Is "salvation" possible under the Law?

[Ben Avraham]

Yes, I know that. But, that is what law does. What is it?
Is it a set of commands and ordinances?

If it is just what you say, I agree with you. If it is a written code of conduct, I don't agree with you.

It is a written code of conduct. Otherwise, how could you know how to behave? What you are suggesting does not make sense.

 

[savagewind]

It is a written code of conduct. Otherwise, how could you know how to behave? What you are suggesting does not make sense.

What am I suggesting?

The law says a man and a woman must be stoned for their adultery.
To obey the law, must I campaign for the stoning?

 

[Ben Avraham]

What am I suggesting?

The law says a man and a woman must be stoned for their adultery.
To obey the law, must I campaign for the stoning?

For the stoning or against the stoning? Anyway, a stoning never happened. Until a woman got to the stoning, the process to prove that there was real adultery was so terrible that it was not worth the try.
Unless a woman was caught in the act of committing adultery and, it never happened. That case reported by the NT, never happened.

 

[moorea944]

For the stoning or against the stoning? Anyway, a stoning never happened. Until a woman got to the stoning, the process to prove that there was real adultery was so terrible that it was not worth the try.
Unless a woman was caught in the act of committing adultery and, it never happened. That case reported by the NT, never happened.

Anyway, a stoning never happened. Until a woman got to the stoning, the process to prove that there was real adultery was so terrible that it was not worth the try.
Unless a woman was caught in the act of committing adultery and, it never happened.

Really? And you know this for a fact?

That case reported by the NT, never happened.

Wow, that was arrogant!!

 

[Ben Avraham]

Really? And you know this for a fact?

Wow, that was arrogant!!

Yes, I do know it for a fact because I speak from the Jewish point of view. If we analyze that case when Jesus was claimed to have written on the sand about who was not without sin to throw the first stone, it could have never happened.

 

[Tumah]

I speak from the Jewish point of view

That would be a first.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Mr. Ben Avraham, all of your assumptions are reeking with bias. Honestly, I don't understand why anyone bothers to respond to your posts, all riddled with fallacies and outrageous assumptions.

I've heard more than enough.

Good day to you, sir.

 

[RabbiO]

Mr. Ben Avraham, all of your assumptions are reeking with bias.

I have my own issues with Ben Avraham. I have, in the past, been vocal in my disagreements with him. Many of his positions do not comport with mainstream Judaism in any of its forms. Furthermore, I find his need to go out of his way to attack Christianity troubling.

That said, and acknowledging that he is biased, I would suggest that many of your posts could also be classified as biased. Heck, how many of us can claim that we are totally unbiased?

 

[atpollard]

If you are right on what you say, Jesus showed a weird way to love his neighbor as he loved himself by braking the Golden Rule 15 times only in the text of Mat. 23:13-33 when he charged his neighbors, the Jewish authorities with being hypocrites and brood of vipers. Do you think he would have liked to be addressed as hypocrite and brood of vipers? Obviously not. So, Jesus became a sinner just as you and I are.

Calling a hypocrite, a 'hypocrite' is not a sin. As the 'Jewish authorities', their actions contrary to the Law and will of G-d placed the nation in danger (as the failure of the leaders to instruct the nation caused much hardship in the past and prompted G-d to send prophets with other harsh words).

I would have thought that was pretty clear from the context of the entire passage. You might choose not to believe it, but your pretext of not understanding seems disingenuous.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Calling a hypocrite, a 'hypocrite' is not a sin. As the 'Jewish authorities', their actions contrary to the Law and will of G-d placed the nation in danger (as the failure of the leaders to instruct the nation caused much hardship in the past and prompted G-d to send prophets with other harsh words).

I would have thought that was pretty clear from the context of the entire passage. You might choose not to believe it, but your pretext of not understanding seems disingenuous.

Are you sure! What does the law say? "Not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto ourselves." Would have Jesus liked to be addressed as a hypocrite? Obviously not! So, he broke the Golden Rule which covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. The Golden Rule does not say to mention to the whole world that the hypocrite was caught on a hypocritical act. So, there is no way out of this one. Jesus simply confirmed the veracity of Ecclesiastes 7:20 which says, "There has never been a man upon earth to have done only good and never sinned." Well, anyway, Jesus was a man upon earth, wasn't he? He didn't have to be caught breaking the Golden Rule!

 

[Ben Avraham]

Mr. Ben Avraham, all of your assumptions are reeking with bias. Honestly, I don't understand why anyone bothers to respond to your posts, all riddled with fallacies and outrageous assumptions.

I've heard more than enough.

Good day to you, sir.

Have you ever checked my quotes in both the Tanach and the NT? Probably not! If you did, you would not slander me with being bias. Christians slandering Jews for being bias! What else makes them feel better than that? Perhaps we have just discovered the reason why Jewish History is reeked with Christian slanders.

 

[atpollard]

Are you sure!

Yes.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Have you ever checked my quotes in both the Tanach and the NT? Probably not! If you did, you would not slander me with being bias. Christians slandering Jews for being bias! What else makes them feel better than that? Perhaps we have just discovered the reason why Jewish History is reeked with Christian slanders.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I have my own issues with Ben Avraham. I have, in the past, been vocal in my disagreements with him. Many of his positions do not comport with mainstream Judaism in any of its forms. Furthermore, I find his need to go out of his way to attack Christianity troubling.

That said, and acknowledging that he is biased, I would suggest that many of your posts could also be classified as biased. Heck, how many of us can claim that we are totally unbiased?

We all are biased. But Mr. Avraham is so heavily biased against Christ that it consumes him. This is obvious.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Calling a hypocrite, a 'hypocrite' is not a sin. As the 'Jewish authorities', their actions contrary to the Law and will of G-d placed the nation in danger (as the failure of the leaders to instruct the nation caused much hardship in the past and prompted G-d to send prophets with other harsh words).

I would have thought that was pretty clear from the context of the entire passage. You might choose not to believe it, but your pretext of not understanding seems disingenuous.

I do understand that Jesus broke the Golden Rule for 15 times in Mat. 23:13-33. What I find hard to believe is that he could have been so hostile to his own colleagues. Perhaps the text was a forgery committed by the Hellenist who wrote that gospel and attributed it to Matthew the Apostle to fish for apostolical credibility to Christianity.

 

[atpollard]

I do understand that Jesus broke the Golden Rule for 15 times in Mat. 23:13-33. What I find hard to believe is that he could have been so hostile to his own colleagues. Perhaps the text was a forgery committed by the Hellenist who wrote that gospel and attributed it to Matthew the Apostle to fish for apostolical credibility to Christianity.

נֶאֱמָנִים פִּצְעֵי אֹוהֵב וְנַעְתָּרֹות נְשִׁיקֹות שֹׂונֵֽא׃

I hope I pasted that right (Proverbs 27:6 for the rest of us).

Here is what Matthew Henry has to say on Pro 27:5-6

• 1. It is good for us to be reproved, and told of our faults, by our friends. If true love in the heart has but zeal and courage enough to show itself in dealing plainly with our friends, and reproving them for what they say and do amiss, this is really better, not only than secret hatred (as Lev. 19:17), but than secret love, that love to our neighbours which does not show itself in this good fruit, which compliments them in their sins, to the prejudice of their souls. Faithful are the reproofs of a friend, though for the present they are painful as wounds. It is a sign that our friends are faithful indeed if, in love to our souls, they will not suffer sin upon us, nor let us alone in it. The physician's care is to cure the patient's disease, not to please his palate.
• 2. It is dangerous to be caressed and flattered by an enemy, whose kisses are deceitful We can take no pleasure in them because we can put no confidence in them (Joab's kiss and Judas's were deceitful), and therefore we have need to stand upon our guard, that we be not deluded by them; they are to be deprecated. Some read it: The Lord deliver us from an enemy's kisses, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.

They were doing wrong and Jesus called them on it.
No malice. No sin. A desire to confront wrong, protect the people and warn of a far harsher fate that awaited them than some strong words.
A sinful people have an appointment to meet a holy God ... whether they have any advanced warning or not.
Which is the sin, the wounds of a friend or the kisses of an enemy?

 

[Ben Avraham]

נֶאֱמָנִים פִּצְעֵי אֹוהֵב וְנַעְתָּרֹות נְשִׁיקֹות שֹׂונֵֽא׃

I hope I pasted that right (Proverbs 27:6 for the rest of us).

Here is what Matthew Henry has to say on Pro 27:5-6

• 1. It is good for us to be reproved, and told of our faults, by our friends. If true love in the heart has but zeal and courage enough to show itself in dealing plainly with our friends, and reproving them for what they say and do amiss, this is really better, not only than secret hatred (as Lev. 19:17), but than secret love, that love to our neighbours which does not show itself in this good fruit, which compliments them in their sins, to the prejudice of their souls. Faithful are the reproofs of a friend, though for the present they are painful as wounds. It is a sign that our friends are faithful indeed if, in love to our souls, they will not suffer sin upon us, nor let us alone in it. The physician's care is to cure the patient's disease, not to please his palate.
• 2. It is dangerous to be caressed and flattered by an enemy, whose kisses are deceitful We can take no pleasure in them because we can put no confidence in them (Joab's kiss and Judas's were deceitful), and therefore we have need to stand upon our guard, that we be not deluded by them; they are to be deprecated. Some read it: The Lord deliver us from an enemy's kisses, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.

They were doing wrong and Jesus called them on it. No malice. No sin. A desire to confront wrong, protect the people and warn of a far harsher fate that awaited them than some strong words. A sinful people have an appointment to meet a holy God ... whether they have any advanced warning or not. Which is the sin, the wounds of a friend or the kisses of an enemy?

"Which is the sin, the wounds of a friend or the kisses of an enemy? " You ask. Of course, as the Golden Rule is concern the wounds of a friend. The point is that you don't understand the Golden Rule by definition. It does not matter, even if you turned the other way around. The person whom you are addressing in offensive terms is the one who defines if the Golden Rule is being broken or not. If you don't like to be treated the way you are treating, you don't threat that way or you will be breaking the Golden Rule. So, there is no way out of this one. Jesus broke the Golden Rule.

 

[atpollard]

"Which is the sin, the wounds of a friend or the kisses of an enemy? " You ask. Of course, as the Golden Rule is concern the wounds of a friend. The point is that you don't understand the Golden Rule by definition. It does not matter, even if you turned the other way around. The person whom you are addressing in offensive terms is the one who defines if the Golden Rule is being broken or not. If you don't like to be treated the way you are treating, you don't threat that way or you will be breaking the Golden Rule. So, there is no way out of this one. Jesus broke the Golden Rule.

Sorry, this is foolishness.
To condemn the correction of a friend when you are doing wrong and are harming others and praise the kiss of Judas is pure nonsense.

I suppose by YOUR twisted Golden Rule, Moses really should have left Israel in bondage because his actions hurt Pharaoh's feelings and that is not how Moses would have wanted to be treated if he was murdering and enslaving God's people.

[where is a face palm emoji when you need one?]

 

[Ben Avraham]

Sorry, this is foolishness.
To condemn the correction of a friend when you are doing wrong and are harming others and praise the kiss of Judas is pure nonsense.

I suppose by YOUR twisted Golden Rule, Moses really should have left Israel in bondage because his actions hurt Pharaoh's feelings and that is not how Moses would have wanted to be treated if he was murdering and enslaving God's people.

[where is a face palm emoji when you need one?]

Before Pharaoh's feelings were hurt, he was murdering Israelites almost every day. Someone had to stand for the salvation of his people. Besides, HaShem had assigned Moses to that mission. There was no transgression of the Golden Rule in that case. Pikuach Nephesh was the word. That's just the case in wars. The Golden Rule is suspended. Jesus was not at war with his colleagues, the Pharisees. Rather the opposite is true that the Pharisees tried twice to save Jesus from being arrested first from Herod and the second time around from Pilate. (Luke 19:37-40) The first time, Jesus complied with the Pharisees and escaped arresting. The second time he was being acclaimed king of the Jews in Jerusalem, a Roman province, and was soon later arrested on a political charge of insurrection: INRI. This time, Jesus was probably enjoying the parade and discarded the warning of the Pharisees. The point is that the Pharisees were rather Jesus' friends than enemies. Bottom line is that the wounds caused by a friend hurt much more than the kisses of an enemy.

 

[atpollard]

Before Pharaoh's feelings were hurt, he was murdering Israelites almost every day.

Before the Pharisees' feelings were hurt, they were leading millions to destruction every day with false additions to God's Law (according to Jesus).
Luke 11:46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

Someone had to stand for the salvation of his people.

Someone had to rescue the people from a burden they were never meant to carry. Bondage to man made rules piled on the Law of God.
Luke 4:16-21
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Besides, HaShem had assigned Moses to that mission.

Besides the Father had assigned the Son to that mission.
John 5:36-40
36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

There was no transgression of the Golden Rule in that case.

There was no transgression of the Golden Rule in that case.