Talk:Expounding of the Law

message: The image depicting the sermon on the mount has a caption calling the event the 'sermon from a hill'. Why??
213.217.216.126 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have a question:
Who coined the phrase "Antithesis of the Law" for this part of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount?
The phrase was originally used by Marcion, but in reference to how, he claimed, his Gospel of Marcion constrasted with the Old Testament.
Who applied the phrase to this part of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount?
:I don't know. I'll look it up. Its commonly used by New Testament scholars apparantly. Clinkophonist 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marcion never used the phrase "Antithesis of the Law," he used the title "Antithesis" for his treaty arguing that the OT Deity and NT Deity were two different beings, which he attempted to show by opposing the OT teachings about God to the NT teachings about Jesus (see Daniel Mahar's reconstruction of the Antithesis). Marcion's concern was mainly theological (in the strict sense of the term), not legal. Regarding the phrase "Antithesis of the Law" it has long been used by Christian scholars, "anti-" being taken from the Greek sense ("in place of"), or the old Latin ("surpassing"). The understanding being, "statements which supercede the Law," as in, going beyond the "letter" of the Law, to the "spirit" of the Law. --MonkeeSage 03:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: New definitions are stipulated for words all the time. You really shouldn't ask the question if you don't want the answer. Many Christian scholars use the term antithesis (ἀντί [G473] + τίθημι [G5087]) to refer to this section of the sermon for the reason I stated; I'm also aware of some who see Jesus as setting forth the Rabbinic glosses (midrashim) on the Law and then correcting them (in which case antithesis would have the standard, non-technical meaning). And talk about inventing new definitions — recognizing Marcion's own intention amounts to suppressing it?! Marcionites is linked in the same paragraph you want to put Marcion in, so I'm not a very good "suppressor" am I? So long as it is verifiable, I have no problem including anything in the article, however it is not verifiable that Marcion started the discussion on Jesus' view of the Mosaic Law. --MonkeeSage 06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I just visited your link to Supersessionism, and I'm not sure what anything I wrote has to do with replacement theology. And even if it were replacement theology, what does that have to do with the matter about Marcion? That sounds like a violation of WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." --MonkeeSage 06:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, "supercede;" statements which not only embrace the Law, but go beyond it. How that is replacement theology is beyond me. And even if it were, that has nothing to do with this topic and amounts to ad hominem. I'm aware of the lexical definition of antithesis; I said that it was a stipulated technical meaning as many scholars use it regarding Matt. 5. Others use it in its normal meaning but make the antithesis between Jesus and the Law-teachers not the Law itself. Still other use it to mean the form of the diatribe, not the content ("you have heard. . .but I say"). In any case, you asked why Christian scholars refer to that portion of the sermon that way, and I answered — I'm not arguing that antithesis is the best or most accurate word to use. --MonkeeSage 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The reference to Marcion does not belong here. Just because one of the passages of the NT which Marcion altered in his program to systematically remove all reference to the OT from the NT because he thought that the OT Deity was incompatible with the NT Deity, happened to be located near the Antitheses and happened to mention "Law," does not mean that Macrion discussed the Antitheses or the Law in Matt. 5:22ff. He didn't. Therefore, I'm removing the stuff about Marcion again. --MonkeeSage 22:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Marcion thought that the religion and God of Jesus destroyed the religion and god of Moses. Aside from tossing out the entire Law with the rest of the OT, because he thought that an evil god revealed it (and not because of any discussion of the specifics of the Law) — what does Marcion have to do with the antitheses of Matt. 5? --MonkeeSage 06:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand fine — no need for condescension. Once more, "Just because one of the passages of the NT which Marcion altered in his program to systematically remove all reference to the OT from the NT because he thought that the OT Deity was incompatible with the NT Deity, happened to be located near the Antitheses and happened to mention "Law," does not mean that Macrion discussed the Antitheses or the Law in Matt. 5:22ff. He didn't." You are apparently trying to argue that Marcion was interested in discussing the Law qua Law and Jesus' interpretation, when really his only purpose was to do away with the Law on the grounds that it was revealed by an "alien" deity who was not the God of Jesus. Marcion never raised the issues of legalism and antinomianism; he bypassed the whole topic by religating the OT, including the Law, to the category of uninspired literature (or, at most, inspired by an inferior deity). Yes, he changed the text to say that Jesus would destroy the Law, but not because Marcion had discussed the Law and Jesus' views on it — because his idea of Jesus and a different NT God necessitated that view (He couldn't have Jesus affirming the OT Law, or else Jesus would be validating the OT god). --MonkeeSage 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcion 

message: This article is poorly named.  As the introduction correctly notes, it a) states clearly in the text itself that it is NOT intended as an antithesis or negation of the Law; and b) none of the specific teachings are strictly speaking 'antitheses' or negations of the comparable laws.  "Antithesis of the Law" may allegedly be a phrase used by Marcion, but why should the Marcionist pov be officially endorsed by wikipedia?  Please explain. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Expounding of the Law is npov and more accurate. However, "Antithesis of the Law" is a phrase used in certain Christian circles. It would be nice if someone could figure out who was the first to coin this phrase for this section of Matthew, and then add that information to the article.209.78.16.73 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly who coined the term, but I think I recall seeing it as early as Jerome or Augustine, but I could be mistaken about that. Some current authors who have used the term: Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (3rd ed.), 91-97; John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 160-178; Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, 196-209. To my knowledge Marcion never used the term "Antithesis" in any connection to the sermon on the mount, or the Law, nor did he ever discuss the issue. I don't really have a problem with the title change, though. I'm adding a redirect for Antithesis of the Law so linked pages don't break. --MonkeeSage 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: NM, it already redirects. --MonkeeSage 17:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's title is an incorrect POV 

message: ". Due to the often cold nights in the region, a cloak was hence necessary for survival to the extent that Jewish law regarded it as distrainable." Should it be "non-distainable"? Rich Farmbrough 10:15 6  June 2006 (UTC).
I think "distrainable" is a technical term, meaning "cannot be sold under any circumstances whatsoever". Clinkophonist 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloak 

message: Antithesis of the Law is the phrase I'm familiar with, Law is singular, thus antithesis is singular. I imagine Antitheses of the Law is a neologism unless some references can be found for it. As for marking this section POV, can you be more specific? The quoted references are certainly Wikipedia: Reliable sources. Do you have other references for Antithesis of the Law? 209.78.19.65 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Antithesis of the Law changed to Antitheses of the Law and marked as POV

message: The second paragraph in this section expounds on Mt 5:28 without actually mentioning the reference. Thus, several readings are required. Then the argument becomes so incredibly convoluted that several readings are again required. After all this, the writer's Mobius logic seems to resolve to a rejection of an argument from silence.BUT, arguments from silence can't be refuted! There's nothing there!! There's no "there" there. :-)) I.e, this wording desperately needs help.   --StudiousReader (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adultery 

message: The article writes Despite condemning the use of the term fool which is a misunderstanding of the term 'shall be in danger of'; for that is not a condemnation but a warning against the improper use of the term.  As Christ himself demonstrated, if the term fool is used correctly, there is no sin (proof as Christ is without sin and he used the term, as already cited in the article).  Therefore; only incorrect use is condemned.  60.49.100.253 (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condemning 

message: In the section on love for enemies, the article writes:
"This does not however mean that those later thinkers approved of the sentiment of the verse, and Nietzsche rejected the command entirely, arguing that love of one's enemies is weakness and dishonesty"
This is a clichéd and inaccurate rendering of Nietzsche's thought.  In fact, this is a rare place where Nietzsche comes quite close to Christian doctrine, though according to a quite different reasoning.  It is true that in the Genealogy of Morals, one of the defining characteristics of the slave morality he condemns is an existential attachment to some external, hostile force; his point is that to define one's life or project strictly in reaction against is the worst kind of nihilism, because it fails to affirm life on its own basis (this is integrated into the Genealogy's sustained critique of nineteenth-century German anti-Semitism).  But it is quite incorrect to say that Nietzsche felt that the strong should have no regard for their enemies, and just mindlessly destroy them in accordance with an essentially destructive "will to power"; quite the opposite.  In The Gay Science, Nietzsche says that the strong will choose worthy enemies (section 13); in later sections, he claims that some "need open enemes if they are to rise to the level of their own virtue, virility, and cheerfulness" (169), citing how Napoleon (who Nietzsche foolishly respected) regarded his enemy Murat as "the most courageous person." And again in 211, he writes, "To be able to afford a secret enemy—that is a luxury for which the morality of even elevated spirits is usually not rich enough."  
Nietzsche clearly does not argue for the love of enemies in the sense of a democratic setting aside of differences, or in the sense of "brotherly love" the article cites in the Jewish Encyclopedia.  But I would argue that these are not Christ's meanings, either.  Christ's first defense of the love for enemies is that one's persecution at the hands of enemies will lead to Heavenly rewards; on its own, this passage is exactly the kind of ressentiment that the Genealogy of Morals resists.  But the following passages of Matthew complicate things; here, Jesus argues that one should not only love those who are capable of loving you back, since this is not really love at all; this is the love of "tax collectors."  What defines Jesus' version of "perfection" (or "strength" as Nietzsche would have it) is a kind of disinterestedness in the love or hate of others, disinterested in the sense that it is absolutely unconditional; this disinterestedness is what defines Christian love.
(all citations are from Kaufmann's translations)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.162.169 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche