More Important, Benevolence or Belief?

[brightlights]

Do good people go to hell if they don't believe? Do believers go to hell if they are not good? Will those who live good lives be rewarded regardless as to what they believe? Will bad people go to heaven so long as they believe?

Just curious as to what people think is more important.

From biblical perspective the two things are ultimately identical.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The stuff Jesus is talking about in Matthew 5 has nothing to do with the old covenant or the Levitical priesthood. To the contrary it contains what is truly new and radical yet you have managed to make it irrelevant.

The Matthew 5 of the Christian bible has everything to do with the old covenant and the Levitical priesthood. What Matthew 5 are you reading?

 

[Noxot]

That kind of innocence has no relationship with religion really.

So does Heart.

.

I agree.

...I subscribe to the OT as divine revelation and take the NT in the conventional way, I can see the same explanation being offered if we were to think of Jesus as offering man little more than what some theological "progressives" insist it means--not life everlasting but a more fulfilled and purposeful life, etc. etc.

eternal life means nothing without the love that God is always giving. I don't know who is harder to convince... atheist or religious people. both are hard stones to crack. if all you call God is a "more fulfilled" and a "purposeful life" then you don't understand this theological progressive very well at all. why do most humans care so much to live forever? if that is the best god has to offer then i would rather rot my whole human life away. I will not settle for anything less than God himself. if you have God then why do you even care about believing something so that you can live forever? to me waiting for a reward of eternal life is like an insane person waiting to be made sane. what he needs is sanity right now, not later.

i can see the negative view about "all eternal life is, is to live a better life" and i spit on it just as you do. but you and I myself need to see why certain theological progressives say what they say rather than just think that they have reduced Gods salvation to some bad idea of " you will be happier in life", cause many of us would prefer to die than to live a "more fulfilled" and "purposeful life".

honestly a christian that tells someone they should be a christian or to believe what they believe or to do what they do because they will go to heaven and obtain eternal life is dishonoring the goodness and the will of God. it's like the serpent telling eve that if she eats of this tree that she will become like God when really God already made them in his own image. there must be nothing that gets in the way of God but most won't understand that because they have something in the way between them and God and so are blind to various degrees about why only God matters and what humans mean to the person that knows that humans are made in the image of God. to love someone else is to love God and to love God is to love others.

if someone does not know or believe God they can at least love others just the same many believers of God love God but hate others.

 

[smaneck]

The Matthew 5 of the Christian bible has everything to do with the old covenant and the Levitical priesthood. What Matthew 5 are you reading?

The one in the New Testament which last I heard means New Covenant. The things Jesus enjoins on people there were never in the Torah. But if what you are saying is that this is what Judaism taught, not Christianity then I dare say Judaism sounds a lot better.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The one in the New Testament which last I heard means New Covenant. The things Jesus enjoins on people there were never in the Torah. But if what you are saying is that this is what Judaism taught, not Christianity then I dare say Judaism sounds a lot better.

The term 'testament' isn't used or understood properly. Whereas 'testament' can mean 'covenant', in the greater context of the bible it really means the testimony i.e. the history (testimony of the writers) as well as the covenants. Therefore the old testament contains the old covenant, and the new testament contains the new covenant. However, not every word of the new testament is the new covenant.

Jesus upheld the old covenant even as he was replacing it. That is why he told the Pharisees that while they should be seeing to the weightier (spiritual) matters of the law, which would comprise that part of the new covenant, they should not leave the other, tithing according to the law, undone, which was part of the old.

And even though his death signaled the end of the old covenant, "It is finished", meaning that it was completed or fulfilled, it wasn't until the day of Pentecost that the operative mechanism of the new covenant, the Holy Spirit, was revealed.

Jesus upheld the old covenant throughout his ministry while at the same time revealing that it was passing away.

 

[smaneck]

Jesus upheld the old covenant throughout his ministry while at the same time revealing that it was passing away.

You still haven't addressed the fact that most of the things Jesus enjoins in Matthew 5 are not to be found in the Torah.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You still haven't addressed the fact that most of the things Jesus enjoins in Matthew 5 are not to be found in the Torah.

Jesus describes the 'beautiful attitudes', then quickly assures the disciples he has not come to destroy but to fulfill the law and the prophets. He goes on to broaden the scope of several of the literal commandments in that even evil thoughts are to be regarded as openly violating them. He is saying, "Don't even think about it." He is expanding the OT Law to include what's in a person's heart.

 

[durangodawood]

Jesus describes the 'beautiful attitudes', then quickly assures the disciples he has not come to destroy but to fulfill the law and the prophets. He goes on to broaden the scope of several of the literal commandments in that even evil thoughts are to be regarded as openly violating them. He is saying, "Don't even think about it." He is expanding the OT Law to include what's in a person's heart.

So are all the OT laws still in effect?

 

[smaneck]

Jesus describes the 'beautiful attitudes', then quickly assures the disciples he has not come to destroy but to fulfill the law and the prophets. He goes on to broaden the scope of several of the literal commandments in that even evil thoughts are to be regarded as openly violating them. He is saying, "Don't even think about it." He is expanding the OT Law to include what's in a person's heart.

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense that Jesus was expanding on Laws He intended to abrogate. I think Christians have two motivations for disregarding what Jesus says in Matthew 5.

1. They want to reconcile Paul with Christ such that Paul has the last word.

2. They just don't want to do what Jesus says.

 

[smaneck]

So are all the OT laws still in effect?

He is suggesting that they are not, that Jesus' death abrogates all the wonderful commandments in Matthew 5. Amazing, isn't it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So are all the OT laws still in effect?

Yes, however most of the ordinances, statutes, and judgments, as well as the covenant, aren't. A law by it's nature is always in effect even if it isn't enforced by a judicial body, otherwise it is not a law. The effect of breaking the commandments brought misery and ruin to Israel, and breaking those same commandments will bring misery and ruin to any nation today, regardless of whether or not they have ever heard of them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense that Jesus was expanding on Laws He intended to abrogate.

Jesus expounded on the law to show that there was a spiritual element that the disciples were not fully aware of: intent. While the 10th command only hints at intent Jesus made it plain that 'to think it is as bad as doing it'. He was saying that just because one keeps his hands in his pockets ('keeping' the law outwardly) doesn't mean he is not a thief inwardly. He was preparing the disciples for the true antithetical meaning of the law as revealed in the new covenant, which would only come after his death. Paul would explain it.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, however most of the ordinances, statutes, and judgments, as well as the covenant, aren't. A law by it's nature is always in effect even if it isn't enforced by a judicial body, otherwise it is not a law. The effect of breaking the commandments brought misery and ruin to Israel, and breaking those same commandments will bring misery and ruin to any nation today, regardless of whether or not they have ever heard of them.

I guess I dont understand the distinction between ordinances, statutes, etc.... and laws.

In ordinary parlance all of those are laws.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I guess I dont understand the distinction between ordinances, statutes, etc.... and laws.

In ordinary parlance all of those are laws.

God makes a distinction (study it in Leviticus). Many of the statutes and judgments given to Israel ended when Israel ceased to be a nation. The commandments carried over to the new covenant church however. There is a big difference between "Thou shalt not kill", and, "Thou shalt not weave a garment with two different kinds of thread".

God was reminding Israel not to mingle with the gentile world by these ritual 'separation' statutes. However God himself eventually scattered Israel among the gentile nations. At that point those statutes were effectively rescinded. The commandments, the Law, were still in effect however.

 

[durangodawood]

God makes a distinction (study it in Leviticus). Many of the statutes and judgments given to Israel ended when Israel ceased to be a nation. The commandments carried over to the new covenant church however. There is a big difference between "Thou shalt not kill", and, "Thou shalt not weave a garment with two different kinds of thread".

God was reminding Israel not to mingle with the gentile world by these ritual 'separation' statutes. However God himself eventually scattered Israel among the gentile nations. At that point those statutes were effectively rescinded. The commandments, the Law, were still in effect however.

OK, thanks. That makes sense.

 

[smaneck]

Jesus expounded on the law to show that there was a spiritual element that the disciples were not fully aware of: intent. While the 10th command only hints at intent Jesus made it plain that 'to think it is as bad as doing it'. He was saying that just because one keeps his hands in his pockets ('keeping' the law outwardly) doesn't mean he is not a thief inwardly. He was preparing the disciples for the true antithetical meaning of the law as revealed in the new covenant, which would only come after his death. Paul would explain it.

Sorry, but you can't read Matthew through Paul's lenses. In any case, I'll take Matthew's concept of the
Gospel over Paul any day.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, but you can't read Matthew through Paul's lenses. In any case, I'll take Matthew's concept of the
Gospel over Paul any day.

All of the writings are needed for the fullest understanding of the gospel.

 

[smaneck]

breaking those same commandments will bring misery and ruin to any nation today, regardless of whether or not they have ever heard of them.

Then any nation which violates Matthew 5 would be subject to ruin.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then any nation which violates Matthew 5 would be subject to ruin.

There is enough historical evidence to say yes to that.

 

[smaneck]

There is enough historical evidence to say yes to that.

Then maybe we should consider this verse before our government considers cutting back on food stamps, unemployment, etc.:

"Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." Matthew 5:32