It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple One Question Poll

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Reconciliation and Offerings

Part of the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament Gospel book of Matthew features Jesus speaking of reconciliation with brothers before offering a gift at the alter.


"If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
Matthew 5:23,24

There is a story:
-------------------------
When the Offertory Hymn began, and the deacons were passing the plates a man came through the door and walked up the center aisle. We will call him the Plaintiff. When the hymn ended, and the Minister stood to offer the Dedicatory Prayer, the Plaintiff then faced the Minister and said loudly enough for the whole congregation to hear, "I have ought against thee, be reconciled to me before this offering is made at the alter."

The Minister replied, "Wait in my office and I will hear your complaint after the service is complete."

The Plaintiff responded, "I have given you the chance to follow the Lord's word. You refuse. Therefore the guilt be on your head." Then he turned, walked down the aisle, out the door, and the service proceeded on.
-----------------------------
Here is the question: Did the Plaintiff in the story use the words of Jesus in the manner intended?

So far I've gotten two YES answers from people I've asked.

I don't usually do this, but, I'm going to sit back and let people respond as they see fit, without attempting to influence the outcome of this poll.




posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I don't think he did use it correctly, he tried to force it on them in a way. Sounds to me like he did it in order to pass judgement on those people which is a big no no.



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
It's not nessary to "follow" his words.
Jesus says (sorry too lazy to pull up Bible) "why do you call me Lord and not do the things I have said?"

Jesus in other words isn't Lord. Following his word isn't litteral. His words are symbolic. He spoke in parables and yet no one til this day gets it. He couldn't tell you earthly things, if nobody understood the spiritual.

Spiritually speaking, he talks about karma in that alter scene you put up. "Put away your bad things and forgive your brothers then give what is God to God."

This is reference to karma.



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Why are you asking this question

The answer lies in was the action done in love, it's an attitude thing.
Your question has to many assumptions



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I'd like to know what people think about it.

The only factors not mentioned in the story are that I knew the Minister and didn't know the Plaintiff.
No yelling involved, just loud public speaking voice, and there were about 150 people sitting in the pews.


edit on 23-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

You do know that the historical context is that Jesus is ministering preparation for Jews as they were to live in the kingdom?

Israel was given the temple and it duties, no christian was ever given that. Christianity is beyond the temple and its sacrifices for they ended with Jesus Christ as the ultimate sacrifice.
edit on 23-7-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Okay... I'll give you the weirdest answer yet.


originally posted by: pthena
Reconciliation and Offerings
...the Plaintiff then faced the Minister and said loudly enough for the whole congregation to hear, "I have ought against thee, be reconciled to me before this offering is made at the alter."

The Minister replied, "Wait in my office and I will hear your complaint after the service is complete."

The Plaintiff responded, "I have given you the chance to follow the Lord's word. You refuse. Therefore the guilt be on your head." Then he turned, walked down the aisle, out the door, and the service proceeded on.
-----------------------------
Here is the question: Did the Plaintiff in the story use the words of Jesus in the manner intended?.


No.

"Ought" is not grammatically correct here (and "ought" is not the same as "aught"), and that makes the sentence difficult to parse. The pastor (who speaks proper modern English) has no idea what the Plaintiff has in mind, and takes the correct step to find out without abandoning his duty.

Ought definition

Aught definition

If he wished redress, he would have said, "Brother, I have a complaint against thee."



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


(and "ought" is not the same as "aught"),

Since the exchange was oral rather than written sign waving, the grammatical confusion is purely of my own making. I had a bit of a nagging suspicion that I wasn't spelling it correctly.

Note to readers: The word ought in OP should be spelled aught

Thank you, Byrd.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Mathew 18.15 is a clear way to address an issue
Sometimes a person won't listen so it should be dealt with, but by the elders
Churches are full of sinners and often ministers are the most sinful with power and selfish pride, they manipulate the elders
Who knows your situation and what is right and wrong, it's an unknown

The plaintiff approached for an apology, he had no right, the minister should have approached the plaintiff, it's backwards



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Here we get into a question of ethics and responsibility.

Do the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many?

(and actually, "aught" shouldn't be in there at all. It should be something like "Brother, I request redress of an offense you have committed against me."
edit on 24-7-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   
He was misusing the passage in a number of ways.
That passage clearly places the intitiative on the defendant, being addressed to him. If plaintiff wanted to take the initiative, he should have been looking at the "talk to him privately then go to the church" passages.
The context of the occasion was not the context envisaged in the passage. The "offering" was not the minister's personal gift, but the gift of the congregation at large.
It would also have been morally better to have given the minister advance warning, giving him a chance to make other arrangements about the offering, if that was the right thing to do, instead of putting him on the spot. Not practical, of course, because the plaintiff would have been evicted first.

But at least the plaintiff was being more accurate than the preachers I've known. Every sermon I've ever heard on forgiveness interpreted that verse and even quoted the words as "If you have anything against your brother", instead of the other way round. In other words, they would lay the obligation on the plaintiff to forgive the minister before placing his own gift on the altar.


edit on 24-7-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Awesome and unique thread!!! My first flag is to this thread (plus a star).

The plaintiff should have solved the issue privately.

Also he should have let the minister decide when to apologize, right or wrong.

The plaintiff's error was in misinterpreting the lesson of the parable, and by taking it too literally when parables are exo/esoteric teachings.

He chose the exoteric route and this is an error when dealing with parables.

Making amends before it is too late is what the lesson is.

Legalism was the problem with the plaintiff. More concern for the letter than the Spirit.
edit on 24-7-2016 by deignostian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Why are you asking this question

The answer lies in was the action done in love, it's an attitude thing.
Your question has to many assumptions


I don't see a single assumption in pthena's OP that warrants disapproval .

I do find your response entirely insufficient as an answer to the question. Maybe you don't like when people get sophisticated scripturally and simplify everything to avoid having to wax intellectual, I really can't say.

But I feel you were impolite to the OP, and for no reason.

Every question is asked because answers are sought (excluding deliberate deception and even then...).

Why ask why?



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Karma.

The seeker should fix the wrongs before it expect the divine to fully make it known. A being free of any guilt at all the connection to the divine will be magnified by it's actions. If the seeker do not know the way to solve a problem it should do something easy at the start. Little by little the road will be clearer and synchronicity and the seeker will find each other.

Divine souls sooner or later take responsibility for the impact of all actions they have created.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

I have a rather fiercely strong bias agreeing with the man . . . though I'm not sure that way of handling it would be quite right in all cases.

I could certainly imagine The Lord leading someone to do that.

But generally, I think the proper way is to approach the individual first privately.

THEN take another brother or two and go to the person. If there has been no contrition, humility, etc.

THEN take it before the church--and the way the man did it is as . . . reasonable in a sense . . . as a lot of others. I too many cases, there's little other remotely effective way to slice through the political control cr*p to achieve such a move.

. . . of course . . . I've been accused by one boss to my wife . . . of being the sort of person that likes to stand up in church and yell "sh*t" just to see where everyone stands.

And, I have a life-long hostility to hypocrisy in 'high' religious circles.

And, I have a life-long hostility to religious leaders circling the wagons and refusing to deal with the facts of their own cr*p--usually labeling those who raise the issues as "troublemakers" and marginalizing them or excommunicating them in some at least social or organizational way.

In this case as stated . . . one would assume, hope that the man followed the Biblical steps I outlined above, FIRST. If he didn't he was LIKELY (not certainly--there can be exceptions) out of order.

I assume he did NOT shake the dust off his shoes against the pastor or congregation.

Groups--particularly religious groups and religious leaders--are VERY PRONE to IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP* mentalities, customs, habits.

Some of that is reasonable. A group of Jihadi's and an Assembly of God congregation are VERY different and not likely to have much congruent, workable fellowship and mutual support.

And, one Christian denomination--Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod--prides itself in their "Fellowship Doctrine." i.e. they refuse to fellowship, worship, share communion with anyone that doesn't strictly and narrowly agree with their long list of distinctives.

THE TROUBLE IS--NO ONE DOES!!! As stated and practiced--with some of the more honest ones admitting it--EVEN THE TOP LEVELS OF THE LEADERSHIP DISAGREE with one another on some of the major distinctives. So the whole Fellowship Doctrine as they state it and practice it--IS A FARCE.

They did not appreciate my vigorously pointing that out to them--though some privately admitted I was correct.

They are an example of the IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP DYNAMICS going off the rails, imho.

And, it is a CONSTANT danger in Christian groups--with most--sooner or later going off the rails !!!DEMANDING!!! IN-GROUP conformity else individuals are trashed in favor of a farcical narrow rigidity over minor cr*p vs included in the broadly inclusive Brotherhood under Christ's Blood covering and Salvation.

Yet, there ARE very fitting and reasonable criteria, reasons for saying--that individual has stepped too far over the line and by their own choices, definitions and behaviors cannot any longer be considered to be a reasonably compliant, cooperative and agreeable member of our group. Therefore, they are now found and declared to be part of the OUT-GROUP.

But too many Christian congregations can be too eager to label someone an OUT-GROUP member.

Others include satan worshipers as acceptable members of their "Christian" group--which is absurd idiocy.

Some measure of Biblical balance is called for.

In the case of the OP . . . I don't know that we have sufficient information to fairly judge the man's actions. I can imagine several cases where he had no other reasonable recourse but to do as he did. Yet, in general, he should have gone through the Biblical steps, first. Maybe he did.

*Freud was the originator of the IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP labels and analysis. He once said that even a religion of love would be unloving to those not members of it. And far too many Christian groups have proven him right. . . . though generally I think he was a hypocritical dirty old man with a lot wrong with his schema. Sometimes he was very perceptive about human and social realities.





edit on 24/7/2016 by BO XIAN because: added



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I don't think he did use it correctly, he tried to force it on them in a way. Sounds to me like he did it in order to pass judgement on those people which is a big no no.


There are levels of duality insanity that should be labeled for what they are. Sometimes making a statement that this will not be tolerated and disconnect from the soul in question is the best choice. Fully tolerating the intolerant is only destroying the level of tolerance a society have achieved.

Being non judgement is very easy when you are surrounded by the beautiful souls. Harder when the fallen ones are allowed free reign.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: luciferslight

Sigh.

Literalists have virtually always won out over those who insist all is symbolic.

It's true archeologically many hundreds of times in the last 150 years.

It's true functionally with literal healings taking place.

It's true in a list of ways . . . but that's a different thread.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

No, the man did it wrong. He should have met with him in his office because in Matthew 18 verse 5, Jesus said if you have an offense with another believer to approach them privately the first time, then after that take another Christian to approach them privately.

So, based on Matthew 18:5 my answer is it was wrong, he should have met with him privately after the service and they could reconcile one to the other.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle


Being non judgement is very easy when you are surrounded by the beautiful souls. Harder when the fallen ones are allowed free reign.


Life on the tour bus and life after the vacation is over are two different situations.
edit on 24-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2016 by pthena because: spelling



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

That is the biblical response, though we can't assume that hasn't already been done



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join