Re: [asa] Coulter, and science

RFaussette@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 7/11/2006 2:27:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mrb22667@kansas.net writes:
>
> Quoting RFaussette@aol.com:
>
> > Jesus did not change/challenge/reject biblical law. He wrote it
> on his heart.
> >
> > By writing the law on his heart, he made the temple sacrificial
> system
> > obsolete. he did not make conservative biblical law obsolete.
> >
>
> Hindsight may make this easy to declare, but you sure could have
> fooled first
> century rabbis and teachers of the law. Witness the disputes
> described in
> Acts surrounding the entrance of the gentiles into the faith. I
> don't think
> Jews would have applied anything like the term 'conservative' (if
> they had
> some equivalent term) to Jesus.
>
> --merv
>
> Religion is a discipline bound to an ethic. Jesus did not change the
> ethic. He demonstrated the discipline that would write the ethic on
> one's heart. Whenever he found a gentile displaying faith, he
> rightfully lauded their faith in contrast with the hypocrisy of the
> priestly caste in Jerusalem. But he never liberalized the ethic. In
> fact, by prohibiting divorce he raised women above their Jewish
> station and embraced a greater conservatism.
>
>
> rich faussette

I agree. Jesus took the heart of the O.T. ethic, and not only
preserved it, but raised the bar quite a notch. (You have heard it
said ..., but I tell you...)

But once again, that wasn't the perception of the self-appointed
guardians of the law. All they saw was someone who recklessly
disregarded a great many traditions (which to them were extensions of
the law). And Paul was perceived in the same way. He had to
"prove" himself to concerned Jewish Christians when he returned to
Jerusalem because of what they were hearing about him. Was their
concern misplaced? Well sure -- we can say so now. But my point is
Jesus didn't get awarded any merit points for being a "preserver of the
law" in the eyes of any Jewish leadership at the time.

Imagine the reaction if a prophet stood up in church, and used uncouth
language to inform the people that they really had better get their
butts in gear on some matter of woeful injustice in their midst that
was causing a lot of suffering. We can imagine the elders reacting
strongly to the use of inappropriate language in church, and then the
prophet berating them, in turn, for being more concerned about that than
they are about person X. (This isn't so far fetched, actually if you
have ever had the priveledge of listening to Tony Campolo.) Anyway,
I'm sure a plethora of scripture verses could be found to show such
actions (using foul language) is contrary to this or that scriptural
"mandate" (or so concerned leaders would view it). But they would
still be missing the prophet's entire point. "You strain out a
gnat... you tithe your spices ... but you neglect the weightier matters"

As others have said on this thread, our pigeon-holing attempts may be
counter-productive. We are really using "our versions" of Jesus to
criticize the current political side we don't favor, and that is itself
probably a sign of being off-track. Speaking of which -- I wonder how
science could come into this...

I was just introduced to the "Wittenburg door" (misspelling now
intentional) online. It looks delightful. "Red and Blue God, Black
and Blue Church" is one of the books being promoted there. The
"younger" generation may have a thing or two to teach some of us (me)
about not taking myself too seriously.

--merv

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 12 01:28:10 2006