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

[leibowde84]

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

Just out of curiosity, don't you think it is prudent to look at the validity of each passage individually in the Bible? It is a collection of many books written thousands of years ago by imperfect unknown authors with a far more primitive understanding of the physical world. They were compiled hundreds of years later by other imperfect men, still fairly unknown today. So, why wouldn't everyone look at a book like this with extreme scrutiny?

 

[Simplelogic]

How about the below passage, though? It seems pretty clear that Jesus instructed his followers to "practice and obey" whatever the Pharisees told them. In other words, they were commanded to continue adhering to Jewish law. It wasn't until Paul, who never even met the living Jesus, that there was a notion that Jewish law didn't need to be followed. An obvious reason for this would be that Paul wanted to spread Christianity to the Gentiles, or non-Jews, so he wanted to create a clear split between Christianity and Judaism.

Matthew 23:1-3 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach.

Important to understand that "Moses' seat" was a literal seat inside ancient Synagogues where Rabbi's would read directly from the written Torah. This is why Jesus would have commanded people to follow the Rabbi's "when they are in Moses' seat" but not according to their own works or traditions. Jesus made it clear that the interpretations of the Rabbi's and their man made commandments were contrary to God's true Torah.

 

[leibowde84]

Important to understand that "Moses' seat" was a literal seat inside ancient Synagogues where Rabbi's would read directly from the written Torah. This is why Jesus would have commanded people to follow the Rabbi's "when they are in Moses' seat" but not according to their own works or traditions. Jesus made it clear that the interpretations of the Rabbi's and their man made commandments were contrary to God's true Torah.

Then why would Jesus have commanded his followers to "practice and obey everything that the [Pharisees] instructed"?

 

[rosends]

btw, the question of "Moses' Seat" was dealt with starting with post 122 on this page Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic? | Page 7 | ReligiousForums.com .

 

[Simplelogic]

btw, the question of "Moses' Seat" was dealt with starting with post 122 on this page Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic? | Page 7 | ReligiousForums.com .

Chorazin

 

[Simplelogic]

Then why would Jesus have commanded his followers to "practice and obey everything that the [Pharisees] instructed"?

Because they were instructing the Torah from Moses' seat. Look at what Jesus says right after this:

4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.6“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. Matt: 23: 4-7

So Jesus is clearly saying to both practice what Rabbi's declare from "Moses' seat" but also makes it abundantly clear to not follow the example of the Pharisees in regard to Torah observance.

 

[leibowde84]

Because they were instructing the Torah from Moses' seat. Look at what Jesus says right after this:

4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.6“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. Matt: 23: 4-7

So Jesus is clearly saying to both practice what Rabbi's declare from "Moses' seat" but also makes it abundantly clear to not follow the example of the Pharisees in regard to Torah observance.

Jesus seems to have been saying, "do what they say, not what they do."

 

[rosends]

Chorazin

yes, dealt with in post 143 of the linked thread.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Just out of curiosity, don't you think it is prudent to look at the validity of each passage individually in the Bible? It is a collection of many books written thousands of years ago by imperfect unknown authors with a far more primitive understanding of the physical world. They were compiled hundreds of years later by other imperfect men, still fairly unknown today. So, why wouldn't everyone look at a book like this with extreme scrutiny?

Thats exactly what I did. I did not like what I found.

 

[leibowde84]

Thats exactly what I did. I did not like what I found.

How so?

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

How so?

Too much to put in a post.But mainly:
1. The date and authorship of the NT books.
2. How the books of the NT were chosen to be in the NT.
3. The role of Constantine, a pagan who still worshiped pagan gods, in development of the doctrine of the orthodox church.
4. The books taken out of the NT, and the ones excluded.
5. Changes made to the Gospels by the orthodox church "fathers".
6. The fact that Christmas and Easter are replacements for pagan holidays.
7. Contradictions between the gospel of Paul and the gospel of Jesus.
8. The orthodox church ignoring the teachings of Jesus if it clashed with their own.
9. The fake epistles.
10. The stark differences between the Gospel of John and the synoptics.
11. The fact that Jesus quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew scriptures.
12. If you read the Gospel of Jesus only(Jesus' words) you will find an entirely different meaning than if you read all the "commentators".
Now I am just a Jesuist.

 

[leibowde84]

Too much to put in a post.But mainly:
1. The date and authorship of the NT books.
2. How the books of the NT were chosen to be in the NT.
3. The role of Constantine, a pagan who still worshiped pagan gods, in development of the doctrine of the orthodox church.
4. The books taken out of the NT, and the ones excluded.
5. Changes made to the Gospels by the orthodox church "fathers".
6. The fact that Christmas and Easter are replacements for pagan holidays.
7. Contradictions between the gospel of Paul and the gospel of Jesus.
8. The orthodox church ignoring the teachings of Jesus if it clashed with their own.
9. The fake epistles.
10. The stark differences between the Gospel of John and the synoptics.
11. The fact that Jesus quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew scriptures.
12. If you read the Gospel of Jesus only(Jesus' words) you will find an entirely different meaning than if you read all the "commentators".
Now I am just a Jesuist.

Me too! Couldn't agree more. Maybe we should start our own church.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Me too! Couldn't agree more. Maybe we should start our own church.

wwwthewordsdotcom It has a downloadable book of Jesus called The Words.

 

[Flankerl]

btw, the question of "Moses' Seat" was dealt with starting with post 122 on this page Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic? | Page 7 | ReligiousForums.com .

It will never end.

 

[Yoshua]

Sort of. What I was asking is that if Christ fulfilled the OT laws, then he fulfilled them in total, non? If he did not, then one would think that that would mean that Christian must live by ALL 613 of the Noahide laws. But what I have seen, and in no way am I implying that you do this, but what I have seen is that Christians continue to choose which laws they want to see as fulfilled and which they state are still in effect today, IE: the issue of homosexuality. So indirectly, my question is about that issue but only as it pertains to which laws are fulfilled and which are not.

Hi Jo,

Through Christ, the prophecy was fulfilled. It is not the Old Testament law. The fulfillment that Jesus was saying is the expansion of the law by grace that was given to us. He did not come to add another law for the Jews like the Mosaic law. He used that law to serve the purpose of redeeming us from the bondage of legalism and pointed us to the hope of salvation.

One example is the moral law “Thou shall not kill.” This is still applicable to us for Jews and Gentiles. The ceremonial laws are not applicable to Gentiles but for the Israel.

Lev. 20:13
13. `If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

1 Cor. 6:9-10
9. Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10. nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

I believe that it is the act of immorality that was considered unpleasing to God. If a homosexual seeks God, confessed his sins and lived a righteous life by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he will still have salvation from the Lord. In John 3:16, the emphasis of salvation is “whoever” and not limited to homosexuals.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I can see how you interpret this Yoshua and see it as protection. I really do get that. I wonder, however, if you can see how people like me view it from a totally different perspective. To me, these passages don't indicate protection but rather subjugation of women in general. I think that this POV is why a lot of young women today are not all the vested to following your faith. This is not to say that your faith does not have wonderful wisdom contained in the teachings of Christ. However, if it were just the teachings of Christ, even I would be more interested in the accolades of your faith but since it is hinged strongly on the teachings of Paul, that makes it untenable for me.

Hi Jo,

Don’t be bothered. I cannot force you to believe me. It is true that the word of God strikes our heart and mind--to discipline ourselves from attaining righteousness. We both have struggles in life. The lust of eyes and flesh are commonly seen in our environment. Paul also had struggles. We (usually) would like to hear what we like to hear but God gave us the moral laws to be followed. I believed that it is our choice if we want to adhere or ignore just for the craving of our flesh.

Paul would’nt say such a thing to women as modestly and discreet if he does not protect the women. He did it for the sake of holiness in the sight of God.

Heb. 4:12
12. For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Thanks

note: pls. don't put acronyms, I can't understand the acronym meaning.

 

[Yoshua]

So civil laws deal with the legal system, including the laws related to murder to crime. Then how is "thou shalt not kill" an ethical law? How is "thou shalt not steal" anything other than a civil law?

Hi Rosends,

Yes, that includes the laws related to murder or crime. I did not say that is an ethical law. Ethics and morals are commonly used interchangeably. If you will look at the meaning of “ethics”, it is a moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.

It synonyms are moral code, moral code, morals, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience.
I believe that “Thou shall not steal” is still a moral law because this is a direct command from God. Morals encompass justice, respect and sexual conduct.

Civil laws are specifically given for the culture and place of the Israelites which encompass all of the moral law except the Ten Commandments.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

4

I believe in the spirit of the Bible. I belief in the spirit of what Jesus taught. I don't look at the Bible as being historically accurate or even attempting to be so. Much of it seems to be allegory, though I do BELIEVE that Jesus was a real man who had a philosophy that changed the world. I believe in God, and I have close relationship with God. That being said, I know human beings and their ability to corrupt things. It seems clear to me that the Bible is no exception, and Paul was the first of many who tried to shape the teachings of Jesus to their own purposes. As a reasonable, logical, and well-intended intellectual (at least I try to be), I find it my duty to look at the Bible skeptically in order to not "fall" for ideas not divine in nautre, but simply used as tools to control adherents.

Just what I have come to believe after about 20 years of intensive study of Christianity, Judaism, and Philosophy. I don't take anyone's word for anything, no matter who they claim to speak for. And, since Jesus did not write ANYTHING down, everything that claims to be his words is really only doing this. Not that I believe them to be always wrong, but the risk is always in the back of my mind.

Hi Leibowde,

If you had an intensive study of Christianity, how come you missed out the archaeological and historical evidence of the Bible?

How do you nurture yourself as having a close relationship with God?

Thanks

 

[Flankerl]

One example is the moral law “Thou shall not kill.”

No that's not a law.

 

[JoStories]

Hi Jo,

Through Christ, the prophecy was fulfilled. It is not the Old Testament law. The fulfillment that Jesus was saying is the expansion of the law by grace that was given to us. He did not come to add another law for the Jews like the Mosaic law. He used that law to serve the purpose of redeeming us from the bondage of legalism and pointed us to the hope of salvation.

One example is the moral law “Thou shall not kill.” This is still applicable to us for Jews and Gentiles. The ceremonial laws are not applicable to Gentiles but for the Israel.

Lev. 20:13
13. `If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

1 Cor. 6:9-10
9. Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10. nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

John 3:16
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

I believe that it is the act of immorality that was considered unpleasing to God. If a homosexual seeks God, confessed his sins and lived a righteous life by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he will still have salvation from the Lord. In John 3:16, the emphasis of salvation is “whoever” and not limited to homosexuals.

Thanks

Your verse from Corinthians is taken from the NIV. If we read it from the KJV, it is completely different. Here is the KJV:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

As you can see, the message is entirely different. Homosexuality has NO part in this the verse. Abusers of themselves with mankind can mean myriad things. And the NIV was translated long after the originals and some agree that it was altered to reflect what the writers had in mind. So, IMO, you have not proven your argument, and I mean no offense here, but rather have again shown that Christians 'cherry pick' those verses that serve their agenda.