Jesus and the Mosaic Law... (page 8)

Pterist

MP

You completetly overlooked the first part of my comment. Which was that the Mosaic Law was a bi-lateral covenant between God and Israel. It had legal conditions. Israel broke the covenant and failed to inherit all the blessings. One of the blessings was they would be a light and bring blessings to the Gentiles. They failed. Israel was destroyed in 70AD. The contract ended. No more temple, no more ceremonial animal sacrifices. No more theoracy.

Jesus was regarded as the true Israel of God. He fulfilled all the conditions of the mosaic law and received all the blessings. He has the authority to institute a new covenant, which he did. Fleshly Israel was given first right of refusal to be part of this new covenant.

Jesus explained to his disciples that the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in him, no further slaughter of animals needed. He explained that sin was not just adultery, but was the LUSTFUL NATURE in the heart/mind. To enter his Kingdom one had to have a chage of NATURE, that enables one to overcome the lusts that give birth to sin, that laws, any laws could not achieve.

Does it really matter to you either way what Jesus did or not intend ?, I have seen some of your older comments and you don't seem to have any love for fleshly Israel or Jesus, a little bit ingenious don't you think ? Or do you have other motives? Just sayin !

PSacramento

Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to ?YOU? that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches mankind to that effect, he will be called ‘least’ in relation to the kingdom of the heavens. As for anyone who does them and teaches them, this one will be called ‘great’ in relation to the kingdom of the heavens

17/ J says quite clearly he did not come to destroy or replace the law.

18/ J says quite clearly here everybody should follow the law down to the letter.

19/ Jesus says the law will last forever.

Im not sure how you can possible think from that scripture that J is saying anything but the law is perfect and will last forever. Im not even twisting anything its there in black and white.

So, it does NOT say the Law is perfect but YOU infer it is based on how you interpret that.

I can respect that even if I don't agree.

PSacramento

He did not give any new commands. He simply highlights and comments on a few. No where does he imply these commentaries are a replacement. Im sure we both agree that Jesus would have said idols are banned. If he was replacing the entire Torah he should have mentioned this as #1 or #2. He doesnt because its a commentary with exerpts and not a replacement or listing.

The love thy neighbour comes from Lev 19:18

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/leviticus/19

8 “‘You must not take vengeance nor have a grudge against the sons of your people; and you must love your fellow as yourself. I am Jehovah.
He didn't give any new commandes?
Well, I am sure his apostles, especially the writer of the GOJ would disagree of course.
IMO, he doesn't just "comment" on them, he expands and even goes against the "wooden" reading of some.
Case in point:
Expands:
21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘ You shall not commit murder ’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court;
Against:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘ An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth .’ 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘ You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

transhuman68

Heh. The man who was Jesus, was most likely a Jewish rabbi who was primarily interested in the Jewish people, as people of other nationalities he referred to as 'dogs'. I'm sure he was very keen to see the continued observance of the Mosiac Law.

Deputy Dog

mP

Jeremiah is saying the law wll be part of the perfect king of Judah.

Spoken like a JW. You're good at putting words in Jeremiah's mouth.

In case you are not aware, it wasn’t Jeremiah that whispered “the law wll be part of the perfect king of Judah” in your ear, that was the WT. WE can all read EXACTLY what Jeremiah SAID.You don’t get to tell us what the bible says, WE CAN ALL READ IT FOR OUR SELVES.

Now if you would like to address my comments from Post 4915 I'd love to hear your response.

mP:

A baby who cant walk cant break any law. One needs mobilitty so one can cause harm, and one needs to be able to talk to slander or say the wrong thing.You cant seriously tell me any of the 613 laws can be broken by a baby. Thats stupid.Of course if im wrong give me an example .. the link below lists all 613 laws of Moses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

OK, call me stupid! Are you saying babies can't covet or be self-centered? Why do they throw tantrums? Do babies love God with all their heart soul and mind or love their neighbor as themselves?

Taken from your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Commandments

Do Babies

LOVE GOD? To love Him —Deut. 6:5

FEAR GOD? To fear Him — Deut. 10:20

There are many Laws that they (babies) don’t ‘do’ or keep.

soontobe

Good points, PSAC.

PSacramento

It is important to understand that many of what Christ did was challenge and/or correct INTERPRETATIONS of the Law and not always the Law themselves.

He also correct the overly legalistic way the law was USED.

Also important to understand that we are simply expressing our views and opinions based on our own understandings, that goes from BOTH sides of course and as such, we may be right or wrog but we must be open to understanding the other side of the argument.

Deputy Dog

PSac

He also correct the overly legalistic way the law was USED.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you explain?

The law's job is to KILL, not to save. It does away with ALL human (self) righteousness.

PSacramento

I mean Jesus addressed how overly legalistic the Sabbath had become, for example and how the Pharisees were more concerned with outword cleanlinees and what goes in the mouth ( dietary laws) than what comes out of the mouth.

The issue of divorce was another example, soemthing that was suppose to be strickly about adultery ( breaking of the marriage vows) became a legalistic way for some to get out of a marriage they no longer wanted to be in.

mP

mP: i never said he did, i said that Jesus dictate quite clearly on multiple occasions that he only came for the jews and instructed his followers to do the same.

SOON: But he clearly did not. I just cited one example from Matthew 28. He may himself have come to Israel alone, but he did not instruct that for his followers.

mP:

I would agree with you on this point, jesus did not give instructions NOT to preach to gentiles. However before Paul, it would appear that the apostles only preached to fellow Jews. I think it is safe to say that if they (the apostles) felt only obligated to preach to jews and this only changed when Paul came along and persuaded them otherwise.

Given your scripture from Mat 28 (thanks always nice to see a quote inline), i think its safe to say the feeling was that by omission the apostles only felt obligated to preach to jews which by definition means gentiles are ignored. Perhaps its not a perfect evidence on my part but its certainly fair. Then again Jesus never said to preach to the gentiles either (this excludes Mat 24:14 whichi s a contradiction).

SOON:

And sure, Paul had issues with Peter's behavior, but that does not mean they were in disagreement on accepting Gentiles.

mP:

I never meant they were in disagreement. Its just in the past the jews had created their own isolated way, they wouldnt eat with gentiles, they had a separate exclusive temple and so on. It was kind of implied that a good jew didnt mix with gentiles. If we went back to that time i feel that it was the default behaviour unless someone told them otherwise.

Its a bit like segragation in the old america. White kids just knew they shouldnt do X with black kids from all the other inferred racial nasties that society taught them. Given that this was the default, by not saying to do otherwise Jesus would have known that would be hte end result. We can see with Peter and Pauls discussions about gentiles that this is the case. Peter was just continunig the jewish tradition of separatism while Paul was more international.

Jesus and the Mosaic Law...

Share this