Should Christians follow the Law?

[metis]

So? Anyways, the subjective nature of the interpretations is clear, from the presence of the many differing groups both regarded as ''Judaism'', and of course, ''Xianity''.

So???

You mention Jewish diversity, but the reality is that this has nothing to do with the issue of Jesus and the Twelve working from a Judaistic paradigm since the point I mention dealt with Jesus' basic approach.

Basically, Jesus was working from what some theologians refer to as a "liberal Pharisee" paradigm that was even more radical than that found in the school of Hillel. The Pharisees were not a monolithic group but actually more of a movement that put strong emphasis on scripture and the importance of following the Law. Jesus' position appears to be that if you love God and love one's fellow man that this was pretty much the entire Law. That's a pretty radical approach, but it was not unheard of, especially with some of the more liberal elements found in northern eretz Israel, mostly around Galilee and the coastal area.

So, even though Jesus' brand of Judaism certainly wasn't normative, nevertheless it was not without precedent. However, what was indeed without precedent were some other points about Jesus, but I'm not going to get into that here, especially since these well may have been add-ons attributed to him decades after he died.

 

[rosends]

...



Although ''Xianity'' worked from a 'Judaistic' paradigm, it certainly does not work from a paradigm of Talmudic Judaism, .

In many ways, it actually originally did work from within a paradigm of talmudic Judaism. Sections from the gospels echo talmudic statements and even some of the methodologies are reminiscent of talmudic approaches.

 

[Desert Snake]

So???

You mention Jewish diversity, but the reality is that this has nothing to do with the issue of Jesus and the Twelve working from a Judaistic paradigm since the point I mention dealt with Jesus' basic approach.

It does in the context of Jesus/ Xianity.

Basically, Jesus was working from what some theologians refer to as a "liberal Pharisee" paradigm that was even more radical than that found in the school of Hillel. The Pharisees were not a monolithic group but actually more of a movement that put strong emphasis on scripture and the importance of following the Law. Jesus' position appears to be that if you love God and love one's fellow man that this was pretty much the entire Law. That's a pretty radical approach, but it was not unheard of, especially with some of the more liberal elements found in northern eretz Israel, mostly around Galilee and the coastal area.

So, even though Jesus' brand of Judaism certainly wasn't normative, nevertheless it was not without precedent. However, what was indeed without precedent were some other points about Jesus, but I'm not going to get into that here, especially since these well may have been add-ons attributed to him decades after he died.

Great. So what are you arguing with me about again?

 

[Desert Snake]

In many ways, it actually originally did work from within a paradigm of talmudic Judaism. Sections from the gospels echo talmudic statements and even some of the methodologies are reminiscent of talmudic approaches.

I read some midrash, and i have read some Maimonides, so forth. I agree with some of it. I disagree with some of the Talmud. I believe that some of the /Jesus time Pharisaic traditions are legit /and some probably aren't,

so, the arguments concerning the laws remain the same, no matter what context they are being argued, i can infer from your comments, as well. Not sure how this would relate to Xians following the Torah laws, regardless.

 

[metis]

Great. So what are you arguing with me about again?

I ain't arguing but just trying to figure put where you're coming from because of your mashing of words.

 

[roger1440]

It's not so much a matter of what one wants to do, but more a matter of what they think is the right thing to do? Morality isn't always a matter of convenience. I certainly am not an orthodox Jew, nor do I live like one, but I give them credit for doing what they think is right, and I feel the same way about people in other faiths who try to live a moral life and who try and help others do much the same.

What if the “others” do not want the help? In other words is a person morally obligated to help someone who does not want help? One can use the argument it’s for there own good. That argument was used to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition. Granted that was a long time ago but, the story can be brought into modern times. There are some who believe homosexual marriage is immoral. Others believe interracial marriage is immoral.

 

[CG Didymus]

Read the Bible? Xianity specifically differentiates itself from Judaism.

Hmmm. God's Law to the Jews? God's Messiah to the Jews? Christianity differentiates itself...? So when Jesus said that if you love him you will obey his commandments? What was he talking about? Is there a list where Jesus said "these are my commandments, do them and ignore the ones from Moses. These are way better"? Or, since he was speaking to a lot a Jews, did he mean the commandments they already new from Judaism?

 

[metis]

What if the “others” do not want the help? In other words is a person morally obligated to help someone who does not want help? One can use the argument it’s for there own good.

That really depends on the situation and the person or people that we may be dealing with. To me, what should be paramount is do my actions or inactions help others, but different situations may call for different approaches.

That argument was used to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition.

And they would be the polar opposite of what I'm proposing.

There are some who believe homosexual marriage is immoral. Others believe interracial marriage is immoral.

I don't know what that has to do with what I'm saying, so maybe you can put this into some sort of perspective based on what I previously wrote? But let me just mention that helping others so as they can hurt innocent others is not where I'm coming from, so does that answer the above?

 

[roger1440]

That really depends on the situation and the person or people that we may be dealing with. To me, what should be paramount is do my actions or inactions help others, but different situations may call for different approaches.



And they would be the polar opposite of what I'm proposing.

I don't know what that has to do with what I'm saying, so maybe you can put this into some sort of perspective based on what I previously wrote? But let me just mention that helping others so as they can hurt innocent others is not where I'm coming from, so does that answer the above?

What caught my attention is your use of the word “moral”. Most of us believe we live a moral life. We use our own life as a measuring rod or point of reference. It is those who reside outside of our own morality that are immoral. It is not uncommon for a moral person to want to persuade an immoral person to defect to the other side. Persuasion comes in many forms. Rather than give an hypothetical situation, I’ll tell a real life story I live now.

I have a roommate. We will call her Myrtle to protect her identity. Myrtle has a sister. We will call Myrtle’s sister Ethel to protect her identity. Ethel belongs to some super-duper mega church in Manhattan. My friend Myrtle doesn’t drive. About once or twice a week her sister Ethel picks her up in the car to go shopping or to appointments. Nearly each and every time Ethel tells Myrtle she needs to accept Jesus or she will spend eternity in Hell. But it goes beyond that. You see Myrtle does not live up to Ethel’s moral standards. According to Ethel, Myrtle shouldn’t be doing that; she shouldn’t be doing this or the other thing. This is sinful, that is sinful. This goes on over and over and over. Day after day, week after week, year after year. When Myrtle comes home she feels miserable. Constant criticism, all the time. The point is, in Ethel’s mind she probably thinks she is doing the right and moral thing. Her intention is to save her sister’s soul from eternal damnation. In reality all she is accomplishing is making a nuisance of herself. This sister is driving a wedge between the two. If it’s our moral obligation to help our fellow man, where do we draw the line? How far do we go?

 

[Desert Snake]

Hmmm. God's Law to the Jews? God's Messiah to the Jews? Christianity differentiates itself...? So when Jesus said that if you love him you will obey his commandments? What was he talking about? Is there a list where Jesus said "these are my commandments, do them and ignore the ones from Moses. These are way better"? Or, since he was speaking to a lot a Jews, did he mean the commandments they already new from Judaism?

On what Biblical basis do you not have any answers for what 'Jesus' meant? If it is your choice to ignore the many explanations provided in Scripture,, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Ken Ewald]

I believe you're absolutely right. And when you look at just the moral rules taught in many religions, they are very similar. Yet, each religion believes they have the only truth or at least a better version of the truth. That's why I was asking if Christianity brought any new commandments into the world that weren't already mentioned in Judaism. Even when it comes to having faith in Jesus, how different is that then a Jew who has their faith in God?

If they were to continue in their religion like King David they would ultimately be brought to Jesus. For the scripture says, Which of the prophets have your fathers not persecuted?

 

[metis]

What caught my attention is your use of the word “moral”. Most of us believe we live a moral life. We use our own life as a measuring rod or point of reference. It is those who reside outside of our own morality that are immoral. It is not uncommon for a moral person to want to persuade an immoral person to defect to the other side. Persuasion comes in many forms. Rather than give an hypothetical situation, I’ll tell a real life story I live now.

I have a roommate. We will call her Myrtle to protect her identity. Myrtle has a sister. We will call Myrtle’s sister Ethel to protect her identity. Ethel belongs to some super-duper mega church in Manhattan. My friend Myrtle doesn’t drive. About once or twice a week her sister Ethel picks her up in the car to go shopping or to appointments. Nearly each and every time Ethel tells Myrtle she needs to accept Jesus or she will spend eternity in Hell. But it goes beyond that. You see Myrtle does not live up to Ethel’s moral standards. According to Ethel, Myrtle shouldn’t be doing that; she shouldn’t be doing this or the other thing. This is sinful, that is sinful. This goes on over and over and over. Day after day, week after week, year after year. When Myrtle comes home she feels miserable. Constant criticism, all the time. The point is, in Ethel’s mind she probably thinks she is doing the right and moral thing. Her intention is to save her sister’s soul from eternal damnation. In reality all she is accomplishing is making a nuisance of herself. This sister is driving a wedge between the two. If it’s our moral obligation to help our fellow man, where do we draw the line? How far do we go?

I think I've been quite clear on my approach, and that includes the fact that not all decisions are easy. So, I'm really not too sure what your point is above in regards to something I supposedly did not cover?

 

[CG Didymus]

On what Biblical basis do you not have any answers for what 'Jesus' meant? If it is your choice to ignore the many explanations provided in Scripture,, that's your problem, not mine.

Are you a disciple of Jesus? If "yes", then what rules of behavior do you follow and where did they come from? If some of them came from the Jewish Scriptures, then you do follow some of the "commands"/"Laws" of Moses... but probably not all of them. So what do you do? Pick and choose which ones apply today and disregard the rest? Only follow the ones restated in the NT? But also, when Jesus said to follow "his" commandments, how is that different then God telling the Jews to follow the commandments He gave them? Both are obligated to following the rules given to them by their God. I know Christians are quick to point out the Jews can't follow the Law perfectly, but neither do Christians follow the Laws of Jesus perfectly?

 

[Torah4Yah]

Your righteousness is righteousness forever; and your law is true. Psalm 119:142

For my hope is in your rules. Psalms 119:43

So shall I keep Your law continually, forever and ever. And I will walk at liberty, for I seek your precepts. Psalms 119:44-45

Mainstream doctrine says God freed us from freedom.

The law of Yahweh is perfect, reviving the soul; Psalms 19:7

Can perfect be made more perfect? Mainstream doctrine teaches Gods law changed.

There is a reason God says I am against the Shepherds in the last days.

Thus says Yahweh "Behold, I am against the Shepherds, and will require My flock at their hand."
Ezekiel 34:10

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to GOD, for it does not submit to God's law. Romans 8:7

And I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statues and be careful to obey my rules. Ezekiel 37:38.

Yeshua is the Word in the flesh John 1:14. The Word of God Revelation 29:13.The same forever. Revelation 19:13 The Word does not change. Isaiah 40:8That means he cannot change. Yeshua is a walking Bible.

Yeshua said, "You have a fine of setting aside the commandments of God in order to observe your own traditions. For Moses said..." Mark 7:8

Yeshua said it is wrong to nullify what Moses wrote. He taught obedience to what Moses wrote. Is what was right now wrong. Is what was wrong now right?

Yeshua said "Has not Moses given you the law. Yet not one of you keeps the law." John 7:19

Yeshua said, "The teachers of the law sit in Moses seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. Matthew 23:2

Yeshua said, "Do not think I came to abolish the law or the prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one on the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same shall be called the least. Matthew 5:17

Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me in that day "Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in your name cast out demons in your name and dine many wonders in your name?" And then I will declare to them, " I never knew you; depart from me you who practice lawlessness. Matthew 7:1

For if we sin willfully after we have received knowledge of the truth there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a certwin fearful expectation of judgment and firey indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has re ejected Moses law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Hebrew's 10:26

Thus also faith by itself if it does not have works is dead. James 2:17

For as the body without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26

No I don't think so because there are not any "laws" to begin with that is all corruption. I think we should follow his prescription, for health living, his precepts and guidance. Follow his Towrah.

 

[Kemosloby]

I think it's somewhere along the lines of, do you need to carry around tablets of stone if you have the Spirit of God dwelling in you?

 

[Muffled]

We don't disagree with what you say in your first sentence, but a Jew has no other option but to try and follow the Law as best as possible. There simply is not one reference in the Tanakh that states or even hints that a messiah could or would negate the Law, nor is it even remotely logical. Why would God give the Law, punish those who don't follow it, which sometimes included death, and then say it's really not important after all?

And, btw, to say that it's only important for a Christian to "follow Jesus" seems to miss the mark because wouldn't it be far more accurate to say the it's only necessary for Christians to "follow God"? Jesus cannot logically actually be God because Jesus separates himself from being "the Father".

I believe He does not negate the law but fulfills it. He is the lawmaker so it is what He says it is.

I would be amused to actually see if you can perform logic. Just saying it doesn't make it so. That would be illogical.

I believe the law is temporal thus one may be considered for one dispensation and not another.

I believe Jesus is God because He states He is one with the Father and never separates Himself from the Father as you suggest.

 

[metis]

I believe He does not negate the law but fulfills it. He is the lawmaker so it is what He says it is.

Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”

Luke 16:16: “The Law and the prophets were in force until John.”

Romans 6:14: “Sin will no longer have power over you; you are under grace, not under the Law.”
7:6: “Now we are released from the Law.”
10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”
14:20: “All foods are clean.”

I Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision counts for nothing.”

Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”
5:2: “If you have yourself circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you.”
5:4 “Any of you who seek your justification in the Law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God’s favor.”
6:15: “It means nothing whether you are circumcised or not.”

Ephesians 2:15: “In his own flesh he abolished the Law with its commands and precepts.”

I would be amused to actually see if you can perform logic. Just saying it doesn't make it so. That would be illogical.

With the scriptures above, you might want to rethink this.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Should Christians Follow the Law?

The answer to your question is a sound "YES". We all must follow the Law, Jews and non-Jews throughout the earth.
By following the Law is the only chance we have to live in society and stay safe of the consequences as a result of
transgressing the Law.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

If they were to continue in their religion like King David they would ultimately be brought to Jesus. For the scripture says, Which of the prophets have your fathers not persecuted?

maybe we should go kill someone's husband; maybe the dead husband was the prophet. ??

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

What caught my attention is your use of the word “moral”. Most of us believe we live a moral life. We use our own life as a measuring rod or point of reference. It is those who reside outside of our own morality that are immoral. It is not uncommon for a moral person to want to persuade an immoral person to defect to the other side. Persuasion comes in many forms. Rather than give an hypothetical situation, I’ll tell a real life story I live now.

I have a roommate. We will call her Myrtle to protect her identity. Myrtle has a sister. We will call Myrtle’s sister Ethel to protect her identity. Ethel belongs to some super-duper mega church in Manhattan. My friend Myrtle doesn’t drive. About once or twice a week her sister Ethel picks her up in the car to go shopping or to appointments. Nearly each and every time Ethel tells Myrtle she needs to accept Jesus or she will spend eternity in Hell. But it goes beyond that. You see Myrtle does not live up to Ethel’s moral standards. According to Ethel, Myrtle shouldn’t be doing that; she shouldn’t be doing this or the other thing. This is sinful, that is sinful. This goes on over and over and over. Day after day, week after week, year after year. When Myrtle comes home she feels miserable. Constant criticism, all the time. The point is, in Ethel’s mind she probably thinks she is doing the right and moral thing. Her intention is to save her sister’s soul from eternal damnation. In reality all she is accomplishing is making a nuisance of herself. This sister is driving a wedge between the two. If it’s our moral obligation to help our fellow man, where do we draw the line? How far do we go?

Don't know them even so Ethel feels "moral" duty not morals. I don't no what myrtle does. Ironically, maybe neither have figured it out yet.