@Caleb When you can re: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/7763, please help me understand what I should have written/gathered and posted vs. what I did. Thanks.

@dan Did you mean to VtO this question?

nice hat @Caleb

@MonicaCellio I meant to reply earlier but ran out of time :)

@MonicaCellio true, but that just make the comparison to Jesus here in this passage more of a mesh: Jesus also isn't saying 'don't obey the law', he certainly does legislate, but I don't think he is doing so here in Matthew 5.

and it's a pattern of prophetic ministry to correct faulty superficial interpretation of the law ( I might have mentioned Isaiah 29:13 too in the same vein)

@MonicaCellio He seems to wear the uniform of a prophet (interesting article here)

I think that shows that he saw himself as a prophet (or at least wanted others to think that)

@JackDouglas ok, then I'm confused by the closing of your answer (in bold header font): "To fulfill the law is to interpret it correctly: as concerning the heart; and obey2 it as it was intended to be obeyed: from the heart. Jesus' claim is that he himself does this perfectly." I thought you were saying that Jesus was saying "those guys got it wrong; it's what's in your heart that matters", hence my question about how he supported that claim.

Also, sorry -- wasn't trying to get into an extended discussion of Jesus et al; I made the comment because your answer raised a question that I thought you could address. In other words, I asked for the readers, not just for me, so it might be better to respond there somehow (comment or edit).

@MonicaCellio I'm still trying to understand the question: why would he need to support the claim?

Does Revelation say what he claims in his second paragraph, or are those his words? That is, is the outrageously-offensive claim in the text or from the author of this answer?

oops

@JackDouglas just wondering if we're supposed to take his word for what it means to "fulfill the law" or if he can show his work. Somebody (might have been Jon? or you?) once argued on meta that showing a source's work is better than just citing that source without saying how it got there, so since I'm told there's a tradition of Jesus being skilled at exegesis, I wondered. "No he didn't" is an ok answer; I was just wondering if there was more.

@MonicaCellio to be precise: "carnal Israel" and "drink the blood of the apostles and prophets" are the problems here. (While editing anyway we'll need to also fix "better Passover".)

So if it says that it should be cited, and if it doesn't that stuff needs to go.

@MonicaCellio Isn't that the same as asking if Isaiah or Moses show their work?

@JackDouglas if either were saying something that sounded like invalidation of existing law, it would be a fair question. Eh, whatever -- wasn't looking for a long conversation about this; just had a question I thought you could address. If not, no big deal.

@MonicaCellio no you've really lost me, wasn't everything Moses said in the Pentateuch innovative? Plus my whole argument is that Jesus is not sounding like he's invalidating existing law here, quite the opposite he is re-affirming it.

@JackDouglas the revelation at Sinai happened in front of ~2 million witnesses, and that generation saw God work miracles (including addressing rebellions), so it's pretty unlikely that, were Moshe to lie about what God said during the 40 days on the mountain, he'd get away with it. Contrast with somebody claiming personal revelation -- where's the check? Prophets enhance the message but don't contradict it. Maybe Jesus didn't either; I don't know. (Paul sure seems to have, in Jesus's name?)

Even prophets who say, for example, that God doesn't want korbanot ("sacrifice" is a poor translation so I'll just use the Hebrew) don't say that the system is revoked. When the messiah comes and gathers the exiles and builds the third temple, the system will resume -- the prophets don't disagree with that.

But can we pause this long enough to deal with the Revelation question? One way or another the answer needs an edit; I'm only equipped to do the more-restrictive one. (Googling didn't turn up a quote or citation for me.)

on the revelation question

I'm out of my depth

have you tried asking the BH panel?

@JackDouglas I did. No reply there (possibly no visits, other than Jon and Caleb who are there but haven't commented). There were more people here so I brought it here. Also, Mike has been on the site multiple times since I left a comment asking for support, so I won't feel compelled to wait too much longer before removing it -- if someone does turn it up it can be edited in.

@Caleb I just cast a reopen vote

Honestly not sure what my intent was originally, I think he was originally asking for all commands and their frequency which is searching for a text and too broad

but if only asking for frequency of a specific command, that is more attainable

@Dan which question are you talking about?

Hello @MonicaCellio!

@Caleb what's with the rollback of my edit? Did you see the comment or the discussion in here or my edit note?

@Scrooge hi!

I have answered another question

I am on a roll

@Scrooge congrats! Settling in well, I take it?

not too shabbily indeed

now have 1 question and 3 answers

@MonicaCellio I just reverted your edit. Next time on a subject matter that you are not an expert in (this is a NT Q and obviously not a hermeneutic you are familiar with) I think it would be best if you left editing to people who might be familiar with it.

I don't think it is a good answer (it has my downvote) and it doesn't have the necessary citations (I post noticed it on that ground) but what your edit did neuters it of all meaning and any hope that somebody could come along and fix it.

All the wording including the bits you object to are found in the NT. A "better passover" references Hebrews, carnal Israel is Revelation imagery, and the "drinking the blood of prophets" stuff is pretty much straight out of the text.

Downvote is fine, we might even put more pressure on to get it sourced, you can ViD if you want, but removing all the bits he used that would send people in the right direction if they wanted to figure out what he meant isn't the answer.

Hi @Caleb!

@Caleb I asked for support for the claims. I got crickets (though Mike has been here several times since I commented so it's not like he didn't see). The claim about drinking blood is offensive; if it's the offense of the text then we let that stand with support, but (a) I couldn't tell if it was (I did search) and (b) as it stood it was offensive, so I edited to remove the offense and invited support from someone who could provide. You have restored the offense but done nothing to fix.

If you say it's in the christian books then please add the support.

Also, be aware that Jack removes post annotations sometimes if he comes across them, so your annotation might not stick.

This is a screamingly clear example of "Claims that could reasonably be seen as controversial or offensive must be relevant and supported from the text."

For others: we're talking about the revision history here.

@MonicaCellio It's Rev 16 / 18 combined with some Hebrews connections. I don't even agree with how he puts the pieces together but he's not pulling it out of a hat.

You find the teachings of the NT offensive. At some point you are going to have to know that the contents of it are going to be on the site in many forms including people referencing verses or imagry they don't necessarily cite at every turn.

Obviously this answer fails spectacularly to give any reference at all and fails our "show your work" guidelines, but deleting content he's pulling out of the NT just because he failed to cite it is a step backwards.

@Caleb it fails the stricter guideline for offense that I just quoted.

You seem to be assuming that because I think Christianity is wrong (and often maliciously so), that that means I can't give a fair hearing to any Chrisitan answer. That's totally wrong; I've voted for many such answers.

@MonicaCellio The solution to that is NOT to edit out the only thing that even made it relevant to the question.

You seem to be assuming that because I don't accept Christianity I will automatically find answers based on it to be offensive and so you can dismiss my concerns. That's not appropriate.

@Caleb the solution is to ask for support (I did, in multiple places), to leave it alone if it's not offensive but merely unclear, and (per our meta policy) to remove it if it can be reasonably seen as offensive (which I did after getting no help on sourcing it).

Your edit left it without even the widow connection that is the tie in to the Q, much less the hints at other verses he says are related.

I left the vague Revelation reference. There were no other hints.

Just rude claims that there was no reasonable way to determine came from the text.

So if you know where they are, why don't you edit them in?

Did you read any of the things I wrote about it before reverting?

@MonicaCellio You left a vague reference to the whole book instead of his specific one in which he QUOTES directly from the text, and there WERE other hints (two at least two other verses I recognize). Again just because you aren't up on the topic doesn't mean they aren't there.

@Caleb then fix his post. You know it's a problem as it stands.

I still assert that this is a junk answer, but that you are not solving anything by that sort of edit.

It just became a non-answer. If that's what is going to happen better to just delete.

It is a junk answer (hence my DV) but as it stands it is also an offensive junk answer (but I know you'll just dismiss any flag I raise).

I voted to delete. Community deletion is a tough sell here.

So I am solving something: I am removing offensive content that is live on the site for all to see.

Someone who can solve it better should do so.

I tried to bring about that change before acting. Nobody bit.

I brought it up in a comment and in two chat rooms, and then explained the problem in my revision note.

@MonicaCellio At some point you have to be willing to walk away from things that are junk but do attempt to answer the question. A negative answer score is enough to signal that experts see a problem with it. It might be wrong or it might be poorly supported or any number of issues, but this is how SE deals with junk: it sinks to the bottom.

> Answers should show sensitivity to other users of the site. [...] Sometimes the text will be offensive, which we have to accept. The aim should be add no further offence to the the offence of the text. (policy)

@Caleb if that were the only factor then there wouldn't eve be offensive flags. SE recognizes that content can be offensive and that such should be removed. They have a mechanism built around that. Downvotes are for "wrong" but for offense (or spam) we don't stop there.

@MonicaCellio You were impatient for one thing. You put out a call and it wasn't even scrolled off the days chat and you took it on yourself to fix it after acknowledging it was out of your area.

And by the way I did walk away from it when it first showed up. It got bumped so I saw it again, and in the meantime we decided as a community that we don't just have to accept stuff like this, so I acted.

@Caleb and you were impatient by rolling back my edit without then fixing the problem that you are equipped to fix. I brought it up in the other room yesterday BTW, so the Library wasn't my first stop.

@MonicaCellio Offensive flags are for a whole 'nother level of offensive. Somebody making a post to cuss out Jews should be offensive flagged and we'll deal with it ASAP. Somebody explaining how the NT's theme of a better passover lamb and connecting it to a NT interpretation question isn't material for an offensive flag even if they do a lousy job of showing their work and even if non Christians find that doctrine offensive.

@Caleb claiming that Israel is "carnal" and "drank the blood of apostles and prophets" -- without even quote marks for the latter, for crying out loud, let alone a citation, is -- to someone who doesn't have your insider knowledge -- the same as cussing out Jews. (And worse, historically speaking.) Try to be sensitive to the broader set of readers here.

@MonicaCellio We are still using the SE engine. Lousy answers whether code or doctrine are primarily handled by the downvote mechanism.

@Caleb if it were merely lousy I wouldn't have edited.

The SE engine provides for multiple responses. Most sites don't have the doctrine problem that BH does. But even so, there's more and less offensive doctrine, and this is more. Much more.

So put it in the answer. We all agree that offense that's in the text stands (if relevant to the post).

I assume that the "they" reference is supported?

i.e. that they = Israel.

And not, say, some more-specific community.

@MonicaCellio Yes. And all of it has to do with the widow reference which is the tie in to that question.

I'm still sorting it out here. If I can make a solid case for the connection Mike suggests I'll edit, but I'm not going to try to fix it until I understand his case. I'm still sorting it out.

> Under this policy we should expect to see more editing, as it's better to fix a post (by adding a link or adjusting the language) than to delete it. (Of course edits must respect the author's voice.)

@Caleb but in the meantime you are letting the offensive state stand, at the top of the main page. It would be more sensitive and appropriate to restore my edit while you think about it (or make a similar one of your own).

> But posts that do not comply with this and cannot be edited to comply will be deleted.

According to the same post you quoted, edits need to respect the authors voice. You can't do that be neutering all the substance and references out of a post. If you can's fix, the alternative suggested is deletion.

It doesn't actually spell out partial deletion (editing out offense rather than deleting the whole post), but we've been doing that and it seems clear.

@MonicaCellio One can't even use your edit as a place to work from to find references, and I don't think it's the same kind of offense the sort we handle with offensive flags.

@Caleb deletion takes a long time (if it ever happens); in the meantime we need to edit out the offense. If someone posted something as rude about you I bet you'd want to do the same thing, but that pretty much can't happen here because of site scope so it's one-sided and you'll never be on the receiving end of such vitriol.

@Caleb I don't think you're in the best position to evalute the offense of this particular case.

@MonicaCellio I think you forget that I am on the receiving end of such vitriol on a regular basis.

@Caleb I meant on the site. Since Muslim claims about the invalidity of your religion, people, history, bible,and relatiionship with God are off-topic here, if they were to show up they'd be shut down.

@MonicaCellio I think another layer you might be missing here is that when Christians talk about "Israel", esp in the context of appostate, carnal, etc, they aren't even usually thinking about Jews in a sense that would be antisemitic, those terms are about US.

@Caleb you're saying that when a Christian book refers to "Israel" it doesn't mean "those Jews who opposed Jesus"?

And regardless, this site is for people interested in biblical texts, not just Christians interested in biblical texts, so assumptions like that really need to be spelled out in answers that rely on them. And random bits of text that aren't marked as quotes and don't cite sources sure need to be clarified if they're actually from text. I mean, Jack didn't know the Rev source either, so it's not like this is part of the knowledge ante to be here at all.

@MonicaCellio I realize topically on this site it is less of a minefield for me, but you talk to me as if I was a pampered western Christian living in an evangelical bubble that has never been confronted with anything really offensive—as if I didn't know what it was like to have my beliefs slandered, my God dragged through the dirt and my person threatened—as if I couldn't understand how it feels to be a minority.

@Caleb I am not trying to convey that. I am saying that we have both experienced it "live" and I assume in other places online, but that I believe you have not experienced it on SE and are unlikely to (unless you go looking for trouble on Islam.SE), and that when we're in a comfortable-for-us setting it can be easy to lose track of the discomfort others are experiencing.

I don't think you really mean to say "I've experienced attacks too so it's ok for me to ignore your feelings here". That's what I'm hearing and I'm trying very hard not to hear it that way.

@MonicaCellio If by "Christian book" we are talking about books of the NT, the no, not usually. There are some passages that do but even dispensationallists who still believe in a separate people of Israel (distinct from Christians) recognize that the references are at least mixed and as often as not understand them in the context of people of their own faith.

To my more reformed leanings it is even more blatant: Israel is us. When Israel is described as a whore, that is MY sin. I am the one that has prostituted myself rather than be true to my God.

@Caleb (I said "Christian books" to dodge the whole canon vs apocrypha vs other relevant books issue, BTW.) Ok, so you see Israel as you, but meanwhile there's another whole group out there known as the "people of Israel" (or b'nei Yisrael if you prefer) who are not you, so I hope you can understand why this would be confusing.

@MonicaCellio No I'm not trying to ignore them at all. I am trying to suggest there are ways of dealing with them that are more constructive than others. Since you're replies to my suggestions (some now, some previous) have been along the lines of "you don't understand what the other side is like", I'm reminding you that I do have some context with which to hear your concerns in.

And there are certainly Christians who hold Jews as other and enough use "Jew" and "Israel" interchangably, at least informally, that I didn't realize you drew a distinction.

@Caleb I feel like your reaction here has been that since I didn't make the best response (only the best I could make), that it's totally invalid and you'd rather have the problematic state than a step toward alleviating the pain. That's really frustrating.

If you don't want to restore my edit nor (yet) edit yourself, how about deleting it until you can make your edit? You can undelete then.

(That will also serve to cancel my delete vote if you do make it a valid, if still crappy, answer.)