Christianity as I thought it was supposed to be........

[sojourner]

It IS a statement of Law, Matthew 7:22-23 is specifically saying that those who call Jesus but who do "Acts of Lawlessness" (Specifically referring to the Law) will be rejected. Likewise with 1 John 3.

What do you mean I will have to do much better? All you do is brush it off as a statement of exasperation? YOU WIll have to do much better than that. If you say something is out of context, it helps your argument to say what the context actually is. I don't see why its out of context. Likewise, Jesus says anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandment shall be "Called the Least in Heaven"? What is the context of that?

It is clear that you associate "retaining old disciplines" as a bad thing, explain why, and at what point they became "old". Do you have a handy list of what teachings of Jesus are still binding?

The "original belief" obviously has to do with the "Structure". You are trying to avoid the idea that Jesus actually says there are things you must keep in mind.

If the issue of women in church is a non-issue for you, good for you, but that doesn't answer the question for anyone else.

So you're saying that simply retaining old principles puts them on a level higher than the person giving the principles?

So apparently "Fornication violates love of neighbor", apparently that's a Law. Are you worshiping that Law?

Just because you think Christianity is a loose and open system doesn't mean that it is. Just because you think that actually considering Jesus' commandments as binding is worshiping them doesn't make it so. Just because you think Matthew 7:22-23 has nothing to do with the Law doesn't make it so.

You do realize that your entire argument here amounts to:

"NUH-UH!"

At what age did you learn this brilliant debate strategy?

 

[Shermana]

You do realize that your entire argument here amounts to:

"NUH-UH!"

At what age did you learn this brilliant debate strategy?

Says the one who totally ignores every point. I'm guessing you've been using this strategy for quite awhile.

 

[no-body]

Mennonites like Unitarians are one of the few Christian sects that are actually sane. I wish more Christians would subscribe to their view.

 

[sojourner]

Says the one who totally ignores every point. I'm guessing you've been using this strategy for quite awhile.

Pick a point, and I'll address it... again.

 

[Shermana]

Start here: "

Likewise, Jesus says anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandment shall be "Called the Least in Heaven"? What is the context of that?"

 

[sojourner]

Start here: "

Give a text reference.

 

[Shermana]

Matth 5:19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

 

[sojourner]

First of all, Matthew was written for Christians of Jewish descent, so, for Matthew, Jesus is a proponent of of the Law. Notice that none of the attending pericope is attestable to Q, with the exception of vs. 18, which is also attested in Lk. 16:16-17.
Matthew seizes this quotation that the Law shall not pass away and embellishes it with the imperative of vs. 19.

Second, the quotation is very likely not authentic, because it appears neither in Q, nor in Thomas. It likely is an interpolation by the author of Matthew.

So my short answer is, since Jesus likely didn't say, we likely don't have to follow it. It was an interpolation intended for Matthew's audience -- a particular community at a particular time.

Next?

 

[Shermana]

Oh ok, so you don't even go by the authority of the Gospels themselves, well that's a whole another level and I'll meet you halfway because I believe the original Matthew was called "Gospel to the Hebrews", it also appears you think that what is in Matthew only applies to us Ethnic Jews, this is a common mentality of the "Two Gospels", one to Jews and one to gentiles, and this plays into the question of Paul such as on this Thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/45685-paul-fake-liar-apostle.html.

So then, the question of "Genuine Christianity" in your terms is defined as "Jewish version "and "Gentile version", but however, the existence of this "Gentile version" requires authentication of the Pauline gospel of what exactly the rules and meaning are, as well as its authenticity to begin with.

I am very interested to know what appears in Q and what does not.

 

[sojourner]

Oh ok, so you don't even go by the authority of the Gospels themselves,

Their authority stretches only as far as their authenticity and intent. Exegesis shows us what those parameters are.

it also appears you think that what is in Matthew only applies to us Ethnic Jews, this is a common mentality of the "Two Gospels", one to Jews and one to gentiles, and this plays into the question of Paul such as on this Thread: Paul..fake liar or apostle?.

Inasmuch as each gospel was written to a particular community of faithful, we cannot use them as "blanket statements" without first understanding the intent behind them. I think that the gospels can (and do) apply to all Xians, but we have to be careful about our claims of what they're saying to us.

So then, the question of "Genuine Christianity" in your terms is defined as "Jewish version "and "Gentile version",

No, the question of "genuine Xy" for me is answered by the meat of the gospel message itself to "repent, because God's kingdom has come near." Everything else is fluff supporting that message. I don't give a rip if you're Jewish or Mongolian or Irish or Choctaw. If you can turn your life around and meet God's kingdom head on, you're practicing Xy.

I am very interested to know what appears in Q and what does not.

Had you gone to seminary, you'd have been privy to that information, as A_E and I have been.
There is a delightful book by John Kloppenborg: The Sayings Gospel Q. You might like it.

 

[Shermana]

"meet God's kingdom head on"

Meeting God's kingdom involves obeying the Kingdom's Laws. "I have only come for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel". The House of Israel, whether you are Jewish or Mongolian, is about obedience to the Torah. Gentiles are grafted into the tree of Israel as they obey the Torah. You may believe that Matthew 5:17-20 is an interpolation because it doesn't appear in the Gospel of Thomas (written in the 3rd century) or "Q" which I would LOVE to know your source of the full list of what appears in what, or is this mystery information that they only keep in the Seminaries? Cold you provide a link as well to anyone saying that Matthew 5:17-20 is an interpolation?

Q source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Q source (also Q document or Q) is a hypothetical written source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. Q (short for the German Quelle, or "source") is defined as the "common" material found in Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. This ancient text supposedly contained the logia or quotations from Jesus.[1]
Along with Markan priority, Q was identified by 1900, and it is one of the foundations of modern gospel scholarship.[2] B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was a written document (not an oral tradition) composed in Greek; that almost all of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the original order of the text than Matthew.[3] In the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources.[3] Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral.[3] Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed.[3]
The existence of Q has sometimes been challenged.[3] The existence of a highly treasured dominical document, being omitted from all the early Church catalogs and going unmentioned by all the fathers of the early Church, remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.[4] Despite challenges, the two source hypothesis retains wide support.[3]

"Strive to enter the Sheepsgate". Do you think Matthew 7:22-23 is an interpolation too? Does the word "Lawless" not have the same context as the "Law"and "Prophets" he refers to?

So ultimately, your idea of "Q" is what is common in Luke? If it doesn't appear in Luke it doesn't exist? What if it apperas in the Church Father writings?

 

[sojourner]

Meeting God's kingdom involves obeying the Kingdom's Laws.

That's right! Which are grounded in loving God and loving neighbor.

The House of Israel, whether you are Jewish or Mongolian, is about obedience to the Torah. Gentiles are grafted into the tree of Israel as they obey the Torah.

Yeah, except that, for Matthew, the true Israel lies not in ethnicity or cultural purity, but in keeping the intent (love) of the law, not the letter (Torah) of the law. Gentiles (and others) are not grafted -- they are handed the keys. If Jews come around and follow, then they, too, can be part of the true Israel, just as can anyone else. Even the church at Jerusalem, which was highly Jewish, conceded that one need not follow the letter of the law in order to be a Christian.

You may believe that Matthew 5:17-20 is an interpolation because it doesn't appear in the Gospel of Thomas (written in the 3rd century) or "Q"

I not only believe it, I've seen it! It's unique to Matthew.
Btw: Thomas source material is much older than that. I'm in the camp that believes it to have sourced less than 10 years following the crucifixion. There is a lot of common material between Thom. and Q that suggest such an early date.

I would LOVE to know your source of the full list of what appears in what, or is this mystery information that they only keep in the Seminaries?

You can research it yourself. All you need is a Bible, a copy of Gospel Parallels, a copy of Thomas, and a copy of Q (the book I mentioned). It's pretty easy, with a little research to discover what appears where. It's no big secret. It's part of "New Testament 101" in seminary -- basic to the other, more in-depth exegetical work we do.

Cold you provide a link as well to anyone saying that Matthew 5:17-20 is an interpolation?

You could Google it -- same as me. I'm not going to waste time looking through commentaries just for this.

Do you think Matthew 7:22-23 is an interpolation too?

No. It's a Q statement, also present in Luke. I don't believe it's also in Thomas -- unique to Q.

Does the word "Lawless" not have the same context as the "Law"and "Prophets" he refers to?

No. Here, he's talking about the outward keeping of the law, but with an insincere heart.

So ultimately, your idea of "Q" is what is common in Luke?

No. My idea of Q is the same as everyone elses': It's source material for Matthew and Luke not common to Mark.

What if it apperas in the Church Father writings?

Since the Church Father writings are largely Gentile, I'm surprised you're interested.

 

[Shermana]

"You could Google it -- same as me. I'm not going to waste time looking through commentaries just for this."

I claim there is not a single scholarship that suggests such and you are flat out lying. Provide a source or admit you have none and are purely on your own.

This is a debate board, you back up your claims with links, instead of accusing me of being too lazy for your own burden of proof.

My claim is that there is not a single person alive who has ever said Matthew 5:17-20 (or at least 19) is an interpolation. I DID google it, NOTHING came up.

I challenge anyone to prove Sojourner's claim that there are scholars who claim this passage in Matthew 5:17-20 is an interpolation.

 

[sojourner]

I claim there is not a single scholarship that suggests such and you are flat out lying. Provide a source or admit you have none and are purely on your own.

This is a debate board, you back up your claims with links, instead of accusing me of being too lazy for your own burden of proof.

My claim is that there is not a single person alive who has ever said Matthew 5:17-20 (or at least 19) is an interpolation. I DID google it, NOTHING came up.

I challenge anyone to prove Sojourner's claim that there are scholars who claim this passage in Matthew 5:17-20 is an interpolation.

Do your own research! You won't find it in Mark (one source) or Q (another source). Neither is it found in Luke! The quotation is unique to Matthew, leading anyone with a brain stem to conclude that the material is original to Matthew. Because of the lack of accepted markers, namely, multiple attestation in Q, in Mark, and in Thomas, it is almost certain that this is not an authentic quotation of Jesus.

Look at this link: www.jstor.org/pss/3263094 wherein a journal article by Rob't. Banks supports my position with regard to vs. 19.

Next!

 

[Shermana]

I would bet you do not have access to that article.

According to this site, which mentions his article, it claims he thinks the passage is authentic but misunderstood.

New Covenant Theology and the Mosaic Law

Next, Robert Banks suggests that "these least commandments" is a proleptic reference not to Moses' law but to Jesus' "Nova Lex" which has displaced Moses' law and which follows in vv.21-48.9 This view has some things to say in its favor, such as the weight given to Jesus' teaching as the climactic fulfillment of Moses and the emphatic "But I say unto you" repeated throughout the following passage. But it seems exegetically strained. It requires the reader to know beforehand what lies ahead in vv.21-48. Further, "law" inverses 17-18 (even in Bank's view) refers to the law of Moses; it would be a surprising shift indeed for "the least of these commandments," stated in the very same breath, to be something different.

I would like to know where he gets the idea that its challenged though, and why not verse 17 particularly as much.

 

[sojourner]

I would bet you do not have access to that article.

According to this site, which mentions his article, it claims he thinks the passage is authentic but misunderstood.

New Covenant Theology and the Mosaic Law



I would like to know where he gets the idea that its challenged though, and why not verse 17 particularly as much.

You have no idea what I have access to through the seminary.

I would hardly take the word of a Baptist web site over a scholarly journal article subject to peer review. The attention given to the little fake spiral binder is precious, but unnecessary (like many conservative, American theological treatments). I find it interesting (and telling) that you would favor such a web page over a scholarly journal.