If Jesus was God, explain this verse...

[Me Myself]

You believe that hey? Based upon what? I would guess prejudice. Certainly not something solid like evidence, reason, or context.

Since you are so good at the subject of context, let's see what context says. From the verses preceding the Scripture in question:



Note the underlined portion. What do learned people on the subject say about that verse? I doubt you care because it isn't in line with your beliefs, but it is a reference to the practice of impressment in which Roman soldiers were allowed by law to force any non-citizen throughout the empire to carry their bags for a mile. Jesus clearly means to teach us to be good to everyone, not just good people and not just fellow Jews.

He is trying to teach you, while he and you have a very... Personal way of calling each other.

Jesus did the same. Jesus called the people he didnt liked and thought taught bad things, "breed of vipers" but still taught them.

Shermana is calling you things which in contrast to what Jesus said, are technically (or apparently?) inside the allowance of forum rules while he tries to teach you his perspective.

I assume Jesus would carry the stuff of his enemies while calling them breed of vipers I dont really know.

In any case, Shermana is doing better than praying for you, he is giving you his time by trng to correct what he percieves are errors of your understanding.

Tis of course is a service. (Do notice I have not made a judgement call on whether any of your are right on this. By this point I barely see you actual arguments. I assumme you both had them some pages ago, but was too lazy to go look)

 

[Prophet]

I think the context is quite clear. Why would you think otherwise? I think reason leads anyone to believe that he's referring to his Israelite audience, and if you took the evidence of the Canaanite woman like I said into account, maybe you'd come to the same logical conclusion.



Are you seriously unable to understand that referring to obliging a Roman Centurion forcing you to accompany them for a mile to do menial work is NOT referring to "being good to them" in the sense of "love"? Do you think the idea of not resisting someone is the same thing as what you're referring to?

So there we have it everyone, Prophet here says that the verse about obliging a Roman Centurion is about "love".

I'm definitely going to start addressing you as "Mr Context".

I don't have to fall to your level of guessing or baseless name-calling to defeat you. I don't have to misconstrue your already insane arguments to defeat you. You are plainly an intellectually dishonest debater. You repeatedly attempt to make stupid, misconstrued versions of my argument to defeat me. And at some level, whether it is subconscious or not, you're doing it on purpose.

If you insist on misunderstanding every argument I make, you can NEVER defeat my actual arguments anywhere except your own mind, in a universe where you can fool yourself of apparently anything. Go ahead, throw this accusation back in my face as your predictable pattern emerges again, and I will continue to prove that I understand your beliefs better than you do by putting your every inconsistency on full display, just like every time we butt heads.

It honestly seems you missed the point of that verse, which is kind of surprising should strike you as "going the extra mile" is a common idiom. I never said not resisting impressment is love. I said choosing to give when you aren't obligated is love. Do you see the difference, or are you too far gone?

 

[Shermana]

Translation:

"Wah wah wah nuh uh nuh uh wah wah wah".

 

[Prophet]

He is trying to teach you, while he and you have a very... Personal way of calling each other.

Jesus did the same. Jesus called the people he didnt liked and thought taught bad things, "breed of vipers" but still taught them.

Shermana is calling you things which in contrast to what Jesus said, are technically (or apparently?) inside the allowance of forum rules while he tries to teach you his perspective.

I assume Jesus would carry the stuff of his enemies while calling them breed of vipers I dont really know.

In any case, Shermana is doing better than praying for you, he is giving you his time by trng to correct what he percieves are errors of your understanding.

Tis of course is a service. (Do notice I have not made a judgement call on whether any of your are right on this. By this point I barely see you actual arguments. I assumme you both had them some pages ago, but was too lazy to go look)

Shermana has already admitted that he would have me put to death were it in his power. I believe this is in contrast to your belief that he wants to help me. But I thank you for you opinion.

 

[Shermana]

I said choosing to give when you aren't obligated is love. Do you see the difference, or are you too far gone

Well at least this part has some substance, or at least an attempt at it.

There is a big difference between choosing to give when you aren't obligated and the concept of going two miles when you are obligated to go one. It's not love that Jesus is teaching, in fact, it's actually a subtle form of trolling, in the same vein of "pouring coal upon their heads" in doing good for your enemies in the OT as well.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana has already admitted that he would have me put to death were it in his power.

I did? Kindly quote me. This is a dangerous form of putting words in my mouth I never said. This is the kind of thing which, in the hands of the insane, could lead to "pre-emptive" attacks based on their wild fantasies and distortions of the truth.

I merely pointed out that claiming to be a prophet when you are not in the OT is a death penalty offense. And that was in relation to my point about how not all sins in the OT are necessarily direct victim-related like murder and rape which you are asking, no DEMANDING people to not angrily condemn those who do, while condemning people who say it should be condemnable. And on the subject, you have yet to answer whether stealing and dealing in stolen goods is something to be condemned for.

If anything, this further adds evidence to my earlier accusations.

I think you WANT me to say I would have you dead. In fact, I specifically said I did NOT want you dead when I said "If I wanted you dispatched I would wish for that".

Again, thank you for demonstrating your ability to understand context. I would suggest you learn how to understand what people say to you before you try understanding what the Bible texts say.

. You repeatedly attempt to make stupid, misconstrued versions of my argument

And further proof of my accusation that you simply project your own fallacies each and every time.

 

[Prophet]

So, Jesus really doesn't care for all of the Romans deep down, so much that he's commanding his followers to confuse them by being better to them than required by law so they can feel superior? And then he commands us to love our enemies in the next breath for what rational purpose?

Why would Jesus talk about being good to Roman occupiers in one verse, and in the next breath say "love your enemies" secretly referring only to fellow Israelites as you claim he must've been doing to explain your worldview? Either Jesus is being inconsistent or you are just wrong.

 

[Prophet]

I did? Kindly quote me. This is a dangerous form of putting words in my mouth I never said. This is the kind of thing which, in the hands of the insane, could lead to "pre-emptive" attacks based on their wild fantasies and distortions of the truth.

I merely pointed out that claiming to be a prophet when you are not in the OT is a death penalty offense. And that was in relation to my point about how not all sins in the OT are necessarily direct victim-related like murder and rape which you are asking, no DEMANDING people to not angrily condemn those who do, while condemning people who say it should be condemnable. And on the subject, you have yet to answer whether stealing and dealing in stolen goods is something to be condemned for.

If anything, this further adds evidence to my earlier accusations.

I think you WANT me to say I would have you dead. In fact, I specifically said I did NOT want you dead when I said "If I wanted you dispatched I would wish for that".

Again, thank you for demonstrating your ability to understand context. I would suggest you learn how to understand what people say to you before you try understanding what the Bible texts say.



And further proof of my accusation that you simply project your own fallacies each and every time.

Nah, I'll wait til he asks to post your greatest hits. It'll be fun. And fallacy? Please demonstrate something resembling a fallacy in my reasoning. I'd love to see something beyond you telling me yours is the "scriptural view" and insulting me for just once.

 

[Shermana]

So, Jesus really doesn't care for all of the Romans deep down, so much that he's commanding his followers to confuse them by being better to them than required by law so they can feel superior? And then he commands us to love our enemies in the next breath for what rational purpose?

Why would Jesus talk about being good to Roman occupiers in one verse, and in the next breath say "love your enemies" secretly referring only to fellow Israelites as you claim he must've been doing to explain your worldview? Either Jesus is being inconsistent or you are just wrong.

Being good to Roman occupiers was more about making them feel guilty and a subtle form of protest (I used the word "Trolling" for a reason) in a way that takes away their moral high ground. So you kind of got it, but you don't seem to get what you're even getting!

As to the concept of "love your enemy", there are entire scholarly books addressing this age-old controversial issue. It's not as clear cut as some (like JWs for example) wish it was.

"Love Your Enemies": Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the ... - John Piper - Google Books

So your false dichotomy is simply a matter of you not understanding the complexities involved which have divided scholars and theologians on this matter for centuries.

 

[Shermana]

Nah, I'll wait til he asks to post your greatest hits.

Okay I'll take that as your way of admission that you recognize I never said that.

Besides, I would just have you thrown in a labor camp. Or just a reeducation camp if you were well behaved.

 

[Prophet]

Who the hell is John Piper? Should I be surprised when I find a fundamentalist at the end of that name? Don't you understand your own beliefs well enough to argue the evidence for yourself? Or does this John Piper speak beliefs into you?

 

[Prophet]

Okay I'll take that as your way of admission that you recognize I never said that.

Besides, I would just have you thrown in a labor camp. Or just a reeducation camp if you were well behaved.

Meanwhile, claiming to be a prophet falsely is a death-penalty level sin in my book, literally.

So which is it? Which punishment do you wish to levy upon me? What does the word "literally" mean to you?

 

[Prophet]

Is it possible that "heaping coals on his head" means, in translation "to confound him or to throw him into cognitive dissonance" in this case with goodness, and not as a punishment as you say?

 

[Shermana]

Who the hell is John Piper? Should I be surprised when I find a fundamentalist at the end of that name? Don't you understand your own beliefs well enough to argue the evidence for yourself? Or does this John Piper speak beliefs into you?

Okay so I take that as you saying you don't deal with books and papers that describe how complicated the issue is. It was just an example of one particular view, an Evangelical even (an educated one even if I disagree with his overall Theology), who shows that this view is not as easy to explain in simple cut and dry terms. It's a complicated issue that has, with many others, been a focus of debate for centuries. John Piper's views do not reflect my own, I used him as an example to show you that there are many who acknowledge it's not that easy to pin down.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the idea of using links and sources to back your claims or further explain your position though.

I already explained my view, the point was to show that there are many others, even those on the "Fundamentalist" side who understand that it's not as clear cut as you want to pretend it is and that there is much room for interpretation. Besides, I think I did a fine job gutting your attempt to say that going two miles when you're obligated to do one is "love".

 

[Shermana]

Is it possible that "heaping coals on his head" means, in translation "to confound" in this case with goodness, and not as a punishment as you say?

That's part of the basic idea, I believe it has to do with making your enemy feel guilty and confused and wondering if they should reflect on their behavior.

 

[Shermana]

So which is it? Which punishment do you wish to levy upon me? What does the word "literally" mean to you?

Personally I just want to see you humbled somehow. Humbling is good for everyone. Sometimes I need to be humbled as well. Although maybe a Reeducation camp would be good for you after all. Just sayin'. It'd be better than the Mental Institution at least. Or maybe not.

The word "literally" means literally. As in, no metaphor, as is, plain reading. Just like in my book, the Torah, it lays out execution for false prophets. However, we don't do that without a working Sanhedrin, and I'm not sure if it applies outside of Israel. And I believe there's much room for repentance. This is an area I agree with the Rabbis on.

However it's clear that you simply can't understand what I mean, or you are deliberately twisting my words in somehow saying that I wish you dead because I pointed out that false claims of prophethood is an executable offense in "my book". Perhaps you misunderstood that I was using the words "My book" quite literally.

Perhaps you simply have a problem with "My book" altogether.

Or perhaps you simply have a problem with me. Oh wait, I think we've established that by now.

 

[Shermana]

HOWEVER, this goes back to what I was saying, that I don't even believe this verse (Matthew 5:44) was originally part of the Gospels! There is too much manuscript evidence against it to necessarily say it was part of the originals, about blessing those that curse you and doing good to those who spitefully use you.

Was Jesus loving his enemies when he whipped them out of the Temple?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

HOWEVER, this goes back to what I was saying, that I don't even believe this verse (Matthew 5:44) was originally part of the Gospels! There is too much manuscript evidence against it to necessarily say it was part of the originals, about blessing those that curse you and doing good to those who spitefully use you.

Was Jesus loving his enemies when he whipped them out of the Temple?

It's not likely that much of what is said in Matthew was ever uttered by Jesus if it cannot be found in mark I would argue.

Even in the stories you see the same story retold again with different characters. In Matthew, Luke, and John Jesus is asked by three different people "what they must do to gain eternal life"

Matthew he is asked by the Young Rich Man

Luke he is asked by the Teacher of the Law (might be switched with Matthew)

John he is asked by Nicodemus.

I'm not sure that story shows up in Mark however.

I've been reading the Gospel of Thomas which is just directly the sayings of Jesus, I'm not sure how it falls in the historical claims (as most scholars look at it being related to the 2nd century), but it's a different view of Jesus that sort of aligns with the mysterious Jesus seen in Mark.

 

[Dinner123]

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

If Jesus was God, why was he tempted by the Devil? Can God be tempted by the Devil, his own creation?

Granted, he passed the test. But if he was God... Why was there a test in the first place? Does God need to test himself?

Are God and Jesus really one in the same? Please answer logically how this is possible given the verse above.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Jesus was in the flesh. It was necessary for Him to face temptation, because He came to overcome the works of the devil. Humanity has been enslaved to the desires of the flesh(which is our prison which keeps us subject unto death, Lam 3:34) for a long time. Jesus came to free us from this enslavement and death. The flesh is enslaved to sin, and satan is the father of sin. So, the flesh has always been satan's greatest weapon against us to keep us under his power. To free us, God needed to come in the flesh and resist all the temptations of the world. Keeping the flesh from sin unto the end. (1 John 3:8, John 16:33, Heb. 2:14)

The temptations of the world are the lust of the flesh "command that these stones be made bread." the Lust the eyes "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." and the pride of life "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down:" (One way to tempt a proud person, is to challenge them.) These are same temptations Eve faced in the garden. "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

These are the three main lures of the world that the flesh desires and those desires, Jesus had to face for our sakes. Not for Himself. If He faced these temptations for Himself; then you would have a point that He cannot be God. But, He faced them for us.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
[/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It was God Himself that looked down from heaven, and heard the groans of the prisoners(imprisoned sin and death) and He came to free them from death.And to declare the name of the Lord in Zion. (see John 17:26)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth; To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death; To declare the name of the Lord in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem; (Psalm 102:19-21)[/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sadly, there was no man worthy. So, God came to do it Himself.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him. (Isaiah 59:16)[/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And, what does Jesus say in foreknowledge? That God has prepared a body for Him.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require. Then I said, Behold, I come: in the volume of the book it is written concerning me, I desired to do thy will, O my God, and thy law in the midst of mine heart. (Psalm 40:6-8 Septuagint)[/FONT]

 

[Prophet]

Okay so I take that as you saying you don't deal with books and papers that describe how complicated the issue is. It was just an example of one particular view, an Evangelical even (an educated one even if I disagree with his overall Theology), who shows that this view is not as easy to explain in simple cut and dry terms. It's a complicated issue that has, with many others, been a focus of debate for centuries. John Piper's views do not reflect my own, I used him as an example to show you that there are many who acknowledge it's not that easy to pin down.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the idea of using links and sources to back your claims or further explain your position though.

I already explained my view, the point was to show that there are many others, even those on the "Fundamentalist" side who understand that it's not as clear cut as you want to pretend it is and that there is much room for interpretation. Besides, I think I did a fine job gutting your attempt to say that going two miles when you're obligated to do one is "love".

You've demonstrated time and time again that you'll take ANYTHING the way you want to see it, independent of what is actually happening, so I have to be at peace with your inability to see and hope others here see what you force yourself to miss. Here, it appears you are trying to marginalize me as unscholarly boob who doesn't deal with books and papers like scholarly you. My reply is only to point out that you are making an unreasonable debate request of me, and it is fairly obvious you are employing this tactic to distract from the weakness of your own argument. When I insert reads for you, they are short, to the point, and material I believe in which I will defend. When you put out a read for me, it's a freaking book?! AND you don't even agree with it?! LOL. Attempting to distract from the argument at hand is not an honest debate tactic.

Now, If John Piper were here, I should like to debate him and I might be tempted to read this to research his evidence and use his own testimony against him in situations where I believe the conclusions he draws from the evidence are unwarranted, just like I do with you or anyone else. But, no, I'm not going to take you on when you post John Piper's or anyone else's worldviews you don't hold and likely won't defend.