Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'll repent! Sorry! I'm so ashamed.True...
TRUE, TRUE...
TRUE... TRUE... TRUE...
HEY!!STOP THAT!!
You also have to consider that at this moment, the New Testament had not come to effect. The will only comes after the death of the one who created it. Today we are under the new testament. Colossians 2:14. Today we live on this side of the cross. The theft lived on the other side of the cross(chronologically). Therefore we can not use his instance of salvation as a model for ours. The theft was not under Christ's new will a that time. The cross of Christ stands between the old and new law. Hebrews 7:12. Therefore today we can not be saved the same way as the theft was. That will that came into effect after Christ's death came with conditions to forgiveness. We see how Christ did this many times during his walk on this Earth. He forgave men and women in several instance, but we must realize that that was before his will came into effect.
You also must understand that it is the blood of Jesus that saves and not natural water that basically is cursed from the time of Adam.
[/quote] The Bible is only clear if you ignore those points that aren't clear. The Bible was not written as one solid source. It was written as a variety of books that later were collected together.
Jesus was a Jew. He stated that not a single iota of the law should pass until he came back. As in, his followers should continue following the law as it wasn't changing.
Jesus makes the statement that until he returns, not a single iota of the Law will pass. He's speaking to fellow Jews, and is making the case that you will have to follow the Law until I come back. He hasn't returned yet.
This view really isn't new. It has been taught in seminary, or with religious studies courses for decades.
Indeed not a single iota of the Law will pass because we still need it to be a teacher to understand that we need a Savior.
In today's CC, there simply is no judgement even for non-Christians. It is not our role to judge others-- it's the Boss'.
Jesus never says that his death was a point of a new covenant. That is someone writing after the fact, that claims Jesus's death was a new covenant. Someone who we don't know. Someone who's book nearly got thrown out of the canon. The mention of a new covenant is only post Jesus. Jesus states the opposite, that the Law, which was a symbol of the covenant, would not pass away.
That's not what Jesus says. Jesus instead states, follow those commandments. He says nothing about needing them to understand we need a Savior.
That's not what it says. Jesus literally says, the Laws and Prophets won't be abolished, not even a single iota of them, until the end of times. He's not coming to replace them. Instead, he tells his followers to follow those commandments. He even goes on and interprets the manner in which we should follow those commandments, and he means in the most strictest of manners. That literally means, if one is to follow Jesus, they must follow the Law, and that means converting to Judaism.
Jesus didn't say that though. Jesus is pretty specific on how to follow him. Paul reinterprets that message, still in the context of Jewish thinking (as the OT prophets stated, in the end, all nations will bow before God. Paul thought he was living in the end times, and acted accordingly).
Jesus said that John was the end of the Law (all 613 Commandments), Peter negated the Kosher Laws, and Paul said that circumcision wasn't necessary.
And that's why the Bible, as a whole, is complicated. What Matthew says, where it is clear that you have to follow the Law, is different from Luke of John. They don't agree. And we can't assume they believed what the other authors did. It's just a mess.
It actually began with Jesus and the apostles as being the first "Christian" (a name assigned later) "community" ("eklesia"-- "church"). It had a structure to it as it evolved forth. Along with this, Jesus gave the leadership not only the power to bind or loosen sins, but also to teach, convert others, and make necessary changes, much like God gave to Moses and his community.
So lets assume that what you're saying is how it was (it may be more semantics than anything else. I don't consider it to be the early church until Christianity is formed after it split from Judaism, so in the late first century and early second century. That generally is manner in which it is defined in the scholarship as well, but again, it can boil down to semantics).
Depends on who's scholarship one is reading. The fact of the matter is that there was a continuum that led from Jesus to the apostles and to who the apostles later appointed as evidenced in Acts and some of the epistles.
James was the political leader of the Way, but Peter was the spiritual leader, and when Paul comes to the Twelve, it's Peter whom he deals with, not James. Matter of fact, when the apostles are listed, Peter's name is almost always first, and sometimes it just reads "Peter and the others".
Since the Way was already walking away from strict adherence to the Law shortly after Jesus died, and since the Twelve would have tried to follow Jesus' teachings as close as possible, what Jesus taught must have led up to these changes vis-a-vis the Law. It's unimaginable that they would have defied him if he taught that strict adherence to the Law was a must. The Law is a vital necessity within normative Judaism, so Jesus had to have opened the door in some way to have the Twelve walk away from the letter of the Law.
It is probable that just after the first decade or so of the church, that might be true, but definitely not after that.
) What about their kids because conversion to Judaism was a requirement for Jewish marriage. observant or not?
The consensus in mainstream scholarship, is that Christianity formed, in a separate form from Judaism, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. The early church period is then measure from there.
There is no suggestion that James was just a political leader or that Peter was the spiritual leader. Yes, Peter is often mentioned first, but Acts and Paul both state that Paul and Peter had some sort of relationship anyway. Both also agree that James was at the head. There is no distinction between a spiritual leader and political leader there.
We know virtually nothing about "the Way." All we really know is that the Way is one of various names in which the Jesus movement was called, and that it was led by James, Peter, and John. It was a Jewish movement at the core, but at sometime, it allowed for Gentiles to also enter in. We don't know if they were walking away from strict adherence to the Law shortly after Jesus died. We really don't hear anything about the movement until a number of years later, when Paul first mentions the movement briefly. And at that time, when Paul first interacts with them, they are still quite strict.
That was my point. To begin with, one had to convert to Judaism. Later on, that became lax, until the movement was removed from Judaism.
There was no need to open any door. In Jeremiah (I believe that's the book) we see an OT prophet saying that at the end of times, all nations will bow to God. Paul saw himself living in the end times. So much so that various churches that he wrote to already believed that they had been resurrected. That in itself had already opened the door. The believe that the end was near was everything Paul needed in order to spread the message to the Gentiles, as he believed Judaism encouraged. And we know Paul was thinking in that manner as he alludes to it multiple times.IMO, Paul sees a problem, namely how does the church mesh two very different elements, namely the Jewish branch that adheres closely to the Law, versus the "God-Fearers" (gentiles) that didn't? How do they conduct the Agape Meal? kosher? (remember that James caught Peter eating cheeseburgers with gentiles
IMO, Paul figured out that it couldn't be done, namely have two different groups operating under two different sets of rules, but still trying to be of "one body". The early church believed that their central teacher was Jesus, and so it had to be Jesus that opened the door on such a change, and I believe it comes from his very liberal attitude towards the Law itself ("law of love"). There's simply no logical way that the Twelve would have abandoned any of the Mosaic Law if Jesus hadn't somehow opened that door.
Interesting conversation.
Lets read the full verse now... Matthew 5:17-18 "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. 18For 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."