In first century Judaism, it was a common practice by teachers/Sages/Pharisees, especially highly regarded ones to “modify” the Torah by making it stricter. This practice is called "building a fence arount the torah (chumra in Hebrew). The practice was later codified in the Pirkei Avot 1:1.
Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.
This distinction is crucial for understanding the so-called antitheses in Matthew 5:21–48. These six teachings—each beginning with “You have heard it said…” and followed by “But I say to you…”—have often been misunderstood as Jesus overturning the Law of Moses. But the opposite is true. They are introduced with a warning:
“Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:20)
This verse is the hermeneutical key. Jesus is not discarding the Torah but calling for a righteousness that goes beyond surface obedience, just as a pious Jew might take on a chumra to honor God more deeply you not to violate teaching; Jesus’ followers are not being taught to annul the Torah but to practice it with full fidelity and with greater interior integrity.
The Antitheses of Halakhic Intensifications
Each of the six antitheses in Matthew 5 can be understood as a chumra—a strengthening of Torah’s ethical demands.
A Chumra on Murder — Exodus 20:13
“You have heard… ‘You shall not murder,’ but I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.” (Matt. 5:21–22)
Jesus is not redefining murder; he is naming anger as the seed of violence. He urges his disciples to confront the internal disposition before it can manifest outwardly but not as moral absolutism—it is a protective intensification. A chumra.
you do not understand the Old Testament Sanctuary Service or how salvation works.
Salvation is a free gift, however, we must be willing to receive it…which means we must seek forgiveness that is on offer. God does not force us to accept the gift of salvation, however, it does come with the caveat that we must be born again as is illustrated in the New Testament with the Baptism of Christ (who was sinless and as explained by John the Baptist, didn’t even need baptism)
We most definitely DO demand consequences for sin…what do you think our criminal justice system exists for? the fun of it?? Lucifer also made this clear in the opening chapters of the book of Job (id suggest you go read it to remind yourself of this)
The entire theme of the Bible exists because of a simple claim made by Lucifer in heaven. Lucifer was not immediately killed in heaven when he rebelled because he made a charge against God that required a defense. That is the point of how it is that sin came to this world in the first place. All Christians as far as I am aware accept that the Bible is a narrative of a God being on trial and this world is the stage for that arraignment. Once Christ died on the cross, the case has been proven and the outcome beyond dispute… as described in the Old Testament Sanctuary model given by Moses to the Israelites in the Sinai desert. Lucifers claims are being tested. Christ died in order to prove (if you like) that God is just, merciful, and righteous…he is not the ogre that Lucifer claims he is.
The bible clearly says “seek ye first the kingdom of God”
following darwinian evolution to its absolutes, and then modelling a religion around that…this is not seeking God first, its making God fit with secular naturalism and uniformatarian ideas derived by those who do not believe that there is room for God in science
Pierre Simon Laplace (1749-1827) made this abundantly clear to Napoleon when he observed:
“there is no need for God as a hypothesis”
Christianity exists because of exactly the reason you claim it doesn’t…that God has provided a solution, and he did this from the moment man sinned. Without it, we are lost…that is a biblical absolute.
I see this difference mainly as a psychological reaction. We construct much of our worldview on some basic assumptions or fundamentals. Any questioning of these basic assumptions may threaten our worldview and might collapse our apparent understanding and beliefs of the reality around us - throw us from ‘safety’ to ‘chaotic uncertainty’.
If we feel that our worldview or position is so stable and secure that questioning and opposition does not threaten to collapse it, we can consider the disagreeing opinions from a point of safety and even adopt alternative explanations where these have better support.
And vice versa, if the questioning and opposition seems to threaten my position or the stability of the belief structure that forms my worldview, that will provoke a defence reaction that can be hard and relentless.
This psychological defence reaction can be seen in the lives of individuals. To some extent, the reaction of churches to alternative interpretations that somehow seem to challenge the basic doctrines of the church have a similar kind of motive, fear. What seems to threaten the safe ‘status quo’ may be treated harshly, other kind of disagreements may be treated gently.
Huh? Adam guides his faith by science; it’s the foundation of YEC, that the scripture teaches science, that the scripture has to be right about science or it isn’t true. That sets science above scripture, though it then turns around and uses scripture to try to force science to fit, but that’s just the flip side of defining truth as meaning “scientifically accurate”.
I remember defending my master’s thesis and one faculty member hit me with a list of things he thought I had overlooked. Most of them were wrong; I had considered the points he made but didn’t think they needed to be included, so I took them one by one and gave responses. He surprised me (and my advisor) by snapping, “Put those in an appendix, then!” He was the loudest critic but the most easily satisfied.
Science fits the Bible just fine as it is, there’s no need to go through the mendacious manipulations beloved of YEC “science”. You just have to let the Bible be what it is.
It appears from this sentence that you have no idea what ANE stands for. It means “ancient near east” and sits squarely in the center of the “historical” aspect of the grammatical-historical method (which some put the other way around, noting that until we look at the history we can’t even be sure of the grammar, since language is part of history).
No he doesn’t.
Scripture is the guide, not science. He just claims that scripture understands science, which id doesn;t
The reason you cannot get through to him is that he doesn’e accept your view of science, Just as you look to academia for your answers he looks to Scripture.
Why do you insist on ignoring the ordinary use of language? That you do so has been shown repeatedly yet you persist.
“All” is not an absolute, even in Genesis, as you have been shown.
Christ does not necessarily indicate what kind of even the Flood was.
These are basic aspects of how language works, yet you reject them!
That in context the Flood covered the known world. Peter’s word choice affirms that.
Then why have you made an idol of it and set it up above the scriptures?!
Again: where in scripture does it say that the Holy Spirit intended to teach science?
That’s a good description! YEC claims to put the Bible above science but in reality rely on a foundation that assumes that truth has to be scientific, then forces a scientific reading of the Bible onto science – slammed together and forcibly combined, indeed!
Yet your theology rests on the proposition that the Bible has to be scientifically accurate to be true. That sets science above the Bible because it makes science a measure of truthfulness.
Again: Where does the scripture say that there is any intent to be scientifically accurate?
He looks to a view of scripture that requires it to be scientifically accurate – that’s imposing a scientific worldview onto the scriptures.
But nowhere does scripture suggest that scientific accuracy is part of its definition of truth.
Both of these sound pretty weird as ways to describe Adam.
St.Roymond immediately elaborates.
That’s better.
But this
is strange again.
Seems St.Roymond is using the word “science” here for “beliefs about nature,” which is not what science is. In fact it sounds a little like the way atheists use the word when they characterize religion as primitive science.
So the statements of St.Roymond become something like…
It’s the foundation of YEC, that the scripture teaches about nature, that the scripture has to be right about nature or it isn’t true.
Adam sets this purpose he gives to scripture above what scripture itself says about its own purpose.
Adam guides his understanding of Christianity by this view of nature he imagines that scripture is teaching.
As for Richard’s
my objection is mostly his use of the word “faith” in this way for a system of beliefs. And so I would change it to…
Adam or others who take their beliefs about nature more seriously than what science has to say about nature.
I would say, rhetoric is the only methodology they understand, so they see no reason to credit what they see as the rhetoric of science over their own rhetoric based on how they use the Bible.
