Commandments by Christ.

[Shermana]

He didn't teach...or preach...Jewish custom.

He spoke in parables....scenarios....
and declared consequence as the action unfolded.

That instruction He made at the Last Supper table REALLY broke it down.

The Passover was performed as a remembrance of the Exodus and Moses.....

'Now do this in remembrance of Me'

THAT is not very Jewish!

Oh but he did.

He said anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom.

He did indeed include parables in his teachings.

However, the Eucharist had nothing really to do with replacing or adding to the Passover. Whether that was Jewish or not when he said to break bread in remembrance of him, he was nonetheless teaching Jewish custom and law to his Disciples.

The entire Sermon on the Mount was about clarification of Jewish Law and issues of dispute, as were many of his teachings.

He specifically said that Heaven and Earth will collapse (not metaphorically, but physically pass away) before a single iota of the Law disappears.

He told a mean he healed to make an offering "As Moses commanded".

When he said things like make peace with your brother before offering your offering on the altar, he was stating that one should strive to be at peace with God before doing what Moses commanded.

Everything Jesus taught was about how to apply oneself fully within the Mosaic Law. He specifically said he did not come to negate the Law.

Thus, to be a disciple of his means to obey Mosaic Law as he taught it.

What do you suppose he meant by "I have not come for anyone but the lost sheep of the House of Israel"?

 

[Windwalker]

Shermana, just to let you know I haven't missed your latest responses. I'm just honestly mostly stunned as to find any response. I'm not sure how, or if, it is possible to bridge the gap of understanding I see here. Suffice to say, how you see Jesus is the antithesis of my understanding. I 'get' how you say these thing, but I think it is impossible to begin to in any words convey the starkly different understanding that occurs, only, with experience.

If I can come up with any means to speak to this, I'll let you know.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, just to let you know I haven't missed your latest responses. I'm just honestly mostly stunned as to find any response. I'm not sure how, or if, it is possible to bridge the gap of understanding I see here. Suffice to say, how you see Jesus is the antithesis of my understanding. I 'get' how you say these thing, but I think it is impossible to begin to in any words convey the starkly different understanding that occurs, only, with experience.

If I can come up with any means to speak to this, I'll let you know.

Take your time, the best way to summarize the "gap of understanding" is that my view involves what the scripture says as a whole, and your view is an abstract concept that is devoid of what scripture says and involves rejecting and denying practically everything else Jesus says and revisioning the concept to involve something Jesus didn't actually teach. Almost as if the Jews had never heard of this concept of "love" before.

So we're gonna be at a standstill, because my view involves incorporating the whole context of what Jesus says, and your view involves feeling free to cherry pick and distort and deny and trump and negate what Jesus says, especially apart from the Jewish context. So obviously we're not going to bridge this gap as long as you don't want to go by what the text says and you want to interpret Jesus as contradicting himself and the OT texts.

Although I have to wonder what "experience" your view would be built on. I have seen similar views such as yours, so my own experience helps me understand such views and how they attempt to pry Jesus away from not only his Jewish context, but from his own words elsewhere, cherry picking what he says in one place, distorting the grammar and meaning of what he says, and denying what he clearly implies elsewhere.

The fact is, the Bible explains "Love" in a few ways, but when Jesus is talking about all the commandments "hanging" on Love of God and neighbor, he is NOT saying that some abstract idea of loving God and neighbor means you don't have to obey the Laws. That's like saying "All the rules of traffic hang on look out for your neighbor and don't smash into him", thinking you can break all the rules of the road as long as you keep a look out. That's not how it works. In the Biblical context, "love" is defined as the obedience to the commandments itself. Jesus berates the Pharisees for failing to uphold all the commandments correctly, not necessarily for not doing them in love. If Jesus does comment on love, when he says things like "Love your enemy", it's to discuss something totally different. 1 John 5:3 is clear that the love of God is obedience to the commandments. If you don't obey the commandments, claims of loving God fall short. It's like saying you love your dad and then refusing to do what he says, thinking your love for him gives you an excuse to disobey him.

I'd think it would be very unloving to try to find ways out of what Jesus teaches under some abstract vague idea of "love" which Jesus specifically warns against.

 

[Windwalker]

Take your time, the best way to summarize the "gap of understanding" is that my view involves what the scripture says as a whole, and your view is an abstract concept that is devoid of what scripture says and involves rejecting and denying practically everything else Jesus says and revisioning the concept to involve something Jesus didn't actually teach. Almost as if the Jews had never heard of this concept of "love" before.

From your perspective it seems this way, but not from mine. And yes, even today people do not know love as it is. I do believe the religious can obey every jot and tittle of the law and fail all of it because they do not know love.

If you had a spouse who did everything you commanded her to the letter, and yet her heart and mind were not connected with yours internally, in her heart and mind, is that love? Perhaps you understand that as love, and this is where communication will break down between your understanding of Jesus' message and mine.

So we're gonna be at a standstill, because my view involves incorporating the whole context of what Jesus says, and your view involves feeling free to cherry pick and distort and deny and trump and negate what Jesus says, especially apart from the Jewish context.

I do not cherry pick. If you understand the meaning of the term cherry picking it means to be essentially intellectually dishonest in selectively ignoring the bad parts while choosing the good, all the while saying the whole thing is good. A biblical literalist, such as you appear to be, when he excuses away autrocities, or just ignores them while selecting verses that support his preconceptions, is a cherry picker. In my case I look at all of it, but do not accept all of it as some perfect, infallible revelation. There are a lot of historical artifacts in there, as well as large sections of mythological frameworks that are lost on the modern mind, such as the majority of all fundamentalists.

Every time you say what you do above directed at me, you miss the target by several leagues. I can tell you really have no idea what I believe, and are just trying to fill in the gaps for yourself with various filler material of some sort.

So obviously we're not going to bridge this gap as long as you don't want to go by what the text says and you want to interpret Jesus as contradicting himself and the OT texts.

The context you lack is one you cannot study to know. That gap cannot be bridged in rational discussion because it require experience.

Although I have to wonder what "experience" your view would be built on.

I've said many times. Mystical realization. If you experience this divine love, then you understand the nature of what that is, and it cannot be known through reading about it. It's like love in the human sense of the word this way as well, that to simply read romance novels leaves you with vague sketches of what love "must be like", a sort of two-dimensional model of something you have never experienced with another individual. But when you then experience that directly through an actual relationship with an actual person, their is a knowledge that comes to you that you could not get any other way. And furthermore, any book you read about it after the fact you see as just sketches and models, representations of something beyond them.

Now apply this to the experience of God and multiple that by a factor of infinity. The Bible, holy scriptures are expressions of human experience of the divine, but those expressions are not the truth of it itself. They are sketches, portraits on a two-dimensional surface. That Truth can only be known by entering within it. And I do not mean by experiencing the book, even though the book may serve as an aide to open to that relationship beyond the book. To stop at the book is to not know God beyond the book, to not enter into that relationship directly. And then to argue with others that the book must be obeyed, is to argue with those who actually know the Author, so to speak. Such "legalists" lack the context of knowing that Heart through which all such teachings arise. How can they understand that through memorizing the book and following it to a T?

I have seen similar views such as yours, so my own experience helps me understand such views and how they attempt to pry Jesus away from not only his Jewish context, but from his own words elsewhere, cherry picking what he says in one place, distorting the grammar and meaning of what he says, and denying what he clearly implies elsewhere.

And you pry Jesus away from the Divine context.

The fact is, the Bible explains "Love" in a few ways, but when Jesus is talking about all the commandments "hanging" on Love of God and neighbor, he is NOT saying that some abstract idea of loving God and neighbor means you don't have to obey the Laws.

You see? Right there. "Abstract idea of loving God". To you it is an idea, a concept, a theory, a model. That is not what this is, but rather a lived, vital, breathing experience of the divine in action. It flows like living water from an infinite well as it is its very Nature to do so. In the experience of the divine within, it is in fact natural to love. You have no other choice. And without that, all you are doing is imitating it at best. The goal is to realize it within yourself, and you become that. "In that day will my law be written on the tablets of the heart". That is not some rote memorization and legalistic performance!

In the Biblical context, "love" is defined as the obedience to the commandments itself. Jesus berates the Pharisees for failing to uphold all the commandments correctly, not necessarily for not doing them in love.

No. When I read you say that Jesus was the ultimate legalist, my jaw dropped. Do understand what legalism is? Legalism is a substitute for internal realization. Jesus represents that internal realization, not some exterior shell of religiosity! He berates the Pharisees for being that external shell. Do you think the Bible has the code to all good behaviors spelled out for you? No. There's only 613 commandments in the OT, and the only ones Jesus speaks of are ones that point not to specific laws, but to attitudes of the heart.

Follow the rules is fine to teach certain object lessons, like putting training wheels on a bike to teach what it is to ride upright. But at a point, those training wheels must come off in order for you to find your own balance within. Then knowing balance, you are able to navigate the world of changing terrain. 613 commandments hardly equip you for life! Having God within, does.


I'll leave it there.

 

[Shermana]

Windwalker, you're on the wrong thread if you want to present your take on Jesus that has nothing to do with what he says in the scripture. You're welcome to your abstract non-Judaic view of Jesus but that's not what this is about. We're talking about what Jesus commanded, you said that all he commanded was to "love" as if that canceled out the need to obey the commandments, I showed that this simply wasn't the case, though is a common misinterpretation, and ultimately avoids the general concept of what Jesus was teaching in regards to what "love" was exactly. Everything else beyond that is basically about redefining Jesus and his message to some non-Jewish, non-scriptural context. If you want to talk about what Jesus taught outside of what the NT says, you're on the wrong thread. Start a new one and feel free to explain how you know what Jesus taught without using the texts here, or even the Gnostic non-canonical texts, those are even MORE Legalistic.

A biblical literalist, such as you appear to be, when he excuses away autrocities, or just ignores them while selecting verses that support his preconceptions, is a cherry picker.

Oh I definitely don't ignore them, I love defending the atrocities against Western Liberal Modernists. The cherry picker would be the one who tries to downplay it or ignore it so they can redefine their own abstract idea of "love" so that the Biblical God becomes some happy Disney character and that "love" becomes some Kumbaya lovefest. With that said, if you're not going to discuss what Jesus commanded from a Biblical context, start another thread or stay on topic to this one. Otherwise, please refrain from prying Jesus away from his Jewish context.

No. When I read you say that Jesus was the ultimate legalist, my jaw dropped. Do understand what legalism is? Legalism is a substitute for internal realization. Jesus represents that internal realization, not some exterior shell of religiosity! He berates the Pharisees for being that external shell. Do you think the Bible has the code to all good behaviors spelled out for you? No. There's only 613 commandments in the OT, and the only ones Jesus speaks of are ones that point not to specific laws, but to attitudes of the heart.

Legalism is a substitute for internal realization? Says who, you? The ones Jesus points out are not specific laws but attitudes of the heart? Have you even read the Sermon of the Mount? Let alone the Gospels in their entirety? Jesus talks about many specific commandments, issue of the "attitude of the heart" is indeed part of the process of what he's teaching, but it has to do with incorrect understandings that he believed the Pharisees were getting wrong in the first place. I specifically addressed that. Have you seriously read what Jesus actually teaches? How does telling people that it's better to chop off their manhood than cause their wives to commit adultery by wrongly divorcing them count as "internal realization"? Yeah, it's internal realization that it counts against you to cause your wife to break the Law as he saw it. Hence, legalism. Jesus was 100% legalist, it's that simple. Those who say otherwise are snipping out vast chunks of what he taught or simply havent' read it.

That is not some rote memorization and legalistic performance!

Once again, if you ignore the foundations, you can't truly love. If God commands obedience to the Sabbath, you can't just "I love God anyway" as an excuse to avoid Sabbath obedience. What you're saying is that all these rituals were never meant to be followed as a display of love of God as if you can just rip the OT away from its own context. And Jesus was teaching an OT context or he wouldn't have been the Jewish messiah.

If you want to deny that the NT says that the Love of God is obedience to the commandments, 1 John 5:3, you're going to have to start a thread that doesn't involve the NT's saying on the issue. Regardless, there's no escaping the fact that "hangs on" does not mean "replaces". Jesus was simply stating that obedience to Sabbath was love of God, not coveting was love of neighbor, and so on and so on.

Here we have an example of a common misunderstanding that is relevant to the OP however. Jesus was not berating the Pharisees because of their belief in adherence to Torah as a means for gaining favor with God. That's what Jesus believed too. This is a very common position that has absolutely no scriptural basis. What Jesus was berating them for was for not obeying it correctly as he perceived Moses initially taught it, which may INCLUDE an inner-depth such as not just refraining from adultery but also refraining from lust, but he was mainly correcting incorrect interpretations of the Law, not denouncing obedience to the Law. So yes, Jesus was in fact a big time legalist. To deny this is to deny everything else he taught. Are you familiar with what Jesus taught in the first place? He's quite the fire and brimstone Legalist, those who deny this I have to say I believe they have not taken the time to read what they are preaching about, though they sure are often hell bent on prying off the Jewish context so they can reach that juicy Universalistic center (which the scripture in no way indicates is the case).

You can say that I am "prying Jesus away from the Divine" or whatever, that's a nice belief but it's really just vague fluff that has subjective meaning. To me, an attempt to pry Jesus away from the Jewish context is what is prying him away from Divine context, as we simply have different views of the Divine, mine from the Scriptural perspective, yours from...whatever it comes from.

 

[Windwalker]

Windwalker, you're on the wrong thread if you want to present your take on Jesus that has nothing to do with what he says in the scripture.

According to you it has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. This thread specifically asks the question what commandments did Jesus teach. So far, the only thing that I've seen is what I have said, which is to have a changed heart which acts through love. Now if that isn't sufficient for you, perhaps you are in the wrong thread.

You're welcome to your abstract non-Judaic view of Jesus but that's not what this is about.

Don't mistake your views as being the only or 'correct' ones. There is a wide diversity of views within any tradition as to what is the "right" way, or even if that is a valid question at all (which camp I would fall under in any tradition). And if you don't want to discuss with me in this thread, then don't.

We're talking about what Jesus commanded, you said that all he commanded was to "love" as if that canceled out the need to obey the commandments,

Have I ever anywhere, whatsoever, than it cancels out the need to "fulfill" the commandments? No. In fact what I said is that without love all your righteousness "become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal", and "profiteth [you] nothing".

You see the action as the thing itself. I see the action as the result of the thing itself. The former without the latter is a shell, that without the internal, "puffs you up". It was what leads to the self-righteous religious, who cite obey the law as the primary focus. That the easy part!!

I showed that this simply wasn't the case, though is a common misinterpretation, and ultimately avoids the general concept of what Jesus was teaching in regards to what "love" was exactly.

You have showed nothing. You are having an argument with yourself.

If you want to talk about what Jesus taught outside of what the NT says, you're on the wrong thread.

It's all right there within the pages of your "approved" texts. You just can't see it. And why are you so desperate now for me to leave this thread?

Start a new one and feel free to explain how you know what Jesus taught without using the texts here, or even the Gnostic non-canonical texts, those are even MORE Legalistic.

Or you can start one where only your views are allowed?

Oh I definitely don't ignore them, I love defending the atrocities against Western Liberal Modernists.

Oh my goodness. Are attempting to define me somehow? Another miss. And I'm sorry you're not interested in listening to others points of views that differ from yours.

The cherry picker would be the one who tries to downplay it or ignore it so they can redefine their own abstract idea of "love" so that the Biblical God becomes some happy Disney character and that "love" becomes some Kumbaya lovefest.

Yes, yes. None of this reflects anything I've said or think. You are in fact arguing with a phantom. You are arguing with yourself.

Otherwise, please refrain from prying Jesus away from his Jewish context.

I'm thinking you'd be happier not having any dialog with anyone who thinks differently than you. I on the other hand am fascinating and intrigued talking with you. I see how you see things your way, but also recognize how they don't fit how I see things. The difference is to you, only your way of thinking is allowed. It is to you, the ONLY way to think.

I can't share that mentality with you.

Legalism is a substitute for internal realization? Says who, you?

Yes.

The ones Jesus points out are not specific laws but attitudes of the heart? Have you even read the Sermon of the Mount?

Yes, in fact. I'm reading about currently about the Sermon on the Mount. Funny you should ask!

Let alone the Gospels in their entirety?

I have a degree in theology. I've read the Bible in it entirety several times, and the texts of the NT, perhaps more and in greater depth than most, yourself as well possibly. Perhaps that, and my person devotion to spiritual development is what makes how I see these things slightly more "expansive" than the manner in which you interpret them.

Jesus talks about many specific commandments, issue of the "attitude of the heart" is indeed part of the process of what he's teaching, but it has to do with incorrect understandings that he believed the Pharisees were getting wrong in the first place.

Say who? Your opinion? Based on what personal insights?

I specifically addressed that. Have you seriously read what Jesus actually teaches?

Yes. In Bible College they called me a walking concordance. I could, and still can quote the Bible from memory, in very large part. And the teachings of Jesus are really actually quite amazing. I don't hear in them what you do, however.

Hence, legalism. Jesus was 100% legalist, it's that simple.

This is fascinating to me. You must reject all of Christianity then, and you yourself is the only "true believer"? Legalism is a pejoritive term that is considered the opposite of the "Good News" message of Jesus! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology)


Perhaps you wish to start a thread extolling the virtues of legalism instead, whatever those may possibly be?

Those who say otherwise are snipping out vast chunks of what he taught or simply havent' read it.

Ditto. Except I will say they have read it, but cannot see it. "Having ears to ear they do not hear", and so forth.

You completely ignored everything I said about the context of experience. I understand why that likely occurred. It's outside your frame of reference to be able to speak from, and hence why there is no way to bridge the gap of communication. It's a language unfamiliar to you, and you try to take what you hear me say and put it into your language. I am bilingual when it comes to knowing the language you speak, as well as the world I come from.

 

[Thief]

Oh but he did.

He said anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom.

He did indeed include parables in his teachings.

However, the Eucharist had nothing really to do with replacing or adding to the Passover. Whether that was Jewish or not when he said to break bread in remembrance of him, he was nonetheless teaching Jewish custom and law to his Disciples.

The entire Sermon on the Mount was about clarification of Jewish Law and issues of dispute, as were many of his teachings.

He specifically said that Heaven and Earth will collapse (not metaphorically, but physically pass away) before a single iota of the Law disappears.

He told a mean he healed to make an offering "As Moses commanded".

When he said things like make peace with your brother before offering your offering on the altar, he was stating that one should strive to be at peace with God before doing what Moses commanded.

Everything Jesus taught was about how to apply oneself fully within the Mosaic Law. He specifically said he did not come to negate the Law.

Thus, to be a disciple of his means to obey Mosaic Law as he taught it.

What do you suppose he meant by "I have not come for anyone but the lost sheep of the House of Israel"?

And you overlook the obvious.....He was rejected by His own people.

And His followers are Jewish?...then and now?

There was an obvious broke in tradition.

And sending someone back to his previous practice having received something else.....
tends to....'drive the nail home'.

 

[Shermana]

According to you it has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. This thread specifically asks the question what commandments did Jesus teach. So far, the only thing that I've seen is what I have said, which is to have a changed heart which acts through love. Now if that isn't sufficient for you, perhaps you are in the wrong thread.

What you said, I believe was a response saying that Jesus didn't command obedience to the Law in this teaching of acting through love, then in the last thread you went off saying how we don't need the NT to know what Jesus taught.

Don't mistake your views as being the only or 'correct' ones. There is a wide diversity of views within any tradition as to what is the "right" way, or even if that is a valid question at all (which camp I would fall under in any tradition). And if you don't want to discuss with me in this thread, then don't.

I'm well aware there are plenty of other views, however I am more than happy to show how wrong and/or against the scripture that I believe they are.

Have I ever anywhere, whatsoever, than it cancels out the need to "fulfill" the commandments? No. In fact what I said is that without love all your righteousness "become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal", and "profiteth [you] nothing".

Au contraire, you specifically said that "love" was what Jesus taught as a replacement to obeying the commandments.

You see the action as the thing itself. I see the action as the result of the thing itself. The former without the latter is a shell, that without the internal, "puffs you up". It was what leads to the self-righteous religious, who cite obey the law as the primary focus. That the easy part!!

But I have asked what that thing is. See, I am saying that obeying the Law IS the primary focus, doing it with love is the next step. You can't do anything with love if you don't have the foundation.

Jesus taught nothing less than full obedience to the Law. I made a point that it would be unloving to tell others to break the least of the commandments, since Jesus warns a grim fate for those.

You have showed nothing. You are having an argument with yourself.

Then apparently you forget your objection to what I stated. I have indeed shown that the idea of "love of God and neighbor" does NOT cancel out or replace the need to follow the commandments. It's the opposite. It says that every commandment is about love of God or neighbor. That was what you objected to.

It's all right there within the pages of your "approved" texts. You just can't see it. And why are you so desperate now for me to leave this thread?

I'm not desparate for you to leave the thread, I'm asking you to stick to the text. What you're saying is NOT in the "approved text", and what you're doing is ignoring and skipping over, if not rejecting and denying the parts of the text I'm referring to when you dismiss my interpretation.

Or you can start one where only your views are allowed?

You are the one who rejected using the NT as a guide to see what Jesus commanded, and then accused me of being a Biblical literalist for some reason. The thread says to list Jesus's commandments. Unless you know what Jesus commanded outside of the NT, or even the Gnostic texts, you're not on topic.

Oh my goodness. Are attempting to define me somehow? Another miss. And I'm sorry you're not interested in listening to others points of views that differ from yours.

I think you've done a good job defining yourself. I'm not interested in hearing viewpoints that have nothing to do with what the text says or involve rejecting what the text says, on this thread at least.

Yes, yes. None of this reflects anything I've said or think. You are in fact arguing with a phantom. You are arguing with yourself.

Again, you apparently don't even remember what you said then. We are arguing about what Jesus commanded, and I'm saying what he commanded, in a Jewish context, from what the text says.

I'm thinking you'd be happier not having any dialog with anyone who thinks differently than you. I on the other hand am fascinating and intrigued talking with you. I see how you see things your way, but also recognize how they don't fit how I see things. The difference is to you, only your way of thinking is allowed. It is to you, the ONLY way to think.

I think you simply don't want to accept the fact that I'm trying to stick to the OP and go by what Jesus commanded according to what the text says without saying that the texts don't matter.

I can't share that mentality with you.

You already seem to since you reject any attempt to define Jesus according to the Biblical context and Jewish culture.

Yes.

Okay, says you.

Yes, in fact. I'm reading about currently about the Sermon on the Mount. Funny you should ask!

Then you should know that it's talking about difficulties within the Mosaic Law that Jesus was clarifying, and again, Jesus says anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called among the lowliest in the Kingdom. It would be unloving to say otherwise.

I have a degree in theology. I've read the Bible in it entirety several times, and the texts of the NT, perhaps more and in greater depth than most, yourself as well possibly. Perhaps that, and my person devotion to spiritual development is what makes how I see these things slightly more "expansive" than the manner in which you interpret them.

A degree in Theology from where may I ask? Then you should be well aware that the NT is written from an entirely Jewish context. I appreciate that you think your views are more "expansive" than mine, I just view mine as more "contextual" and "as intended".

Say who? Your opinion? Based on what personal insights?

See, this is why I doubt that you've read the NT several times with "Expansive" insights. Have you even read what Jesus berates the Pharisees over specifically? Would you like to start a thread on it?

Yes. In Bible College they called me a walking concordance. I could, and still can quote the Bible from memory, in very large part. And the teachings of Jesus are really actually quite amazing. I don't hear in them what you do, however.

Then they must have never taught you that Jesus was teaching about misunderstandings and corrections of the Jewish law.

This is fascinating to me. You must reject all of Christianity then, and you yourself is the only "true believer"? Legalism is a pejoritive term that is considered the opposite of the "Good News" message of Jesus! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology)

Jewish believers in Jesus like myself often do reject 99.99% of Christianity. I am far from the only "True believer". I understand well that Legalism is considered a pejorative term by the anti-Judaizers. And that doesn't change the fact that what they are railing against is exactly what Jesus taught.

Perhaps you wish to start a thread extolling the virtues of legalism instead, whatever those may possibly be?

Maybe I should start a thread on legalism and why it's exactly what Jesus taught if you actually read what he says according to the texts, even the Gnostic texts. I think I will.

Ditto. Except I will say they have read it, but cannot see it. "Having ears to ear they do not hear", and so forth.

Or rather refuse to see it because it clashes with their confirmation biases.

You completely ignored everything I said about the context of experience. I understand why that likely occurred. It's outside your frame of reference to be able to speak from, and hence why there is no way to bridge the gap of communication. It's a language unfamiliar to you, and you try to take what you hear me say and put it into your language. I am bilingual when it comes to knowing the language you speak, as well as the world I come from.

[/QUOTE]

You completely ignored what I said that your experience is totally subjective, utterly meaningless, I have "experience" as well. The only "unfamiliar language" with "Divine experience" is mystical babble from people pushing their own subjective views. Just as you would deny my Divine experience, I deny yours. The difference is, I don't tell people about mine.

 

[Shermana]

And you overlook the obvious.....He was rejected by His own people.

And you overlook the obvious. The entire early Church was Jewish Christians who were completely Torah obedient. This apparently did not change allegedly until Paul's arrival on the scene.

And His followers are Jewish?...then and now?

Yes, his earliest followers were ALL Jewish. Torah obedient Jews. The Nazarenes and Ebionites were entirely Jewish. Did you not learn your basic Christian history?

There was an obvious broke in tradition.

There was a break in PHARISEE tradition. Another common misunderstanding is that the Pharisees represented the correct form of Jewish Law in its entirety. Jesus was telling the Pharisees that their interpretation was wrong, not their law obedience. You're ignoring the entire swaths of what Jesus taught.

Jesus said those who teach to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least/lowliest in the kingdom. Do you want to be among the least important/lowliest in the Kingdom? He said those who teach to obey all the commandments shall be called the greatest. Does that sound like someone doing away with Mosaic Law?

And sending someone back to his previous practice having received something else.....
tends to....'drive the nail home'.

What would drive the nail home would be utterly ignoring everything Jesus commanded, ignoring the history and context of Jesus's message, and denying and dismissing all his words on the upholding and upkeeping of the Mosaic Law. Driving the nail home would be acting as if his words against the Pharisees somehow were words against the Mosaic Law, which not "one jot or tittle" would be void until "heaven and earth collapse".

Driving the nail home would be attempting to redefine Jesus's message from Jewish Messiah to anti-Judaizer.

Driving the nail home would be saying to go back to Pharisee practices, not Jewish practice per se.

 

[Shermana]

Now to get back on Topic of discussing what Jesus actually commanded and not make this a personal slugfest over who's interpretation is "more expansive" or whatever, I have made a thread for discussion on the Jewish context of Jesus and his message so we can get specific on this issue of whether his commandments were meant for a Jewish Mosaic Law context or as an Anti-Judaizing one. So don't feel I'm trying to discourage or silence conversation on the issue, I'm not, I'm trying to keep the subject on topic and explain why such dismissals of my view on the matter are simply not in the scripture (as admitted), so we can have non-scriptural discussions of Jesus's message here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...wish-context-jesus-jesus-not.html#post3277816

 

[Windwalker]

Once upon a time when I was a fundamentalist Christian, we believed everyone else who didn't read the texts they way our group read them were going to hell. It was so obvious, so plain, written right on the pages of the Bible in black and white. How could they not see it? We read it that you had to be baptized just the right way, you must say the right words, you must obey the law, otherwise you might miss the rapture and be sent to hell. It was our duty, out of love, to warn others. Etc, etc, etc.

Yes, I understand the legalist mentality well. I understand the mindset behind it, and what is missing that inspires it.

 

[Thief]

And you overlook the obvious. The entire early Church was Jewish Christians who were completely Torah obedient. This apparently did not change allegedly until Paul's arrival on the scene.



Yes, his earliest followers were ALL Jewish. Torah obedient Jews. The Nazarenes and Ebionites were entirely Jewish. Did you not learn your basic Christian history?



There was a break in PHARISEE tradition. Another common misunderstanding is that the Pharisees represented the correct form of Jewish Law in its entirety. Jesus was telling the Pharisees that their interpretation was wrong, not their law obedience. You're ignoring the entire swaths of what Jesus taught.

Jesus said those who teach to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least/lowliest in the kingdom. Do you want to be among the least important/lowliest in the Kingdom? He said those who teach to obey all the commandments shall be called the greatest. Does that sound like someone doing away with Mosaic Law?




What would drive the nail home would be utterly ignoring everything Jesus commanded, ignoring the history and context of Jesus's message, and denying and dismissing all his words on the upholding and upkeeping of the Mosaic Law. Driving the nail home would be acting as if his words against the Pharisees somehow were words against the Mosaic Law, which not "one jot or tittle" would be void until "heaven and earth collapse".

Driving the nail home would be attempting to redefine Jesus's message from Jewish Messiah to anti-Judaizer.

Driving the nail home would be saying to go back to Pharisee practices, not Jewish practice per se.

Nay to all above.

From the first occasion to the last.....he taught something else.

And when you teach something different.....and then send the listener back to his previous practice......
the difference is greatly seen.

THAT would be 'driving the nail home'.

 

[Shermana]

Nay to all above.

From the first occasion to the last.....he taught something else.

And when you teach something different.....and then send the listener back to his previous practice......
the difference is greatly seen.

THAT would be 'driving the nail home'.

Nay to all the above? You must be reading an entirely different Gospel then (not to mention historical account), I believe this thread is about what the scripture says. If you want to rewrite history so that Jesus's disciples and the early church after his crucifixion weren't all Torah obedient Jews until Paul entered the scene, and totally dispel the entire concept of the Jerusalem Church under James who berates Paul about a rumor that he was teaching Jewish Christians to abandon Moses, that's fine and dandy, but the only thing Jesus was teaching differently was the Torah as he deemed it to be properly understood, which is different from how the Pharisees were teaching it. Only the most anti-Judaizing Christians would believe that the original Church was not entirely comprised of Torah obedient Jews.

So thus, the only way to go back to what Jesus was teaching differently would be to adopt the Pharisee interpretations. It's a common misunderstanding that the Pharisees represented Law obedience altogether. What they represented was incorrect interpretations of the Law, according to Jesus, not obedience to it on its own.

So you have to understand there is a difference between the Law itself and the Pharisee's misinterpretations which Jesus was correcting. Why would Jesus even bother discussing the Law and explaining how they were misapplying it if he was teaching to denounce it altogether?

You'd have to eliminate vast swaths of what Jesus teaches to get the view that he did mean he came to abolish the Law. Why don't you try responding to that post line by line with scriptural reference rather than brushing it all off with a "nay" handwave.

Who do you think he was talking about when he said "those who teach to break the least of these commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom"?

Seriously, it's hard to stick to the OP when the text itself is being rejected. So what Jesus commanded isn't what he really commanded?

 

[Thief]

Nay to all the above? You must be reading an entirely different Gospel then (not to mention historical account), I believe this thread is about what the scripture says. If you want to rewrite history so that Jesus's disciples and the early church after his crucifixion weren't all Torah obedient Jews until Paul entered the scene, and totally dispel the entire concept of the Jerusalem Church under James who berates Paul about a rumor that he was teaching Jewish Christians to abandon Moses, that's fine and dandy, but the only thing Jesus was teaching differently was the Torah as he deemed it to be properly understood, which is different from how the Pharisees were teaching it. Only the most anti-Judaizing Christians would believe that the original Church was not entirely comprised of Torah obedient Jews.

So thus, the only way to go back to what Jesus was teaching differently would be to adopt the Pharisee interpretations. It's a common misunderstanding that the Pharisees represented Law obedience altogether. What they represented was incorrect interpretations of the Law, according to Jesus, not obedience to it on its own.

So you have to understand there is a difference between the Law itself and the Pharisee's misinterpretations which Jesus was correcting. Why would Jesus even bother discussing the Law and explaining how they were misapplying it if he was teaching to denounce it altogether?

You'd have to eliminate vast swaths of what Jesus teaches to get the view that he did mean he came to abolish the Law. Why don't you try responding to that post line by line with scriptural reference rather than brushing it all off with a "nay" handwave.

Who do you think he was talking about when he said "those who teach to break the least of these commandments shall be called the least in the Kingdom"?

Seriously, it's hard to stick to the OP when the text itself is being rejected. So what Jesus commanded isn't what he really commanded?

His teachings are in parable and metaphor.

If such teachings were of Moses.....there never would have been a division.

And was it not a reading from Jewish scripture that got Him in trouble?
Something about the 'fulfillment'....

It seems the people there wanted Him dead....right from the start.

 

[Shermana]

His teachings are in parable and metaphor.

That doesn't change the meaning of them, and not all of his teachings were such, only a few. What he taught was very clear that he was rebuking the Pharisees for hypocrisy and incorrect understandings of the Law, not obedience to the Law itself. He commanded obedience to the Law.

If such teachings were of Moses.....there never would have been a division.

Wrong, the problem was that he was going against the Pharisee's interpretations of Moses. Again, you're confusing the idea of the Pharisee's interpretation of the Mosaic Law with the Mosaic Law itself. It would be as if someone was disliked for their interpretation of Jesus's teachings, and then saying that thus it must be that he denounced Jesus altogether for this view.

And was it not a reading from Jewish scripture that got Him in trouble?
Something about the 'fulfillment'....

Fulfillment of the idea of being the Messiah. He was quite clear that not "one iota of the Law" would be void until Heaven and Earth collapse.

Would you like to address the "he who teaches to break the least" part?

It seems the people there wanted Him dead....right from the start

Because he was a threat to their authority.

 

[Thief]

That doesn't change the meaning of them, and not all of his teachings were such, only a few. What he taught was very clear that he was rebuking the Pharisees for hypocrisy and incorrect understandings of the Law, not obedience to the Law itself. He commanded obedience to the Law.

The law of Moses obeyed as conformity?....nay.

Wrong, the problem was that he was going against the Pharisee's interpretations of Moses. Again, you're confusing the idea of the Pharisee's interpretation of the Mosaic Law with the Mosaic Law itself. It would be as if someone was disliked for their interpretation of Jesus's teachings, and then saying that thus it must be that he denounced Jesus altogether for this view.

An eye for and eye is the law of Moses.
A law of retribution and condemnation.

Fulfillment of the idea of being the Messiah. He was quite clear that not "one iota of the Law" would be void until Heaven and Earth collapse.

Would you like to address the "he who teaches to break the least" part?

Because he was a threat to their authority.

The authority of the Pharisees is held by conformity to the law of Moses.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you....sets you free.

The law of Moses is still with us.....an eye for an eye.
It will be around as long as Man walks this earth.

 

[Shermana]

The authority of the Pharisees is held by conformity to the law of Moses.

That's what they believed. They were incorrect on various counts and that's why Jesus was correcting their misinterpretations of the Law. How about the Sadducees? Where did their authority come from?

Jesus did command, as I mentioned earlier, to listen and obey everything they taught, but to not copy their hypocrisy for they did not do as they taught. They did sit in the seat of Moses. But that did not make all their interpretations or behaviors correct.

Jesus did however command conformity to the Law of Moses, just not necessarily as the Pharisees were completely interpreting it.

I ask you yet again, what do you think Jesus meant by "he who breaks and teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the kingdom?"

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you....sets you free.

That's the basics.

The law of Moses is still with us.....an eye for an eye.

Jesus clarified what Eye for an eye is supposed to entail, it's not meant to be a rigid revenge pattern for every petty offense, not even modern Jews believe how the Pharisees were interpreting it.

It will be around as long as Man walks this earth.

Indeed, Heaven and Earth will collapse first before one jot or tittle of the Law is void.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

His* post.

My bad. Forgive me?

 

[Avoice]

Shermana and Thief.

Does it not boil down to Jesus teaching mercy instead of sacrifice? Hmmm, sounds like a Hebrew Prophet to me.

Thief, are you in such complete obedience to the traditions and laws of the Hebrew scriptures that you can claim to be without sin before God himself? Are you really worthy of demanding an eye for an eye without feeling some level of conviction yourself? I know I'm not and have never met a man or woman who was.

 

[savagewind]

Shermana and Thief.

Does it not boil down to Jesus teaching mercy instead of sacrifice? Hmmm, sounds like a Hebrew Prophet to me.

Thief, are you in such complete obedience to the traditions and laws of the Hebrew scriptures that you can claim to be without sin before God himself? Are you really worthy of demanding an eye for an eye without feeling some level of conviction yourself? I know I'm not and have never met a man or woman who was.

Thief will answer with poetry. I shall answer in English, if no one minds
I think he means the law of an eye for an eye will always be present. Remember The Christ did not do away with the law. Thief does not go by that law (I've been reading his posts). Believing lifts one above the law. Love causes one to obey the law, but it is written in hearts now, not remembered in heads. OMG I'd be dead if I needed to remember it all.