Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Charles]

To suggest that the "Golden Rule" is central to Christianity is rather ignorant. [...]

You say that while quoting:

Matthew 22:35-40, 'And one of them, a lawyer, asked [Jesus] a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”'

The text clearly says: "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." Yet you claim that to suggest that one of these two commandments on which all the Law and the prophets depend is central to Christianity is rather ignorant?

[Charles]

He is apparently expanding on what he meant by the second commandment, which in no way negates the first.

Perhaps but it is not even mentioned in any way, shape or form as having any importance with regard to who will enter the kingdom. There is not even a single word about it.

I think it's more about the motive (of the heart) than the action - we can all do good things for bad reasons.

And yet I don't see any mentioning of that in the text either. Those who actually did good had no idea they were doing this for God. They need an explanation:

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps but it is not even mentioned in any way, shape or form as having any importance with regard to who will enter the kingdom. There is not even a single word about it.

Oh?

Matthew 5:17-20 (ESV)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

And yet I don't see any mentioning of that in the text either. Those who actually did good had no idea they were doing this for God. They need an explanation:

In that parable, no, in the entirety of the New Testament, it's overwhelming. Context is important. And Jesus gave a number of other examples where motive is more important than actions. In fact, in Chapter 6, Jesus said "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”

Motives are crucial.

[Charles]

Oh?

Matthew 5:17-20 (ESV)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

I know about that part but that is not within the context I quoted from.

In that parable, no, in the entirety of the New Testament, it's overwhelming. Context is important. And Jesus gave a number of other examples where motive is more important than actions. In fact, in Chapter 6, Jesus said "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”

Motives are crucial.

Context is important. It is also important to note that what you find as an important context can vary. You point to verses you think establish a context in which the verses I quoted should be read. You could do it the other way around and the context would be different. Or, perhaps not goint this far, you could simply wonder why certain versus seem to point in directions contradicted by other verses. Something seemingly contradictory is not necessarily solved by pointing to "context". It could simply be that it is contradictory or at least not clear what the text is trying to say.

[Cow Poke]

I know about that part but that is not within the context I quoted from.

Um.... "context I quoted from" isn't really context.

Context is important. It is also important to note that what you find as an important context can vary. You point to verses you think establish a context in which the verses I quoted should be read. You could do it the other way around and the context would be different. Or, perhaps not goint this far, you could simply wonder why certain versus seem to point in directions contradicted by other verses. Something seemingly contradictory is not necessarily solved by pointing to "context". It could simply be that it is contradictory or at least not clear what the text is trying to say.

Which is why, as a Christian, I have to take my context from the overall New Testament.

[Charles]

Um.... "context I quoted from" isn't really context.

It is context as within the limitations mentioned. The context of a chapter in the Bible or certain chapters in the Bible is a context within a larger context.

Which is why, as a Christian, I have to take my context from the overall New Testament.

And "the overall New Testament" could be contradictory, confusing or open to all sorts of interpretation so I have no idea what you think "the overall New Testament" is and you would disagree with quite many other Christians who also go for "the overall New Testament".

[Cow Poke]

It is context as within the limitations mentioned. The context of a chapter in the Bible or certain chapters in the Bible is a context within a larger context.

Charles, I think you're probably aware that in the original manuscripts, there were no chapters and verses, yes?

And "the overall New Testament" could be contradictory, confusing or open to all sorts of interpretation so I have no idea what you think "the overall New Testament" is

Matthew to Maps.

and you would disagree with quite many other Christians who also go for "the overall New Testament".

Sure.

[Mountain Man]

It certainly gives the impression that what you actually do towards your neighbour is what is important. But interpretation allows for rather selective choises of what is important, what context it should be read in and so on and so forth.

And you don't think it significant that this parable is in the context of being judged by the one who Jesus commanded us to love with all our heart, soul, and mind?

[Cow Poke]

And you don't think it significant that this parable is in the context of being judged by the one who Jesus commanded us to love with all our heart, soul, and mind?

I'm wondering if Charles really understands what a parable is.

[Charles]

And you don't think it significant that this parable is in the context of being judged by the one who Jesus commanded us to love with all our heart, soul, and mind?

And you dont think it is significant that this parable does not mention that part as having importance with regard to who will enter the kingdom? There is no "you gave me something to eat and you loved me...." it is only "you gave me something to eat".

I am not the one claiming there is a non-contradictory line of interpretation. I am making the point that the text is at best confusing. And I think it is interesting to note that quite often when Christians start to talk about "context" what they are really doing is to make certain parts of the Bible not say what the words actually do say. That, however, is not reading in context. That is providing an interpretation of certain parts of the text that contradicts it.

[Cow Poke]

And you dont think it is significant that this parable does not mention that part as having importance with regard to who will enter the kingdom?

I think you're demonstrating my point that you don't really understand what a parable is.

[Mountain Man]

The text clearly says: "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

The text also clearly establishes a hierarchy, that the first commandment is the greater of the two such that the second is dependent on the first.

[Charles]

The text also clearly establishes a hierarchy, that the first commandment is the greater of the two such that the second is dependent on the first.

Let me quote again:

Matthew 22:35-40, 'And one of them, a lawyer, asked [Jesus] a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”'

The first commandment is "the great and first commandment". But the text clearly says: "and a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” The second one is the one refered to as the golden rule. You said the following about the golden rule:

To suggest that the "Golden Rule" is central to Christianity is rather ignorant.

So you are actually saying that if anyone suggests that one of the two commandments on which all the Law and the Prophets depend is central to Christianity then that person is rather ignorant.

[Charles]

I think you're demonstrating my point that you don't really understand what a parable is.

Until you have shown how the fact that this is a parable changes my point I think you have rather demonstrated that you would rather go for a personal attack than showing an interpretation that would prove my point wrong or unimportant.

[Cow Poke]

So you are actually saying that if anyone suggests that one of the two commandments on which all the Law and the Prophets depend is central to Christianity then that person is rather ignorant.

I think maybe you're not understanding the basis of "Christianity" throughout the New Testament that deals with Grace as opposed to "the Law".

If you're simply picking nit, the following won't make any difference, but if you're truly looking for an explanation, I think "Got Questions" does a decent job of explaining this...

There is no conflict between grace and the Law, properly understood. Christ fulfilled the Law on our behalf and offers the power of the Holy Spirit, who motivates a regenerated heart to live in obedience to Him (Matthew 3:8; Acts 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Timothy 1:14). James 2:26 says, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” A grace that has the power to save also has the power to motivate a sinful heart toward godliness. Where there is no impulse to be godly, there is no saving faith.

We are saved by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). The keeping of the Law cannot save anyone (Romans 3:20; Titus 3:5). In fact, those who claim righteousness on the basis of their keeping of the Law only think they’re keeping the Law; this was one of Jesus’ main points in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:20–48; see also Luke 18:18–23).

The purpose of the Law was, basically, to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Once we are saved, God desires to glorify Himself through our good works (Matthew 5:16; Ephesians 2:10). Therefore, good works follow salvation; they do not precede it.

Conflict between “grace” and the “Law” can arise when someone 1) misunderstands the purpose of the Law; 2) redefines grace as something other than “God’s benevolence on the undeserving” (see Romans 11:6); 3) tries to earn his own salvation or “supplement” Christ’s sacrifice; 4) follows the error of the Pharisees in tacking manmade rituals and traditions onto his doctrine; or 5) fails to focus on the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).

When the Holy Spirit guides our search of Scripture, we can “study to show ourselves approved unto God” (2 Timothy 2:15) and discover the beauty of a grace that produces good works.