Did Jesus Teach Freedom From Religious Law

[Spice]

How many of these 613 laws do Christians follow?

I've not read them in language this easy to understand prior to finding this site. I haven't counted out how many fit into Standard Christianity, but many do, although possibly adjusted.

Check them out here:

A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)

A list of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) that are binding on Jews.

www.jewfaq.org

 

[InChrist]

Yes, or do you believe otherwise?

Jesus said…
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”
Matthew 5:17-18
So my perspective is that the law is still in place, yet Christ is the complete culmination and fulfillment of the law. All who believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior and are born again to live in newness of life, submitting to Jesus Christ/ the law of Christ. All who are outside of Christ are accountable to live by every point and requirement of the Law which has not been abolished.


There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh… Romans 8:1-3


Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 3:17

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How many of these 613 laws do Christians follow?

Jesus didn't preach to Christians. He preached to Jews.

FWIW, the laws of the Torah do not apply to non-Jews. While I have to avoid pork and shellfish, you can eat bacon to your heart's content and not sin.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Jesus said…
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”
Matthew 5:17-18
So my perspective is that the law is still in place, yet Christ is the complete culmination and fulfillment of the law. All who believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior and are born again to live in newness of life, submitting to Jesus Christ/ the law of Christ. All who are outside of Christ are accountable to live by every point and requirement of the Law which has not been abolished.


There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh… Romans 8:1-3


Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 3:17

Thank you for your post. I agree with you that Jesus did not come to abolish Judaism but to Reform Judaism. It's another matter that Jews, instead of getting reformed, have continued to hold on to their earlier outdated language. The 613 laws have no place in Christianity. The only law in Christianity is to love your brother as yourself. I think all other laws are subsumed within it. I find the book ‘Pistis Sophia’ to be very illuminating. Although it is not part of the canon, but it explains the psychic laws that Jesus followed. Thank you.

 

[metis]

Jesus' interpretation dealing with Jewish Law is a rather radical one but one that can be argued.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus' interpretation dealing with Jewish Law is a rather radical one but one that can be argued.

While I respect your right to reach your own opinions, I'm not sure why you say this. When I read the gospels, Jesus comes across as an ordinary Jew who observes second temple Judaism. With the exception of divorce, all his interpretations of Torah are classic school of Hillel. The fact that he accepts the prophets and believes in an afterlife clearly pegs him as a Pharisee. I think he had some good teachings, but was not the first to teach those things. Much of what he said comes directly out of the Torah. Other than his comments about himself, I just don't see any novel teachings.

 

[RabbiO]

Thank you for your post. I agree with you that Jesus did not come to abolish Judaism but to Reform Judaism. It's another matter that Jews, instead of getting reformed, have continued to hold on to their earlier outdated language. The 613 laws have no place in Christianity.

I was going write that every time you say something about Jews and/or Judaism you put your foot in your mouth, but some folks, such as @River Sea, might misunderstand and think I am referring to a literal action on your part.

From your posts on the forum it is clear that you lack any real knowledge, any real understanding, of Jews and Judaism and whatever exposure to, whatever live interaction with, Jews you may have is limited to some subset of a subset of Jews in your native land.

I had been wondering how you could so self assuredly make pronouncements about subjects you know so little about, but then I read your post about your having a degree in physics, but not being knowledgeable about the subject.…

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, or do you believe otherwise?

No, I don't think so. He was a Jew and he preached to Jews.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I think he had some good teachings, but was not the first to teach those things. Much of what he said comes directly out of the Torah. Other than his comments about himself, I just don't see any novel teachings.

His fences around Torah had to do with the heart. This way he predates Musar, right?

"First clean the inside of the cup..." (Matthew 23:26)

"Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." (Matthew 15:17-20)

"Blessed are the pure in heart..." (Matthew 5:8)

"You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ ” (Matthew 15:7-9)

“The very basis for an act… depends on the intention and inner life of the heart.” (Rabbi Bahya Ibn Pakudah, Duties of the Heart)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

His fences around Torah had to do with the heart. This way he predates Musar, right?

Not in my opinion. For example, teaching that lusting in your heart is the same thing as adultery and being angry is the same thing as murder, was an OBVIOUS form of putting a fence around the Torah. I just don't think those teaching have anything to do with the heart. More likely, they will simply make people feel guilty for reactions they cannot control.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I was going write that every time you say something about Jews and/or Judaism you put your foot in your mouth, but some folks, such as @River Sea, might misunderstand and think I am referring to a literal action on your part.

From your posts on the forum it is clear that you lack any real knowledge, any real understanding, of Jews and Judaism and whatever exposure to, whatever live interaction with, Jews you may have is limited to some subset of a subset of Jews in your native land.

I had been wondering how you could so self assuredly make pronouncements about subjects you know so little about, but then I read your post about your having a degree in physics, but not being knowledgeable about the subject.…

Rabbio, I don't think you know enough of me. I am attaching herewith a paper I have written on the on Adams sin, which may give you a flare of what I know about the Old Testament.

 

[metis]

With the exception of divorce, all his interpretations of Torah are classic school of Hillel.

He went further than Hillel. For example, he negates the Kosher Law's mandates; traveling from village to village on Shabbos while picking "grain"; "Let the dead bury the dead", ...

The fact that he accepts the prophets and believes in an afterlife clearly pegs him as a Pharisee.

I totally agree.

Much of what he said comes directly out of the Torah. Other than his comments about himself, I just don't see any novel teachings.

One theologian I knew personally [he passed away about 20 years ago], referred to Jesus as a "love Pharisee" and that he wasn't the only one. I have not seen that label duplicated, but I do think it's likely there were some others teaching their version of the observance of the Law at least somewhat like Jesus' very liberal positions.

An excellent book that delves into this controversy is Jacob Neusner in his book "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus". His position is similar on this to mine.

 

[Spice]

An excellent book that delves into this controversy is Jacob Neusner in his book "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus". His position is similar on this to mine.

Thanks for the book referral. Just ordered. It should be a great follow-up to what I'm currently reading: The Misunderstood Jew, the Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, by Amy-Jill Levine.

 

[metis]

Thanks for the book referral. Just ordered. It should be a great follow-up to what I'm currently reading: The Misunderstood Jew, the Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, by Amy-Jill Levine.

You're welcome, and please let me know what you think about the book.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

He went further than Hillel. For example, he negates the Kosher Law's mandates;

You are correct that there is the story in two gospels where Jesus states that it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out of his mouth. The gospel author adds the commentary, "By this he made all things clean." I simply don't accept the author's interpretation. To me, he is making a strong point about the evil of gossip using hyperbole, not making a ruling on kashrut. That commentary misses the whole point.

traveling from village to village on Shabbos while picking "grain"; "

Jesus did not travel from city to city picking grain. I believe what you are referring to is the story about a few of the disciples picking grain on the Shabbat because they were hungry. I don't think many of the specific applications regarding the Shabbat were yet set. The idea that one should violate the Shabbat if it is necessary to save a life was being debated at this time, if I remember correctly.

Let the dead bury the dead", ...

This is clearly hyperbole in order to make a point -- the importance of learning spiritual matters. Honestly, if Jesus had LITERALLY meant for the man not to bury his father, that would be highly immoral.

One theologian I knew personally [he passed away about 20 years ago], referred to Jesus as a "love Pharisee" and that he wasn't the only one. I have not seen that label duplicated, but I do think it's likely there were some others teaching their version of the observance of the Law at least somewhat like Jesus' very liberal positions.

An excellent book that delves into this controversy is Jacob Neusner in his book "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus". His position is similar on this to mine.

Very cool!

 

[dybmh]

their earlier outdated language

Outdated? Rude.

Do you notice the detail in Genesis 2 with the double yud? No other language that I have seen communicates in such splendid detail.

Can you offer an example of any other language ever constructed in the history of the world which has this sort of clarity of expression?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Thank you for your post. I agree with you that Jesus did not come to abolish Judaism but to Reform Judaism. It's another matter that Jews, instead of getting reformed, have continued to hold on to their earlier outdated language. The 613 laws have no place in Christianity.

Who gets to dictate that Jews, or any other religious group, have to follow Jesus in order to be "reformed"? And more importantly, why should a Jewish person care whether any of their religion's laws "have a place" in Christianity, a different religion?

I have seen similarly accusatory or otherwise belittling—whether intentionally or not—claims about various other religious groups, such as Muslims, Christians, and Pagans, where the core idea is that their beliefs are "outdated" and that they must follow a more recent religion in order to be "reformed" or perhaps even "saved."

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Outdated? Rude.

Do you notice the detail in Genesis 2 with the double yud? No other language that I have seen communicates in such splendid detail.

Can you offer an example of any other language ever constructed in the history of the world which has this sort of clarity of expression?

Apologies for saying outdated language. All I meant was that they did modify their religion in accordance with the changing times. I am not into comparative evaluation of different languages. I have studied the Hindu religion as well as Koran and I think all religions give the details in their own ways and instead of looking at which does it better, I think we should concentrate more on the common formulation of those ideas.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Who gets to dictate that Jews, or any other religious group, have to follow Jesus in order to be "reformed"? And more importantly, why should a Jewish person care whether any of their religion's laws "have a place" in Christianity, a different religion?

I have seen similarly accusatory or otherwise belittling—whether intentionally or not—claims about various other religious groups, such as Muslims, Christians, and Pagans, where the core idea is that their beliefs are "outdated" and that they must follow a more recent religion in order to be "reformed" or perhaps even "saved."

I have no intention of accusing any religion. The basic point is that the world continues to evolve while the religious texts remain fixed. Even when we reinterpret some texts in the context of the present developments, such as the gender neutralization of the text currently being undertaken. It does not do justice to the evolution. My reading is that Bible, Koran and Hindu text were all composed in a period when the capacity of human beings was relatively limited to grasp the essence of God. The expansion of material welfare and education has made it possible for a very large number of people to become spiritual and to contact with God. Here that the religious texts become an impediment because instead of looking at the common religious concepts and bringing people together to the worship of God, they continue to hold to their specific ideas which are limited. We should realize that God is all encompassing in all religions, and therefore, the religions necessarily have to be non-contradictory and we should move in that direction. Thank you very much.

 

[dybmh]

All I meant was that they did modify their religion in accordance with the changing times.

Who's they?

I think we should concentrate more on the common formulation of those ideas.

Then why do you ignore the information which is shared with you by a practicing knowledgeable member of the Jewish religion?