Did Jesus break his own law?

[YumYum]

I enjoy reading the narrative accounts of Jesus in the Bible. I was reading the book of Matthew the other night and I came across something that puzzled me.

Jesus told his followers that anyone who calls his brother a “fool” would burn in Hell. He said at Matthew 5:22: “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment….But anyone who says. ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of Hell.”

Now turn with me, if you would please, to Matthew the 23rd chapter, and let’s read what Jesus called his fellow Jewish brothers, the Jewish scribes and Pharisees. In verse 17, he calls them: “You blind fools!”

Why would Jesus violate his own rules?

 

[torchbearer]

Maybe he is like our government. Makes rules for the people, but the politicians are immune to their own laws?

 

[YumYum]

Maybe he is like our government. Makes rules for the people, but the politicians are immune to their own laws?

You mean "Do as I say, not as I do?" I can expect that from our politicians, but Christains are supposed to follow in Christ's footsteps.

 

[Bruno]

There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible.

Why would God send a bear to kill dozens of children who made fun of a man for being bald?
2 Kings

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

 

[YumYum]

There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible.

Why would God send a bear to kill dozens of children who made fun of a man for being bald?
2 Kings

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

How is this a contradiction?

 

[Bruno]

How is this a contradiction?

Thou shalt not kill

Though maybe its not and is just a matter of perspective. God can kill his creations, we are not supposed to.

 

[torchbearer]

Thou shalt not kill

Though maybe its not and is just a matter of perspective. God can kill his creations, we are not supposed to.

I thought the distinction was between kill or murder.
You can kill an animal.
You can not murder your neighbor.

 

[Bruno]

I thought the distinction was between kill or murder.
You can kill an animal.
You can not murder your neighbor.

Would sending a bear to tear children to shreds for calling a man bald be considered murdering or killing?

 

[torchbearer]

Would sending a bear to tear children to shreds for calling a man bald be considered murdering or killing?

if it is prescribed by law, it is killing.
When they stoned an adulterer to death- it was killing. because it was only following "god's law".

 

[YumYum]

Would sending a bear to tear children to shreds for calling a man bald be considered murdering or killing?

You bring up a good point. Many Christian apologists will claim that the commandment condemns "murder" not killing, and yet wouldn't the death of those children be considered "murder"? In the Hebrew Bible, G-d kills a lot of people, and some of the people he put to death did nothing wrong, such as the Hitites. Jesus on the other hand, told his followers to "turn the other cheek". He was passive, and when he was reviled he never rebuked his persecutors. Why is Jesus so much different than his Father? Why is the G-d of the Hebrew Bible always angry and kills indiscriminatley, while Jesus is so mild and passive?

 

[ClayTrainor]

if it is prescribed by law, it is killing.
When they stoned an adulterer to death- it was killing. because it was only following "god's law".

Gods law, is another way of saying legal positivism, unless you're referring to natural law. it's still murder in my eyes, under natural law, but under legal positivism (law of men) it is just killing.

 

[torchbearer]

Only under legal positivism, not under natural law... it's still murder in my eyes.

i should have prefaced my post by stating, these aren't things i believe to be true. these are things taught in the christian schools i have attended in my lifetime.

 

[Bruno]

You bring up a good point. Many Christian apologists will claim that the commandment condemns "murder" not killing, and yet wouldn't the death of those children be considered "murder"? In the Hebrew Bible, G-d kills a lot of people, and some of the people he put to death did nothing wrong, such as the Hitites. Jesus on the other hand, told his followers to "turn the other cheek". He was passive, and when he was reviled he never rebuked his persecutors. Why is Jesus so much different than his Father? Why is the G-d of the Hebrew Bible always angry and kills indiscriminatley, while Jesus is so mild and passive?

Good question. Maybe someone else can help answer, I certainly can't make sense of it.

 

[ClayTrainor]

i should have prefaced my post by stating, these aren't things i believe to be true. these are things taught in the christian schools i have attended in my lifetime.

Ah ok... Gotcha

So we're in agreement than.

 

[YumYum]

i should have prefaced my post by stating, these aren't things i believe to be true. these are things taught in the christian schools i have attended in my lifetime.

So did your teachings lead you to the conclusion that both G-d and Jesus have double standards?

 

[torchbearer]

Good question. Maybe someone else can help answer, I certainly can't make sense of it.

the logical conclusion is that the bible we read today is a collection of 'men's' writings about something they believed to be real at the time it was written.
the "idea" of god has changed throughout history and by region.
the bible is a good way to sociologically study the evolution of the idea of god throughout a certain region of the earth.

for instance, the idea of a heaven and hell is kinda new. early hebrews believed rewards and punishments were administered in this life. they did not pray for the dead. there was no need.
the idea changed over time.

so the book isn't an actual revelation of god, just the ideas men had about him.
it is easy to see in the earliest years that "god" was the justification of government or rule over the tribe.
god even created a list of things that are safe to eat. he set up legal marriage arrangements. etc.
all laws that men enforced on other men "came from god", so there was no questioning it.

 

[torchbearer]

So did your teachings lead you to the conclusion that both G-d and Jesus have double standards?

more so than this thread could ever cover.
in fact, today's christians don't even follow the laws of the new testament.
Paul's directions for the proper behavior of "godly women" is ignored by the majority of modern christians.

 

[Bruno]

the logical conclusion is that the bible we read today is a collection of 'men's' writings about something they believed to be real at the time it was written.
the "idea" of god has changed throughout history and by region.
the bible is a good way to sociologically study the evolution of the idea of god throughout a certain region of the earth.

for instance, the idea of a heaven and hell is kinda new. early hebrews believed rewards and punishments were administered in this life. they did not pray for the dead. there was no need.
the idea changed over time.

so the book isn't an actual revolation of god, just the ideas men had about him.
it is easy to see in the earliest years that "god" was the justification of government or rule over the tribe.
god even created a list of things that are safe to eat. he set up legal marriage arrangements. etc.
all laws that men enforced on other men "came from god", so there was no questioning it.

Thanks for the insights, torchbearer. I agree.

 

[UK4Paul]

Hi YumYum

I will attempt to explain both the "Fool" thing, and the bears thing.

In Mathew 5:21-24, Jesus begins by saying:

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'

He is quoting what their rabbis were teaching them - partly based on the Jewish law covenant, but partly with extra burdens placed upon the people by the scribes and Pharisees.

Jesus then focused on relationships with their Jewish brothers: ""But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment."

He then escalates with increasing levels of insult and judgment - "Raca" (often translated simply as an "insult") was actually a very strong Jewish insult - this would be liable to the Sanhedrin (the Jewish religious high court), and "Fool!" to the fiery Gehenna.

Jesus' point, in the context of the comment about murder, was that you didn't need to actually, physically MURDER someone to receive judgment - the Law was supposed to be, in spirit, about a Jews relationship with his fellow Jew, and that holding their brother in contempt was like murdering him!

However, the relationship the Jews were to have with Jesus was spelled out just before he condemns the Pharisees. He says, in the context of religious titles:

"But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers." (Mathew 23:8)

Jesus was their teacher (or rabbi), they were brothers. Like the US Constitution, the issue here is about separation of powers.

As creator, God has the right to both give and take away life, but humans do not - unless those rights have been granted to them by God.

It is not about "do as I say, not as I do" because none of us are God! There is no equivalence between us and God, so it's not double standards if God tells US not to do something, yet does it himself - just as we personally might not be allowed under law to put a criminal to death, but our State may be able to. It is about separation of powers.

Individually, we are not equivalent to the State... and neither are we equivalent to God.

Jesus, on the other hand, was supposed to be the Son of God. Therefore he did have the authority to condemn the Pharisees in the way that he did. Jesus was condemning the religious authorities in his authority as Son of God.

However, in Mathew 5 he is talking about relationships with our brothers (or more specifically, Jewish relations with their Jewish brothers). Big difference.

As to the bears incident, all translations miss the underlying Hebrew, which is that these were not chidren. The original Hebrew ("neurim qetannim") should be translated "young men". In Jewish law, a "young man" was anybody under 30 years of age.

So here was Elisha facing a group of at least 42 young men - not children - who were insulting him. That could be viewed as a GANG! It is quite possible that Elisha's life was in danger, which is why he cursed them.

Even though the bears devouring 42 of their number might still sound like a harsh response - it may have set an example for others to show more respect to their elders, especially a prophet. But either way, these were not mere children. For whatever reason, the translators have done a poor job with this passage.

 

[Bruno]

Hi YumYum

I will attempt to explain both the "Fool" thing, and the bears thing.

In Mathew 5:21-24, Jesus begins by saying:

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'

He is quoting what their rabbis were teaching them - partly based on the Jewish law covenant, but partly with extra burdens placed upon the people by the scribes and Pharisees.

Jesus then focused on relationships with their Jewish brothers: ""But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment."

He then escalates with increasing levels of insult and judgment - "Raca" (often translated simply as an "insult") was actually a very strong Jewish insult - this would be liable to the Sanhedrin (the Jewish religious high court), and "Fool!" to the fiery Gehenna.

Jesus' point, in the context of the comment about murder, was that you didn't need to actually, physically MURDER someone to receive judgment - the Law was supposed to be, in spirit, about a Jews relationship with his fellow Jew, and that holding their brother in contempt was like murdering him!

However, the relationship the Jews were to have with Jesus was spelled out just before he condemns the Pharisees. He says, in the context of religious titles:

"But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers." (Mathew 23:8)

Jesus was their teacher (or rabbi), they were brothers. Like the US Constitution, the issue here is about separation of powers.

As creator, God has the right to both give and take away life, but humans do not - unless those rights have been granted to them by God.

It is not about "do as I say, not as I do" because none of us are God! There is no equivalence between us and God, so it's not double standards if God tells US not to do something, yet does it himself - just as we personally might not be allowed under law to put a criminal to death, but our State may be able to. It is about separation of powers.

Individually, we are not equivalent to the State... and neither are we equivalent to God.

Jesus, on the other hand, was supposed to be the Son of God. Therefore he did have the authority to condemn the Pharisees in the way that he did. Jesus was condemning the religious authorities in his authority as Son of God.

However, in Mathew 5 he is talking about relationships with our brothers (or more specifically, Jewish relations with their Jewish brothers). Big difference.

As to the bears incident, all translations miss the underlying Hebrew, which is that these were not chidren. The original Hebrew ("neurim qetannim") should be translated "young men". In Jewish law, a "young man" was anybody under 30 years of age.

So here was Elisha facing a group of at least 42 young men - not children - who were insulting him. That could be viewed as a GANG! It is quite possible that Elisha's life was in danger, which is why he cursed them.

Even though the bears devouring 42 of their number might still sound like a harsh response - it may have set an example for others to show more respect to their elders, especially a prophet. But either way, these were not mere children. For whatever reason, the translators have done a poor job with this passage.

Addressing the bears - A "harsh response?" Children or not, your argument is that according to the Bible people should be killed for calling their elders names? At no time does that passage say his life was in danger, that is pure speculation. All we know is they were taunting him because he was bald - hardly a justification for murder by bear attack regardless of his age and theirs.