I have neglected to do the summaries for both Matthew and Exodus, so let me bang out Matthew now and then I'll do Exodus maybe tonight. So - Matthew. The first book in the New Testament; the first account of the life and work of Jesus Christ.
I made a note of this a few times while reading the daily entries, but the thing that is repeated over and over again in this book is Jesus' frustration with the Pharisees. These Pharisees, who were religious leaders, were obsessed with the letter of the law but were not getting the message Jesus was bringing. These were men that had risen to great power and authority within the Jewish community. They commanded great respect amongst the people of their region, but Jesus wasn't about that. In Matthew, Jesus was about two things: loving God and caring for others. He even boils down all the commandments into those two things. On the other hand, the Pharisees were obsessed with catching people in the act of breaking a rule or law, even going so far as to pose impossible, theoretical scenarios to Jesus to try and trick him into admitting to breaking a law.
And in the act of Jesus beating down the philosophy of the Pharisees, he was by extension beating down the old way of religion. He was beating down the idea of focusing so much on what you are doing wrong, and how to avoid punishment from God. He is essentially canceling the God of the Old Testament. Well, maybe that's not the right way to say that - he is canceling the anger of the God of the Old Testament. There is even a section where he goes into some Old Testament scripture, saying, "You have heard it said..." and then saying "But I tell you..." So he actually was canceling out some rules and norms of the Old Testament.
Once again I must correct myself. I said that Jesus canceled the anger of the God from the Old Testament, but he didn't do that either - at least not with his message. In his teachings he taught people this new way of viewing God, but I don't think everything really changed until his ultimate death and resurrection. That's when the curtain in the temple tore in two, and God and man were finally able to exist in the same plane.
There's a common picture that you might have seen on those "religious tracts" that people try to give you when you're in the mall or on the boardwalk or something. It shows two cliffs with man on one side and God on the other and a valley in-between. The imagery is that God and man cannot exist together, and I noticed this in Exodus when God says that if he comes into contact with the Israelites that he will freak out and destroy them all. But Jesus dying on the cross filled in that gap - the second part of that image is a huge cross filling in the void so now God and man can co-exist. It's really interesting to see that in the context of reading the Old Testament simultaneously.
But what does that mean? Now we can exist with God? I've never heard God's voice in my whole life? What exactly has changed? We don't have to atone for our sins anymore by sacrificing animals - but doesn't that just make us lazy? The old - "Eh Jesus took care of that for me" attitude. Maybe that's where the fear of God has gone in these times. Christians are taught that they are forgiven for everything they do, no matter what they do. And I'm not saying that's an incorrect message, but imagine it this way: You get a job where you have to enter data into a computer. The software you are using is aware of all the data that needs to be entered and knows the correct values. So you can try to enter the data correctly, but even if you mess up, the software will correct it for you. So what's the value in even trying?
I'm so off track now from Matthew, but maybe its the idea of "good works should be the result of your faith" So because Jesus has done this great thing for me, so should I do great things for others. But what about people who don't believe in God? What were they saved from? As Christians, we believe that Jesus died for everyone, even the non-believers, but telling an Athiest that Jesus died for his or her sins, means absolutely nothing to that person. They weren't concerned about sins to begin with. There is nothing for them to be accountable for. No one to be accountable to. What's to convince an atheist that they are in need of Jesus' sacrifice?
So many questions - who can help me here?
I can think of a few additional questions from my perspective:
ReplyDelete1) What do you mean by God? Not everyone means the same thing.
2) Assuming we agree on that, in what sense does God as we discussed exist? What conditions would permit him to not exist as well? (so we can check for those) If there are no conditions under which He wouldn't exist, then we may have semantical problems about existence or circular logic or something else going on.
3) Then assuming God as discussed exists in some sense, why then Christianity specifically? Why not one of the other various religions or hundreds of Gods throughout history? On what grounds can one religion be "correct"? This is an interesting discussion, because I think being correct is something that must be included in all religions in order for them to be followed.
That is the line of questioning that makes sense to me. Honestly, it would be no small undertaking from a philosophical and scientific perspective. So while my response may not help, hopefully it steers the line of questioning at least.