Contradictions and Jesus

[Dr Moore]

The church has maintained a number of contradictory doctrines and practices. Such as that husband and wife are equal partners, but the husband presides in the home. Of course, that is just one example. There are many others. Critics say this happens as a result of church leaders being caught in one or another social bind, then attempt to have their cake (socially palatable doctrine) and eat it too (hang on to the un-palatable doctrine). Believers say these contradictions are no contradiction at all -- you simply haven't taken time to really understand the doctrine.

My question is: are there examples in which Jesus taught such contradictory doctrines? If so, did any of those contradictions follow the modern day pattern -- harsher original, counterbalanced by something more socially progressive, but evidently opposite?

[huckelberry]

My understanding tends to see progressive original sayings sometimes later modified by conservative social expectations. Matthew comments about law would be example. More obvious is the social pattern after Jesus where earlier practice of larger role of women was altered to a more conventional view by second generation folks like the author of Timothy and the unknown bloke who altered Paul's comments on the proper role for women .

Of course considering this is easier over the time after Jesus where we have relatively time specific information. For Jesus actual teaching it is quite problematic to determine which view was earlier or more accurate. How accurate is Matthews law comments? Who created those garbled apocalyptic scenarios?

/////
I have no credentials for this subject. It has been something which has interested me over the years and I have read a number of books by people with credentials and different points of view. So I am an interested yokel.

[Paloma]

The church has maintained a number of contradictory doctrines and practices. Such as that husband and wife are equal partners, but the husband presides in the home. Of course, that is just one example. There are many others. Critics say this happens as a result of church leaders being caught in one or another social bind, then attempt to have their cake (socially palatable doctrine) and eat it too (hang on to the un-palatable doctrine). Believers say these contradictions are no contradiction at all -- you simply haven't taken time to really understand the doctrine.

My question is: are there examples in which Jesus taught such contradictory doctrines? If so, did any of those contradictions follow the modern day pattern -- harsher original, counterbalanced by something more socially progressive, but evidently opposite?

Good question! When it comes to Jesus' teaching, I see the 2 great commandments "Love the Lord your God..." and "Love others as yourself" as summarizing it all. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation. The Old Testament 10 Commandments were very specific. Jesus' 2 commandments in the New Testament are very "open" by comparison, and require much more introspection and understanding.

Jesus' more expansive teaching is mostly presented in The Sermon on the Mount where the pattern Is moving away from harshness to progressivism (or generous love): "You have heard an eye for an eye... but I say give your cloak also and go the second mile"; "You have heard love your neighbour and hate your enemy ... but I say love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"; Etc.

Theologians would say that what seems like the "opposite" in Jesus' words vs the original harshness was always there in principle or in embryo - that the New Testament is the fulfilment of the Law - that the Laws of Grace and Freedom and Love were always intended to be the ultimate fulfilment.

To answer your question more clearly, Jesus himself didn't teach the harshness of the law, but embodied and taught the Law of love and presented it as the fulfilment of any previous law. This certainly came across as a contradiction to the Law that the "scribes and Pharisees" proscribed on the people. And Jesus consistently challenged them on their harsh and oppressive interpretation of the law, accusing them of being hypocrites for their legalistic attitudes and of laying heavy burdens on the people. He contrasted the purity and simplicity of childlike faith with the impossible demands of the religious leaders of the day.

[dastardly stem]

A contradiction:

Jesus (apparently):

¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Here Jesus is teaching that he ignores many believers, from the start. He apparently knows that they will turn out bad (whatever that may mean) and will choose to pretend, it seems, that they do not exist. Then in their lives, when they seek him and pray, he will not be there. When they try to do good, he will ignore them. His disdain will have no bounds. Soon, though, they will die, and when they face him, they implore, " sought you, I tried to do good for you...I tried". Jesus coldly declares he never knew them, and will cast them into the most infernal place of pain and suffering imaginable.

Yes, in other places and ways Jesus pretends he'll be there for people who need him. He'll love others and appreciate them.

Says Jesus (apparently):

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

If someone only believes enough to build their house on sand, he will be ignored and then cast to eternal fire, as they say. Does he love the world or love some?

This type of teaching seems to have caused the death and destruction of many people. Today believers virtually ignore this contradiction and pretend as though Jesus loves everyone. They say, "Jesus loves you" without acknowledging that Jesus actually despises many to most people, as he apparently said.

[Physics Guy]

The teaching about "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, lord!' ..." has traditionally been interpreted in line with the similar passage later in Matthew (Ch. 25):

41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Disgust for hypocrisy is one of Jesus's most persistent themes in the gospels. His point in Matthew 7 seems pretty clearly to be that saying or thinking all the right pious things is worthless; what matters is practical action. Jesus explicitly says that the house built on sand represents those who hear, but don't act.

Does it mean he doesn't love people who don't do enough? I don't know, but he's definitely not happy with people who have fine opinions but don't actually help other people. Maybe someone who literally never lifted a finger to help anyone else when they could really will be accursed. The previous verses in Matthew 25 give the converse: everyone who helped some unfortunate person will be welcomed into the Kingdom for having served Jesus personally, regardless of whether they did so consciously. The test isn't a creed or a handshake. It's did you feed the hungry or visit the prisoners.

[dastardly stem]

The teaching about "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, lord!' ..." has traditionally been interpreted in line with the similar passage later in Matthew (Ch. 25):

41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Disgust for hypocrisy is one of Jesus's most persistent themes in the gospels. His point in Matthew 7 seems pretty clearly to be that saying or thinking all the right pious things is worthless; what matters is practical action. Jesus explicitly says that the house built on sand represents those who hear, but don't act.

Does it mean he doesn't love people who don't do enough? I don't know, but he's definitely not happy with people who have fine opinions but don't actually help other people. Maybe someone who literally never lifted a finger to help anyone else when they could really will be accursed. The previous verses in Matthew 25 give the converse: everyone who helped some unfortunate person will be welcomed into the Kingdom for having served Jesus personally, regardless of whether they did so consciously. The test isn't a creed or a handshake. It's did you feed the hungry or visit the prisoners.

Hey PG. I get it makes it easier to swallow when we try to apply other messages to it. I'd wonder on a goal of perfection, we're all going to pop up short and act the hypocrite at times. If we help someone in need one day there's no guarantee when faced with similar options the next day we'll help another in need. Where would JEsus' madness end? "I hate that dude so bad I'll hold him accountable at the last day and tell him I never knew him, all because he gave that one helpless dude $5 when he could have done more. The next day he walked right past that struggling lady, in his haste to meet with his boss. Bastard. I ain't letting him get adopted. I don't care how much he prayed to me. That's the stuff of building his house on sand like a fool." Or some such thinking.

Also, my point was that by Jesus suggesting he never knew many believers, its as if he could not possibly love them. He simply seems to choose to ignore many believers, and likely, then many nonbelievers--which may end up being the majority of humanity. So was Jesus sacrificed for the love of some or for the love of all? somewhere between many and most get eternally condemned, hated not for who they are, but for how little he noticed them, apparently.

[huckelberry]

There have been times that I have heard manipulative preachers, tv, who make promises of wealth and health if only you send them the start money. I find that Jesus comment about not knowing certain believers could fit such preachers. They are full of the idea of their own accomplishments in the religion dept.

Why do I think of people who take advantage of religion as the people Jesus does not know? as Physics Guy explained that fits the rest of Jesus teaching. I find that more trustworthy than taking a single cryptic comment and devising the worst possible interpretation.

[Paloma]

...
Why do I think of people who take advantage of religion as the people Jesus does not know? as Physics Guy explained that fits the rest of Jesus teaching. I find that more trustworthy than taking a single cryptic comment and devising the worst possible interpretation.

Yep.

And looking at the example that so many 'religious' people use to justify "righteous" anger - i.e. Jesus using a whip and overturning the moneychangers' tables in the Temple - that, too, fits in with Jesus' disgust at people using a religious "cover" while their hearts are far from God and love and goodness. Often, Jesus' actions in the temple are interpreted as his rage at seeing the poor people barred from the Temple because of the overpriced system and the corrupt moneychangers. ("My Temple will be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have turned it into a den of thieves." Mark 11:17)

But it goes even deeper than that. A den of thieves is more their 'hideout' than the place where they do their stealing. It's where they go to enjoy the spoils of their crimes - and maybe to try and assuage any feelings of guilt. I wonder if Jesus, standing by the entrance to the Temple, saw wealthy people entering and recognized they didn't come to pray and worship, but to use the religious system as a "cover" and a way to try to appease their guilty consciences while hiding their true natures which took advantage of people rather than loving them.

Again, it seems to be all about Jesus' disgust at hypocrisy - and at situations where people used and oppressed others.

And his determination that 'religion' should never become an end in itself, because that way lies control, manipulation and oppression!

[Bought Yahoo]

When Jesus was arrested he had an armed retinue with him.

[kairos]

A couple of thoughts- individual judgment will based on how much knowledge/light of the gospel a person has and how the person acted on it eg "fed the hungry." now for those who have heard the gospel of jesus found in the Bible they will have no excuse, i believe, if they do not act on john 3:16 , by that i mean each person must make an "all in " decision believing(total surrender) to jesus as personal savior, and lord of the person's life.
i believe that and i know others will just blow it off or rationalize around it. Not believing to me means one is denying the unconditional love of god demonstrated by the mission and life and death of jesus ; and not
accepting his grace (unmerited love and forgiveness) in THAT day, jesus will say "i never knew you" and the person will go onto his judgment. jesus desires all to be saved into his kingdom. salvation is based on faith (all in ) by grace (god's unmerited by you love and forgiveness) not of works. works are evidence that a believer is trying to live as Jesus taught. if one does have the opportunity to believe in Christ but does not accept the salvation gift then his/her works really are not going to get him/her into the kingdom.
as a nevermo with tbm wife and 4 adult tbm Mormon children i know each has made the john3:16 decision for Christ ; sadly for me the Mormon religion is not the true religion or path to the kingdom but their decision for christ is all important.

being on this board i know there are those with faith in christ, those with some faith in christ and others with no faith in christ-your faith mileage may vary! it is never too late to make the john 3:16 decision- i was 45 when i made that decision -best decision ever.

so as an evangelical i am unashamed for being a john 3:16 disciple of jesus!

k