Why The Sermon on the Mount?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I find it interesting that the gospels are very consistent with regard to their reports of how the general public of the time saw Jesus:

prophetthey regarded him as a prophetJohnElijaha prophetprophetJohn the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophetsprophetprophetpropheta prophet

There are plenty more passages to the same effect. The gospels are clear that the way the general public understood Jesus, including many he interacted with directly (e.g. healed), was in the traditional Jewish category of "prophet". Possibly a resurrection/reincarnation of a previous specific prophet.

Jesus own public statements don't seem to reject this public understanding of himself as a prophet, and at times he reaffirms it pretty explicitly:

I don't have a problem with those. It's not like Jesus was fulfilling the Muslim claim of traveling around Judea saying "I am God. Worship me." If Jesus makes those statements, they are more implicit than explicit.

I think it's fair to say that if the gospel writers were wanting to project their own theology back onto Jesus, the easiest way for them to do that would be in their narration sections where they are outright giving their own theology (e.g. John 1:1), and the second-easiest would be to record Jesus saying things in private to the disciples (e.g. Matt 16:16,20) because nobody could fact-check secret/private teachings (and indeed, a number of writings about private/secret teachings of Jesus seem to have appeared in the 2nd century). Whereas, insofar as there were people around who had heard Jesus themselves or knew the stories about Jesus' preaching, it would be harder for the gospel writers to take liberties with misrepresenting the public's understanding of Jesus and with the public teachings of Jesus. It seems pretty clear that in his lifetime Jesus was understood by the public to be a prophet - all the gospels attest to this, and that later some of his followers would convince themselves that he was something more than a prophet, and that perhaps (or perhaps not) he had given hints of this to a chosen few in some private teachings not known to the general populace (and I would say we can see a bit of a progression over time with regard to exactly what 'more than' a prophet actually entailed).

But the gospels attest that the public's understanding of Jesus was as a prophet. So I think you're doing a bit of disservice to the text in this thread when you try and reinterpret the Sermon on the Mount through your own God-Incarnate theology and point to things like speaking with authority as proof of that God-Incarnate theology. The gospels are clear that those who heard him immediately thought "prophet". And I'll grant you your point that this was probably because he taught with authority unlike the standard teachers of the law, who didn't purport to be prophets or to be giving new teachings from God like prophets were understood to do.

I take it you're not familiar with the Early High Christology Club that shows a fully deified Jesus coming right out of the gates at the resurrection. If you want to dismiss private statements made, then fine. Let's go with public ones. Jesus's healing of the paralytic has him claiming He can forgive sins. Jesus with the Pharisees says that one greater than the Temple is here and one greater than the Sabbath is here. Jesus tells His disciples that they would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes. You can say that's private, but would a later writer make up this statement seeing as everyone knows Judas isn't one of those who will sit? If the twelve apostles sit on 12 thrones, where does Jesus see Himself sitting? Jesus touches lepers and heals them making them clean presenting Himself as a walking temple.

In the Pauline epistles, we have the same thing. Maranatha is an Aramaic saying which puts it early and describing Jesus as the Lord who is to come. Paul in Romans says whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved equating YHWH with Jesus. In 1 Cor. 8, Paul Christianizes the Shema and puts Jesus in it.

There is a lot more to explain about Jesus if He is not fully deity.

[Apologiaphoenix]

What about your hatred of your brother?

Link

[jpholding]

You seem to like to use these phrases in a very vague way

It's not vague at all, you're simply an ignorant bigot kneeling on the necks of members of ancient cultures while you pretend to not be a racist.

Your severe misuse of these makes it pretty clear you don't understand those concepts and haven't put the time you should into studying them that you should.

All yap, no explanation or rebuttal/response. Typical Starscream. It was Malina, Pilch, Rohrbaugh, and many more of their quality I took this all from; and you are the very example of the sort of decontextualizing bigot they condemn.

With regard to ideas about covenantal law, there are enough different views among scholars that it's hard to recommend any particular thing, but maybe reading Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and VanLandingham's Judgment & Justification In Early Judaism And The Apostle Paul, would together introduce

Vague appeals to diversity absent direct application = tactic of loser in over his head. The only people you fool with that kind of buffalo dung blatherskeit are MAGA fanatics. Intelligent and well read people, in contrast, just laugh at you as you gyrate on a stick like a stuck cockroach. Seeing you pontificate on the Bible is like listening to Trump extemporize on wind turbines causing cancer. You stable genius!

[JimL]

No they don't. When he cleanses a leper, He instructs the leper to go show himself to the priests. Jesus doesn't tell others to do things that violate ritual purity, but seeing as He is YHWH in the flesh, He can transfer purity.

I thought Jesus was just YHWH's son. Was he just the son,? Or was Jesus both the father and the son? A portion of each, or what? Did he have some of the holy spirit in him too? Or did he separate from the other two when he bcame flesh?

[jpholding]

I thought Jesus was just YHWH's son. Was he just the son,? Or was Jesus both the father and the son? A portion of each, or what? Did he have some of the holy spirit in him too? Or did he separate from the other two when he bcame flesh?

Looks it up in Two Corinthians, Donald. That's about the level of your education, based on the above.

[37818]

I thought Jesus was just YHWH's son. Was he just the son,? Or was Jesus both the father and the son? A portion of each, or what? Did he have some of the holy spirit in him too? Or did he separate from the other two when he bcame flesh?

You are not hearing. All appearances of YHWH, John 1:18 KJV, NKJV is the Son, Genesis 12:7, John 14:6. One God [YHWH], distinct Persons.

[JimL]

You are not hearing. All appearances of YHWH, John 1:18 KJV, NKJV is the Son, Genesis 12:7, John 14:6. One God [YHWH], distinct Persons.

So, does the son detach himself from the father and the holy spirit when he inhabits the flesh?

[37818]

You are not hearing. All appearances of YHWH, John 1:18 KJV, NKJV is the Son, Genesis 12:7, John 14:6. One God [YHWH], distinct Persons.

The Son only changed how He was with YHWH, but never ceased being YHWH. The Son has also always been with YHWH. John 1:1-2.

[JimL]

The Son only changed how He was with YHWH, but never ceased being YHWH. The Son has also always been with YHWH. John 1:1-2.

Wait a minute, was he with YHWH, or was he YHWH? You're saying both in the above.

[mikewhitney]

Wait a minute, was he with YHWH, or was he YHWH? You're saying both in the above.

There are other threads where the Trinitarian understanding of God is discussed. The conception of the oneness of God along in connection with the distinction of persons in this Godhead originates in the Old Testament and continues into the insight of Christ within the Godhead. This current thread is not the best place to rehash those discussions. Or, you can start a fresh discussion on this so you don't have to work through so much of the matured threads.

So, does the son detach himself from the father and the holy spirit when he inhabits the flesh?

If you want to explore misconceptions like this, you would have to read about the history of heresies. Some conceptions of the Trinity weren't quite so heretical but still needed clarification. I'm not sure that you would be curious enough about more details on the clearing up of the details about the Trinity though.

[37818]

Wait a minute, was he with YHWH, or was he YHWH? You're saying both in the above.

Yes.

[Apologiaphoenix]

What about lust?

Link

[Christianbookworm]

Lust sounds creepy. I wouldn't want anyone thinking naughty thoughts about me.

[Apologiaphoenix]

What about divorce?

Link

[Apologiaphoenix]

On Separation

Link