Originally posted by NemesioYou are describing exactly what I claimed. You give an "opinion" which isn't really an opinion. You do not make a choice on the matter. You simply describe the situation and that's it. No personal choice, no commitment at all ..... an answer we are able to find in any encyclopedia.
I thought my answer was obvious. But, for the slow readers like yourself, I'll
spell it out:
I'm unsure whether Jesus, Himself, thought of His message as uniquely for the
Jews, but I doubt it. The Jewish-Christians thought this way, and they were His
closest followers, but they have a documented history of misreading Jesus (as is
evinced by the Gosp nriched by them; that is: Jesus's message is not peculiarly for Messianic
Jews.
Nemesio
In particular your last statement*) is revealing in its vagueness and non-committing obliqueness.
*) Nemesio: "So, I think that anyone -- theist, satanist, antitheist, agnostic -- can read the Gospels and be enriched by them; that is: Jesus's message is not peculiarly for Messianic Jews."
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Just like your rhetorical question asking me if I am a satanist."
Just like your rhetorical question asking me if I am a satanist.
And, when you claim that your question is a genuine one, I can say the same
thing! My question about your implict ambivalence about your own faith is
just as sincere!
And you'll think you're right, and I'll think I'm right.
Now here's the real question. When was the last time you took an intelligent
stand on a position? I can't even remember.
My question is not meant as a rhetorical one. It is meant to receive an answer.
Are you a satanist ?
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "I can't remember your answering any question and supplying that answer with any rational support in the 2+ years I've been reading this forum."
You are in the habit of spamming forums with Roman Catholic propaganda without
commentary and trolling those posters whose intellectual freedoms intimidate you.
I can't remember your answering any question and supplying that answer with any
rational support in the 2+ years I've been reading this forum.
And now, you've become leader of the WolfPack ...[text shortened]... nly #1 is more insulting than you,
and at least he's amusing. You're just sad.
Nemesio
😀 ..... You are confusing your quizzmaster activities, your examining and patronising debaters and the exposition of your encyclopedia with actual debate.
Nemesio: "And now, you've become leader of the WolfPack."
Turning things upside down, turning truths into lies is an aspect of satan's activities.
Nemesio: " Only #1 is more insulting than you,
... "
We agree about the fact that the marauder is insulting.
Originally posted by ivanhoeLOL!
You are describing exactly what I claimed. You give an "opinion" which isn't really an opinion. You do not make a choice on the matter. You simply describe the situation and that's it. No personal choice, no commitment at all ..... an answer we are able to find in any encyclopedia.
In particular your last statement*) is revealing in its vagueness and non- ...[text shortened]... and be enriched by them; that is: Jesus's message is not peculiarly for Messianic Jews."
Even when I give an answer, you accuse me of the opposite.
Pay attention, Ivanhoe:
We cannot know whether or not Jesus thought His message as appropriate for only
Jews or not, since He wrote nothing down. Obviously, St Matthew felt rather strongly
about the issue; obviously, St Luke felt the opposite. Obviously, there was division
about this in the early Church as attested to a few times in St Paul's letters.
So, I find the evidence inconclusive, but my opinion is that Jesus thought His message
was universal. In modern terms, it is clear that His message can be applied to all people.
So, shut up, Ivanhoe and learn to read.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeDid I predict that you would claim that your question was a sincere one?
[b]Nemesio: "Just like your rhetorical question asking me if I am a satanist."
My question is not meant as a rhetorical one. It is meant to receive an answer.
Are you a satanist ?[/b]
Yes, I did.
You seem awfully intimidated by me, Ivanhoe. Now you are implying that
my booklearning is somehow a disability. I suppose someone who blindly
accepts any propaganda put out by a Roman Catholic publication would find
someone with my ability to analyse rather intimidating.
So, I return to my question: Why are you so interested in the Church of
Satan? Is it because you find yourself unsatisfied in your own church? It
sounds to me like you really want to think for yourself, but are kind of scared
about the prospect.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou consider it vague that 'anyone' includes me?
In particular your last statement*) is revealing in its vagueness and non-committing obliqueness.
*) Nemesio: "So, I think that anyone -- theist, satanist, antitheist, agnostic -- can read the Gospels and be enriched by them; that is: Jesus's message is not peculiarly for Messianic Jews."
You are such a moron, Ivanhoe.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Did I predict that you would claim that your question was a sincere one? Yes, I did.
Did I predict that you would claim that your question was a sincere one?
Yes, I did.
You seem awfully intimidated by me, Ivanhoe. Now you are implying that
my booklearning is somehow a disability. I suppose someone who blindly
accepts any propaganda put out by a Roman Catholic publication would find
someone with my ability to analyse rather intim ...[text shortened]... ke you really want to think for yourself, but are kind of scared
about the prospect.
Nemesio
Your cristal ball abilities are astounding.
Nemesio: "You seem awfully intimidated by me, Ivanhoe."
Don't flatter yourself.
Nemesio: "someone with my ability to analyse "
Puke puke
Nemesio: "Why are you so interested in the Church of Satan?
Learn how to read. I asked satanists to come forward. That's something else. I want to know who I am dealing with.
Nemesio: "Is it because you find yourself unsatisfied in your own church?
Keep on speculating. Don't forget your cristal ball. I told you why I asked the question posed in my first post.
Nemesio: " It sounds to me like you really want to think for yourself, ... "
Where did you get that infamous idea ?
Again, returning to this thread's issue: Are you a satanist ?
Originally posted by NemesioAs I said you do not make a choice, you do not make a commitment. You are constantly hiding behind some encyclopedic knowledge.
You consider it vague that 'anyone' includes me?
You are such a moron, Ivanhoe.
Insulting me doesn't get you anywhere .... and I'm surely not intimidated by it ... as you may well know by now .......
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles... but of course I believe you, Dear Doctor. You have found your new internet persona. This calls for a celebration, don't you think ?
Would you believe him if he said he was? You didn't believe me.
Instead of DrS. you now will be known as Dr.SS ... isn't that provocative, controversial and very amusing ?
Originally posted by NemesioThe author of Saint Matthew's Gospel was writing for a Jewish-Christian
You aren't reading what I wrote. I did not say 'Jesus is only for the Jews.' Please,
I cannot continue to respond with patience if you persist in implying I believe this.
I said: The author of Saint Matthew's Gospel was writing for a Jewish-Christian
audience.[/b] We know from both Scripture and history that that audience
was particularly hostile not, it's that they do.
Nemesio[/b]
audience.
Not true. There are plenty of places in Matthew where Jesus tells us that he is for everyone. Try just two verses down, Matt 7:8 for example. This is what makes your argument senseless.
Wrong. 'Swine' is of 'curseword' proportions, like calling a person's mother a whore,
in Germany. It doesn't have that connotation in English.
This is not true either. If you call an American’s mother a swine do you think the American will appreciate it? Police are sometimes referred to as swine. These words are generic insults. Pigs are considered unclean by many people, not just the Jews.
Where is this stated? I know there are passages saying avoid being wicked, but to avoid the wicked is absurd. The reason that the Gospel is called 'Good News' is because, [b]by defintion, it is to be proclaimed. The people who have heard it don't need to keep hearing it...it's 'Old News,' so to speak.[/b]
As I have shown it says that Christians are supposed to avoid keeping bad company in many places. You don’t accept the meaning of the verses.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
Matt 8:21-22 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Here Jesus tells his disciple to renounce his own dad because he was wicked as were his friends.
WHAT?! Totally wrong. This passage is about a person prioritizing the 'needs' of the dead over the needs of the living, or someone who is prioritizing something corporeal over the spiritual. It's not about good or evil in any way, shape or form.
No Nemeiso, this is how you choose to interpret it. Why did Jesus refer to the living relatives of the father as dead? Any ideas? The people who Jesus called dead where spiritually dead. “Let the dead bury the dead.” The spiritually dead buried the physically dead.
Jesus recognized that some people will not accept the message in this lifetime. This is just one place where Jesus warns Christians to consider who they preach to.
When Paul tried to preach in Damascus they tried to kill him. This is and example of why Matt 7:6 should be heeded.
"Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character." (1 Corinthians 15:33)
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14).
Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil."
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethern, mark them which causes diversions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which yee have learned; and avoid them.
All of these disparate citations from Scripture -- out of context, of course -- are of the same sort. They are admonitions about [b]consorting with evildoers, that the good not become corrupted. This is not a command to avoid evildoers.[/b]
So this is how the passages read to you.
I Corinthians 15:33 Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character." (but be sure to keep plenty of bad company anyway)
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (Just kidding, go ahead and yoke with unbelievers)
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethern, mark them which causes diversions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which yee have learned; and avoid them. (Actually don’t avoid them. Try and convert them, and don’t blame God if they kill you)
Sometimes Nemeiso, you just have to read what’s there.
And it's not 'my view!' This is where you are caught up. I am not trying to make Jesus fit a mould which happens to be congenial to me.
Sure you are. Most people do. It helps though if you don’t put your own words in the text.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
Not true. There are plenty of places in Matthew where Jesus tells us that he is for everyone. Try just two verses down, Matt 7:8 for example. This is what makes your argument senseless.
If I say to my choir 'Anyone who wants to sing a solo can sing one,' and you showed up
and said 'You said anyone,' would I be right to refuse you? He is speaking to His audience
of Jewish people.
This is why He said that the Law would never pass away, not one letter, or even one small
part of a letter. He was speaking to Jews. Do you keep Kosher? I bet you don't. That's
because you stopped following the Law, in spite of what Jesus said.
Have you ever read St Matthew and St Luke side by side? They worded very differently;
the former caters to Jewish audience, the latter to a Gentile one. Try it some time!
This is not true either. If you call an American’s mother a swine do you think the American will appreciate it? Police are sometimes referred to as swine. These words are generic insults. Pigs are considered unclean by many people, not just the Jews.
You just don't get it. Calling someone a swine in Germany is like saying motherf*cker.
It's not just another insult. It is a massive affront. And, yes pigs are unclean to
other people, but to Jews 'unclean' carries a very specific and intense meaning.
It is not generic. If you think 'unclean' means the same thing between a Jewish person
and a Gentile, then this discussion is over, because you refuse to acknowledge a basic
fact about language: words do not carry the same meaning across time or cultures.
As I have shown it says that Christians are supposed to avoid keeping bad company in many places. You don’t accept the meaning of the verses.
I don't accept you interpretation of those verses because it is also clear that Christians
are expected to consort with sinners in an effort to help them see the signficance of their
ways. My interpretation is consistent with other passages in the Gospel, yours is not.
No Nemeiso, this is how you choose to interpret it. Why did Jesus refer to the living relatives of the father as dead? Any ideas? The people who Jesus called dead where spiritually dead. “Let the dead bury the dead.” The spiritually dead buried the physically dead.
Why would a guy suggest burying his living father? His father was dead. Of this
there can be no dispute. But, yes, that is what Jesus meant, 'Let the spiritually dead
bury their literally dead.' Jesus uses these sorts of juxtapositions all the time (and
they are even cooler in the Greek and Aramaic, when we can figure them out).
Jesus recognized that some people will not accept the message in this lifetime. This is just one place where Jesus warns Christians to consider who they preach to.
Yup.
When Paul tried to preach in Damascus they tried to kill him. This is and example of why Matt 7:6 should be heeded.
Just the opposite. St Paul did it knowing it would likely kill him. But he rightly
recognized that they could only kill his earthly body, but they couldn't touch his spiritual
one. He went there, ready to lose his earthly life in an effort to save the spiritual lives
of his enemies.
This is the essence of Christianity.
So this is how the passages read to you.
Strawmen. I indicated how the passages read to me:
They are admonitions about consorting with evildoers, that the good not
become corrupted. This is not a command to avoid evildoers.
A Christian who does not try to guide an evildoer is no Christian at all.
Sometimes Nemeiso, you just have to read what’s there.
There is no such thing. Words are a limited way to transmit meaning. Meaning
can only be discerned from context. Context comes from global study outside of
the words themselves. You can't 'just read what's there' because 'what's there'
is much deeper than merely the words.
Sure you are. Most people do. It helps though if you don’t put your own words in the text.
A translation is about that author's understanding of a text. You are always
putting your words into a text. You are saying 'What does this author mean? I think he
means xyz.' And so, you translate them into your own ideas.
Now, in order to ensure that your ideas (expressed one way) are concordant with
the author's ideas (expressed another way), you have to understand context.
Without understanding an author's hermeneutic, you will never understand that author.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf I say to my choir 'Anyone who wants to sing a solo can sing one,' and you showed up and said 'You said anyone,' would I be right to refuse you? He is speaking to His audience of Jewish people.
If I say to my choir 'Anyone who wants to sing a solo can sing one,' and you showed up
and said 'You said anyone,' hor's hermeneutic, you will never understand that author.
Nemesio[/b]
[/b]I don’t understand how you can argue this. If he was speaking to just the Jewish people, he would have said so, but he didn’t. Jesus said that he had come to SAVE THE WORLD. Do you think that the world will one day be all Jews? Do you think that Jesus in here just for the Jews? Paul’s message reinforced Jesus’ message. There is no contradiction.
This is why He said that the Law would never pass away, not one letter, or even one small part of a letter. He was speaking to Jews. Do you keep Kosher? I bet you don't. That's because you stopped following the Law, in spite of what Jesus said.
So you’re saying that the world will be all Jews one day? Are you a Jew?
Have you ever read St Matthew and St Luke side by side? They worded very differently; the former caters to Jewish audience, the latter to a Gentile one. Try it some time!
Both are meant for the same audience, Christians. Show me one place in the scripture where Jesus says that he is here just for the Jews. Show me one place where he says my words are only for the Jews.
It is not generic. If you think 'unclean' means the same thing between a Jewish person
and a Gentile, then this discussion is over, because you refuse to acknowledge a basic
fact about language: words do not carry the same meaning across time or cultures.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the point you are trying to make is that because Jesus uses the words “pigs” and “dogs” in Matt 7:6 he is talking to a Jewish audience. This is crazy. Assuming that you are right and Jews take special offense at being called a pig because pigs are unclean, what does this prove? Nothing.
Jesus is saying not to preach to those who are wicked or spiritually unclean because you put yourself in danger when you do. NEWSFLASH, being wicked and spiritually unclean are pretty much the same.
I don't accept you interpretation of those verses because it is also clear that Christians are expected to consort with sinners in an effort to help them see the signficance of their ways.
You don’t understand the message. Most people are not wicked. Jesus was referring to those who have an evil spirit. A Christian should not go up to a bunch of Crips in Los Angelos and start preaching to them. This is just common sense and it is what Matt 7:6 is all about.
If somebody is interested in Christianity, fine. It’s fine to do missionary work in foreign lands to people who haven’t heard of Christianity before, but it is also important to not be stupid about who you cast your pearls to.
Just the opposite. St Paul did it knowing it would likely kill him. But he rightly recognized that they could only kill his earthly body, but they couldn't touch his spiritual one. He went there, ready to lose his earthly life in an effort to save the spiritual lives
of his enemies.
Try reading Acts chapter 9 without your own words. Saul went to Jerusalem like an idiot and they tried to kill him. He didn’t know that they would kill him, and if didn’t care about his earthly body he would have let them. This is the danger of ignoring Matt 7:6.
I can see that you will make the verses say whatever you want them to say, so I won’t bother giving you anymore.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
I don’t understand how you can argue this. If he was speaking to just the Jewish people, he would have said this, but he didn’t. Jesus said that he had come to save the world. Do you think that the world will one day be all Jews? Do you think that Jesus in here just for the Jews? Paul’s message was the same as Jesus’.
You misunderstood. My example was to show that sometimes 'anyone' doesn't
really mean 'anyone everywhere.' In my example, it meant 'anyone present.'
There is no reason to exclude that possibility from Jesus's preaching (remember
it was the Sermon on the Mount). He very well may have meant 'Anyone (here)
who knocks....' And, everyone there was Jewish, to be sure.
Further, there is a lot in St Matthew to support such a reading, as I have shown.
So you’re saying that the world will be all Jews one day? Are you a Jew?
I am saying that the author of St Matthew assumed that all Christians would be
Jewish observers. How can you justify not keeping Kosher when Jesus, Himself,
is accredited with the statement that the Law will never pass away?
Both are meant for the same audience, Christians. Show me one place in the scripture where Jesus says that he is here just for the Jews. Show me one place where he says my words are only for the Jews.
Well, I simply can't discuss this further. You think that the authors were writing for
the same group of people. No Biblical scholar I know of agrees with this, and neither
do I. It's clear that there were two groups of Christians from Scripture, and there is
a lot of redactive evidence which fills books to show that St Matthew and St Luke were
written for those two audiences.
If you won't look, you won't find. Maybe that's what you want. If you want a bibliography,
I'd be happy to provide you with one.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the point you are trying to make is that because Jesus uses the words “pigs” and “dogs” in Matt 7:6 he is talking to a Jewish audience. This is crazy. Assuming that you are right, and Jews take special offense at being called a pig because pigs are unclean, what does this prove? Nothing.
It is not just because of this citation. There are literally dozens which bolster the
argument. I'm not going to hold your hand and try to cram a decade of careful Biblical
study which concords with the writings of every Biblical scholar I've ever read or heard of.
I can see that you will get the verses to say whatever you want them to say, so I won’t bother giving you anymore.
Please, for your own sake, read a book on text and redactive criticism as applied to
the Bible. If you think I'm imposing a meaning, then you're projecting.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou misunderstood. My example was to show that sometimes 'anyone' doesn't
Originally posted by The Chess Express
I don’t understand how you can argue this. If he was speaking to just the Jewish people, he would have said this, but he didn’t. Jesus said that he had come to save the world. Do you think that the world will one day be all Jews? Do you think that Jesus in here just for the Jews? Paul’s message was the same le. If you think I'm imposing a meaning, then you're projecting.
Nemesio[/b]
really mean 'anyone everywhere.' In my example, it meant 'anyone present.'
That’s not what the scripture says. “for everyone that asketh receiveth…” there is no “everyone present” in there. Did it ever occur to you that Jesus may have been telling those present that he was for the whole world?
There is no reason to exclude that possibility from Jesus's preaching (remember
it was the Sermon on the Mount). He very well may have meant 'Anyone (here)
who knocks....' And, everyone there was Jewish, to be sure.
There is every reason to exclude the possibility.
John 3:17 For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. (NKJ)
Jesus is here for everybody.
I am saying that the author of St Matthew assumed that all Christians would be
Jewish observers. How can you justify not keeping Kosher when Jesus, Himself,
is accredited with the statement that the Law will never pass away?
ST. Matthew wrote his gospel about 40-60 AD. This was well after the Jews had rejected Jesus, and well after there were Christians who were not Jewish observers.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
Correct me if I am wrong, but the point you are trying to make is that because Jesus uses the words “pigs” and “dogs” in Matt 7:6 he is talking to a Jewish audience. This is crazy. Assuming that you are right and Jews take special offense at being called a pig because pigs are unclean, what does this prove? Nothing.
It is not just because of this citation. There are literally dozens which bolster the argument. I'm not going to hold your hand and try to cram a decade of careful Biblical study which concords with the writings of every Biblical scholar I've ever read or heard of.
There probably isn’t one, though I’m sure you think every other verse says so.
Ya ever wonder about this one?
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Edit: I'm sure you think it applies to me. 🙂