What Would Jesus Do?

[MountainMan1646]

I know, that's misguided evangelical theology.

But out of curiosity, which parts of the Bible would you interpret as allegorical instead of literal? Considering that you don't stop at the flood I'd like to know what's left.

Revelation is probably the most obvious case.

 

[Leoreth]

Revelation is probably the most obvious case.

Okay but that's boring because it's prophecy. Actually I don't even think self-proclaimed literalists take that at face value (they mostly ignore it exists). Anything the Bible says about the past?

 

[Berzerker]

You're not really understanding the issues. First off, Jesus never taught that adulterers shouldn't be killed.

Of course he did, we are all sinners and therefore unqualified to execute other sinners. But Jesus, the one person in that entire crowd who was qualified, didn't execute the adulteress. How do you explain that if Jesus believed adulterers should be killed? Jesus told her, "neither do I condemn you". According to your argument he should have said, "I should (do) condemn you".

I dont know how anyone can read that story and conclude Jesus was telling us to stone adulterers. If you were right Jesus would have told the crowd, "yeah, go ahead and kill her". Why didn't he? Why did he come up with a response designed to indict both the crowd's conscience and the very law calling for the execution of adulterers?

In a just Christian society the victims of adultery would retain the right to have the covenant-breaker in that relationship punished by death. That's Biblical justice....

Thats OT justice under Jewish law. The pharisees were the legal arm of Jewish society, they were asking Jesus if the law of Moses should be enforced. He said no, nada... No execution, no punishment at all, nothing.

What Jesus was doing is condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees while giving a cryptic answer to a trap question.

What hypocrisy? That was the law... The law was guilty of hypocrisy. The "trap" was a suspicion Jesus didn't support the law so they asked him if he supported the law. He didn't.

His answer was not cryptic, it was a simple question - who among you is without sin? And yes, Jesus was pointing out the hypocrisy of sinners executing other sinners. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Apparently you think Christians can both forgive and execute trespassers. By that standard God can both forgive and punish Christians. That isn't how forgiveness works.

Moses never said "divorce your wives for no good reason." He did tolerate divorce. Jesus clarified that divorce is allowed only in the case of sexual immorality, not for "just any cause." Moses doesn't disagree with this at all.

What restrictions did Moses place on divorce? What restrictions did Jesus place on divorce? They did not agree with each others restrictions.

As for the sabbath, this is an issue a lot of people don't understand. Not all of the death penalties in the Old Testament had to be executions in every single case, and this is one of them. Keep in mind that the people of Israel specifically had to ask God what was to be done to the man who picked sticks on the sabbath, even though God had already said to execute sabbath-breakers. This proves that there is sometimes some flexibility in the law and sometimes mercy could be shown. Nehemiah, for instance, locked the sabbath breakers out of his city until the day ended, but did not kill them. There's not a hint in any Biblical text that what he did is wrong.

Moses and his God didn't show mercy and Jesus didn't ask for it. The law had just been given to Moses and this was the first recorded case of violating the Sabbath. The people were unsure if the guy was guilty so they asked God to clarify the law - guilty!

So there's a bit of speculation involved, but most likely the guy who picked sticks on the sabbath was flagrantly and without regard breaking the sabbath. My guess is he was flaunting it. If I recall correctly the men at Westminster said the same thing.

How does one flagrantly pick up sticks? He was found in the wilderness gathering firewood and brought to Moses and they executed him. Jesus wasn't exactly shy about violating Sabbath law - he committed his violations in full view of the authorities and this poor guy was out of sight and mind. Now, if Jesus was walking around violating the Sabbath why do you think he'd support killing a man for gathering firewood?

sorry for the long post

 

[Kyriakos]

Some of the suggestions in this thread would get Jesus crucified.

 

[Leoreth]

The things Jesus actually did, did get him crucified.

 

[warpus]

That was his "destiny"; if he didn't get crucified, we wouldn't be talking about him at all.

I guess if he came back the only way for him to actually get crucified again would be if he showed up in Saudi Arabia. I think those nuts are still crucifying people, and maybe even for apostasy or blasphemy, which Jesus the loudmouth would undoubtedly get in trouble for at some point or other. Guy wouldn't be able to resist getting up on a mound.

 

[Berzerker]

they'd probably get him for proselytizing too

 

[Kyriakos]

The things Jesus actually did, did get him crucified.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Arakhor]

What do you mean by Bible literalism? I might not be one depending on your definition

Given that you apparently believe that the Flood story happened exactly as written in the Bible and that story requires "Goddidit" at every stage, almost as much as the Creation itself, I'm assuming that you are indeed a YEC, which then requires truly prodigious feats of mental gymnastics to reconcile Genesis with what pretty much every branch of physical science is telling us about the age of the earth and the universe.

 

[Berzerker]

Genesis (and most every other relevant creation myth) says water preceded the "creation" of Earth, so does the science - Earth being the name given to the dry land that appeared from under the water before life began.

I dont have a problem with the Flood, I just think the authors exaggerated. But a world cannot see ~400 feet of sea rise without leaving behind stories from the survivors.

 

[Leoreth]

Genesis (and most every other relevant creation myth) says water preceded the "creation" of Earth, so does the science - Earth being the name given to the dry land that appeared from under the water before life began.

That is only true for either a meaningless definition of creation or of Earth.

In other words, this interpretation is not even wrong.

 

[Arakhor]

Berzerker, last time you complained that I referenced your "alien astronaut" view of Genesis when it was off-topic and now here you are mentioning it again (and off-topic). You need to be consistent about whether you want people to know about it or not.

 

[Berzerker]

In modern parlance Earth means this planet but in Genesis Earth means only the dry land. That definition is very specific, it describes this planet before creation when "Earth" was under water and after creation when the dry land was revealed by the receding of waters into Seas. Creation myths from around the world describe the same situation, a submerged 'land' became dry and life began. The science agrees... Our oldest "rock" (zircons) formed in water.

 

[Arakhor]

It coincides with planetary formation theory, but it can't possibly describe it, without inventing million-year-old aliens to fill the gap that God fills in the narrative.

 

[Berzerker]

Berzerker, last time you complained that I referenced your "alien astronaut" view of Genesis when it was off-topic and now here you are mentioning it again (and off-topic). You need to be consistent about whether you want people to know about it or not.

You said Genesis was incompatible with the science so I didn't bring it up, you did. And here you are again talking about alien astronauts, not me. So dont blame me for your petty obsession. I didn't complain when you jumped into my debate with someone else to talk about alien astronauts, you told them to ignore me - thats what I found offensive. You did that instead of actually debating the subject we were discussing. You mock others based on the science but when the science is presented you consistently change the subject. I think thats chicken scratch.

 

[Berzerker]

It coincides with planetary formation theory, but it can't possibly describe it, without inventing million-year-old aliens to fill the gap that God fills in the narrative.

What coincides with planetary formation theory?

 

[Ryika]

Genesis says that light (Day 1) was created before the sun (Day 4), doesn't it? Still don't know how that's supposed to work.

 

[warpus]

Light was created on the first day in the form of flashlights and the sun. But we didn't see the sun until day 4 due to the laws of physics of the time.

 

[Ryika]

So the laws of physics changed on day 4?

 

[El_Machinae]

We can avoid Berzerker's zany interpretation of a couple verses in Genesis right now ... Just gotta exercise willpower.