Why did Jesus stop reading?

[morbo3000]

Because that wasn't John the apostle. And second hand reporting of one author, in a few sentences isn't a historically adequate source.

There is a huge difference between historically verifiable identification of a person, and speculative theology. Whether Paul wrote 1corinthians is a completely different question from "was Jesus created, or uncreated." One is a tangible reality. The other is philosophy/theology.

I can't do any better job of addressing the issues of authorship of the gospels than Brojangles in this Reddit thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... ke/cn7ifyx

But my point anyway isn't whether the historical Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him. It is that acceptance of these things is a matter of faith based on the authority of the fathers. I think it's a house of cards. If you pick and choose the inspiration of books based on theological preferences you are dismissing the foundation of the authority of the canon as a whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve]

As you may know, I have been in Africa for two weeks, without much access to the internet. I ask your patience as I, for the first time I have been able to do so, revisit some earlier points in this thread:

Morbo3000 wrote:

Once you say that only texts that meet certain theological presuppositions are divine, you have no foundation in either camp. You're in shifting sand in both.

To which Paidion replied:

Not if your "certain theological presupposition" is that the teachings of Jesus are true and without error. When these teaching disagree with the declarations of particular Old Testament prophetic writings, then you have three possible positions:

1. Accept the teachings of Jesus and reject some of declaration in the Old Testament prophetic writings.
2. Accept all of the Old Testament prophetic writings (though some of these are not consistent with others) and reject some of the teachings of Jesus.
3. Attempt to synthesize the Old Testament prophetic writings with the teachings of Jesus to form a consistent whole.

I think the majority of evangelical Christians opt for #3, but I think none of them have succeeded. For that reason, since I am a Christian, I take position #1. I would guess that Orthodox Jews take position #2.

It is assumed in this excerpt that the teachings of Jesus disagree in substance with the Old Testament theology. This cannot be demonstrated to be the case, as Paidion's strident attempts to do so in previous threads have made abundantly clear. Jeff (morbo3000), with whom I obviously do not agree completely, has made an important point about the fallacy of allowing one's favorite theological paradigm to dictate which passages are canonical or inspired. Too often exegesis is led by the nose by the dictates of one's personal theological preferences.

Paidion seems to agree, in general, that one should not do this—with the one exception being "if your 'certain theological presupposition' is that the teachings of Jesus are true and without error." However, I have pointed out, previously, multiple instances where Jesus' "true and without error" teachings affirm the very attributes of judgment in God's nature that Paidion finds objectionable (I needn't repeat them here. I am still awaiting Paidion's exegesis of them in previous threads).

I agree with Paidion that the teachings of Jesus are true and without error—but I would say this about all of the teachings of Jesus—not merely the ones that are comfortable to a person with Paidion's theology. I think there is a danger of confusing "the teachings of Jesus" with "my opinion of the meaning of some of the teachings of Jesus." Paidion writes as if Jesus took a stand against the theology of the Old Testament. I am not aware of any time when Jesus did such a thing.

[steve]

Having said that, I would add that I agree with Paidion's acceptance of the Papian testimony concerning the writing of the Gospels.

This not not because I consider Papias to be inspired, or in all points reliable. I think Papias was in a position to know the historic facts about the Gospels' authorship—as were many others in the early church—and is not known to have had any motivation to lie about what he knew. Eusebius said that Papias was a man of very little understanding (when it comes to the meanings of eschatological passages), but neither he, nor anyone else in the early church, thought to impugn the man's honesty.

It would seem very strange to me if the church in the second century would have so quickly forgotten, and had misattributed, the true authorship of their most cherished books, which had been written only a generation or two earlier, and had been passed along to them from those who had received them from the authors' own hands.

If the early church was minded to fabricate legendary Gospel backgrounds and authorships, it is inexplicable why such low-ranking, and otherwise completely obscure, saints as Luke and Mark would have been selected as the fictitious authors of two of the four of them. Of the men named in the documents of the New Testament, Mark's obscurity is barely surpassed by the obscurity of Luke—the alleged writer of a quarter of the New Testament.

[Paidion]

However, I have pointed out, previously, multiple instances where Jesus' "true and without error" teachings affirm the very attributes of judgment in God's nature that Paidion finds objectionable (I needn't repeat them here. I am still awaiting Paidion's exegesis of them in previous threads).

I have no idea to what teachings of Jesus you refer for which you are awaiting my exegesis.

The only one I recall that seemed to conflict with my view, was the one you quoted from Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ This supposedly indicated that Jesus believed that God commanded children who cursed a parent, to be killed. At first, I thought you actually found such a saying of Jesus. Then I discovered that Mark quoted these words of Jesus significantly differently.

"For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’" (Mark 7:10)
So we cannot know from the New Testament alone, which one Jesus actually said. Of course, Mark's account is consistent with my position.

I recall your coming back with (if my memory serves me correctly), "It's all the same thing, since Moses' sayings were God's sayings" (or something to that effect). But that will not do. Not if Jesus did NOT regard all of Moses' sayings as God's sayings. Other than the quote from Matthew 15, that I have explained as a possible miquote, I don't think you have shown that Jesus ever stated that God killed or commanded killing. It seems to me that Jesus was quite selective in his quotes from the Old Testament with regards to God's acts.

Oh yes, I think you mentioned Jesus saying that in the days of Noah, the flood came and took away those who were eating and drinking, and then asked me who sent the flood. Yet, in that context, Jesus didn't directly say that God did it.

I realize you don't want to "repeat the multiple instances where Jesus' 'true and without error' teachings affirm the very attributes of judgment in God's nature," but I would truly appreciate it, if you gave just ONE quote from Jesus in which He clearly states that God killed or did other violent acts or commanded His people to do violent acts (such as is written in the Old Testament that He did). Please make it the clearest and most powerful one in your list of "multiple instances."

[john6809]

I know I said I was done, but your post has inspired a question, Paidion.

Then I discovered that Mark quoted these words of Jesus significantly differently.
"For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’" (Mark 7:10)
So we cannot know from the New Testament alone, which one Jesus actually said. Of course, Mark's account is consistent with my position.

I'm sure that you have an explanation, but I can't imagine what it might be so I'll let you answer for yourself. When you quote Mark 7:10, why don't you also include verses 9 - 13?

9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 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), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

From my understanding, this could be distilled as follows: 9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God....For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’....11 But you say,....13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition...."

He mentions the commandment of God and then says "FOR" Moses says... And again, after He states what their excuse would be, He says, "...making the word of God of no effect..."

I can't help but see that He is equating the words of Moses with the commandments of God. Since He is calling them out for finding inventive ways of NOT honoring these commandments, I would have to see that He implicitly agrees with the words of Moses being an accurate reflection of what God had commanded.

Regards,
John

[steve]

Paidion wrote:

I realize you don't want to "repeat the multiple instances where Jesus' 'true and without error' teachings affirm the very attributes of judgment in God's nature," but I would truly appreciate it, if you gave just ONE quote from Jesus in which He clearly states that God killed or did other violent acts or commanded His people to do violent acts (such as is written in the Old Testament that He did). Please make it the clearest and most powerful one in your list of "multiple instances."

Nothing new here. The following examples have been listed by me in prior dialogues with Paidion on this topic—more than once! Anyone who followed those previous threads will remember that I would give half a dozen or so examples with the specific request that Paidion would deal honestly and responsibly with them.

My requests would generally go ignored until I had repeated the request so many times that he would finally proffer a weak explanation of, perhaps, one of them—seeming not to have noticed that there were quite a few to which he made no response. Sometimes these exchanges ended with him saying that he did not have the time or interest to answer them all—which makes me reluctant to entertain any expectations that I will get a fair response when presenting them again here.

Now, it is important to note that Paidion and I can’t get no satisfaction in this kind of discussion because we have different approaches to exegesis. As has been pointed out above, Paidion decides, before coming to the text, just what he will or will not allow it to say. Since many passages, taken at face value, clearly disprove his position, he cannot (and usually does not try to) give anything like a common sense exegesis of the passages.

By contrast, I do not decide my theology until after I have examined the texts. I don’t always like what comes out of the texts, but I consider it a matter of both honesty and humility to allow Jesus to tell me what He believed, rather than my telling Him what He must have believed, and then making less than honest attempts to shoehorn evidence hostile to my position into my subjective paradigm.

I do not know what Paidion will say in response to these examples—if he responds to them at all—but I would forewarn the reader to discern between the obvious, common sense meaning of Jesus’ statements, and any alternative meanings that may be suggested which have no merit other than the demand to force them into a humanly-constructed framework.

I hope it is obvious that I really like Paidion a lot, but am increasingly frustrated by his refusal to let the texts (especially Jesus’ words) speak for themselves.


Example #1: “Not one jot or tittle…” (Matt.5:18)

When Jesus said that not the slightest detail of the Torah would pass prior to its fulfillment, He was stating as plainly as language can communicate that there was no particle within the Law that did not need to be fulfilled. But this presupposes (as no Jew, including Jesus, doubted) that the need for fulfillment was a divine necessity—hardly necessary if vast tracts of the Law were merely of human origin and contrary to God’s sentiments.

If Jesus found something objectionable in these Laws of Moses, this was a good time for Him to point it out—or at least to refrain from endorsing every jot and tittle of it!

Example #2: “Moses said…”(Mark 7:10) = “God commanded…” (Matt.15:4)

This example has been discussed in this thread (above). Paidion believes that God never commanded capital punishment, nor approved any judgment acts in the Old Testament—but that these features in the Law represent Moses’ misrepresentation of God’s mind and heart. It seems bizarre to say that God would banish Moses from entering the Promised Land because of the relatively minor misrepresentation of God’s heart found in his second striking of the rock, but that God never brought Moses up on charges of similar misrepresentation in the multitude of laws that Moses passed off as God’s, but which (according to Paidion) were absolutely slanderous of God’s character.

In the passages referenced above, both Matthew and Mark link two Old Testament commands together—one the simple command to honor parents, and the other a command to kill rebellious sons, Paidion accepts the first as from God, and regards the second as a mere invention of Moses.

However, Matthew’s rendering attributes both commands plainly to God, while Mark attributes both to Moses (in context, also calling them “the commandment of God,” v.8, and “the word of God,” v.13). One thing we do not find is either Mark or Matthew attributing one of the commands to God, and the other to Moses. It is obvious that Jesus regarded the writings of Moses to be equivalent to the “commandment of God” (even in the Marcan passage, as John6809 has ably pointed out above).

To pit the testimony of Mark against that of Matthew is a foolish expedient, since deciding that Mark and Matthew disagreed on the point simply raises the question (without answering it) whether it was Matthew or Mark who got Jesus wrong (Matthew, at least, has the advantage of having been a first-hand hearer of Jesus’ statement).

Every interpreter who lacks Paidion’s agenda can see clearly enough that, with Jesus, the Gospel writers, and all believing Jews, to say “Moses said” was equivalent to saying “God commanded.” It is Paidion, not Jesus or His disciples, who distinguish between God’s words and those of Moses.


Example #3: Chaff and fruitless trees into unquenchable fire Matt.3:10-12

Admittedly, the words here are those of the Baptizer, not of Jesus. However, Jesus regarded John as “more than a prophet” (Luke 7:26), as the greatest of the prophets (Luke 7:28), and as a “shining lamp” (John 5:35). The words of John, referenced above, are among the very few specimens of his teaching on record, and certainly must have been central to his message. If he was so wrong about the mission of Jesus as Paidion would make him out to be, one must wonder at what point in John’s message he was proving himself to be a great light and a great prophet. If John was wrong, in the sense that Paidion would suggest, then he was not merely a little "off," but diametrically opposed to God's mind. In that case, Jesus should not have referred to him as the greatest of the prophets, but of the false prophets.

John’s warning refers to the immediate crisis facing the apostate in Israel. He is describing a judgment about to fall—the ax is already poised, and the fan is in the hand of the Winnower. There was a faithful remnant, to be sure, who would be gathered into God’s grainery, and preserved from the impending destruction. However, the majority of Israel were apostate and, like fruitless trees and chaff, were about to be consumed in fiery judgment (which occurred in that very generation, as we know). The agent of that terrible judgment of unquenchable fire was to be God Himself. It was He who was wielding the ax (v.10) and the winnowing fan, and who would personally cast the chaff into the fire (v.12). No honest reader can miss this fact.

Example #4: The Flood (Luke 17:27) and Sodom (Luke 17:29) both likened to “the coming of the Son of Man.”

Neither the flood nor the destruction of Sodom were natural catastrophes. Nor were they the acts of demons, since Jesus makes them parallels of His own second coming (truly not an event of demonic, nor of natural, origin). If they happened at all, they were acts of God. The only available record of these events (Genesis), from which Jesus and His hearers derived their total knowledge of them, is explicit in identifying these as direct acts of God’s judgment. God warns, in both cases, of what He is about to do (see Gen.6:13, 17; 18:17; 19:13).

Neither Jesus, nor His hearers knew any other theory of the origin of these catastrophes (if Jesus knew of an alternative view, He certainly missed the best opportunity to say so). Jesus spoke of both the flood and the destruction of Sodom as if His audience was well aware of them, which would mean they knew Genesis, and He allowed them to believe what Genesis said about them—because He Himself believed it.


Example #5: Vineyard owner (Mark 12:9)

Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard is a direct indictment of the Jewish leaders and a clear prediction of their destruction in AD70. The vineyard owner is clearly a reference to God, since it is His Son who is killed by the tenants, thus sealing their fate. In the terms of the parable, it is this same owner, who in retribution for the slaying of His Son, elects to “destroy the vinedressers,” and to ”give the vineyard to others” (Mark 12:9). This identifies the cause of Israel’s destruction, in AD70, as an act of God’s judgment.

True, Matthew’s parallel has the listeners, not Jesus, describing this judgment, but only in answer to Jesus’ question, “What will the owner do?” They say, “He will miserably destroy those wicked men” (Matt.21:41). This variation gives no comfort to Paidion’s position, however, since Jesus’ following remarks indicate that Jesus agreed with their answer—agreed so thoroughly, in fact, that Mark comfortably compresses the narrative so as to make this Jesus’ own answer!

To appeal to the variation in the accounts of Matthew and Mark as a means of neutralizing Mark’s reading is unnecessary, since both books unambiguously make the statement agreeable to Christ. In a previous example (#2, above), Paidion favored Mark’s over Matthew’s reliability. What, other than a personal agenda, would lead one who does this, to switch loyalties at this point, and make Matthew the corrector of Mark?

Example #6: The King’s wrath (Matt.22:7)

The parable immediately following the one about the vineyard is calculated to make the same point (Matt.22:1-13): A King (obviously God) is making a marriage for His Son (obviously Jesus). The first people invited (obviously the Jews) insult the King and His Son by placing no importance on the wedding and bowing out.

The angry King then sends His armies (Rome) to destroy those people and to burn their city (obviously Jerusalem, AD70). He then sends the invitation to far away people (obviously the Gentiles), who come in large numbers (obviously into the Church). In the end, even that group must be purged, resulting in some church attenders to be rejected (as per Matthew7:21-23).

The point to note here is that, as in the previous parable, the judgment upon Jerusalem and the Jews is sent directly by God—in this case, through the agency of “His [Roman] armies” (v.7).

Without question, Jesus identified God as the author of the holocaust in AD70 in both of these parables. I would note that both parables could have been alternatively constructed so as to make the woe befalling the wicked sourced differently. It is the main point of both parables to make the destruction of the Jewish State the direct consequence from God for their mistreatment of His Son. Was Jesus mistaken about this?

I realize that some of us may have been taught to (counterintuitively) apply the judgments in both parables to the end of the world. This cannot work, since the first parable, after the judgment, commits the management of the kingdom to the Church (21:43), and the second one describes the evangelization of the world as subsequent to the described judgment. Both parables, therefore, suggest continuing history beyond the judgments described. In both parables, the judgment is directed strictly toward those who killed and snubbed the Son—i.e., the Jews of the first century—not the world at large.

Besides, even if this were to describe the final judgment, it cannot be ignored that God is the one doing the destroying. How weird would it be to believe that God will ultimately bring such judgments on the world as have previously been entirely contrary to His character to do throughout history? Does God’s character change in the end?

Example #7: “So shall my heavenly Father do to you” (Matt.18:35)

In the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt.18:23-35), his King, who first forgave him (obviously a reference to God, as Jesus points out at the end of the parable), is angry that the servant did not exhibit the same grace to his fellow servants. The result is that the King “delivered him to the torturers” (v.34). As if the parable is not sufficiently suggestive without an explanation, Jesus caps it off by stating explicitly, “So my heavenly Father also will do to you” (Matt.18:35).

Delivering people to torturers is thus directly identified by Jesus as something not inconsistent with the character of God. Again, many try to make this a reference to the final judgment, but doing so does not change anything that Jesus is saying about the character of God—a matter upon which Jesus and Paidion are clearly at odds.

I do not think the final judgment is in view here (though it could be). Jesus gives no indication that this is post-mortem—at least it was not so for the man in the parable, who is the only point of comparison with the reality Jesus is describing. I suspect that demonic bondage may be in view, but be that as it may, whenever and in whatever form this punishment occurs, Jesus makes it God who places the offender in the hands of torturers—and these torturers, in the parable, are clearly the King’s own agents.


There is no need to multiply further examples. It is my contention that no honest exegesis can denature these teachings of Jesus so as to make Him deny the judgment acts of God that Paidion denies (which he claims to deny on the basis of Jesus’ teachings!).

The examples multiply when we take into account the writings of the apostles and of Luke in the Book of Acts. I have brought up such examples in the past, but Paidion’s answer is that these apostles were mistaken—apparently being less familiar with the character of God and of Jesus than is Paidion himself, who alone is competent to point out to them their errors. Jesus sure must have picked the wrong crew to be the leaders of His movement, if, after spending all those years with them, they still thought the opposite of the truth about His character.

Look discerningly at any answers or alternative exegesis that may appear, later in this thread, concerning these passages. Note who, among those who comment, must twist the scriptures in the interests of a personal agenda. Also note if the only sound you hear turns out to be crickets chirping.

[Paidion]

Thanks, John. I wasn't deliberately omitting the context. It's just that I was comparing that one verse in Mark with the other in John to illustrate that Jesus may have said, "Moses said" rather than "God said." Now let's examine the whole thing in context:

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God)—
12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

I suggest that the commandment of God in this case was, "Honor your father and your mother." I suggest that Moses understood this as the commandment of God and related it to the Israelites, but that he added, Whoever reviles father and mother must surely die."

Jesus then showed that the Pharisees were being hypocritical by pretending to honor father and mother monetarily, by saying, "What you would have gained from me, was given to God," and therefore were not at all obeying God's command to honour father and mother.

I think Moses had quite a task in overseeing that huge number of Israelites, and that his way of doing it was to execute severe punishments for disobedience, often including capital punishment. Probably he actually thought that God had revealed to him that method of dealing with the people, and so stated what "God had said" to him.

In the middle ages and later, many kinds of injustices were justified by the laws of Moses (and the instructions of some of the other prophets). These include making war against those of a different religion (such as in the Crusades), putting heretics to death, the practice of slavery, the severe beating of children in order to correct their behaviour, etc., etc., etc.

If Jesus had followed the laws of Moses, he would not have broken the Sabbath (John 5:18) and would have upheld Moses' law in the case of the woman caught in adultery. Instead of using his great wisdom in saving the woman's life and not condemning her, but simply telling her to stop sinning, He would have said, "The law must be carried out!" and perhaps would have thrown the first stone at her Himself. (John 8:3-11)

[Paidion]

John, in 1650 in Connecticut, the laws of Moses were incorporated into the laws of the state. Here is the section of those state laws for which capital punishment was carried out. If the law of Moses is the law of God, is there any reason why they should not be carried out today?

[john6809]

Thanks Paidion. I see what you are trying to show. However, I think that your answer ignores the fact that Jesus attributes both statements to Moses and sandwiches that affirmation between two separate statements that each suggest that those words of Moses were actually commandments from God. In other words, Moses' words are seen by Jesus as being synonymous with God's commands. This is the crux of the issue here and I don't think your explanation quite answers my question. I'll reword it. Do you think that Jesus is indicating that both statements of Moses are synonymous with God's commandments and that they were failing to keep God's commandments? The issue of Jesus' refusal to 'obey the law' regarding adultery is not what is here being discussed. The question is, did Jesus recognize Moses' law as being from God. Thanks for your response. The copies of documents are interesting though I have seen them before.

Regards,
John

[steve]

Please note that I (belatedly) posted my response to Paidion's comments above.

Since then, Paidion has written:

In the middle ages and later, many kinds of injustices were justified by the laws of Moses (and the instructions of some of the other prophets). These include making war against those of a different religion (such as in the Crusades), putting heretics to death, the practice of slavery, the severe beating of children in order to correct their behaviour, etc., etc., etc.

The modern atheists use exactly to same arguments, not to discredit Moses, but to disprove the existence of God. Of course, their use of these facts is as irrelevant to their point as is Paidion's to his. The stupid or rebellious misuse of scripture by those claiming to act on its authority does not tell us anything about the validity of the scriptures themselves. Christians who rightly understood the Bible would not have applied the law of Moses in the ways described above. This is not relevant to the question under discussion.

If Jesus had followed the laws of Moses, he would not have broken the Sabbath (John 5:18) and would have upheld Moses' law in the case of the woman caught in adultery. Instead of using his great wisdom in saving the woman's life and not condemning her, but simply telling her to stop sinning, He would have said, "The law must be carried out!" and perhaps would have thrown the first stone at her Himself. (John 8:3-11)

Whether Jesus kept the Law of Moses or not is equally inapplicable to the question of the divine origin of those laws. It is obvious that a certain divinely-given law might serve well for one administration and be inappropriate in another. The applicability of these laws to the New Covenant Era is an entirely different question from that of the divine origin of those laws.

Jesus clearly taught that Moses' writings were the word of God, but He also said that He was Himself the Lord over those laws, and was as capable of suspending them on a case-by-case basis as is the president free to grant amnesty to lawbreakers. God did this very thing Himself, in the case of David's adultery (yes, Jesus also believed in the reliability of the stories of David—Matt.12:3-4).