What’s the problem with how I read Jesus contradicting legalism and not the Law. Did you see McKnight’s reading of 5:38-42? I quoted it earlier in the thread.
While I haven’t looked deeply into the commentaries for it, I imagine my pastor learned his “delusional” reading from the seminary he attended. He was also a big reader of Pink who has some “bizarre” readings on the Law as well. But that’s where I got it, and for some reason it stuck with me all these years.
Yeah… similar maybe to the problem systematic theologians have in quibbling over particular words
Curiously, ChatGPT identifies my view as the “historical context” view. It’s words and not mine, in the “you have heard it said” passages Jesus is addressing specific issues and misunderstandings among his Jewish audience… supposedly Wright, Keener and Sanders hold to this view. But I have about zero confidence in that.
ChatGPT once told me Peter Enns wrote about a connection between the historical Adam and spiritual awakenings. Which turned out to be a total hallucination. But it had me on the edge of my seat for about 15 minutes before I determined it to be a bogus reference.
Why do I care what ChatGPT says? Seriously. GIGO.
They claim is Jesus is building a fence around the Torah but I see him possibly doing that and rejecting portions at the same time.
I have no prior doctrinal considerations forcing me to interpret away what the text plainly shows. Sanders considers Jesus pretty much a law observant Jew (see Jesus and Judaism).
You’re not a YEC by some remote chance, are you? 
Your not a local flood proponent are you? That makes you the one with the YEC mentality.
I don’t force any Biblical text to say something it doesn’t. If it says something that is incorrect it says something that is incorrect. For example, the worldwide flood narrated twice in Genesis 6-9. I don’t need to try to twist and force the text to teach something else. Likewise, when Jesus intensified parts of the Torah and casts others aside in Matthew 5 I don’t need to try to imagine he didn’t do one or the other. Those bound by inerrancy have to force fit texts together as if the Bible is a set of true propositions that all can all be harmonized. This is just make believe, man-made doctrine.
Come again? How’s that?
Some of what “you have heard it said” in Matthew 5 is not written, so it seems a reasonable distinction to me.
And much of it is and Jesus disagrees with parts of it but Christians are certainly free to make Jesus say whatever they want or need Him to in order to satisfy their a priori doctrinal commitments. Alternatively we could just listen to Him and say to hell with what we think we know. That would require surrendering intellectual control though… instead we would rather devise our own Thomas Jefferson versions…
I’m sensing somewhat of an overreaction to what I said.
That’s a legitimate question that got skipped
If the YEC had a textual distinction similar to “you have heard” and “it was written,” they could have a field day 
Even Google puts this at the top of a search result for “you have heard it was said”
When Jesus says, “You have heard it said,” he is referring to the fact that popular interpretation and applications of scripture have been misunderstood
I’m reading the Hebrew. That language has a word for “other” and it is not in the text, nor does the rest of the text justify adding it – doing so changes the meaning of the Hebrew.
If I remember my grad studies right, “You have heard it said” could be used to refer to a scriptural passage that was quoted frequently, especially when the speaker was disagreeing with someone else’s interpretation and/or application of that passage. Given that Christ was actually quoting Old Testament scripture, and further that most of His audience at the time were illiterate and so got their scripture second-hand by someone else reading what was written, I’d say that’s the best meaning.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
I’ve found I can get good answers from ChatGPT by requesting that sources be provided in standard academic format such as a paper for publication or an encyclopedia would give. When I’ve just asked for published sources it’s tried to slip me some total inventions; I think requesting the strict protocol keeps it honest. My suspicion is that it has read far too many supermarket tabloids where such dishonesty is common and so it sees that as acceptable.
It occurs to me to wonder whether it would admit to fabricating sources if asked.
I think it was Bing chat a few weeks back, after the links it gave were bogus, that I asked if it was hallucinating (I thing that’s term for AI making things up) and it said it didn’t want to continue the conversation. 
No that’s not the issue, and it isn’t about honesty/dishonesty either. It is more that LLM generative AI like ChatGPT are not intended for academic research they are intended to generate information based on the prompt. ChatGPT has never claimed to be a effective research tool.
The issue was “hallucination” on the part of ChatGPT. My comment was to point out that if you’re careful you can keep it from just inventing sources, i.e. keep it honest.
Given some of the answers I’ve gotten from ChatGPT I laugh at that one – I’ve gotten responses with totally made-up references and even invented quotes.
You’re assuming access to intended meaning of the Hebrew based on English lexicons written by Westerners with specific views of hermeneutics and translation and the traditional opinions of English speaking scholars.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.