The rules of the game have changed (crucified, Gospel, messages)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On another thread, a thought came to me that I think bears elaboration and study. I'll start with this:
Quote:
The Bible gives us conflicting messages. "Turn the other cheek" is in direct contradiction with "an eye for an eye." Circumcision is in contrast to uncircumcision. A Jew based on what is in the heart, is in conflict with a Jew based on geneaology. Love is in contrast with fear and hate.
Jesus' words, "you have heard it said...but I tell you" shows us that something was not right or complete. Jesus' words offended them when He told them that they didn't have the full understanding.
The rules of the game have changed. And they might change again.
Jesus showed the people more about God than they were able to get from the scriptures. He said, "follow Me." Because He knew the way to God.
But they didn't believe Him.
Today, the same thing might happen again. The rules of the game regarding who God is, our understanding about who we are in Him, are changing.
Paul had a better understanding of Jesus than many of his day, even though he probably never actually met Jesus in person.
The reason for the better understanding is this: "We no longer know any man, including Jesus, "after the flesh."" Because Jesus is now Spirit, and indwells men and women all over the world! "Greater is He that is in you."
And this: "Jesus Christ is in you." (2 Cor. 13.5)
So Jesus Christ in one body of flesh was better than the OT.
But Jesus Christ in you and me today is even better, even more powerful. Jesus is becoming a many-membered body. You and I can know more about Jesus Christ today, in our hearts, than through any gospel account you can find written on pages of the Bible.
The message of this age is "higher" than the message that Jesus brought. Jesus Christ here and now, within you and me.
And I think mankind is being brought into this higher understanding, as we move forward into the future. It's just a matter of time, until we all come into the fullness of the knowledge of the Son of God (in us).
Turn the other cheek wasn’t a statement of pacifism. On the contrary. One of equality
“It is written” means: Now I’m going to speak about what God said.
“You have heard it said” refers to doctrine of men. Oral laws. Jesus wasn’t changing those laws. He said those laws were a wrong understanding of what God said.
Only what we know as OT was on written down during those days. All other teachings didn't exist on paper. So for the ancient Jews there was a razor sharp distiction between written and spoken.
Turn the other cheek wasn’t a statement of pacifism. On the contrary. One of equality
“It is written” means: Now I’m going to speak about what God said.
“You have heard it said” refers to doctrine of men. Oral laws. Jesus wasn’t changing those laws. He said those laws were a wrong understanding of what God said.
Only what we know as OT was on written down during those days. All other teachings didn't exist on paper. So for the ancient Jews there was a razor sharp distiction between written and spoken.
It seems to me that Jesus' words were regarding things that were actually written in the OT. He quoted the OT. Exodus 21.24 is part of His "ye have heard it said," so you are saying that means that some of the OT was not commanded of God, but written by men?
Nope that's not what I mean because Exodus is part of "what we know as OT".
But I see you point. And your point is correct.
I guess my answer wasn't as clear as it should be.
All oral laws were based on written laws. Jesus healed on Sabbath. They attacked Him for that because the OT clearly states not to work on Sabbath. But they failed to understand healing sick people pleases God far more than keeping Sabbath rest.
Same for your Exodus example. Yes, that's an official God inspired verse. But the pharisees twisted it. Jesus rebukes that interpretation. Usually the format is.
It's been said that <insert a teaching> but I say to you <insert Jesus' view>
Jesus came to fulfil the law not to destroy the law.
Fulfil and destroy were rabbinic terms. When scholars were debating a certain interpretation those words were frequently used. They didn't say "I disagree" They said "You are destroying the law". The other one usually answered "No I'm fulfilling the law"
Destroying = Misinterpretating the law.
Fulfilling = The correct interpretation of the law.
So Jesus wasn't changing OT laws. He was explaining them as they always were meant to be.
Back to the healing example.
The Pharisees were destroying the law because they didn't heal the sick on Sabbath.
Jesus was fulfilling the law by exaplaning the true rules of Sabbath keeping.
Nope that's not what I mean because Exodus is part of "what we know as OT".
But I see you point. And your point is correct.
I guess my answer wasn't as clear as it should be.
All oral laws were based on written laws. Jesus healed on Sabbath. They attacked Him for that because the OT clearly states not to work on Sabbath. But they failed to understand healing sick people pleases God far more than keeping Sabbath rest.
Same for your Exodus example. Yes, that's an official God inspired verse. But the pharisees twisted it. Jesus rebukes that interpretation. Usually the format is.
It's been said that <insert a teaching> but I say to you <insert Jesus' view>
Jesus came to fulfil the law not to destroy the law.
Fulfil and destroy were rabbinic terms. When scholars were debating a certain interpretation those words were frequently used. They didn't say "I disagree" They said "You are destroying the law". The other one usually answered "No I'm fulfilling the law"
Destroying = Misinterpretating the law.
Fulfilling = The correct interpretation of the law.
So Jesus wasn't changing OT laws. He was explaining them as they always were meant to be.
Back to the healing example.
The Pharisees were destroying the law because they didn't heal the sick on Sabbath.
Jesus was fulfilling the law by exaplaning the true rules of Sabbath keeping.
That's my understanding
Hi WW (good to see you here!)
Yes I agree. The rules of the game haven't changed so much as they have been simply misunderstood and now clarified.
You have heard it said... hate your enemy, but I tell you love your enemy.
Nope that's not what I mean because Exodus is part of "what we know as OT".
But I see you point. And your point is correct.
I guess my answer wasn't as clear as it should be.
All oral laws were based on written laws. Jesus healed on Sabbath. They attacked Him for that because the OT clearly states not to work on Sabbath. But they failed to understand healing sick people pleases God far more than keeping Sabbath rest.
Same for your Exodus example. Yes, that's an official God inspired verse. But the pharisees twisted it. Jesus rebukes that interpretation. Usually the format is.
It's been said that <insert a teaching> but I say to you <insert Jesus' view>
Jesus came to fulfil the law not to destroy the law.
Fulfil and destroy were rabbinic terms. When scholars were debating a certain interpretation those words were frequently used. They didn't say "I disagree" They said "You are destroying the law". The other one usually answered "No I'm fulfilling the law"
Destroying = Misinterpretating the law.
Fulfilling = The correct interpretation of the law.
So Jesus wasn't changing OT laws. He was explaining them as they always were meant to be.
Back to the healing example.
The Pharisees were destroying the law because they didn't heal the sick on Sabbath.
Jesus was fulfilling the law by exaplaning the true rules of Sabbath keeping.
That's my understanding
So what would be the "correct" interpretation regarding stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery?
The Law said to stone her.
But Jesus said No.
This is a contradiction.
An eye for an eye was the Law.
How is that to be interpreted?
Jesus interpreted it as, "it's wrong. Period." Why? Because retaliation is "not God's style."
This is why I believe that the game plans were changed. Even though they were actually in place from the beginning. Because we also read that Jesus was the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." So we see that God planned salvation long before Adam fell.
In Deuteronomy, we read that God told the Israelites that the law He desired was already "in their hearts to do." But they couldn't hear it. And this is because God was not pouring out His Spirit upon all mankind until Jesus was resurrected.
My OP is, however, more importantly pointing at this spiritual understanding: that whereas the Spirit of God was in the One Son, Jesus, now that same Spirit is being poured out into the hearts of common men and women like you and I. That means that we are Christ, inheriting what Jesus had. That is why He is truly "closer than a brother."
This idea that God began loving us from the cross onwards is error.
God sent His Son because He loved the world.
So at a very minimum God's loving began 1 second before the Holy Spirit was sent to Mary.
But the Lamb was slain (read crucified) from the foundation of the world.
What exactly does that mean? My view....
God knew history even before it took place. He knew we would have this chat. He also knew (and still does of course) that the world would become a mess. He also knew the exact second Jesus was crucified. And obviously He also knew Jesus was needed for salvation.
Or better said: needed for His Plan of Salvation.
IMO the keyword is "plan". God didn't create and got tricked by the serpent so that He had to remove Adam from the Garden. He didn't switch to plan B. Plan B turned bad and He had to flood the world. Then being forced to another plan that involved His Son,
No God for knew (spelling? ) all those thing and made 'm plan of Salvation. By that the sacrifice of Jesus was a know fact.
A fact that was know at the foundation of the world.
So in that symbolic way Jesus was crucified at Gen 1:1
Meaning He already loved us back then.
Last edited by WhiteWings; 05-03-2012 at 01:21 PM..
So what would be the "correct" interpretation regarding stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery?
The Law said to stone her.
But Jesus said No.
This is a contradiction.
If God's plans need to be changed doesn't that mean they were not perfect?
Regarding your question. I truely don't know. But I think it has to do with Jesus writing in the sand. Somehow that scared away all people. I have no idea what He wrote. But obviously it had a huge impact on the crowed.
I can only find this verse but honestly I have no idea if there is a relation, and if there is is one, what exactly it is....
(Jer 17:13) O LORD, the hope of Israel, all who forsake thee shall be put to shame. Those who depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken LORD, the fountain of living waters.
God sent His Son because He loved the world.
So at a very minimum God's loving began 1 second before the Holy Spirit was sent to Mary.
But the Lamb was slain (read crucified) from the foundation of the world.
What exactly does that mean? My view....
God knew history even before it took place. He knew we would have this chat. He also knew (and still does of course) that the world would become a mess. He also knew the exact second Jesus was crucified. And obviously He also knew Jesus was needed for salvation.
Or better said: needed for His Plan of Salvation.
IMO the keyword is "plan". God didn't create and got tricked by the serpent so that He had to remove Adam from the Garden. He didn't switch to plan B. Plan B turned bad and He had to flood the world. Then being forced to another plan that involved His Son,
No Giod forknew (spelling? ) all those thing and made 'm plan of Salvation. By that the sacrifice of Jesus was a know fact.
A fact that was know at the foundation of the world.
So in that symbolic way Jesus was crucified at Gen 1:1
Meaning He already loved us back then.
I disagree.... God IS Love, it took becoming flesh dying an undeserved death at the hands of the world he loved to prove it, what more could he have done to prove it ?.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) all those thing and made 'm plan of Salvation. By that the sacrifice of Jesus was a know fact.
