Printable View
To me it seems quite clear that he is reiterating that "the Law" still applies, in fact I don't see how "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law" could be interpreted other than the way I did. I didn't pick or choose, the context is clear and the preceding passage makes no difference to the meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Jesus says that he comes to fulfill the laws and then he says these laws will not change until all is accomplished! all of what is accomplished? all of what Jesus came to accomplish, which was to fulfill the law!Quote:
Originally Posted by trewornan
If this is not obvious to you I don't think that I could say anything else on the matter that would affect your understanding, although I am certain there is someone else who is smarter that can explain this better!Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately I cannot see this as anything other than (and I'm sorry but this is the only way I can express it) a solipsistic twisting of meaning to avoid the obvious and clear intent just because it doesn't suit you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
You ask "until what is accomplished" but that doesn't need interpreting because he actually says earlier exactly what this means "until heaven and earth disappear".
But this is typical of religious belief, it's nonsensical.
Since JMS is just repeating the interpretation of both religious scholars and secular linguistic scholars with regards to this passage why don't you take it up with them.
Also these passages are in the middle of a speach about how your adherance to the laws of the pharasies (or jewish law) will never get you into the kingdom of heaven unless you are even more rightious then those who wrote the law. He then goes on to explain what the laws are, how the should be interpeted, and how everyone has broken them many times over. Its only later that he actually begins to instuct people on how they may enter the kindom of heaven.
A newer translation might serve you a bit better. reading the King James version often seems nonsensical because we haven't spoken that way for 5 or 6 centuries.
Think on Matt 15:16 for a while.
Alex,
I do not wish to inflame a hot topic, but clearly define some terms. You recently helped me to clarity and I may be able to return the favour.
Faith is defined as belief without the need for proof. Proof which is gathered though the five senses. By definition, faith IS nonsensical. Let's all please take a breath while I explain myself. This is the sticking point in the debate. We could call it irrational as well, but we both know that this leads down the same road. There are added implications attached to such terms which strike people deeply. They infer 'stupid' or 'foolish' when the meaning is actually much simpler. It is something I have often observed and wonder why it is hard for many faithful people to accept. The logical position for believers to take is that faith is indeed not defined by what can be perceived by the five senses alone, but is that which is taken on ... well, faith. It has been the position of many Christian theologians over the centuries. If this opinion is adopted, you shouldn't be offended by statements of fact about your belief at all.
The "it's my opinion that" phrase aside, in what ways IS it acceptable to you to state the obvious non-material nature of faith?
X
PS courtisy should be courtesy. pretty close though :D
Thou shouldst speak for thyself alone good man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
X
I've just seen more misinterpretation arise out of the ignorant use of this one mistranslated old copy than anything else. Its a translation of a translation completed by one man not double checked for accuracy. He did do a very good job overall but there are some glaring flaws in the translation that have since come to light. Just buying a newer bible puts a different understanding on a lot of topics therein.
I doth comprehend whereof thou speak an' whilst cease mine maundering forthwith.
I try not to get offended when someone criticizes my faith but I do find myself offended when they deliberately take things out of context and delete or twist the meaning.
They're not here are they.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
The thing says what it says. All this fancy footwork and "interpretation" to get round it is profoundly unimpressive. I stick with my original point - Christians choose what they want from the bible and reject what they don't like, it is not the ultimate moral authority (even to them).
Verily!Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Without wishing to inflame things further, it's my belief that everything is a belief system, even science, requiring acts of faith of some description. Science, for example, requires us to believe that the systematic application of a set of man-made principles will lead us, inexorably, to an understanding of the nature and purpose of our universe. But that's just a belief, IMO, and no different in it's nature to religious belief, except that it gives us something perhaps more tactile to do along the way while we wait for the final revelation. :shrug:
James.