Empathy

[Hans Blaster]

The Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the laws of Moses. Violating the Sabbath on more than one occasion,

Did that happen in "Matthew"? I don't know in which gospels Jesus is said to do which things.

stopping the death sentence of a woman accused of adultery, and teachings that would be in conflict with the laws of Moses.

That one is definitely not in Matthew, and not even original to "John".

the law of Moses is harsh. Getting stoned to death as punishment for many of the laws.

I have other thoughts, but I won't state them for reasons you can deduct.

On top of this, Jesus strongly implicated the Jews got Moses wrong (The laws of Moses in the Bible is potentially inaccurate along with the story of Abraham, God Himself, etc). For example, God blessing Abraham for deceiving/lying/scamming/conning an Egyptian Pharaoh and Jesus accusing the Jews their god is the devil (liar murderer).

It opens a big can of worms.

Yep.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Christians don't over-think religion.

It's the easiest way to stay a Christian.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Pharisees accused Jesus of violating the laws of Moses. Violating the Sabbath on more than one occasion, stopping the death sentence of a woman accused of adultery, and teachings that would be in conflict with the laws of Moses.

the law of Moses is harsh. Getting stoned to death as punishment for many of the laws.

On top of this, Jesus strongly implicated the Jews got Moses wrong (The laws of Moses in the Bible is potentially inaccurate along with the story of Abraham, God Himself, etc). For example, God blessing Abraham for deceiving/lying/scamming/conning an Egyptian Pharaoh and Jesus accusing the Jews their god is the devil (liar murderer).

It opens a big can of worms. Fortunately, the vast majority of Christians don't over-think religion.

The Torah's harshness historically could be exaggerated polemically by Christians engaging in theology. In reality, in Jesus time Jews had limited legal authority to enforce the harshest penalties. Jews also have a principle that people deserve the benefit of the doubt, and often the harsh rhetoric was interpreted to reflect the weight of the crime, not the mandatory punishment.

What's happening in the New Testament is that some religious authorities are jealous of Jesus and often wish to catch him in traps, to make him say something unpopular with the crowds, or to do something illegal under Roman law. Like in the Pericope Adulterae, the woman caught in adultery in John, he acknowledges the severity of the crime without agreeing with the terms of the punishment by deflecting the quention back at the complicity of the mob itself.

So what makes Jesus really unique isn't that he exercised judgement or discretion in interpreting Torah, but the people who he judged in favor of, that's what made him genuinely popular. He had compassion for people living as outsiders, which ties back to the notion that empathy is somehow "toxic": numerous times the New Testament uses the language of empathy to speak of Jesus reactions- Jesus feels in his body the appropriate reactions to injustice, and it demonstrates that preachers that say that empathy is "toxic" simply aren't taking seriously what biblical scholarship or actual contemplative traditions say about the character of Jesus and spiritual development in general.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That doesn't matter. What matters is that we are attempting to apply fuller hermeneutics to the fact that we really only find the "not one jot or tittle will disappear from the Law" quip in Matthew and, really, nowhere else.

Which is why I don't care what the other writers (Paul, Luke, Mark, John, and all of the unknown writers of the NT) on this subject.

And what should hit folks in the face but often doesn't is the fact that Matthew 5 wasn't written as an isolated text to be interpreted all by it's lonesome.

Duh. It's part of a book. But it's not part of *other* books.

It doesn't matter. Matthew wrote an entire book, and the entirety of the book as a piece of literature hangs together within the overall intent of his goals----one of which was to show that Jesus began to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, dinging them as He goes.

If only he understood what the prophets wrote. Sigh.

Read what altogether? The book of Matthew?

No, silly. Your statements about yourself. Things are always going "well" when you start inserting dozens of dots................

That's your choice, Hans. It won't be the right choice if you want to hold more justified opinions about the Bible, but it'll be your choice nevertheless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yeah, you didn't read the entirety of Matthew very closely, did you?

I missed this bit. I've not read all of Matthew to my knowledge. Not as a single work.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which is why I don't care what the other writers (Paul, Luke, Mark, John, and all of the unknown writers of the NT) on this subject.

Duh. It's part of a book. But it's not part of *other* books.

Uh, I think you missed the actual point I was making, Hans.

The point I was attempting to make, however failingly I may have done so, is that if you critically study the Gospel of Matthew as literature in the same way you would if were reading Beowulf, Lord of the Flies or Dune, you would find literary devices being used that inferred certain meanings.

Of course the 'jot and tittle' statement is not a part of other books in the New Testament. It's what 'Matthew' decided to select and include as a fixture of the overall message that he wished to convey, a message that by the end isn't really so different from that of Paul.

If only he understood what the prophets wrote. Sigh.

If you critically study the book of Matthew as I'm suggesting, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference if it's true or fiction. It's the intended plot design of Matthew that is significant. And this means that 'jots and tittles' were being set aside and/or revised by Jesus as He went along in the narrative that Matthew cast for his character, with one big bump implied by the onset of the Abomination of Desolation.

No, silly. Your statements about yourself. Things are always going "well" when you start inserting dozens of dots................

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I missed this bit. I've not read all of Matthew to my knowledge. Not as a single work.

Ok. It was my understanding that you had. My bad!! You just need to use the high I.Q. that I know you have to your own full advantage (spiritually speaking).

 

[zippy2006]

Then please, let me attempt to clarify. The following is the hyperbole to which I object.

I am still at a loss as to what in my post you are attempting to disagree with, and how anything you have said would constitute a disagreement.

The second thing that we need to consider is just what Christ meant by 'lust'. Did He simply mean that anytime that a man looks at a woman other than his wife, and thinks hubba-hubba... that's lust? Or was he talking about a man who actively desires a woman other than his wife, even though he doesn't have the opportunity to fulfill that desire. To my reading anyway, that's when Christ is saying that the man has already committed adultery with her in his heart. It's a vow broken, if not in body, then at least in spirit. If on the other hand the man has those thoughts, but actively suppresses them as inappropriate, then it's not a vow broken... it's not adultery, it's fidelity.

None of this is found in the text, but suppose we grant all of this for the sake of argument. Again, what does it have to do with anything I have said? How is it supposed to constitute a disagreement?

Once again, the law can't judge the heart, but God can.

The Law is from God, which is why Jesus affirms it. The Law is literally a God-given judgment tool.

Again, the problem with your position is that there is nothing in the Bible that excuses adultery, or that abrogates the notion of societal law. It is mistaken to try to ground your position in the Bible, namely the position that says we should focus on the heart and do away with law and judgments of actual behavior.

 

[zippy2006]

No, silly. Your statements about yourself.

Philo's posts are generally just a mixture of ad hominem and arguments from his own authority (which are two sides of the same coin). He thinks very highly of himself, and he constantly appeals to his own supposed "credentials," but there is seldom any rational argument to be found from him. Even his "agreements" are not content-based, but rather character-based or position-based—a kind of inverted and positive ad hominem. He will praise or criticize your character, your background/religion, or your general position, but he has nothing to say about your concrete ideas and argumentation. Likewise, his "arguments" involve self-praise of his own character, background/religion (or education), or positions, but rarely have any concrete substance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philo's posts are generally just a mixture of ad hominem and arguments from his own authority (which are two sides of the same coin). He thinks very highly of himself, and he constantly appeals to his own supposed "credentials," but there is seldom any rational argument to be found from him.

Goodness now, don't hold back on how you really feel about me, brother Zippy!

And here I thought we were allies in the Faith..................

 

[zippy2006]

And here I thought we were allies in the Faith..................

That is your characteristic identity-politics defense. Yet whenever you want to try to disagree with me you draw on ad hominem by bringing in a critique of Catholicism, even when the thread has nothing to do with Catholicism. It's always identity with you, never philosophy or argumentation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is your characteristic identity-politics defense. Yet whenever you want to try to disagree with me you draw on ad hominem by bringing in a critique of Catholicism, even when the thread has nothing to do with Catholicism. It's always identity with you, never philosophy or argumentation.

Do you have two or three posts to cite from the entirety of the Christian Forums here where I've ever done that to you?

What's really going on here? I smell something fishy in your accusations.

Or maybe you're confusing me with someone else? (......like Public Hermit?)

 

[zippy2006]

Do you have two or three posts to cite from the entirety of the Christian Forums here where I've ever done that to you?

Sure:

OR is your---and Simon Templar's----Roman Catholic dogmatism just too staunch for that?

The way some of you Roman Catholics and Protestants argue, it's no wonder there was a 30 years war ............................................ and you can take that any way you want. I've about had enough of trying to align with every other Christian Tom, Dick and Scary. I'm done trying to accommodate "fellow Trinitarian Christians." Fortunately, I don't have to worry about the repercussions like Copernicus or Galileo did, (or that Servetu did, for that matter, showing the sort of instance where Protestants can be blamed too).

If you don't [stop asking me for valid arguments], then I won't be so forgiving and refrain from pulling back on my scrutiny of my Catholic brethren, such as yourself. Every time you open your mouth, you give me one less reason to ever step foot in a Catholic Church. So shut it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure:

That's it? That's all you have, and even from only 2024, nearly two years ago?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, brother Zippy. Moreover, I'm not on the Left, and I don't tout my own authority. What you're likely sensing as self-authorization is my reliance on the scholarly references which I use to buttress my own view of the Christian Faith----and I have a lot of them. So, some of your frustration with me is understood, but the views I put forth are those reflected from other Christian sources, and it's really them that you're butting your head against. I shouldn't have to apologize for that. And I won't.

And yes, I am confident. Furthermore, I don't believe in having to put on the airs of false humility just so a bunch of fellow Christians [whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant] don't get upset because I might knock a few apples off of their favored apple cart.

As for 'arguments,' you're right: I do put forth general notions these days rather than writing out nicely honed deductive dispatches. I'd rather allude to my sources in a very smokey way, and then bring out their arguments as I well please.

If my style isn't one you like to engage, then don't. But let's have enough of this clap trap about me being on the Left or indulging in "identity politics." Y'know, one can decry Marx on one hand (like I do) and still make a few jabs like he does with the other.

You see, I'm a wide reading, equal opportunity critical analyzer, and I'll lay down the hammer where I well please, saying things that are not too dissimilar to what can be easily found in the following books (and many, many, many others):

The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture - Christian Smith​

​

10 Books That Screwed Up the World, and 5 others that Didn't Help - Benjamin Wiker​

​

Of course, if you think you have the chops to chop me down in my theology and philosophy, be my guest to give it a go..................

​

​

 

[zippy2006]

@2PhiloVoid you can spin your wheels all you like and keep churning out the rhetorical handwaving, but it turns out that people of all different persuasions and perspectives are able to see through it. Lovely how you ended that post with more of the same self-aggrandizing claims.

If you want to engage in rational discourse and philosophical thinking at some point in your life, that will be up to you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid you can spin your wheels all you like and keep churning out the rhetorical handwaving, but it turns out that people of all different persuasions and perspectives are able to see through it. Lovely how you ended that post with more of the same self-aggrandizing claims.

If you want to engage in rational discourse and philosophical thinking at some point in your life, that will be up to you.

Stop picking at me, Zippy. I don't do that to you. DON'T do it to me. Buddy!

 

[FireDragon76]

That is your characteristic identity-politics defense. Yet whenever you want to try to disagree with me you draw on ad hominem by bringing in a critique of Catholicism, even when the thread has nothing to do with Catholicism. It's always identity with you, never philosophy or argumentation.

He's making a case, but it isn't syllogistic.

Religious formalism can blind more than it can reveal - by upholding rigid boundaries, but I think @2PhiloVoid understands something here, and has a good case: the central figure of the tradition, Jesus of Nazareth, crossed the most existentially weighty boundary of all - death itself, the limit that every human system of order and exclusion ultimately depends on for its seriousness. If that's actually what happened, then every institution's claim to final authority over who is in and who is out, gets relativized at its root. You can't build an airtight boundary-maintenance project on a foundation whose cornerstone walked through the ultimate boundary and kept going.

That's not some political argument dressed in mystification, that's simply taking what the Christian tradition says about Jesus of Nazareth seriously.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok. It was my understanding that you had. My bad!! You just need to use the high I.Q. that I know you have to your own full advantage (spiritually speaking).

It doesn't help getting through poorly written stuff. It's all just so unreadable and unrelatable.

 

[zippy2006]

He's making a case, but it isn't syllogistic.

Rather, it isn't rational.

Religious formalism can blind more than it can reveal. It's about upholding boundaries. but I think @2PhiloVoid understands something here, and has a good case: the central figure of the tradition, Jesus of Nazareth, crossed the most existentially weighty boundary of all - death itself, the limit that every human system of order and exclusion ultimately depends on for its seriousness. If that's actually what happened, then every institution's claim to final authority over who is in and who is out, gets relativized at its root. You can't build an airtight boundary-maintenance project on a foundation whose cornerstone walked through the ultimate boundary and kept going.

Over and over you inflate an opposing view in order to make it seem brittle.

"Religious formalism is about upholding boundaries." Well no, it's not. And no one here is engaged in "an airtight boundary-maintenance project." That's a strawman. You are reifying something you personally dislike in order to reify its opposite. You are reifying the border-lover in order to reify the border-transgressor.

Beyond that, Jesus wasn't the guy who "walked through the ultimate boundary and kept going." That sounds like an appendix to Forrest Gump's long run. Jesus conquered death and sin; he "bound the strong man, entered his house, and plundered his goods." You are doing the thing I noted earlier, where one projects their own desires upon Jesus. You are making Jesus the open-borders savior. "Jesus walked across the border that no one is allowed to walk across; therefore all borders are open borders."

The reason "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" is because it prevents one from turning religious realities into one's personal idols. It prevents one from co-opting religion for one's personal projects. It is therefore the first target that liberal religion must undermine.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Philo's posts are generally just a mixture of ad hominem and arguments from his own authority (which are two sides of the same coin). He thinks very highly of himself, and he constantly appeals to his own supposed "credentials," but there is seldom any rational argument to be found from him. Even his "agreements" are not content-based, but rather character-based or position-based—a kind of inverted and positive ad hominem. He will praise or criticize your character, your background/religion, or your general position, but he has nothing to say about your concrete ideas and argumentation. Likewise, his "arguments" involve self-praise of his own character, background/religion (or education), or positions, but rarely have any concrete substance.

I'm really not interested in getting into your apparent fight with him. I have a much better idea who he is and why he make his arguments than I do about you. (Or frankly he understands, but that's not between you and I.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It doesn't help getting through poorly written stuff. It's all just so unreadable and unrelatable.

Alright then. My prayer is that someday in the not too distant future it will be readable and relatable to you. Until then, don't concentrate so much on only the skeptical scholars.

Peace.