Which prophecies did Jesus fulfill as to be the Messiah?

[nazz]

You are, and you're denying it. A quote and a statement are not paraphrases. If I paraphrased you and said it was a quote, I could completely misrepresent what you were saying.

I gave you the definition of the word as given by Strong's. Are you disputing that?

Well, okay, yes, it is a paraphrase. But an accurate one based on the definition. The way it is written in most bibles is not clear as it leads people to interpret "fulfill" in the wrong manner.

 

[nazz]

I think there are exceptions to the general approach, especially since these exceptions can be place in the "law of love" context.

One key is when Jesus is asked what is the most important Commandment? Now, if one is a traditionally observant Jew, one would most likely answer "None, as all are equally important". But that's not what he answered. Instead, it was love God and neighbor as yourself, and then he finishes off by saying that all the Commandments relate to these two. This is the polar opposite approach of the oral law and the building of the fence.

I guess I'm not seeing that. I see it very much like the story of the Gentile who wanted to convert and wanting to know if the Torah could be taught while standing on one foot (I'm sure you know the story). He came to Shammai and Shammai rebuffed him; he came to Hillel and Hillel answered "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." I don't think Hillel meant the Oral Torah was not important and that one should not build fences around it by saying that.

The word "Torah" is typically rendered as "Law", but actually "Teachings" is a better translation. This translation takes nothing away from what Torah teaches, but it does allow for some give and take in regards to interpretation and application, and it does so because interpretation is not an exact art, nor is application exact since every case tends to be at least somewhat different from the others. The Hillel school is an example of this more liberal approach, and essentially modern Jews pretty much reflect their approach.

Yes, true

Now, what makes Jesus' approach different than Hillel's is that, even though Hillel believed and taught that the main purpose of Torah was for compassion and justice (thus reflecting the "love"-- "agape"-- concept), nevertheless he taught that the other Laws must still be followed. The "Jesus School", if I can call it that, relatively quickly walked away from the observance of the much of the Law, such as what we see in Acts when Peter declares all foods "clean" after his vision. It's very hard for me to imagine his violating that which Jesus taught, therefore Jesus' approach must have been liberal enough to allow for that much wiggle room.

Actually I don't think that is accurate. When Jesus summed up the Torah as "love God and love your neighbor" he was not giving carte blanche to ignore the specific commandments (anymore so than Hillel was in his version). Rather he was saying that all the commandments were versions of this. In other places he specifically referred to specific mitzvot as binding. What Jesus objected to in the Torah of the Pharisees were unnecessary commandments that were to his way of thinking nothing but traditions of men that placed heavy burdens on people and could even be used to subvert God's law.

If you look at the passages regarding Peter's vision in Acts you will see that he never interprets it literally as meaning he disregard the rules of kashrut. Instead he interprets it figuratively that he should not regard Gentiles as unclean.

As a side note I am impressed with your knowledge of the Christian Bible and Christian teaching. I wish more Jews were as well versed as you as it would aid in conversation and debate.

 

[Shermana]

But the NT indicates he didn't. He didn't even accept all of the Written Torah as divine.

There is absolutely nothing that indicates he didn't accept all of the Written Torah. What he didn't accept was Pharisee interpretations.

For instance, on the law of Divorce, what he said was absolutely no different than Shammai.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/new.html

Jesus really wasn't teaching anything new, and many of his teachings even have direct parallels in the Talmud.

 

[Shermana]

As for the Reform movement, this article gives a much more detailed account:

The Tenets of Reform Judaism

Reform Judaism differs from the other major movements in that it views both the Oral and Written laws as a product of human hands (specifically, it views the Torah as divinely inspired, but written in the language of the time in which it was given). The laws reflect their times, but contain many timeless truths. The Reform movement stresses retention of the key principles of Judaism. As for practice, it strongly recommends individual study of the traditional practices; however, the adherent is free to follow only those practices that increase the sanctity of their relationship to God. Reform Judaism also stresses equality between the sexes.

So that's that, they view the Law itself as "Divinely inspired" but stresses "individual study". It was "written by Human hands" (something I agree with as well) but "Divinely Inspired". (Which I also agree with, in that it contains what was originally given to Moses for his hands to write, even if it has seen its share of edits and redaction).

So thus, that is a huge difference from the idea that the Reform don't view it as having ANY Divine connection.

 

[Shermana]

When Jesus summed up the Torah as "love God and love your neighbor" he was not giving carte blanche to ignore the specific commandments

Unfortunately, it seems 99% of Christians who quote that verse think otherwise. They seem to doggedly resist the idea that "all the commandments hang on those two" means they all stem from them and aren't "replaced by".

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Unfortunately, it seems 99% of Christians who quote that verse think otherwise. They seem to doggedly resist the idea that "all the commandments hang on those two" means they all stem from them and aren't "replaced by".

I always thought that it meant that the core of the laws were love, not that love replaces them. That by doing the law you were showing love.

 

[Shermana]

I always thought that it meant that the core of the laws were love, not that love replaces them. That by doing the law you were showing love.

Exactly.

Each of the commandments is either about love of God (i.e. Sabbath, dietary Laws, Sacrifices, holidays, no idolatry, no marrying pagans, no blasphemy, etc.) or love of Neighbor (No stealing, no cheating, leaving aside a corner of your field, donating to the poor, etc.)

This concept however is for some reason for too much for nearly all Antinomian Christians to accept.

 

[Prophet]

If beings all loved each other, they would be selfless with each other. In a world inhabited only with selfless beings, law would serve no purpose. However, in a world with selfish beings, law has obvious purpose.

A selfless man does not feel the weight of law bearing against his desires, just like a lawless selfish man. While the latter is lawless in a way that abolishes and disrespects the law, the former is lawless in a way that abolishes the sin that caused the law to come about in the first place.

“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. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus probably met some selfless people. Jesus probably also met some universally acknowledged scum of the earth too, yet, his message didn't rail against these people. Jesus' ire fell upon a third class of person. These people act completely within the law, yet, in their every motive, selfishness rules them. He called these people "hypocrites" which was the Greek word for actor. Acting back then didn't imply the fame it can today. Actors were routinely lumped in with prostitutes as beings unworthy of being seen at respectable affairs.

Jesus' accusation toward them is cutting. He says their adherence to the law is the mere acting out of goodness, all the while, the reasons they act this way are self serving and thus contradictory to love and goodness. As religious authorities, they should have recognized their responsibility to serve those less fortunate than themselves. Instead, they, as Jesus put it, "loaded people down with burdens they could hardly carry and would not lift one finger to help". The Pharisees, like most religious fundamentalists, use the law as a means of exalting themselves on the backs of those who fall short.

 

[metis]

Jews think of creation in terms of contraction. Christians tend to think of it as an expression of love exploding from a creative being.

Can you explain what you mean by the "contraction" part, as I think I know what you may mean but I'm not certain. Also, why don't you think that "love" isn't a large part of Torah/Tanakh? Isn't compassion and justice a form of "love"?

Discussion of the variants among Pharisees is almost impossible.

Yes. My experience is that so many Christians do not understand that Jesus was working from a Pharisee paradigm.

 

[metis]

I don't think Hillel meant the Oral Torah was not important and that one should not build fences around it by saying that.

I didn't say that Hillel thought it was unimportant but that his view was that there needed to be some flexibility when dealing with Torah for the two reasons I mentioned: variation in interpretation and application. Hillel felt that the oral law (actually he refers to it as the "oral tradition") was important to understanding verses and narratives that might be confusing. I also mentioned that Jesus appears to have gone further than Hillel in regards to the Law (see below).

Actually I don't think that is accurate. When Jesus summed up the Torah as "love God and love your neighbor" he was not giving carte blanche to ignore the specific commandments (anymore so than Hillel was in his version). Rather he was saying that all the commandments were versions of this. In other places he specifically referred to specific mitzvot as binding.

The gospels and epistles actually imply something differently:

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.”

There are other problems as well that could be cited, such as traveling from town to town on the Sabbath and harvesting, the latter not necessarily by itself being that much of a slam dunk.

Now, even if one really wants to try and make excuses for these, then they need to look at how the early church saw it:

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.”

11:20: They were cut off because of their unbelief and you are there because of faith.”

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.”

What Jesus objected to in the Torah of the Pharisees were unnecessary commandments that were to his way of thinking nothing but traditions of men that placed heavy burdens on people and could even be used to subvert God's law.

But where did these "unnecessary conditions" come from?

If you look at the passages regarding Peter's vision in Acts you will see that he never interprets it literally as meaning he disregard the rules of kashrut. Instead he interprets it figuratively that he should not regard Gentiles as unclean.

We know that the early church walked away from keeping kosher. My rule of thumb when stuck with trying to interpret verses and narratives is to see how it gets played out by the actions the result. We need to remember that the early church walked away from most of the Law, or at least the letter of it, and it's probably the reason why the Ebionites, who felt that the Law must be followed, broke away.

As a side note I am impressed with your knowledge of the Christian Bible and Christian teaching. I wish more Jews were as well versed as you as it would aid in conversation and debate.

Thanks, and I do enjoy talking with you on this even if we're not agreeing on everything.

Shalom

 

[Brickjectivity]

Can you explain what you mean by the "contraction" part, as I think I know what you may mean but I'm not certain.

I cannot explain it well, but as I have heard it that 'G-d' who is perfect and lacks nothing had to contract from God, forming a partial emptiness in order for our world to exist. The bottom line for Jews (as I understand it) is that revelation comes gradually not all at once and God is not directly approachable or that approaching God is painful and sort of melts the person if they get close. From this Christians inherit statements such as "God dwells in inapproachable light" "God alone has immortality" and Jesus scary statement to his disciples "There is much more I could tell you, but you couldn't bear it."

Also, why don't you think that "love" isn't a large part of Torah/Tanakh? Isn't compassion and justice a form of "love"?

Actually I have suspected and said that it is all about love, but I wasn't reared to think so, and you are the first Jewish person to admit to me that you agree about it. Mainly that is because to Jews it is obvious, so they can't imagine needing to confirm it. Christians generally don't think it is all about love, today, because Paul the Apostle writes about the abolition of Law in certain letters while in other letters seems to uphold Law. Christians today are really just now trying to re-assess and come to grips with what the faith is after losing many important things over the centuries. There have been epic struggles over what to do with traditions, what books are canonical, what 'Christian' means and what is 'Catholic'. On top of it there are always new believers trying to re-create Christianity (and by extension imagining what Judaism is only from the New Testament books). Many of these new Christians also have gone on to found their own churches without any additional education! The gospels also paint the Pharisees, Sadducees and many practitioners of law as very robotic and un-loving people; so anyone who begins their Christian life by reading the 'New Testament' may come to conclusions about the Tanach before they actually study it (if they ever do). In truth the New Testament was never intended to be studied by people who hadn't already been taught basics about Judaism, so that is where the confusion comes from.

Yes. My experience is that so many Christians do not understand that Jesus was working from a Pharisee paradigm.

Not at all. I began as a charismatic under preachers who taught that Judaism was no longer valid, that the law was a merciless and vicious instrument that had to be replaced by something much better. I'm sorry, but that is where most of the Christians today are. By the way, its not at all healthy for Christians to believe this; nor is it healthy for Jews.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I cannot explain it well, but as I have heard it that 'G-d' who is perfect and lacks nothing had to contract from God, forming a partial emptiness in order for our world to exist. The bottom line for Jews (as I understand it) is that revelation comes gradually not all at once and God is not directly approachable or that approaching God is painful and sort of melts the person if they get close. From this Christians inherit statements such as "God dwells in inapproachable light" "God alone has immortality" and Jesus scary statement to his disciples "There is much more I could tell you, but you couldn't bear it."

Actually I have suspected and said that it is all about love, but I wasn't reared to think so, and you are the first Jewish person to admit to me that you agree about it. Mainly that is because to Jews it is obvious, so they can't imagine needing to confirm it. Christians generally don't think it is all about love, today, because Paul the Apostle writes about the abolition of Law in certain letters while in other letters seems to uphold Law. Christians today are really just now trying to re-assess and come to grips with what the faith is after losing many important things over the centuries. There have been epic struggles over what to do with traditions, what books are canonical, what 'Christian' means and what is 'Catholic'. On top of it there are always new believers trying to re-create Christianity (and by extension imagining what Judaism is only from the New Testament books). Many of these new Christians also have gone on to found their own churches without any additional education! The gospels also paint the Pharisees, Sadducees and many practitioners of law as very robotic and un-loving people; so anyone who begins their Christian life by reading the 'New Testament' may come to conclusions about the Tanach before they actually study it (if they ever do). In truth the New Testament was never intended to be studied by people who hadn't already been taught basics about Judaism, so that is where the confusion comes from.
Not at all. I began as a charismatic under preachers who taught that Judaism was no longer valid, that the law was a merciless and vicious instrument that had to be replaced by something much better. I'm sorry, but that is where most of the Christians today are. By the way, its not at all healthy for Christians to believe this; nor is it healthy for Jews.

I think it's interesting because whenever I heard about "the law" growing up it was always about how they had to always offer sacrifice. I always wondered if any christian actually knew all 613 of the laws (i might be off by some as I obviously I don't).

 

[metis]

I cannot explain it well, but as I have heard it that 'G-d' who is perfect and lacks nothing had to contract from God, forming a partial emptiness in order for our world to exist.

I have never run across this in my readings before. The closest thing that I have run across is a commentary ("midrash") that has it that possibly God didn't complete creation so that we could finish the process and make Earth ours. To put it another way, He saw His creation as being "good" but not perfect.

The bottom line for Jews (as I understand it) is that revelation comes gradually not all at once and God is not directly approachable or that approaching God is painful and sort of melts the person if they get close.

Yes, we do believe in on-going revelation, often in terms of making ourselves to be better educated, although we tend to believe that most of what was written closer to the dating of the source(s) tends to generally be more reliable. As far as the last sentence is concerned, Torah states that one cannot see God and live.

Actually I have suspected and said that it is all about love, but I wasn't reared to think so, and you are the first Jewish person to admit to me that you agree about it. Mainly that is because to Jews it is obvious, so they can't imagine needing to confirm it.

Yes, I understand where you're coming from on this.

Christians generally don't think it is all about love, today, because Paul the Apostle writes about the abolition of Law in certain letters while in other letters seems to uphold Law.

I will only mention it briefly here because it's been discussed on other threads, but I think Paul changes his mind on that when he realizes that having "one body" with two different sets of Law will not work in the long run, and I think he convinces Peter and the others that requiring converts to be circumcised and being required to follow all of the Law must be abandoned for the sake of the group.

Christians today are really just now trying to re-assess and come to grips with what the faith is after losing many important things over the centuries. There have been epic struggles over what to do with traditions, what books are canonical, what 'Christian' means and what is 'Catholic'. On top of it there are always new believers trying to re-create Christianity (and by extension imagining what Judaism is only from the New Testament books). Many of these new Christians also have gone on to found their own churches without any additional education! The gospels also paint the Pharisees, Sadducees and many practitioners of law as very robotic and un-loving people; so anyone who begins their Christian life by reading the 'New Testament' may come to conclusions about the Tanach before they actually study it (if they ever do). In truth the New Testament was never intended to be studied by people who hadn't already been taught basics about Judaism, so that is where the confusion comes from.

Interesting thoughts, and I mean that in a positive way.

Not at all. I began as a charismatic under preachers who taught that Judaism was no longer valid, that the law was a merciless and vicious instrument that had to be replaced by something much better. I'm sorry, but that is where most of the Christians today are. By the way, its not at all healthy for Christians to believe this; nor is it healthy for Jews.

I'm not sure how the "Not at all" relates to my comments about many Christians not understanding Jesus' probable Pharisee approach, but maybe you meant it in another way? As far as the rest is concerned, I tend to agree that there are many Christians who think that way, but there are also many who don't.

I run across people all the time, whether it's at sites like this or in "real life" who truly are curious about Judaism, mostly in the context of where Jesus was coming from. For centuries, Jesus was portrayed as really not being Jewish or working from any kind of Judaistic paradigm, but for many, that's changed. We had a United Methodist group at our synagogue last Friday for services, and they stayed after and we talked with them, and they generally had good questions.

 

[roger1440]

Now, even if one really wants to try and make excuses for these, then they need to look at how the early church saw it:
Shalom

I wouldn’t put much faith in early Church history just yet. It’s the winners who write the history. The losers fade away into oblivion. It wasn’t until the 20th century scholars had learned Christianity had been much more diverse than previously thought. The Nag Hammadi library comes to mind. Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . In addition to that discovery other Gospels have been found during the last hundred years. Then there are the Gospels we only know by name and yet to be discovered like The Jewish-Christian Gospels, Jewish-Christian gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The biggest mystery of all is The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, Gospel of Jesus' Wife - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . What is it? We may never have the answer. Most Christians today put their faith in the New Testament. Unknowingly these same Christians put their faith in the people who selected the books to be included in the Christian Cannon. What makes those people right and the others wrong? Obviously whoever wrote the Gospel of Thomas didn’t see himself as a heretic. 20th century Christians aren’t exempt from diversity. The Seventh-day Adventist’s have church on Saturdays; most other Christians go to church on Sundays. Jehovah's Witnesses’ do not believe in blood transfusions; most other Christians do. The list goes on and on. There are nearly 10,000 flavors of Christianity today. Will the true Christian please stand up.

 

[metis]

I wouldn’t put much faith in early Church history just yet. It’s the winners who write the history. The losers fade away into oblivion...

I hear ya, and this is why I focus so much on the actions taken afterwords. All scripture is subjective and prone to different interpretations, but there are at least some trends we can see. The apostolic church did not disappear but evolved; but also, as you and Gandhi once said, the truth is rarely simple.

 

[nazz]

I didn't say that Hillel thought it was unimportant but that his view was that there needed to be some flexibility when dealing with Torah for the two reasons I mentioned: variation in interpretation and application. Hillel felt that the oral law (actually he refers to it as the "oral tradition") was important to understanding verses and narratives that might be confusing. I also mentioned that Jesus appears to have gone further than Hillel in regards to the Law (see below).

Okay

The gospels and epistles actually imply something differently:

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

The Law allowed for divorce. Jesus took the strict view that Shammai shared that divorce was only permissible in cases of sexual immorality. If a man divorced his wife on any other grounds it was not a legal divorce. Therefore if she married another man she was technically committing adultery.

5:38: “’an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’… offer no resistance.”

The Law allowed for compensation but Jesus is saying to his followers that they should not avail themselves of this legal remedy.

8:22: “Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury the dead.”

I'm not aware of any commandments in the written Torah dealing with burial. I have heard that what Jesus is referring to is sitting shiva.

21:43: “The kingdom of God taken away from you and given to another.”

Not sure what this has to do with issues of law.

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

Scholars are somewhat stumped as to how to interpret this passage. "Were in force" is not part of the Greek text but may be implied. But if so this would contradict other things Jesus said about the Law.

There are other problems as well that could be cited, such as traveling from town to town on the Sabbath and harvesting, the latter not necessarily by itself being that much of a slam dunk.

Yes but again these would be issues concerning the Oral Law or Tradition and not the written commandments concerning the Sabbath which really do not spell much out.

Now, even if one really wants to try and make excuses for these, then they need to look at how the early church saw it:

Okay, but now we are talking about the views of Paul and other apostles and not Jesus himself. Although Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, who would not be under Jewish law anyway, in reality the congregations he oversaw were generally a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Paul tries hard to find a way these two groups can operate as one. You have to be careful to not take things out of context and balance what appear to be negative statements about the Law with the positive ones Paul made (I'll be happy to supply these if you like).

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.”

What Paul really means by not being "under the Law" is that Christians are not under the curse of the Law, that is the penalty for infraction of it--death. He also explains that if one follows the Spirit one will naturally fulfill the demands of the Law.

10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law.”

This actually a very misleading translation of the Greek word telos. A better rendering would be that "Christ is the completion of the Law". IOW, the Law is completed and perfected in Christ which hearkens back to Jesus' own statements regarding it.

11:20: They were cut off because of their unbelief and you are there because of faith.”

This does not refer to an issue of law.

14:20: “All foods are clean.”

In that set of passages Paul is discussing the differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.Some early Christians adopted vegetarianism because they did not want to eat meat that had been sacrificed in the name of other gods. Paul says that if they feel that way that is fine but they should not judge others who do not share that concern. He personally feels there is no wrong in it as in his opinion those other gods don't even exist.

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

Context is very important here:

Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

Paul is simply saying that Jewish men should not undergo surgery to alter their circumcision nor should Gentile men be forced to undergo circumcision. The bris is a symbol of being under the Covenant and entails keeping the Law. Elsewhere Paul points out that if a circumcised man does not keep the Law his circumcision counts for nothing but the righteous obedience of an uncircumcised man counts as his "circumcision" (of the heart). See Romans 2.

Galatians 3:10: “All who depend on the observance of the Law… are under a curse.”

Yes, again the curse of the Law that is death for violation.The Galatians were Gentiles who became convinced they had to keep the Torah to merit salvation.

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.”

See all I discussed above.

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

Something should be noted here and that is that critical scholars doubt Ephesians was written by Paul but rather by someone belonging to a later generation of Gentile believers.That said that is not actually what that verse says in the original Greek. It is not the law that is abolished but rather the enmity between Jews and Gentiles that results from the Law. The two groups are now united in Christ. Again the entire passage must be read in context:

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—
that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity [that is] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

But yeah, it is implied that the enmity is caused by the different rules and the way to end that is to abolish the rules.

I better stop here as this may be getting too long for one post. I'll address the rest in a subsequent post.

 

[nazz]

continuing from above...

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.”

Again, here we are getting very far away from the original teachings of Jesus or even apostles like Paul. Tradition has it Paul penned this epistle but this is seriously doubted by critical scholarship. These scholars believe it was written by a Hellenistic Jewish Christian.

But where did these "unnecessary conditions" come from?

From the Oral Law (Tradition).

We know that the early church walked away from keeping kosher. My rule of thumb when stuck with trying to interpret verses and narratives is to see how it gets played out by the actions the result. We need to remember that the early church walked away from most of the Law, or at least the letter of it, and it's probably the reason why the Ebionites, who felt that the Law must be followed, broke away.

Yes, indeed. But remember the church went from being primarily Jewish to predominately Gentile. Gentiles aren't expected to observe Jewish law other than the Seven Laws of Noah even according to Jewish teaching. And in fact a version of Noachide Law is what was was decreed as binding on Gentile converts as recounted in Acts. So the issue is not Gentile believers but Jewish ones and it is certainly true that later Christian teaching is that not even Jews are expected to keep Torah if they become Christians and this is the view that has been maintained down to today by the majority of Christian denominations. And I think even the Jewish community concurs with this.

So to sum up this is the evolution we are witnessing in the pages of the Christian Scriptures. First we see Jesus somewhat questioning the divine nature of the Written Torah and seeing it as needing improvement yet overall giving a teaching in basic harmony with it (yet a teaching different from that of the Pharisees). Then we have Paul upholding the Torah in principle but teaching that observance of it is not a means of salvation for either Jews or Gentiles and struggling with the issues concerning Jews and Gentiles forming one community (but never coming out and counseling Jewish believers to disregard it). And finally a later group of Gentile writers who pretty much abandon the idea of Torah observance for any believers other than certain moral obligations derived from it.

Thanks, and I do enjoy talking with you on this even if we're not agreeing on everything.

Shalom

Same here...and to you.

 

[nazz]

I have never run across this in my readings before. The closest thing that I have run across is a commentary ("midrash") that has it that possibly God didn't complete creation so that we could finish the process and make Earth ours. To put it another way, He saw His creation as being "good" but not perfect.

It's kabbalistic teaching:

Tzimtzum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CMike]

I think it's interesting because whenever I heard about "the law" growing up it was always about how they had to always offer sacrifice. I always wondered if any christian actually knew all 613 of the laws (i might be off by some as I obviously I don't).

Very few of the laws have had to do with sacrifice.

 

[metis]

Okay

The Law allowed for divorce. Jesus took the strict view that Shammai shared that divorce was only permissible in cases of sexual immorality. If a man divorced his wife on any other grounds it was not a legal divorce. Therefore if she married another man she was technically committing adultery.

The Law allowed for compensation but Jesus is saying to his followers that they should not avail themselves of this legal remedy.

I'm not aware of any commandments in the written Torah dealing with burial. I have heard that what Jesus is referring to is sitting shiva.

Not sure what this has to do with issues of law.

Scholars are somewhat stumped as to how to interpret this passage. "Were in force" is not part of the Greek text but may be implied. But if so this would contradict other things Jesus said about the Law.

Yes but again these would be issues concerning the Oral Law or Tradition and not the written commandments concerning the Sabbath which really do not spell much out.

Okay, but now we are talking about the views of Paul and other apostles and not Jesus himself. Although Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, who would not be under Jewish law anyway, in reality the congregations he oversaw were generally a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Paul tries hard to find a way these two groups can operate as one. You have to be careful to not take things out of context and balance what appear to be negative statements about the Law with the positive ones Paul made (I'll be happy to supply these if you like).

What Paul really means by not being "under the Law" is that Christians are not under the curse of the Law, that is the penalty for infraction of it--death. He also explains that if one follows the Spirit one will naturally fulfill the demands of the Law.

This actually a very misleading translation of the Greek word telos. A better rendering would be that "Christ is the completion of the Law". IOW, the Law is completed and perfected in Christ which hearkens back to Jesus' own statements regarding it.

This does not refer to an issue of law.

In that set of passages Paul is discussing the differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.Some early Christians adopted vegetarianism because they did not want to eat meat that had been sacrificed in the name of other gods. Paul says that if they feel that way that is fine but they should not judge others who do not share that concern. He personally feels there is no wrong in it as in his opinion those other gods don't even exist.

Context is very important here:

Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

Paul is simply saying that Jewish men should not undergo surgery to alter their circumcision nor should Gentile men be forced to undergo circumcision. The bris is a symbol of being under the Covenant and entails keeping the Law. Elsewhere Paul points out that if a circumcised man does not keep the Law his circumcision counts for nothing but the righteous obedience of an uncircumcised man counts as his "circumcision" (of the heart). See Romans 2.

Yes, again the curse of the Law that is death for violation.The Galatians were Gentiles who became convinced they had to keep the Torah to merit salvation.

See all I discussed above.

Something should be noted here and that is that critical scholars doubt Ephesians was written by Paul but rather by someone belonging to a later generation of Gentile believers.That said that is not actually what that verse says in the original Greek. It is not the law that is abolished but rather the enmity between Jews and Gentiles that results from the Law. The two groups are now united in Christ. Again the entire passage must be read in context:

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—
that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity [that is] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

But yeah, it is implied that the enmity is caused by the different rules and the way to end that is to abolish the rules.

I better stop here as this may be getting too long for one post. I'll address the rest in a subsequent post.

Well, you're playing pretty fast and loose with the interpretations, which is OK, but I don't buy most of it because I see it excusing away the obvious, and the obvious is that the early church walked away form observing the letter of the Law, and I simply cannot see how Jesus' followers would have done that without Jesus somehow opening the door. By the time you get into the early and mid-2nd century, observance of the Law is gone, and what you then also see is both replacement theology and substitute atonement, both of which make no sense in light of what's actually found in Torah and Tanakh-- at least in my opinion.

Therefore, even though I do appreciate your lengthy comment that obviously you spent some time writing, I feel no reason to go any further on this, not that you've done anything wrong, but because we just see these differently whereas there's nothing to be gained by arguing.


Added: Oops, I didn't catch your second post in response until after I posted the above. I'm sorry to be so curt in my response, but I must log-off very shortly.


Another addition: Just a reminder that the Abrahamic Covenant is also found in the Law as well, so the concept that the Law is in force but the Covenant is not is quite illogical.

Shalom