Nothing to ponder and I mean "nothing to ponder." Another one liner by Shields that avoids any serious discussion and allows her to believe that she has all the answers. Who believe that it is NOT "in line with the rest of scripture" (whatever that means.) I was asking a very serious question. it is sheer ignorance that answers with "it means what it says" or some derivative thereof.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:39:47 -0600
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A question for our resident scholar
News flash: Some Believers really consider the Sermon on the Mount to be both reasonable and perfectly in line with the rest of scripture. (Ponder that.) iz
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 12:07 PM
To:[email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A question for our resident scholar
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 12:07 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A question for our resident scholar
Bill (and anyone who wants to venture a guess):
In the Sermon on the Mount, we have Christ presenting a prayer that is nowhere repeated in scripture; we have an appeal to action that no one takes literally (cutting off the hand and plucking out the eye); we have cultural demands (walking the second mile, giving your cloak also, ) that were probably viewed with the same surprise as the suggestion of cutting off the hand; we have a "correction " of the Mosaic law on divorce; we have new definition on hate and murder; we have His amendment on "an eye for eye" ---- a part of the Mosaic law; we have his choice that prayer be done privately ----------------------------- with all this in mind (and I could go on and on) what is Christ really trying
to do with sermon? How do these words ( of Christ ) relate to any discussion of law and g race? Does the Cross and the soteriolgical events associated with that circumstance have any bearing on the words of The Sermon? If we "reject" the cutting off of the hand because it does not seem to be a reasonable conclusion -- what is the role of "reasonableness" in the receiving of this Sermon?
John
