Luke 14:26 and Luke 14: 33

I have found it useful to sometimes focus on general principles rather than specific and then applying the specifics to the general. For example, if detachment is taken as to be able to leave this world behind to gain eternal life (whether or not in a Christian sense). That Luke 14: 26 speaks to more of that people should not be consumed with human companionship. Luke 14, 33 states ‘…any of you who does not give everything he has cannot be my disciple”. These taken together it would seem to me it is all about detachment (or in other words as much it may seem to be painful for us, to be in a sense cold towards earthy-fondness unless risk being coming to close to them). I must admit that I have become increasing wary that the meaning of the Biblical phrases have been changed either because of language translation or intentional linguistically interpretation, which brings me back to my original point that unless a person wants to devote his/her life to Biblical studies including learning ancient Greek and possible Arabic, etc. then the best approach is to focus on the general principles an applying the specifics to the general (and even at this, we may have to accept some contradictions and to do our best to live with them unless risk going insane trying to get all the ‘ducks in a row’). Another thing that needs to be considered is assuming that Biblical words have kept their meaning through translation and interpretation is the absolute wording of things: i.e., an all or nothing approach such as “everything,” so I must ask myself is that I use translation and interpretation (and thus the focus on generality) as an excuse or is it valid that we have lost something overtime through written changes?

Fears

Psalm 34, 4: I sought the LORD, and he answered me; he delivered me from my fears.

Matthew 10, 28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Outside the literal interpretation (of the devil) I read this to mean be weary of your actions, not because the physical consequences but rather the affects they have on your and others souls: because it is through individual persons that evil is done. Be weary of your actions by giving yourself and others respect.

Revelation 13, 16-18: [16] He also forced everyone…to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, [17] so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.

Hebrews 13, 5-6: [5]Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” [6]So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?”

Luke 10, 10-11

[10] But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, [11] 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’

I take "...we wipe off against you" to mean not to hold things against each other or to judge others as this is not matter for people to engage in, rather it is God’s.



There is some debate about the origins of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke with some saying Luke is based on Mark and Matthew as well as there is a debate of whether Mark is based on Matthew or if Matthew is based on Mark. Type in “Mark’, “Matthew’, and/or “Luke’ into yahoo.com search and there will be a listing for Wikipedia on the first page for each one entered.

Some argue that the role of scholarship is to prove biblical teachings. I think the role of scholarship is to study biblical teachings and raise our spirits when there is evidence to support them and challenge our faith when there is not or when the evidence contends what we believe to be the case: after all if faith is not about being tested what is? Through this process our faith is strengthened as we face falsehoods or fears and conquering them by replacing them with truths. While learning truth may challenge our faith it will never destroy it as God exists and nothing can change this.

Excuses

Luke 14, 16:..."A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests...[18]But they all alike began to make excuses...[21]The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alley of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, and blind and lame.'...I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'

There are several points that I would like to bring up here: (1) those that refuse God's guidance will not be saved is the usual interpretation; (2) we cannot excuse our behavior from God is another standard interpretation: we can only ask for forgiveness; (3) that by making excuses in our personal daily lives we give up opportunities simply for no other reason than not considering our options; and (4) we have constructed social mechanisms that permit us to create polite social excuses that achieve nothing: as we try to deceive one another (yet we all know what each other is doing) and thus prevent humanity from becoming closer.

Salvation

Hebrews 10, 36: You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised...[39]But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Mark 13, 5-13: "[13]...All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved".


It is with these two passages that we can know that what God has promised us is salvation.

Mark 9, 33-34

[33]But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples he rebuked Peter. "Out of my sight, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in the mind the things of God, but the things of men." [34] Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me..."

I read "things of men" to mean concerns of death (to be more specific doubting there is an afterlife, because there is no God) and other earthy matters. I read “he must deny himself” to mean to serve God a person must putout of his mind desires and focus on “things of God” and not believe it is acceptable to give themselves leeway for failure (falling short in competition of task or not being completely devoted to the task or God) due to fault in character (i.e., that they should not focus on how the task will affect them, only on the competition of the task): serve God a person must be obedient and to be truly obedient a person must have humility. I read “take up his cross” to mean what I have just said, but to put emphasis on that it is not an easy path: to putout of a person’s own mind desires and focus on the wants of God. That focusing on “things of God” means the pursuit of eternal life (i.e., life in heaven) but only if a person commits his- or her- self to serving God for the purpose of serving God and not just to gain eternal life.

Philosophy of Religion vs. Theology

What is Philosophy of Religion? Philosophy of Religion is the branch of philosophy that deals with questions related to the cultural element known as religion. It covers aspects such as the existence of god, how we know that god exists, etc. The questions that are asked are directed at religion in general or a specific religion but still in a general framework.

What is Theology? In any specific religion there are questions that arise related to its specific beliefs, values, rules of behavior, practices, principles, history, creation, etc. Theology is the method that a specific religion has to answer these questions. Characteristic of a specific religion’s theology is the theology’s commitment to the religion fundamental elements.

Theology of a specific religion is restricted in as much as it is not permitted to challenge these fundamental elements less risk disproving that which it is meant to defend and create support for. For this reason theology is restricted in it pursuit of truth: another way to look at it is to state that truth begins at these fundamental elements (i.e., first principles).

One thing that concerns me is the presents of those that claim to be religious but are unable to take part in their religion’s theology because they either do not know the method or they do not know the debated issues. This is also true for those that while do not proclaim to belong to any specific religion claim to belong a universal category such being Christian, etc. It concerns me because it may lead a claim that god does not exist.

It concerns me because if the members of a religion or a universal category do not know their theology then what prevents their religion from changing, and if this occurs when does it become a new religion. Furthermore, if a religion changes into a new religion then what defense can be put forth to argue that we know nothing of god(s) and if this happens why cannot an argument be put forth that we cannot be assured that god exist: that leads to an argument that because we cannot be assured that god exists then god does not exist as it would sound reasonable that if god exists then he would want us to know.

Adultery and Divorce

Sometimes it appears there are contradictions within the writing of the bible: for example the writing on Adultery and Divorce.

Matthew 5, 31: ‘ “ It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ [32] But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for martial unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery.’

This writing is often used to put the ownership on women for the success of marriage: that she will be the one to commit adultery if the marriage fails for another reason than (in this scenario) marital unfaithfulness.

Mark 10, 11: “…Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. [12] And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

How can the difference between the two writings be reconciled? (1) Matthew 5, 31 does not preclude the husband responsibility (after all it is he whom is responsible for her act of adultery—i.e., Adam and Eve: Adam being responsible for Eve after the fall) as well as it does not say that the male has not committed adultery through divorce (in other words it does not exclude an act of adultery of male because of him divorcing her). I also think that that Matthew 5, 31 can be read as saying for males to take responsibility for the success of a marriage (i.e. the attitude of you have made your bed now it is time to lye in it): it is the responsibility of males to take care of females spirituality protection—i.e., Adam and Eve—and the man would not be doing his duty if he divorces her because this would compromise her spirituality (i.e., if he divorces her). I also think that there is an underlying thought that divorce will lead to sexual relations between different people in other marriages. The bible says:

Matthew 5, 33: “ ‘Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ [34]But I tell you, Do not swear at all…Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”

Does this only apply to oaths in general or does this apply to marriages? Can we have unions not be based on oaths; instead being based on ‘Yes’ those together be faithful to each other?

Mark 10, 7: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and [8] the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. [9]Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate’

How can we know what God has joined together? Can there be difference between who God has planned us to be together and whom we marry? Is the joining by God is done, occurs, or represented by the sexual act or has it happen before are birth and we need to find that person or a person that we match with?

for those that would judge others

‘But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "if any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. [9] At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. [10] Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" [11] "No one, sir,' she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."’ (John 7:53-8:11)

[Italics added]

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. [2] For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Matthew 7: 1-2)

[Italics added]

I think the relevance of these two teachings is that they show us that we are not fit to judge as well as that we should not judge (not that we can judge if are measures are correct: we are unfit to have perfect measures): Matthew is a caution of about if we judge (there is no technical loop hole of judging because of us having correct measures--we do not have correct measures as we are not perfect. If Jesus would not condemn a sinner, then what makes us fit to do so: nothing?

I think it is also important to realize that only those that are not perfect are capable of sin; however, this does not mean that if someone is not perfect he/she will automatically sin. It does mean that only those whom are perfect should pass judgment. This is shown in Luke 18, 18-19 ‘[18]A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” [19]”Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone…”’ However, is there a difference between Luke and Matthew 19, 16-17, ‘‘‘[16] Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “[17] Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good…”’ I think it is clear based on the pervious on goings that it is the same situation that both are writing about: why is it a ‘man’ in Matthew and a ‘ruler’ in Luke and why is it ‘Good Teacher’ in Luke and ‘good thing’ in Matthew? Is it because of how they were translated? Did the disciples did not hear Jesus all the same way (i.e., they were paraphrasing)? Was it the editing effects of those that compiled the writings in the Bible?

I think that in Matthew 20, 20 when the ‘young man’ replied ‘ “[20]All these I have kept.”…”What do I still lack?” to Jesus statement of obeying the commandments ‘[21]Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”[22]When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.”’ I think this conversion brings-up several important points (1) we are not perfect, (2) we have options (and Jesus gives these to us), and (3) Jesus does not expect us to do everything by ourselves:‘[23]Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [24]Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [25] When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” [26] Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’”

[Italics added]