Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[SageTree]

Remember the LOVE, my Friends.

 

[james2ko]

I still don't even know what it's supposed to mean. Maybe someone could give me a synonym? What's another word that fits in the blank? Jesus fulfilled the law.

The Contemporary English Version provides one:

Mat 5:17 Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning.

The rest of the chapter gives us the context of which law He came to expound---- The Ten Commandments.

 

[Harmonious]

So there is another system of seven laws that no one is even aware of.

Don't say that. There are Noachides who live by those laws right on this forum, right on this thread. The Knight is one of them.

Maybe you can give me a link to them, please.

The link that Poisonshady gave you is a good one, but since I don't like hunting for buried links:

Noachide.org.uk - The Bnai Noach of the UK

Thanks for the response. I can see how there can be two different covenants. I am curious to know why Jewish people decided to follow the small subset and not the larger one.

Because God chose us to do and be a small subset. We chose to love and honor God, especially after he saved us from the Egyptian house of bondage.

And that love and special relationship is ongoing.

Is that just the way the chips fell into place or do you think Jewish people were destine for the smaller subset by fate.

Fate? It says countless times in Tanach that God chose the Jews, Israel, His firstborn...

I'm not sure what you are asking.

This seems to be getting repeated a lot that he tried to change a law or something and we are not making any progress with it. Maybe we can drop this part of the debate.

I imagine so. Don't push the idea that Jesus kept the laws perfectly, or that he invented them and had the right to change them, and I won't push the idea that he didn't keep the laws properly, never mind teach them properly.

Sure if you want, I might actually be interested in debating some of this.

There's not really much to debate, but here are some of the laws.

(The collection of teaching I am using is from a compilation of Jewish law concerning refraining from Evil Speech, called Guard Your Tongue. It is adapted from the Chofetz Chaim's work by Rabbi Zelig Pliskin. He listed the commandments topically, not in order from where they are found. I will use that method.)

Leviticus 25:17 - You shall not wrong one another. This verse forbids us to say anything that will insult or anger another person. Some examples of this would be:

1)reminding someone about previous misdeeds
2) embarrassing someone for his family background
3) ridiculing someone for his lack of Torah knowledge
4) insulting someone for his lowly status
5) asking someone how he would answer a certain question when you know that he is not competent to reply.

Leviticus 19:17 - You shall rebuke your neighbor and you shall not bear sin because of him. This verse contains two commandments, but I'll be focusing on the one in the second half of this verse.

This verse prohibits us from embarrassing others even when privately delivering rebuke. Rebuke must be delivered in a tactful manner that will not cause shame.

If you shame someone in public, the crime is so severe that it is punishable by the loss of the World to Come.

Leviticus 19:32 - Before the gray-haired you shall rise up, and you shall honor the face of the old man. This verse requires us to honor a Torah scholar, even if he is not aged, and an elderly person, even if he is not a scholar.

There are 31 commandments that are straight out of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. I've only included the few that are rather obvious to think about.

We would do well to remember such laws, as well.

What do you think the chances are of Jesus not being born a Jew?

Nil. Jesus' mother was Jewish, so he was born Jewish.

Do you think Jewish people would see him differently if he wasn't?

Not really. No one would see him as an authority of Jewish law, or a failure to follow, if he wasn't Jewish. Jews don't think of him as an authority of Jewish law as it is, but non-Jews would have no toehold to try to make Jews pay attention to him.

But I imagine, if he wasn't Jewish, Jews would never care about him to start with, and his followers would have no reason to set up Jews for their main target audience for conversion.

I understand he was human. It almost makes me want to question your fellowship with god though.

I don't understand your question.

Jesus was human, and as far as I'm concerned, completely irrelevant. What does that have to do with my loving and serving God? God never demanded perfection.

In the gospels, Jesus states that only perfection will do when serving God, so everyone is doomed to fail, unless someone can "save us" from ourselves.

No one is perfect, and no one is expected to be. However, I DO resent the idea that people hold a fellow whose serious failings were not simple mistakes but practically ignoring and uprooting Torah law as "keeping the law in its perfection," and having "fulfilled the law" such that other people don't have to, regardless of the fact that such a statement is useless according to Torah law.

I actually hold god to a high standard and don’t discredit anyone for who they are or what they believe.

I don't understand what you intended to convey with this sentence.

I'm dropping idolatry from this discussion. It seems like a subject that could go in a 100 different directions and I don’t really care to debate it right now.

You can try. And I'm willing to it go for now. But if you bring up an issue that is idolatry, I will point it out as such.

You also seem to have a different interpretation or understanding of idolatry than I.

I'm sure you're right about that.

 

[Harmonious]

Leviticus 25:17 - You shall not wrong one another. This verse forbids us to say anything that will insult or anger another person. Some examples of this would be:

1)reminding someone about previous misdeeds
2) embarrassing someone for his family background
3) ridiculing someone for his lack of Torah knowledge
4) insulting someone for his lowly status
5) asking someone how he would answer a certain question when you know that he is not competent to reply.

Please be aware that there is a difference in mentioning such things for salacious purposes, and for expressing why a person is not qualified for a specific job, which is stating such things if and when necessary, but not in a way calculated to embarrass, ridicule, or insult them.

But then again, intent matters.

 

[Harmonious]

Okay! I apologize Harmonious for wanting to question your fellowship with God

Apology accepted.

Harmonious you are the only person that has actually made any sense

Well... I'm glad I've made sense to you.

and it seems as if we agree on a few things about everyone being gods people even if they choose not to believe it.

Very cool.

 

[Gloone]

Getting back to the OP...



It doesn't sound right because it's not right. Simply read the 'Sermon on the Mount', and you will see Yeshua was not about 'fulfilling Jewish law' for us, but teaching us how to fulfill Jewish law in our own lives. Not only in the letter of the law (which he fully supports) but in the spirit of the law. For, in the final analysis, it's how the Torah improves you that matters, that's why G-d gave it... for us. To me, his message was clear: 'Where is your heart o Yisrael?' Kevanna.



Not at all. We're a minority within a minority, so who knows us? Especially since many so-called 'Messianic Jews' are not Jews at all, but christians. Not that it's a bad thing for Christians to embrace the Jewish roots of their faith, but they shouldn't go about saying they're Jews. Makes it hard on us real Jews, who are Messianic.

I wish you would have made this post earlier. It could have saved me a lot of time trying to debate this topic to get my point across.

 

[Gloone]

The Contemporary English Version provides one:

Mat 5:17 Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning.

The rest of the chapter gives us the context of which law He came to expound---- The Ten Commandments.

This is the part everyone has been overlooking, totally avoiding and not wanting to pay any attention to.

 

[Autodidact]

There seems to be a different meaning for the word. Right now my own understanding of it is definitely not what other people in this thread have been talking about evidently.

When you say that Jesus fulfilled the law, what other word could go in that blank?

 

[Autodidact]

The Contemporary English Version provides one:

Mat 5:17 Don't suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning.

The rest of the chapter gives us the context of which law He came to expound---- The Ten Commandments.

O.K., that's somewhat helpful. First, I will point out that in normal English usage, the word "fulfill" does not mean "give full meaning." This kind of indicates to me that Jesus is going to explain in a way we can all understand what a particular law means, and why we follow it. I don't get any sort of feeling of negating, abolishing or no longer having to follow the law, do you? That doesn't seem at all justified.

For example, take the Sabbath. It's a very important law. You could write a book--I'm certain books have been written--on what it means to keep the Sabbath Day holy. So Jesus is going to explain to us how to do that, or maybe why it matters. It sure doesn't sound like he's tossing the idea of the Sabbath out the window.

Or maybe what it's saying is that in some way Jesus now embodies the commandments, so if we just follow Jesus, we don't have to follow the commandments any more?

I'll just add that if you really believe this stuff, it's extremely important. It's the core of how we are supposed to related to God. And you'd think, if God really were in charge of this thing, He'd take the trouble to use clear simple terms and make it clear, instead of talking in these obscure terms that we can't figure out.

 

[james2ko]

O.K., that's somewhat helpful. First, I will point out that in normal English usage, the word "fulfill" does not mean "give full meaning." This kind of indicates to me that Jesus is going to explain in a way we can all understand what a particular law means, and why we follow it.

That's a fair assessment. We have to be cognizant of Jesus' audience during the Sermon on the mount. He was addressing seasoned Jews who were familiar, for the most part, with the letter of the law. The point Jesus wanted to impress was the spiritual intent of this same law. Isaiah prophesied of this very time when he said, "The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable." (Isa 42:21)

I don't get any sort of feeling of negating, abolishing or no longer having to follow the law, do you? That doesn't seem at all justified.

I completely agree. I believe the Ten Commandments are more binding on Christians then they were for the Israelites.

For example, take the Sabbath. It's a very important law. You could write a book--I'm certain books have been written--on what it means to keep the Sabbath Day holy. So Jesus is going to explain to us how to do that, or maybe why it matters. It sure doesn't sound like he's tossing the idea of the Sabbath out the window.

Absolutely agree. All Christians should observe the 7th day Sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) as Jesus exemplified.

Or maybe what it's saying is that in some way Jesus now embodies the commandments, so if we just follow Jesus, we don't have to follow the commandments any more?

Not at all...He set the example for us by keeping them, like a good leader should. Those who claim to follow Him should do the same.

I'll just add that if you really believe this stuff, it's extremely important. It's the core of how we are supposed to related to God. And you'd think, if God really were in charge of this thing, He'd take the trouble to use clear simple terms and make it clear, instead of talking in these obscure terms that we can't figure out.

He is most certainly in charge. As far as making things clear, He purposely inspired the bible to be written so it will not be understood by the masses in this age. That's a topic for another thread.

 

[Harmonious]

That's a fair assessment. We have to be cognizant of Jesus' audience during the Sermon on the mount. He was addressing seasoned Jews who were familiar, for the most part, with the letter of the law. The point Jesus wanted to impress was the spiritual intent of this same law. Isaiah prophesied of this very time when he said, "The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable." (Isa 42:21)

That is an interesting take on that verse.

The way I understand it is that Jews will obviously be enamoured of following the commandments (all of them), and the rest of the world will be inspired by watching the Jews do what we're supposed to.

Hence, the law would be magnified in honor because the Jews would follow the law, and it will be an awe-inspiring thing.

Some of us are working on it.

 

[Autodidact]

Not at all...He set the example for us by keeping them, like a good leader should. Those who claim to follow Him should do the same.

But here's the thing. He didn't. He violated one of the most important commandments, to honor your parents. He blatantly disrespected and maltreated His own mother. So as far as modeling, He modeled what not to do. Bad job.

 

[james2ko]

But here's the thing. He didn't. He violated one of the most important commandments, to honor your parents. He blatantly disrespected and maltreated His own mother. So as far as modeling, He modeled what not to do. Bad job.

John 2:4? Apparently The "Father" didn't think so....

 

[Gloone]

But here's the thing. He didn't. He violated one of the most important commandments, to honor your parents. He blatantly disrespected and maltreated His own mother. So as far as modeling, He modeled what not to do. Bad job.

I'm sure all of the worlds problems started with Jesus too.

 

[Harmonious]

I'm sure all of the worlds problems started with Jesus too.

Don't be silly. He was only one man.

 

[Harmonious]

John 2:4? Apparently The "Father" didn't think so....

I don't know what yard stick you are using, but simple context works for me.

Mark 3:31-33

There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

(Blueletterbible.org, KJV translation)

The fact that the next verse has Jesus declaring that the people hanging out with him are his mother or his brethren is more impressive than his own mother and brothers...

Jesus' mother was disrespected.

Unless you have a different reading of those verses...

 

[james2ko]

I don't know what yard stick you are using, but simple context works for me.

Mark 3:31-33

There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

(Blueletterbible.org, KJV translation)

The fact that the next verse has Jesus declaring that the people hanging out with him are his mother or his brethren is more impressive than his own mother and brothers...

Jesus' mother was disrespected.

Unless you have a different reading of those verses...

Jesus' family did not yet fully understand his ministry, as can be seen in Mar 3:21. Jesus explained that in our spiritual family, the relationships are ultimately more important and longer lasting than those formed in our physical families.

 

[Harmonious]

Jesus' family did not yet fully understand his ministry, as can be seen in Mar 3:21. Jesus explained that in our spiritual family, the relationships are ultimately more important and longer lasting than those formed in our physical families.

But you see...

Regardless of how much we grow in stature, Jews (and that includes Jesus) are STILL commanded to honor our parents.

Our friends, congregants, teachers, or students might be closer. But those relationships don't abrogate the commandments God gave us upon our birth.

I think the only time the relationship between parents and children are superseded by another is that between husband and wife. LITERAL husband and wife, not a metaphoric one, like "Jesus became married to the church".

Unless a parent told a child to go against other commandments, (or honor for a spouse conflicts with that of parents), Jews must honor and obey our parents.

Jesus might have been a great teacher, according to his students. That did NOT abrogate his obligation to honor his mother. He should have honored her by greeting her. Instead, he was busy telling his students that they were more of a family to him than his own biological family.

Jesus disrespected his mother.

 

[james2ko]

But you see...

Regardless of how much we grow in stature, Jews (and that includes Jesus) are STILL commanded to honor our parents.

Our friends, congregants, teachers, or students might be closer. But those relationships don't abrogate the commandments God gave us upon our birth.

I think the only time the relationship between parents and children are superseded by another is that between husband and wife. LITERAL husband and wife, not a metaphoric one, like "Jesus became married to the church".

Unless a parent told a child to go against other commandments, (or honor for a spouse conflicts with that of parents), Jews must honor and obey our parents.

Jesus might have been a great teacher, according to his students. That did NOT abrogate his obligation to honor his mother. He should have honored her by greeting her. Instead, he was busy telling his students that they were more of a family to him than his own biological family.

Jesus disrespected his mother.

Apparently, God did not have a problem with it.

 

[Harmonious]

Apparently, God did not have a problem with it.

How do you figure?

It is simple Jewish law, that even children understand from kindergarten. It doesn't come with a specific punishment that I'm aware of. But it was a sin on Jesus' part.

He should have known better.

And he certainly wasn't a good role model, the way you claimed he was.