Subject: Re: Jesus Plays Favourites?
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:51:28 +1100
From: Richard Kerr <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Nitpick: I wish whoever it is that is cutting up the attributions in
these posts would stop it. It makes editing difficult and reading more,
not less, obscure.

Graeme Hunt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:04:00 +0800, Nigel Mitchell <>
> wrote:
> >Graeme
> >>Nigel:
> >>>
> >>> I
> >>> do not believe that it is history written in advance, but it is Jesus
> >>> teaching his disciples the criteria by which he, and they, sill judge
> >>> their
> >>> lives, The important part, as in all parables, is not the legal process,
> >>> but
> >>> the punchline – "whatsoever you do (or do not do) for the least of these
> >>> my
> >>> brothers and sisters, you do it (or do not do it) to me".
> >>
> >> Your explanation is extremely superficial.
> >>
> >> The scene here in Matthew 25 is the period of time immediately before
> >> the second advent. This is till future to us. Jews in particular will
> >> be under terrible persecution, especially believers. The passage in
> >> Revelation chapter 7 speaks of this period. There will be those who
> >> aid and assist these persecuted Jews during this time and that is what
> >> Jesus is speaking of here. They will be believers.
> >
> >I consider this to be a fanciful and arbitrary interpretation.
>
> That’s because it suits you to say that. You really are so ignorant of
> scripture that you haven’t an answer, that is the truth of the matter.
> It wouldn’t do for me to show you up now. would it!

This little interchange illustrates why you guys will never come to
agreement.

In this Graeme has one of a class of very strongly held literalist
esachatological views which he holds as "the Truth". Nigel obviously
knows the characteristics of this class of beliefes, and also a fair bit
of meta-analysis and has come to a less rigid position.

Graeme thinks Nigel is ignorant (that’s not true, his position is
exceptionally well informed) and Nigel could be interpreted as saying
Graeme is being arbitrary (Graeme is not being arbitrary, by his own
standards he is being exceptionally rigorous).

Arguing about the specifics of your respective positions will not lead
to resolution because neither of you can accept the other’s reasoning,
since it is the rules of theological reasoning about which you guys
really disagree. Disagreements about particular passages, important
though they may be, are symptoms rather than causes.

I have tried several times to have this debate in the past, and I have
come to the conclusion that it cannot be done on a newsgroup. The issues
are too complex.

I’m really saying, in an exceptionally long winded way, that you are
both wasting your time, you’re never going to agree. You may both
already know that.

—
Regards,

Richard Kerr