In the The Parable of the Good Samaritan Bible tells us the story about a Samaritan, who helped a man, who was lying half dead on a road:
“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii[a] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?”
This deed is presented by Jesus as an example of an exceptionally good behavior.
But in real life such behavior, that the Samaritan showed, is not an exception at all (compilations of how people helped other people in the following videos):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxHI6YQRFak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaunEgvbR9U
The Bible presents the Samaritan's behavior as an of the ordinary good actions and many Christians often cite it as such. But in reality what the Samaritan did is not a big deal and could be found ubiquitously in real life.
p.s. After posting this I realized, that even if what the Samaritan did is ubiquitous, the opposite behavior is ubiquitous too. So maybe Christians think, that a Christian, in his life, should fall into the former category and not in the latter. But still, I think it's an interesting topic to discuss.
Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Luke
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Luke 10:25-37 - The Parable of the Good Samaritan
by Laughter » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:34 am
- Laughter
Re: Luke 10:25-37 - The Parable of the Good Samaritan
by jimwalton » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:50 am
Contrary to what you are saying, the parable is presented by Jesus, on the surface, as an example of what it means to treat someone as a neighbor, but the real meaning is deeper. The parable follows a conversation about how to have eternal life, and the parable is offered in response to the man who wanted to justify himself (Lk. 10.29). Therefore it's really a story concerning salvation and not about exceptionally good behavior. On the two occasions where Jesus was asked about how to have eternal life, he offers a fourfold answer:
1. Love God with all that you are
2. Love your neighbor
3. Do God's will by obeying his moral commands
4. Be willing to do whatever is necessary and beneficial to follow Christ.
This story of the Good Samaritan is not a symbolic story, per se, but an example story, giving an example of loving one's neighbor as oneself. "Do these four things (two of which are listed in Lk. 10.27) and you will live" (vv. 27, 37). Essentially the man was trying to snake his way around the truth by starting a debate. Jesus tells the story to show the man he is thinking about it wrongly and asking the wrong question. Instead of trying to justify himself, and instead of asking "Who is my neighbor?", Jesus corrected the man to be thinking "To whom can I be a neighbor?" Forget about angels dancing on the head of pins, starting debates just to confuse and gloat, thinking of religion as an exercise of one's own worthiness, preconceptions and expectations. We can have a relationship with God that shows itself dramatically in our attitudes, thoughts, values, and behavior. If you know it, do it.
1. Love God with all that you are
2. Love your neighbor
3. Do God's will by obeying his moral commands
4. Be willing to do whatever is necessary and beneficial to follow Christ.
This story of the Good Samaritan is not a symbolic story, per se, but an example story, giving an example of loving one's neighbor as oneself. "Do these four things (two of which are listed in Lk. 10.27) and you will live" (vv. 27, 37). Essentially the man was trying to snake his way around the truth by starting a debate. Jesus tells the story to show the man he is thinking about it wrongly and asking the wrong question. Instead of trying to justify himself, and instead of asking "Who is my neighbor?", Jesus corrected the man to be thinking "To whom can I be a neighbor?" Forget about angels dancing on the head of pins, starting debates just to confuse and gloat, thinking of religion as an exercise of one's own worthiness, preconceptions and expectations. We can have a relationship with God that shows itself dramatically in our attitudes, thoughts, values, and behavior. If you know it, do it.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Luke 10:25-37 - The Parable of the Good Samaritan
by Red Road Techie » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:55 am
> 2.Love your neighbor... Jesus tells the story to show the man he is thinking about it wrongly and asking the wrong question. Instead of trying to justify himself, and instead of asking "Who is my neighbor?", Jesus corrected the man to be thinking "To whom can I be a neighbor?"
Then why is it that Jesus defines a "neighbor" as only those who personally provide us assistance? Why wouldn't the solution to the question be all three people, rather than specifically the one providing "us" (the robbery victim) aid?
> 3.Do God's will by obeying his moral commands. ... We can have a relationship with God that shows itself dramatically in our attitudes, thoughts, values, and behavior. If you know it, do it.
> Then why is it Jesus uses as an example for this moral of only helping those who are useful to ourselves, a "Samaritan" who failed to use the standard, by helping a person who had not helped the Samaritan in any way?
Then why is it that Jesus defines a "neighbor" as only those who personally provide us assistance? Why wouldn't the solution to the question be all three people, rather than specifically the one providing "us" (the robbery victim) aid?
> 3.Do God's will by obeying his moral commands. ... We can have a relationship with God that shows itself dramatically in our attitudes, thoughts, values, and behavior. If you know it, do it.
> Then why is it Jesus uses as an example for this moral of only helping those who are useful to ourselves, a "Samaritan" who failed to use the standard, by helping a person who had not helped the Samaritan in any way?
- Red Road Techie
Re: Luke 10:25-37 - The Parable of the Good Samaritan
by jimwalton » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:08 am
Thanks for the comments. Jesus specifically didn't define neighbor, but only gave, via the story, an example of someone who lived by "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lk. 10.27, part of the context of the story). In ancient Israel, it was often thought that their fellow Israelites were the "neighbors" of the Leviticus 19.18 text, and so they could be rude, hateful, and abusive to anyone not an Israelite and it was still OK. Jesus is explaining, by the story, that such divisions are barriers are ungodly, and that all humanity falls under the category of "neighbor". The solution is specifically not all three people, because the first two, being "good Jews," ignored the plight of the victimized man.
> Then why is it Jesus uses as an example for this moral of only helping those who are useful to ourselves, a "Samaritan" who failed to use the standard, by helping a person who had not helped the Samaritan in any way?
You lost me with this one. I have read it over and over, trying to make sense of it, so you'll have to re-explain in different terms. I'll try, but I bet I'm off the mark of what you're trying to say.
In no sense is Jesus trying to say we should only help those who are useful to ourselves. Instead, Jesus is saying we should help all human beings, regardless of what's in it for us. Jesus' point with the expert in the law was not trying to make a moral point, I would say, but a salvific (pertaining to salvation) one. After all, the text is clear that the expert in the law was not truly interested in the subject at hand, but only trying to test Jesus with his first question (Lk. 10.25) and only trying to justify himself with his second (10.29). Instead of playing into his little game, Jesus is letting him know that our altruism should extend to all people, great and small, friends and foes, domestic and foreign, and that our salvation with God is a relationship evidenced by all of our lives (attitudes, thoughts, values and behavior) and not just superficial religious profession.
> Then why is it Jesus uses as an example for this moral of only helping those who are useful to ourselves, a "Samaritan" who failed to use the standard, by helping a person who had not helped the Samaritan in any way?
You lost me with this one. I have read it over and over, trying to make sense of it, so you'll have to re-explain in different terms. I'll try, but I bet I'm off the mark of what you're trying to say.
In no sense is Jesus trying to say we should only help those who are useful to ourselves. Instead, Jesus is saying we should help all human beings, regardless of what's in it for us. Jesus' point with the expert in the law was not trying to make a moral point, I would say, but a salvific (pertaining to salvation) one. After all, the text is clear that the expert in the law was not truly interested in the subject at hand, but only trying to test Jesus with his first question (Lk. 10.25) and only trying to justify himself with his second (10.29). Instead of playing into his little game, Jesus is letting him know that our altruism should extend to all people, great and small, friends and foes, domestic and foreign, and that our salvation with God is a relationship evidenced by all of our lives (attitudes, thoughts, values and behavior) and not just superficial religious profession.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Luke 10:25-37 - The Parable of the Good Samaritan
by Red Road Techie » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:00 pm
> Jesus specifically didn't define neighbor
Correct. Jesus is addressing the existing definition of "Jews", yet never actually explicitly provides any definition, by implying a new meaning, but also allowing plausible deniability. Essentially, he's saying "I don't like that the law says 'XYZ'," but never actually provides an alternative wording. (That's because "he" [the authors] wanted to create a new religion, not a new government.)
> Jesus specifically didn't define neighbor, but only gave, via the story, an example of someone who lived by "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lk. 10.27, part of the context of the story).
Specifically, he is giving an example of someone who acted as a neighbor in order to demonstrate that sort of person is a neighbor to you.
> In ancient Israel, it was often thought that their fellow Israelites were the "neighbors" of the Leviticus 19.18 text, and so they could be rude, hateful, and abusive to anyone not an Israelite and it was still OK. Jesus is explaining, by the story, that such divisions are barriers are ungodly, and that all humanity falls under the category of "neighbor".
Correct. Jesus is redefining commandments from god.
> The solution is specifically not all three people, because the first two, being "good Jews," ignored the plight of the victimized man.
Right. Jesus explicitly contradicts the idea that we should "love everyone as your neighbor". He is specifically saying those who ignore you (in this case, specifically to uphold biblical law) are not your "neighbors". Rather the one(s) that help you are your neighbor. (Which is what I said to begin with.)
> You lost me with this one. I have read it over and over, trying to make sense of it, so you'll have to re-explain in different terms. I'll try, but I bet I'm off the mark of what you're trying to say.
Jesus said to "go and do likewise". The implication is that we should do "likewise" the Samaritan. Yet, the Samaritan used a different standard for who is a neighbor than Jesus is recommending. The Samaritan would have answered the question with "all of them" - Jesus is saying "the Samaritan". To "do likewise" is either "to do in contradiction of what Jesus says," or referring to what he said. Now, if the bible was about a Samaritan god come to earth, fair enough. But, presumably we're to do what Jesus says - to go and do likewise what Jesus says. "Go and do likewise of treating those who help you as a neighbor."
I maintain that the disconnect between the standard which the Samaritan uses, and the standard promoted by Jesus, is intentional. The switch between the two, for those willing to admit it exists, is abrupt. I find it dubious that it was accidental. The biblical authors wanted it to imply morality while promoting selfishness, since that allows it to be read either way. No matter your opinion on morality and altruism, you can get the message you want.
> In no sense is Jesus trying to say we should only help those who are useful to ourselves. Instead, Jesus is saying we should help all human beings, regardless of what's in it for us.
"The solution is specifically not all three people, because the first two... ignored the plight of the victimized man."
Those who "ignore the plight of [a] victim..." shouldn't be treated as neighbors. You said it. Now you're contradicting it. Which is it?? Are the robbers our neighbors, because a neighbor is someone who treats strangers with kindness, so we should treat strangers with kindness... Or are the robbers not our neighbors, because a neighbor is someone who treats those who treat strangers with kindness with kindness?
See above. The bible was written explicitly to allow for you to make both claims simultaneously. However, that suggests your moral code is, at best, not consistent from one moment to the next, since the moral code contained in the bible is, at best, ambiguous.
> Jesus' point with the expert in the law was not trying to make a moral point, I would say, but a salvific (pertaining to salvation) one.
Yes, Jesus is changing the law including literal commandments from god, and while doing that is taking an explicit shot at the Temple and the established church. Clearly, you can't start a new religion without tearing down the old one. Why else use "priest" and "Levite"?!
> After all, the text is clear that the expert in the law was not truly interested in the subject at hand, but only trying to test Jesus with his first question (Lk. 10.25) and only trying to justify himself with his second (10.29). Instead of playing into his little game, Jesus is letting him know that our altruism should extend to all people, great and small, friends and foes, domestic and foreign, and that our salvation with God is a relationship evidenced by all of our lives (attitudes, thoughts, values and behavior) and not just superficial religious profession.
Well, bearing in mind of course, that the "conversation" almost certainly never took place. And, the "lawyer" doesn't exist. "Then turning to the disciples he said privately, ... And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test..." Now, of course, the "lawyer" could also be a "disciple", but then that rather undermines your assertion that he was rebutting an expert. So, either the lawyer wasn't an expert, or there wasn't an actual lawyer.
The Good Samaritan is a parable in a parable in a parable. Again, that's not accidental. (Among other purposes) It allows for implying specific views, while never being on record of explicitly saying much of anything. Christians will be most likely to "interpret" exactly what it implies, but also allows Christians to deny that's what it says.
Correct. Jesus is addressing the existing definition of "Jews", yet never actually explicitly provides any definition, by implying a new meaning, but also allowing plausible deniability. Essentially, he's saying "I don't like that the law says 'XYZ'," but never actually provides an alternative wording. (That's because "he" [the authors] wanted to create a new religion, not a new government.)
> Jesus specifically didn't define neighbor, but only gave, via the story, an example of someone who lived by "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lk. 10.27, part of the context of the story).
Specifically, he is giving an example of someone who acted as a neighbor in order to demonstrate that sort of person is a neighbor to you.
> In ancient Israel, it was often thought that their fellow Israelites were the "neighbors" of the Leviticus 19.18 text, and so they could be rude, hateful, and abusive to anyone not an Israelite and it was still OK. Jesus is explaining, by the story, that such divisions are barriers are ungodly, and that all humanity falls under the category of "neighbor".
Correct. Jesus is redefining commandments from god.
> The solution is specifically not all three people, because the first two, being "good Jews," ignored the plight of the victimized man.
Right. Jesus explicitly contradicts the idea that we should "love everyone as your neighbor". He is specifically saying those who ignore you (in this case, specifically to uphold biblical law) are not your "neighbors". Rather the one(s) that help you are your neighbor. (Which is what I said to begin with.)
> You lost me with this one. I have read it over and over, trying to make sense of it, so you'll have to re-explain in different terms. I'll try, but I bet I'm off the mark of what you're trying to say.
Jesus said to "go and do likewise". The implication is that we should do "likewise" the Samaritan. Yet, the Samaritan used a different standard for who is a neighbor than Jesus is recommending. The Samaritan would have answered the question with "all of them" - Jesus is saying "the Samaritan". To "do likewise" is either "to do in contradiction of what Jesus says," or referring to what he said. Now, if the bible was about a Samaritan god come to earth, fair enough. But, presumably we're to do what Jesus says - to go and do likewise what Jesus says. "Go and do likewise of treating those who help you as a neighbor."
I maintain that the disconnect between the standard which the Samaritan uses, and the standard promoted by Jesus, is intentional. The switch between the two, for those willing to admit it exists, is abrupt. I find it dubious that it was accidental. The biblical authors wanted it to imply morality while promoting selfishness, since that allows it to be read either way. No matter your opinion on morality and altruism, you can get the message you want.
> In no sense is Jesus trying to say we should only help those who are useful to ourselves. Instead, Jesus is saying we should help all human beings, regardless of what's in it for us.
"The solution is specifically not all three people, because the first two... ignored the plight of the victimized man."
Those who "ignore the plight of [a] victim..." shouldn't be treated as neighbors. You said it. Now you're contradicting it. Which is it?? Are the robbers our neighbors, because a neighbor is someone who treats strangers with kindness, so we should treat strangers with kindness... Or are the robbers not our neighbors, because a neighbor is someone who treats those who treat strangers with kindness with kindness?
See above. The bible was written explicitly to allow for you to make both claims simultaneously. However, that suggests your moral code is, at best, not consistent from one moment to the next, since the moral code contained in the bible is, at best, ambiguous.
> Jesus' point with the expert in the law was not trying to make a moral point, I would say, but a salvific (pertaining to salvation) one.
Yes, Jesus is changing the law including literal commandments from god, and while doing that is taking an explicit shot at the Temple and the established church. Clearly, you can't start a new religion without tearing down the old one. Why else use "priest" and "Levite"?!
> After all, the text is clear that the expert in the law was not truly interested in the subject at hand, but only trying to test Jesus with his first question (Lk. 10.25) and only trying to justify himself with his second (10.29). Instead of playing into his little game, Jesus is letting him know that our altruism should extend to all people, great and small, friends and foes, domestic and foreign, and that our salvation with God is a relationship evidenced by all of our lives (attitudes, thoughts, values and behavior) and not just superficial religious profession.
Well, bearing in mind of course, that the "conversation" almost certainly never took place. And, the "lawyer" doesn't exist. "Then turning to the disciples he said privately, ... And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test..." Now, of course, the "lawyer" could also be a "disciple", but then that rather undermines your assertion that he was rebutting an expert. So, either the lawyer wasn't an expert, or there wasn't an actual lawyer.
The Good Samaritan is a parable in a parable in a parable. Again, that's not accidental. (Among other purposes) It allows for implying specific views, while never being on record of explicitly saying much of anything. Christians will be most likely to "interpret" exactly what it implies, but also allows Christians to deny that's what it says.
- Red Road Techie
Re: Luke 10:25-37 - The Parable of the Good Samaritan
by jimwalton » Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:44 pm
OK, now I understand better what you're getting at, and you're distorting both the text and the teachings of Jesus.
1. Jesus is not addressing the existing definition of "Jews". That's foreign to the text itself and the surrounding context. There is nothing here to give evidence to what you are claiming. In Luke 9 we see the proclamation of the new kingdom (9.1-9), the declaration of Jesus himself as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.10-17), Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.18-27), and God the Father's endorsement of Jesus as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.28-36). In vv. 37-45, Luke drives his point home that Jesus is one of a kind. Nothing stands in his way. Nothing confuses him. Nothing causes him fear. Nothing intimidates him. His power is endless, unchallenged and unchallengeable. His treatment of people is amazing and enviable. His teaching has so much power, authority, and wisdom. The chapter ends with teachings about who is part of this new kingdom and who isn't. It is a kingdom of faith and commitment, of relationship and following. The way of Jesus is the way of the cross: self-sacrifice, rejection, and suffering. It’s radically counter-cultural, eschewing the values and ways of society to follow Jesus in a completely different mindset and lifestyle. It takes total commitment to a significant commission, and he sets all the terms of the contract. It’s not up to us to dictate the particulars. It’s our place just to choose whether to sign or not. And if we sign, he wants us to know what we’re signing up for: a demanding life with no guarantees of ease, health or wealth, but also a life of significance described with words like "abundance" and "joy".
When we get to Luke 10, the teaching about the participants in the kingdom continues. He sends them out with directions about what kind of people they are supposed to be and their attitude and purpose as they declare the new kingdom of God. It's in this context that the challenge of the lawyer comes, followed by the parable, which we have already covered. As you can see, none of this has anything to do with Jesus addressing the existing definition of "Jews".
> Jesus is redefining commandments from god.
Not in the least. The commands from God always included the nations and the foreigners as "neighbors". Leviticus 19, where the original verse about loving neighbors is, includes loving the foreigner (the alien). When the text already directs every Israelite to love aliens as oneself, what would be the point of saying to love only Israelites in the very same chapter? But the instruction to love aliens comes after we have already had the instruction to love your neighbor as yourself. That is, if you tell people first to love their aliens and then give a second instruction to love their neighbors, that second instruction really does sound like an addition because the first group, aliens, obviously doesn’t include the second group, neighbors. But if you tell people first to love their neighbors then a second instruction to love aliens a few verses later can make sense as a specification for anyone who would have thought that love of neighbor didn’t include loving others as well. Did the biblical authors think that the specifications referring to aliens were necessary? We know that they did because they said it 52 times in the Torah. The bottom line is that one is supposed to love both, alien and neighbor, whether they overlap or not. Jesus is not redefining, but explaining the original definition.
> Yet, the Samaritan used a different standard for who is a neighbor than Jesus is recommending.
Not at all. Both Jesus and the Samaritan are pointing to the man in need as the "neighbor".
> "Go and do likewise of treating those who help you as a neighbor."
This is the complete opposite of what Jesus is saying. The victim didn't do anything to help the Samaritan. The parable is about the Samaritan helping the victim when he would get nothing out of it. You have this all wrong.
> The biblical authors wanted it to imply morality while promoting selfishness, since that allows it to be read either way.
Absolutely not. This is a complete reversal of the teaching of the text.
> Are the robbers our neighbors, because a neighbor is someone who treats strangers with kindness, so we should treat strangers with kindness...
Whaaaat? No, the robbers are not our neighbors. They are the perpetrators of evil and harm. They don't come into the story in any other way, and there is no teaching here about how they should be treated. Other texts do: Lev. 19.11; Ex. 20.15, and especially Exodus 22.1-5.
> The bible was written explicitly to allow for you to make both claims simultaneously. However, that suggests your moral code is, at best, not consistent from one moment to the next, since the moral code contained in the bible is, at best, ambiguous.
The Bible says no such thing.
> Jesus is changing the law including literal commandments from god, and while doing that is taking an explicit shot at the Temple and the established church.
He is doing no such thing. Jesus is endorsing the commandments of God ("Do not steal"; "love your neighbor as yourself") while correcting a misunderstanding of the law (the false thinking that "neighbor" only meant "fellow countrymen").
> bearing in mind of course, that the "conversation" almost certainly never took place.
The evidence was have, since Luke was a historian (Lk. 1.1-4), is that the event is considered historical. What evidence do you have to support your prejudicial bias to the contrary?
> while never being on record of explicitly saying much of anything
Again you are mistaken. The parable has similar bookends: "Do this and you will live;" "Go and do likewise." The point of the parable is that followers of Christ (the true people of God) should act in accordance with the true teachings of the Word of God. We can have a relationship with God that shows itself dramatically in our attitudes, thoughts, values, and behavior. If you know it, do it.
1. Jesus is not addressing the existing definition of "Jews". That's foreign to the text itself and the surrounding context. There is nothing here to give evidence to what you are claiming. In Luke 9 we see the proclamation of the new kingdom (9.1-9), the declaration of Jesus himself as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.10-17), Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.18-27), and God the Father's endorsement of Jesus as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.28-36). In vv. 37-45, Luke drives his point home that Jesus is one of a kind. Nothing stands in his way. Nothing confuses him. Nothing causes him fear. Nothing intimidates him. His power is endless, unchallenged and unchallengeable. His treatment of people is amazing and enviable. His teaching has so much power, authority, and wisdom. The chapter ends with teachings about who is part of this new kingdom and who isn't. It is a kingdom of faith and commitment, of relationship and following. The way of Jesus is the way of the cross: self-sacrifice, rejection, and suffering. It’s radically counter-cultural, eschewing the values and ways of society to follow Jesus in a completely different mindset and lifestyle. It takes total commitment to a significant commission, and he sets all the terms of the contract. It’s not up to us to dictate the particulars. It’s our place just to choose whether to sign or not. And if we sign, he wants us to know what we’re signing up for: a demanding life with no guarantees of ease, health or wealth, but also a life of significance described with words like "abundance" and "joy".
When we get to Luke 10, the teaching about the participants in the kingdom continues. He sends them out with directions about what kind of people they are supposed to be and their attitude and purpose as they declare the new kingdom of God. It's in this context that the challenge of the lawyer comes, followed by the parable, which we have already covered. As you can see, none of this has anything to do with Jesus addressing the existing definition of "Jews".
> Jesus is redefining commandments from god.
Not in the least. The commands from God always included the nations and the foreigners as "neighbors". Leviticus 19, where the original verse about loving neighbors is, includes loving the foreigner (the alien). When the text already directs every Israelite to love aliens as oneself, what would be the point of saying to love only Israelites in the very same chapter? But the instruction to love aliens comes after we have already had the instruction to love your neighbor as yourself. That is, if you tell people first to love their aliens and then give a second instruction to love their neighbors, that second instruction really does sound like an addition because the first group, aliens, obviously doesn’t include the second group, neighbors. But if you tell people first to love their neighbors then a second instruction to love aliens a few verses later can make sense as a specification for anyone who would have thought that love of neighbor didn’t include loving others as well. Did the biblical authors think that the specifications referring to aliens were necessary? We know that they did because they said it 52 times in the Torah. The bottom line is that one is supposed to love both, alien and neighbor, whether they overlap or not. Jesus is not redefining, but explaining the original definition.
> Yet, the Samaritan used a different standard for who is a neighbor than Jesus is recommending.
Not at all. Both Jesus and the Samaritan are pointing to the man in need as the "neighbor".
> "Go and do likewise of treating those who help you as a neighbor."
This is the complete opposite of what Jesus is saying. The victim didn't do anything to help the Samaritan. The parable is about the Samaritan helping the victim when he would get nothing out of it. You have this all wrong.
> The biblical authors wanted it to imply morality while promoting selfishness, since that allows it to be read either way.
Absolutely not. This is a complete reversal of the teaching of the text.
> Are the robbers our neighbors, because a neighbor is someone who treats strangers with kindness, so we should treat strangers with kindness...
Whaaaat? No, the robbers are not our neighbors. They are the perpetrators of evil and harm. They don't come into the story in any other way, and there is no teaching here about how they should be treated. Other texts do: Lev. 19.11; Ex. 20.15, and especially Exodus 22.1-5.
> The bible was written explicitly to allow for you to make both claims simultaneously. However, that suggests your moral code is, at best, not consistent from one moment to the next, since the moral code contained in the bible is, at best, ambiguous.
The Bible says no such thing.
> Jesus is changing the law including literal commandments from god, and while doing that is taking an explicit shot at the Temple and the established church.
He is doing no such thing. Jesus is endorsing the commandments of God ("Do not steal"; "love your neighbor as yourself") while correcting a misunderstanding of the law (the false thinking that "neighbor" only meant "fellow countrymen").
> bearing in mind of course, that the "conversation" almost certainly never took place.
The evidence was have, since Luke was a historian (Lk. 1.1-4), is that the event is considered historical. What evidence do you have to support your prejudicial bias to the contrary?
> while never being on record of explicitly saying much of anything
Again you are mistaken. The parable has similar bookends: "Do this and you will live;" "Go and do likewise." The point of the parable is that followers of Christ (the true people of God) should act in accordance with the true teachings of the Word of God. We can have a relationship with God that shows itself dramatically in our attitudes, thoughts, values, and behavior. If you know it, do it.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Luke 10:25-37 - The Parable of the Good Samaritan
by Red Road Techie » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:51 am
> Jesus is not addressing the existing definition of "Jews". That's foreign to the text itself and the surrounding context.
Seriously?!
First, the bible does address "Jews", though you are strictly correct that Levitican law doesn't address "Jews". If you wish to be pedantic about it, then "Israelite".
> There is nothing here to give evidence to what you are claiming. In Luke 9 we see the proclamation of the new kingdom (9.1-9), the declaration of Jesus himself as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.10-17), Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.18-27), and God the Father's endorsement of Jesus as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.28-36). In vv. 37-45, Luke drives his point home that Jesus is one of a kind. Nothing stands in his way. Nothing confuses him. Nothing causes him fear. Nothing intimidates him. His power is endless, unchallenged and unchallengeable. His treatment of people is amazing and enviable. His teaching has so much power, authority, and wisdom. The chapter ends with teachings about who is part of this new kingdom and who isn't. It is a kingdom of faith and commitment, of relationship and following. The way of Jesus is the way of the cross: self-sacrifice, rejection, and suffering. It’s radically counter-cultural, eschewing the values and ways of society to follow Jesus in a completely different mindset and lifestyle. It takes total commitment to a significant commission, and he sets all the terms of the contract. It’s not up to us to dictate the particulars. It’s our place just to choose whether to sign or not. And if we sign, he wants us to know what we’re signing up for: a demanding life with no guarantees of ease, health or wealth, but also a life of significance described with words like "abundance" and "joy".
I don't see how any of that is relevant, at least in any way that couldn't be more succinctly described as "is in the gospels".
> He sends them out with directions about what kind of people they are supposed to be and their attitude and purpose as they declare the new kingdom of God.
Well, he sends them (the "seventy-two others", whoever the f*** they are) to gain converts. Specifically, he instructs them to "not greet anyone on the road", but instead to enter peoples' homes, and if they don't resist, to eat their food. If however, they aren't welcomed, they are to complain and threaten them.
> It's in this context that the challenge of the lawyer comes, followed by the parable, which we have already covered.
The 72 are not relevant to the Good Samaritan parable. Just prior to the introduction of some "lawyer", he was in private with his disciples. To claim that this lawyer is in any way connected to the 72, either as one of their number, or one of their victims, would be a monumental stretch.
> As you can see, none of this has anything to do with Jesus addressing the existing definition of "Jews".
Again, "Israelite", if you prefer. Those for who "neighbor" is applied to in the law. In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Exodus, it is clear that "neighbor" means either other Israelites. The law clearly addresses foreigners as being of a separate class.
> The commands from God always included the nations and the foreigners as "neighbors".
I can find no instance of where any foreign nation that god's commands be attacked as being called a "neighbor". More to the point, if genocide, rape, slavery and pillaging are examples of things to do to neighbors, then clearly we fundamentally disagree about the nature of the example the Samaritan portrays.
> Leviticus 19, where the original verse about loving neighbors is, includes loving the foreigner (the alien). When the text already directs every Israelite to love aliens as oneself, what would be the point of saying to love only Israelites in the very same chapter? But the instruction to love aliens comes after we have already had the instruction to love your neighbor as yourself. That is, if you tell people first to love their aliens and then give a second instruction to love their neighbors, that second instruction really does sound like an addition because the first group, aliens, obviously doesn’t include the second group, neighbors. But if you tell people first to love their neighbors then a second instruction to love aliens a few verses later can make sense as a specification for anyone who would have thought that love of neighbor didn’t include loving others as well. Did the biblical authors think that the specifications referring to aliens were necessary?
Leviticus 19 says to leave scrapes in the fields for foreigners, and not to mistreat them. In never calls them "neighbors".
> We know that they did because they said it 52 times in the Torah.
We can count the number of times the Old Testament uses the word "love" on one hand (specifically, Hosea 3:1 and Song of Solomon 8:7).
"Aliens" and "foreigners" aren't used much more often. However, I could accept that foreign people are addressed 52 times, such as Joshua 6:20-21, Deuteronomy 2:32-35, Deuteronomy 3:3-7, Numbers 31:7-18, 1 Samuel 15:1-9, etc. Granted, God is described as treating Israelites in the same way, such as Numbers 16:41-49, but as per above, genocide is contrary to the behavior of the Samaritan.
It seems your argument is that foreigners weren't always indiscriminately murdered, and therefore not stealing from your neighbor applied to foreigners as well as Israelites. Except, for every commandment (or law) that addresses neighbors, there is more than one example of god commanding Israelites to do not likewise (especially with theft).
> Not at all. Both Jesus and the Samaritan are pointing to the man in need as the "neighbor".
Wrong. The question is who is the neighbor for the man in need. I really have no clue how you could interpret the moral as being that we should treat ourselves as a neighbor.
> This is the complete opposite of what Jesus is saying. The victim didn't do anything to help the Samaritan. The parable is about the Samaritan helping the victim when he would get nothing out of it. You have this all wrong.
Who was the neighbor of the victim? The one who "showed mercy". Who is a neighbor? The one who "shows mercy". The story addresses who is a neighbor to us.
> No, the robbers are not our neighbors. They are the perpetrators of evil and harm. They don't come into the story in any other way, and there is no teaching here about how they should be treated. Other texts do: Lev. 19.11; Ex. 20.15, and especially Exodus 22.1-5.
Well... I agree that's the point of the story. It is NOT "love your enemies". It is "love your neighbors" as "love those who show you mercy". Obviously, you'd have to stretch the story to come up with "love everyone as your neighbor" as opposed to "love your neighbor as yourself".
> He is doing no such thing. Jesus is endorsing the commandments of God ("Do not steal"; "love your neighbor as yourself") while correcting a misunderstanding of the law (the false thinking that "neighbor" only meant "fellow countrymen").
"Love your neighbor as yourself" clearly limits it to "among your people". Indeed, the previous statement explicitely states it applies to Isrelites.
"Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt."
The same is true for stealing for our neighbors. If "neighbor" includes everyone, then why bother specifying "neighbor"?
Plus, according to you, Jesus is taking a statement that does apply to everyone, and preventing it from applying to robbers. You're claiming Jesus is limiting it to those who are helpful to you. I agree, it is limiting it, but I disagree the OT has a broader standard. Jesus is simply allowing it to apply to foreigners that help us.
> The evidence was have, since Luke was a historian (Lk. 1.1-4), is that the event is considered historical. What evidence do you have to support your prejudicial bias to the contrary?
Lol. Who is the lawyer? Where'd he come from? What other mention is there of this lawyer? Is he one of the 72?
Literally, in the sentence prior to introducing the lawyer, it is said that Jesus was explicitly alone with his disciples. The "lawyer" is just as much of a literary element as the Samaritan. Now, you could claim there's some sort of historical evidence for the lawyer, or the 72, or Jesus.... But it's not relevant. The lawyer literally comes from nowhere. The location within the text for this parable is completely arbitrary. It has no stated connection with the 72, who disappear as quickly as they appeared. And the lawyer disappears as quickly as he appeared, having no relevance to Martha and Mary, who at least didn't just magically appear (they were in a village while Jesus and company were travelling).
> The parable has similar bookends: "Do this and you will live;" "Go and do likewise." The point of the parable is that followers of Christ (the true people of God) should act in accordance with the true teachings of the Word of God. We can have a relationship with God that shows itself dramatically in our attitudes, thoughts, values, and behavior. If you know it, do it.
I absolutely agree! That's my point. The "moral" of the story is to do whatever you think god wants you to do. If that's refusing to help people that don't help you, or helping anyone who needs it, or even being willing to help regardless of need... It's entirely up to you. The story covers all bases, so it could have just as easily have said "act in accordance to God". The fact that begs the question, as really no different than saying "do what you feel like", is irrelevant to Christianity. The important issue isn't how you treat other people, it's that you accept the authority of god, and in turn those who claim to be authorities of god.
Seriously?!
First, the bible does address "Jews", though you are strictly correct that Levitican law doesn't address "Jews". If you wish to be pedantic about it, then "Israelite".
> There is nothing here to give evidence to what you are claiming. In Luke 9 we see the proclamation of the new kingdom (9.1-9), the declaration of Jesus himself as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.10-17), Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.18-27), and God the Father's endorsement of Jesus as the Messiah of the new kingdom (9.28-36). In vv. 37-45, Luke drives his point home that Jesus is one of a kind. Nothing stands in his way. Nothing confuses him. Nothing causes him fear. Nothing intimidates him. His power is endless, unchallenged and unchallengeable. His treatment of people is amazing and enviable. His teaching has so much power, authority, and wisdom. The chapter ends with teachings about who is part of this new kingdom and who isn't. It is a kingdom of faith and commitment, of relationship and following. The way of Jesus is the way of the cross: self-sacrifice, rejection, and suffering. It’s radically counter-cultural, eschewing the values and ways of society to follow Jesus in a completely different mindset and lifestyle. It takes total commitment to a significant commission, and he sets all the terms of the contract. It’s not up to us to dictate the particulars. It’s our place just to choose whether to sign or not. And if we sign, he wants us to know what we’re signing up for: a demanding life with no guarantees of ease, health or wealth, but also a life of significance described with words like "abundance" and "joy".
I don't see how any of that is relevant, at least in any way that couldn't be more succinctly described as "is in the gospels".
> He sends them out with directions about what kind of people they are supposed to be and their attitude and purpose as they declare the new kingdom of God.
Well, he sends them (the "seventy-two others", whoever the f*** they are) to gain converts. Specifically, he instructs them to "not greet anyone on the road", but instead to enter peoples' homes, and if they don't resist, to eat their food. If however, they aren't welcomed, they are to complain and threaten them.
> It's in this context that the challenge of the lawyer comes, followed by the parable, which we have already covered.
The 72 are not relevant to the Good Samaritan parable. Just prior to the introduction of some "lawyer", he was in private with his disciples. To claim that this lawyer is in any way connected to the 72, either as one of their number, or one of their victims, would be a monumental stretch.
> As you can see, none of this has anything to do with Jesus addressing the existing definition of "Jews".
Again, "Israelite", if you prefer. Those for who "neighbor" is applied to in the law. In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Exodus, it is clear that "neighbor" means either other Israelites. The law clearly addresses foreigners as being of a separate class.
> The commands from God always included the nations and the foreigners as "neighbors".
I can find no instance of where any foreign nation that god's commands be attacked as being called a "neighbor". More to the point, if genocide, rape, slavery and pillaging are examples of things to do to neighbors, then clearly we fundamentally disagree about the nature of the example the Samaritan portrays.
> Leviticus 19, where the original verse about loving neighbors is, includes loving the foreigner (the alien). When the text already directs every Israelite to love aliens as oneself, what would be the point of saying to love only Israelites in the very same chapter? But the instruction to love aliens comes after we have already had the instruction to love your neighbor as yourself. That is, if you tell people first to love their aliens and then give a second instruction to love their neighbors, that second instruction really does sound like an addition because the first group, aliens, obviously doesn’t include the second group, neighbors. But if you tell people first to love their neighbors then a second instruction to love aliens a few verses later can make sense as a specification for anyone who would have thought that love of neighbor didn’t include loving others as well. Did the biblical authors think that the specifications referring to aliens were necessary?
Leviticus 19 says to leave scrapes in the fields for foreigners, and not to mistreat them. In never calls them "neighbors".
> We know that they did because they said it 52 times in the Torah.
We can count the number of times the Old Testament uses the word "love" on one hand (specifically, Hosea 3:1 and Song of Solomon 8:7).
"Aliens" and "foreigners" aren't used much more often. However, I could accept that foreign people are addressed 52 times, such as Joshua 6:20-21, Deuteronomy 2:32-35, Deuteronomy 3:3-7, Numbers 31:7-18, 1 Samuel 15:1-9, etc. Granted, God is described as treating Israelites in the same way, such as Numbers 16:41-49, but as per above, genocide is contrary to the behavior of the Samaritan.
It seems your argument is that foreigners weren't always indiscriminately murdered, and therefore not stealing from your neighbor applied to foreigners as well as Israelites. Except, for every commandment (or law) that addresses neighbors, there is more than one example of god commanding Israelites to do not likewise (especially with theft).
> Not at all. Both Jesus and the Samaritan are pointing to the man in need as the "neighbor".
Wrong. The question is who is the neighbor for the man in need. I really have no clue how you could interpret the moral as being that we should treat ourselves as a neighbor.
> This is the complete opposite of what Jesus is saying. The victim didn't do anything to help the Samaritan. The parable is about the Samaritan helping the victim when he would get nothing out of it. You have this all wrong.
Who was the neighbor of the victim? The one who "showed mercy". Who is a neighbor? The one who "shows mercy". The story addresses who is a neighbor to us.
> No, the robbers are not our neighbors. They are the perpetrators of evil and harm. They don't come into the story in any other way, and there is no teaching here about how they should be treated. Other texts do: Lev. 19.11; Ex. 20.15, and especially Exodus 22.1-5.
Well... I agree that's the point of the story. It is NOT "love your enemies". It is "love your neighbors" as "love those who show you mercy". Obviously, you'd have to stretch the story to come up with "love everyone as your neighbor" as opposed to "love your neighbor as yourself".
> He is doing no such thing. Jesus is endorsing the commandments of God ("Do not steal"; "love your neighbor as yourself") while correcting a misunderstanding of the law (the false thinking that "neighbor" only meant "fellow countrymen").
"Love your neighbor as yourself" clearly limits it to "among your people". Indeed, the previous statement explicitely states it applies to Isrelites.
"Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt."
The same is true for stealing for our neighbors. If "neighbor" includes everyone, then why bother specifying "neighbor"?
Plus, according to you, Jesus is taking a statement that does apply to everyone, and preventing it from applying to robbers. You're claiming Jesus is limiting it to those who are helpful to you. I agree, it is limiting it, but I disagree the OT has a broader standard. Jesus is simply allowing it to apply to foreigners that help us.
> The evidence was have, since Luke was a historian (Lk. 1.1-4), is that the event is considered historical. What evidence do you have to support your prejudicial bias to the contrary?
Lol. Who is the lawyer? Where'd he come from? What other mention is there of this lawyer? Is he one of the 72?
Literally, in the sentence prior to introducing the lawyer, it is said that Jesus was explicitly alone with his disciples. The "lawyer" is just as much of a literary element as the Samaritan. Now, you could claim there's some sort of historical evidence for the lawyer, or the 72, or Jesus.... But it's not relevant. The lawyer literally comes from nowhere. The location within the text for this parable is completely arbitrary. It has no stated connection with the 72, who disappear as quickly as they appeared. And the lawyer disappears as quickly as he appeared, having no relevance to Martha and Mary, who at least didn't just magically appear (they were in a village while Jesus and company were travelling).
> The parable has similar bookends: "Do this and you will live;" "Go and do likewise." The point of the parable is that followers of Christ (the true people of God) should act in accordance with the true teachings of the Word of God. We can have a relationship with God that shows itself dramatically in our attitudes, thoughts, values, and behavior. If you know it, do it.
I absolutely agree! That's my point. The "moral" of the story is to do whatever you think god wants you to do. If that's refusing to help people that don't help you, or helping anyone who needs it, or even being willing to help regardless of need... It's entirely up to you. The story covers all bases, so it could have just as easily have said "act in accordance to God". The fact that begs the question, as really no different than saying "do what you feel like", is irrelevant to Christianity. The important issue isn't how you treat other people, it's that you accept the authority of god, and in turn those who claim to be authorities of god.
- Red Road Techie
Re: Luke 10:25-37 - The Parable of the Good Samaritan
by jimwalton » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:12 pm
Oh my, long post.
> Seriously?! First, the bible does address "Jews", though you are strictly correct that Levitican law doesn't address "Jews". If you wish to be pedantic about it, then "Israelite".
Of course the Bible addresses "Jews," but it's not in this text. Nor does this text speak to "Israelite." Just read it. It isn't there.
> I don't see how any of that is relevant, at least in any way that couldn't be more succinctly described as "is in the gospels".
It's relevant because it shows what the text is about, and it's not about what you are claiming. The setup and point of the story are some of the most clear of all that Jesus taught: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" "And who is my neighbor?" "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" Extremely clear, and not what you are asserting.
> The 72 are not relevant to the Good Samaritan parable.
All context is important in helping us understand the point. Luke has arranged his material for a reason.
> Again, "Israelite", if you prefer. Those for who "neighbor" is applied to in the law. In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Exodus, it is clear that "neighbor" means either other Israelites. The law clearly addresses foreigners as being of a separate class.
In Ex., Lev. & Deut., "neighbor" sometimes means Israelites and sometimes means all people. For instance, you can't possibly be claiming that in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20.16) that one shouldn't give false testimony against Israelites but it's OK to give false testimony against a foreigner. Nor, in Ex. 20.17, that one shouldn't covet a fellow Israelite's house or wife, but it's OK to covet a foreigner's house or wife. Also look at Lev. 18.20 or 19.13. You can't possibly be arguing that it's OK to do those things to foreigners. What about Lev. 19.15: Are they to judge fellow Israelites fairly, but it's OK to judge foreigners unfairly? Impossible.
> We can count the number of times the Old Testament uses the word "love" on one hand
I hope you have a big hand. "Love" is mentioned in the OT 425 times.
> "Both Jesus and the Samaritan are pointing to the man in need as the 'neighbor'." Wrong. The question is who is the neighbor for the man in need.
Right. In Luke 10.36, Jesus asked, "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
> Lol. Who is the lawyer? Where'd he come from? What other mention is there of this lawyer?
Jesus was often surrounded by observers and detractors. He was often tested by the religious leaders. The word used in Lk. 10.25 is νομικός, "Someone learned in the law; legal expert; lawyer." It is a person who was an expert in the Mosaic Law. It was probably a scribe, who are often of the Pharisees. It's not a stretch at all that a scribe and a Pharisee showed up "on one occasion" to test Jesus.
> Literally, in the sentence prior to introducing the lawyer, it is said that Jesus was explicitly alone with his disciples.
That's right. That's why Luke uses the indefinite "on one occasion." It fits his writing agenda to insert the story here. It's not necessarily immediately chronological, and Luke makes that clear. But it is meant to tie in contextually to the point Luke is making.
> The "moral" of the story is to do whatever you think god wants you to do
In a sense, yes, but it's more concise than that: Do what God has commanded you to do.
> If that's refusing to help people that don't help you
Not a teaching of the Bible, so not a legitimate option. Read Mt. 5.38-42.
> It's entirely up to you
No it's not. It's entirely up to God. We do what God has told us to do.
> The story covers all bases
Not so. The story is about "Who is my neighbor?" in the context of a question about salvation.
> The important issue isn't how you treat other people, it's that you accept the authority of god, and in turn those who claim to be authorities of god.
Close, but no cigar. Accepting the authority of God definitely and distinctly involves how you treat other people. Matt. 22.35-40; Matt. 25.31-46.
> Seriously?! First, the bible does address "Jews", though you are strictly correct that Levitican law doesn't address "Jews". If you wish to be pedantic about it, then "Israelite".
Of course the Bible addresses "Jews," but it's not in this text. Nor does this text speak to "Israelite." Just read it. It isn't there.
> I don't see how any of that is relevant, at least in any way that couldn't be more succinctly described as "is in the gospels".
It's relevant because it shows what the text is about, and it's not about what you are claiming. The setup and point of the story are some of the most clear of all that Jesus taught: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" "And who is my neighbor?" "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" Extremely clear, and not what you are asserting.
> The 72 are not relevant to the Good Samaritan parable.
All context is important in helping us understand the point. Luke has arranged his material for a reason.
> Again, "Israelite", if you prefer. Those for who "neighbor" is applied to in the law. In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Exodus, it is clear that "neighbor" means either other Israelites. The law clearly addresses foreigners as being of a separate class.
In Ex., Lev. & Deut., "neighbor" sometimes means Israelites and sometimes means all people. For instance, you can't possibly be claiming that in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20.16) that one shouldn't give false testimony against Israelites but it's OK to give false testimony against a foreigner. Nor, in Ex. 20.17, that one shouldn't covet a fellow Israelite's house or wife, but it's OK to covet a foreigner's house or wife. Also look at Lev. 18.20 or 19.13. You can't possibly be arguing that it's OK to do those things to foreigners. What about Lev. 19.15: Are they to judge fellow Israelites fairly, but it's OK to judge foreigners unfairly? Impossible.
> We can count the number of times the Old Testament uses the word "love" on one hand
I hope you have a big hand. "Love" is mentioned in the OT 425 times.
> "Both Jesus and the Samaritan are pointing to the man in need as the 'neighbor'." Wrong. The question is who is the neighbor for the man in need.
Right. In Luke 10.36, Jesus asked, "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
> Lol. Who is the lawyer? Where'd he come from? What other mention is there of this lawyer?
Jesus was often surrounded by observers and detractors. He was often tested by the religious leaders. The word used in Lk. 10.25 is νομικός, "Someone learned in the law; legal expert; lawyer." It is a person who was an expert in the Mosaic Law. It was probably a scribe, who are often of the Pharisees. It's not a stretch at all that a scribe and a Pharisee showed up "on one occasion" to test Jesus.
> Literally, in the sentence prior to introducing the lawyer, it is said that Jesus was explicitly alone with his disciples.
That's right. That's why Luke uses the indefinite "on one occasion." It fits his writing agenda to insert the story here. It's not necessarily immediately chronological, and Luke makes that clear. But it is meant to tie in contextually to the point Luke is making.
> The "moral" of the story is to do whatever you think god wants you to do
In a sense, yes, but it's more concise than that: Do what God has commanded you to do.
> If that's refusing to help people that don't help you
Not a teaching of the Bible, so not a legitimate option. Read Mt. 5.38-42.
> It's entirely up to you
No it's not. It's entirely up to God. We do what God has told us to do.
> The story covers all bases
Not so. The story is about "Who is my neighbor?" in the context of a question about salvation.
> The important issue isn't how you treat other people, it's that you accept the authority of god, and in turn those who claim to be authorities of god.
Close, but no cigar. Accepting the authority of God definitely and distinctly involves how you treat other people. Matt. 22.35-40; Matt. 25.31-46.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:12 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest