February 17, 2015 Matthew 26 (16)

Matthews passion of Jesus. Was Peter denying Christ an unforgivable sin. Schweitzer says Judas was treasurer and maybe Judas was concerned about Jesus not delivering on his promise. How did Peter recover from his denials. What about Judas asking if it was he? Jesus replied you have said so. In some versions it says “Yes it is you.” If Jesus knew it was going to happen was Judas destined to do this betrayal. Did Judas have free choice not to do it, or was he destined from birth to be the fall guy of the disciples. All the disciples went away from him. Jesus said I will deny before my father all those who deny me. Why didn’t Jesus deny his disciples, rather than make all of them Apostles to carry on His ministry?  In Luke Jesus rebuked Peter and healed the ear. When you deny the Holy Spirit you don’t allow God access to your spirit. This is the unforgivable sin. The problem is not blind ignorance, but rather willful rejection. Blasphemy against the Spirit is an ongoing attitude of rebellion. Blasphemy against the Spirit is something being done deliberately and unrelentingly in the present. This represents a defiant rejection of everything Christian.

John G. submitted the following link to a sermon by Luther on the text we read today. “ol Martin may have believed in short prayers, but evidently not short sermons:

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlsermmt2531-42.html

3 thoughts on “February 17, 2015 Matthew 26 (16)

  1. admin Post author

    Chuck Hesse made the following Comment:
    This guy is obviously suffering his own gender identity. He is calling the reader to see a distortion that is not there. This was written long before the feminine movement and to me demonstrates humility in the face of God, not bowing to masculinity. The ELCA has certainly subscribed to erasing the time tested custom of referring to God and certainly Christ as male, which makes some formerly familiar hymns and even parts of the liturgy that were once memorized now requiring reading in order to not stumble over the words. I have a real problem with such critics of the Bible who either have nothing of substance to write about or have their own agenda to propagate. Sort of reminds me of Joseph Dobrians guest editorial that caught so much attention and uproar in subsequent letters to the editor. Chuck H

  2. admin Post author

    Mark made the following Comment:
    Thank you Chuck.

    Not entirely sure about your “ELCA” reference but indeed, recent Biblical scholarship does “re-image God” (as they say).

    Jesus is clearly a man.

    The Magnificat is praise of God as rescuer of a persecuted (held captive) people.

    Just as many Biblical epics are rescue stories of God’s intervention.

    A wonderful and important conversation is this. All senses focused on revelation – ancient and present.

    See you Tuesday.

    Much to talk about – Bible AND soup.

    Pries

  3. admin Post author

    Al Grundstad made the following comment:
    It is an warmed-over issue that this person has apparently just awakened to, and is now drawning our attention. In one sentence the author tips his/her hand to an ill formed arguement.

    The Bible is a masculine set of writings: true. And at the time of the writings no one would have questioned the validity if them being so. In fact, had they been written from a feminine viewpoint it is highly unlikely they would have carried enough critical mass to survive to this day.

    The fatal sentence to me is,

    ” It is, in the first place. that the Bible—widely taken as an authoritative Word of God or at least a revered or beloved or respected testament to universal religious values—is deeply compromised by its ubiquitous adherence to specifically male values, which everywhere distort the apparent universality of its contents.”

    Again, at their writing the texts were not at all compromised by sexual bias. Further, to state that the Bible adheres to masculine values says that the Bible is actively, daily, moment by moment, sticking with it’s mistaken bias, thumbing its nose at the enlightened world, and refusing to speak nicely to and about all that are not masculine.

    If the author wants a new interpretation of holy writ that will correct for the claimed mistake then the author should write one and present it rather than this yelling in a vacuum.

Leave a Reply