 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > MS-13 | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/16/2007 5:34 PM (GMT -6) |   | For the record, I would not argue that laws that have to do with loving our neighbor, like those listed in Romans, can trump each other (I wouldn't know how to make that case). All I'm arguing is that the obligation of the Israelites to abstain from work on the Sabbath was to be trumped by the suffering of another--even an animal. Same kind of principle applies with the priests profaning the Sabbath and David with the shewbread.
In none of these cases were the "violations" contrary to loving their neighbor. But they were violations of a sort. So as I understand it, Jesus was arguing that these are not violations of the "intent" of the law. But it was the "intent" of the Law that obligated them, and I see no evidence in the gospels that Christ tried to trump the "intent" of the Law.
But I think it is extremely implausible to suppose that Pharisees opposed healing on the sabbath or plucking corn on the sabbath on any other grounds than that these were forms of work or labor. And that is why the idea of "trumping" is applicable there. You don't have to describe it in terms of higher and lower. But no matter how you slice it, it's gonna sound pretty similar to that.
That said, I'm done on the topic. I see no point in arguing against positions that deal only with logical consistency and not plausibility. There are infinite explanations of things that are logically consistent. Plausibility is what matters to me. Because that is a form of loving my neighbor, to my mind. For I would hope that when my words seem equivocal, people will interpret them with some degree of and criteria of plausibility. IOW, I don't like believing anyone is the intentional author of confusion unless there is good evidence that warrants that conclusion.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/16/2007 6:36:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/16/2007 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | "All I'm arguing is that the obligation to abstain from work on the Sabbath..."
Z: That's only half of the Sabbath. The law also prohibits forcing slaves to work. The Sabbath is about releasing from oppression. So there is an obligation to ease others burdens on the Sabbath. If the Pharisees (or anyone) thought the Sabbath simply meant an obligation to abstain from work, they were misinterpreting the law. And certainly that misinterpretation is of a lower priority than action according to proper interpretation.
"In none of these cases were the "violations" contrary to loving their neighbor."
Z: I think they were. If the priest refused to get bloody, how would Israel offer up sacrifices? If the priests refuse bread to the hungry, it would be unloving. The 'exceptions' to the 'lower law' are made in order to remain loving. And usually the 'exceptions' are written into the law itself, so they are not exceptions to the law at all.
"But they were violations of a sort."
Z: Yes, they were violations of misinterpretations of the law.
"So as I understand it, Jesus was arguing that these are not violations of the "intent" of the law."
Z: Agreed.
"But it was the "intent" of the Law that obligated them, and Christ did not try to trump the "intent" of the Law."
Z: Yes, but the intent of the Sabbath law never obligated them to leave children and animals in ditches. They didn't need to balance the Sabbath law that said 'leave them' with some non-Sabbath law that said, 'rescue them.' It is the Sabbath law itself that obligates the keeper of the law to do the labor of rescuing.
"But I think it is extremely implausible to suppose that Pharisees opposed healing on the sabbath or plucking corn on the sabbath on any other grounds than that these were forms of work or labor."
Z: Maybe you're right. I'm not basing an argument on what the Pharisees believed. Jesus said, "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments," and Paul says, "The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"I see no point in arguing against positions that deal only with logical consistency and not plausibility."
Z: From my point of view many of the things about my view that you find implausible are not part of my view at all, case in point: the Pharisaical understanding of Sabbath. Nothing about my view has anything to do with what the Pharisees believed. I'm saying I don't know and either way it has no bearing on this discussion. This ox-in-a-ditch passage is not even equivocal on the higher/lower or unified question. It doesn't address the matter at all.
I think what is boils down to is how are we in Christ? Does our filling up what is lacking in his sufferings, our dying with Christ involve us in the atoning work of Christ? Or is Christ's work on the cross something distinct from our dying in Christ / being crucified with Christ? It seems you believe there is at least some sense in which we are NOT crucified with Christ. There must be some place where our being one with him breaks down. I think the metaphor of crucifixion extends to discipleship, because that's the way it's almost always used. The atoning work (the cross) is also the way of the disciple (the cross). I think its implausible to think Jesus and the early church meant to separate that which they almost always placed together.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/16/2007 6:48:01 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/16/2007 7:19 PM (GMT -6) | | "IOW, I don't like believing anyone is the intentional author of confusion unless there is good evidence that warrants that conclusion."
Are you referring to my view of progressive revelation or to Jesus' 'so that seeing they do not perceive...'?
Jeff: Neither one. I'm saying since I see no evidence that Christ is trying to trump the intent of the Law, I don't assume he disbelieves it. That seems implausible to me. So I assume he accepted the Torah and its history. But he also accepted Daniel, which told the Israelites that they were to be under Gentile rule until Messiah freed them from it. Consequently, none of the land-conquering/ruling stuff of the OT applied to them anymore.
So the Sermon, to my mind, is just telling them how they should have been living in that post-captivity, social context. David was loving his neighbor as king in the capacity that the Law laid out for a king. But none of that applied anymore since the Babylonian captivity, by divine purpose. In short, Christ need not be starting something new in the Sermon. He could be saying what the intent of the Law would be for that social context they were in at the time.
Christ said, himself, that he had come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And that, therefore, they were not to go into the way of Samaria, etc. That doesn't mean that Christ didn't love Samarians. It just means that God has purposes of His own that we are bound to even when we don't understand all the details of what He is up to. Christ could have just as easily incarnated in Australia first.
So there is no reason I can see to rule out the possibility that Christ would have seen the conquest phase of Israel's history as just such a divine purpose that justified certain kinds of activities that were no longer applicable. I think if you accept the earlier scriptural "history," some of those purposes are much clearer.
All I'm saying is that there is more than one way to look at it. Your way requires us to commit to a certain theodicy and a view of Christ's intent that is not clear in the words themselves. I would rather interpret that intent in light of his seeming regard for scripture, and the historical implications of that. And then work out a theodicy from that.
The bottom line is, there are very few circumstances where our view will cause us to act different. That is important to remember. Most people go through life without ever needing to use force even for self-defense. I haven't, and my family members haven't. That is one reason why Christ's life as an example of pacifism seems so meaningless to me. It was not that unique in that respect. And Christ's death seems analogous to the deaths of the prophets that were killed before him.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/16/2007 7:22:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 82 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:48 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|