re: r/teachers - "it's over"

quote:

---

Malicious compliance for now, but there's got to be at least once teacher in Texas willing to get fired for the court case.

---

They've got to get those numbers up.

quote:

---

I agree that a change is needed. I think the first amendment needs to be updated, since more and more people are claiming to be non-religious and yet are promoting dangerous ideologies that can be combatted by Christianity.

---

I don't think the big change would be big enough just by tweaking the 1st Amendment. I think you'd have to get rid of it altogether...at least the part about religion.

You don't just want Christianity to be represented. You ONLY want Christianity to be represented. Not Satanism, not Mormonism, not Hinduism, etc.

Again, I get it. I'm not so averse to the idea of a Christian nation myself. It depends on exactly what we might be talking about.

I can see how society is breaking down at the exact same rate that Christian ethics and the Christian worldview are being rejected.

My big point is that I don't think you can have what you want as the country is now. It's got to become a different country.

quote:

---

You couldn’t outwit dollar store apologists.

---

Hey!

quote:

---

quote: You couldn’t outwit dollar store apologists.

Hey!

---

Myself included!

quote:

---

No, he didn't tell people to do those things. He told Jews to do those things. While He was alive. Before He fulfilled the Law.

---

Yeah I’m still confused. He told the Jews while he was alive (you’re right) that their righteousness must exceed the Pharisees for them to enter the kingdom of heaven, and that anyone who relaxed any part of the law would be called “least” in the new kingdom. But after Jesus dies and fulfills the law, only then can anyone be saved and get to heaven, otherwise his death would be meaningless and unnecessary. So it kind of sounds to me like he’s giving these instructions to the Jews so they can enter the kingdom of heaven after he is sacrificed.

quote:

---

Jesus' message was pretty clear if you interpret properly. The law was holy and righteous, but there were two problems with it. The fact that it is impossible for fallen humans to follow it without failing, and the fact that it is incomplete.

---

I couldn’t find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says that it was impossible for humans to follow it without failing or it being incomplete. Or are you talking about Paul’s message, not Jesus?

quote:

---

Saying that Paul and Jesus are saying two different things is like saying you're confused that someone who has graduated from medical school still needs to do a multi-year residency in order to do brain surgery.

---

That’s why I’m confused. Of course the Bible is the infallible and completely correct and historically accurate word of God but sometimes it seems like Paul and Jesus aren’t saying the same thing.

quote:

---

Remember, Jesus fully intended for His fulfillment to apply to everyone who would accept His lordship, but it was for the apostles to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.

---

I’ve made comments like that to my smug atheist coworkers and they called out these verses to refute it.

“These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans,
but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’”

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

I know it seems crazy but it’s like it says the opposite of what you said - that Jesus’ message was for everyone and that he wanted his followers to convert gentiles.

What can I tell them to get them to confess that Jesus is Lord?

quote:

---

Or it could simply mean that there was an intended timeline and the ministry of the disciples to the Gentiles was to take place after the Law was fulfilled and not before.

---

I understand Jesus said at first he had only come for the lost sheep of Israel before his death and then after his resurrection he says all authority on earth has been given to him, and then commands the 12 minus Judas to make disciples of all nations.

Still, why would Jesus want his disciples not to go to the nations to heal their sick and cast out demons? Why not go to Samaria? Jesus specifically says not to go to Samaria, but stick only to the lost sheep of Israel. Call me crazy but wasn’t Samaria the capital of Israel for most of its existence? It just seems so out of character for Jesus to call the Canaanite (probably Samaritan) woman a dog. It seems petty that Jesus would not want to help others nations only because he hadn’t been given authority over them yet.

You know what? Call me crazy again but I’m almost betting Luke saw the same problem I see with the Jesus in Matthew’s version of events. I think that is precisely why he wrote the parable of the Good Samaritan, to overwrite what was written in Matthew. In Luke, Jesus never claims that he only came for the lost sheep of Israel but seems to already be sharing a message of hope and compassion to all the nations before he was killed.

It’s like Luke and Matthew disagreed on what really happened. Which one is correct?

ETA: in Luke’s account, the Samaritan leper is the only one who came to thank Jesus of the lepers he healed, and in Acts 1:8 Jesus seems to be very inclusive of Samaria. Jesus’ attitudes towards Samaria and the author’s attitude too seem to be very different towards Samaria and the Samaritans.

quote:

---

There is nothing prohibiting any teacher from using the King James Bible as one of the texts in a Brit Lit class and studying it from a literary perspective.

---

Thank you. I don't think mere acknowledgement of the Bible's existence and viewing it as another man-made book as part of British history is what I was going for, though.

quote:

---

Still, why would Jesus want his disciples not to go to the nations to heal their sick and cast out demons? Why not go to Samaria? Jesus specifically says not to go to Samaria, but stick only to the lost sheep of Israel. Call me crazy but wasn’t Samaria the capital of Israel for most of its existence? It just seems so out of character for Jesus to call the Canaanite (probably Samaritan) woman a dog. It seems petty that Jesus would not want to help others nations only because he hadn’t been given authority over them yet.

---

In Matt. 10:5, you are picking on Samaria, but Jesus also said to not go to the Gentiles. The Samaritans were viewed as half-breeds who had a little bit of true Jewish religion mixed with other beliefs and practices.

Jesus' treatment of Samaria was not out of contempt or pettiness, but because, as wackatimesthree said, it was based on Christ's timeline of ministry. Jesus' ministry was governed by a timeline, and His first priority was to the Jewish people--the decedents of those who had the law, the prophets, and the promises of God given to them.

There wasn't an attitude shift in Acts 1. After the resurrection, Jesus continued to teach His disciples to prepare them for the Christian ministry, which was to go to the whole world. The rejection of Jesus by the Jews led to the opening of the door to the Gentiles (and Samaritans) in the timeline of redemption.

You see a contradiction, but Christians see missional fulfillment according to the Scriptures. Paul speaks to this particularly in Romans.