Did Jesus tell people to be completely adherent to the Torah 'laws'?

[Yoshua]

but isn't that simply the essence of the contradiction? One verse says "the law should be followed" and the other says "free of the law." The Pharisees were teaching observance of laws and this was expected by Jesus -- observance. At the same time he was teaching that people are free of the bondage of the law. Are you saying he advocated observing the sabbath but not the laws of the sabbath? That makes no sense. If Jesus was sent to "amend" the law, then why say that people should follow what the Pharisees say to do?

Hi Rosends,

Exodus 31:16-17
16. `Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.
17. `It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.' ''

First, please let quote what is a Sabbath from Ex. 31:16-17, it is a covenant between God and Israel (forever).

John 10:16
16. "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

With this verse, it shows that God would bring the other sheep (Gentiles/Non-Jews) into one flock. That would mean that the salvation is universal, it is not only for the Jews (Israel). This is the reason why Jesus violated the Sabbath for the sake of a life threatening condition of a person. He healed the sick during Sabbath, but does not attack the Sabbath that was given by God for the Israelites. The following scriptures below proves that the Gentiles (Greeks) are free to receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.

Gal. 3:28
28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


Col. 3:11
11. where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all.


Luke 6:6-11
6. Now it happened on another Sabbath, also, that He entered the synagogue and taught. And a man was there whose right hand was withered.

Let us take an example at Luke 6:7-11; Mt. 12:8-14; Mark 3:1-6
Lord of the Sabbath
Matt.12:8-14
8. "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
9. And departing from there, He went into their synagogue.
10. And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they questioned Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" in order that they might accuse Him.
11. And He said to them, "What man shall there be among you, who shall have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it, and lift it out?
12. "Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
13. Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand!" And he stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other.
14. But the Pharisees went out, and counseled together against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

Jesus is concerned more on how the Pharisees behavior in regards to the Sabbath. In Matt. 12:7, Jesus said, He desire compassion and not sacrifice. Jesus expressed His authority over the Sabbath, but He did not attack the Sabbath law. In Mark 3:5, it says “And after looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

The hardness of their hearts and legalistic attitude—without compassion and consideration are what Jesus angered. Jesus values the life of a man more than the animals (v.12).
Matt. 12:7
7. "But if you had known what this means, `I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Hope this may clarify. Thanks

 

[rosends]

Hi Rosends,

Exodus 31:16-17
16. `Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.
17. `It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.' ''

First, please let quote what is a Sabbath from Ex. 31:16-17, it is a covenant between God and Israel (forever).

John 10:16
16. "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

With this verse, it shows that God would bring the other sheep (Gentiles/Non-Jews) into one flock. That would mean that the salvation is universal, it is not only for the Jews (Israel). This is the reason why Jesus violated the Sabbath for the sake of a life threatening condition of a person. He healed the sick during Sabbath, but does not attack the Sabbath that was given by God for the Israelites. The following scriptures below proves that the Gentiles (Greeks) are free to receive the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.

Gal. 3:28
28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


Col. 3:11
11. where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all.


Luke 6:6-11
6. Now it happened on another Sabbath, also, that He entered the synagogue and taught. And a man was there whose right hand was withered.

Let us take an example at Luke 6:7-11; Mt. 12:8-14; Mark 3:1-6
Lord of the Sabbath
Matt.12:8-14
8. "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
9. And departing from there, He went into their synagogue.
10. And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they questioned Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" in order that they might accuse Him.
11. And He said to them, "What man shall there be among you, who shall have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it, and lift it out?
12. "Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
13. Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand!" And he stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other.
14. But the Pharisees went out, and counseled together against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

Jesus is concerned more on how the Pharisees behavior in regards to the Sabbath. In Matt. 12:7, Jesus said, He desire compassion and not sacrifice. Jesus expressed His authority over the Sabbath, but He did not attack the Sabbath law. In Mark 3:5, it says “And after looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

The hardness of their hearts and legalistic attitude—without compassion and consideration are what Jesus angered. Jesus values the life of a man more than the animals (v.12).
Matt. 12:7
7. "But if you had known what this means, `I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Hope this may clarify. Thanks

Not even a little. You start with a quote saying the sabbath is eternal, then claim to show Jesus is the "lord of the sabbath" (a phrase which makes little sense) and that's supposed to explain the clear contradiction. You also say that Jesus is concerned about the Pharisee behavior but you sidestep the fact that he explicitly says to follow all their teachings. He does not "attack" sabbath law; he just throws it out.

Now, if your solution is that Gentiles (Greeks) were not bound by sabbath law, then I agree. If so, then it doesn't matter that Jesus is "lord" of anything. The Greeks were never bound by that law.

 

[metis]

Not even a little. You start with a quote saying the sabbath is eternal, then claim to show Jesus is the "lord of the sabbath" (a phrase which makes little sense) and that's supposed to explain the clear contradiction. You also say that Jesus is concerned about the Pharisee behavior but you sidestep the fact that he explicitly says to follow all their teachings. He does not "attack" sabbath law; he just throws it out.

Now, if your solution is that Gentiles (Greeks) were not bound by sabbath law, then I agree. If so, then it doesn't matter that Jesus is "lord" of anything. The Greeks were never bound by that law.

Along with the indications that Jesus was of the Pharisee tradition himself, and Paul upon arrest identifies himself as a Pharisee. What's pretty much going on is pretty much a "family dispute".

 

[leibowde84]

Hi Leibowde84,

Matthew 23:1-3
1. Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
2. saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Jesus is born under the law, therefore that law should be followed since this is originated from God handed down to Moses. One instances, Jesus called the Pharisees as hypocrites because of their legalistic acts. They like to display in front of the Jews to show that they are a holy and religious teachers of the law, but their hearts is not true to God. Jesus respects the law, but He is sent by the Father to amend the law.

Matthew 12:8
8. "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.''
Rom. 6:14
14. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. It looks like He violated the Sabbath, but that He did it to show to the Jews that we are saved by faith under the grace of God.

Rom. 7:6
6. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

On this verse, it says that we are free and delivered from the law. That means free from the bondage and slavery of the law—legalism.

Gal.4:4-5
4. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5. to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Jesus came to redeem who are under the law, and to qualify us—as adopted sons of God.

Heb. 10:1
1. For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

One example is the atonement (practices) in the Old Testament, they offered sacrifices to God by blood sprinkling for the purpose of cleansing their sins. But now in the New Testament, Jesus laid down His life (once for all) to served as the atonement—who shed His blood on the cross for the salvation of many.

Thanks

I'm sorry, but this is irrelevant to my question. Anything that was in Paul's letters were ideas developed after Jesus' death, as Paul never met the living Jesus. Thus, this is far more easily reconciled with the notion that Paul simply wanted to differenciate Christianity from Judaism in an attempt to make it more attractive to the gentiles. I don't see how Paul's letters could be seen to dictate Jesus' will.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hope this may clarify. Thanks

Hi. Nice job of being familiar with NT passages, and welcome to this forum and specifically to 'Religious debates'. There are several areas that you can start a debate about Bible issues. Religious Debates is the most general category. If you debate in Christianity Directory, then that is a space reserved for Christians to debate Christians. There are also the Scriptural Debate and Biblical Debate areas, and there are areas specific to particular denominations. Any area marked as a directory is either for debate by members of that directory or for respectful questions by non members.

It appears you have laid out an Evangelical Christian understanding of the text, mostly from a NT + sermons base of knowledge. Certain things you say reflect this like when talking about John 10:16 you say "With this verse, it shows that God would bring the other sheep (Gentiles/Non-Jews) into one flock. That would mean that the salvation is universal, it is not only for the Jews (Israel)." There are actually some subtly different layers to this which you may not have encountered with your background. I encourage you to inquire about things like that even as you attempt to answer questions for others.

 

[Yoshua]

Not even a little. You start with a quote saying the sabbath is eternal, then claim to show Jesus is the "lord of the sabbath" (a phrase which makes little sense) and that's supposed to explain the clear contradiction. You also say that Jesus is concerned about the Pharisee behavior but you sidestep the fact that he explicitly says to follow all their teachings. He does not "attack" sabbath law; he just throws it out.

Now, if your solution is that Gentiles (Greeks) were not bound by sabbath law, then I agree. If so, then it doesn't matter that Jesus is "lord" of anything. The Greeks were never bound by that law.

Hi Rosends,

John 3:16 clarified why Jesus came here and shed His blood on the cross.
John 3:16
16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

It is clear that the plan of salvation is for all and not limited to the Jews. In the New Testament, we are under the grace of God and not by the law.
One example is the Sermon of the Mount in Matthew 5:21-22,
21. "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.'
22. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Jesus is referring to the 6th commandment. He starts with the old covenant moral law. He then contrasts His teaching which greatly expands the reach of this moral law by showing that the evil passions of anger and insulting talks (when committed) bring guilt, and into the hell of fire. Jesus takes the moral law and expands it. He did not contradicted with the old covenant law.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I'm sorry, but this is irrelevant to my question. Anything that was in Paul's letters were ideas developed after Jesus' death, as Paul never met the living Jesus. Thus, this is far more easily reconciled with the notion that Paul simply wanted to differenciate Christianity from Judaism in an attempt to make it more attractive to the gentiles. I don't see how Paul's letters could be seen to dictate Jesus' will.

Hi leibowde84,

Paul letters expands what Jesus started in the ministry. They never contradict each other. Jesus called Paul (Saul) when he got blind, this is a personal calling to be able to propagate and proclaim who Jesus was.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Hi. Nice job of being familiar with NT passages, and welcome to this forum and specifically to 'Religious debates'. There are several areas that you can start a debate about Bible issues. Religious Debates is the most general category. If you debate in Christianity Directory, then that is a space reserved for Christians to debate Christians. There are also the Scriptural Debate and Biblical Debate areas, and there are areas specific to particular denominations. Any area marked as a directory is either for debate by members of that directory or for respectful questions by non members.

It appears you have laid out an Evangelical Christian understanding of the text, mostly from a NT + sermons base of knowledge. Certain things you say reflect this like when talking about John 10:16 you say "With this verse, it shows that God would bring the other sheep (Gentiles/Non-Jews) into one flock. That would mean that the salvation is universal, it is not only for the Jews (Israel)." There are actually some subtly different layers to this which you may not have encountered with your background. I encourage you to inquire about things like that even as you attempt to answer questions for others.

Hi Brick,

Thanks for informing me. I need that information since I inclined to share and explain the scriptures in this forum. With my situation as a starter in this forum, I'm hesitant to produce questions because of possible misinterpretation of my questioning (as questioning of one's belief).

I'm willing to inquire and to know more about the things that I have not encountered. Appreciated your advise.

 

[rosends]

Hi Rosends,

John 3:16 clarified why Jesus came here and shed His blood on the cross.
John 3:16
16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

It is clear that the plan of salvation is for all and not limited to the Jews. In the New Testament, we are under the grace of God and not by the law.
One example is the Sermon of the Mount in Matthew 5:21-22,
21. "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.'
22. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Jesus is referring to the 6th commandment. He starts with the old covenant moral law. He then contrasts His teaching which greatly expands the reach of this moral law by showing that the evil passions of anger and insulting talks (when committed) bring guilt, and into the hell of fire. Jesus takes the moral law and expands it. He did not contradicted with the old covenant law.

Thanks

the 6 antitheses present their own problems theologically, but are not relevant here. The question was whether there is a contradiction between saying that all the laws have to be followed, and the idea that the laws no longer apply. For the record, I also wonder if all the antitheses are just about "moral" laws and if so, what law isn't about morality?

 

[leibowde84]

Hi leibowde84,

Paul letters expands what Jesus started in the ministry. They never contradict each other. Jesus called Paul (Saul) when he got blind, this is a personal calling to be able to propagate and proclaim who Jesus was.

Thanks

Beyond what Paul himself claimed, how do you know this?

 

[Yoshua]

the 6 antitheses present their own problems theologically, but are not relevant here. The question was whether there is a contradiction between saying that all the laws have to be followed, and the idea that the laws no longer apply. For the record, I also wonder if all the antitheses are just about "moral" laws and if so, what law isn't about morality?

Hi Rosends,

The ceremonial laws including clean and unclean, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, ritual washings and others. Civil Law about crimes, social behaviour punishments etc.. Moral and ethical law is the ten commandments.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Beyond what Paul himself claimed, how do you know this?

Leiboewde84,

Biblical studies. My reference is the Bible.

Thanks

 

[rosends]

Hi Rosends,

The ceremonial laws including clean and unclean, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, ritual washings and others. Civil Law about crimes, social behaviour punishments etc.. Moral and ethical law is the ten commandments.

Thanks

In that case, at least one of the antitheses is about criminal and not moral law. And how is the commandment against murder not civil law under your definition?

 

[leibowde84]

Leiboewde84,

Biblical studies. My reference is the Bible.

Thanks

So, you just take Paul's word for it that he is telling the truth? Why would a book claiming to be true provide evidence that the book is actually true? You need outside evidence to prove the validity of something, correct? Thus, you can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is accurate, can you? That would merely be the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

 

[JoStories]

We, as born from above children of God, should value the wisdom of our Father. All of God's wisdom is good we just need to allow Jesus to interpret the Law, not the religious leaders of His day. For example, the religious leaders taught Sabbath observance, we just shouldn't keep it like they did.

I'm not familiar with where Christ taught that we shouldn't keep the Sabbath as 'they did'. Where is that written.

 

[JoStories]

"The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses." Matthew 23:1

Law of Moses: "The law of the Penteteuch (first 5 books of the Bible, supposedly written by Moses)"

Seems pretty clear to me.

Agreed that it is clear but most Christians today don't follow these laws, other than the ones they wish to follow or fits their collective agenda. IE: Cherry picking what verses they 'like'.

 

[JoStories]

Hi Leibowde84,

Matthew 23:1-3
1. Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
2. saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Jesus is born under the law, therefore that law should be followed since this is originated from God handed down to Moses. One instances, Jesus called the Pharisees as hypocrites because of their legalistic acts. They like to display in front of the Jews to show that they are a holy and religious teachers of the law, but their hearts is not true to God. Jesus respects the law, but He is sent by the Father to amend the law.

Matthew 12:8
8. "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.''
Rom. 6:14
14. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. It looks like He violated the Sabbath, but that He did it to show to the Jews that we are saved by faith under the grace of God.

Rom. 7:6
6. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

On this verse, it says that we are free and delivered from the law. That means free from the bondage and slavery of the law—legalism.

Gal.4:4-5
4. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5. to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Jesus came to redeem who are under the law, and to qualify us—as adopted sons of God.

Heb. 10:1
1. For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

One example is the atonement (practices) in the Old Testament, they offered sacrifices to God by blood sprinkling for the purpose of cleansing their sins. But now in the New Testament, Jesus laid down His life (once for all) to served as the atonement—who shed His blood on the cross for the salvation of many.

Thanks

Yet this is completely contradictory. Either Jesus taught to follow the law or the law was completed under him. One cannot have this two ways. From Matthew, you state that Jesus was to follow the laws, and then you contradict yourself with saying that Jesus came to redeem those who are under the law. This is not compatible at all.

 

[JoStories]

Hi leibowde84,

Paul letters expands what Jesus started in the ministry. They never contradict each other. Jesus called Paul (Saul) when he got blind, this is a personal calling to be able to propagate and proclaim who Jesus was.

Thanks

Of course they contradict each other. Where did Jesus teach the things that Paul did about women? Nowhere. Paul wrote his own laws and views that had nothing whatsoever to do with what Christ taught. Were Christianity based solely on what Christ taught, I might consider following that faith but since it doesn't, I find no value in your faith whatsoever.

 

[Yoshua]

In that case, at least one of the antitheses is about criminal and not moral law. And how is the commandment against murder not civil law under your definition?

The commandment that "Thou shall not kill" are direct command from God-moral law. This reveal the nature and will of God. The civil law mainly focus on daily living, society and culture for Israel.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

So, you just take Paul's word for it that he is telling the truth? Why would a book claiming to be true provide evidence that the book is actually true? You need outside evidence to prove the validity of something, correct? Thus, you can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is accurate, can you? That would merely be the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

Before I believe the Bible as the truth, I know why it is the infallible Word of God. I believe that book is true because of the following: Historical Evidence (culture, geography), Scriptural Agreements, Testimony of early historians, archaeology evidences, & discoveries, archaeology witness. To prove more to you that the Bible is the true Word of God needs another thread to discuss.

If Paul is not telling the truth, then his letters that saying Jesus Christ is the Son of God is false and not valid. Studying the Bible leads you to discover the truth. We cannot justify something without knowing it.

You said that you are a (personally) Christian, if you did not believe in the Bible, then what is the basis of your faith? How can you declare that you are a Christian?

Thanks