Hi Vikkie,
Returning to the topic after a bit of a break. I came across the following sayings that are attributed to Jesus

Luke 6:34-35 ESV

"And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil."
http://www.openbible.info/topics/lending_money

Gospel of st Thomas V95, states
(95) Jesus said, "If you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give it to one from whom you will not get it back." http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

So isn't it fair to say that your views on interest are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. For instance, in light of his teachings, do you think Jesus would support your endorsement of payday loans?

salaams

Hi Grateful

Re Luke 6:34 which says - And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you. Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners' expecting to be repaid in full. This is the NIV translation which is very similar to the ASV - which is considered one of the most literal translations.

Both are suggesting that you should give expecting nothing in return. But this is about assisting others and giving charitably - not conducting a business transaction. As I said earlier - Jesus used the example of not gaining interest on an investment as an example of a bad stewardship. (Mathew 25:26) Personal relationships and business dealings are quite different situations.

No I don't think my teachings are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus who spoke of a Kingdom that never ends and ever increasing glory - that's just the nature of God's Kingdom. But I have already covered that not lending with interest to our own family is important and not charging excessive interest. God never desires people to be over-burdened.

The Gospel of Thomas is not accepted by any recognised Christian scholar and is not included in the apocrypha. It is considered a heretical writing. Serious consideration can only be given to the accepted BIblical account. (If it wasn't accepted 300AD why should it be now?

Fascinating argument, Vickie.

>>If it wasn't accepted 300AD why should it be now?<<

Back in 300AD, the prevailing view was that the earth was the centre of the universe. Supporting "data" for this position came predominantly from such reliable sources as Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, 1Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5 etc. etc.

Are you prepared to refute heliocentrism, simply because "it wasn't accepted 300AD why should it be now?"

If not, why not?

Perciles - we are talking about the authenticity of ancient writing and most archeologists agree that the closer to the actual event the more authentic is the opinion. If it wasn't in the canon then you can hardly slip it in now. You don't have to bother with my views - check with Christian scholars - the Book of Thomas is not considered authentic. Sorry to bore you with facts.

You miss the point with unfailing consistency, Vickie.

>>Perciles - we are talking about the authenticity of ancient writing<<

You may have been. I was referring however to your assertion that because something was unacceptable to contemporary thought in 300AD, it must by definition be unacceptable today.

And surely no-one seriously doubts the authenticity of the document itself, i.e that it was written sometime in the late second century. What has been under discussion for more than seventeen hundred years, pretty much since Eusebius, I guess, is the positioning of the material within Christian thinking. An entirely separate issue, I'm sure you agree.

It is just an opinion, as you pointed out...

>>...most archeologists agree that the closer to the actual event the more authentic is the opinion<<

...even though the selection of "authentic" as a modifier of "opinion" in this context is not particularly appropriate. An opinion does not need to be contemporaneous with the events in question. You, for example, clearly have an opinion on the earth's position in relationship to the sun that differs from the opinion commonly held in 300AD. Despite the fact that they were "closer to the actual event", I suspect that you would not agree that their opinion is more authentic than yours.

Or would you?

Oh, by the way:

>>Sorry to bore you with facts.<<

I am never bored by facts. I am hardly ever bored by opinions either. But I do recognize that there is a considerable difference between the two. You will find life a great deal more interesting and fruitful if, or when, you come to the same realization.

Thanks for your reply Vikkie,

However, i am still skeptical about your interpretation of the Bible, mainly because it seems to be based on your own personal interpretation and secondly your interpretation is in conflict with what you have said earlier.

You say:

"No I don't think my teachings are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus who spoke of a Kingdom that never ends and ever increasing glory - that's just the nature of God's Kingdom. But I have already covered that not lending with interest to our own family is important and not charging excessive interest. God never desires people to be over-burdened."

As i have stated before, I'm ignorant of the scriptures but my impression was that the Torah draws a distinction between lending to Jews and Gentiles and not Family and others. Unless you can provide a scholarly authority to support your interpretation I'll have to remain skeptical.

Furthermore, you say:

"Both are suggesting that you should give expecting nothing in return. But this is about assisting others and giving charitably - not conducting a business transaction. As I said earlier - Jesus used the example of not gaining interest on an investment as an example of a bad stewardship. (Mathew 25:26) Personal relationships and business dealings are quite different situations."

Could we also find an authoritative commentary on Mathew 25:26 which supports your interpretation?

Finally, you say that Jesus permitted interest as long as it was not "excessive". What about 724.36% p.a.? This is what is being charged for payday loans* which you endorsed in your original article. So even accepting your own interpretation your "teachings" (as you put it) are indeed inconsistent with the message of Jesus.

*http://www.cashtrain.com.au/?BID=SAB2665528&gclid=CIOt7NCwmLoCFYQhpQodF1gAxg