Was Jesus a 'fundamentalist'?

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I think Mat 19:8 and Mark 2:25 together open the gates for pretty much any liberal interpreation. Mat 19:8 establishes the concept of "contextualizing" Biblical passages, saying that what looked like and had been understood as a law was actually given because of a specific situation. Mark 2:25 establishes that Biblical laws are not unchangeable prohibitions, but that they can be overruled by our needs, even fairly minor ones.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Now religious leaders today are again worried about fundamentalism...

While certain factions in other belief systems are a threat to world peace - is not a certain 'fundamentalism' at the heart of Christianity?
Both of us gave religious definitions of fundamentalism. But when dealing with ethnic conflict, the term fundamentalist is often used for people who want the ethnic group associated with their religion to dominate. While there are religions whose founders were militarily aggressive, this definition allows for a "fundamentalist" Buddhist, even though that kind of religious or ethnic aggression would surely not result from a deep commitment to the religious principles of Buddhism.

There are certainly Christians who are fundamentalist in this sense, but I don't think it's implied by a literal reading of the Bible, at least not the NT, and certainly not by a Biblically oriented liberal version of Christianity. However since fundamentalism at times means as much a traditional interpretation as a Biblical one, there are aggressive elements in the Christian tradition.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Both of us gave religious definitions of fundamentalism. But when dealing with ethnic conflict, the term fundamentalist is often used for people who want the ethnic group associated with their religion to dominate. While there are religions whose founders were militarily aggressive, this definition allows for a "fundamentalist" Buddhist, even though that kind of religious or ethnic aggression would surely not result from a deep commitment to the religious principles of Buddhism.

There are certainly Christians who are fundamentalist in this sense, but I don't think it's implied by a literal reading of the Bible, at least not the NT, and certainly not by a Biblically oriented liberal version of Christianity. However since fundamentalism at times means as much a traditional interpretation as a Biblical one, there are aggressive elements in the Christian tradition.

Yes - this is a helpful insight thanks...

Interesting how Jesus required they bring a sword, yet chided them for using it...

Thoughts on this?

James 1:20
for a man’s anger does not bring about the righteousness of God.

Yet we need more righteous anger in this age...
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Yes - this is a helpful insight thanks...

Interesting how Jesus required they bring a sword, yet chided them for using it...

Thoughts on this?

James 1:20
for a man’s anger does not bring about the righteousness of God.

Yet we need more righteous anger in this age...

Jesus’ teachings seem generally to favor non-violence. I believe he foresaw the danger ahead for the Jewish people in trying to take on the Romans militarily, and a lot of what he said was trying to stop that. Similarly, turn the other cheek seems to discourage violence in interpersonal relations.

I respect Christian pacifism, which in some forms rejects all use of force. The only place I’m aware of that Jesus actually might endorse serious force (the cleansing of the temple didn’t put anyone at risk) is by implication Luke 22:36. Yet 22:38 and Jesus’ reaction suggests that he might have meant it metaphorically, and rejected his disciples’ literal misunderstanding. This is not the only case where his disciples did that.

However I don’t think that’s the only valid way of trying to implement Jesus’ teachings. I don’t think we need to understand him as totally outlawing self-defense or defense of our community against violence. I do think it would imply that this should be a last resort, and only when the alternative is clearly worse. The problem is that we have to love not only our enemies, but those they would harm. However self-defense can be (and actually is) used as a defense for actions that I don’t think Jesus would find acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Here is a definition of 'fundamentalism' - type of conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts...

It would seem by this definition Jesus was a fundamentalist.

You will note that this is exactly how Jesus presented during the temptation in the wilderness.

Strict conformity to sacred text...

However - Jesus did not agree with the scholars of the day.

He even said in Matt 23 - 'do what they say but do not do what they do...'

In this He advocated the 'learned' in authority be given polite respect but not to be followed...

His kingdom was not primarily for intellectuals but more for the 'common man'

In fact they crucified Him because they were worried about an insurrection.

Now religious leaders today are again worried about fundamentalism...

While certain factions in other belief systems are a threat to world peace - is not a certain 'fundamentalism' at the heart of Christianity?
The seat of Moses is the authority to judge between individuals in a dispute and render a verdict. It was the highest court of the law. Handling the cases to difficult for the lower courts. So, the conversation here does not fit the context of that text? Jesus is saying accept the judgements coming from there concerning your fellow man.
As pharisees they were sectarians, which traditions they taught their disciples often were not in compliance with the sentences handed down. The seat of Moses was presided over by the priests. Again these as well were sectarians as Sadducees. I believe the seat of Moses speaks to Those judgements of which the two sects agreed in a case ruled. All else was left in dispute. See Deuteronomy 17 on the authority of the priest's authority in the difficult cases. Which was original to Moses.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not sure why your comments reduce the criticism Jesus leveled at the religious leaders.
They repeatedly tried to trip Him up with human cleverness in order to discredit Him.
In the end they laid false charges against Him and had Him murdered.
He stuck to His Fathers Word, they responded with malice.
And so it is today - fundamentalists get bad press - if you carry a bible around you are considered to be somewhat of an idiot...
Jesus did not spend His last hours with movers and shakers but with the simple folk who loved and followed Him... today they would be considered 'fundamentalists'
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,592
49
The Wild West
✟461,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Here is a definition of 'fundamentalism' - type of conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts...

It would seem by this definition Jesus was a fundamentalist.

You will note that this is exactly how Jesus presented during the temptation in the wilderness.

Strict conformity to sacred text...

However - Jesus did not agree with the scholars of the day.

He even said in Matt 23 - 'do what they say but do not do what they do...'

In this He advocated the 'learned' in authority be given polite respect but not to be followed...

His kingdom was not primarily for intellectuals but more for the 'common man'

In fact they crucified Him because they were worried about an insurrection.

Now religious leaders today are again worried about fundamentalism...

While certain factions in other belief systems are a threat to world peace - is not a certain 'fundamentalism' at the heart of Christianity?

No, because Fundamentalism is a movement that originated within Calvinism circa 1900, and furthermore, even accepting the vernacular use of the term, our Lord still does not fit within Fundamentalist criterion.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Not sure why your comments reduce the criticism Jesus leveled at the religious leaders.
They repeatedly tried to trip Him up with human cleverness in order to discredit Him.
In the end they laid false charges against Him and had Him murdered.
He stuck to His Fathers Word, they responded with malice.
And so it is today - fundamentalists get bad press - if you carry a bible around you are considered to be somewhat of an idiot...
Jesus did not spend His last hours with movers and shakers but with the simple folk who loved and followed Him... today they would be considered 'fundamentalists'
My point was not to reduce Jesus criticisms of them. I just do not see where Jesus comment concerning the seat of Moses fit with the conversation is all.
 
Upvote 0