What The Good Samaritan did

Originally posted by @thinkofone

Jesus tells the parable as an answer to the 2 questions that the lawyer asks (see the questions in BOLD above)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The self justifying lawyer cannot do the same.
He cannot as Christ alone, love the Lord his God from his whole being and with his whole soul and with his whole strength and with his while heart, nor his neighbor as himself.
He cannot do it because he is a fallen human being, a self righteous one, but fallen and helpless all the same to meet God's demand.

"You have answered correctly ..."

According to doctrine the self justifying lawyer has answered correctly.
But he doesn't realize the extent of his fallen state which is why he is self righteous.

"... you have answered correctly, do this, and you shall have life."

This means to do this and he will inherit eternal life - something no human being since the fall of Adam has been able to do.

The self righteous lawyer still seeks to justify himself by asking WHO then is his neighbor. If he truly loved the Lord with all his being and his whole soul and entire heart and complete strength there would really be no need for him to qualify the demand and ask "Who is my neighbor?".

The parable follows where Jesus explains that He Himself is the unique Savior though rejected and despised by the unbelieving religious Jews. The self righteous lawyer NEEDS a neighbor such as the Savior to save him.

The self righteous do not realize the desperate need they themselves have to be saved by a perfect Man.

Jesus plainly states that the answer to the first question is to "Go and do the same" as the Good Samaritan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most assuredly the lawyer was not able to go and do as God's demand of the normal man. And therefore we know he did not have everlasting life due to his own righteousness.

If eternal life was his it would only be because of the real Good Samaritan Jesus Christ the Perfect Man and the unique real compassionate neighbor in this universe.

The answer to the second question is that EVERYONE is your neighbor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Had the self righteous lawyer actually loved the Lord His God with his whole being, whole soul, whole heart, whole strength, he would have instantly known that. Even he would die for his enemies, let alone his neighbor.

The Good Samaritan points to the ONLY one who is "good" - God. That God became incarnate as the Perfect Man Jesus made Him our neighbor - compassionate, merciful, and able to save us.

You continue to demonstrate that you can neither hear nor understand the words of Jesus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The parable deals with a strong self righteous attitude that a man can have assuming he does not need the Son of God to be His Savior.

"But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus ..."

The poor lawyer was only interested in justifying himself before God.
Apart from Christ as the Good Samaritan there was no hope for him.
All the self righteous and self justifying ones are on their way down to the eternal curse of God.

Originally posted by @divegeester
But the definition is incomplete and does not account for genetics and parental satisfaction.

Most word definitions will seem incomplete if you ask that much of them.

Originally posted by @sonship
[b] Jesus tells the parable as an answer to the 2 questions that the lawyer asks (see the questions in BOLD above)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The self justifying lawyer cannot do the same.
He cannot as Christ alone, love the Lord his God from his whole being and with ...[text shortened]... l the self righteous and self justifying ones are on their way down to the eternal curse of God.[/b]

You continue to demonstrate that you can neither hear nor understand the words of Jesus.

Instead of letting His words to speak for themselves, you self-righteously foist YOUR beliefs upon them.

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Most word definitions will seem incomplete if you ask that much of them.

I guess that’s why discussions are more useful than definitions especially when a topic is not well defined by multiple definitions.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
So now you're going to pretend that you don't understand the question even after I detailed the context in my previous post?

Maybe you could rephrase your question instead of getting your knickers in a twist - just a suggestion.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Maybe you could rephrase your question instead of getting your knickers in a twist - just a suggestion.

Maybe you could stop pretending that you still don't understand the question even after I had painstakingly detailed a recap of the context in a previous post - just a suggestion.

Given your track record, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'd stoop to such a tactic in order to avoid admitting that your position is incoherent. It's what you do.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Maybe you could stop pretending that you still don't understand the question even after I had painstakingly detailed a recap of the context in a previous post - just a suggestion.

Given your track record, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'd stoop to such a tactic in order to avoid admitting that your position is incoherent. It's what you do.

I also disagree with Dive's definition of what qualifies as altruism, but certainly don't view it as incoherent (irrespective of your painstaking recapping of context).

Indeed, I believe it is only your own track record of pedantic posting that is highlighted here.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You continue to demonstrate that you can neither hear nor understand the words of Jesus.

Instead of letting His words to speak for themselves, you self-righteously foist YOUR beliefs upon them.

You continue to demonstrate that you can neither hear nor understand the words of Jesus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You demonstrate that you do not WANT to hear nor understand the redemptive death of Christ and His resurrection for salvation.

You conceal this for some reason and never come out to admit it.


Instead of letting His words to speak for themselves, you self-righteously foist YOUR beliefs upon them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is you who conceal your disbelief in His redemptive death in the Gospel of Luke. And why? Because you don't think it is necessary that He died for your sins, you being able to justify yourself by your own righteousness.

And it is you who conceal your disbelief in His resurrection. You're always mum when I go into Luke chapter 24.

I admit that the understanding of the Good Samaritan parable I presented is atypical.
And other interpretations think it is essentially an instruction to go and be a good deed doer to some neighbor.

That interpretation is not bad from an "Let's imitate Jesus" perspective.

I am persuaded after much consideration that the parable makes more sense is seeing that Jesus was the Good Samaritan and the robbed and half dead victim of crime was the self righteous and self justifying lawyer.

Actually, that self justifying lawyer speaks for all of us sinners in our initial reaction to the ministry of Jesus the Savior. We are self justifyingly reluctant to initially appreciate that we need Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You continue to demonstrate that you can neither hear nor understand the words of Jesus.

Instead of letting His words to speak for themselves, you self-righteously foist YOUR beliefs upon them.

Instead of letting His words to speak for themselves, you self-righteously foist YOUR beliefs upon them.

I would not insist that the interpretation I presented of Luke 10:25-37 is infallible.
But I suggest a good test to Bible readers.

If an interpretation warms your hearts towards God and Christ, persuading you that you should depend more on God, then it is at least a safe interpretation. It may not be too good but it is at least safe.

If an interpretation leaves you cold towards Jesus Christ, independent minded from God, and nurtures some "go it alone" attitude that one can do quite OK without Jesus, there is something wrong with that interpretation. It doesn't matter how good it sounds if it is leading the heart away from God.

When you take your preferred analysis of the parable, that the Good Samaritan is not Christ, that's OK, if is causes you to love Christ the more.

But if it leaves you with the thought that you don't need Jesus Christ, either the interpretation is wrong or your heart is wrong, or possibly both are wrong.

Originally posted by @sonship
I admit that the understanding of the Good Samaritan parable I presented is atypical.
And other interpretations think it is essentially an instruction to go and be a good deed doer to some neighbor.

That interpretation is not bad from an "Let's imitate Jesus" perspective.

I am persuaded after much consideration that the parable makes more sense is s ...[text shortened]... he Savior. We are self justifyingly reluctant to initially appreciate that we need Jesus Christ.

People believe in the "the redemptive death of Christ" because it is self-serving to do so. It's a way to avoid having to take responsibility for ones character and actions.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
People believe in the "the redemptive death of Christ" because it is self-serving to do so. It's a way to avoid having to take responsibility for ones character and actions.

People believe in the "the redemptive death of Christ" because it is self-serving to do so. It's a way to avoid having to take responsibility for ones character and actions.

Firstly, it is a genetic fallacy to think you can prove a belief is WRONG because of the reasons people come to believe it. Insincere motives for believing Mt. Everest exists does not make it not true that it exists.

Secondly, this attitude, I think, is seething with self righteousness.
"At least I am not that bad. At least I take responsibility, unlike all these so-called FORGIVEN and REDEEMED Christians."

I think your rationale wreaks of self justifying self righteousness.

Even if some Christians do take advantage of what some call "cheap grace" it is not the fault of the New Testament.

"What then shall we say? Should we continue in sin that grace may abound? Absolutely not! We who have died to sin, how shall we still live in it?" (Rom. 6:2)

That would be only one of hundreds and hundreds of exhortations to cooperate with grace to take responsibility for living ONCE one has been redeemed.

You should have noticed that unless for fear you padlock your mind from reading the whole New Testament.

Romans is the basic book on Christian doctrine. Which chapter/s encourages believers to self-servingly avoid their responsibility as disciples of Christ?

If you can't point out where in the foundational doctrinal book irresponsibility is taught, then it must just be your slanderous objection.

Should I look for Christians who discourage my faith?
Or should I keep my eye out for proper examples of mature lovers of Christ?

Originally posted by @thinkofone

People believe in the "the redemptive death of Christ" because it is self-serving to do so. It's a way to avoid having to take responsibility for ones character and actions.

The moment that night when I allowed Jesus to be Lord and confessed I was helpless without Him, was the night I TOOK responsibility for being a sinner.

Please don't tell me when I turned my whole life over to Jesus that day, I was shirking responsibility. It was the first time before God that I acknowledged my total responsibility and that I needed God to saved me from my abject guilt and failure.

No, no thinkofone. When you acknowledge "Lord Jesus" the blame game has come to an end.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I also disagree with Dive's definition of what qualifies as altruism, but certainly don't view it as incoherent (irrespective of your painstaking recapping of context).

Indeed, I believe it is only your own track record of pedantic posting that is highlighted here.

Thank you.

Disagreements over what is or isn’t altruism aside, my op is about what Jesus was saying when he used the parable. I think he was indirectly saying that overweening needle-picking doctrine and dogma is irrelevant.

I’ll post something more to support this later.