Why did Jesus stop reading?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by Homer » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:42 am

Paidion,
My concern is with the truth and facts. You believe that a great amount of what Moses has written is neither true or factual. As Steve has pointed out Jesus endorsed the writings of Moses. Moses, in your view is a false prophet (or no prophet at all). Would this not also render Jesus the same?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by steve » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:13 am

Paid ion wrote:
Belief in the complete inspiration and infallibility of the Protestant Bible is characteristic of one form of Christianity, and a very prevailing one—but not the only one.
Yeah, but every form of Christianity I have ever heard of includes faith in Jesus, as described and recorded in the Gospels. That's what I'm sticking with. You have abandoned that.

The Jefferson Bible omitted the feature Thomas Jefferson disliked (principally miracle); the New World Translation omitted or changed verses that the Jehovah's Witnesses didn't like. When shall we be looking for the Paidion edition of the Bible? It will be an inexpensive publication (and worth it, too) containing about a tenth of what the Old Testament that Jesus accepted contains, and enormous deletions from the Gospels and epistles (of course the whole book of Revelation must be removed—too many explicit references to God's judgment activity)

You have allowed enough time to pass without answering my questions on page 4 of this thread to, perhaps, allow you to hope that we all forgot that you never answered them. However, your inability to provide responsible answers to those questions speaks volumes of the degree to which you even disagree with many of the statements of Jesus. What's left?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by Paidion » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:23 pm

Steve wrote:Yeah, but every form of Christianity I have ever heard of includes faith in Jesus, as described and recorded in the Gospels. That's what I'm sticking with. You have abandoned that.
I have not abandoned that. I believe in Jesus' teachings and have endeavored to follow his instructions in living as recorded in Matt 5,6, and 7, and through faith I am receiving God's enabling grace to do so. That is the basis on which I claim to be a Christian.

Once again, Jesus did not depict the Father as a vicious killer of nations, or a killer of his own people if they stepped out of line or omitted some detail in trying to follow his instructions; rather Jesus depicted the Father as one whose kindness is meant to lead people to repentance, and who is kind to both ungrateful people and evil people, and that we will truly prove ourselves to be children of the Father is we do the same.

As for your page 4 "examples," I didn't have the energy or inclination at the time to answer them, for I didn't interpret them as you so, and so didn't see them as valid. I still don't have the energy, and my memory is getting worse, but your continuing challenge has somehow actuated the inclination. So I have copied your seven "examples" and hope to ponder them during the next few weeks—not simply to disprove your interpretation, but to better understand your interpretation, and how it fits or clashes with other sayings of our Lord.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by Paidion » Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:59 pm

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!
Well, I recall your arguing with another fellow on your forum who quoted this precise passage in order to justify the necessity for Christians to keep the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, avoiding pork, and many other such details of the law. Are you now saying that we should keep each of these “jots” and “tittles” that you say Jesus endorsed? Here is the verse in context (I will quote from the NKJV since that seems to be your preferred translation):

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5)


Jesus is talking about the basic law of God that He endorsed, and which differed substantially from the law of Moses. Immediately after this passage, he goes on to give examples of the law and teaching of the prophets in which he differs from them in his own instructions. And often his instructions are more stringent than Moses' laws. Notice that He doesn't say that the laws he is embellishing are God's laws or even Moses' but simply says, “You have heard that it was said to those of old...” without giving any authoritative source at all for these sayings. You, yourself have pointed out that the command to love your neighbor and hate your enemy, is not part of God's law or the Mosaic law. Nevertheless our Lord included it in the sayings “to those of old.”

21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’
22 "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 "leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
25 "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 "Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
31 "Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’
32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’
34 "But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
35 "nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36 "Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
37 "But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
38 ¶ "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
41 "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 "that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?


If Jesus had meant that these sayings “to those of old” (which included parts of the Mosaic law) were God's words, why wouldn't he have said so? Rather it was the law of of the scribes and Pharisees, the spiritual descendants of the early Hebrews. Jesus showed in which ways the righteousness of his disciples was to EXCEED that of the scribes and Pharisees—for example, they were not only to refrain from murder, but even to refrain from hate. And why is it recorded twice that Jesus in talking to the Jews, refers to the law as “your law”? (John 8:17, 10:34). Why didn't he call it “God's law.” On another occasion, he referred to it as “their law” (the law of the Jews). Paul referred to “God's law” once in his writings (Romans 8:7), but in my opinion he was referring to the law above the law, the genuine law of God that includes some of the laws given by Moses but by far surpasses them. Jesus knew the heart of his Father, and related the Father's laws as the Father meant them to be known. Jesus revealed the Father as He truly is, and we would do well to listen to him. If by coming to fulfill the law, Jesus had meant that he came to carry out in practice everything the law of Moses required, then when the Scribes and Pharisees brought to him the woman caught in adultery with the question, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” Jesus would have replied, “The Law is clear. She must be stoned!” But instead, Jesus saved her from being stoned to death, and then said to her, “Go and sin no more.” For Jesus fulfilled the law of God that takes precedence over the law of Moses, especially in those cases where the law of Moses is contrary to the law of God. Law of Moses: death for the adulteress; Law of God: life for the adulteress and deliverance from her wrongdoing.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by robbyyoung » Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:13 pm

Paidion wrote:If by coming to fulfill the law, Jesus had meant that he came to carry out in practice everything the law of Moses required, then when the Scribes and Pharisees brought to him the woman caught in adultery with the question, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” Jesus would have replied, “The Law is clear. She must be stoned!” But instead, Jesus saved her from being stoned to death, and then said to her, “Go and sin no more.” For Jesus fulfilled the law of God that takes precedence over the law of Moses, especially in those cases where the law of Moses is contrary to the law of God. Law of Moses: death for the adulteress; Law of God: life for the adulteress and deliverance from her wrongdoing.
Hi Paidion,

I'm sure Steve is more than capable of responding, however, when I read your reply above, something did not sound right. So let me remind you what the Law of Moses actually said:
Lev. 20:10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
Deut. 22:22-24 “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.”
Therefore, by not presenting THE MAN alongside the woman, were they actually in violation of the Law themselves? Additionally, what was Yeshua writing on ground? Could it have possibly been these two or similar references to the charges? Did Yeshua see a loop-hole in the law to forgive because of the missing male involved?

Your thoughts?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by Paidion » Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:42 pm

The Pharisees said, "Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” Jesus didn't contradict this. He didn't say, "That is not exactly what the law said." Rather, Jesus behaved as if he agreed that the law said that which the Pharisees claimed, for Jesus then said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by robbyyoung » Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:08 pm

Paidion wrote:The Pharisees said, "Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” Jesus didn't contradict this. He didn't say, "That is not exactly what the law said." Rather, Jesus behaved as if he agreed that the law said that which the Pharisees claimed, for Jesus then said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Hey Paidion,

I do not think your assessment here is tenable. The Pharisees were clearly misrepresenting The Law. Yeshua exploited their error to apply grace and mercy to this women. He probably knew "the man" would never be brought forward to solidify the charges. Yeshua's challenge to the onlookers is a powerful charge, and under The Law, if someone would have cast that stone, being guilty of sin themselves, would have been covered by Israel's ordinances under The Law. The crowd wasn't in danger by disobeying God because the woman was the only party presented. However, if both man and woman were present the scene would have probably played out differently, very interesting.

God Bless.
Last edited by robbyyoung on Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by Paidion » Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:33 pm

Steve wrote: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.
Let's examine again Mark's account of the incident:

5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“ ‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
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.”


Assuming this is a correct account of what occurred, the commandment of God to which Jesus refers is, “Honor your father and your mother.” The commandment that Moses may have added was, “Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” In this account Jesus does not say that the latter is God's commandment, but He affirms that Moses said it, and not that God said it.

However, Matthew's account asserts that Jesus said, “ For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’”

Clearly Jesus either asserted that Moses said, “Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die,” or that God said, “Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” It cannot be both. Thus one of the accounts records what Jesus actually said, and the other doesn't. If Mark's account is the correct one, then my argument holds.

I say that God's command was, “Honor your father and mother,” and that Moses' addition was, “Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.”
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Michelle
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by Michelle » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:11 pm

Paidion, if Matthew is an unreliable reporter in chapter 15, how can you be sure that the instructions in living recorded in chapters 5, 6, and 7 are dependable?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why did Jesus stop reading?

Post by Paidion » Sun Dec 11, 2016 7:43 pm

Michelle, you can't be sure about that any ancient writings are correct in every detail, yet the writers of the memoirs of Christ (or "gospels" if you will) can be trusted in their basic historicity.

Another example of an inconsistent detail. Which of the following sentences did Jesus say?

Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.”
Mark 14:30 And Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”


So which did Jesus say? "Before the rooster crows"? or "before the rooster crows twice"? Does that the fact that one of the two didn't record correctly the exact words that Jesus said, mean that his writings are not dependable?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Major and Minor Prophets”