the law

[RJ]

If one understands the depths of Levitical Law and the later iterations poured in by the Pharisees, Saducees and Sanhedrin, as their official 'interpretation' of the Law, Jesus was a criminal. He regularly broke their Law and even in a manner we'd call 'in your face'!

At John 5:1-18 on a sabbath Feast day Jesus healed the man by the pool, and then commanded him to take up his bed on the sabbath, fully against the Law, John 5:10. For these acts of lawbreaking the Jews conspired to kill him. Jesus often did many healings on the sabbath, which was forbidden by the intrepretation of Law. He obviously could have done them any time, but intentionally chose sabbath, teaching Mercy over Law. See John 7:21.

Luke 12:10-16 has Jesus healing the woman of an issue of blood, and he's challenged for healing on sabbath by the ruler of the synagogue. In another time he healed a man of the dropsy, on sabbath, and in the house of the Chief Pharisee! Luke 14:1-6

The healing of the blind man by mixing clay with spit was a violation of Laws of Sabbath. It was illegal to spit on the dust of the ground on sabbath because that spit would make a furrow in the dust. The Pharisees decided that was the same as a man that hitched up his oxen and plowed his fields making furrows on sabbath, forbidden under the Law. Jesus knew this well. The Pharisees insisted that a man could only spit on a rock on sabbath, not the dust of earth!

Matthew 12:1-2 Jesus with His disciples went about amidst the corn and took some to eat on sabbath, breaking the law. Following that He went to the temple and healed a man, same sabbath Matthew 12:9-14. Pharisees then took council how they could kill Him for breaking the law! The matter of Jesus going about with his apostles, taking up handfuls of wheat to eat on sabbath was illegal. The Pharisees were horrified! Not only that, He dared to blow off the chaff! Why, it was obvious: this fellow Jesus was not only harvesting, but winnowing on sabbath! CRIMINAL! KILL HIM!

Jesus entirely & completely ignored the ceremonial washings as described in Leviticus, obviously and intentionally right in front of the Pharisees, Luke 11:37-. He did not do the ceremonial washing before meals, against Levitical Law. Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead broke the Law. Anybody who touched a headstone, entered a gravesite or touched a body was unclean, in need of purification and must be ejected from society for a time. But Jesus commanded that the headstone be removed, and the garments of Lazarus be removed, mainly because he was no longer dead! That was against the Law and made all 'unclean'. John 11:39-.

This scourge Jesus DARED to TOUCH a leper! Anyone who touched a leper was declared unclean, and MUST completely depart from society for a day and also perform the proscribed ceremonial washings and wash all their garments, all given in Levitical Law; Jesus did not! In Matthew 15 & Mark 7 Jesus broke the dietary laws, saying no food would make a man unclean.

There's a huge difference between the 10 Commandments & the Levitical Law, and the later interpretations of that. We are not to break ANY of God's Commandments, no dispute there at all. However Jesus tells us He will write the law for us in our hearts and in our minds, indicating that we are to keep the spirit of the law through the continual guidance given by the Holy Spirit and our conscience. So the question becomes, WHICH LAW must one keep?

The Levitical Laws were for Jews, not Gentile Christians. I imagine we're all pretty much in agreement here. I personally count every day as sabbath because Christ is in His rest, and so am I!

Again, Jesus, before he died and ushered in the Covenant of Love and Grace was the embodiment of the Law, He fulfilled the Law as he said. He obeyed and did perfectly every Law and Commandment of his Father. All these laws and commandments were handed down from God through his chosen Prophets. None, not one Levitical Law that was made by Man ( Levitical Priests), and there was plenty, was of God and NOT required by Jesus! This is something that plagues us now, Man in his arrogance and pride making up his on laws concerning Christianity!

Jesus gives us your example when he healed the Man by spitting on the ground and wiping the mud on the eye lids of the Man and then told the Man to go and wash it off in the near by pool and he would see.

There was no significant reason for Jesus to heal the Man with mud, he could have just spoken the world as he did in many others that he healed. So why the mud?

Because of a ridiculous handed down " Levitical Law" of the Priests and NOT handed down by God. The Religious Rulers had a law that on the Sabbath, it was against the law to spit on the ground, because if you spit on the ground, your made mud and if you made mud, you were working on the Sabbath. Jesus was simply showing them their arrogance and sin, but they were oblivious to him.

Jesus was perfect and supported the original laws and commandments handed down by his Father and not of Man which were worthless and all they did was cause people to be arrested, beaten and to pay fines to the Levitical Priest hood, to line their pockets and not God!

We are no longer under any original Law of God or Man and are now under the Covenant of Love and Grace.

Jesus saying that he would put himself in the hearts and minds of men was a reference to the Holy Spirit and being "Born Again"!

 

[JDFree]

Yep.......!

 

[RJ]

I'll tell you if said Christians want to go back under Law, then they better be consistent. And I'm talking about they better make sure they bring the bulls, rams, goats, lambs, etc. to sacrifice at their local church. And start carrying a duffle bag full of stones to launch at Christians you catch sinning. :laugh:

And you would have to do all the Law perfectly 24/7.

The thought of it is mute anyway, God said that portion of the Law was abolished and replaced with the New Covenant. When Jesus died on the cross, God tore the Temple Vail from top to bottom signifying that he had left; even if Man build another exact duplicate of the Old Levitical Temple and started sacrifices again, it would be useless because God would not be in their "Holy of Holies" !

 

[The Robster]

And you would have to do all the Law perfectly 24/7.

The thought of it is mute anyway, God said that portion of the Law was abolished and replaced with the New Covenant. When Jesus died on the cross, God tore the Temple Vail from top to bottom signifying that he had left; even if Man build another exact duplicate of the Old Levitical Temple and started sacrifices again, it would be useless because God would not be in their "Holy of Holies" !

Well said brother.

 

[allforihs]

I myself am more Pauline on the topic of Law-Observance.

It's interesting that someone can do absolutely nothing beyond quoting Jesus and draw an objection from a fellow Christian.

 

[Iceman]

It's interesting that someone can do absolutely nothing beyond quoting Jesus and draw an objection from a fellow Christian.

There's quoting and there's quoting...meaning there is eisegesis and there is exegesis. That is the point of a Biblical discussion. To discuss relevancy and meaning. If this were say a "let's all talk about our day" thread, my response may have been inappropriate. But not here.

It's no small theological issue that Paul and Jesus are not aligned. The question is "Is Paul a follower of Jesus, or the founder of Christianity?" That's a question that theologians have wrestled with for centuries. Unfortunately the modern post-enlightenment and self serving form of Christianity that has become popular has glossed over the scripture with which, if you are like me and believe the scripture is divinely inspired, we are supposed to struggle and wrestle with. Not ignore completely.

Jesus was a Law obediant Jew, but as the Spirit came to guide the Church, Paul equates Law obediance with slavery.

So is the Spirit less God than Jesus? Does that mean that Paul's revelation counts for nothing? For if Paul is wrong, then the expected response to Jesus would be to convert to Judaism.

Both Paul and Jesus would say that if you choose to follow the Law, you must follow the WHOLE Law. This is not just the 10 commandments, but the whol 600+ mitzvot found in the pentateuch. These including food law, purity law, cleanliness and uncleanliness, circumcision and more. Which is why if you are an advocate of Law abiding Christianity, you are an advocate of Judaism.

 

[The Robster]

There's quoting and there's quoting...meaning there is eisegesis and there is exegesis. That is the point of a Biblical discussion. To discuss relevancy and meaning. If this were say a "let's all talk about our day" thread, my response may have been inappropriate. But not here.

It's no small theological issue that Paul and Jesus are not aligned. The question is "Is Paul a follower of Jesus, or the founder of Christianity?" That's a question that theologians have wrestled with for centuries. Unfortunately the modern post-enlightenment and self serving form of Christianity that has become popular has glossed over the scripture with which, if you are like me and believe the scripture is divinely inspired, we are supposed to struggle and wrestle with. Not ignore completely.

Jesus was a Law obediant Jew, but as the Spirit came to guide the Church, Paul equates Law obediance with slavery.

So is the Spirit less God than Jesus? Does that mean that Paul's revelation counts for nothing? For if Paul is wrong, then the expected response to Jesus would be to convert to Judaism.

Both Paul and Jesus would say that if you choose to follow the Law, you must follow the WHOLE Law. This is not just the 10 commandments, but the whol 600+ mitzvot found in the pentateuch. These including food law, purity law, cleanliness and uncleanliness, circumcision and more. Which is why if you are an advocate of Law abiding Christianity, you are an advocate of Judaism.

It puzzles me that there's been so much debate down through the centuries regarding Jesus and paul being aligned. I mean the only question that should even be asked is whether the same Holy Spirit that was in Jesus, also took residence in Paul? Way too much concern about the looks of the vessel, rather than where the inspiration for the words has come from.

 

[allforihs]

Both Paul and Jesus would say that if you choose to follow the Law, you must follow the WHOLE Law.

Are you saying that if we avoid murdering someone then we must not eat pork?

If Paul and Jesus disagree, it seems to me that a Christian would be obligated to side with Jesus.

 

[Iceman]

It puzzles me that there's been so much debate down through the centuries regarding Jesus and paul being aligned. I mean the only question that should even be asked is whether the same Holy Spirit that was in Jesus, also took residence in Paul? Way too much concern about the looks of the vessel, rather than where the inspiration for the words has come from.

Well that makes sense from a salvation history point of view. That is that God by reveals himself in increments throughout human history, and a view I take myself I might add. But that's within the realms of theology. What I'm talking about comes from Biblical studies. Now there is a distinction however minor. Our theology should not inform our Biblical studies, but our Biblical studies should inform our theology (as a general rule of thumb anyway.)

Biblical studies raises a whole range of issues. Unfortunately most people don't take the bible seriously enough to look beyond what is presented to them on the shelf at their local bookstore. They forget, or may have never realised, that these letters and manuscripts all come from the past.

For example, very few people realise

If Paul and Jesus disagree, it seems to me that a Christian would be obligated to side with Jesus.

(And here we come to this) the fact that Paul's letters are actually dated earlier than the Gospel accounts. The Gospels come first in the Bible, and so most people assume they were written first. So from a purely Biblical studies point of view, Paul is closer to the teachings of Jesus than the Gospels. Does that diminish the role of the Gospel? Absolutely not! But to get the best Biblical studies understanding we place them within their context, then we ask, what does that say about God.

The opposite of that is to pick up the Bible, quote a bunch of scripture and say "GOD IS LIKE THIS" even when sometimes the scripture is trying to say the opposite.

Long story cut short, these discussions and debates have a place within the realm of Biblical Studies. They help us solidify our theology. More importantly I think that Biblical studies is one of the last bastions of faith. Too many people ask what they can get out of the Bible, instead of asking what it is the Bible says.

Are you saying that if we avoid murdering someone then we must not eat pork?

Yes and No. The issue of Law isn't one of morality. It is about justification. So obviously a Christian should not kill, but is capable of eating Pork. However if you advocate a Law-abiding Christianity, you're advocating Grace through Law, and thus yes, you must not eat pork.

Which is Paul's point. It's not that the Law is a great moral compass. To Paul the Spirit is our moral compass, and the Law is enslavement. Because if you choose to follow the Law, you are bound to follow the whole Law.

 

[El Hombre viejo]

The truth is kevinlb63 is absolutely right. So many people use the Letters of the Apostles as the only true answer. The truth is given to us in them because Jesus commanded the disciples to teach the world as he taught them. They did, sorry Iceman. Although it was awkwardly posted in the Gospel Matthew quotes Jesus in 5:19-20. What else did Jesus teach. Look at John 15:8-11.

The Gal 5:1-3 you are so familiar with does have its root in the Gospel, again more quotes from Jesus, as he commanded. In Matthew 15:1-20, a condemnation of the traditions man made for religion sake diverting the congregation from God. Jesus was just as brutal on his own Jewish faith. Matthew 16:5-12. The Law of circumcision was one such law that does not lead to the Lord. The Judaizers were twisting Jesus' teachings confusing the message to the Galatians, This letter was to set-straight the record. In Galatians 1:6-10. Paul makes sure it is understood that there is only one Gospel , that is the 1st 4 books of the New Testament which again brings us to John 15:10.

Everything that is taught via the letters all have their roots in the Gospel, Jesus' own teaching. Christians are NOT fragmented and disorganized, and most of all NOT lawless

Hey Pag. The word commandment in that verse translates as 'if you keep my Word ye shall abide...'

There are only two 'laws' for a Christian to obey. To live by.

Matthew 22:37-40 (King James Version)
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-23910">37</sup>Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-23911">38</sup>This is the first and great commandment.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-23912">39</sup>And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-23913">40</sup>On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


On these two laws, all the laws of the Old covenant, and all the commands of the prophets are based.
If you will follow these two laws you will fulfill all the Old covenant laws. In one fell swoop.



So Pag... How much snow did you get?

 

[jiggyfly]

Yes and No. The issue of Law isn't one of morality. It is about justification. So obviously a Christian should not kill, but is capable of eating Pork. However if you advocate a Law-abiding Christianity, you're advocating Grace through Law, and thus yes, you must not eat pork.

Which is Paul's point. It's not that the Law is a great moral compass. To Paul the Spirit is our moral compass, and the Law is enslavement. Because if you choose to follow the Law, you are bound to follow the whole Law.

Excellent statement, it is about justification.:wink:

For no one can ever be made right in God's sight by doing what his law commands. For the more we know God's law, the clearer it becomes that we aren't obeying it. But now God has shown us a different way of being right in his sight--not by obeying the law but by the way promised in the Scriptures long ago.
We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done. For all have sinned; all fall short of God's glorious standard. Yet now God in his gracious kindness declares us not guilty. He has done this through Christ Jesus, who has freed us by taking away our sins. Romans 3:20-24

 

[JDFree]

Thank you, El hombre viejo!

In all of the history of mankind, and even of devils before that, there is one and only one sin that a person may commit. All of those things described and associated with sin are simply manifestations of that one original sin: SELFISHNESS!

Looking at those 2 commands as spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ, we see they cut through the center of SELFISHNESS like a hot knife, separating the bone from the marrow!

This also points to why Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest prophet who ever lived. In all of Scripture John the Baptist really only prophesied 3 things: 1] Repent. 2] Jesus is Savior. Those, and one other thing, MOST IMPORTANT within the other 2. Looking upon Jesus he states:

"He must increase; I must decrease." John 3:30

This sums up the entire Bible in 6 words! Why? Because it describes the death of selfishness, and the rebirth into Jesus, the only way of salvation.
.

 

[allforihs]

The Gospels come first in the Bible, and so most people assume they were written first. So from a purely Biblical studies point of view, Paul is closer to the teachings of Jesus than the Gospels. Does that diminish the role of the Gospel? Absolutely not! But to get the best Biblical studies understanding we place them within their context, then we ask, what does that say about God.

Paul's slightly earlier date does not trump four books that quote Jesus in revealing to us Jesus' teachings, from a biblical studies point of view. Not that Paul and Jesus taught different things.

So obviously a Christian should not kill, but is capable of eating Pork. However if you advocate a Law-abiding Christianity, you're advocating Grace through Law, and thus yes, you must not eat pork.

So, you say again, Christians who don't murder must not eat pork. To wit, you are saying that any Christian who has ever eaten a hotdog better go out and murder someone to make himself right with God.

Christians are obligated to keep the law because breaking the law is sin and being in Christ is not a licence to sin, even if it is a "get out of jail free" card. Paul explains that to be saved apart from grace, one would have to keep all of the law. Paul points out that he follows the law.

 

[El Hombre viejo]

Paul's slightly earlier date does not trump four books that quote Jesus in revealing to us Jesus' teachings, from a biblical studies point of view. Not that Paul and Jesus taught different things.



So, you say again, Christians who don't murder must not eat pork. To wit, you are saying that any Christian who has ever eaten a hotdog better go out and murder someone to make himself right with God.

Christians are obligated to keep the law because breaking the law is sin and being in Christ is not a licence to sin, even if it is a "get out of jail free" card. Paul explains that to be saved apart from grace, one would have to keep all of the law. Paul points out that he follows the law.

allforihs Why do you say we must follow Rabinical law when we have been totally set free of it? I still don't understand your reasoning.


Galatians 3:10

1. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
   
   
2. Galatians 3:13
   Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

If you are going to live under one law you MUST live under all of them. Even the Pharisees could not do that. Can you? The law was bondage which Jesus set us free of.
The law was given to show us our need of a savior. Jesus. and when we saw our need and accepted Jesus the law was finished in us. We entered a new covenant. A covenant that gives us total freedom from all but the two laws I posted above.
So...If Jesus set us free from the law of sin and death, why should be go back under it? It would be like the Isrealites going back to Egypt.

 

[allforihs]

allforihs Why do you say we must follow Rabinical law when we have been totally set free of it? I still don't understand your reasoning.

I hope you mean priestly law, not rabbinical law.

Galatians 3:10

[*] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Are you saying this scripture is wrong? Cursed is everyone who does not keep the whole law. PERIOD. It does not say "Cursed is only those who try to keep the law." There is no try. There is only: keep the whole law or die.

How is that you think you have a need of a Savior when you don't have to keep the law? You, who kills and rapes as you please, not wanting to be cursed by trying to obey the law?

A covenant that gives us total freedom from all but the two laws I posted above.

Jesus didn't say that there are only two laws we need to obey. Jesus summed summing up the whole law that we are to obey with with two points. If you love your neighbor, you won't kill him. If you love God, you'll keep the Sabbath.

Even accepting your reasoning, if we have to keep two laws, we still have a law to keep and you are in fact saying that we have to keep some of the law, but not the whole law.

Even if you weren't in a hopeless contradiction, we are still cursed by those two laws because we have all failed to keep them.

 

[El Hombre viejo]

I hope you mean priestly law, not rabbinical law.

Are you saying this scripture is wrong? Cursed is everyone who does not keep the whole law. PERIOD. It does not say "Cursed is only those who try to keep the law." There is no try. There is only: keep the whole law or die.

How is that you think you have a need of a Savior when you don't have to keep the law? You, who kills and rapes as you please, not wanting to be cursed by trying to obey the law?



Jesus didn't say that there are only two laws we need to obey. Jesus summed summing up the whole law that we are to obey with with two points. If you love your neighbor, you won't kill him. If you love God, you'll keep the Sabbath.

Even accepting your reasoning, if we have to keep two laws, we still have a law to keep and you are in fact saying that we have to keep some of the law, but not the whole law.

Even if you weren't in a hopeless contradiction, we are still cursed by those two laws because we have all failed to keep them.

Do you follow the entire law? No? Then you are under the curse? And you go back to Law you fall from grace.

If you insist on walking by law then Jesus died for nothing.

Galatians 2:21 Galatians 5:4

 

[El Hombre viejo]

Law vs Faith

alljohn you quoted Galatians 3:10 A single verse. Again somebody building a doctrine from one verse. Read on son....
Galatians 3:8-12 (King James Version)


<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29111">8</sup>And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29112">9</sup>So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29113">10</sup>For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29114">11</sup>But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29115">12</sup>And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.


The law comes with curse
The law is not faith
The law is not a justifier
The law does not carry blessing
The law carries bondage
If you break one single law you are guilty of breaking all of them, you have to start again


Faith carries no curse
Faith carries blessing
Faith is a justifier
Faith brings freedom
If you do something wrong, you repent and go on.





Please do not just look at one single verse. Look at even the entire chapter to see what is being spoken of, and in what context.

 

[allforihs]

Do you follow the entire law? No? Then you are under the curse? And you go back to Law you fall from grace.

Instead of showing why you're wrong several times over, I'll just pick one reason and repeat it, then maybe you'll notice it:

You said we have two laws to follow. You do not keep both those laws. You are therefor under a curse.

 

[El Hombre viejo]

Law vs Faith

Galatians 3:1-5 (New Living Translation)




The Law and Faith in Christ

<sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29063">1</sup> Oh, foolish allforihs!:shock: Who has cast an evil spell on you? For the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death was made as clear to you as if you had seen a picture of his death on the cross. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29064">2</sup> Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29065">3</sup> How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29066">4</sup> Have you experienced<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href=&quot;#fen-NLT-29066a&quot; title=&quot;See footnote a&quot;>a</a>]">[a]</sup> so much for nothing? Surely it was not in vain, was it? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29067">5</sup> I ask you again, does God give you the Holy Spirit and work miracles among you because you obey the law? Of course not! It is because you believe the message you heard about Christ.

 

[El Hombre viejo]

Galatians 3:1-5 (New Living Translation)



The Law and Faith in Christ

<sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29063">1</sup> Oh, foolish allforihs!:shock: Who has cast an evil spell on you? For the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death was made as clear to you as if you had seen a picture of his death on the cross. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29064">2</sup> Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29065">3</sup> How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29066">4</sup> Have you experienced<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href=&quot;#fen-NLT-29066a&quot; title=&quot;See footnote a&quot;>a</a>]">[a]</sup> so much for nothing? Surely it was not in vain, was it? <sup class="versenum" id="en-NLT-29067">5</sup> I ask you again, does God give you the Holy Spirit and work miracles among you because you obey the law? Of course not! It is because you believe the message you heard about Christ.

Whoa whoa Don't take offence.. LOL I put your name there for fun. Not to offend