Matthew 5:48

[John Reece]

From The Four Gospels, by Charles C. Torrey:

[Matthew] 5:48. "Be therefore perfect, etc. would be mere nonsense, even if it were not wholly unprepared for in this context. Nothing here leads up to the idea of perfection -- to say nothing of equaling the perfection of God himself! In this paragraph, vss. 43-47, the disciples are taught that they must show kindness to all men; just as their heavenly Father makes no exception. The explanation of the false rendering lies, very obviously, in the fact that the form of g' mar (certainly used here) was active, not passive, in signification. H’ wo gam’rin (or, g’merin) meant “be all-including,” making no exception in your kindness.

Here is the full text of Matthew 5:43-48 :

Matthew 5

Love Your Enemies

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (ESV)

Which do you think is likely to be more accurate: the traditional rendering, or Torrey’s?

[Sozo]

Clueless :no:

[Jaltus]

The traditional. The entire sermon on the Mount is filled with rabbinic hyperbole, so Torrey is missing the forest for the trees. Read through Matthew 5-6 and notice all the strange phrases Jesus uses, and you will quickly see that Jesus was exaggerating to make a point.

Matthew 5:
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery';
28 but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30 "And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Obviously these are not literal commands, for how many Christians literally cut their hands off or pluck their eyes out? (Leave Origen out of this, hehe) This is a classic case of overstatement in order to have an affect upon one's hearers.

How often do we exaggerate stories in order to make them better? In the same way, though with better intent, Jesus makes the statements incredibly strong in order for it to stick in the listeners mind. The more He forces you to think about it, the more you actually pay attention to what He is saying and you figure out exactly what He meant by such a statement.

After all, He does not want to cast His pearls before swine.

[John Reece]

Thanks, Jaltus.

:thumb:

[Sozo]

Liberals :no:

[T.J. Maxx]

Exagerration? I think a better term is analogy. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that Christ willfully exagerrated.

[Sozo]

You are both grossly mistaken.

Jesus meant exactly what He said. The Law cannot be water down, which is His point, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[John Reece]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that Christ willfully exagerrated.

Jesus did not shrink from being uncomforting. He was not averse to the use of hyperbole. Quite the contrary.

[Sozo]

Today @ 06:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46822#post46822)
John Reece:

Jesus did not shrink from being uncomforting. He was not averse to the use of hyperbole. Quite the contrary.

So, in your estimation, Jesus was a bold-faced liar?

More "hyperbole" from Jesus?

'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'

"Greater Love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. "

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me."

Of course if Jesus had the habit of exaggeration & "hyperbole", He must of passed it on to His disciples & to Paul...

"And there were five thousand men who ate the loaves"

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;"

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God."

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me."

[Kevin W. Graham]

"The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him--for we can prevent Him, if we choose --He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said" (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 174-75)

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

[Sozo]

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50348#post50348)
Kevin W. Graham:

"The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him--for we can prevent Him, if we choose --He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said" (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 174-75)

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

Glad to know I shouldn't waste my time reading Lewis

:no:

[John Reece]

Posted by Sozo on 03-28-2003 01:28 PM:

“ Today @ 06:00 AM post located here
John Reece:

Jesus did not shrink from being uncomforting. He was not averse to the use of hyperbole. Quite the contrary. ”

Sozo:

So, in your estimation, Jesus was a bold-faced liar?

More "hyperbole" from Jesus?



hy·per·bo·le
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

An inability (or unwillingness) to understand the difference between hyperbole and a lie indicates that one is intellectually challenged (or emotionally in need of attention).

[John Reece]

03-28-2003 @ 01:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46868#post46868)
Sozo:



So, in your estimation, Jesus was a bold-faced liar?

More "hyperbole" from Jesus?

'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'

"Greater Love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. "

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me."

Of course if Jesus had the habit of exaggeration & "hyperbole", He must of passed it on to His disciples & to Paul...

"And there were five thousand men who ate the loaves"

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;"

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God."

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me."

Sozo,

None of the texts you have quoted above were referred to in the exchange between me and Jaltus.

You have no legitimate basis for assuming that I regard any saying of Jesus to be hyperbole unless I specify the text.

I do not regard any of the sayings of Jesus and Paul in your quote above to be examples of hyperbole.

[Sozo]

Today @ 02:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50386#post50386)
John Reece:





hy·per·bo·le
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

An inability (or unwillingness) to understand the difference between hyperbole and a lie indicates that one is intellectually challenged (or emotionally in need of attention).

And again, you choose to define truth through your own eyes. Since when is exaggeration anything less than deception? Because you mince words with the ignorance of man's view, does not make it truth.

Exagerration = deception
Deception = lying

[Sozo]

Today @ 02:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50390#post50390)
John Reece:



Sozo,

None of the texts you have quoted above were referred to in the exchange between me and Jaltus.

You have no legitimate basis for assuming that I regard any saying of Jesus to be hyperbole unless I specify the text.

I do not regard any of the sayings of Jesus and Paul in your quote above to be examples of hyperbole.

So what? What makes you and Jaltus the definers of when Jesus was serious and when He wasn't? Your proclamation of Matt 5:48 is calling Jesus nothing less than a liar. The fact is, unless one is perfect, you will never see the kingdom of God.

[John Reece]

Today @ 08:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50399#post50399)
Sozo:



And again, you choose to define truth through your own eyes. Since when is exaggeration anything less than deception? Because you mince words with the ignorance of man's view, does not make it truth.

Exagerration = deception
Deception = lying

Sozo,

You say of me, that I "choose to define truth through [my] own eyes."

If you will read more carefully and try to think clearly, you will see that I did not choose to define truth. I chose only to define "hyperole" and a "lie".

"Exaggeration = deception" is not a valid criticism of anything I have written in this thread.

I have not used the word "exaggeration"; I used the word "hyperbole" which has a very specific sense that does not include any form of deception.

[Sozo]

Today @ 02:13 PM

hy·per·bo·le
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in [I]I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.

lie
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.



Yes, you have defined hyperbole and lie, but I am telling you that a hyperbole is a lie.

A rose is still a rose.


I have not used the word "exaggeration"; I used the word "hyperbole" which has a very specific sense that does not include any form of deception.

Proclaiming that Jesus statement in Matthew 5:48 is "hyperbole" is claiming that Jesus is not telling the truth. Hyperbole is not the truth, according to your own definition.

"This book weighs a ton" is a lie, unless of course it actually does weigh a ton.

[John Reece]

Today @ 08:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50400#post50400)
Sozo:



So what? What makes you and Jaltus the definers of when Jesus was serious and when He wasn't? Your proclamation of Matt 5:48 is calling Jesus nothing less than a liar.

When Jesus used hyperbole, he was being serious.

When Jesus did not use hyperbole, he was being serious.

I have not presumed to define when Jesus was serious and when he was not. I take him seriously in everything he said.

You wrote:

The fact is, unless one is perfect, you will never see the kingdom of God..

I am not so sure that Torrey was wrong in his exegesis of Matthew 5:48. But I gave Jaltus a hearty tumbs up for presenting a very good rebuttal to Torrey's exegesis.

I do not have an opinion as to whether or not Jesus was using hyperbole in Matthew 5:48, but I do come to the defense of anyone who is attacked for saying that Jesus did sometimes use hyperbole.

If you take the words quite literally, meaning that it is I and not Christ in my behalf who must meet a standard of perfection as a prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom of God, then I say that the text of Matthew 5:48 in the English versions cannot be literally (that is, devoid of hyperbole) true.

The reason I say that is that I (as distinct from Christ in my behalf) am not perfect, but I have already entered the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of God has entered me.

Colossians 1
13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (ESV)

Luke 17
The Coming of the Kingdom of God
20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within (εντος) you."

[Sozo]

Today @ 04:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50425#post50425)
John Reece:

When Jesus used hyperbole, he was being serious.



Jesus never used hyperbole.


I do not have an opinion as to whether or not Jesus was using hyperbole in Matthew 5:48, but I do come to the defense of anyone who is attacked for saying that Jesus did sometimes use hyperbole

Perhaps my debate should be with Jaltus.


If you take the words quite literally, meaning that it is I and not Christ in my behalf who must meet a standard of perfection as a prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom of God, then I say that the text of Matthew 5:48 in the English versions cannot be literally (that is, devoid of hyperbole) true.

At least I understand your confusion. Jesus taught under the Law, and under the Law everyone is required to be absolutely perfect. At the time that Jesus made this and other statements, they were wholly applicable, not hyperbole, and not exagerrations.


The reason I say that is that I (as distinct from Christ in my behalf) am not perfect, but I have already entered the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of God has entered me.

Who is "you"? Because "you" is perfect.

[John Reece]

Sozo:


Who is "you"? Because "you" is perfect.

Well, I'm not "you", and I'm not perfect;

and I'm so happy I don't have to be...

:yipee:

[Sozo]

Today @ 04:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50469#post50469)
John Reece:

Sozo:



Well, I'm not "you", and I'm not perfect;

and I'm so happy I don't have to be...

:yipee:

Yes you do and if in Christ, you are.

"For by one offering He has perfected perpetually those who are sanctified"

[John Reece]

'Can't dispute that!

:thumb:

:yipee:

[Jaltus]

Did John lie when he used symbolic language in Revelation?

Neither is it against the genre of rabbinic teaching to use hyperbole. you need to read according to context, not according to what you think the context is.

[Sozo]

Today @ 05:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50497#post50497)
Jaltus:

Did John lie when he used symbolic language in Revelation?

Neither is it against the genre of rabbinic teaching to use hyperbole. you need to read according to context, not according to what you think the context is.


Symbolism and analogies are not hyperboles.

Jesus never used hyperboles.

[John Reece]

Yesterday @ 11:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50499#post50499)
Sozo:

Symbolism and analogies are not hyperboles.

Jesus never used hyperboles.

Sozo,

You are so stubborn!

"stub·born (stŭb'ərn)
adj., -er, -est.
Unreasonably, often perversely unyielding; bullheaded.
Firmly resolved or determined; resolute. See synonyms at obstinate."

:smile:

[Sozo]

Today @ 06:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50532#post50532)
John Reece:



Sozo,

You are so stubborn!



Like a rock!

or is that like Iraq

:bonk:

[John Reece]

Today @ 12:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50540#post50540)
Sozo:



Like a rock!

or is that like Iraq

:bonk:

Now that you mention it: it is quite like Iraq, in terms of stubborness...

:smile:

Reminds me of my own obstinacy 30+ years ago.

Cost me quite dearly...

I have the limp (not literal; not physical; but real) to prove it.

'Hope you understand the Old Testament symbolism :smile: .

[Sozo]

Today @ 06:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50547#post50547)
John Reece:



Now that you mention it: it is quite like Iraq, in terms of stubborness...

:smile:

Reminds me of my own obstinacy 30+ years ago.

Cost me quite dearly...

I have the limp (not literal; not physical; but real) to prove it.

'Hope you understand the Old Testament symbolism :smile: .

I tend to wrestle with those who make man more than he is, and God less.

[John Reece]

Today @ 12:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50552#post50552)
Sozo:



I tend to wrestle with those who make man more than he is, and God less.

In those terms, when that's what it's really all about, you have this from me:

:thumb:

[Jaltus]

Symbolism and analogies are not hyperboles.

Jesus never used hyperboles.

Rabbinic hyperbole is a specific style of teaching. Next you'll say that Jesus cannot use the Socratic method because it denies omniscience.

[Sozo]

Today @ 08:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50603#post50603)
Jaltus:



Rabbinic hyperbole is a specific style of teaching. Next you'll say that Jesus cannot use the Socratic method because it denies omniscience.

Give examples where Jesus used these methods of teaching (1 passage reference of each is fine)

[Jaltus]

Socratic method: Matthew 16

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.


Rabbinic hyperbole: Matthew 5

29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

(the last part in bold is the actual point of the teaching)

[Sozo]

Thanks Jaltus, why do you relate the two, considering my objection to your view of claiming that Matthew 5 is a hyperbole?

And I still very much disagree that is a hyperbole, anymore than when Jesus told the rich man to sell all that He has.

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50625#post50625)
Sozo:

...And I still very much disagree that is a hyperbole...

Either Jesus meant for people to gouge out their eyes and cut off their limbs, or he was speaking in terms of hyperbole.

To believe the former to be true is a symptom of an immature mind, or of something amiss in the mind.

To believe the latter is to understand the nature of hyperbole.

Of course there is is a third possibility: an obstinate refusal to admit the fact that Jesus did indeed occassionally teach in terms of hyperbole.

You should use a mule as your avatar :smile: .

[Sozo]

Today @ 09:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50660#post50660)
John Reece:



Either Jesus meant for people to gouge out their eyes and cut off their limbs, or he was speaking in terms of hyperbole.

To believe the former to be true is a symptom of an immature mind, or of something amiss in the mind.



I think it is highly offense for you to refer to Jesus as one who is immature or perhaps out of His mind.

Because of the ignorance of Christians who spend way to much time in worldly philosophies, and very little in a relationship with God, they have a perverted view of the righteousness of God, as you and Jaltus have clearly shown.

The Law demands absolute perfection, and anything less is the misguided justification of the flesh, which is exactly what you are attempting through your hyperbole fiction. You don't understand the gospel, so you choose to explain it away through man's wisdom.

I am ashamed at both of you for watering down the gospel.

[GrayPilgrim]

So when you in the past lusted after a woman did you gogue out your eye?

[Sozo]

Today @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50731#post50731)
GrayPilgrim:

So when you in the past lusted after a woman did you gogue out your eye?


No, and I failed at every other command of God based on Law, and so have you! Was the rich man a hyperbole? Heck, you might as well toss out every passage about where Jesus made any commands as hyperboles. Why not just toss out every reference to the ten commandments as hyperboles. Jesus used the strict verbage He did to bury men under the Law, so that they would see themselves as utterly hopeless, and turn to Him for life!

Once again, lack of understanding has backed you guys in a corner.

The only command that you can obey is to believe on Him whom He has sent!

[Socrates]

Indeed, the modern Western mind fails to appreciate the Semitic mindset and their vivid hyperbolic language. It's also ethnocentric bibliosceptics that claim that Jesus taught hatred of families, when "hate" was a hyperbolic way of saying "love less".

See Hyperbole and Exclusive Language in the Bible (http://www.tektonics.org/hyperbole.html).

[John Reece]

(post#37 )

“ Today @ 11:34 PM post located here
GrayPilgrim:

So when you in the past lusted after a woman did you gogue out your eye? ”


Sozo:

No, and I failed at every other command of God based on Law, and so have you!

Posted by Sozo on Yesterday 10:42 PM:

Jesus taught under the Law, and under the Law everyone is required to be absolutely perfect. At the time that Jesus made this and other statements, they were wholly applicable, not hyperbole, and not exagerrations.

Are the commandments of Jesus no longer applicable?

If Jesus' commandments are still applicable, will you gouge out your eyes the next time you lust after a woman?

If Jesus taught under the Law, expecting the Law to be obeyed perfectly, why did he not require that the woman caught in the very act of adultry be stoned, as the Law required?

[Sozo]

Today @ 05:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50880#post50880)
John Reece:

Are the commandments of Jesus no longer applicable?

Only to believe.


If Jesus taught under the Law, expecting the Law to be obeyed perfectly, why did he not require that the woman caught in the very act of adultry be stoned, as the Law required?

So what you are saying is that Jesus was an antinomionist?

[John Reece]

Today @ 01:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50922#post50922)
Sozo:

Only to believe.

:huh:


So what you are saying is that Jesus was an antinomionist?

I am saying, and have said, nothing of the sort, and you cannot produce any quote of my words to that effect.

You are just trying to evade and avoid my question, to which your question is not an answer.

Your obstinacy is on display, and you cannot justify it by any means to the satisfaction of anyone other than yourself.

[Sozo]

Today @ 08:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50945#post50945)
John Reece:

I am saying, and have said, nothing of the sort, and you cannot produce any quote of my words to that effect.



What? You didn't like my hyperbole?

Jesus was for the Law to lead us to salvation, but against the Law for righteousness.

My whole point is to show how liberals, who have no understanding of the gospel, have come up with various ways to explain away things they don't understand, and unfortunately many Christians have bought into it.

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50977#post50977)
Sozo:



What? You didn't like my hyperbole?

Jesus was for the Law to lead us to salvation, but against the Law for righteousness.

My whole point is to show how liberals, who have no understanding of the gospel, have come up with various ways to explain away things they don't understand, and unfortunately many Christians have bought into it.

You point is well taken, if taken to an appropriate place where it applies.

It does not fit in this context, and does not apply to what anyone has written in response to your posts on this thread.

You seem to believe that anyone who does not agree with you is ipso facto a liberal or a dupe of liberals.

That is quite an idiosyncratic way of thinking!

:smile:

[Jaltus]

Because of the ignorance of Christians who spend way to much time in worldly philosophies, and very little in a relationship with God, they have a perverted view of the righteousness of God, as you and Jaltus have clearly shown.

I am speaking as a non-official of this site, I am speaking only as me:

Sozo, you are on of the biggest hypocrites I have ever run across. As soon as someone disagrees with you, you say that do not know God or the Bible. Bascially, you are so arrogant and sure of your arrogance that you cannot fathom anyone else being led by the Holy Spirit.

Frankly, I am sick of your superior attitude and your anti-intellectualism. Go ahead and dwell in your "me and my KJV can conquer the world" attitude, just keep it away from me. frankly, I find that studying the Bible from the point of view of someone who lived in those times makes it infinitely more intelligible than any of the dross interpretations you come up with in your little closed off world.

Do you really think that the Spirit can only speak to those who are so insecure that they cannot read dissenting opinions? Or are you afraid that some "learning" might shatter the understandings you have of the Bible? Or is it that you are really so conceited you think everyone else is a second-class Christian compared to you?

Every time we come into a thread together and I give my opinion, you have to claim that I do not love God or else I am not a Christian. Grow up.

[GrayPilgrim]

:eek:Jaltus must be rather perturbed as is evidenced by the typos that he let slip. [Run for them thar hills]

:bonk:

[Sozo]

Jaltus...

Please explain to me how it makes me a hypocrite to expose your blatant disservice to Christ and the gospel by promoting your worldly and much perverted version of Christ's words as hyperboles?


Arrogance is at the core of anyone who would choose to explain away the intent of God to bring man to salvation through the revelation of his sinful nature by claiming that He is exaggerating!

[Sozo]

Today @ 09:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51014#post51014)
John Reece:



You seem to believe that anyone who does not agree with you is ipso facto a liberal or a dupe of liberals.



:smile:


Wrong is wrong, dear John, and you refuse to accept that you hold to a very liberal view of Christ's words, and prefer to call them hyperboles! I call your's blaspheme.

[Jaltus]

Please explain to me how it makes me a hypocrite to expose your blatant disservice to Christ and the gospel by promoting your worldly and much perverted version of Christ's words as hyperboles?

Do you even read what you write? How much hatred and vitrol pour out from your poisonous fingers! Can you really say your words are EVER the words of Christ? I may promote some ideas that are wrong, but I do not say I am always right (far from it). However, you always say you are right. you believe in your own personal inerrancy, which is the height of arrogance, and then rip on other people for putting forth ideas. Could you ever actually learn from someone?

No, because your heart is nearly as hard as your head. you are so twisted by your need to be right that actual Christian love flees from your words rather than embeds them.



Arrogance is at the core of anyone who would choose to explain away the intent of God to bring man to salvation through the revelation of his sinful nature by claiming that He is exaggerating!

Hyperbole is not exaggeration! Exaggeration is intended to deceive, whereas hyperbole is an intentional tool used by the speaker and understood by the listeners. It was a common practice, a form of idiomatic speech.

Just as we say "that took forever" and just mean it took a while so do Christ's words not literally mean you should lose a hand but rather it is the importance of this life with respect to the next one, and the pervasive evil of sin.

Just because you think my opinion is wrong is no reason to call me a nonChristian - and don't think you can soft peddle it now, it is too late for that. I am sick of the hatred you spread across this board. I am sick of how you and only you know the heart and mind of Christ. Your pride is so overwhelming I can smell it from here.

I have prayed that the Lord show you this problem area of your life. Know I am praying that the Lord hand you over to Satan so that you might be saved from the flames.

True Christians bear good fruit. All of yours on this board is rotten.

When you first came to this board, I thought you had changed, for your first posts were very open minded and noncombative for you.

Looks like I was wrong.

I wish I could take this to PMs, but your need to call people nonChristians in the middle of threads when not provoked at all has sickened me, and I am not letting your poor behavior slide this time.

[John Reece]

Jaltus,

Thank you!

[Sozo]

Earlier you stated...


03-24-2003 @ 04:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43934#post43934)
Jaltus:

The entire sermon on the Mount is filled with rabbinic hyperbole, so Torrey is missing the forest for the trees. Read through Matthew 5-6 and notice all the strange phrases Jesus uses, and you will quickly see that Jesus was exaggerating to make a point.


Now you say...


Hyperbole is not exaggeration! Exaggeration is intended to deceive, whereas hyperbole is an intentional tool used by the speaker and understood by the listeners. It was a common practice, a form of idiomatic speech.

Be offended all you want, but I will not back down to people who claim to be Christians and demean the words of Jesus to a level of meaninglessness!

[Woman]

Sozo:

Since when is exaggeration anything less than deception?

Since always! You've had people actually go to the trouble of giving you the definitions straight from the dictionary. Apparantly you are so self-rightwous you believe that YOU can arbitrarily decide what a word means, then jump on the rest of the world for not going along with you.

You are a source of conflict within the body of Christ and I believe Paul would not approve.

Jaltus :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[Sozo]

Today @ 10:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51764#post51764)
Woman:

Sozo:


You are a source of conflict within the body of Christ and I believe Paul would not approve.

b[]Jaltus[/b] :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Paul would not approve of dictionaries pouring new meanings into words. I could give a crap about Webster's view of anything.


Dictionary...

love n.

A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

Sexual passion.
Sexual intercourse.
A love affair.
An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.

A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.

God...

"We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us..."

"God so loved the world, that He gave..."

"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

God gives us hope

"...hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. "

"By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him."


He gives His life for His enemies...

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"

"For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)."

The love of God provides us with security...

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, "For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered." But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

God's love is perfect, and never fails...

"Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails;"

The fulness of God's love surpasses knowledge, and yet it fills us with all God's fulness

"...know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God."

It makes us like Him, and removes us from judgement

"By this, love is perfected with us, that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world."

God's love removes our fear

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love."

He gives us His love!

"And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."

[Woman]

No offense dude...but I think you're losin' it!
:duh:

[Sozo]

Today @ 10:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51780#post51780)
Woman:

No offense dude...but I think you're losin' it!
:duh:

Great response!

So you see no difference between man's definition of love and God's?

[AVmetro]

***If the discussion on this thread continues in the manner it is in currently, it will be closed. Continue in a more cordial fashion or do not continue at all. Thank you.***

[Woman]

I feel the only rational thing to do at this point is to ignore the thread.

[John Reece]

AVmetro,

I started this thread.

I ask you to close it.

Thanks,

John Reece