Sermon on the Mount

[Cowshoes]

I read this in my KJV and I was wondering. Is there any difference in what Jesus said in the different versions of the Bible or Holy Book or The Word or whatever you want to call it concerning The Sermon on the Mount?
It's my favorite part of my Bible and if I'm understanding Jesus correctly, he would not approve of all this bickering about what he wanted.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

You can compare different translations here:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/

I think Jesus would approve of theological debate. Paul told the Galatians that they had been cut off from Christ and had fallen from grace; and this because they were wrong on an issue of doctrine. False doctrine is poisonous to souls, and should be stamped out wherever it is found.

[Cowshoes]

Links are ok but I only have a week vacation.

Didn't Jesus just absolve us of our sins? He just died for them, right? So why would Paul cut anyone off from Glory?

False Doctrine? There's so many different versions of the so called "truth" that I don't know who to believe.

I wish Jesus would hurry up and return. I have a feeling many of your butts will be totin' a red mark or two.

[Marmaduke]

'Cannot see the woods for the trees' seems to be what applies here. Don't ask fear for any 'personal' revelation about the meaning of Christ's words- he's just interested in being the superior authority on translation than on what lies behind Christ's words.

I have never read such a sterile interpretation of the Bible before (and most is trivial cut and paste anyway, hey fear, just what expertise do you actually have in Hebrew, Greek, Aramiac and Latin- can you read and write them fluently ??).

Something tells me (in my ignorant and rejected upbringing in Christianity) that Christ might be a little more concerned with what a person does in their heart, and how they try and live than some tedious internet-pasting debate on issues of 'doctine'.

Look to yourself Cowshoes- would you judge a person first and foremost on whatever doctrine they believed or on how they tried (and perhaps failed) to live their lives- do you think Christ would be much different ? But don't ask our resident pedant for any questions on a spiritual nature- on this he knows nothing- that would require some actual experience and understanding of life- not an arrogant and superior dismissal of anyone that has the temidity to think differently from him- after all, in his 18 years on the planet, dear fear has so much more real-life experience to grace us with than anyone else. I see now why Jesus prefered the company of fishermen to Rabinical scholars who were probably little different in attitude than out tediously irrelevent fear. Perhaps he counts Angels on pintops to get to sleep? I am sure there is some orthodox 'doctrine' about that too, which we can all be the grateful beneficiaries of sleeping through.

It is thanks to fear's posts I am grateful I am an athiest- if this is what he ranks as important, then the sooner we are without such religious pendantry the better.

He reminds me of a quote from a Polish mathematician (whose name I cannot remember) when he said of statistics: 'He uses statistics the way a drunk uses a lampost, not for illuminaton, but for support'.

[theja]

I find FNB fair and civil in his exchanges and differences with others. Of course that does not mean all his views are endorsed by me.

[theja]

I also agree with Jasper in the matter of the heart -- we can say the right things with a wrong heart; or even say the wrong things with a right heart.

So having an upright heart before God is a must; at the same time, endeavoring to learn the truth is a necessity if one wishes to mature in the faith.

Cowshoes, one can see the 10 Commandments as a moral guide, and practicing the Sermon on the Mount as a barometer for one's spiritual temperature.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by COWSHOES
Didn't Jesus just absolve us of our sins? He just died for them, right?

It's a bit more complicated than that. Jesus turned away the Father's wrath, established a covenant based on grace and not law (which means we can have a Father-son relationship with God, not just a judge-defendant relationship), and now continually intercedes for us as our High Priest and advocate. However, this doesn't mean we are automatically going to heaven. In order to go to heaven we must first share in His sufferings, be conformed to His death, and be made perfect by His grace.

Phillippians 3
More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Originally posted by COWSHOES
So why would Paul cut anyone off from Glory?

St. Paul wasn't cutting anyone off from Glory; he was simply stating a fact; the Galatians had cut themselves off from Glory by embracing a false doctrine (that gentiles could not be saved without being circumsized and observing the Mosaic law).

Originally posted by COWSHOES
False Doctrine? There's so many different versions of the so called "truth" that I don't know who to believe.

That's is why it's nice to be planted on a bedrock of immutable Catholic dogma as oppossed to the shifting sands of private interpretation.

Originally posted by COWSHOES
I wish Jesus would hurry up and return. I have a feeling many of your butts will be totin' a red mark or two.

I'm sure everyone's will.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Jasperthecat
I have never read such a sterile interpretation of the Bible before

What do you mean? A literal one? Are you upset that I take Christ literally when He says "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect?" Well, sorry, but I take the words of my Savior at face value. I don't need to search for a non-existent allegorical interpretation for everything He says. If you want to play at neo-Alexandrian eisegesis, well that's your problem, Origen. Have fun being a eunuch and all that.

Originally posted by Jasperthecat
hey fear, just what expertise do you actually have in Hebrew, Greek, Aramiac and Latin- can you read and write them fluently ??

What kind of gnosticism is this? Only the intellectual elite can understand Christ's message? Sorry, but you don't have to speak the original languages to read the Bible and make sense out of it, especially when you can read it throuh the lens of 2000 years of Chrisitan Tradition.

To answer your question, no, my languages are English, Spanish, and Scots Gaelic. Btw, tha mi an dochas gum faigh thu an Tighearna.

Originally posted by Jasperthecat
Christ might be a little more concerned with what a person does in their heart, and how they try and live than some tedious internet-pasting debate on issues of 'doctine'.

He certainly is.

[Marmaduke]

What kind of gnosticism is this? Only the intellectual elite can understand Christ's message? Sorry, but you don't have to speak the original languages to read the Bible and make sense out of it, especially when you can read it throuh the lens of 2000 years of Chrisitan Tradition

Where did I say that fear ? I didn't, you just tried to deflect criticism of the fact that you continually issue one tedious decree after another, about subjects it now appears you have no ability in at-all.

You are being a complete hypocrit to assume this argument. You have constantly debated the issue of language with both me and theja (or is your memory so short you would like me to remind you of them ?). You have sought to present an interpreation (ie: yours) through issues about the differences between Greek of different periods, now it seems you know nothing about what this actually means- yet you are so disingeuous as to try and pretend that I am formulating the 'gnostic and elitist' argument. It is you who have done this, and now it transpires this is based on NO scholarship what-so-ever on your part. Just endless cut and paste exercises from web sites where, by your own admission, you would have no clue if what they presented had any academic credability. This from someone who is studying engineering which assusmes some competence at mathematics- or at least, respect for the discipline.

Would you enter into a scientific or mathematical debate with someone who had no understanding of algebra, but was able to endlessly quote from a web site on the subject- while admiting they had no idea what the difference between homolgy or cohomology actually meant ?

I find no point in debating with some of the creationist posters here, who quote endless tracts about transitional DNA- yet I doubt would even know what the acronym DNA even meant- and even less about the issues and scient of molecular biology and genetics. Any idiot can do that, it takes no special skills- just arrogance, it is is easy to see which you are the more profligate in.

I see little point in wading through your endless self gratifying posts for some form of edification or understanding. Now all I recognise is someone who has an agenda and only seeks arguments that support it. Some concept of objectivity you demonstrate...is this how you practice engineering too (you certainly write about Christianity in a style that would feel more at home in such a journal) ?

Ever snce you came here, all you have wanted to do is demonstrate your own (falsely) precieved supriority over others, and to give you ego an exercise. Niq is correct, you don't have any repsect because you haven't earned any and you certainly never demonstrate any here.

You and theja are a 'marriage' made in heaven. Neither of you have any thing to say except to yourself, and none of it is worth reading. It's just dogma, dogma and more dogma. That you have the hypocrisy to pretend this is some important theological debate, just shows that you are as deluded as each other- and have nothing to teach anyone here excpet as exercises in the tedious overwork of mental masterbation. It may be sex with someone you love, but if the only person you can ever love is yourself, that is a great indictement on your so called 'Christian principals' you are so eager to lecture the rest of us on.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Jasperthecat
You have sought to present an interpreation (ie: yours) through issues about the differences between Greek of different periods

I'm not presenting my own interpretation here. I'm presenting the interpretation of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Originally posted by Jasperthecat
this is based on NO scholarship what-so-ever on your part. Just endless cut and paste exercises from web sites where, by your own admission, you would have no clue if what they presented had any academic credability.

I certainly can tell if they have intellectual credibility. When 4 well known Protestant scholars concede a point to the Catholic position, most likely that position is correct. When 2 sides are engaged in a heated debate and both sides contain very knowledgable people, if one side uses an argument with no intellectual credibility the other will quickly shoot it down. I am familiar with much of the literature of the opposition. I know which arguments work and which don't.

Originally posted by Jasperthecat
Would you enter into a scientific or mathematical debate with someone who had no understanding of algebra, but was able to endlessly quote from a web site on the subject- while admiting they had no idea what the difference between homolgy or cohomology actually meant ?

False comparison. I may not speak Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, but when scholars debate linguistic issues I can follow their arguments and understand every word they say.

[Marmaduke]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan

I'm not presenting my own interpretation here. I'm presenting the interpretation of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

I certainly can tell if they have intellectual credibility. When 4 well known Protestant scholars concede a point to the Catholic position, most likely that position is correct. When 2 sides are engaged in a heated debate and both sides contain very knowledgable people, if one side uses an argument with no intellectual credibility the other will quickly shoot it down. I am familiar with much of the literature of the opposition. I know which arguments work and which don't.

False comparison. I may not speak Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, but when scholars debate linguistic issues I can follow their arguments and understand every word they say.

Pathetic- this is your defence ? 'I can follow every argument'- sorry dear fear, no you cannot. You have admited to having no scholarship on such subjects, all you can do is follow -you are in no position to know whether one argument is based on a false premise or not, because you cannot even read the languages you claim in support of whichever argument you wish to present- for you simply don't know.

You are not even consistent in this appology for a defence. First you claim (in you opening paragraph):

I'm presenting the interpretation of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Then in your second paragraph you state:

When 2 sides are engaged in a heated debate and both sides contain very knowledgable people, if one side uses an argument with no intellectual credibility the other will quickly shoot it down.

So there are people that dissent from this view (not that you have bothered to name who these people) or who the 4 (gosh, so many !) "well known Protestant scholars " are, nor where this great debate took place.

I have never seen you post from an academic sourse, just another of you favourite and obviously partisian web sites- yet you claim this is 'debate'- a curious understanding you have of the subject given that preaching seems to be the only capacity you are capable of 'debating' in- do you get extra bonus points from St Peter for this pendatry ?

I could care little for the division between the Protestant or Ctaholic Church- remember I come from a country where I saw the wonderful benefits of your idiotic 'debate' in the form on nail bombs in London- so I am hardly going to be pursuaded by your epic demonstrations of other people's scholarship (need I remind you again- which you could not tell it validity or not). I have nothing against the Catholic Church, as it is as irrevelevent and the Protestant Church- nothing but archaic throw backs to some 'golden period' when the very eliteism you so dispise (but not enough to want to stop demonstarting at every opportunity)held court and controlled by whatever means it had available (torture, supersision, poverty).

Where I do have a lot of adminsration for the Catholic Church is the brave position of many Catholic priests in fighting poverty and political abuse- for which many of them paid with, with their lives.That is truly admirable- and surely reaches to the very heart of Christian teaching, but then, they were the very people that Rome wanted to ex-commnuicate from the church (until they realised the political fall out of such a move). God forbid you have people challenging corrupt political and business practices that Rome was all too eager to endorse with that other great Martyr wannabee 'Mother Terresa' (good friend on many dictators who sought Rome's 'approval' through some suprious ideolog who thought her own salvation more important than those whose care whe so publically mislead.

I suspect you would rather a 'Mother Teressa' than someone whose faith actually informs their actions for no better reason than they believe this is the true message of the Bible.

I have never seen you post ONCE about poverty or what the Church can contribute to the poor or oppressed (seemingly Christ saw this as a rather more pressing issue than you do-bet heck- he wasn't a 'Pope' was he ?). I have got used to the fact that you are singularly incappable about writing about Christianity in any other terms of some dry remote exercise (no doubt the very people Christ 'died for' are little more than an inconvenience to your regular ego exercises here- for you never write about anyone except yourself- or should I say, for yourself).

You and our 'closet anti-msemite' are so perfectly compatable, I wonder if you might not form our first real marriage here on Sweden.com. Neither of you have any interest in other people (only yourself) and seem to enjoy nothing more than the mashochistic enjoyment of the criticism of others (for which I add my humble contribution).

You are both incapable of writing about anthing other that suprious arguments (which might be accpetable if this was a 'real' academic debate, but neither of you actually have any 'academic' creditials or interests to support this) that simply make you feel better about yourselves. At that, dear fear, is both of you in a nutshell- this is simply about you feeling better about yourself (clever, superior, better educated- although you seemed to have learnt remarkably little from your education unless you school specialises in self promotion ?).

If you dedicate just 10% of the effort you make hear to actually promote the real purpose of Christ's words, you might really make a difference in life- even if that is just one person, you would have done something to be truly proud about. But you seek the 'short cut' solution and think your arrogant superiority will serve the same purpose.

But, to actually make a difference, might require you do do something other than lambast us with your tedious arguments-and that, to actually make a difference in the real world the rest of us have to live in, in probably the furthest thing from your mind. Afterall, what recognition is there in that when you can achieve it on the internet in no time at-all. A reward in heaven, perhaps, or can't you wait that long ?

[thisdude]

Originally posted by COWSHOES
I read this in my KJV and I was wondering. Is there any difference in what Jesus said in the different versions of the Bible or Holy Book or The Word or whatever you want to call it concerning The Sermon on the Mount?
It's my favorite part of my Bible and if I'm understanding Jesus correctly, he would not approve of all this bickering about what he wanted.

cowshoes, we are supposed to be in agreement before the Lord,, absolutely.. but that doesnt mean we will agree on everything.. you dont have to be in full agreement with someone to love them,accept them, respect them, to forgive them. to be forgiven by them. Jesus was asking us to forgive and we will be forgiven. im not perfect, and dont claim to be.. this is my own interpretation of the very same scripture you asked about..it's great you are reading the bible.. i wil pray for you... and i ask you for the same in return

i think it's shameful that this thread was started by a person seeking some help with his spiritual walk,, and it got turned into a shouting match.. if you didnt have something to say to help this guy,, you really shouldnt have replied here.. just my oppinion.

[lolly]

We need a couple of scholars on this board who cover Theology from different religious points of view to get an overview of the point.

Too many wannabes

I think ultimately Cowshoes, you stay true to yourself. We are all born with the knowledge of right and wrong. Religion is just guidelines for that knowledge.

l.

[Marmaduke]

Tnen it should start to put this wonderful understanding into practice for one. Be it Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. It seems they are all so ready to defend what they find most unacceptable in the other. It's nothing more than 'tribalism'- each defending their own ground. Ultimately it has little to do with religon or faith- but more to do with the 'power' that the particular exponents of such a 'faith' or 'religion' have.

[janyn2]

Originally posted by lolly
We need a couple of scholars on this board who cover Theology from different religious points of view to get an overview of the point.

Too many wannabes

I think ultimately Cowshoes, you stay true to yourself. We are all born with the knowledge of right and wrong. Religion is just guidelines for that knowledge.

l.

AMEN!