Jesus chooses unlikely role models for His listeners

Ahanu

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
514
Points
108
After reading the link below on the parable of the good samaritan, I was a little shocked by the commentaries, the 3 scenarios, and text, so I wanted to share it.

Parables of Jesus
 
Why were you shocked, Ahanu? Jesus regularly spent much of his time with the so-called 'riff-raff,' showing them kindness. It was the 'holier-than-thou' ones who were offended by this, and in need of learning to 'love their enemies.'
 
I found it interesting because the Samaritans were thought to serve false gods, and I know there were many other disagreements, but Jesus chooses a Samaritan to be the hero of the story. It makes me think. Where was the priest going? Perhaps the priest was going to a church meeting, or some type of church service? I go to church alot, and I am positive I have passed by a couple of people who have needed help, but I did not help.

I found this shocking. People fuss about what exactly got Jesus killed. Usually Christians argue that Jesus claimed to be God. However, I never thought of Jesus' parables as examples. For example, Robert W. Funk said: "But a simple rejoinder may be quite adequate: The parable of the Samaritan could easily have gotten Jesus killed." Imagine Jesus uses a dispised Samaritan. Now imagine what we read in scenario 1, where a black man helped a beaten-up white man in Georgia in the year of 1950's. During this time, if Jesus was there using a black man as the hero, how would the local preacher react to that? Now let us continue to modernize the scenarios for today's situations. In scenario 2 there is an example on the gay couple helping the man who fell ill at the side-walk, but the preacher and the deacon did not help. In scenario 3 an Iranian family, who are Muslims, helps someone in need. Again, the preacher and the deacon do not help. This brings to my mind the hate speech I hear about gays on some Christian cd's I have heard, and people of other religions in my church. It would be shocking for me to hear this in a church around here, I think.

A gay couple and a family of Muslims as role models in church?! That is quite shocking!
 
I think Jesus' point (in part) is that it is what is inside that matters, not our affiliation on the outside.

It isn't about what church we go to or how holy we appear to be. It's about service to other beings. If we are focused on religion but not practicing service and love for all beings, then we are falsely religious and serving ourselves (using religion to make ourselves feel good and prideful). The person who has God working their lives is sensitive to the needs and problems of others, and serves others diligently, knowing that in doing so, we serve God Itself. "That which you do unto the least of these, you do unto me."

Jesus talked a lot about appearing to be holy but in fact still being self-centered. For example, he explained that if one prayed or fasted, one should not make it apparant to the world and use it for one's pride. Instead, it should be a personal event between God and the individual. Jesus was quite concerned with poor choices in priorities. He made it clear that service to God is accomplished first in love and service to other beings- so these things take precedence over religious rules and divisions.
 
A gay couple and a family of Muslims as role models in church?! That is quite shocking!
No one corners the market on doing the right thing. Nor does anyone corner the market on doing the wrong thing.

I know many a Muslim and homosexual that exhibit higher virtues and values than some who attend church and claim piety. This is not a slight or generalization against anyone, simply a fact.
 
I think Jesus' point (in part) is that it is what is inside that matters, not our affiliation on the outside.

It isn't about what church we go to or how holy we appear to be. It's about service to other beings. If we are focused on religion but not practicing service and love for all beings, then we are falsely religious and serving ourselves (using religion to make ourselves feel good and prideful). The person who has God working their lives is sensitive to the needs and problems of others, and serves others diligently, knowing that in doing so, we serve God Itself. "That which you do unto the least of these, you do unto me."

Jesus talked a lot about appearing to be holy but in fact still being self-centered. For example, he explained that if one prayed or fasted, one should not make it apparant to the world and use it for one's pride. Instead, it should be a personal event between God and the individual. Jesus was quite concerned with poor choices in priorities. He made it clear that service to God is accomplished first in love and service to other beings- so these things take precedence over religious rules and divisions.


bet if JC was here, he would find this post about as pure and any human on earth could convey;

Jesus does not say; 'go ahead and sin, i died so you can have fun'

JC was a good man and the believers of the corrupted religion(s) drag his teachings through the mud; JC was not God and it was men (nicene council) that implemented this fib and the religion(s) so many abuse all because of faith.
 
After reading the link below on the parable of the good samaritan, I was a little shocked by the commentaries, the 3 scenarios, and text, so I wanted to share it.

In this age of philosophical relativism, opinions and interpretations abound. Not that they are wrong, but often miss the essential core of the message, and focus on peripheral matters. Socio-economic and geopolitical interpretations tend to do just that — or rather, the material interpretation has occluded the symbolic and mystical interpretation.

People end up interpreting according to their own context, so the message is one of race, politics, religion, etc., according to one's own predilection.

There is one exegesis of the parable that has been told for centuries, and one that rarely gets mentioned now. The Fathers of the Church were (for the most part) philosophers and mystics ... seeking not what they could read into the text, but what the text is saying to them.

The road from Jerusalem to Jericho is the post-Edenic world (moving away from 'God' and the 'center'); the robbers are demons who strip man of his birthright, the beaten man is humanity, the Samaritan is Jesus ... the inn, the two pennies etc., all have meanings with regard to the Salvific activity of Christ.

Of course, some commentators took things to such extreme that every pebble along the way was loaded with inner significance.

Modern man tends to cast himself in the role of the Samaritan, overlooking the fact that he cannot save himself ... and concentrate on a critique of those who passed by ...

Thomas
 
interesting :)those who are looked down upon , are the ones who do the work, and get things done , and its interesting that it was religious leaders that were used in this illustration.
 
Hi Bishadi —

JC was not God and it was men (nicene council) that implemented this fib and the religion(s) so many abuse all because of faith.

That's a common assumption and an error.

The Council of Nicea was called to respond to Arius who preached that Jesus Christ was not God, something contrary to the widespread belief of the Church at the time — so it was Arius who was implementing an error, his parishioners complained to the Bishop of Alexandria, but Arius refused to be corrected, so the dispute spread.

Nicea simply formed a dogmatic statement based on what everyone commonly and popularly believed — on what had been the orthodox doctrine from the beginning.

Thomas
 
interesting :)those who are looked down upon , are the ones who do the work, and get things done , and its interesting that it was religious leaders that were used in this illustration.

Matt 23:1-12
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
 
Hi Bishadi —

That's a common assumption and an error.

The Council of Nicea was called to respond to Arius who preached that Jesus Christ was not God, something contrary to the widespread belief of the Church at the time — so it was Arius who was implementing an error, his parishioners complained to the Bishop of Alexandria, but Arius refused to be corrected, so the dispute spread.

Nicea simply formed a dogmatic statement based on what everyone commonly and popularly believed — on what had been the orthodox doctrine from the beginning.

Thomas

Seems a little one sided but let;s look at a letter

A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
"Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning." (Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41)
Maybe observe the argument in its context.

And as just the same; if JC himself said he was not 'Good' but only One (God) then from his own (quote), then perhaps take a line of thought towards reality; if Jesus was born on earth in flesh and blood then mortal as each person ever born; the immaculate is the choice of what he shared in knowledge not what people say he is.

Meaning from Moses, to Abraham, Jesus, Darwin and Einstein; each of these men live beyond physical death in the contributions left for us to learn from.

The religious leaders are who created the idea that a man can 'walk on water.'

Myths incorporated into beliefs based only in faith
 
Matt 23:1-12
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

very true, humility works wonders
 
very true, humility works wonders

then be humble enough to read your own posts

as Matt's book states; no one is God only God itself.

Jesus was a teacher; that's it!

Kind of unlikely a Mee me could understand even the words from their own post.
 
Hi Bishadi —

Seems a little one sided but let's look at a letter ...
OK ... but it simply staing what Arius believes ... which I know, and which has been demonstrated to be wrong. Arius just could not accept that he was wrong. You should read Athenasius or Hilary of Poitiers, who outlined the metaphysics of the issue.

A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
Precisely — byt this was not the belief of the Church at large was it, which was my point? Nicea did not invent a doctrine out of the blue, Nicea simply affirmed what the Church believes and had always believed.

Not everything is necessarily dogmatically defined ... there is no dogma of the Resurrection, for example, as it was never seriously disputed in the Church, everyone accepts that Christ was crucified, died, and rose from the dead. Dogmas only occur in the face of error, they are corrective statements to end conflict and confusion.

+++

Arius lists some of the errors imputed to doctrine, but then goes to to state his own belief. In fact Arius' doctrine created a number of problems which he himself could not resolve, because although he was insistent that Christ was not God, he offered no meaningful explanation of who, and what, Christ was. The only option is a demigod, or higher order of angel ... a demiurge ... not divine, not human ... the emergence of a number of possible solutions (semiarianism) points towards the insufficiency of his ideas to clarifiy his point. In short, Arius created more questions than answers, always a sign.

Arius, in his own words, acknowledged that he was soon sidelined in the political wrangling that ensued, especially after Nicea. Eusebius was something of a mover and shaker in political circles, and capitalised on the argument to advance his own position. In the wake of Arius there emerged 'semiarianism' by which his basic thesis was worked and reworked in an attempt to extract an Arian doctrine from the Nicea statement.

But my original point is still valid, and this sets the context ... Nicea said nothing that was not said, whereas Arius introduced something new, and was roundly rejected for so doing.

Christology and the Trinity are profound Mysteries, and not easily comprehended, and wherever man is veiled from the truth then this is one of the errors that will arise. Arianism did not go away, it just takes on different forms, it's alive and well today in JW doctrine, in 'Liberal Christian' doctrines, and in New Age philosophy.

Against this, we have the likes of Athenasius, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers, Maximus the Confessor, Leontius of Byzantium and a cloud of other witnesses that testify to the true, clear and constant teaching of the Church, that Jesus Christ is 'true man and true God', 'one person in two natures', 'without division, separation, confusion or change'. Where Arius could only offer confusion, these, and others, argued with clarity and precision and a luminous insight into both the human and the divine.

if Jesus was born on earth in flesh and blood then mortal as each person ever born; the immaculate is the choice of what he shared in knowledge not what people say he is.
Not in the Christian Tradition ... it is not knowledge which saves, it's being. Judgement is not an intelligence text.

The religious leaders are who created the idea that a man can 'walk on water.'
Ah, the Bultmann position! Actually, if you get up to date with Scripture ccholarship, you'll see that Bultmann is no longer tenable (Benoit, and others). You may choose to stand by it, but there is significant argument and evidence that points to the contrary — so it's a matter of faith.

Thomas
 
Hi Bishadi —

if Jesus was born on earth in flesh and blood then mortal as each person ever born

Just to clarify — Arius would not agree with your statement, in case some might be confused ... Arius thought Jesus was not divine, but not that He was 'simply' a man, either. All that Nicea sought to affirm was that God the Father and God the Son were of the same essential nature, consubstantial, in fact.

Arius' heresy is actually that of monarchianism, the insistence that only God the Father is God, and that the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are not of the same order. This was because he could not see beyond ditheism.

Over time, in coming to comprehend the Mystery, theologians would work out the language in terms of perichoresis (Gk) or circumincession (Lt) — the mutual indwelling on each Person in the Other, and the Three Persons in One.

As I have pointed out before, without this as a principle in the Divine Nature, then any possibility of Divine Union between man and God is ruled out.

Arius saw Jesus as some order of intermediate being (who took on flesh) who was in fact the creator and intermediary between God and the world. Arius could not conceive how the Absolute could create anything that was relative and contingent, and certainly could not enter into the material realm. He was simply too wedded to an Hellenic mode of thought to appreciate the depths of Hebraic insight.

Thomas
 
In short, Arius created more questions than answers, always a sign.
Of using common sense.

The Council of Nicea was called to respond to Arius who preached that Jesus Christ was not God
He wasn’t.

Arius saw Jesus as some order of intermediate being (who took on flesh)
as any man who walked on this earth was of flesh and blood, all other renditions are matters of faith, not reality.


witnesses that testify to the true, clear and constant teaching of the Church, that Jesus Christ is 'true man and true God', 'one person in two natures', 'without division, separation, confusion or change'.
All of faith…. Nothing pure


as each of these ideas are ‘created’ by men…. Not true by God.

You may choose to stand by it, but there is significant argument and evidence that points to the contrary — so it's a matter of faith

And faith does not answer questions but creates more “a sign”


Originally Posted by Bishadi
if Jesus was born on earth in flesh and blood then mortal as each person ever born; the immaculate is the choice of what he shared in knowledge not what people say he is

then you said

Not in the Christian Tradition ... it is not knowledge which saves, it's being. Judgement is not an intelligence text
Then what was the bible written for?

Thomas, the intelligence of your writing is observed but it is only of integrity that removes any position of faith. Faith is of acceptance, not reality or the pursuit of truth.

Until the knowledge is equal to all mankind; then start over.

Half of the terms you used above most people never even see; equality is lost.

When knowledge is pure to each and every person, then it is true to existence.

Where divisions occur is when the honesty of facts are reduced by beliefs.

Or simply when the ignorance of knowledge is complacent to a belief rather than observing reality in fact.

Have you ever seen a god and man as one person? NO? OK then that idea is removed from the conversation. Have you ever seen a man rise from the dead? NO? OK that is another one OUT. If what Jesus taught was Good, then do we see him alive in what he taught? Well Yes! Then see how ‘works’ continue life.

How can that work? Well words transcend time. So the concept felt, then, can be felt… later in time, such the same as prophecies were written then; the future is being affected now by what was written then; hence your beliefs Thomas.


and in all the religions do each suggest a day would come when someone will combine all of mankind?

and how?

By knowledge.

The revealing.

and how was it derived?

by UNDERSTANDING ............ life.....

not here to play Thomas but enjoy the intellect and knowledge; just need to work on pure honesty and no 'false witnessing'

no man ever to walk on this earth meets the definitions of being the one God..... ever!

This is pure truth each may wish to come to gribs with otherwise you may be judged and commit much offense to existence basically for being selfish (retaining belief for your own versus anything good for GOD (existence))

or clearly said; to make a fib based on your belief is an atrocity to God.

Best make real certain before opening the key pad to selfish impositions to existence (God).
 
bishadi said:
Quote:
A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
"Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning." (Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41)

Maybe observe the argument in its context.

I do have a little interest in the subject, even though I feel it is a bit antagonistic to thumb noses at Christians on the Christianity board. Such direct assault is hardly conducive to interfaith dialogue.

I attempted to take your advice, and look at the source material you referenced. Funny, but both links you provided are to irrelevent material. :confused:
 
I do have a little interest in the subject, even though I feel it is a bit antagonistic to thumb noses at Christians on the Christianity board. Such direct assault is hardly conducive to interfaith dialogue.

I attempted to take your advice, and look at the source material you referenced. Funny, but both links you provided are to irrelevent material. :confused:

it was not I who brought in Arius.....

the information was that Thomas suggest the Nicene council was about Arius' interpretation .... to me it was the religious leaders of the time were in contest with each other about who was correct and the gathering made Jesus a God....

that is where this 'i' was and the reference to Arian was; nice to see folk questioning religious belief

them link are from wiki.. not me

most of the material work that shares real contest of faith will have a bit more currect 'evidence'

arXiv.org Search
 
Hi Bishadi —

as any man who walked on this earth was of flesh and blood, all other renditions are matters of faith, not reality.
In your opinion.

Then what was the bible written for?
"This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." John 21:24-25

That people might believe.

Or simply when the ignorance of knowledge is complacent to a belief rather than observing reality in fact.
Bishadi — that's such a nonsense! Implicit throughout is the assumption of your own infallibility.

Have you ever seen a god and man as one person?
Actually, yes ... sorry to scuttle your argument, but there you go.

Thomas
 
Back
Top