Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The Bible is not the only revelation from God.
Muhammad laid down new teachings and laws, and new teachings were revealed by the Bab and Baha'u'llah after that.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The prophets tell us that THE SCRIBES HAD CHANGED THE GOD'S LAW
- Thread starter Porque77
- Start date
Muhammad laid down new teachings and laws, and new teachings were revealed by the Bab and Baha'u'llah after that.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I disagree with you that Jesus abolished any of the laws. Did he elaborate on them and clarify them and explain them and put them in context? Yes. This was a common thing for Rabbis to do in the age in which Oral Torah was being formed. But that doesn't mean he cast the laws away. Indeed, he stated that not even a brushstroke would pass away from the law until heaven and earth passed away. Em, that would mean that according to Jesus, the Law in full is still active today.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Matthew 5:31-32: “everyone who divorces his wife… forces her to commit adultery.”
5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”
8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”
21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”
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.”
Hebrews 7:18: “The former Commandment (I.e. priests according to the order of Melchizedek) has been annulled because of its weakness and uselessness.”
8:7: “If that first Covenant had been faultless, there would have been no place for a second one.”
8:13: “When he says ‘a new covenant’, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing.”
10:9: “In other words, he takes away the first Covenant to establish the second.”
5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”
8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”
21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”
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.”
Hebrews 7:18: “The former Commandment (I.e. priests according to the order of Melchizedek) has been annulled because of its weakness and uselessness.”
8:7: “If that first Covenant had been faultless, there would have been no place for a second one.”
8:13: “When he says ‘a new covenant’, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing.”
10:9: “In other words, he takes away the first Covenant to establish the second.”
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Hi metis, my friend. I've edited out all your quotes from the Epistles, since my comment was about what Jesus taught, and the Epistles are the teachings of the Apostles, especially Paul, and not Jesus. I know it can get confusing sometimes where the boundaries of the conversation lie. Thank you for spending so much time and effort on your reply -- it is appreciated.
eye for an eye... turn the other cheek:
I don't think this actually replaces eye for an eye, which is a societal obligation (not a personal one), but rather discusses how one shall respond on a personal level (rather than a societal level). I've heard those that accept this teaching argue that both fit together quite well. Personally, I have a hard time with turn the other cheek, because it invites other people to bully and abuse you, and that is an affront to your dignity as a human being made in the image of God. Basically, fighting back in self defense is no sin. But that's not the point. The point is that a person can believe both in society pursuing justice through the legal system, and turning the other cheek on a personal level.
Let the dead bury the dead...
I think there are many things attributed to Jesus that he didn't actually say, and this has a strong probability. It is a preposterous statement, since it breaks the commandment of honoring your parents. It is the kind of narcissistic demand a cult leader would make. Is that the kind of leader you think Jesus was? I mean, it could have been. Or perhaps he just was having an ornery day. But I really don't think that someone who told the rich man that the way to obtain eternal life was to keep the commandments would turn around and violate honoring one's parents.
the kingdom of God is taken away from you and given to another.
This is definitely not something Jesus would have taught. Genesis states that the covenant between God and Abraham is everlasting, that it will not end. And think about it -- what kind of God would break his covenants? The whole gist of the Prophets is kind of "you are unfaithful and disobedient and I'm going to punish you, but you are still beloved and I will restore you." God is faithful to Israel even when Israel is not faithful to God. You really can't honestly say you believe the Tanakh (OT) and then turn around and say that God has abandoned Israel.
The Law and the prophets were in force until John...
Again, I don't believe Jesus ever taught this. It contradicts other things he is reputed to have said, things that were far more likely to have been true, because he was an observant Jew. For example, he said that not even a brushstroke would fall away from the Law until heaven and earth shall fall away. That's pretty clear. Both your quote and my quote cannot both be true. I'm simply pointing out that the quote I used is more likely to be genuine.
Another good passage that articulates Jesus' position on the Law is Matthew 23:1-3. Jesus first acknowledges that it is the pharisees that sit on Moses seat, meaning that they have the authority to teach and interpret the law, as per Deuteronomy 17:8-13. Then he instructs his followers to do and observe ALL that they teach. ALL. That would be every law, and the Oral Torah as well.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You're welcome, and I do also appreciate your thoughts.
Or maybe didn't say in exactly the same words.
How could either of us know?
Maybe yes; maybe no.
Not likely, imo.
If Jesus was just a run-of-the-mill but articulate speaker of "normative Judaism", why was he persistently followed and question by so many questioning him? Why do they appear to be so upset with him if he was just parroting halacha?
Instead, what I propose that he went beyond Hillel to the extreme of stating that the entire Law dealt with love of God and love of neighbor, thus incorporating the 613 Commandments into Two Commandments, thus negating the need for his followers to observe all the 613. Thus, the door would be open to Peter eating cheeseburgers
with Gentiles, which shows up in Acts, and his vision of all foods being declared "clean" by Peter, also in Acts. And since the apostles were so much "into" Jesus, why would they intentionally corrupt his message? I believe it likely that one of the catalysts for change was how does one keep the flock as being "one body", as Paul repeatedly stated, while having two sets of people operating under two different sets of rules? What happens if a Gentile marries a Jew-- which rules do they follow?
The apostolic letters are quite consistent on this, thus Jesus must have put that into motion one way or the other, imo.
Just my take, my friend..
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Always happy to read your postsIf Jesus was just a run-of-the-mill but articulate speaker of "normative Judaism", why was he persistently followed and question by so many questioning him? Why do they appear to be so upset with him if he was just parroting halacha?
Instead, what I propose that he went beyond Hillel to the extreme of stating that the entire Law dealt with love of God and love of neighbor, thus incorporating the 613 Commandments into Two Commandments, thus negating the need for his followers to observe all the 613. Thus, the door would be open to Peter eating cheeseburgers
I believe it likely that one of the catalysts for change was how does one keep the flock as being "one body", as Paul repeatedly stated, while having two sets of people operating under two different sets of rules? What happens if a Gentile marries a Jew-- which rules do they follow?
I think that Jews love spicy debates. Always have. Still do. Back in Jesus day, there were many many arguments between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. In fact, we have many of the arguments recorded in the Talmud. They argued over parts of Oral Torah that were not yet set in stone. In Jesus' day, the Sanhedrin was controlled by bet Shammai, the more legalistic, stricter of the two schools. Jesus' teachings, with some few exceptions, line up with Hillel. So basically he had the same kind of debates that were going on all over the Hillel verses Shammai world.
Jesus is not the only person to teach that loving God and loving your neighbor encompass the totality of the Torah. I remember quite well sitting in Torah class and listening to my rabbi articulate this very same point. Where you and I disagree is that summarizing the Torah in this manner does not release a Jew from observing the 613. It just makes it easier for him to understand them.
I don't think Peter's dream was about food -- it was about gentiles, preparing him to meet Cornelius -- and I don't think that Peter started eating cheeseburgers. Acts 21 is pretty clear that the Jewish believers in Jesus were "zealous for the Torah." That would include James, Peter, John, and all the rest.
Having a bilateral set of laws, one for Jews and one for gentiles, is really unwieldy. I know the MJ's think it can be swung. And it did have a precedent in the God fearers. But this is the problem--that Paul took the gospel to the Gentiles and made it a Gentile religion. If this had not happened, very likely it would have remained Jewish sect, at least for a time, rather than become a new and completely different religion.
Gentiles and Jews are not supposed to be intermarrying. I know it happens. but it creates a ticklish situation when it comes to figuring out how run the home and raise the kids. I know this is not a popular thing to say -- I'm just being brutally practical. From my standpoint as a Jew, I think if they intermarry, the non-Jew should convert (since a Jew cannot really un-Jew) so that there is a united home. It reminds me of Tevye... a fish and a bird may fall in love, but where will they make a home?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Up to this point, I agree but will comment on the last sentence at the end of this post.I think that Jews love spicy debates. Always have. Still do. Back in Jesus day, there were many many arguments between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. In fact, we have many of the arguments recorded in the Talmud. They argued over parts of Oral Torah that were not yet set in stone. In Jesus' day, the Sanhedrin was controlled by bet Shammai, the more legalistic, stricter of the two schools. Jesus' teachings, with some few exceptions, line up with Hillel. So basically he had the same kind of debates that were going on all over the Hillel verses Shammai world.
Jesus is not the only person to teach that loving God and loving your neighbor encompass the totality of the Torah. I remember quite well sitting in Torah class and listening to my rabbi articulate this very same point. Where you and I disagree is that summarizing the Torah in this manner does not release a Jew from observing the 613. It just makes it easier for him to understand them.
But it was about food according to what it actually says. To declare all foods "clean" is not a minor item that can be just set aside if one is Torah observant.
The problem with this is that according to Acts and Paul's epistles, Paul met with Peter at least three times, not including written correspondence between them. Thus, if Paul was so far out into "left field", why would the apostles have anything to do with him, especially since the Law is so paramount in Judaism?
That would depend on how one views Torah, but that's another discussion on another day.
Ditto, and let us always keep it that way.Always happy to read your posts
Take care.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
We are moving farther and farther into the area that is simply not covered by any document, historical, religious, or other. That means it's mostly what might seem as reasonable conjecture.
To me what seems as reasonable is that there really was a conflict between Paul and the other apostles, but this conflict is simply not recorded.
I am perhaps influenced by by old professor, Dr. Robert Eisenman, author of the book, "James, the Brother of Jesus." Incorporating the texts of the DSS, Dr. Eisenman believed that early Christians were associated with the Essenes, and that James was the "Teacher of Righteousness" and Paul was the "Wicked Priest." He talked of there being two different forms of the early religion, one led by James and one led by Paul, and that, well, basically Paul won.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not at all likely, imo, since the Essenes pretty much wanted nothing to do with those that may cause ritual contamination, thus preferring to seclude themselves from them. Jesus, otoh, did the opposite.
Early on, I agree with that as a possibility, but since James was more the CEO this would not be compatible with the changes that were made that are found in the Christian scriptures.
On top of that, the Epistle of James is much more compatible with the changes that were made versus just having Jesus parroting normative Judaism. Thus, even though I certainly cannot prove it, my gut feeling is that James eventually came around, although I am not willing to bet the house on it.
Needless to say, this is an area with a high degree of uncertainty, thus I don't lose much sleep over this.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe having a law from God is a good thing but having the lawgiver is better.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe the existence of the law does not mean that it is active.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
How can there be a law without a lawgiver? Who do you believe is a lawgiver?
Porque77
The Gospel is God's Law
The Gospel says: "Think not that I am come to destroythe law, or the prophets.... one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass fromthe law" (Matthew 5:17-20) .
In these words are based many religions to tell us that Jesus Christ came notto abolish the commandments of the Old Testament, but that is a mistake becausethese gospel words do not refer to the law of the Old Testament, because JesusChrist abolished many commandments of the Old Testament, as we see in Matthew 5:21-48 and other parts of the Gospel.
The words of Jesus Christ in this famous verse (Matthew 5: 17), which tells usthat He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, refers to the true Lawof God, which is the Law that Jesus Christ himself taught us in the Gospel.Jesus Christ teaches that the law and the prophets that He did not come toabolish is the following:
"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do toyou, do ye even so to them: for this is the lawand the prophets" (Matthew 7: 12) .
Therefore, this is the law that God gave to Israel because Jesus Christ himselfsays that "this is the law and the prophets".This is the law that remains in effect, that Jesus Christ came not toabolish ("Think not that I came to destroy the Lawor the Prophets"). And of this law did pass "notone jot not one tittle", of the Law that Jesus Christ teaches usin the Gospel and that is the true Law that God gave to Moses.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Of course Jesus is referring to Jewish Law. He is a Jew talking to fellow Jews. This is was the Law would mean to all concerned.
Porque77
The Gospel is God's Law
You contradict Jesus Christ because He does not teach us that the law and the prophets are all the commandments of the law that the Jews had. Jesus Christ teaches us that the law and the prophets is this:
"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do toyou, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7: 12) .
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
In Matthew 23:1-2 Jesus says to his followers that the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses, meaning they have the authority of Moses to teach the Law. Therefore "do and observe ALL that they teach." ALL would include all 613 commandments plus the oral torah explaining those commandments. All means all.
Porque77
The Gospel is God's Law
Many, just like you, are wrong and misinterpret the Scriptures, because Jesus Christ taught his disciples to beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:11-12)
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Matthew 23:
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
IMO, Jesus' sarcasm with "the Pharisees" is basically a "family argument".