The Sermon on the Mount

tosca1 said:

"Q," which means "source," is a hypothetical document. It's nothing more but to describe the verses shared by Luke and Matthew (but Mark does not).

Luke's introduction of his Gospel indicated that there were numerous other accounts being written by other eye-witnesses, so I don't see the point why we pay too much attention on this "Q"......which by the way is brought up by mostly skeptics (like Hitchens) whose purpose is to try to discredit the Bible.


Luke 1
Introduction
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught


The important question is.....Does Q affect the Scriptures in the sense that it takes away from the inspiration of the Scriptures? NO.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard Hitchen refer to "Q," but I doubt Hitchens would have known enough about bible scholarship to talk seriously about Q. The only reason I'm paying attention to it is that some fundementalists on the forum are desperate to discredit the theory no matter what, not only that, but just deny the Whole existence of the synoptic problem.

"Q" is used by skeptics, AND believing scholars alike.

And you're right, Q doesn't affect the scriptures being inspired, I believe in Q theory and believe that the scriptures are fully inspired.

AlbqOwl said:

I have been accused of many things over a lifetime, but I don't believe anybody ever accused me of thinking in strictly secular terms. That's a new one I'll have to add to my resume. I know you mean well and might even be able to explain your rationale. But I know God knows everything I think or do or feel and I have to believe he doesn't want us to give to charity to impress Him, but rather as an act of love.

So in the "Sermon" he said:



Yet in the story of the Widow's mite, she gave her alms publicly and was blessed. And in the story of the good Samaritan, he could not have done his work of charity in secret, and he was praised.

My point is that we should not be legalistic about such things. If Jesus taught us anything at all, it was that God doesn't work in a one-size-fits-all manner.

Click to expand...

There is a 2000 year tradition of interpretation of the scriptures. What they mean has been worked out by generations of thoughtful and holy men and women, and a quick, literal reading often gives the wrong impression.

Intent appears to be the main thing. What is intended by giving alms? If by doing so loudly it becomes mainly self glorification then do so quietly. But if the intent is truly to glorify God when one lets his or her "light shine" then that's an act of piety that ought to be done. And God, being all knowing, knows what's in a person's heart when these things are done.

The contrast I originally sought to make that never came off was that between Christian charity and state welfare. Some people try to equate the latter with the former, but I don't think that's appropriate. State welfare is done for many reasons, and some people support it because they are Christians who, out of Christian love, want to see their fellow citizens getting the basic things they need, but overall it's a secular enterprise done for secular reasons. There's very little glory for God in it, and some citizens despise the idea that anything the state does would glorify God. The eyeball on top of the pyramid on the dollar bill recalls a time when Americans regarded the whole national enterprise as being blessed by God and righteous before God. And now here we are, with our situation such as it is.

RGacky3 said:

Fair enough although it's generally believed that both Matthew and Luke were written after 70 CE. I don't think it's suprising at all that Q stoped being circulated and wasn't commented on, since there would have been no need for it to be circulated after Matthew and Luke were written, however at least you're ACTUALLY dealing With the synoptic problem, rather than just pretending it doesn't exist.

Q btw, could also be an oral tradition.

Click to expand...

I am pretty much with the large minority view that Matthew predates 70 a.d. The reason is, that Matthew seems to support the general consensus of the folks at that time, such as is reflected in Paul's earliest letters, that Jesus return would be within that generation. By 70 A.D., that consensus was changing as the folks realized they were likely going to have to dig in for a longer period. Luke is much less supportive of an early return doctrine, so I do think that gospel was written after 70 a.d. and John was the last gospel written well after the worst of the Roman persecutions had begun.

And yes, "Q" could have been oral tradition but then it wouldn't be a manuscript that both Matthew and Luke copied verbatim would it. So nobody knows for sure, but I'm pretty sure both Matthew and Luke had access to Mark's manuscript and utilized most of it in their own. And I'm going to make an educated guess that Luke had access to at least some of Matthew's manuscript and utilized some of that. We do research pretty much the same way to this day, utilizing the work others have done and expanding on it.

This is why I think the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is probably a 'staged' event by Matthew and consists of a number of sayings of Jesus collected over the course of Jesus' ministry, and edited together as a unified teaching. If it was given as a single teaching as presented in Matthew, I would expect Luke to have included it whole cloth in that setting as presented in Matthew. He didn't.

LowDown said:

There is a 2000 year tradition of interpretation of the scriptures. What they mean has been worked out by generations of thoughtful and holy men and women, and a quick, literal reading often gives the wrong impression.

Intent appears to be the main thing. What is intended by giving alms? If by doing so loudly it becomes mainly self glorification then do so quietly. But if the intent is truly to glorify God when one lets his or her "light shine" then that's an act of piety that ought to be done. And God, being all knowing, knows what's in a person's heart when these things are done.

The contrast I originally sought to make that never came off was that between Christian charity and state welfare. Some people try to equate the latter with the former, but I don't think that's appropriate. State welfare is done for many reasons, and some people support it because they are Christians who, out of Christian love, want to see their fellow citizens getting the basic things they need, but overall it's a secular enterprise done for secular reasons. There's very little glory for God in it, and some citizens despise the idea that anything the state does would glorify God. The eyeball on top of the pyramid on the dollar bill recalls a time when Americans regarded the whole national enterprise as being blessed by God and righteous before God. And now here we are, with our situation such as it is.

Click to expand...

I simply think Christian charity and state welfare are two different subjects. There is nothing - zero - nada - zilch - in teachings attributed to Jesus that even hint that giving away somebody else's money or property is a charitable act. Or for that matter that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of the poor, however the poor are defined. And in every single circumstance that he described charity or generosity, it was the voluntary act of an individual and came from that individual's heart.

Just as he had harsh words for those who accused others while they overlooked their own sins, I think he would have had harsh words for those who feel righteous when the state takes property from one group and gives it to others while they demonstrate no compassion or responsibility for others themselves.

Hadn't quite made it yet, but a picture of the northern part of the Sea of Galilee. To the top of the picture is the Mount of Beatitudes. Just below to the right, is the ruins of Magdala, the village of Mary of the same name. I took this picture last year after climbing the Cliffs of Arbel, which Jesus would have done, if I traced his route in the New Testament correctly. Son of God or not, he would have been a hearty soul to make that in linen and sandals.

AlbqOwl said:

I am pretty much with the large minority view that Matthew predates 70 a.d. The reason is, that Matthew seems to support the general consensus of the folks at that time, such as is reflected in Paul's earliest letters, that Jesus return would be within that generation. By 70 A.D., that consensus was changing as the folks realized they were likely going to have to dig in for a longer period. Luke is much less supportive of an early return doctrine, so I do think that gospel was written after 70 a.d. and John was the last gospel written well after the worst of the Roman persecutions had begun.

And yes, "Q" could have been oral tradition but then it wouldn't be a manuscript that both Matthew and Luke copied verbatim would it. So nobody knows for sure, but I'm pretty sure both Matthew and Luke had access to Mark's manuscript and utilized most of it in their own. And I'm going to make an educated guess that Luke had access to at least some of Matthew's manuscript and utilized some of that. We do research pretty much the same way to this day, utilizing the work others have done and expanding on it.

This is why I think the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is probably a 'staged' event by Matthew and consists of a number of sayings of Jesus collected over the course of Jesus' ministry, and edited together as a unified teaching. If it was given as a single teaching as presented in Matthew, I would expect Luke to have included it whole cloth in that setting as presented in Matthew. He didn't.

Click to expand...

That makes sense, I've heard the opinion that Matthew copied Mark, and Luke copied matthew, Having a pre 70 AD Matthew would have to push back Mark would'nt it? I've alwasy understood mark to have been written around 65-70 CE, so matthew being pre-70 would require Mark to have circulated a bit first right?

AlbqOwl said:

I simply think Christian charity and state welfare are two different subjects. There is nothing - zero - nada - zilch - in teachings attributed to Jesus that even hint that giving away somebody else's money or property is a charitable act. Or for that matter that it is the responsibility of the government to take care of the poor, however the poor are defined. And in every single circumstance that he described charity or generosity, it was the voluntary act of an individual and came from that individual's heart.

Just as he had harsh words for those who accused others while they overlooked their own sins, I think he would have had harsh words for those who feel righteous when the state takes property from one group and gives it to others while they demonstrate no compassion or responsibility for others themselves.

Click to expand...

I think this is just a missreading, you have to understand the Jewish concepts of Justice "misphat at tzedakah" concepts which Jesus constantly pushed, these concepts are Social Justice concepts, as used in the OT, distributive justice, charity in the sense of philantropy wasn't a big deal, in Acts the system set up was a communal one, he even upheld the Law against usury.

If you think Jesus would have a problem With social justice politics, then he'd have a problem With the mosaic Law which his father set up ... which in the ancient world was probably THE most social justice orientated Law code.

LowDown said:

There is a 2000 year tradition of interpretation of the scriptures. What they mean has been worked out by generations of thoughtful and holy men and women, and a quick, literal reading often gives the wrong impression.

Intent appears to be the main thing. What is intended by giving alms? If by doing so loudly it becomes mainly self glorification then do so quietly. But if the intent is truly to glorify God when one lets his or her "light shine" then that's an act of piety that ought to be done. And God, being all knowing, knows what's in a person's heart when these things are done.

The contrast I originally sought to make that never came off was that between Christian charity and state welfare. Some people try to equate the latter with the former, but I don't think that's appropriate. State welfare is done for many reasons, and some people support it because they are Christians who, out of Christian love, want to see their fellow citizens getting the basic things they need, but overall it's a secular enterprise done for secular reasons. There's very little glory for God in it, and some citizens despise the idea that anything the state does would glorify God. The eyeball on top of the pyramid on the dollar bill recalls a time when Americans regarded the whole national enterprise as being blessed by God and righteous before God. And now here we are, with our situation such as it is.

Click to expand...

Alms has always been much much less important than justice in the bible.

RGacky3 said:

That makes sense, I've heard the opinion that Matthew copied Mark, and Luke copied matthew, Having a pre 70 AD Matthew would have to push back Mark would'nt it? I've alwasy understood mark to have been written around 65-70 CE, so matthew being pre-70 would require Mark to have circulated a bit first right?

Click to expand...

All theologians date Mark as the oldest of the Gospels. And just as I subscribe to the school the places Matthew pre 70 a.d., the same group puts Mark closer to mid century.

RGacky3 said:

I think this is just a missreading, you have to understand the Jewish concepts of Justice "misphat at tzedakah" concepts which Jesus constantly pushed, these concepts are Social Justice concepts, as used in the OT, distributive justice, charity in the sense of philantropy wasn't a big deal, in Acts the system set up was a communal one, he even upheld the Law against usury.

If you think Jesus would have a problem With social justice politics, then he'd have a problem With the mosaic Law which his father set up ... which in the ancient world was probably THE most social justice orientated Law code.

Click to expand...

The Mosaic law was for the people who became the Jews only. It was not intended to apply to any others. But even among the prophets who pushed social justice--Amos is the most popular one to study on that theme--they did not expect the government to do charitable work or correct injustices. That was laid squarely at the feet of the people themselves. And the communal groups of Acts did not ask for formal pledges or assign taxes or requirements. Even there it was purely voluntary.

AlbqOwl said:

The Mosaic law was for the people who became the Jews only. It was not intended to apply to any others. But even among the prophets who pushed social justice--Amos is the most popular one to study on that theme--they did not expect the government to do charitable work or correct injustices. That was laid squarely at the feet of the people themselves.

Click to expand...

That isn't true, they condemend the rulers who abandoned social justice ... they condemend nations, societies who abandoned social justice. The Mosaic Law was only for the Jews, you're right, but the principles remain, along With the social justice aspects, which Jesus supported, AND the apostles supported. (acts and james).

RGacky3 said:

I haven't heard Hitchen refer to "Q," but I doubt Hitchens would have known enough about bible scholarship to talk seriously about Q. The only reason I'm paying attention to it is that some fundementalists on the forum are desperate to discredit the theory no matter what, not only that, but just deny the Whole existence of the synoptic problem.

"Q" is used by skeptics, AND believing scholars alike.

And you're right, Q doesn't affect the scriptures being inspired, I believe in Q theory and believe that the scriptures are fully inspired.

Click to expand...

According to an article online responding to Hitchen's book, God Is Not Great, Hitchen brought up Q in that book.


Hitchens writes:

The book on which all four [New Testament Gospels] may possibly have been based, known speculatively to scholars as “Q,” has been lost forever, which seems distinctly careless on the part of the god who is claimed to have “inspired” it. (112)
Read more: Mark D. Roberts: Thoughtfully Christian Reflections on Jesus, the Church, and the World - Mark D. Roberts

tosca1 said:

According to an article online responding to Hitchen's book, God Is Not Great, Hitchen brought up Q in that book.


Hitchens writes:

The book on which all four [New Testament Gospels] may possibly have been based, known speculatively to scholars as “Q,” has been lost forever, which seems distinctly careless on the part of the god who is claimed to have “inspired” it. (112)
Read more: Mark D. Roberts: Thoughtfully Christian Reflections on Jesus, the Church, and the World - Mark D. Roberts

Click to expand...

fair enough, but Hitchens doesn't hold any water when talking on biblical scholarship or theology With me .... the synoptic problem is a problem whether or not you believe in Q theory, but it doesn't in anyway hurt inspiration.

RGacky3 said:

I think this is just a missreading, you have to understand the Jewish concepts of Justice "misphat at tzedakah" concepts which Jesus constantly pushed, these concepts are Social Justice concepts, as used in the OT, distributive justice, charity in the sense of philantropy wasn't a big deal, in Acts the system set up was a communal one, he even upheld the Law against usury.

If you think Jesus would have a problem With social justice politics, then he'd have a problem With the mosaic Law which his father set up ... which in the ancient world was probably THE most social justice orientated Law code.

Click to expand...

What are you suggesting Misphat at tzedakah means

Sababa said:

What are you suggesting Misphat at tzedakah means

Click to expand...

Misphat is "justice" which in the OT is used as essencially "social justice" (justice for the poor and so on) and tzedakah is righteousness, which is more individual charitability, (obligatory).

Justice

RGacky3 said:

Misphat is "justice" which in the OT is used as essencially "social justice" (justice for the poor and so on) and tzedakah is righteousness, which is more individual charitability, (obligatory).

Justice

Click to expand...

I see your problem....you are using a Christian website to define Jewish concepts.

1. Misphat....that really isn't the word you are looking for in this context. The word is Mishpat....or Mishpatim. They are laws of the Torah that have a logical basis for society building. (Rules about slaves, relationships etc) as opposed to Chukim which seem to be less logically derived.

2. The word for justice in Hebrew is Tzedeck...where Tzedakah comes from. Tzedakah is righteous giving and not charity but more a tax. Tzedeck is justice and righteousness.

3. Social justice is part of the overall mitzvot or commandments in the Torah but mishpatim is not exclusively social justice. The development of understanding of social justice as we think about it today comes from the Rabbinic period as the rabbis develop religious understanding of putting the Torah into action in a post Temple world. The concept of Tikkun Olam drive social justice even today.

Sababa said:

I see your problem....you are using a Christian website to define Jewish concepts.

1. Misphat....that really isn't the word you are looking for in this context. The word is Mishpat....or Mishpatim. They are laws of the Torah that have a logical basis for society building. (Rules about slaves, relationships etc) as opposed to Chukim which seem to be less logically derived.

2. The word for justice in Hebrew is Tzedeck...where Tzedakah comes from. Tzedakah is righteous giving and not charity but more a tax. Tzedeck is justice and righteousness.

3. Social justice is part of the overall mitzvot or commandments in the Torah but mishpatim is not exclusively social justice. The development of understanding of social justice as we think about it today comes from the Rabbinic period as the rabbis develop religious understanding of putting the Torah into action in a post Temple world. The concept of Tikkun Olam drive social justice even today.

Click to expand...

Oh of coarse Misphatim isn't exlusively about social justice, but it's a big part of it. The social justice aspect of Misphat was not just the torah, it was Applied to the nations as well.

About Tzedakah, that's why I used "obligatory charity" because it's more like a tax as you say.

But the principles of social justice in those concepts apply to christians as well.

rhinefire said:

How did the people at the back of the crowd hear him?

Click to expand...

Orators prior to microphones etc. used their voices. Benjamin Franklin used to wander the streets of Philadelphia measuring how far Evangelist George Whitefields' voice could travel, and estimated that he could speak to 30,000 people at one time. I'm willing to bet that someone who could calm the seas with his voice could probably also speak loudly when He wanted to.

tosca1 said:

According to an article online responding to Hitchen's book, God Is Not Great, Hitchen brought up Q in that book.


Hitchens writes:

The book on which all four [New Testament Gospels] may possibly have been based, known speculatively to scholars as “Q,” has been lost forever, which seems distinctly careless on the part of the god who is claimed to have “inspired” it. (112)
Read more: Mark D. Roberts: Thoughtfully Christian Reflections on Jesus, the Church, and the World - Mark D. Roberts

Click to expand...

So, then, Gacky is correct, and Hitchens will refer to Q, but doesn't seem to know enough to talk seriously about it.

RGacky3 said:

That isn't true, they condemend the rulers who abandoned social justice ... they condemend nations, societies who abandoned social justice. The Mosaic Law was only for the Jews, you're right, but the principles remain, along With the social justice aspects, which Jesus supported, AND the apostles supported. (acts and james).

Click to expand...

Well we'll have to agree to disagree a bit on that one I think. The OT scriptures were written as principles for the people who became the Jews to live by; the New Testament as principles for those who became Christians to live by. There was the expectation that the Lord would use both as a 'light to the nations' which I interpret to mean that the chosen people will be used by God as a blessing to the world.

In fact the Sermon on Mount especially focuses on the principles we are to live by.

Some favorite passages re social justice:

Leviticus 19:15
'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Deuteronomy 16:20
Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Deuteronomy 27:19
"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"

Job 37:23
The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.

Psalm 33:5
The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.

Psalm 106:3
Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right.

Psalm 140:12
I know that the LORD secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy.

Proverbs 28:5
Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully.

Proverbs 29:7
The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.

Isaiah 1:17
Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.

Isaiah 10:1-2
Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless.

Isaiah 30:18
Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!

Isaiah 51:4-5
"Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: The law will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations. My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm will bring justice to the nations. The islands will look to me and wait in hope for my arm.

Isaiah 61:8
"For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery and iniquity. In my faithfulness I will reward them and make an everlasting covenant with them.

Ezekiel 34:15-16
I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD. I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Zechariah 7:9
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.

Matthew 12:18
Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.

Matthew 23:23
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Luke 11:42
"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone."

Acts 17:30-32
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

AlbqOwl said:

Well we'll have to agree to disagree a bit on that one I think. The OT scriptures were written as principles for the people who became the Jews to live by; the New Testament as principles for those who became Christians to live by. There was the expectation that the Lord would use both as a 'light to the nations' which I interpret to mean that the chosen people will be used by God as a blessing to the world.

Click to expand...

I love all those scriptures you posted.

I would argue that the principles (not the actual laws, but the spirit of the laws and the pronouncements and so on) still apply for christians ... so for example, the prophets denunciations are something christians should watch for, since they tell us what pleases and does not please God, Laws such as the gleaning law tell us how societies should structure their priorities and so on. The principles of the proverbs and the writings are still relevant and so on.

RGacky3 said:

I love all those scriptures you posted.

I would argue that the principles (not the actual laws, but the spirit of the laws and the pronouncements and so on) still apply for christians ... so for example, the prophets denunciations are something christians should watch for, since they tell us what pleases and does not please God, Laws such as the gleaning law tell us how societies should structure their priorities and so on. The principles of the proverbs and the writings are still relevant and so on.

Click to expand...

It was indeed the spirit of the Law that Jesus preached. He was pretty critical of legalism applied without qualification, and he was very strong on common sense. Many of his teachings were illustrations that encouraged people to use their God-given sense of logic and reason and apply that to their every day dealings with people. The Apostle Paul also promoted common sense and strongly promoted salvation by grace and not by keeping of the Law, though his Pharisaic roots were so deeply ingrained he felt compelled to rescue the Law a bit here and there too.