
Either the Bible is the "word of god", or it isn't. You can't ignore the distasteful parts and treat it as a cafeteria plan, then claim the book has validity because it supposedly came from god through the apostles.

Can't speak for Josh. I speak for me. This is my church's (PCUSA)Statement of Faith (in part)
Chapter Six - the Word of God
(3) The Bible is the written Word of God.
Led by the Spirit of God
the people of Israel and of the early church
preserved and handed on the story
of what God had said and done in their midst
and how they had responded to him.
These traditions were aften shaped and reshaped
by the uses to which the community put them.
They were cherished, written down, and collected
as the holy literature of the people of God.
Through the inward witness of the same Spirit
we acknowledge the authority of the Bible.
We accept the Old and New Testaments as the canon,
or authoritative standard of faith and life,
to which no further writings need be added.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
are necessary, sufficient, and reliable
as witnesses to Jesus Christ, the living Word.
We must test any word that comes to us
from church, world, or inner experience
by the Word of God in Scripture.
We are subject to its judgment
all our understanding of doctrine and practice,
including this Declaration of Faith.
We believe the Bible to be the Word of God
as no other word written by human beings.
Relying on the Holy Spirit, who opens our eyes and hearts,
we affirm our freedom to interpret Scripture responsibly.
God has chosen to address his inspired Word to us
through diverse and varied human writings.
Therefore we use the best available methods
to understand them in their historical and cultural settings
and the literary forms in which they are cast.
When we encounter apparent tensions and conflicts
in what Scripture teaches us to believe and do,
the final appeal must be to the authority of Christ.
Acknowledging that authority, comparing Scripture with
Scripture, listening with respect to fellow-believers past
and present, we anticipate that the Holy Spirit will enable
us to interpret faithfully God's Word for our time and place.


And a part of our Confession of 1967

"The New Testament is the recorded testimony of apostles
to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, and the
sending of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The Old Testament bears
witness to God?s faithfulness in his covenant with Israel and
points the way to the fulfillment of God's
purpose in Christ.
The Old Testament is indispensable to understanding the New,
and is not itself fully understood without the New.

The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God's
work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless words of
human beings, conditioned by the language, thought forms,
and literary fashions of the places and times at which they
were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos
which were then current. The church, therefore, has an
obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical
understanding. As God has spoken the divine word in diverse
cultural situations, the church is confident that God will continue
to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every
form of human culture. "

So no offense Jake, and due respect for your Catholic and later Baptist upbringing, but please do not tell me what the hell I think - and what other's think - about the Word of God. This view is not the only view. It is not the view of many on this board who are Christians. But your "Either the Bible is the "word of god", or it isn't" deal is nice and all....but excuse me and my denomination for not believing the First Book of Jake, Chapter One, verse umptisquatum, for how to take my Bible and how to interpret it. We will just muddle along fine with our own ideas. So feel free to go on beating on jot for jot fundamentalists, but realize that even they do not read it the way you do.
 
Upvote 0
Jake;1707244; said:
Instead, it's a desperate attempt to cling to something near and dear to your heart, that your brain knows is nonsense.
I was hoping we could get more insults and venomous hatred tonight rather than actual discussion about philosophy & scripture.


A civil poster might notice muffler crushing your haphazard argument and move on.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The thread has wandered from the initial question which I read as: How do people who call themselves "Christian" justify their opposition to welfare programs?

Inferred is the idea that Christ is a spokesman for the underclass of the Jewish community of his time, that the Sermon on the Mount is a call for social action, and therefore, if you claim to be a follower, shouldn't you also answer the call for social action?

I'm trying to think of a core document of any of the major religions that says, "Forget the poor. They need to figure out that life is not a free ride. Instead, concentrate on prospering and thanking me for all the blessings that I lavish on you because you were born into good circumstances. you're smart and you work hard."

So, if by "The word of God to Man" you mean wisdom that has come into the belief system of the vast majority of civilization, it would seem to me that that includes the core documents of all the great religions and that therefore, at the very least, believers are obligated to ponder the condition of all of mankind and to act in ways which benefit the many and not just the few.

While I tend to think that that means that government should concentrate on equalizing opportunity, I can also appreciate that Atlas Shrugged mentality that says that people of genius and determination create benefit for others -- trickle down, as Ronnie would have put it -- and that if you take away too much of the incentive the goose will stop laying the golden eggs. Where to draw the line with regard to incentive seems to be the most difficult part.
 
Upvote 0
Christians who "walk the walk" may legitimately support or oppose government welfare programs; either way, they pay enough to charities such that if all Christians did likewise, welfare programs would be unnecessary.

Or such is my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top