Matthew 5:22

[Guest bdp]

I posted these quotes on the Hal Lindsey thread but I wanted to create a new thread about them since the contradiction of Jesus' words in this verse about calling someone a fool can get you sent to hell and then calling someone a fool himself comes up so much. A Chrisitian on a movie message board I frequent commented on Matthew 5:22:

 

 

 

"The Sermon on the Mount was addressed to Orthodox Jews - there wasn't a 'Christian' yet in sight. That's why it makes sense to be a dispensationalist and recognize that not everything in the Bible is doctrinal for the church age we are presently in. Christians who take the Sermon on the Mount as doctrinal for Christians usually aren't good Bible scholars and I'd stay away from them.

 

...Jesus wasn't addressing Christians in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. Jesus was an Orthodox Jew at the beginning of His ministry to ISRAEL and not the Christian church because the Christian church had not come into existence yet.

 

'But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' - Matthew 15:24

 

So when Jesus said that anyone who said fool would be in danger of hellfire that obviously does not apply to Christians in this age of grace. We obtain salvation by grace through faith and once we have it we cannot be plucked out of His hand.

 

Just like we no longer sacrifice animals in a temple like people did in Old Testament times so too do many things that Jesus said to Jews during His earthly ministry to THEM have any doctrinal bearing on a Christian's life in the church age. One can make general spiritual applications of course but doctrinal applications? Not if the context does not apply to Christians.

 

You have to rightly divide the word of truth, the operative word being "divide". (2 Timothy 2:15). Failure to rightly divide leads to a thousand different cults.

 

The word of God has divisions in it which must be respected and taught properly or people get all confused -- and God is not the author of confusion. (1 Corinthians 14:33)"

 

 

 

I found it incredible that any Christian would feel that Jesus' own words could be discounted as doctrinal under any circumstance, but I wanted to see these thoughts addressed by some of our greater scholars here.

[מה טבו]

So.... Josh's words don't apply to Christianity, but Paul's stuff about teh gheys being eebil - that's solid doctrinal gold.

[Luke Wolf]

Uhhhhh.........okay.

Then, I guess we can all rejoice that "I am the way, the truth, and the light, and no man may come unto the Father except through me," and the whole "whosoever believeth in him shall not parish but have everlasting peace." does not apply. Thus by that logic, we can all enter Heaven should that be the case.

Allthough in my case, I have told God he can go fuck off, and take his salvation, turn it sideways, and stick it up his ass.

[Guest bdp]

Then, I guess we can all rejoice that "I am the way, the truth, and the light, and no man may come unto the Father except through me," and the whole "whosoever believeth in him shall not parish but have everlasting peace." does not apply. Thus by that logic, we can all enter Heaven should that be the case.

 

This is pretty much what I thought - if we can disregard it because he was speaking to Jews and there was no such thing as a Christian then we can disregard everything he said since there were no Christians and no church until well after his death.

[Deva]

Then, I guess we can all rejoice that "I am the way, the truth, and the light, and no man may come unto the Father except through me," and the whole "whosoever believeth in him shall not parish but have everlasting peace." does not apply. Thus by that logic, we can all enter Heaven should that be the case.

 

This is pretty much what I thought - if we can disregard it because he was speaking to Jews and there was no such thing as a Christian then we can disregard everything he said since there were no Christians and no church until well after his death.

 

 

The bottom line is if Jesus was not speaking directly to Christians today, then why should we listen to him at all? What value has it? Why emphasize verses Paul wrote, which even by his own admission were only meant for the benefit of the churches addressed at the time? Remember that verse where Paul says something like "Not the Lord, but I say.." He said he was not speaking for God. Yet Paul's verses about homosexuals and subservient women are selected and emphasized by fundie churches (not liberal churches, for them these verses don't exist). Also the so-called "Roman Road" of salvation. Yet when purportedly Christ himself speaks about someone in danger of hellfire for simply calling someone else a fool, no sermons on that topic!

 

Could it be that this makes Christ seem ridiculous? Could emphasizing Paul just be an effort to control people? Yeah, I think that's the answer.

[מה טבו]

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

 

I have to wonder about the translation there. This is where I regret that my knowledge of the NT is pretty weak. Jews don't believe in Hell - no sect of Judaism believes in eternal Hell. Some Jews believe in Gehenna, which is an unpleasant place that you stay for up to a year after you die, but then you either go to Paradise or cease to exist. I would tend to think he was talking about Gehenna, and that it was his followers who later created the doctrine of eternal Hell, but then I don't really know the NT that well.

 

23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

 

This is actually pretty similar to Jewish doctrine. On Yom Kippur, before you atone for any sins against G_d, you have to go to whoever you screwed over during the previous year and make things right with them first.

 

I have to wonder about Josh. If he was a true Jewish messianic wannabe, he would be absolutely horrified at his deification. Deification, to an Orthodox Jew, would be the ultimate posthumous insult. Then again, if he was really Orthodox, he would never have tolerated his disciples violating Shabbat, and he definitely would have never said "I and the Father are one" - a reference to the Shema that's about as blasphemous as you get in Judaism.

 

If the quotes attributed to him are true, he was more likely than not a paranoid schizophrenic who just happened to be brought up as an Orthodox Jew. Otherwise, he was a cocky messianic hopeful with some deeply crazy followers. My best guess would be some of both.

[Taphophilia]

I would think this is why Christianity didn't catch on with the Jews of that era. They thought it just silly.

 

From what I understand, Shimeon ben Kosiba, came closer to filling the the messianic ideal than Jesus did. He fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in it's name.

[mwc]

...Jesus wasn't addressing Christians in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. Jesus was an Orthodox Jew at the beginning of His ministry to ISRAEL and not the Christian church because the Christian church had not come into existence yet.

I've heard similar lines of argument before and they're quite nifty. They're just another form of cherry picking along the lines of the "old" covenant is to be thrown out entirely but for some reason the 10 commandments still apply 100% (and things like that).

 

So the "audience" that baby jesus is addressing varies depending on what the person wishes to argue. That "fools" thing? Oh, that was for the "Jews." The "salvation" thing? Well, that's for (sort of) everyone, of course. The "magic" is only for those first apostles which is why we can't do it. The glorious return on the "clouds" is for some unknown "generation" (it could be right now!).

 

Isn't this convenient? The person knows exactly to what audience the baby god was referencing even though the texts themselves have baby god only referring to the Jews themselves (and random other "outside" characters that may be included because they caught him on a good day).

 

If Paul, the self-appointed apostle (and Jew-Gentile "bridge" as it were), is the key to it all then the gospels should be relegated to apocrypha and moved into an appendix position in the canon or removed altogether since it is Paul's "revealed" theology that counts for the most people in the world today.

 

mwc

[mwc]

From what I understand, Shimeon ben Kosiba, came closer to filling the the messianic ideal than Jesus did.

One huge thing he did right was being alive in the first place but he did a couple of things wrong too. He, and his, mutilated themselves (a major no-no) which lost him the support of the priests and, and this is really a minor one in the realm of xianity, he died before doing all those "messiah" things.

 

Now, I'm not sure how baby jesus plans to do the messiah gig with mutilated hands, feet and a sword hole (and I'm guessing other wounds) but the maybe since that wasn't self-inflicted there is some loop-hole he's working with? The severing of part of a digit screwed the "B" team in the 2nd Roman/Jewish War according to what we know. As we all know the big guy hates people that are mutilated and since the resurrection didn't seem to "fix" his body any (what a bummer for anyone looking forward to that new body) he must be sitting to the FAAAAAAAAAAAR right hand of old dad right now.

 

Oh yeah, and did I mention how the dying thing sort of ended the whole run for messiah? The Jews seem to have some stupid issues surrounding that. It's a good thing that xians have risen above that technicality. This really lowers the bar for anyone looking to come back 2, 3 or more times to become the Jewish messiah.

 

mwc

[Max]

So since xtianity didn't actually exist until after jesus was dead, does this mean that nothing that he said applies to the xtian church? That would really explain a lot!

[Grandpa Harley]

I would think this is why Christianity didn't catch on with the Jews of that era. They thought it just silly.

 

From what I understand, Shimeon ben Kosiba, came closer to filling the the messianic ideal than Jesus did. He fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in it's name.

 

 

Simon of Gitta was a better candidate, although a Samaritan, than Jesus, and Roman worshipped him too...

[Taphophilia]

Simon of Gitta was a better candidate, although a Samaritan, than Jesus, and Roman worshipped him too...

 

Well, there you have it. Jesus wasn't even a runner-up in the messiah pagent, but Christian's have him strolling down the runway with the crown, sash, and bouquet.

[Grandpa Harley]

There are two extant gospels of Simon...

[jasonwhatever]

It's kind of like the scriptures that say to call no man on earth father, "for one is your father, which is in heaven," and call no man reverand, be not called reverand, etc. He that is greatest shall be least, he that is least shall be greatest.

 

Kind of like in the OT pork was forbidden to be eaten and a man and woman could divorce; whereas in the NT "what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder," and Christians all say it's okay (even mandated) that people eat meat, including pork. They pick and choose to keep the Ten Commandments, to the point of taking it to the supreme court to be able to post them in a courthouse. All the while, they don't keep them themselves. Christians covet all the time; they are very materialistic, in my experience. They make images of heavenly figures, which the commandments forbid. "Judge not that ye be not judged?" Oh please; I know not a group of people who are more judgemental than Christians.

 

They pick and choose according to their conveniences.

[Guest bdp]

The person who gave this 'explanation' of Matthew 5:22 also said "That just goes to show you that Jesus's comment in Matthew 5 doesn't belong in the church age, because both Jesus and Paul said "fool" and didn't end up in hell." I so wanted to say 'How do you know Paul isn't in hell? Jesus says you call someone fool you go to hell, Paul called someone a fool, maybe he IS in hell' but it's a movie messgae board so I try to keep religion to a minimum there. This person is also a neo-con so they don't want to have to be saddled with verses that suggest that they need to be gentle or not insulting. I think there's an element of that and also an element of wishing away contradictions in this explanation.

[Ouroboros]

Jason,

 

Dam'it. You're very likable now.

 

You sound like me when I first de-converted.

 

So may I ask, are you still a Christian in a sense, or are you more of a deist/theist? If you're not a Christian anymore, we could remove your icon and text you know.