First of all, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees accusing them of arrogance and overconfidence which will bring their end. Secondly, he is not threatening as much as foretelling. Thirdly, his words may be enhanced by the knowledge of the author of what happened in 70 AD.
I think you are quoting Mt 5:17 out of context.
You apply allegory where it is intended, and try it where you fail to get sense out of a statement.
Although I believe that Jesus was “really†crucified, I believe too that his life and death have been taken up into the Mythos of the Christ, that is, it has been given timeless significance. The sacrifice of Christ Jesus is a lasting, abiding or permanent example of the Grace of the ineffable God and an enduring witness to the fact that good or evil is a question of what meaning something is given. The death of Jesus was clearly wrong, but if God took his sacrifice as an offering for all, it was the door to life. Death looses its thorn, and life becomes just as permanent.
It is the step towards the cross, the surrender of life which makes it eternal, not the shying away and holding on. If you give the world significance, you have bound yourself to it. If you free yourself by stepping off, the world becomes insignificant. The more insignificant the world is, the more you become free to do the right thing and you regain your soul. The secret of life then, is in those words, “For whoever may desire to save his life will lose it. But whoever may lose his life for my sake will find it.â€
The romans brought their end, not their arrogance.
If he’s foretelling, why must it be written after 70 AD? Did the author not trust christ that it would happen?
So let’s look at context.
"
Context: 17 Jesus tells us that he has not come to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them
18 Reminds us that he is telling the truth and the laws will last until heaven and earth dissapear.
19 Punishment for the laws
20 Standard of righteousness, using the pharisees as an example of righteousness.
If the laws are being fulfilled through christ was not the time right?
Then:
Jesus once again condemns the pharisees. (like he does for them not stoning a child according to the law.) then doles out punishments that will happen to them “upon this generation.”
But as you said, the author wrote it post 70 AD, so could it really be considered prophecy?
When christ returns from the tomb, he uses the same line, indicating that:
the author believed christ would return within this generation.
Christ is a false prophet?
Now here’s a question for you… if I come up to you and say,
“I tell you the truth, a meteorite will hit before this generation will end.” Would your first inclination be to believe me?
That’s completely subjective though… where you apply allegory, is not where someone else will apply it.
So where does it talk about the ineffable god in scripture? Where does it say that Jesus’ Death was “clearly” wrong?
Funny that you’d bring up the martyr’s verse… Early christianity felt that, that verse was talking about martyrdom… and frankly looking at christian history, I think that is more likely than your interpretation.
well for me it seemed like that time period wasn’t really important to actually write down. his ministry really started after he was baptized, and the rest is history. (unless you’re a cynical fool, then you think nothing in history is reliable). ahem but that’s a whole other topic.
That’s almost funny and sad at the same time… the happenings of your god between the ages of 12 and 30 were not important enough to write down? The only given explaination is Luke 2:52 - “And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” Unfortunately it does not expound on the amount of time that this happens. Other gospels completely avoid the childhood of Jesus and go from birth to point of revolution (Matthew) or begin at the point of revolution (Mark and John). Honestly, it really doesn’t make sense to enshroud his life in mystery… at least we know what was going on in the life of Gautama Buddha.
What do you think christ had a historian following him around at all times?
The passage in Luke was written for precisely the reason you talk about, people wanted to know what was going on. This is enough for the believer.
If it was there would you believe in christ? Let’s say that they included the gospel of thomas which divulges the childhood of Jesus. Where he pushes a child off a roof and then revives him. Would that really help you believe in christ?
Regardless of whether or not there is a childhood gospel, we wouldn’t believe in it more sage.
And the life of Buddha is just as mythological as the life of Jesus. Neither had scribes that were following them from birth to death, so anything written about them is done so from oral tradition, and from a post-humous look.
whoa, whoa easy there. what do you mean by that? what point are you trying to make? it just seemed to me that whatever He did in that interim was not as important as what He did afterward - obeying His calling from God. if you know, or don’t know - doesn’t matter. what we do is work with what we do know. believe me, there are tons of things anyone and everyone would like to know regarding Jesus, God, etc, that are really beyond us.
Well I think the one thing we have established is that nobody really knows exactly what jesus did between birth and 33 yrs old. It seems to me that if the bible is to be taken at its word then this great religious leader and so called son of godwas omly around for about a couple of years, most of that at the end of his life. If there is no record of his early life…did god know where he was? and if so was he grounded for breaking curfew?
