- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
07 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate7. dj2becker - Secretly hates Jesus.
We all know that the following list of RHP'ers are on the express bus to Hell. Rate who deserves to burn the most(spot the sin) and who can still be saved (please include an action plan for saving said sinners).
1. No1Marauder - Lawyer on Satan's legal team.
2. DoctorScribbles - Liar and pompous hack.
3. Phlabibit - stupid git pseudo mod.
4. da ...[text shortened]... en with fish.
13. Me - Spiritual and social deviant.
666. User 6789666 - Sheep herder.
😀 You wish...
If I did, I would sure be driving the bus, and it might have crashed before we got there. 😏
The only probm would be that we would all have gotn a short cut there. 😞
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNaturally.
All parables need to be interpreted within the light of their intended audience, era, and etc.
However, taking the audience (pre-Christianity Jews) and era (1st cent. AD) into account, I cannot see any reasonable interpretation for that parable that supports the sola fide position. In fact, Christ says nothing about faith at all (which doesn't mean it's not important). The parable of the sheep and the goats is more in concordance with what James says in Jas 2.
Which, of course, is why Luther wanted to drop the Epistle of James from the Bible altogether...
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe parable of the sheep and the goats is unpopular amoungst many Christians and suprisingly very much over looked as it is one of the few teaching by Jesus himself about who should go to heaven. Many Christians turn rather to teachings by later followers of Christ rather than Christs actual teachings.
Naturally.
However, taking the audience (pre-Christianity Jews) and era (1st cent. AD) into account, I cannot see any reasonable interpretation for that parable that supports the sola fide position. In fact, Christ says nothing about faith at all (which doesn't mean it's not important). The parable of the sheep and the goats is more in concordance ...[text shortened]... ich, of course, is why Luther wanted to drop the Epistle of James from the Bible altogether...
The reasons behind this may include:
1. If taken literally then Christians are no better than anyone else, what matters is how you live your life.
2. It teaches that the desirable way to live your life is in a selfless and giving way, which many Christians although professing to agree with this philosophy, do not follow very strictly and therefore try to draw focus away from it by highlighting the importance of faith.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust a superficial reading of any of the parables will land the reader so-disposed to follow in all kinds of psychological trouble (as discussed in the Red-Letter Christian thread).
The parable of the sheep and the goats is unpopular amoungst many Christians and suprisingly very much over looked as it is one of the few teaching by Jesus himself about who should go to heaven. Many Christians turn rather to teachings by later followers of Christ rather than Christs actual teachings.
The reasons behind this may include:
1. If taken li ...[text shortened]... y strictly and therefore try to draw focus away from it by highlighting the importance of faith.
However, even applying a topical reading of the passage cited will yield all types of theological pricklies. For the people represented by the sheep and the goats, what is their 'ticket to heaven?'
Again, unless Scripture is interpreted within the exegetical ground rules, all kinds of problems present themselves, needlessly.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe parable is not a complete allegory of all aspects of salvation. So, it doesn't have to define exactly what the "ticket to heaven" is. But it does give us enough information to say what it isn't - and it isn't faith without works.
However, even applying a topical reading of the passage cited will yield all types of theological pricklies. For the people represented by the sheep and the goats, what is their 'ticket to heaven?'
08 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI actually think that Matthew 25 presents a very Jewish argument*—in parable form. What was to become rabbinical Judaism was in its beginnings at this time: the schools of Hillel and Shammai (at least some of whose arguments would later be recorded in the Talmud) were already established. Now the rabbis have expressed very differing viewpoints on the nature of the olam ha’ba the “world to come,” and who might be eligible to enter that world. Jesus seems here to be offering his “torah” (teaching) on the matter. But, it may very well have not been his only torah on the matter, as I think both you may be implying (as a matter of fact, the parable of the wise and foolish virgins immediately precedes the one about the sheep and goats, and before that, the one about the wise and the wicked servants).
The parable is not a complete allegory of all aspects of salvation. So, it doesn't have to define exactly what the "ticket to heaven" is. But it does give us enough information to say what it isn't - and it isn't faith without works.
That may have well been the torah that Jesus felt his disciples needed to hear at that juncture. That would not necessarily be to exclude the possibility of other torahs (e.g., torahs concerning faith and works). His teachings may have often been aimed at the time and the circumstance before him. There seems to me to be no reason to assume that any statement by the Jewish Jesus ought to be considered his “final” statement on the matter. He seems to have been able to spin torah with the best of them.
An example—Hillel had stated his “golden rule”: “What you don’t like done to yourself, do not do to others.” Jesus offered his counter: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Had Jesus’ followers not gone a different direction (that of proclaiming Jesus as the messiah), one could imagine both these formulations being stated later in the Talmuds.
* EDIT: As LH noted.
08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdMakes one wonder why Jesus never made it to the Talmud...
I actually think that Matthew 25 presents a very Jewish argument*—in parable form. What was to become rabbinical Judaism was in its beginnings at this time: the schools of Hillel and Shammai (at least some of whose arguments would later be recorded in the Talmud) were already established. Now the rabbis have expressed very differing viewpoints on the natu ...[text shortened]... magine both these formulations being stated later in the Talmuds.
* EDIT: As LH noted.
EDIT: Just saw your "Had Jesus' followers" sentence.
Re: spinning the Torah with the best of them
Considering he was doing it at age 12, I'm not surprised. 😉
08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerMakes one wonder why Jesus never made it to the Talmud...
Makes one wonder why Jesus never made it to the Talmud...
EDIT: Just saw your "Had Jesus' followers" sentence.
Re: spinning the Torah with the best of them
Considering he was doing it at age 12, I'm not surprised. 😉
Well, frankly, I think it might be a matter of the contentious history between the Jesus followers and the “rabbinical” Jews (coming out of the Pharisees) after the fall of the temple in 70 C.E. I read somewhere once that, prior to that point or sometime around there, the groups actually shared synagogue space. Of course, Jews can be as exclusionary as anyone else—Orthodox Jews that don’t recognize any of the others, for example. And there are anti-Christian references in the Talmud. I just put it down to unfortunate turns of history.
A book you might be interested in: A Rabbi Talks With Jesus by Jacob Neusner; “A Rabbi argues with Jesus” might be a better title. 🙂 (Remember, Neusner considers argument to be a high form of respect.)
Pope Benedict, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, called it “By far the most important book for the Jewish-Christian dialogue to have been published in the last decade.” (First publication, 1994.)
I think more and more Jewish scholars are willing to recognize Jesus as a legitimate person on the rabbinical history. (Geza Vermes, in his Jesus the Jew—for my money the best of the “historical Jesus” books—refers to him as a proto-Hasid.)
Re: spinning the Torah with the best of them. Considering he was doing it at age 12, I'm not surprised. 😉
I’ll buy that! (And you know I don’t mean “spinning” torah in any derogatory sense.)
EDIT: Neusner, I think it's in the introduction to the Rabbi/Jesus book, talks about his history in universities where he was generally the only Jew in perdominantly Chrisitian faculty, and how he never experienced any prejudice at all. BTW, he is great friends with priest/sociologist/novelist Andrew Greely (probably not beloved in conservative Catholic circles); they once wrote a book together--a kind of Christian view-Jewish view dialogue; Neusner called it an "argument"--he said that Father Greely thought he won the argument, he (Neusner) thought he won, and they were better friends after than before.
08 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI don't know if that is due to his lurid novels or his unorthodox views. To be honest, I don't know much more about him than his name.
BTW, he is great friends with priest/sociologist/novelist Andrew Greely (probably not beloved in conservative Catholic circles);
Personally, I have no problems with a priest writing novels with steamy sex scenes where they are integral to the story (why am I tempted to use 'torah' here 😉?). What I would be more concerned about would be the message in the stories.
If he is heterodox, then it's a different matter.
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammer< off-topic mode: on >
If he is heterodox, then it's a different matter.
The term "heterodox" was unfamiliar to me, so I googled it. I didn't only find out what it means, but I also rather unexpectedly got a chess-related quote as a bonus:
"Moreover, heterodox behaviour -- in the form of eccentric chess moves -- was even encouraged, if it led to good results."
-- Jon Speelman, "Chess," Independent, October 24, 1998
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2004/04/28.html
< off-topic mode: off >