Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

  1. #31

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    I pretty much agree, JJ... "[and of the household of God] having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets [that is, the NT apostles and prophets], Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone" - Eph2:20blb

    http://biblehub.com/text/ephesians/2-20.htm

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    8,922

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yonathan View Post
    1: I see a lot of "turning the other cheek" in European countries right now, and it's not pretty. Rape everywhere, mosques taking the place of churches, it's awful. Christians have been turning the other cheek in the media, and the media just attacks us more What did Jesus really mean?
    What Jesus meant was that we should not give up acting like God when people sin against us. Sometimes God acts aggressively against sin, and so should we. But retaliation has to be godly. That's the point. In a small exchange of hostilities, the Christian is obligated to act "under control," and not inflame the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yonathan
    2: What was Jesus quoting in 5:31 and 5:33? If it was the Law, then what about what He said in 5:17? The above two about lust and murder only strengthen those bits of the Law, but these two seem to do away with portions of it.

    Deut 24.1.
    Matt 5.17 “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 tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."


    The Law, in everything it means, is intended to last forever. Some elements within it come to an end because they are fulfilled. For example, laws governing human behavior, of the kind that makes us act like God, will last forever, as long as Man exists. Other laws, such as redemption laws, regulated by temple, priest, and sacrifice, were destined for fulfillment at the Cross, and are terminated there.

    The point is, Christ was the one to fulfil and to sanction the laws. Man is to act like God forever. Ceremonies that prefigured the work of Christ were to be terminated when Christ fulfilled what those ceremonies represented.


    Divorces and oaths were still being governed by the Law of Moses when Jesus said these things. Therefore, they were still binding, and Jesus had not fulfilled the ceremonies of the Law which prefigured him. Marriage and infidelity are things that exist only in the present age for Man. But they are now governed, in the NT age, by the Law of Christ. This means that moral law is no longer regulated by temple, priest, or sacrifice. It is regulated by Christ alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yonathan
    3: Aren't Sweden and Canada loving their (muslim) enemies? Just look at how much the muslims are destroying them! Surely Jesus didn't mean that?
    Jesus stood by the principles of the Law of Moses. They prescribed, for a nation, fidelity to one God, and the abolition of all false religion. Theocracies are not the order of the day, but Christians can still, on their own, oppose Islam, politically and religiously. They do not have to treat Muslims in an evil way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yonathan
    4: 6:34 seems to be short-sighted. Even the Temple of God was planned for by David, and he didn't even build it. Things work when you plan them, and they don't if you don't plan them. What did Jesus really mean?
    Don't understand the question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yonathan
    5: Why wasn't it that right there in 7:7 that He didn't include the qualifier of James 4:3, that it has to be asked according to God's will? Why did He make His followers wait until James wrote his letter?
    Jesus expected his disciples, who were Jews, to know the Law, along with the general context of his statement. Since the Law was administered by God to Israel, He expected Israel to know He was their God and should factor into every one of their requests.

    So the issue for Jesus was, Can you reliably call upon God in matters of divine justice? And the answer is, Yes.

    I would never make asking God things a formula for getting your prayers answered a certain way. Ask, and trust God to answer in His own way. Sometimes we can be led, however, to pray in a certain way, and do get the thing we asked for.

  3. #33

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChangedByHim View Post
    You failed to address the text. And unfortunately you have no scriptural basis for your cessation doctrine.
    Did you read and pay attention to my first reply? Do you know anything about the Didache? You did an awesome job of supporting your presumption with two one liners that apostles existed after the church was established. Did you notice???? For someone to be an apostle they had to either witness the ascension or have seen and been hand picked by Jesus?

    After the Apocalypse of John, the purpose of prophets was to assist the local congregation find it's direction in its infancy. Once the foundation was laid and church established, they fizzled out and became obsolete. Too many Christians associate prophets with predicting the future. But after John's Apocalypse there's no longer a need for 'prophecies.' All of them have been given and to prophesy is all different.

    And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

    Ephesians 4:12
    For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

    I typically try to keep my replies short, and one liners just don't do it. But it looks like you need a little extra assistance. However, like most Christians, I doubt you'll agree or change your mind.

    In the NT church prophets went from church to church 'telling forth' God's Will for the establishment of the church. They were 'wandering prophets' as they really had no place to live, were only meant to stay for no more than a few days, had no family and were not allowed to receive any money. The position was often abused as they often extended their stay and accepted money and lived large at the expense of the congregation.

    Apostles were at the top of the church hierarchy and prophets were second. Prophets and apostles were 'appointed' positions in the emerging church.

    Luke 16:15-16 And he said unto them, ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

    Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

    Ephesians 3:5 says, "the mystery concerning the church has been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets through the Holy Spirit".... which indicates that these roles were fulfilled in the first century, and do not continue today.

    Ephesians 2:19-20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

    Ephesians 3:5-6 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

    The prophets of the OT often prophesied concerning Israel and Christ first and second coming often while exiled. God used Israel to bring about the Messiah to save the world and that's God's message to the world. No more prophets are needed to proclaim it. That's the mission of the church. However! Now that we have the fullness of God's Spirit some can 'prophesy.' Before the church was established spiritual gifts were administered only to certain individuals hand picked by God. As the Spiritual gifts emerged into the general population of the church, the apostles eventually died off and were no longer needed.

    Ephesians 4 gives us details about the organization and offices of the early church. Some apostles and prophets stayed in their local church, and some positions were a ministry of going from church to church and went wherever the Spirit led them.

    To be an apostle there were two qualifications. An apostle must have seen Jesus and witnessed him after his resurrection or the ascension and they included more than the twelve. The prophets had a dangerous job and were usually the first to be persecuted. As the church grew and developed they eventually had their own deacons and ministers etc. to run the local church. After the church was well established the 'wandering prophets' became more of a disturbance than a help. The church eventually viewed them as an intrusion and the office of prophet just faded out.

    Most Christian's I know do agree that there are no more apostles or prophets. All the prophecies about Christ second coming have been made. The church is established and the Word is written. And I don't know anybody who upholds the qualifications of a prophet or apostle anymore. There's no longer any use for them since all the prophecies have been given and we have the written Word. Now we have the gift of prophecy which is different than being a prophet. Today we are disciples and are able to prophesy. That doesn't make us an apostle or a prophet!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    I'm not really sure what apostolic and prophetic ministry have to do with the topic of this thread. If you want to start a thread on the topic, I'd be happy to contribute as time permits . God bless.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,346
    Blog Entries
    21

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremiah James View Post
    Apostles and prophets were for the emerging church and once it was established they pretty much became obsolete. They were office holders in the early church. Today we have disciples and are able to prophesy.

    The are no more apostles or prophets. When most people think of prophets they associate them with the major and minor prophets of the Old Testament, Jesus, his apostles, and John the Revelator of the New Testament. People view prophets with predicting the future because that's mostly what we read in the bible. In the Old Testament they 'spoke forth' God's will for Israel and His people. In the NT they spoke forth God's will for the early church.

    The Didache (Di-dah-kee) is the authority on the office of the NT prophets. In the NT church, prophets went from church to church 'telling forth' God's Will for the establishment of it. They were 'wandering prophets' as they really had no place to live. They were only meant to stay for no more than a few days, had no family, had no place to live, and were not allowed to receive any money. The position was often abused as they often extended their stay and accepted money and lived large at the expense of the congregation.

    The NT prophets became 'obsolete' in the sense that after the church was established and the foundation was laid they were no longer necessary. Today we are disciples, have deacons, and are able to prophesy, but that in no way makes us prophets or apostles.

    Anybody who say's they're a prophet today is a false one.
    When a prophet claims to be able to make predictions and declare blessing and cursing on a church, it is almost surely they are a false, but that is not the hallmark of prophecy, that is merely the best method for identifying false prophets.

    A prophetic ministry is one that is commissioned by God to inform the people of their sin, warn the people of the consequences, and redirect people into a renewed covenant relationship with God.

    We can speak for God today, prophesying on behalf of Christ, one to another. Our prophecy is limited in that it is not direct fresh revelation in most cases, it is tempered by collective spirit of prophecy given to the church. (1 Corinthians 14:32). For example, the elders of the church could warn you of bad behavior for say, drunkenness, the prophetic element of this warning is what kind of consequence are they suggesting. The seriousness of the immediate or long term spiritual consequence is up for debate, this is the part "subject to the prophets" issue. If the elders reach a consensus on the problem you have, you have a serious issue, you could be "excomunicated" or some such church discipline could befall you.

    We no longer prophesy with the authority of, say, Samuel, or Elijah, because God has handed the nations over to their own plans. His church is not of this world, whereas Israel was a nation called to be Holy, and had to meet certain objectives. We have no material objectives that must be met. Our objectives are strictly spiritual, therefore there are no material predictions that must be made. We
    As the "thief" in the night, Christ is going to suddenly appear on the throne of Israel - not the antichrist.

  6. #36

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yonathan View Post
    1: I see a lot of "turning the other cheek" in European countries right now, and it's not pretty. Rape everywhere, mosques taking the place of churches, it's awful. Christians have been turning the other cheek in the media, and the media just attacks us more What did Jesus really mean?

    2: What was Jesus quoting in 5:31 and 5:33? If it was the Law, then what about what He said in 5:17? The above two about lust and murder only strengthen those bits of the Law, but these two seem to do away with portions of it.

    3: Aren't Sweden and Canada loving their (muslim) enemies? Just look at how much the muslims are destroying them! Surely Jesus didn't mean that?

    4: 6:34 seems to be short-sighted. Even the Temple of God was planned for by David, and he didn't even build it. Things work when you plan them, and they don't if you don't plan them. What did Jesus really mean?

    5: Why wasn't it that right there in 7:7 that He didn't include the qualifier of James 4:3, that it has to be asked according to God's will? Why did He make His followers wait until James wrote his letter?
    Jesus says if you put His words into practise, you build on the rock.
    Any other building shall fall. I say let us keep following Jesus!

  7. #37

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by keck553 View Post
    You seem to be fixated on something I not sure which. Are you fixated on the lethal tool itself or the destruction of "bad guys?"

    Because God is fixated on saving lives - even the "bad guys." And His Sword cuts much deeper than your steel man made implement.
    I like the way you put this.

    My conclusion so far is; some are not interpreting the Sermon on the Mount correctly.

    As difficult as it may seem, we need to obey Jesus' every word

  8. #38

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    I think the NUMBER 1 factor in interpreting the Sermon on the Mount correctly in to know that the New covenant is so very different to the Old.

    The majority of so called followers of Christ are not following Him as they say they are, as they love not, nor do they turn not the other cheek.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    31,539
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by lovegospel View Post
    I like the way you put this.

    My conclusion so far is; some are not interpreting the Sermon on the Mount correctly.

    As difficult as it may seem, we need to obey Jesus' every word
    The context I wrote that is was intent, not actions. Jesus was not a wuss in His incarnation.

    "I am ECHAD (ONE) with the Father." - Jesus. NOTHING has changed in context of God's character or morality. Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount to OLD COVENANT believers. Some of it was preached a generation before Jesus was born.

    Not one word that came from Jesus' mouth supports modern new age pacifism. He is ONE with the Father, and does not deviate one iota from the Father's character or will. If you know Jesus, you know the Father.
    Those who seek God with all their heart will find Him and be given sight. Those who seek their own agenda will remain blind.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    31,539
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by lovegospel View Post
    I think the NUMBER 1 factor in interpreting the Sermon on the Mount correctly in to know that the New covenant is so very different to the Old.

    The majority of so called followers of Christ are not following Him as they say they are, as they love not, nor do they turn not the other cheek.
    Our righteousness is in Christ, not in ourselves. Not one Christian has conformed to His image instantaneously. Why not allow God do His work in His time through His way in His people, instead of trying to impress your interpretation into His people?

    Let God be God. Keep your eye on Jesus, not His people, lest the log in your eye cloud your vision.

    Those who seek God with all their heart will find Him and be given sight. Those who seek their own agenda will remain blind.

  11. #41

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by keck553 View Post
    The context I wrote that is was intent, not actions. Jesus was not a wuss in His incarnation.

    "I am ECHAD (ONE) with the Father." - Jesus. NOTHING has changed in context of God's character or morality. Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount to OLD COVENANT believers. Some of it was preached a generation before Jesus was born.
    Thanks Keck, are you saying we need not follow the teachings in the sermon on the mount?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,465

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by lovegospel View Post
    I think the NUMBER 1 factor in interpreting the Sermon on the Mount correctly in to know that the New covenant is so very different to the Old.

    The majority of so called followers of Christ are not following Him as they say they are, as they love not, nor do they turn not the other cheek.
    The Sermon on the Mount was Old Covenant. Behavior in the two Covenants are identical. The Law of Christ to love God and neighbor is The Law. There is no difference.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    31,539
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by lovegospel View Post
    Thanks Keck, are you saying we need not follow the teachings in the sermon on the mount?
    I disagree with any works based justification
    Those who seek God with all their heart will find Him and be given sight. Those who seek their own agenda will remain blind.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kent, England
    Posts
    5,325

    Re: Are we interpreting the Sermon on the Mount incorrectly?

    It seems to me that too many Christians use the 'turn the other cheek' quote as an excuse for laziness or turning away from what the Lord is asking them to do, or fear of repercussions if they obey Him. It’s amazing how many "high profile Christians" who were apparently on fire for the Lord before accepting high office who then rapidly lost all semblance of the Fire of the Holy Spirit . . .

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The end to the "Sermon on the Mount"
    By salesman in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Sep 11th 2012, 09:14 AM
  2. Replies: 65
    Last Post: Sep 15th 2011, 04:47 AM
  3. Sermon on the Mount - Intro
    By SeattleSun in forum Bible studies - archive
    Replies: 308
    Last Post: Nov 5th 2009, 01:47 AM
  4. Discussion Sermon on the Mount...
    By timmyb in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 19th 2008, 09:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •