Sermon on the mount

[Wootah]

What was the point of this sermon?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 17 by Monta]

I accept your way of dealing with it but don't know how do you get around areas which are impossibe to grasp.

I have yet to encounter this. If it can't be grasped then what is it doing in the Bible? “All the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.� (Romans 15:4)

If there is anything in the Bible that is "impossible to grasp" then that is like saying Jehovah is flawed. That He doesn't know His own creations and can't instruct us even through a simple book...if He can't do that then, what kind of God is that?

We know that Moses copied few chapters of Genesis from Ancient Writings of which we know nothing.

'We know'? I'm not convinced of such a statement. If Moses did this then the Bible would have noted it. As far as I know Moses talked to Jehovah symbolically 'face to face'. With that kind of closeness, why rely on other writings?

Did Jehovah really go around the universe proclaiming wars?

Only against those that proclaimed a war against Him.

I am still struggling to understand you.
I only know of one person, Swedenborg, who has opened the internal sense of the Scripture written in correspondences which explains the literal sense. He says correspondences were ancient science and that's how people spoke so things we read do not make sense to us in the literal.

Also Jews who did not understand their Torah interpreted it so it all fits nicely together
as in their Talmud.

Perhaps you have a brilliant mind and have mastered the science of correspondences, or you are a Rabbi, or you have discovered your own system. For that you still need a brilliant mind+ to understand ALL of it; that leaves us with a Rabbi?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 20 by Monta]

I made a more in depth post here. viewtopic.php?p=913894#913894

[dio9]

What was the point of this sermon?

The point was to show Jesus as the new law giver , the new Moses if you will. This is a rewrite of the law as Jesus said "I have come to fulfill the Law. Then Jesus goes on to give his take on the commandments murder, adultery , divorce, oaths , eye for an eye , and love thy enemies. The point is Jesus raises understanding of the laws to the new testament level. Its all right there clear in Matthew's Chapters 5 and 6 .

[Wootah]

What was the point of this sermon?

The point was to show Jesus as the new law giver , the new Moses if you will. This is a rewrite of the law as Jesus said "I have come to fulfill the Law. Then Jesus goes on to give his take on the commandments murder, adultery , divorce, oaths , eye for an eye , and love thy enemies. The point is Jesus raises understanding of the laws to the new testament level. Its all right there clear in Matthew's Chapters 5 and 6 .

If God gave Moses the law but Jesus spoke the update, who gave the update to Jesus?

[2timothy316]

What was the point of this sermon?

The point was to show Jesus as the new law giver , the new Moses if you will. This is a rewrite of the law as Jesus said "I have come to fulfill the Law. Then Jesus goes on to give his take on the commandments murder, adultery , divorce, oaths , eye for an eye , and love thy enemies. The point is Jesus raises understanding of the laws to the new testament level. Its all right there clear in Matthew's Chapters 5 and 6 .

Incorrect.

Fulfill doesn't mean rewrite a new law code.

Fulfill: bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted):

It also means, to convert into reality.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulfill

The Sermon on the Mount is not a new law. It was not the fulfillment of the law either. Jesus' birth, life and death was the fulfillment. If a Israelite was well versed in the Bible in Jesus' time, they'd know about Jeremiah 31:31, 32. “Look! The days are coming,� declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt."

Jesus didn't rewrite anything, he took the Law of Moses with him when he died as predicted by Jeremiah. There was always going to be a new covenant according to Jeremiah and "it will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." Still, this has nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount being a new anything. It's a message to the faithful which has been done countless times in the Bible.

[dio9]

What was the point of this sermon?

The point was to show Jesus as the new law giver , the new Moses if you will. This is a rewrite of the law as Jesus said "I have come to fulfill the Law. Then Jesus goes on to give his take on the commandments murder, adultery , divorce, oaths , eye for an eye , and love thy enemies. The point is Jesus raises understanding of the laws to the new testament level. Its all right there clear in Matthew's Chapters 5 and 6 .

If God gave Moses the law but Jesus spoke the update, who gave the update to Jesus?

God of course. Its a case of different strokes for different folks.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

Where does Christ ever reference his "first thousand years of his reign on this earth" in this sermon. In fact, in this sermon, where does Christ even reference his own reign at all?

Firstly, why do you think the first thousand years of Christ’s reign needs to be referenced in the body of his sermon on the mound? Yet, to show that it is, I will reference a few bible verses and explain my position further.

Soon, after the Christ had finished his ordeal with the Adversary, he began to preach repentance and claim that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand or to be brought near to those he was preaching to (Matt. 4:17). Therefore, all further preaching (from this point forward, including the sermon on the mound) would be related to that kingdom, in one way or another. This is clearly shown in the N.T. writings.

In the introduction of the “sermon on the mound,� the Christ refers to the Kingdom of Heaven and the requirements needed to enter into this kingdom (Matt. 5:17-20). Yet, it is obvious that this kingdom was not implemented then, nor has it been implemented since! It is a future kingdom, which is referenced as beginning with a thousand year period in Revelation 20 (at the return of the Christ to this earth). When we review the usage of the Greek word, which was translated into kingdom, it can refer to: the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven or the reign of the Messiah or the Christ.

The writer of Matthew states in verses 28-29 of chapter 5 that the people were astonish at these teachings and realized that he (the Christ) taught as one having authority, beyond that which the scribes had. This surely would have stirred-up their expectations of a Messiah and was reinforced by the miracles and instructions, which would follow. This is the advantage we have today: the ability to review all the related material. Which, allows us to see the big picture and related facts attributed to published materials.

Hence, there is reference to a coming kingdom and to the king of that kingdom, in the sermon on the mound.

[dio9]

What was the point of this sermon?

The point was to show Jesus as the new law giver , the new Moses if you will. This is a rewrite of the law as Jesus said "I have come to fulfill the Law. Then Jesus goes on to give his take on the commandments murder, adultery , divorce, oaths , eye for an eye , and love thy enemies. The point is Jesus raises understanding of the laws to the new testament level. Its all right there clear in Matthew's Chapters 5 and 6 .

Incorrect.

Fulfill doesn't mean rewrite a new law code.

Fulfill: bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted):

It also means, to convert into reality.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulfill

The Sermon on the Mount is not a new law. It was not the fulfillment of the law either. Jesus' birth, life and death was the fulfillment. If a Israelite was well versed in the Bible in Jesus' time, they'd know about Jeremiah 31:31, 32. “Look! The days are coming,� declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt."

Jesus didn't rewrite anything, he took the Law of Moses with him when he died as predicted by Jeremiah. There was always going to be a new covenant according to Jeremiah and "it will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." Still, this has nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount being a new anything. It's a message to the faithful which has been done countless times in the Bible.

There are many similarities in the Gospels between Moses and Jesus , right everything Jesus did was fulfilling the Law from the sermon on the Mount to driving the money changers from the Temple. Jesus whole ministry was about fulfilling the Law thus establishing the New covenant of Grace. Jesus' teaching was a modernizing of the ancient Law for his contemporaries, providing fuller understanding Jesus brought the covenant of Grace.
Bottom line is Moses and Jesus were covenant bringers.
Jesus makes the Law more demanding fuller , he said don't even think about it, cursing your neighbor, swearing and so on Jesus upgraded the law giving the it fuller meaning.

[bluethread]

The writer of Matthew states in verses 28-29 of chapter 5 that the people were astonish at these teachings and realized that he (the Christ) taught as one having authority, beyond that which the scribes had.

This is just a good point to chime in on. The "sermon" is basically his initial midrash(teaching) as a rabbi, outlining the characteristics of His shul. This would generally be nothing peculiar. The reason that the others were astonished is that the traditional practice is for a rabbi to quote his rabbi and then comment on what his rabbi said. However, Yeshua did not support His teaching with the teachings of previous rabbis, but simply stated His views. On the contrary, he refers to the teachings of other rabbis and corrects them. He doesn't even refer to HaTorah, though I do not think anything he says is contrary to Torah.

[marco]

What was the point of this sermon?

It is a sermon to enlist the support of the downtrodden multitudes, the no-hopers, those burdened with tax, those who were born poor and will stay poor, those with no voice. Communism had that same appeal to the masses. It is the substance of revolutions.

There is absolutely no evidence that the promises will ever be fulfilled, but that's not important. Hope is a fire that supplies warmth. And that is good enough for billions - it would seem.