New Covenant=New Rules?

[Trever]

Jesus said:

b[]"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets[/b]; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, 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." (Matthew 5:17-18)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)

If one follows the words of Jesus, it is simply not a viable argument to claim that the Old Testament law is no longer valid when the Bible clearly states otherwise. So, why do many Christian scholars argue that most of the OT laws are no longer applicable?

Note: For convenience, I will reject the Pauline epistles because I only want Jesus' words explained.

 

[Read-Only]

Jesus said:

b[]"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets[/b]; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, 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." (Matthew 5:17-18)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)

If one follows the words of Jesus, it is simply not a viable argument to claim that the Old Testament law is no longer valid when the Bible clearly states otherwise. So, why do many Christian scholars argue that most of the OT laws are no longer applicable?

Note: For convenience, I will reject the Pauline epistles because I only want Jesus' words explained.

I VERY rarely post in this forum because the majority of what's here is presented by people who haven't actually put much effort into studying the subject. But since you seem a bit different, I'll make an exception.

Your misunderstanding is a common one, especially today. It's because the words "everything is accomplished" is often taken to mean something other than what it really does. Jesus is speaking of accomplishing his mission which he did not long after speaking those words.

And once he was through, an entirely new set of rules came into play. They are simply based on the principles of love and caring for your fellow human being instead of following a whole list of "do this" and "don't do that." Once someone has a good understanding of how far-reaching and all-encompassing the application of that principle is, they can easily understand why the law is no longer needed.

 

[Carcano]

No one knows the specific meaning of 'everything is accomplished'.

However, what we can say is that the prohibitive nature of Jesus's interpretation of Hebrew law is far more extreme than the prophets and patriarchs.

Not just 'thou shall not'...but 'thou shall not even think about it'.

 

[geeser]

I VERY rarely post in this forum because the majority of what's here is presented by people who haven't actually put much effort into studying the subject. But since you seem a bit different, I'll make an exception.

Your misunderstanding is a common one, especially today. It's because the words "everything is accomplished" is often taken to mean something other than what it really does. Jesus is speaking of accomplishing his mission which he did not long after speaking those words.

And once he was through, an entirely new set of rules came into play. They are simply based on the principles of love and caring for your fellow human being instead of following a whole list of "do this" and "don't do that." Once someone has a good understanding of how far-reaching and all-encompassing the application of that principle is, they can easily understand why the law is no longer needed.

Can you honestly say that all/every law has been fulfilled/accomplished.
there are after all 613 laws he was referring too.
what jesus is possibly saying, is to follow him, is to ignore the OT completely as he thinks he has fulfilled it. After all he started a new cult, with different rules, just like religion has changed since the dawn of time. hence why even today we have 34.000 different sects of Christianity and about 290 different religions all with the own offshoot's, and over 2.800 gods, not including the Hindu gods which range in the millions.
So should we not do away with the OT altogether. In essence, it is now just a story book.

 

[Read-Only]

Can you honestly say that all/every law has been fulfilled/accomplished.
there are after all 613 laws he was referring too.
what jesus is possibly saying, is to follow him, is to ignore the OT completely as he thinks he has fulfilled it. After all he started a new cult, with different rules, just like religion has changed since the dawn of time. hence why even today we have 34.000 different sects of Christianity and about 290 different religions all with the own offshoot's, and over 2.800 gods, not including the Hindu gods which range in the millions.
So should we not do away with the OT altogether. In essence, it is now just a story book.

I have no intent of debating or trying to change anyone's mind about their thoughts or opinions. A question was asked and I answered it.

If you or anyone else is looking for an argument over/about religion I do not wish to participate.

Goodbye.

 

[nova900]

I have no intent of debating or trying to change anyone's mind about their thoughts or opinions. A question was asked and I answered it.

.

Trever asked for answers without bringing the "Pauline epistles" into it which you did not do.
That whole notion that Jesus fufilled the old law by atonement of our sins on the cross is a Pauline concept. I don't know of anywhere in the NT where Jesus states he came to specifically die for our sins. Judging by the overall character that Jesus presents in the NT the whole notion seems contrary.

 

[Carcano]

That whole notion that Jesus fufilled the old law by atonement of our sins on the cross is a Pauline concept. I don't know of anywhere in the NT where Jesus states he came to specifically die for our sins. Judging by the overall character that Jesus presents in the NT the whole notion seems contrary.

Well said Nova...Christians are always confusing the teachings of Paul and Jesus.

 

[one_raven]

Directly following the passage you just quoted, he goes on to outline the commandments, and there were only six of them.

He also said that only two truly need to be regarded:
NIV Matthew 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

When he was referring to "The Law" he most certainly was not referring to the whole of he Torah or even all of Leviticus.
Thoose two commandments do not, by any stretch of the imagination, sum up all of Jewish Law. It was clear he was referring to the ten Commandments.

What he was simply saying in all of Matthew 5 was that what it takes to get into Heaven is being a good person - as opposed to simply following rules and still being impure in your heart.

He also said the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:
NIV Matthew 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

If you are a good, honest person you will go to Heaven.
If you have some difficulty with it, you are not expected to be perfect - what is expected is that you are genuinely trying. You will be forgiven your sins.

If you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, you will not be forgiven.

 

[spidergoat]

Who the hell knows what to believe? The Bible is so full of contradictions, people have no other option but to pick and choose what to pay attention to. One would think it would be consistent if God wrote it, obviously it is the work of lesser men. By the way, Jesus also said he would come back within the generation of his listeners, so he lied about that.

 

[Carcano]

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

What he was simply saying in all of Matthew 5 was that what it takes to get into Heaven is being a good person...

Not just being a good person, but first and foremost to believe, love and worship the Hebrew God. He is not referring to Jupiter or Vishnu.

Therefore all non-jews are condemned by his statement.
Thats 99.9 of the world's population at the time.

He goes on to say one should love one neighbors as yourself. Thats exactly what I dont want from my neighbors...who clearly do not love themselves.

 

[one_raven]

Not just being a good person, but first and foremost to believe, love and worship the Hebrew God. He is not referring to Jupiter or Vishnu.

I disagree.
While I admit he was not talking about Jupiter or Lord Vishnu, I do not think he was talking about the Hebrew God.
The Hebrew God never claimed to be the one and only creator God.
In fact, Jewish texts openly acknowledge the existence of other Gods.
The Tanakh was intended to be a myopic view of the history of a people.
The God in the Tanakh was a the God that favored the Jewish people - not the only God - not the creator of all, not the over God.

Jesus chose his words very carefully and very specifically.
Not only does Jesus never say that he is referring to the same God, if you pay attention to how he describes "his father" it simply does not jibe with the descriptions of the God of the Tanakh.

Aside from acknowledging the existence of other Gods, the God of the Tanakh was limited.

They are different Gods.

 

[Carcano]

I do not think he was talking about the Hebrew God.

The Hebrew God never claimed to be the one and only creator God.

The first statement here sounds like a Gnostic teaching, which upholds the existence of two Gods. The creator of the material world, the evil deity of the old testament, and the Lord of Jesus...or the Lord AS Jesus.

Being a third and forth century idea however, I dont think one could make a case for its support in first century Palestine.

The Yahweh of the old testament makes it clear that he created the world, but not that there were no other deities.

 

[one_raven]

The first statement here sounds like a Gnostic teaching, which upholds the existence of two Gods. The creator of the material world, the evil deity of the old testament, and the Lord of Jesus...or the Lord AS Jesus.

First of all, this is not at all what I was saying - not even close.
What I was saying is that the God of the Tanakh was the God of the Jews.
This God was likely one of the earlier Sumerian Pantheon of Abraham's people who took the Jews as his chosen people and was their leader and care taker.
The God Jesus was referring to, in my belief, was not the same God.
Jesus was most certainly not God, as he never claimed to be.
He was talking about what he believed to be the father and creator of all.

Even in Christian circles people comment on the great differences between the God of the "Old Testament" and the kinder and gentler God of the "New Testament".

This being a third and forth centuries idea however, I dont think one could make a case for its support in first century Palestine.

Two of the main points of contention among the early church fathers was whether or not Jesus was God, as opposed to the son of God; and whether or not to include the Jewish texts as part of the Christian canon.
Settling these arguments were the two main reasons for holding the First Council at Nicea in 325.
This is not to say that the idea came about in 325, but that the idea was around from the beginning and the council was convened by Constantine to finally form a central church dogma on the matter.

The Yahweh of the old testament makes it clear that he created the world, but not that there were no other deities.

I could very well be wrong.
Please quote the Bible.
Please keep in mind, that Genesis states that the Gods (plural) created the heavens and earth and man.

 

[Carcano]

The God Jesus was referring to, in my belief, was not the same God.

Even in Christian circles people comment on the great differences between the God of the "Old Testament" and the kinder and gentler God of the "New Testament".

The God of the new testament is not kinder and gentler as many believe. This is what I call 'hippie christianity' which has picked out a few pacifistic sayings while ignoring the other 90% of the gospels which crush them like an eggshell.

Jesus was the first recorded originator of the hellfire speech in Palestine, consigning entire cities to flames of destruction worst than Sodom and Gomorrah. Persians and Greeks had similar ideas but hell is unknown in the old Hebrew scriptures.

He also makes it crystal clear he has come only to gather "the lost sheep of Israel"...not the other 99.9 of humanity.

Jesus also sets the bar much higher for salvation.
Not only must the candidate be Jewish, but his virtue must surpass even the letter of the law.

As with all messiahs...Jesus was first among extremists.

 

[one_raven]

The God of the new testament is not kinder and gentler as many believe. This is what I call 'hippie christianity' which has picked out a few pacifistic sayings while ignoring the other 90% of the gospels which crush them like an eggshell.

Nonsense.
Jesus' words were overwhelmingly ones of peace and love.
Show me othrwise.
Where are these supposed 90% of scriptures?

Jesus was the first recorded originator of the hellfire speech in Palestine, consigning entire cities to flames of destruction worst than Sodom and Gomorrah. Persians and Greeks had similar ideas but hell is unknown in the old Hebrew scriptures.

Chapter and verse, please.

What does any of this have to do with my last post?

Please elaborate and offer scriptural references that will contradict what I have said.

 

[Carcano]

From Matthew 10

"5 These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. 9 “Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, 10 or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support. 11 “And whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city. 12 “As you enter the house, give it your greeting. 13 “If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. 14 “Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 15 “Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city."

Here Jesus specifically instructs that his message is ONLY for Jews, not gentiles. And that even among Jews...the path to the kingdom is narrow indeed.

Those strayed from the path fall to a fate worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.

It always reminds of that beautiful line from Lord of the Rings:

The way is shut.
It was made by those who are dead.
And the dead keep it.

 

[Lori_7]

If one follows the words of Jesus, it is simply not a viable argument to claim that the Old Testament law is no longer valid when the Bible clearly states otherwise. So, why do many Christian scholars argue that most of the OT laws are no longer applicable?

is this a rhetorical question? obviously it's because they don't like the idea of having to follow them. i don't even think most people see how messed up we are, and how much we suffer because of our sin. people encourage me to be positive and look on the bright side of things...that it's all perspective and it's not perspective. this world is f'd up. people suffer horribly and constantly. i think people just get used to it. they can't see a better way. i can see, and i will not get used to this world the way it is. i will never tolerate it because i know there is a better way and jesus will take us there and keep us there. it isn't some faith-based feel-good philosophy, but an actual physical change to take place and you have to believe it's possible to make it. our bodies will be changed and we will suffer like this no more because we will sin no more, and we'll follow the law to the letter and that's how we'll live forever. if the wage of sin is death, then the only way to live forever is to abolish it. most people can't fathom what i'm talking about and it's a shame because they'll stay this way. it kills me when people want to believe in some fluffy, lovey-dovey feel-good god who would never send anyone to hell. wake up people, you're here!

 

[Trever]

Here Jesus specifically instructs that his message is ONLY for Jews, not gentiles. And that even among Jews...the path to the kingdom is narrow indeed.

That passage is most likely referring to a specific mission?

Jesus regularly ministered to Gentiles.

The Sermon of the Mount/Plain explicitly states that gentiles were in the audience.

"And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

2And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.:"

No where does it say that the multitude was made up entirely of Jews. In view of the multi-cultural nature of that area in that time and the diverse places that people came from it is highly unlikely that it was.

Don't forget the ministry in the Decapolis, as referenced in Mark 7:31ff with the healing of a Gentile man. Then of course, this is immediately followed in chapter 8 by him teaching and feeding the 4,000 in the same region.

In Matthew 8, Jesus and the apostles arrive in a Gentile town and heal a demon possessed man and cast the demons into a herd of +pigs+, further indicating that the town was Gentile.

In John 12:32, Jesus says:

But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

In John 4, Jesus ministers to a Samaritan town for two days and converts them.

and in John 10:16, Jesus declares:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. But I would check up on this verse, one website believes the sheep refers to the lost tribes of Israel.

 

[Carcano]

The Sermon of the Mount/Plain explicitly states that gentiles were in the audience.

There were gentiles in every crowd you'd find in first century Palestine. And just because Jesus sometimes healed non-Jews does not mean the kingdom he foretold was theirs as well.

In Matthew 15:24 he rebukes a request from a Canaanite women, again stating clearly that "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel".

As a Christian you would probably enjoy reading Dr. James Tabor's 'The Jesus Dynasty'

http://www.jesusdynasty.com/

"In The Jesus Dynasty biblical scholar James Tabor brings us closer than ever to the historical Jesus. Jesus, as we know, was the son of Mary, a young woman who became pregnant before her marriage to a man named Joseph. The gospels tell us that Jesus had four brothers and two sisters, all of whom probably had a different father from him.

He joined a messianic movement begun by his relative John the Baptizer, whom he regarded as his teacher and as a great prophet. John and Jesus together filled the roles of the Two Messiahs who were expected at the time, John as a priestly descendant of Aaron and Jesus as a royal descendant of David. Together they preached the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Theirs was an apocalyptic movement that expected God to establish his kingdom on earth, as described by the prophets. The two messiahs lived in a time of turmoil as the historical land of Israel was dominated by the powerful Roman empire. Fierce Jewish rebellions against Rome occurred during Jesus's lifetime.

John and Jesus preached adherence to the Torah, or the Jewish Law. But their mission was changed dramatically when John was arrested and then killed. After a period of uncertainty, Jesus began preaching anew in Galilee and challenged the Roman authorities and their Jewish collaborators in Jerusalem.

He appointed a Council of Twelve to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel, among whom he included his four brothers. After he was crucified by the Romans, his brother James, the “Beloved Disciple” took over leadership of the Jesus Dynasty.

James, like John and Jesus before him, saw himself as a faithful Jew. None of them believed that their movement was a new religion. It was Paul who transformed Jesus and his message through his ministry to the gentiles, breaking with James and the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, preaching a message based on his own revelations that would become Christianity."

 

[Adstar]

Jesus said:

b[]"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets[/b]; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, 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." (Matthew 5:17-18)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)

If one follows the words of Jesus, it is simply not a viable argument to claim that the Old Testament law is no longer valid when the Bible clearly states otherwise. So, why do many Christian scholars argue that most of the OT laws are no longer applicable?

Note: For convenience, I will reject the Pauline epistles because I only want Jesus' words explained.

The law states what is good and what is bad in relation to the will of God.

That has remained the same as before Jesus what is good is still good After Jesus and what is bad before Jesus remains bad after Jesus.

Before Jesus the ultimate outcome (the penalty) from sin was death and After Jesus the same ultimate outcome is still death.

What changed as a result of Jesus was that the human followers of Jesus where no longer required to carry out the penalty or see to the enforcement of the law through penalty of violence and death.

But what was good and what was bad did not suddenly change. What changed was the process of administering the Law.

Jesus demonstrated this change when he dealt with the woman caught in adultery. He removed the immediate penalty of death from the woman and moved the carrying out of the penalty to the final judgement. Jesus told her to go and sin no more. Jesus confirmed that adultery was indeed still sin just as it was before but it was not longer the responsibility of the followers of God to carry out the death penalty (Judgement) upon the woman by stoning her.

Of course Jesus later provided atonement for all the sins of those who would accept His atonement. Wether the woman accepted Jesus as her Redeemer or not is not recorded in scriptures, but it is hoped that she did embrace the love of His truth when she did receive the opportunity.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days