12 Jul '10 12:24

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
do you often think that if you prove one item in a set, the whole set is proven?

what manner of kindergarten logic is this?

i don't think jesus meant sodom literally. he did exactly like a parent would when teaching a small child : "remember the boy who cried wolf? that is why it is wrong to lie".
but even if jesus meant the sodom reference as litera ...[text shortened]... w is flawed that doesn't mean the whole set from which that law is is flawed.

===============================
do you often think that if you prove one item in a set, the whole set is proven?
===================================

On a Forum like this it is customary to exchange points economically. This does not mean all could be said in one post.

The idea that you propose has had whole chapters of books and probable whole books written about it. I just gave you two or three concise examples make my point.

=========================
what manner of kindergarten logic is this?
==========================

I have not yet seen you offer your counter argument. The issue, "Did Jesus take the Old Testament stories seriously?"

What is your response to my objection that He did ?

==============================
i don't think jesus meant sodom literally. he did exactly like a parent would when teaching a small child : "remember the boy who cried wolf? that is why it is wrong to lie".
================================

It appears that the one employing "kindegarden logic" is yourself, not me.

The reason this logic does not impress me was stated already. Jesus said that it would be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the people of Sodom then it would be for that contemporary town which rejected Jesus.

The day of judgment for Jesus was very real.
I do not think Jesus would combine real people and mythical people as appearing in the real judgment.

Human nature is such that if exhortations are not built on actual facts they are taken far less seriously. If Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon were not history it would significantly deprive His exhortations of impact.

I think you the case of some humanists they intend to soften the impact of Christ's teaching. So they adopt a position that the underlying history to His teachings didn't happen.

Their goal is to dull the impact of His words.

======================================
but even if jesus meant the sodom reference as literary that still doesn't lead to jericho's wall being downed by the awesome sonic power of horns, or noah's flood to have actually happened and so on.
===================================

You mention three incidents. I think you should deal with them one at a time.

I don't know that your interpretation of the details of the Jericho account are accurate. I know the walls came down. I know they blew horns. I don't know that a sonic blast blew the walls down.

I don't know if Jesus refered to that story without double checking. However, the writer of the book of Hebrews wrote:

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell, having been encircle for a period of seven days." ( Heb. 11:30)

The same chapter mentions many other Old Testament stories including the flood of Noah:

"By faith Noah, having been divinely instructed concerning the things not yet seen and being moved by pious fear, prepared an ark for the salvation of his house, though which he condemned the world, and became heir of the rghteousness which is according to faith" (Heb 11:7)

I am persuaded that both accounts are history. Relegating them to Mother Goose type stories like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" almost completely robs the teaching of the New Testament of serious impact.

Now, the whole chapter is about the heros of faith. You can say that you personally do not have the faith that any of these things actually happened. By God's mercy, I have the faith that Jericho and Noah's flood were historic.

And I would add that I am warned by the New Testament that mockers would come in the last days denying the food of Noah. In this sense your skepticism is apparently right on time - (2 Peter 3:3-7)

Jesus did refer to the flood of Noah as a model for the second coming of Christ.

"For just as the days of Noah were, so woll the coming of the Son of Man be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day in which Noah entered into the ark. And they did not know [that judgment was coming] until the flood came and took all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matt. 24:37-39)

I take this as Jesus refering to history. When He does refer to parable it is usually pretty clear, ie. the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13).

==============================
Me:
The sense in which "Christ is the end of the law" as the Apostel Paul wrote, could not be unless Christ took the law seriously [...]
He had to have taken the law of Moses seriously for Him to fulfill the law's demands and say: "For this is My blood of the covenant, which is beeing poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Zahlanzi:
I often find myself without patience but i must remember that you don't function quite the same as normal people and i should not overload you with info.
==========================

I don't know what you mean that I do not function as a normal person. I think it is normal to have faith in God's word.

As I seek to abide in the Holy Spirit the word of God helps me. I think to live this way is normal human living. It may not be typical, but we were all involved in a fall into unbelief and sin.

I think Jesus was NORMAL MAN. And rather than the Son of God being an enigma I think His normality exposes the degree to which the rest of us have fallen from God's purpose for human living.

========================================
you believe that if jesus said that passage it means that he takes the laws of the old testament seriously?
===============================

I believe the evidence in that direction is strong.

================================
just to be clarified, i don't believe the laws didn't exist, i just say they weren't given by god and that jesus would have nothing to do with them
================================

I don't see it that way. I think that fallen man thinks he is Okay. And God gave the law of Moses mainly to EXPOSE man's inability.

Fallen man thinks there is no problem. If some difficulty between him and God has occured, man can fix that up with no problem. The law of Moses exposes that weakness. It is like the die that a cancer patient takes internally so that the x-ray will locate the cancer inside.

The law was given to expose the deepness of man's problem of the sin nature.

Now mind you, with all the regularions there were also the atoning sacrifices to make propitiation for the failures of law keeping - the consecration offering, the sin offering, the trespass offering, etc.

So there was built into the law the prinicple that atoning could be had for the one failing. But as Paul taught, basically the law was not to keep but to break that man might be exposed and see he, man, cannot fix the problem between him and God. God has to fix it.

God established a relationship with man in creation. Man damaged it. Man thinks "Well, if I have damaged the relationship with God, there is no problem. I will just fix it."

The law established this in essence. God saying "No, you do not understand. You can destroy the original relationship. But you cannot repair it. Now, I God, your Creator, I must come in to repair what YOU have destroyed in our harmonious relationship."

The law functions to reveal to man his need that God must come in to recover what was lost in the fall of man. God must bring in a salvation.

==========================================
In your opinion, what does it mean when jesus stoped that woman from being stoned? he didn't even cared if she is guilty or not. he just refused to punish her and gave her a chance to repent. Does this mean he supported the mosaic law in all its splendor?
====================================

He showed in that instance a couple of interesting things:

Only He was qualified to be a Judge because only He was sinless. All the others were convicted of their own consciences that they had no ground to be the woman's executioners. The older ones who had sinned longer realized this first and left. The younger brasher ones who lived shorter lives though, likewise realized that they were not without sin.

This is not Jesus overturning the law. This was the Son of God focusing a more penetrating light deeper into the human conscience. Yes, the regulation said that she should be executed. But in the light of Jesus "the light of the world", a deeper and more penetrating truth was conveyed.

In condemning the woman they were condemning themselves. Not one of them was without sin.

I do not know what Jesus was writing in the sand. The Bible doesn't say. Sometimes I wonder if He was writing the names of the people in the crowd who had actually committed adultery, even perhaps with that very woman.

Jesus did not take to lead to stone her. But He did mightily illuminate everyone's conscience.

"Neither do I condemn you; go and from now on sin no more. Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (John 8:11b-12)

==================================
Sure he kept some customs from it. But isn't that what i have been trying to tell you? don't be afraid to follow your heart and to use just some parts of some teachings? that if one law is flawed that doesn't mean the whole set from which that law is is flawed.
==========================================

You are making assumptions about my Christian life without knowing me.

In the passage that I just quoted you Jesus says that if we follow Him we will have the light. The good news is the Jesus is available and alive today. He is available for man to follow.

And in His resurrected state we can abide in H...

Spirituality

Bethlehem