Jump to content

Jesus: faith vs works


Recommended Posts

... WHAT..?

 

Dude.. The bible is in hebrew/aramaic. The word "Saturday" came *after* the word "Sabbath" was invented, and given to the same day.

 

And you've completely missed my point.

 

If you want to argue the meaning of Hebrew words and meanings you have to accept that you can't flippantly bounce back and fourth between two common ENGLISH translations as if they are the same thing.

 

I don't get what you were trying to say there, but there *are* other languages than English, which came to them.

 

I know there are other languages, mooeypoo. You are putting the cart before the horse. But you have your logic so tangled it is hard to untangle it.

 

I'll try again: Shabbat in Hebrew has two meanings.. one if a verb (rest), the other is a noun (day of the week- Saturday). The latter was derived from the former.

 

Note that the wording in the Ten Commandments is important here as well:

 

Exodus 20:9-10) " 9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."

 

Deuteronomy 5:13-14) "13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you."

 

Exodus 34:21) "21 For six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in ploughing time and in harvest time you shall rest."

 

The wording here is important, but the original Hebrew text is not terribly enlightening as to the day we are to keep Holy either. I mean, the EXACT translation of the Hebrew is: "Rest To Keep it Holy Remember Day"

 

So again, I see nothing wrong with the English translations above, and none of the translations mention a specific day of the week for which we are commanded to rest... but rather to rest one of every seven. So the choice of Saturday is a Judaic tradition, but not a mandate by the Ten Commandments.

 

In other words: Did the Jews shabbat on Shabbat before they were commanded to shabbat on Shabbat? And was Shabbat called Shabbat before they were commanded to shabbat on Shabbat? Because if Shabbat is called Shabbat BECAUSE they shabbat on Shabbat and they didn't shabbat on Shabbat before they were commanded to shabbat on Shabbat then how can we assume that a commandment for us to shabbat mean explicitely that we must only shabbat on Shabbat?

 

As an aside: if shabbat was coined from Shabbat did the Jews shabbat on Shabbat, or did they shabbat at all before ordered to shabbat on Shabbat?

 

As you can see, your insistence on combing the two meanings in Hebrew into one only complicates the matter, and you can't assume that at the time of the writing of the writing of the Ten Commandments that Shabbat and shabbat were the same "shabbat".

 

First there was the day. Then it recieved the name "Shabat" after what God allegedly did at that day. Then came other languages who called this day other names, one of which is "Saturday".

 

So they had no word for rest before they had the word for the day? Poor buggers. So it was a Commandment before Moses, then?

 

The literal translation of Shabbat is rest, becfause the bible dosn't speak swahili. It speaks hebrew/aramaic.

 

No, I'm pretty sure "shabbat" translates to "wegine" in Swahili. But it oddly doesn't translate to Jamamosi.

 

If your law is that it can be whatever, then I assert the definition of "God" is, actually, "mooeypoo" and demand you bow to my omnibeauty.

 

The law reads that it can PRECISELY be whenever. Just that it is one day out of seven, of one day after six.

 

 

You're making no sense. Literal is literal. Either you believe the bible is given by god (and then the original is obviously superior to any *human* nterpretation) and that it's literally true (in which case, words are judged by their proper contextual meaning, such as "Sabbath" the day and the meaning) or you don't.

 

No, mooeypoo, the point is that the word "shabbat" has two meanings in Hebrew and you can't assume that the fourth commandment means both.

 

You are making no sense, jryan.

 

I'm making perfect sense given the confusion of the Hebrew translation and their recycling of words. Like going to a Sunday mass expecting ice cream.

 

 

No, I'm not wrong, I'm just making a different assertion than you thought I did.

 

Here's a claim: I follow the cultural spirit of Star trek the original series (TOS).

 

If I start wearing mini skirts and bang anything that movies, I am consistent.

If I put up the "TNG" uniform and claim TNG is updating TOS, then I just found a reason why I don't follow TOS but rather TNG. Sure, they're connected, they have the same writers more or less, the same producer and inventor, and sometimes cross-over characters. But if I go the TNG-way of the uniform, then I don't do the TOS wya.

 

I don't need to know what was said in star trek voyager as to *why* or *how* or *who* not to do the TOS or why is it okay not to follow TOS to know that if I don't go by the TOS uniforms, then I don't follow the TOS.

 

Are you high?

 

I don't care if you follow the new testament or the book of the dead. IF you claim you follow the ten commandments, you need to follow the ten commandments.

 

Which I do.

 

Since you don't follow them, you feel the need to explain why. I don't care why, because I'm not religious. I don't follow them either.

I'm just consistent enough to admit that.

 

 

The bible is explicit. Shabbat. Also, in days of slavery, did Christians let their slaves rest on Shabbat? Their livestock and pets not work? That's the continuance of the commandment.

 

Now you have opened a third aspect to the debate. But you know, slave owners were not adhering to much of the bible anyway, when you include the New Testament.

 

 

And yet, it's not Sabbath, is it? Historically, the day changed FROM Sabbath *TO* Sunday. On purpose. To distinguish the Christians from the Jews, and to welcome the pagans.

 

Actually, it changed from Saturday to Sunday, or from Shabbat to Reeshon, You are mixing languages and further confusing the discussion, otherwise.

 

Knowingly, the day changed from what is claimed in the commandments.

 

No no no no no. You only assume that the term Shabbat in the Ten Commandments is the day of the week and not the action for which the day was named. YOU believe that, but it isn't demonstrably so. The actual wording doesn't help to solidify your interpretation, either.

 

I don't care that you do it or not do it but you're not being consistent when you claim to follow a literal text that you keep excuse why it's perfectly fine you're not following literally.

 

Literal, or not literal, jryan? Pick one.....

 

I choose the literal interpretation using Shabbat the verb, you choose the literal translation using Shabbat the day. You have absolutely no grounds on which to fault my very literal translation. You have tried, but you have failed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think the New Testament "changed" the rules. Jesus stated that the rules were still in place. What Jesus objected to was the Pharisees and their method of interpreting the law, deciding what s

I think that Christians follow the Ten Commandments much like our Supreme Court follows the Constitution. Inconvenient things can be interpreted in a more convenient way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Christians follow the Ten Commandments much like our Supreme Court follows the Constitution. Inconvenient things can be interpreted in a more convenient way.

Then it's not literal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely correct. Many people fail to understand this very key concept..

 

Kudos to you.

It is rather odd that people don't generally know why Jesus called the Pharasees hypocrites. It wasn't because they followed the Law; it was because they thought they knew better than the Law and added to it(see the 'oral Law') by making it more specific. Jesus clearly taught that the Law was to be followed, but he also clearly disliked the Pharasee's strict interpretation(they were, in essence, following man's law and calling it God's).

 

About the biblical inconsistencies. I'd be interested to see what you consider inconsistent. I have come across things that at first I though were wrong. After doing a bit of research I often come to find that I'm the one who is wrong. Like Abraham's age at his father's death. That is a very tricky one.

 

Can you provide an example or two?

See this thread.

 

Now you have opened a third aspect to the debate. But you know, slave owners were not adhering to much of the bible anyway, when you include the New Testament.

I don't see how you get that. Paul endorsed slavery, and Jesus was silent on the topic. Jesus did, however, say the Law was to be followed, and the Law includes slavery.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then it's not literal.

 

Sure it is. Again, there's more than one way to literally interpret a text. Context can be taken into account when reading literally, as can numerous other things.

 

To be literal is to follow the meaning of the original words, rather than to assume they are metaphors or figures of speech. But you can differ in opinion on what the meaning of the original words is.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
I don't see how you get that. Paul endorsed slavery, and Jesus was silent on the topic. Jesus did, however, say the Law was to be followed, and the Law includes slavery.

Where did Paul endorse slavery? I seem to recall otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure it is. Again, there's more than one way to literally interpret a text. Context can be taken into account when reading literally, as can numerous other things.

 

To be literal is to follow the meaning of the original words, rather than to assume they are metaphors or figures of speech. But you can differ in opinion on what the meaning of the original words is.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Where did Paul endorse slavery? I seem to recall otherwise.

 

"Masters, give unto [your] servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."-Collosians 4:1

 

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."-Romans 14:4

 

"Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether [he be] bond or free.And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."-Ephiseans 6:5-9

 

While he does suggest better treatment for slaves than was allowed in the OT, he does not speak out against slavery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%207:21-7:23&version=NIV

Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

1 Corinthians 7:21.

 

I'd take this more as jryan does; he does not endorse slavery, and in fact wishes slaves would free themselves, but he acknowledges that slavery exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the verse in question is actually Paul telling the slave not to be discouraged about being a slave, since their real master is the LORD. It doesn't really seem to be speaking out against slavery.

 

He is working both sides toward a peaceful resolution.

 

I don't think so. The language(and positioning of the text) elsewhere is similar to that which he used in telling women to be submissive to their husbands. You'd be better off trying to compare it to that.

 

The fact is he didn't tell the Christians that they need to free their slaves, but why would he? It was an acceptable part of the culture.

 

It's an example of where the textual and cultural context are important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps the verse in question is actually Paul telling the slave not to be discouraged about being a slave, since their real master is the LORD. It doesn't really seem to be speaking out against slavery.

 

 

 

I don't think so. The language(and positioning of the text) elsewhere is similar to that which he used in telling women to be submissive to their husbands. You'd be better off trying to compare it to that.

 

The fact is he didn't tell the Christians that they need to free their slaves, but why would he? It was an acceptable part of the culture.

 

It's an example of where the textual and cultural context are important.

 

But again, the term being used here is "servant", not slave. The resident cook at the White House isn't a slave, right?

 

And the passage about women being subservient has a lot more to it than just that. And the Bible is filled with strong women... heck, this thread was started in part because of the Catholics reverence of Mary.

Edited by jryan
Link to post
Share on other sites

The greek, δοῦλος is slave.

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1401&t=KJV

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doulos

 

It comes from the root δeω meaning to tie or bond and ΔΕΑΩ meaning to ensnare or capture. Culturally speaking, the White House is a fine example as Herod had hundreds of slaves.

 

I don't think there is any room for interpretation. When Jesus said "Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves" (Mark 13) he is telling the enslaved to submit to slavery and endorsing the idea of slavery--which only makes sense. Slavery and submission to it is a major theme in the Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think there is any room for interpretation. When Jesus said "Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves" (Mark 13) he is telling the enslaved to submit to slavery and endorsing the idea of slavery--which only makes sense. Slavery and submission to it is a major theme in the Bible.

 

What verses does this refer to specifically, and in what Bible translation? The ending of Mark 13 is the closest to what you've stated, but in context, it's not an endorsement of slavery, it's an admonishment to be ready for the Second Coming.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32-37&version=NIV

32"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. 34It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.

 

35"Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!' "

 

It's a metaphor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What verses does this refer to specifically, and in what Bible translation? The ending of Mark 13 is the closest to what you've stated, but in context, it's not an endorsement of slavery, it's an admonishment to be ready for the Second Coming.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32-37&version=NIV

 

 

It's a metaphor.

 

 

Another close approximation is Luke 12:37... but again, it does not say what Iggy wants it to say:

 

(King James Version)

 

"Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he comes shall find watching: truly I say to you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them."

 

So yeah, it is a metaphor for Christian life. You live in service of the Lord not knowing when your judgment will come. In this case the master, when he returns, will become the servant to those who have remained ready... hardly a message that is condoning slavery.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, there is another important bit of context in the use of "Doulos" by the Bible, and by Paul especially. Paul viewed his relationship to God as that of a slave to a master. He could not break his bond to God and he had been "bought with a price" (being the sacrifice of Jesus for his sins).

 

1 Corinthian 7:22 - 23

 

2 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

 

In this passage Paul is not condoning "doulos" to any but God, but as a servant of God you are commanded to treat your fellow man with respect and love even if they are your earthy master.

 

Earlier Paul says the following to the Corinthians:

 

1 Corinthian 6:20

 

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

 

Your spirit and body are God's, not man's. Hardly seems a ringing endorsement of Earthly slavery. Also, servitude to God here on Earth is really not the same thing as what we connote with Earthly slavery.

 

So knowing in what context Paul used the term duolos is rather important. As I said many times already, each passage in the bible comes attached to a thousand passages of context. Addressing individual passages without the context is of little value.

 

Now you have the very beginnings of Paul's context. I suggest you read all of Paul's epistles (Corinthians 1&2, Galatians, Thessalonians 1&2, Philippians and Colossians) if you want to really understand the context of his various passages.

Edited by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What verses does this refer to specifically
Another close approximation is Luke 12:37...

 

It's the parable of the 'servant'. I pulled the quoted off of:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Faithful_Servant

 

and accidentally cited Mark where I should have cited Luke. Anyone familiar with the parable should, nonetheless, see that I quoted it accurately.

 

My point stands.

 

It's a metaphor.

 

"It was as dark as night" doesn't mean that night is not dark, even though it's metaphorical, so your point is lost on me.

 

Another close approximation is Luke 12:37... but again, it does not say what Iggy wants it to say:

 

I assure you, it doesn't say what I would want it to say. I would have it advocate peaceful noncompliance and advocate freedom, but it clearly calls for the opposite which only makes sense. It is a very good metaphor. I'm sure you've heard the anti-religious types make the metaphor before:

[Religious belief] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

 

I don't think that holds true for all religious belief, but it does seem to in the semitic religions.

 

Nonetheless, I think we've strayed way off topic. I don't want to detract from the thread.

 

I suggest you read all of Paul's epistles

 

I certainly have. I grew up in a denomination with a very heavy emphasis on scripture. I can still recite whole chapters. I've taken nothing out of context.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the parable of the 'servant'. I pulled the quoted off of:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Faithful_Servant

 

and accidentally cited Mark where I should have cited Luke. Anyone familiar with the parable should, nonetheless, see that I quoted it accurately.

 

My point stands.

 

"It was as dark as night" doesn't mean that night is not dark, even though it's metaphorical, so your point is lost on me.

The point of the parable is not to say "Be obedient to your masters! Slavery is good!" The point of the parable is to say "Be like a slave, waiting for your master to come back, when you wait for the Second Coming!"

 

There's a difference between using slavery to make a point and endorsing slavery. In context, being enslaved and waiting for the master to return is a metaphor for being on Earth waiting for Jesus to return. Jesus says that being watchful and ready is good. This does not mean that he says that slavery is good.

 

On the other hand, if Jesus truly disapproved of slavery, I suppose making a metaphor out of it would have been in bad taste.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The point of the parable is not to say "Be obedient to your masters! Slavery is good!"

 

The point is a matter of interpretation, but I should say that I don't like that you put quotes around that. If you're trying to restate something that I said, I'd rather you didn't use quotes.

 

The point of the parable is to say "Be like a slave, waiting for your master to come back, when you wait for the Second Coming!"

 

And again, reinterpreting what Jesus said might not deserve quotes either.

 

I'm really not interested in word play. I have no reason to understand the parable as anything other than it says:

 

Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves... Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives...

 

Jesus is blessing slaves who do their master’s bidding and asking for people to be like his slaves.

 

There's a difference between using slavery to make a point and endorsing slavery.

 

True, but I would argue that those things are not mutually exclusive. The passage seems to do both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly have. I grew up in a denomination with a very heavy emphasis on scripture. I can still recite whole chapters. I've taken nothing out of context.

 

Well, yes you have, as I have pointed out already. So I'm not sure how much weight I should put in the rest of your claim.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves... Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives...

 

Jesus is blessing slaves who do their master’s bidding and asking for people to be like his slaves.

 

He's talking about Christians. I seriously doubt your claim of understanding the context here.

 

As I showed you in Corinthians Paul has stated that no man is slave to anyone but God, and God is like no human Master as his commandments lead to happiness and salvation rather than mere toil and strife.

 

I don't think it was in bad taste as he was speaking to a very common problem in human societies and telling people that only through God can they rise above it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves... Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives...

 

Jesus is blessing slaves who do their master’s bidding and asking for people to be like his slaves.

You should at least be kind enough to include the two preceding verses:

 

Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning,
like
men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You should at least be kind enough to include the two preceding verses:

 

Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning,
like
men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him.

 

But, I used the word "like". I don't understand your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you quote without including that sentence, it sounds as though Jesus is just saying that slavery and obedience is good. When you add the preceding sentence, you can see that Jesus is saying that you should be like a good slave. He's saying you should be prepared as a slave would be.

 

Without context, the meaning is very different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a quick comment here, for information. It might also be important to keep in mind here, that we should probably refrain, in this case, from inferring so directly that 'Yeshua said . . .,' more towards, the 'character Yeshua said . . . .' This is because we can't really pin it down as absolute history.

 

Also, we should probably think of mention of a 'slave,' as being that of a hired worker, in today's sense, and therefore not really construe it as a more specific 'slavery issue' matter. (although some portions of Hebrew history have that)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. There's no absolute proof Jesus even existed other than circumstantial evidence. We should start a new thread about that, actually. Interesting historical discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.