Re: It's A Thin Line Between Love and Hate...
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am
Paidion,
I asked if you had any examples of Jesus teaching anything about God that had not already been revealed in the Old Testament. You gave the following response:
1. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery. However, this is not an example of what I was asking for, since such forgiveness was not unprecedented in the Old Testament. God forgave David (and presumably Bathsheba, since neither were required to be put to death) for the very same sin. Looks like the same God in both cases to me. Not all adultery goes without punishment, however, either in the Old Testament or in the New. Witness the judgment on the Great Harlot, in Revelation—which is declared to be "the Revelation of Jesus Christ."
2. You mentioned a few laws in the Old Testament that you find particularly odious, and then ask, "When did Jesus command anything like that?" Well, there are several hundred laws in the Old Testament that Jesus said nothing directly about. He did not repeat everything. However, this is not what I asked about, as we cannot know for certain what Jesus might have said about certain things He never addressed. One thing we can be sure of, He never would have said that Moses laws were of human origin.
I did not ask you whether there are things in the Old Testament about which Jesus said nothing. I asked whether there were things that Jesus said that were not already found in the Old Testament? My reason for asking this exact question is that you had claimed that the revelation of God in Jesus was very different from the revelation of God in the Old Testament. I am asking for examples of the "new revelation" that God gave in Jesus, which He had previously neglected to reveal to Moses, the prophets and the psalmists. I don't think any can be found, which raises questions as to whether God actually revealed anything about Himself in Jesus that He had not revealed in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament defined sinful behavior. Jesus did not present a contradictory definition, but generally appealed to the Law when asked about such things (as if He regarded it as more authoritative than you do).
The Old Testament revealed a God who acts, sometimes in wrath, sometimes in mercy. Jesus revealed exactly the same.
The Old Testament, in instructing civil magistrates, delineated criminal penalties for certain crimes (all of your personal objections appear to be in regard to these civil laws). Since Jesus never gave instructions to magistrates, we do not have any way of knowing which penalties He might have approved for guilty criminals who were brought before the magistrates (if indeed, He differed from Moses at all on this point). When someone wanted to get Jesus to pronounce on a matter which was the proper domain of the magistracy, His response was, "Man, who made me a judge, or an arbitrator over you?" (Luke 12:13-14). Jesus did not care to include political commentary nor legal reform in His mission.
On the other hand, it seems fairly certain that Jesus did not intend to abolish magistracy or law courts altogether, and to establish a purely libertarian system in secular society. He is not "the author of confusion." This suggests that He would probably have approved of some sort of criminal penalties or other (perhaps you think not). The world would not be a better place without criminal justice systems, unless there were no more criminals. I believe that Jesus never addressed the criminal penalties of the Old Testament because He had no interest in reshaping civil government and was establishing a spiritual kingdom separate from those governments. In His new kingdom (unlike the nation of Israel in Moses' day), misbehavior would be disciplined by disfellowshipping, not by fines, lashes or executions. However, Jesus gave no indication that political entities, like the nation of Israel, should modify their existing criminal justice codes.
While Jesus did not pronounce on the desirability or undesirability of courts continuing to follow mosaic criminal justice codes, He left no question as to whether He believed those codes originated with God or whether they were inventions of Moses Himself.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"-' (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do" (Mark 7:9-13).
In the above passage, Jesus referred to two Old Testament laws: 1) the fifth commandment, and 2) the civil penalty (death) for disobedience. Both laws are introduced with the phrase, "Moses said"—and yet, what "Moses said," in both cases, is regarded, by Jesus (though, strangely, not by you) as "the commandment of God" and "the word of God."
If we allow that Jesus gave no teaching indicating His desire that secular societies should dismantle their law courts, and that He thus probably felt that some punishment should be brought upon convicted criminals (Paul and Peter certainly believed in these things—Rom.13:1-7/ Acts 25:11/ 1 Pet.2:13-14), it is hard to know why He would opt to introduce different penalties for crimes from those penalties already defined in a "holy, just and good" law code (Romans 7:13), like that given by Moses.
Mercy and forgiveness can be introduced only once the guilt and the justice of punishment have been defined. That the law courts are obliged to punish criminals does not eliminate God's option of showing mercy in the case of a penitent—and this is true now as much as it was in the Old Testament.
Most of what Jesus did and said, of significance, were repeats of Old Testament scripture or the fulfillment of Old Testament predictions.
Jesus did not find fault with the Jews on the basis of their accepting Moses' "misrepresentation" of God's character (as you have suggested). He blamed them for not believing Moses, and told them that it was their failure to accept Moses that prevented them from believing in Jesus (John 5:46-47)—which is just the opposite of your assessment. You think their problem (and ours?) was their belief that Moses gave Israel laws that were actually from God. If they were wrong in believing such a thing, then the New Testament fails to correct them. Paul believed the Law to be "holy, just and good" (Romans 7:13). Therefore, your rejection of the Law (and of its justice) places you in an adversarial position (on this point) against Jesus and Paul, but on the same side with the Pharisees, whom Jesus accused of rejecting the Law—as you would apparently like for all of us to do.
I am afraid that you have borrowed far more of your position from the gnostics that you may think you have.
I am surprised that you are bringing up, again (we discussed this thoroughly, not long ago) your untenable theory that there was some special microbe on the sandals of the Jews, which was to be found in the dust of the tabernacle floor, and which had the peculiar quality of causing a person's thigh to rot and belly to be swell, when ingested. There may be such a bacterium known to science, but do you know of one? It must be very rare, since Third World people eat off their dirty floors habitually, and these particular symptoms do not appear to be common. Also, if such a germ exists, how would Moses (whom you believe to have been uninspired in giving this legislation) have known that this particular germ would always be present on the tabernacle floor whenever someone applied for the ordeal of jealousy? In fact, if there was any ground less likely than any other to be defiled by foot traffic, it would be the floor of the tabernacle, since no one was allowed to walk there except for priests, who had just washed their hands and feet at the laver of cleansing. Only newly-washed feet were to tread the floor of the tabernacle. Your suggestion is sensational—as well as disparaging of the divine origins of the Law. I have made these points with you elsewhere, and you have not answered them (forgivably, since they are unanswerable—but why do you again bring up this debunked theory?).
You and I disagree about many things—most of which do not alarm me in the least—but this denouncing of the Old Testament scriptures is such a sub-Christian position (given your disagreement with Christ and the apostles on it) that I truly do find it alarming. I beg you to reconsider your position. You have absolutely nothing (including the life and teaching of Christ) upon which to base your assertions.
I asked if you had any examples of Jesus teaching anything about God that had not already been revealed in the Old Testament. You gave the following response:
1. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery. However, this is not an example of what I was asking for, since such forgiveness was not unprecedented in the Old Testament. God forgave David (and presumably Bathsheba, since neither were required to be put to death) for the very same sin. Looks like the same God in both cases to me. Not all adultery goes without punishment, however, either in the Old Testament or in the New. Witness the judgment on the Great Harlot, in Revelation—which is declared to be "the Revelation of Jesus Christ."
2. You mentioned a few laws in the Old Testament that you find particularly odious, and then ask, "When did Jesus command anything like that?" Well, there are several hundred laws in the Old Testament that Jesus said nothing directly about. He did not repeat everything. However, this is not what I asked about, as we cannot know for certain what Jesus might have said about certain things He never addressed. One thing we can be sure of, He never would have said that Moses laws were of human origin.
I did not ask you whether there are things in the Old Testament about which Jesus said nothing. I asked whether there were things that Jesus said that were not already found in the Old Testament? My reason for asking this exact question is that you had claimed that the revelation of God in Jesus was very different from the revelation of God in the Old Testament. I am asking for examples of the "new revelation" that God gave in Jesus, which He had previously neglected to reveal to Moses, the prophets and the psalmists. I don't think any can be found, which raises questions as to whether God actually revealed anything about Himself in Jesus that He had not revealed in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament defined sinful behavior. Jesus did not present a contradictory definition, but generally appealed to the Law when asked about such things (as if He regarded it as more authoritative than you do).
The Old Testament revealed a God who acts, sometimes in wrath, sometimes in mercy. Jesus revealed exactly the same.
The Old Testament, in instructing civil magistrates, delineated criminal penalties for certain crimes (all of your personal objections appear to be in regard to these civil laws). Since Jesus never gave instructions to magistrates, we do not have any way of knowing which penalties He might have approved for guilty criminals who were brought before the magistrates (if indeed, He differed from Moses at all on this point). When someone wanted to get Jesus to pronounce on a matter which was the proper domain of the magistracy, His response was, "Man, who made me a judge, or an arbitrator over you?" (Luke 12:13-14). Jesus did not care to include political commentary nor legal reform in His mission.
On the other hand, it seems fairly certain that Jesus did not intend to abolish magistracy or law courts altogether, and to establish a purely libertarian system in secular society. He is not "the author of confusion." This suggests that He would probably have approved of some sort of criminal penalties or other (perhaps you think not). The world would not be a better place without criminal justice systems, unless there were no more criminals. I believe that Jesus never addressed the criminal penalties of the Old Testament because He had no interest in reshaping civil government and was establishing a spiritual kingdom separate from those governments. In His new kingdom (unlike the nation of Israel in Moses' day), misbehavior would be disciplined by disfellowshipping, not by fines, lashes or executions. However, Jesus gave no indication that political entities, like the nation of Israel, should modify their existing criminal justice codes.
While Jesus did not pronounce on the desirability or undesirability of courts continuing to follow mosaic criminal justice codes, He left no question as to whether He believed those codes originated with God or whether they were inventions of Moses Himself.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban"-' (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do" (Mark 7:9-13).
In the above passage, Jesus referred to two Old Testament laws: 1) the fifth commandment, and 2) the civil penalty (death) for disobedience. Both laws are introduced with the phrase, "Moses said"—and yet, what "Moses said," in both cases, is regarded, by Jesus (though, strangely, not by you) as "the commandment of God" and "the word of God."
If we allow that Jesus gave no teaching indicating His desire that secular societies should dismantle their law courts, and that He thus probably felt that some punishment should be brought upon convicted criminals (Paul and Peter certainly believed in these things—Rom.13:1-7/ Acts 25:11/ 1 Pet.2:13-14), it is hard to know why He would opt to introduce different penalties for crimes from those penalties already defined in a "holy, just and good" law code (Romans 7:13), like that given by Moses.
Mercy and forgiveness can be introduced only once the guilt and the justice of punishment have been defined. That the law courts are obliged to punish criminals does not eliminate God's option of showing mercy in the case of a penitent—and this is true now as much as it was in the Old Testament.
Most of what Jesus did and said, of significance, were repeats of Old Testament scripture or the fulfillment of Old Testament predictions.
Jesus did not find fault with the Jews on the basis of their accepting Moses' "misrepresentation" of God's character (as you have suggested). He blamed them for not believing Moses, and told them that it was their failure to accept Moses that prevented them from believing in Jesus (John 5:46-47)—which is just the opposite of your assessment. You think their problem (and ours?) was their belief that Moses gave Israel laws that were actually from God. If they were wrong in believing such a thing, then the New Testament fails to correct them. Paul believed the Law to be "holy, just and good" (Romans 7:13). Therefore, your rejection of the Law (and of its justice) places you in an adversarial position (on this point) against Jesus and Paul, but on the same side with the Pharisees, whom Jesus accused of rejecting the Law—as you would apparently like for all of us to do.
I am afraid that you have borrowed far more of your position from the gnostics that you may think you have.
I am surprised that you are bringing up, again (we discussed this thoroughly, not long ago) your untenable theory that there was some special microbe on the sandals of the Jews, which was to be found in the dust of the tabernacle floor, and which had the peculiar quality of causing a person's thigh to rot and belly to be swell, when ingested. There may be such a bacterium known to science, but do you know of one? It must be very rare, since Third World people eat off their dirty floors habitually, and these particular symptoms do not appear to be common. Also, if such a germ exists, how would Moses (whom you believe to have been uninspired in giving this legislation) have known that this particular germ would always be present on the tabernacle floor whenever someone applied for the ordeal of jealousy? In fact, if there was any ground less likely than any other to be defiled by foot traffic, it would be the floor of the tabernacle, since no one was allowed to walk there except for priests, who had just washed their hands and feet at the laver of cleansing. Only newly-washed feet were to tread the floor of the tabernacle. Your suggestion is sensational—as well as disparaging of the divine origins of the Law. I have made these points with you elsewhere, and you have not answered them (forgivably, since they are unanswerable—but why do you again bring up this debunked theory?).
You and I disagree about many things—most of which do not alarm me in the least—but this denouncing of the Old Testament scriptures is such a sub-Christian position (given your disagreement with Christ and the apostles on it) that I truly do find it alarming. I beg you to reconsider your position. You have absolutely nothing (including the life and teaching of Christ) upon which to base your assertions.