Jesus And The Law

[Ben Masada]

Jesus said that He established a new covenant (He couldn't do that if were not God). The reason is that Jews never kept the old covenant so it wasn't worth keeping. Lu 22:20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

In that passage it was reported that an accusation by Jews was being made that he preached that people should not circumsize children. It was a false accusation. Paul taught that Circumcision was meaningless to Christians.
Rom 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.

-----------------------------
Jesus did not establish any kind of New Covenant. That's Luke saying so. A Hellenist Gentile promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Who was Luke, a Gentile to decide that Judaism should be replaced by Christianity? Then, Jesus was not the only Jew to be crucified. According to Josephus, only Pilate crucified throusands of Jews. How about the blood of the others, didn't count?

And how did Paul demonstrate that circumcision was meaningless for Christians, by preaching against circumcision to the Jews? Read again Acts 21:21. Those whom he was preaching against circumcision to, were Jews and not Christians. And if it was a false accusation, what did he do to defend himself? Nothing. Silence is a confession of being guilty.

Paul was using Jesus to promote his policy of Replacement Theology, which was to abolish the circumcision, which constittutes the everlasting covenant of God with Abraham and his seed. Read Genesis 17:13.

 

[shelpeare]

There is no contradiction between the law and the prophets and New Testament salvation. The only difference between the two is that the ceremonial law is no more but the Ten commandments are still intact.

 

[shelpeare]

There is no contradiction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The only difference is that the Ceremonial law is no longer to be kept but the Ten Commandments are still to be kept.

 

[Blackheart]

the rich man and lazarus is a metaphor

The rich man represented the jewish religious leaders, the poor man represented the poor & spiritually malnourished jewish people

With the arrival of the messiah, the rich class were being tormented by Jesus teachings because Jesus condemned their way of life and lack of spiritual comprehension. But the poor were elevated and shown the light...they were given the seats in the kingdom of God whereas the rich class rejected jesus and were thrown outside

Not necessarily. It may be harder for a rich man as they have the resources to more easily be led into self indulgence but remember....

Matthew 27:57
When the even was come, there came a RICH MAN of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

 

[Pegg]

Not necessarily. It may be harder for a rich man as they have the resources to more easily be led into self indulgence but remember....

Matthew 27:57
When the even was come, there came a RICH MAN of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

the rich man symbolized a 'class' of people.... not individuals

there is nothing wrong with being rich...the problem is when those riches become a persons main focus in life. Another 'rich young ruler' who came to Jesus went away dissapointed because he couldnt give up his riches for the kingdom of God.

 

[Thief]

the rich man symbolized a 'class' of people.... not individuals

there is nothing wrong with being rich...the problem is when those riches become a persons main focus in life. Another 'rich young ruler' who came to Jesus went away dissapointed because he couldnt give up his riches for the kingdom of God.

And it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle....
than for a rich man to enter into heaven.

And I notice...did anyone else?......
the close proximity of speech between the rich man of the parable.....
and Abraham.

Yet a great divide between them......

 

[Ben Masada]

There is no contradiction between the law and the prophets and New Testament salvation. The only difference between the two is that the ceremonial law is no more but the Ten commandments are still intact.

Are you sure that the Ten Commandments are still intact. They are alright, but for us the Jewish People, in spite of all effort by Paul to eliminate them. Take a look at the Pauline Letter to the Romans chapter seven. That's a Pauline allegory of the woman whose husband has died and she has been set free from the law used to bind her to her husband when alive. Now, focus on verse 7. Romans 7:7. Where is it written "You shall not covet if not in the Decalog? Paul was eliminating the need for the Ten Commandments for Heaven's sake! What kind of ceremonial law would affect the Law of the Ten Commandments? Would you be able to point one? No, the objective of the ceremonial laws was the one of a fence around the commandments in terms of making the commandments more remote to be transgressed. But to admit that, it would be a failure in his policy of Replacement Theology.

 

[Ben Masada]

There is no contradiction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The only difference is that the Ceremonial law is no longer to be kept but the Ten Commandments are still to be kept.

If the Ten Commandments are still to be kept, why would Paul teach that they were abolished? Read Romans chapter seven. That's a Pauline allegory of the married woman who got free from the law that used to bind her to her former husband. Now, focus on verse 7. (Romans 7:7) Where is it written, "You shall not covet if not in the Decalog?" Therefore, Paul was teaching to get rid of the Ten Commandments too with the death of Jesus. The man was teaching against the very Decalog or the Ten Commandments, for Heaven's sake in complete contradiction to the words of Jesus himself in Matthew 5:17-19. Especially when Paul claimed that the Law had been abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

 

[free spirit]

If the Ten Commandments are still to be kept, why would Paul teach that they were abolished? Read Romans chapter seven. That's a Pauline allegory of the married woman who got free from the law that used to bind her to her former husband. Now, focus on verse 7. (Romans 7:7) Where is it written, "You shall not covet if not in the Decalog?" Therefore, Paul was teaching to get rid of the Ten Commandments too with the death of Jesus. The man was teaching against the very Decalog or the Ten Commandments, for Heaven's sake in complete contradiction to the words of Jesus himself in Matthew 5:17-19. Especially when Paul claimed that the Law had been abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

We read in Timothy 1:5-10, "The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussions, wanting to be teachers of the law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners."

 

[Pegg]

Does any religious person actually believe that the continuation of their faith is going to be benifitial to this world as a whole?

Absolutely, I do.

We are living deep in the time of the end and very soon we will be witnesses to the greatest event mankind will ever have experienced. Gods intervention in mankinds affairs will be for the lasting benefit of all people who accept God now, and all of mankind who have ever died, whether they knew God or not.

 

[Smarter than nobody]

What makes you sure that we or anyone will experience this intervention

 

[Pegg]

What makes you sure that we or anyone will experience this intervention

because the sign that Jesus gave is happening now.

Also, we have bible chronology which puts the beginning of the 'last days' in the year 1914

And we are seeing the fulfillment of a very significant prophecy from the prophet Daniel. In Daniel chpt 2 he sees a vision of an immense image. The image represented different world powers beginning with a golden head and ending with feet of molded clay. The clay feet represent the weakest form of rulerships, while the more solid parts of the image represented strong empires of the past.

What is happening with regard to nations under the control of dictators is very interesting in terms of the clay feet of the statue. Nations are moving away from empirical type rulerships and demanding democratically elected leaders. This is dividing nations between different political factions and thus there is an instability that has not previously been seen in politics. What it means in terms of the prophecy is that we are living in the time when the heavenly kingdom will take its stand against such rulerships.

Daniel 2:31 “You, O king, happened to be beholding, and, look! a certain immense image. ...36 “This is the dream,...you yourself are the head of gold.
39 “And after you there will rise another kingdom inferior to you; and another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth....
41 “And whereas you beheld the feet and the toes to be partly of molded clay of a potter and partly of iron, the kingdom itself will prove to be divided, but somewhat of the hardness of iron will prove to be in it, forasmuch as you beheld the iron mixed with moist clay. 42 And as for the toes of the feet being partly of iron and partly of molded clay, the kingdom will partly prove to be strong and will partly prove to be fragile. 43 Whereas you beheld iron mixed with moist clay, they will come to be mixed with the offspring of mankind; but they will not prove to be sticking together, this one to that one, just as iron is not mixing with molded clay.
44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;

 

[Muffled]

----------------------
God can be even a cow if He wants. But who decided that he was a Jew, you, or the Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote the gospels? And you are totally wrong to say that we are determining what God can or cannot be. He just is not what you or the Hellenisits of the NT proclaimed Him to be. And by "a man devised religion" can you show me one that is not? Don't say Christianity because it was devised by Paul in Antioch about 30 years after Jesus had been gone, and Paul was a man.(Acts 11:26)

Jesus did not equate himself with God because he was a Jew and a Jew would never be that insane. And then "rose from the dead to prove it?" Prove it yourself with your own NT. Show me an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus and I'll reconsider my views. And you add that's because you have believed his words. You have believe the words of the Hellenist writers of the NT about 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Only Paul started writing about 30 years afterwards.

God does not have religion. All religions on earth are man's religions. The very few Christians in Israel at the time of the destruction of the Temple were not torched because they refused to fight the Romans by betraying their own country.

No one can decide who is Jewish. A person either is or is not. Only Luke is from a Helenist culture even though he was Jewish and he claims to have interiewed the Jewish witnesses to write his gospel. Matthew, Mark and John were Jews. If you mean they weren't the Jews who wouldn't believe in God you are correct. Evidently that is all that was left that hadn't become Christian.

You have no evidence to back up your statement.

Chistianity as a religion is mostly man made. The only religious activities that Jesus mandated were baptism and communion. However religion is a very minor part of Christianity. It is the very defocasing of religion that makes Christianity so different from Judaism and Islam. However efforts to bend over backwards to defocus religion by the Friends of Jesus (Quakers) turns out to be a fucusing on religion.

Well you have reached a new height in blasphemeing God, but That is expected from someone who doesn't believe in HIm. Of course God will admit to His own nature. A person would have to be daft to think otherwise. Do you think God is subserviant to Judiasm? I t will never happen. God calls the shots not the Jews.

The apostles Thomas and Peter come to mind off the bat.

I believe God's word as He speaks through me now. He bears witness that the writers have spoken the truth.

It is not that Christians have never fought, but simply that they have followed Jesus. God told Jeemiah to tell the King of Israel to surrender to the Babylonians but he refused. If Christians listen to God better than Jews, it is due to the nature of the religion. BTW if it comes down to it, I serve my King Jesus before I serve my country.

 

[Muffled]

-----------------------------
Jesus did not establish any kind of New Covenant. That's Luke saying so. A Hellenist Gentile promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Who was Luke, a Gentile to decide that Judaism should be replaced by Christianity? Then, Jesus was not the only Jew to be crucified. According to Josephus, only Pilate crucified throusands of Jews. How about the blood of the others, didn't count?

And how did Paul demonstrate that circumcision was meaningless for Christians, by preaching against circumcision to the Jews? Read again Acts 21:21. Those whom he was preaching against circumcision to, were Jews and not Christians. And if it was a false accusation, what did he do to defend himself? Nothing. Silence is a confession of being guilty.

Paul was using Jesus to promote his policy of Replacement Theology, which was to abolish the circumcision, which constittutes the everlasting covenant of God with Abraham and his seed. Read Genesis 17:13.

You have repeated this often but never proven it. Jesus says that He did say those words and Luke, who wasn't there is reporting accurately what the Apostles heard Him say.

Luke never decided anything. He reported what Jesus said. And although there is no evidence Biblical or otherwise, Jesus says He was Jewish. His mother was a Gentile and responsible for his Gentile name but he was brought up in the synogogue at Antioch.

None of the others can save you from sin.

You are very much in error. Paul repeatedly stated that the charges were false.

Paul didn't use Jesus. Jesus used Paul. Circumcision was not part of the covenant. It was a sign of the covenant, like a Christian wearing a cross. If I take off my cross, I am still a Christian and still under the new covenant. Paul only mentions the notion of the new covenant replacing the old once but it has some validity. In essence the new and old covenants are very similar. In truth God has neveer said that He negated the old covenant.

 

[Ben Masada]

We read in Timothy 1:5-10, "The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussions, wanting to be teachers of the law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners."

In other words, since you don't know what to say about the evil intentions of Paul with regards to God's Law, you turn against any critic who chooses to discuss the matter. That's blind faith that poinsons faithfuls, as the almost a thousand faithful of Jim Jones.

 

[Ben Masada]

No one can decide who is Jewish. A person either is or is not. Only Luke is from a Helenist culture even though he was Jewish and he claims to have interiewed the Jewish witnesses to write his gospel. Matthew, Mark and John were Jews. If you mean they weren't the Jews who wouldn't believe in God you are correct. Evidently that is all that was left that hadn't become Christian.

The by-laws of Judaism do. Luke was not Jewish but a Greek Doctor, disciple of Paul. All were Hellenists including Paul himself. He was the son Hellenist Jewish parents from Tarsus. None of the writers of the NT were Jews. And much less John and Peter who were illiterate, unlearned and ignorante. Read Acts 4:13. Illiterate people don't write books.

You have no evidence to back up your statement.

Neither have you.

Chistianity as a religion is mostly man made.

All religions are man made.

The only religious activities that Jesus mandated were baptism and communion.

Jesus never mandated about baptism or communion. Jesus was a loyal Jew, and these things are not Jewish.

However religion is a very minor part of Christianity. It is the very defocasing of religion that makes Christianity so different from Judaism and Islam. However efforts to bend over backwards to defocus religion by the Friends of Jesus (Quakers) turns out to be a fucusing on religion.

Religion is all that Christianity is.

Well you have reached a new height in blasphemeing God, but That is expected from someone who doesn't believe in HIm.

You wish you could believe in God as I do, or any Jew does. We have been the ones who brought God to the world. And according to Ezekiel 20:41, it is by means of Israel that God reveals His glory in the sight of the nations.

Of course God will admit to His own nature. A person would have to be daft to think otherwise. Do you think God is subserviant to Judiasm? I t will never happen. God calls the shots not the Jews.

God is subserviant to nothing. Unless you are talking about the anthropomorphic god of Christianity.

The apostles Thomas and Peter come to mind off the bat.

I believe God's word as He speaks through me now. He bears witness that the writers have spoken the truth.

There is a test for that and they won't get a passing grade. Isaiah 8:20. "To the Law and the Testimony, if they don't speak according to this word, it is because there is no truth in them." They don't.

It is not that Christians have never fought, but simply that they have followed Jesus. God told Jeemiah to tell the King of Israel to surrender to the Babylonians but he refused. If Christians listen to God better than Jews, it is due to the nature of the religion. BTW if it comes down to it, I serve my King Jesus before I serve my country.

If Christians followed Jesus, they would listen to Moses as Jesus did. (Luke 16:29-31)

 

[Ben Masada]

You have repeated this often but never proven it. Jesus says that He did say those words and Luke, who wasn't there is reporting accurately what the Apostles heard Him say.

None of the Hellenists who wrote the gospels were there, or ever saw Jesus. And they wrote by hearsay, from outside Israel.

Luke never decided anything. He reported what Jesus said. And although there is no evidence Biblical or otherwise, Jesus says He was Jewish. His mother was a Gentile and responsible for his Gentile name but he was brought up in the synogogue at Antioch.

Jesus was Jewish and both parents, Joseph and Mary, were also Jewish.

None of the others can save you from sin.

You can say that again. Only God Himself if I set things right with God by repenting and returning to obedience to God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19.)

You are very much in error. Paul repeatedly stated that the charges were false.

He was charged with teaching the Jews to forsake Moses, to stop circumcising their children and to abandon the Jewish customs. (Acts 21:21) Show me please, where did he say that the charges were false.

Paul didn't use Jesus. Jesus used Paul.

The dead cannot use the living. So, Paul used Jesus.

Circumcision was not part of the covenant. It was a sign of the covenant, like a Christian wearing a cross. If I take off my cross, I am still a Christian and still under the new covenant.

Circumcision was the main reason for the Abrahamic Covenant and supposed to be for an everlasting covenant between God and His People. (Gen. 17:13) And you are totally wrong about comparing the circumcision with something that once taken from a Christian, he is still a Christian. According to the Abrahamic Covenant the uncircumcised Jewish child was to be cut off from God's People. (Gen. 17:14)

Paul only mentions the notion of the new covenant replacing the old once but it has some validity. In essence the new and old covenants are very similar. In truth God has neveer said that He negated the old covenant.

Paul's notion was the epitome of his policy of Replacement Theology which is considered by some scholars as Christian Antisemitism.

 

[free spirit]

Originally Posted by free spirit
We read in Timothy 1:5-10, "The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussions, wanting to be teachers of the law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners."

Posted by BEN MASADA
In other words, since you don't know what to say about the evil intentions of Paul with regards to God's Law, you turn against any critic who chooses to discuss the matter. That's blind faith that poinsons faithfuls, as the almost a thousand faithful of Jim Jones.

No Ben, but with the acceptance of Jesus as your saviour your character will slowly change and sin will no longer attracts you, that is why true Christians not longer need the Law; in other words they naturally fulfill the law that encompasses all of the laws, which law is even accepted by you to be the will of God. We read in Romans 13:8-10, "Own nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. for this, 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law."
Love as you know is in your character therefore you only need to cultivate love to grow in that character. Jesus had the perfect character of love, He was the exact representation of the Father.

 

[Ben Masada]

No Ben, but with the acceptance of Jesus as your saviour your character will slowly change and sin will no longer attracts you,

You have just committed a sin by judging your neighbour with being attracted by sin.

that is why true Christians not longer need the Law; in other words they naturally fulfill the law that encompasses all of the laws, which law is even accepted by you to be the will of God.

This is simply a promotion of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. By saying that we no longer need the Law, you are simply stating that Jesus was an idiot for having confirmed the Law down to the letter. Read Matthew 5:19.

We read in Romans 13:8-10,

"Own nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

This is the epitome of Replacement Theology. God's Law is not composed only of commandments to be fulfilled between one another. There are also commandments with reference to the relation between one and God.

for this, 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'

It is impossible for anyone to love his or her neighbout as oneself. Love is an emotion, and emotions cannot be dictated upon. Unless the word "love" here be taken as respect, which can be demanded. Paul was trying to abolish the Decalog as he drew the allegory of the woman whose husband had died and she got free of the law that obligated her towards her husband. Read Romans 7:7. Where is it written, you shall not covet? In the Decalog. Paul was trying to get rid of the Ten Commandments, against Jesus' own words that he had not come to abolish anything.

love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law." Love as you know is in your character therefore you only need to cultivate love to grow in that character. Jesus had the perfect character of love, He was the exact representation of the Father.

So, Jesus had the perfect character of love, hadn't he? Nevertheless, he said that to escape Hell, one must listen to Moses, which means the Law. Read Luke 16:29-31. And about being the representation of God, Ezekiel says that Israel as a People is and not as an individual. Read Ezekiel 20:41.

 

[free spirit]

[/i]

You have just committed a sin by judging your neighbour with being attracted by sin.

Without the Holy Spirit of Jesus men is nothing but a filphy sinner.

This is simply a promotion of the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. By saying that we no longer need the Law, you are simply stating that Jesus was an idiot for having confirmed the Law down to the letter. Read Matthew 5:19.

The love character fulfils the law BEN therefore it surpasses the law, God is love.

This is the epitome of Replacement Theology. God's Law is not composed only of commandments to be fulfilled between one another. There are also commandments with reference to the relation between one and God.

Yes BEN you are right, if you love your neighbour you have a love relationship with God.

It is impossible for anyone to love his or her neighbout as oneself. Love is an emotion, and emotions cannot be dictated upon. Unless the word "love" here be taken as respect, which can be demanded.

Yes it is impossible to love your neighbour if you have not received the Holy Spirit, for only the Spirit of God can make you love like He does.
We read in Luke 6:32-35, "And if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? for even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? even sinners lend to sinners, in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemy, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and you reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men."

Paul was trying to abolish the Decalog as he drew the allegory of the woman whose husband had died and she got free of the law that obligated her towards her husband. Read Romans 7:7. Where is it written, you shall not covet? In the Decalog. Paul was trying to get rid of the Ten Commandments, against Jesus' own words that he had not come to abolish anything.

To love your neighbour as yoursef like God does, is to do more than fulfilling the law.

So, Jesus had the perfect character of love, hadn't he? Nevertheless, he said that to escape Hell, one must listen to Moses, which means the Law. Read Luke 16:29-31.

Yes BEN the religious people of this world needs the law to maintain a degree of civilization, the children of God do more: they live by His character.

And about being the representation of God, Ezekiel says that Israel as a People is and not as an individual. Read Ezekiel 20:41.

The SON of God is the exact representation of God, and the true Christians are individual menbers of His body the church.