Talk:Sermon on the Mount
Perhaps rather than the archaic KJV we should use the ESV? The ESV is a modern translation with moderately liberal copyright permission, as long as you're using < 1,000 verses you don't require their permission http://www.gnpcb.org/page/esv.copyright --RobHu
This page needs to be reverted to a previous version
DSand78's edits butchered this page, removing practically all criticism of the sermon on the mount. It is amusing to look through the edits. I particularly liked how they replaced 'religious' with 'atheistic' in the rant against fasting before removing that section altogether.
DSand's edits need to be reverted imo.
--RDouglasEzell 07:27, 25 November 2010 (CST)
- Agreed. Done. --Arensb 08:17, 25 November 2010 (CST)
Some sections could be seen as quote mining or out of context
Some of the criticisms could be seen as quote mining or taking things out of their historical context.
I will first address your criticisms of Matthew 7:13-23. I feel that to some extent these passages are taken out of context, to the extent they become more coherent when included with Matthew 7:24-27. When these passages are taken as a whole, then 22-23 can be interpreted as referring to those people who did not do good works but only claimed they did, perhaps in the form of 5:46-47. This interpretation does eliminate the contradiction, though the point about those who sincerely believe they are doing good works but in fact are not remains valid. Source: Chick Dissection Flight 144
Second, with respect to 5:38-41, there are more prosaic interpretations that would be known to the contemporaries of Jesus. To some extent, the actions suggested are a form of brinkmanship, forcing the aggressor to break laws and social mores to continue with his action.
That being said, that these discussions about radically different interpretations can be held does not speak well of the bible's words being timeless or the sermon being proof of Jesus' divinity through its clarity.