The Trinity

[Shermana]

I'm looking at my last post, and maybe I'm blind or something, but I don't see "nuh uh" typed there.

At any rate, do you know WHO the "least" are?
And what does that have to do with the Trinity?

You said the Kingdom of Heaven isn't Hierarchical, what does THAT have to do with the Trinity? Obviously something, right?

Anyways, the "Least" are those who have the least rank in the Heavenly Hierachy, they are those who taught others to disobey the "Least" of the commandments. The text is quite clear, more than clear that Heaven is in fact Hierrachical. We see hints of this in Revelation, even the Epistle to the Hebrews, and we certainly see the idea of ranks of angelic beings in much Jewish literature.

 

[kylixguru]

Then don't whine about not getting the answers you wanted. We don't always (or even often) "get what we want" in religion. We tend to get what's good for us.

So you are saying even though they argue and bicker and go around and around in circles and never really come to a respectable understanding of God that I am just supposed to swallow my conscience and remain beholden to them?

I was simply using that as an example of "God -- not Kyli -- knows best."

Well, so why are you whining about me deciding to turn to God directly rather than remain beholden to other men as you seem to think I should?

How about you make up your mind on that issue.

God knows best and I have no access to Him, except through the scholars?

You did say. They agree on the Trinity -- you don't.

I agree that there is a Trinity.
I just disagree with the various ways they understand it, or don't, as the case may be.

No assumption needed.

You assumed. And, besides, that's kind of a pointless issue anyway.

Temples were done away with when the last sacrifice (crucifixion) was performed. No more need for sacrifice -- Jesus was sacrificed once for all -- hence, no need for temples (temples are places for sacrifice).

No more need for them that you know of.
When Adam knelt at an alter, where are alters found?
If Adam is scheduled to come forth on Day 6 of Creation, which pertains to the 6th millennium, and since temples are the setting where God sits on His throne, which is what is on the schedule for the Millennium, don't you think since we are right at the close of the 6th Millennium and heading into the Millennium that there ought to be somewhere, in some fashion or another, temples where the "creatures" are receiving their "new names" and where Adam is sitting on His throne?

If you'd cared to do your exegetical homework with regard to what the temple was for, you wouldn't have posted something that makes no sense with regard to the Bible.

Actually, I am the one speaking from a position of knowing something that you don't.

Well, you've certainly done that...

From your point of view of course.

Wholeness

Which means a complete cleansing and sanctification from sin, not the license to continue in sin justified in so doing.

 

[kylixguru]

Jacob -- not God -- said he'd seen God face-to-face after he had fought the man at the Jabbok. When had he seen God??? he was speaking metaphorically, because God had worked through agency of another. Jacob had not, in fact, seen God's face.

Wow, talk about some serious desperation here.
You are just digging a hole for yourself deeper and deeper.
You better just admit you were wrong now and quit making a complete fool of yourself.

I said something to indicate a man could see God face to face and live.
You refuted that point and said no man could see God face to face and live.
Then I countered back and showed how Jacob and Moses both saw God face to face and lived.

Now, rather than admit you got busted, you are going to twist the words of the Bible to suit your fancy. C'mon sojourner, grow a pair and admit when you get nailed.

It's a metaphor -- not a blueprint. And it was never written to dovetail with the fishers of men statement.

It's a metaphor that provides a blueprint for one cycle of Creation.
Do you think Jesus being born at the tail end of the 4th millennium and the "greater light to rule the day" being created on Day 4 of the creation account is just a coincidence?
That his disciples started in earnest at the beginning of the 5th millennium being called to be "fishers of men" is also just mere coincidence?

Are you really meaning to tell me you are one of those who takes the creation account as applying to our physical cosmos instead of the family of Adam's spiritual cosmos?

Not cogent.

Ok, I'll explain it to you so that you can understand.

You are welcome to have whatever opinion you like.
You shall be held responsible for the opinions you hold.

If I am a valid servant of the Lord and you mock and fight me and just look for ways to try and trip me up and bring shame upon me, etc. then it will stand as a witness against you when you stand before my Father in your day of judgment.

 

[sojourner]

You said the Kingdom of Heaven isn't Hierarchical, what does THAT have to do with the Trinity? Obviously something, right?

Anyways, the "Least" are those who have the least rank in the Heavenly Hierachy, they are those who taught others to disobey the "Least" of the commandments. The text is quite clear, more than clear that Heaven is in fact Hierrachical. We see hints of this in Revelation, even the Epistle to the Hebrews, and we certainly see the idea of ranks of angelic beings in much Jewish literature.

If you look at it in context, Jesus calls simple fishermen as his disciples, he cured the diseased, he preached (and this is the first of Jesus' 5 sermons in Matthew -- all pointing toward an equalization, where the first are last and the last first) that the poor, the mourning, the hungry and the persecuted (the lowly) are raised up. This isn't about hierarchy, it's about equalization.

 

[sojourner]

So you are saying even though they argue and bicker and go around and around in circles and never really come to a respectable understanding of God that I am just supposed to swallow my conscience and remain beholden to them?

Matthew teaches the concept that there are weeds growing among the wheat, and that we don't want to tear out the wheat for the sake of the weeds. That appears to be what you're advocating here...

Well, so why are you whining about me deciding to turn to God directly rather than remain beholden to other men as you seem to think I should?

Because that's what Biblical example cites you should do: Build relationships.

God knows best and I have no access to Him, except through the scholars?

No, God knows best, and that best is communicated through the community of believers -- not directly.

No more need for them that you know of.
When Adam knelt at an alter, where are alters found?
If Adam is scheduled to come forth on Day 6 of Creation, which pertains to the 6th millennium, and since temples are the setting where God sits on His throne, which is what is on the schedule for the Millennium, don't you think since we are right at the close of the 6th Millennium and heading into the Millennium that there ought to be somewhere, in some fashion or another, temples where the "creatures" are receiving their "new names" and where Adam is sitting on His throne?

At least a couple of problems here, not the least of which is that the earth is older than 6000 years. when the veil was torn in two in the temple, thus exposing the Sanctum Sanctorum to the public eye, sacrifice as a mediary was no longer necessary.

Actually, I am the one speaking from a position of knowing something that you don't.

I really doubt that. None of your posts thus far has suggested "superior knowledge."

Which means a complete cleansing and sanctification from sin, not the license to continue in sin justified in so doing.

Even clean people get dirty again. The issue of salvation isn't purity, it's grace.

Wow, talk about some serious desperation here.
You are just digging a hole for yourself deeper and deeper.
You better just admit you were wrong now and quit making a complete fool of yourself.

I said something to indicate a man could see God face to face and live.
You refuted that point and said no man could see God face to face and live.
Then I countered back and showed how Jacob and Moses both saw God face to face and lived.

Now, rather than admit you got busted, you are going to twist the words of the Bible to suit your fancy. C'mon sojourner, grow a pair and admit when you get nailed.

Twisting textual meaning isn't my bag. But it does seem to be yours. In any case, even if Moses had seen God's face, the sign of that is a shining face.




I see no such shine from you.

It's a metaphor that provides a blueprint for one cycle of Creation.

Creation (according to the Bible) was finished on the 6th day...

Do you think Jesus being born at the tail end of the 4th millennium and the "greater light to rule the day" being created on Day 4 of the creation account is just a coincidence?

I don't think the one has anything to do with the other -- except in some contrived "conspiracy theory" concocted out of whole cloth.

Besides, The Bible points to Christ as the culmination of creation. Therefore, IF (a huge "if") creation was completed on the 6th day, and there's a correlation between that and Christ's advent, he would have had to have been born ... about now -- according to your timeline.

Are you really meaning to tell me you are one of those who takes the creation account as applying to our physical cosmos instead of the family of Adam's spiritual cosmos?

Are you really meaning to tell me you are one of those who takes the creation narrative as some esoteric writing pertaining to Christian spirituality, instead of a remnant of a much earlier and foreign mythological account of the creation of the world?

If I am a valid servant of the Lord and you mock and fight me and just look for ways to try and trip me up and bring shame upon me, etc. then it will stand as a witness against you when you stand before my Father in your day of judgment.

Valid servant or no, mistakes are mistakes, and when those mistakes are trotted out in public forum, those mistaken ideas are debate fodder. Do you really think God is concerned about what you think? Or is God more concerned with your attitude? (Seems like this keeps coming up -- you seem to feel it's all about some "higher knowledge" -- like gnosticism).

At any rate, your use of the word "my" with regard to God is very, very telling. God is God of all humanity -- not of a select few.

 

[kylixguru]

Matthew teaches the concept that there are weeds growing among the wheat, and that we don't want to tear out the wheat for the sake of the weeds. That appears to be what you're advocating here...

Not exactly. I am simply sharing what I believe and why.
You are who is coming to me and saying "what about the scholars you disagree with?"
And, I am saying I give them consideration but ultimately I reach my own conclusions.
I am saying I do not consider myself beholden to them in any special way.
You are trying to convince me that I should be beholden to them.

Because that's what Biblical example cites you should do: Build relationships.

Based on fidelity and integrity, not compromise.

No, God knows best, and that best is communicated through the community of believers -- not directly.

I believe there is much benefit from having fellowship with like minded Saints. This is especially so when it comes to raising children, etc.
But, to tell me that I cannot receive direct ministration through the Holy Ghost on what is true and what is false is an unacceptable proposition.
Jesus taught me to pray to the Father in his name and to believe that as I pray in faith the things for which I ask, that are good for me, will be granted.
Jesus didn't tell me to make myself beholden spiritually and intellectually to some community of scholars.

At least a couple of problems here, not the least of which is that the earth is older than 6000 years.

Are you talking about the planet here? My interpretation of Genesis does not have it pertaining to the physical cosmos. The creation of a new heavens and a new earth pertains to a geneopolitical organization and fore-ordination of souls into a new cycle of Creation that repeats over and over again on this planet. Each cycle is 7,000 years in total length and two adjacent cycles overlap during the Millennium. So, at the juncture of about 6,000 years into a cycle you have the birth of the next cycle. That's where we are right now, which means the new Adam to lay the foundation for the new Cycle is now.

when the veil was torn in two in the temple, thus exposing the Sanctum Sanctorum to the public eye, sacrifice as a mediary was no longer necessary.

You are presuming to know everything for which God uses temples.
If Adam is due now, Adam will be making offerings upon the alters of the temples.
Only in this case what is being done is people are being sealed (organized/fore-ordained) as pertaining to where they will fit into the new geneopolitical creation to follow.

I really doubt that. None of your posts thus far has suggested "superior knowledge."

You are welcome to summarily dismiss what I offer. I believe you shall regret doing so, but that is your choice to make.

Even clean people get dirty again. The issue of salvation isn't purity, it's grace.

And grace isn't license to go on merrily. It's a covenant where we conduct ourselves as a faithful wife who truly loves her husband and who wishes to be his helpmeet and companion, not use him as her sugar-daddy.

Twisting textual meaning isn't my bag. But it does seem to be yours. In any case, even if Moses had seen God's face, the sign of that is a shining face.

I see you haven't yet grown a pair.

I see no such shine from you.

Shall I assume your eyes are wide open? They don't seem very open to me.

Creation (according to the Bible) was finished on the 6th day...

The creation (organization) took one full day to accomplish. It is what Adam spent pretty much his whole life accomplishing. Adam came at the very end of Day 6 and was given dominion over all things and charged to give all the "creatures" their "names". Therefore Adam had to gather all of the genealogical data for the entire creation thus far and reorganize them into a new creation that Adam would lay the foundation of. Unfortunately, Adam fell and brought in a "time of trouble", which necessitated the advent of the Son of Man in order to redeem Him from His fall and to put Him back upon His throne in victory. Therefore, a new cycle is birthed at the end of Day 6 and Adam lives through Day 7 of the old and Day 1 of the new. Christ as Adam is the Alpha and the Omega. We are now at that critical juncture and most everyone is entirely oblivious to it because they don't understand the sealed portion of holy writ.

I don't think the one has anything to do with the other -- except in some contrived "conspiracy theory" concocted out of whole cloth.

Besides, The Bible points to Christ as the culmination of creation. Therefore, IF (a huge "if") creation was completed on the 6th day, and there's a correlation between that and Christ's advent, he would have had to have been born ... about now -- according to your timeline.

The advent of the Father is indeed due now.

Are you really meaning to tell me you are one of those who takes the creation narrative as some esoteric writing pertaining to Christian spirituality, instead of a remnant of a much earlier and foreign mythological account of the creation of the world?

I am saying it is a prophetic blueprint for how things will go for a specific lineage of people who have their designated places of inheritance on this planet.
It is a document containing covenants that are specific to certain people living upon certain lands, period.

Valid servant or no, mistakes are mistakes, and when those mistakes are trotted out in public forum, those mistaken ideas are debate fodder. Do you really think God is concerned about what you think? Or is God more concerned with your attitude? (Seems like this keeps coming up -- you seem to feel it's all about some "higher knowledge" -- like gnosticism).

It's not all about "higher knowledge" that is difficult to understand.
It's about simple truths that should not be inflated into grandiose false notions that bring contention and strife to this planet.

At any rate, your use of the word "my" with regard to God is very, very telling. God is God of all humanity -- not of a select few.

God is only the spiritual father of those who actually know Him for who He is.
Those who define Him in some other fashion know not Him and are not His.
And, as I recall, Life Eternal, which is to truly know Him, is only attained by a few.

 

[sojourner]

You are trying to convince me that I should be beholden to them.

I'm trying to do two things:
1) Get you to acknowledge that without the scholars, you wouldn't have a bible to read
2) convince you that God does not deal in personal revelation of the sort you're modeling here. With regard to theology, doctrine, and interpretation, God always works through human agency.

Based on fidelity and integrity, not compromise.

There is always compromise, because everyone holds different viewpoints.
That's what covenant is based on. Compromise.

to tell me that I cannot receive direct ministration through the Holy Ghost on what is true and what is false is an unacceptable proposition.

The H.S. may impart what is true for you. But, since truth is relative, we need the community to come to a larger position.

Jesus taught me to pray to the Father in his name and to believe that as I pray in faith the things for which I ask, that are good for me, will be granted.

Substitute "us" for "me" and "we" for "I" and I don't have a problem with this statement. Your problem is that you seem to feel that the operable paradigm here is "God and I." That paradigm simply does not exist for the ancients. They identified as the people of God, not the "persons" of God.

Jesus didn't tell me to make myself beholden spiritually and intellectually to some community of scholars.

Jesus said that we would be known by how we love each other. Love is forming spiritual bonds.

My interpretation of Genesis does not have it pertaining to the physical cosmos.

This is the crux of your problem. Your interpretation does not jive with exegetical evidence.
In other words, you're reading things into the texts that just are not there.

The creation of a new heavens and a new earth pertains to a geneopolitical organization and fore-ordination of souls into a new cycle of Creation that repeats over and over again on this planet. Each cycle is 7,000 years in total length and two adjacent cycles overlap during the Millennium. So, at the juncture of about 6,000 years into a cycle you have the birth of the next cycle. That's where we are right now, which means the new Adam to lay the foundation for the new Cycle is now.

Waaaaay too much New Age hooey for biblical congruity.

You are presuming to know everything for which God uses temples.

You are presuming that I know nothing about Biblical anthropology. The central use of the temple was sacrifice. The altar was located in the apex of the Temple -- and the altar was for sacrifice. Temple Judaism is no longer in existence because the Temple is gone. Judaism is no longer sacrificial. Jews now have synagogues -- no Temple.

If Adam is due now, Adam will be making offerings upon the alters of the temples.

there was only one Temple -- it was there for a reason. Ya can't just build new temples in other locations. It doesn't work that way.

I believe you shall regret doing so

I believe monkeys shall fly out your butt...

And grace isn't license to go on merrily.

No one is suggesting that.

I see you haven't yet grown a pair.

I notice you seem to be fixated here on my genitalia. It's kinda creepy...

Shall I assume your eyes are wide open? They don't seem very open to me.

They're as wide as they need to be...

most everyone is entirely oblivious to it because they don't understand the sealed portion of holy writ.

Sealed writ?
Please! Quit your day job and become a comedian.

The advent of the Father is indeed due now.

We weren't discussing the Father. We were discussing the Son -- who came 2000 years ago.

It is a document containing covenants that are specific to certain people living upon certain lands, period.

Ok; you really need to put your nose into some commentaries that show where the texts came from and how they evolved.

God is only the spiritual father of those who actually know Him for who He is.

God so loved the world...

Those who define Him in some other fashion know not Him and are not His.

Oh? Really! "...every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess..."

And, as I recall, Life Eternal, which is to truly know Him, is only attained by a few.

Reread John.

 

[kylixguru]

I'm trying to do two things:
1) Get you to acknowledge that without the scholars, you wouldn't have a bible to read
2) convince you that God does not deal in personal revelation of the sort you're modeling here. With regard to theology, doctrine, and interpretation, God always works through human agency.

What bout Prophets, Apostles and their scribes?
Why couldn't God work through my agency directly?

There is always compromise, because everyone holds different viewpoints.
That's what covenant is based on. Compromise.

I disagree. A covenant is something people enter into for the purpose of attaining union, agreement, etc.
What you are advocating would be considered infidelity.

The H.S. may impart what is true for you. But, since truth is relative, we need the community to come to a larger position.

Truth itself is not relative. Truth is absolute. The challenge is we are all mired in various perspectives that have to be dealt with.
We are who must overcome our disparities with the truth, not make truth itself adaptable.

Substitute "us" for "me" and "we" for "I" and I don't have a problem with this statement. Your problem is that you seem to feel that the operable paradigm here is "God and I." That paradigm simply does not exist for the ancients. They identified as the people of God, not the "persons" of God.

Both the flesh and blood individual and the flesh and bone individual should be recognized.

Jesus said that we would be known by how we love each other. Love is forming spiritual bonds.

These are called covenants that enable us to enter into a union that is very specific, clear and well defined. This is how God creates bodies of flesh and bone where there is peace, order and functionality.

This is the crux of your problem. Your interpretation does not jive with exegetical evidence.
In other words, you're reading things into the texts that just are not there.

That you do not see there.

Waaaaay too much New Age hooey for biblical congruity.

Ok, please explain to me what Revelation 21 means when it says there would be a new heavens and a new earth.

You are presuming that I know nothing about Biblical anthropology. The central use of the temple was sacrifice. The altar was located in the apex of the Temple -- and the altar was for sacrifice. Temple Judaism is no longer in existence because the Temple is gone. Judaism is no longer sacrificial. Jews now have synagogues -- no Temple.

I didn't assume that. I too am aware of how temples were used in relation to the schoolmaster lesser law of the carnal commandments that the children of Israel were give.
What I am talking about is how temples are utilized when the higher laws are practiced. There shall be temples in the Kingdom of God and this is where Adam performs the labors of dispensing all of the "names" to the "creatures" during the Millennium, which is Judgment Day. Creating an entirely new geneopolitical organization is an integral part of what goes into our judgment, which is performed in holy temples of God.

there was only one Temple -- it was there for a reason. Ya can't just build new temples in other locations. It doesn't work that way.

Says who?

I believe monkeys shall fly out your butt...

That's disgusting of you to say something like that.

No one is suggesting that.

I hear it implied all the time by orthodox Christians.

I notice you seem to be fixated here on my genitalia. It's kinda creepy...

They're as wide as they need to be...

Ok, you have claimed to see, therefore you shall be judged as such.
When you stand at the bar, your appeal to being ignorant shall be thrown out.

Sealed writ?

Yes.

Please! Quit your day job and become a comedian.

I don't have a day job. I am more or less retired.
I live on royalties from an invention and on royalties from my mining properties.
And, incidentally, I can be a pretty funny guy to be around. While I'm not light-minded, in real life I am a very lighthearted and fun person to be around.

We weren't discussing the Father. We were discussing the Son -- who came 2000 years ago.

Does it bother you for me to bring up the advent of the Father being due now?

Ok; you really need to put your nose into some commentaries that show where the texts came from and how they evolved.

What does the Mosaic Covenant have to do with Australian aboriginies?

God so loved the world...

And what do you understand the "world" to be? The planet? God so loved the planet?

Oh? Really! "...every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess..."

Yes, of those who are redeemed.

Reread John.

And learn what?

 

[sojourner]

The creation of a new heavens and a new earth pertains to a geneopolitical organization and fore-ordination of souls into a new cycle of Creation that repeats over and over again on this planet. Each cycle is 7,000 years in total length and two adjacent cycles overlap during the Millennium. So, at the juncture of about 6,000 years into a cycle you have the birth of the next cycle. That's where we are right now, which means the new Adam to lay the foundation for the new Cycle is now.

"During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"

 

[sojourner]

What bout Prophets, Apostles and their scribes?
Why couldn't God work through my agency directly?

I disagree. A covenant is something people enter into for the purpose of attaining union, agreement, etc.
What you are advocating would be considered infidelity.

Truth itself is not relative. Truth is absolute. The challenge is we are all mired in various perspectives that have to be dealt with.
We are who must overcome our disparities with the truth, not make truth itself adaptable.

Both the flesh and blood individual and the flesh and bone individual should be recognized.

These are called covenants that enable us to enter into a union that is very specific, clear and well defined. This is how God creates bodies of flesh and bone where there is peace, order and functionality.

That you do not see there.

Ok, please explain to me what Revelation 21 means when it says there would be a new heavens and a new earth.

I didn't assume that. I too am aware of how temples were used in relation to the schoolmaster lesser law of the carnal commandments that the children of Israel were give.
What I am talking about is how temples are utilized when the higher laws are practiced. There shall be temples in the Kingdom of God and this is where Adam performs the labors of dispensing all of the "names" to the "creatures" during the Millennium, which is Judgment Day. Creating an entirely new geneopolitical organization is an integral part of what goes into our judgment, which is performed in holy temples of God.

Says who?

That's disgusting of you to say something like that.

I hear it implied all the time by orthodox Christians.

Ok, you have claimed to see, therefore you shall be judged as such.
When you stand at the bar, your appeal to being ignorant shall be thrown out.

Yes.

I don't have a day job. I am more or less retired.
I live on royalties from an invention and on royalties from my mining properties.
And, incidentally, I can be a pretty funny guy to be around. While I'm not light-minded, in real life I am a very lighthearted and fun person to be around.

Does it bother you for me to bring up the advent of the Father being due now?

What does the Mosaic Covenant have to do with Australian aboriginies?

And what do you understand the "world" to be? The planet? God so loved the planet?

Yes, of those who are redeemed.

And learn what?

:foot:

 

[kylixguru]

"During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"

What do you hope to accomplish with your continued mockery?

 

[sojourner]

What do you hope to accomplish with your continued mockery?

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."

Chew on this while you're thinking about the Trinity:
"God split himself into myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good and, is no sillier than any other theology."

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love (Ace, 1973) from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long."

 

[kylixguru]

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."

Chew on this while you're thinking about the Trinity:
"God split himself into myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good and, is no sillier than any other theology."

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love (Ace, 1973) from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long."

So it is amusement you are after.

 

[sojourner]

So it is amusement you are after.

I think Heinlein was dead serious here.

He makes a lot of sense -- even if I do find it comical that he so eloquently spits on religious "assuredness."

 

[kylixguru]

I think Heinlein was dead serious here.

He makes a lot of sense -- even if I do find it comical that he so eloquently spits on religious "assuredness."

I actually don't feel to disagree with him either.
We may yet differ on the technical details of how that could be done though.

 

[Shermana]

If you look at it in context, Jesus calls simple fishermen as his disciples, he cured the diseased, he preached (and this is the first of Jesus' 5 sermons in Matthew -- all pointing toward an equalization, where the first are last and the last first) that the poor, the mourning, the hungry and the persecuted (the lowly) are raised up. This isn't about hierarchy, it's about equalization.

No, he clearly meant "least" in a blatantly negative connotation in context to the actual passage. Matthew 5:17-20. He's clearly talking down on those who teach to break the "least of the commandments". I don't think a single commentary would agree with your position. Like I said, the context there is clearly referring to the "least" as in the "Least important" and "least worthy". Not the least as in "the most humble". Shall I make a whole thread on that? He is clearly saying that there is a hierarchy based on righteousness and obedience to the Law.

9Anyone 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. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

By your interpretation, Jesus would be contextually calling murderers and rapists and thieves and defrauders and those who slap their mother in the face and blaspheme God's name bear false witness and teach others to do so something good. Maybe that's how the Crusaders interpreted it perhaps.

 

[sojourner]

No, he clearly meant "least" in a blatantly negative connotation in context to the actual passage. Matthew 5:17-20. He's clearly talking down on those who teach to break the "least of the commandments". I don't think a single commentary would agree with your position. Like I said, the context there is clearly referring to the "least" as in the "Least important" and "least worthy". Not the least as in "the most humble". Shall I make a whole thread on that? He is clearly saying that there is a hierarchy based on righteousness and obedience to the Law.

I don't see it that way. The whole greatest/least argument is a human construction and a human concern. What Jesus is saying is that those who think they're the greatest are going to get knocked down a peg or two, while those who've been screwed over will be lifted up. Those who want to lead must learn to serve. It's not a matter of degree, it's a matter of attitude.

By your interpretation, Jesus would be contextually calling murderers and rapists and thieves and defrauders and those who slap their mother in the face and blaspheme God's name bear false witness and teach others to do so something good.

Again, I don't see it that way. I think it's more of a political statement made on behalf of the Matthean community.

 

[Shermana]

What Jesus is saying is that those who think they're the greatest are going to get knocked down a peg or two,

If by "Those who think they're the greatest" you mean "Those who teach others to break the least of the commandments", then yes. But notice however there you do admit there are "pegs" to be knocked down. That would involve a Hierarchy.

 

[sojourner]

If by "Those who think they're the greatest" you mean "Those who teach others to break the least of the commandments", then yes. But notice however there you do admit there are "pegs" to be knocked down. That would involve a Hierarchy.

Here, yes. But not in God's realm.

 

[kylixguru]

Here, yes. But not in God's realm.

Where do you think God's realm is if it isn't here?