Catholics are not Christian?

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Except HE managed to do so while breaking and changing quite a few of said "laws"

makes you wonder eh?

The only things He broke were their rabbinical teachings and traditions they were teaching the people. They were just that, rabbinical teachings and traditions, not the Torah. See Mark chapter 7.

Well no... He totally broke rules in the Torah

I was going to say more but this guy beat me to it... though he only gave a few examples... one break is all thats needed remember?

Tell me what laws of the Torah Jesus broke, the only thing mentioned so far was Him breaking Rabbinical rules. Which was my point, He rejected the doctrine of the Pharisees, they elevated their rabbinical laws and traditions over the Torah.

Well lets see... He didn't stone the lady at the well

He didn't abide by dietary laws, or at the very least told people they were not necessary

HE had no issue with work on the sabbath as long as it was "good work" which is not what the OT says

Healed on the sabbath but of course Christians have a loop hole believing he was God, when he was not... (not going to argue this point for the millionth time)

He Changed the commandments from 10 to 2... Though the ten are subject to the two... probably would have just been easier IF it was two in the first place

He changed "an eye for an eye" to turn the other cheek... Now Changing is not breaking law, but God doesn't change according to the OT... so its pretty much the same thing

He hung out with sinners, which the OT forbids... even calling them "dead persons"

He drank wine... which is "strong drink"

Thats all i can think of right now... but im pretty sure theres a few more at least

LOL, different lady. I think you mean the lady they brought Him in the temple. He didn't say to stone her because it was a trap, there was no "trial" of her, and the man who was caught in the act of adultery with her wasn't present. Under the law he was to be stoned too. Basically, Jesus refused to take part in a murder of vigilante justice.

I can't think of any instances where He said it was okay to work on the Sabbath. He criticized their definition of work, or action as "work". Work means laboring for a wage, not doing something. Josephus records the most extreme example of religious nuttery I can recall, the Essenes. They refused to take a crap on the Sabbath and would hold it in till sundown on Saturday because they said relieving oneself is "work". Lmao

Remember one thing about Jesus, whenever He "changed" a law/commandment from the Torah He never lessened the demands, He made them MUCH harder to follow and a matter of the heart/intent and not actions. Example, looking at a woman with lust is adultery, not the physical act of penetration. That's one example.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Pulling an animal out of a pit isn't work that earns a wage either...

Its still exerting ones self... that is the idea behind "no work on the sabbath"

its a day of resting... Just as the OT god rested on the 7th day

Right, it's not work either. Thats my entire point, the Pharisees were teaching Talmud and Midrash as God's commands, not the Torah. Jesus condemned their rabbinical teachings as not the commands of God, but the traditions of their elders. Work is laboring for a wage. In our lives the example means going to our vocation and laboring as we do the other days of the week, whatever our professional might be. I don't know the precise verse, but basically God said "dedicate the day to me, don't do the normal things you do the other days of the week.

Did you know many hotels in Israel have a "Sabbath elevator"? It's an elevator that automatically opens its doors every other floor so people don't have to push the buttons to get to their floor and also don't have to walk up dozens of stairs, just 1 flight of them. Lol

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Joecroft

I actually excluded that one because im unsure if that was torah law...

I don't seem to recall, but i haven't read the OT books in quite a while

That might be one of the things NuT was talking about.... traditions as opposed to laws

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. The Pharisees were teaching their traditions, Talmud and Midrash as laws, supplanting the Torah. See below, this Jewish man explains both Pharisees and Sadduces:

Talmud didn't exist in the time of Jesus and the Midrash (and Talmud) are just commentary on the OT like the writings of the so called church fathers. They don't supplant the Tanakh they explain it.

Talmud wasn't even put to writing until centuries after Jesus death. And it wasn't complete for centuries after that.

Name one teaching from the oral law of the Pharisees from the time of Jesus (not from the biased NT). You can't because you don't know because except Josephus, who is unreliable, their is no record (except the Talmud which again didn't exist in Jesus time) of what the Pharisees believed then but many Rabbis today see similarities between Jesus teachings and Pharisaic teachings like of Hillel who was the first to codify the Torah under the commandments of love and may have been a teacher of Jesus.

The whole anti Pharisee position of the NT is just Roman agitprop as the Pharisees were a seperatist people who didn't interfere with Roman or other Jewish communities affairs.

And Christianity has many oral traditions so before you go on thinking that it doesn't consider Lucifer (not pre fall Satan in the Bible) and the claim that Joseph the father of Jesus died before the crucifixion, that Mary Magdalene was a whore or that Satan has dominion over the world and is God's nemesis who fell from grace (didn't happen). None of those things are in the Bible but Christians still believe them.

Christmas and Easter are Pagan holidays for Tammuz and Ishtar that are anti Christian pro Babylonian holidays that the Bible forbids participation in (Jeremiah) but Christians still pretend every year that they are Christian holidays.

Don't be a one way street, every religion has written and oral traditions including especially Christianity. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus was or is God and the original Christians who were Jews didn't believe that he was the Son of God until his baptism which the Bible DOES support. They certainly didn't believe he WAS God, just the Messiah.

The tradition that the Messiah was prophecied to be Immanuel, born of a virgin is wrong too but the obviously Greek editor of Matthew didn't know that the prophecy wasn't Messianic and didn't say virgin in the Hebrew.

So Christianity is just a pack of errors with the only good part being the actual words of Jesus, if they are his words, and the rest is purely useless for good. In fact the whole religion started off as an oral tradition that wasn't recorded until at least the second century. You will say that the fictitious Pauline letters were written in the first century but they don't say anything about the actual life or teachings of Christ and it can not be proven that Marcion didn't just invent the Character Paul using Josephus as a reference (Saul the Pharisee, murderer of James becomes Paul with a fictitious tale where he is a different Saul who becomes Paul).

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Remember one thing about Jesus, whenever He "changed" a law/commandment from the Torah He never lessened the demands, He made them MUCH harder to follow and a matter of the heart/intent and not actions.

Im going to have to disagree with that... One instance he made harder...

removing dietary laws is much easier...

And as far as work is concerned, its not just about earning a wage... again its exerting ones self...

Cattle can not earn a wage... and in many IF not most cases neither can children...

Back then you couldn't even leave the area of the settlement... preferably your dwelling because walking would be considered work... or NOT resting

LOL, different lady. I think you mean the lady they brought Him in the temple. He didn't say to stone her because it was a trap, there was no "trial" of her, and the man who was caught in the act of adultery with her wasn't present. Under the law he was to be stoned too. Basically, Jesus refused to take part in a murder of vigilante justice.

Yes different lady... my bad...

in any case you're reading into the text... You say it was a trap, but who is to say that the man wouldn't have been caught later... the text says she was caught in the very act...

what is more likely is that said law was ridiculous from the very start, and Jesus would have no part of it, which is why he ignored their plea's...

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Did you know many hotels in Israel have a "Sabbath elevator"? It's an elevator that automatically opens its doors every other floor so people don't have to push the buttons to get to their floor and also don't have to walk up dozens of stairs, just 1 flight of them. Lol

Yes actually... Theres a guy somewhere over there that has been trying to find loopholes in sabbath rest for years

a reply to: Akragon

I noticed that you seem to not care for Paul much.

Did you know that in his Against Marcion in 207 AD Tertullian doubted the Apostolic status of Paul calling him a "False prophet" and "Apostle to the heretics"?

I actually just read about it today but it sure throws a wrench in the gears of early unity between the Marcionite/Pauline faction and the church of Jerusalem that was Judaic and although I don't believe everything Tertullian says about Marcion I do believe he was correct on that account and he also accused Marcion of altering Luke and creating his own New Testament (the very first actually) so one must wonder if he didn't himself also write the Pauline epistles.

a reply to: Taxiarch

Did you know that in his Against Marcion in 207 AD Tertullian doubted the Apostolic status of Paul calling him a "False prophet" and "Apostle to the heretics"?

Yeah... except he was likely speaking of Marcion's version of Paul...

At least from what we know of said person... which we literally know nothing about aside from hostile witnessess

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Taxiarch

Did you know that in his Against Marcion in 207 AD Tertullian doubted the Apostolic status of Paul calling him a "False prophet" and "Apostle to the heretics"?

Yeah... except he was likely speaking of Marcion's version of Paul...

At least from what we know of said person... which we literally know nothing about aside from hostile witnessess

Is there any other Paul?

If so I would like to know because NT Paul is a jerk. I seriously don't think he was talking about Marcon's version because the Apostles rejected Paul even in the NT, and he cursed them calling them hypocrites and ministers of Satan masquerading as "angels of light" metaphorically, which is why hardly anyone notices. He was probably mad because he was forced to submit to the Nazirite purification ritual even though he was miraculously taken by soldiers before he could do it it is evident that he despised James and was jealous of Peter's legitimate role as Apostle to the nations (Gentile as a word has no Greek equivalent and Gentiles is a made up term to distinguish between Jews and everyone else).

Since Marcion "discovered" the Pauline letters I can't see how another version of Paul existed and I think Tertullian just wanted to slam Marcion more than Paul.

I never cared much for Tertullian but when it comes to Marcion and Paul I agree. I am going to see if I can find anything he wrote about Paul that was not about Marcion and not negative.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Yeah, that's not harvesting a field. Harvesting a field is gathering it all, working the land at harvest time. The disciples grabbed some food to eat, that's not the same thing. They were not laboring for a wage.

Here is an example, let's say I was a Jewish chef. Working on the Sabbath would be going to my restaurant and opening the doors, firing up the kitchen ovens, making and selling food for a wage as I would do the other 6 days of the week. It wouldn't be "work" to wake up that Sabbath morning and make myself a bowl of cereal to eat. One is work, the other isnt. The Pharisees were teaching both are "work".

What you wrote here is a perfect example of Midrash writing. You have written your Mishnah to counter my Mishnah. See how that works?

In the stories Jesus is putting down the Pharisees for following their Mishnah instead of the Torah. Remember the thread on "Why don't Christians stone gay people?" Basic reason, because they have other laws they follow. The whole first part of Mark 7 is basically Jesus saying, "Once you start killing disobedient children then maybe I'll consider having my disciples wash their hands."

The woman caught in adultery John 7:53-8:11, is the pay back. Jesus had been calling others hypocrites and non followers of Torah, so here they were seeing how zealous Jesus was for the Torah. Looks like he wasn't really any more zealous than the scribes and Pharisees.

To put this in perspective of Catholic vs non-Catholic: The RCC and other orthodox confessions use Canonical scripture and tradition as authoritative for doctrine and practice. Radical zealot Christians claim to hold canonical scripture alone as authoritative. The same divides seem to have always been with us.

It seems to me that the only apparent difference between the Scribes and Pharisees vs Jesus is that Jesus did not adjudicate actual cases of Halakha. Luke 12:13 'Someone in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14But Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed Me judge or executor between you?” '

a reply to: pthena

I find the difference in definition between Mishnah and Midrash confusing as hell. I know that they are both redacted oral traditions and part of the Talmud but the only difference I could find is in method of structure.

Could one be from the school of Hillel and the other from Shammai and like Pauline-Petrine style they try and incorporate both into one religion? I know it's mostly about interpreting the Law and sometimes the Prophets and Wisdom literature and not new mythology (for the most part).

I prefer the Zohar, it's actually interesting.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I mentioned Mark 7 already, the washing hands "law" is from the Midrash and not the Torah. This is what the Rabbi/Pharisee sect were teaching the people. They had elevated their rabbinical commentaries of the Torah above the Torah.

That’s just the thing though, I don’t think Jesus is making any distinction between Midrash and Torah Law. Jesus isn’t teaching the other 613 Commandments from the Torah Laws because IMO he sees them as coming from men’s traditions too.

Think about it, the only Laws Jesus teaches and touches upon throughout his ministry (in the 4 Gospels) is the Ten Commandments…they are the only Laws that Jesus actually fulfils. In fact, Jesus came to fulfil the Law precisely because men had begun to add to it and corrupt it.

In my view, the Ten Commandments are the written form of Spiritual Law and came from someone with spiritual understanding.

Each of the Ten Commandments have spiritual concepts and truth interwoven into them…some of these spiritual truths are easier to see than others, such as “thou shall not kill”, but even the Sabbath Law which men later twisted and distorted over time because they misunderstand it, once had a deeper spiritual meaning behind it as well.

Because men didn’t understand the Spirit behind it, the Sabbath Law became to look more like a carnal Law. But there was a deeper true spiritual meaning behind the Sabbath Law originally IMO. Jesus actually shows the correct way it’s meant to be understood in the Gospels.



- JC

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Taxiarch

Did you know that in his Against Marcion in 207 AD Tertullian doubted the Apostolic status of Paul calling him a "False prophet" and "Apostle to the heretics"?

Yeah... except he was likely speaking of Marcion's version of Paul...

At least from what we know of said person... which we literally know nothing about aside from hostile witnessess

I get what you mean now, Tertullian was accusing him of misusing Paul and not outright calling him a heretic but he does slip up when he says that Christ warned about false Christs (and Messiahs is missing from his quote) and says that Paul could be a false disciple and that Marcion is the only witness to Paul, so he might at times seem Pauline he also betrays the truth of the matter about both Paul's claims AND Marcion.

I am going to rule Tertullian anti-Pauline on the basis of overwhelming evidence in his words and take him more seriously. I still don't like all the early (and none of the late) church fathers but they sometimes are pretty good to read.

a reply to: Joecroft

Jesus isn't recorded as having taught much of Torah but if he did that would be a lot of books like the Gospels say that the whole world couldn't contain.

What Jesus was doing was teaching parables so that people could learn that thing like Tanakh stories have more than one meaning. He did this so they could keep the Tanakh and reinterpret it with Love, that's why he says it's built on love. Hillel also taught this so it's no surprise but Hillel and Jesus were both encouraging rigorous Berean like study of the holy scriptures.

He would never show so much reverence for and fulfill the Law (Torah) if he believe that it was the teachings of man and not Divine.

And he said it shall never pass not one iota so I think he had a great respect for both written and oral teachings as an oral teacher he would have to. His parables were oral teachings that got written down and when he goes at the Pharisees it's for disobeying the law and not for having it as that made them hypocrites.

He was freeing up interpretation of the Law in conformity with logic and the conscience (as did the people of the DSS) and was friends with many Pharisees even eating with them (and being a bit rude, an obvious Roman interpolation as he was a guest) in the story and discussing the Tanakh with the Doctors of the Law.

I get tired of the whole evil Jewish oral law talk because it's misguided. Jesus didn't hate it or the Pharisees Christianity has traditions that aren't Biblical and books of Biblical commentary by the thousands just like the Talmud except nobody reads them because they haven't even read the Bible.

a reply to: Taxiarch

Originally posted by Taxiarch
Jesus isn't recorded as having taught much of Torah but if he did that would be a lot of books like the Gospels say that the whole world couldn't contain.

Think about it though if Jesus was teaching all 613 Torah Laws then at least some of them should have found there way into the New Testament stories…The only Laws I see Jesus teaching and bringing a greater understanding on in the Gospels, is all of the Ten Commandments…

Originally posted by Taxiarch
He would never show so much reverence for and fulfill the Law (Torah) if he believe that it was the teachings of man and not Divine.

Yes precisely; The added Laws by men don’t have the Spirit running through them, which is why Jesus isn’t fulfilling those types of Laws etc…

Where as the Ten Commandments, were written by someone with Spiritual knowledge, and therefore have Spiritual Law encoded into them…Jesus is fulfilling those Laws because they have real grains of spiritual truth running through them i.e. they come from God.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
And he said it shall never pass not one iota so I think he had a great respect for both written and oral teachings as an oral teacher he would have to. His parables were oral teachings that got written down and when he goes at the Pharisees it's for disobeying the law and not for having it as that made them hypocrites.

Yes, I agree I don’t see the written Law as evil as such, and I don’t think Jesus did either, but of course I think Jesus only saw the Ten commandments as having true spiritual Laws encoded into them. The Ten are the Laws which I believe Jesus referred to when he said “the Law will never pass away etc”…This is also why Jesus isn’t going around teaching the other Laws IMO…

More importantly there’s a very good reason why Jesus says “the Law will never pass away”. The reason is because no one incarnates with Spiritual knowledge, because it’s something that has to be acquired through ones life walk. So by default everyone starts out with faith and being under the written Law until they eventually move into Spiritual truth and come to knowledge of “Spiritual Law”…

The written Law acts as a starting point and catalyst; it’s keeps you on the straight and narrow so to speak, until you eventually come into spiritual Law. And because the written Law has spiritual Law contained within, it helps guide a person on their journey into Spiritual Law/truth. Therefore the written Law is useful and is why Jesus said “it will never pass away”

So from one perspective the Law is seen as bad or not the ideal because everyone is supposed to be led by Spiritual Law, which is kinda true. But from another perspective the written Law helps a person go on that journey into finding the true Spiritual Law, which is good.

It’s a similar parallel to the good and evil learned in the garden of Eden story. The duality allows you to find the truth which is wisdom. The darkness helps you see the light, which is good, it’s only the staying in the darkness which is what’s bad.


- JC

a reply to: Taxiarch

I find the difference in definition between Mishnah and Midrash confusing as hell.

Me too. I think I may have misused Mishnah where Midrash would have been more appropriate. Whoops!

Could one be from the school of Hillel and the other from Shammai and like Pauline-Petrine style they try and incorporate both into one religion?

Personally, I think the Gospels contain much anachronistic material, written after the destruction of Temple and Sanhedrin. Reflecting the type of debates held between the two great rebellions back into a time presumably 60 years prior. The Gospels are not much good as historic source material, as you have already stated earlier.

While the Temple and Sanhedrin stood, those two institutions would have had the authority to add to existing case law (Halakha) for the passing of judgments, and recording legal precedent, which could then be added also, much as say the U.S. Supreme court relies on written law and case law to render judgment, and those decisions are in turn added to the body of case law.

As for Christianity, I don't think they were any more doctrinaire than any one else, no set canon of scripture, no creed, etc. until the two great "heresies" of Arianism and Palagianism, dealt with by Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 298 – 2 May 373) and Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430) respectively. In the case of Athanasius, he was exiled several times because the Christian Emperors of his time were predominately Arians. Augustine was most responsible for the placing of Paul, especially Romans, front and center as source of doctrine of original sin.

a reply to: pthena

Augustine makes sense that was right after Nicea, I try to only read pre Nicea writings because it was before the concept of universal religion was pervasive especially the first two centuries, Hermas, Clement, Clement and others aren't bad while Epiphanius is unreliable and I don't trust Iranaeus and I don't know much about Origen but I think Pauline theology getting a huge push from Augustine makes sense.

You should look into the schools of Hillel, Gamaliel (although to Jews he is semi tainted do to his "appearance" in the NT), and Shammai, they were the three major rabbis in the time just before to after Christ. In fact the Talmud places Jesus back about 100 years and in Rabbinical school. Then there is the Safed scroll where he is twins with a Judas/Judah named Jesus ben Halachmee, whatever that means.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Taxiarch

Originally posted by Taxiarch
Jesus isn't recorded as having taught much of Torah but if he did that would be a lot of books like the Gospels say that the whole world couldn't contain.

Think about it though if Jesus was teaching all 613 Torah Laws then at least some of them should have found there way into the New Testament stories…The only Laws I see Jesus teaching and bringing a greater understanding on in the Gospels, is all of the Ten Commandments…

Originally posted by Taxiarch
He would never show so much reverence for and fulfill the Law (Torah) if he believe that it was the teachings of man and not Divine.

Yes precisely; The added Laws by men don’t have the Spirit running through them, which is why Jesus isn’t fulfilling those types of Laws etc…

He didn't show reverence to or come to fulfill the "added Laws by men"

Matthew 5:17-19 The Law and the Prophets

" Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) or Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Heaven and earth haven't passed, Jesus hasn't returned and the Torah and Prophets, the Tanakh is still as valid as it ever was and was obviously not the laws of men in the eyes of Jesus.

Where as the Ten Commandments, were written by someone with Spiritual knowledge, and therefore have Spiritual Law encoded into them…Jesus is fulfilling those Laws because they have real grains of spiritual truth running through them i.e. they come from God.

So you think that the only valid part of the New Testament is the ten commandments. No big deal it just doesn't make sense that Jesus esteemed both Torah and the Prophets so highly, highly enough to not violate them because he needed to die without sin and fulfill prophecy and have them attached to the account of his life if the teachings were to be abandoned.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
And he said it shall never pass not one iota so I think he had a great respect for both written and oral teachings as an oral teacher he would have to. His parables were oral teachings that got written down and when he goes at the Pharisees it's for disobeying the law and not for having it as that made them hypocrites.

Yes, I agree I don’t see the written Law as evil as such, and I don’t think Jesus did either, but of course I think Jesus only saw the Ten commandments as having true spiritual Laws encoded into them. The Ten are the Laws which I believe Jesus referred to when he said “the Law will never pass away etc”…This is also why Jesus isn’t going around teaching the other Laws IMO…

I see were your misunderstanding is, when you hear Jesus speak of the Torah is any time he says Law. Law and the Prophets is the Torah and the Prophets, not the ten commandments only. Reinterpretation was his style of teaching not abolition.

More importantly there’s a very good reason why Jesus says “the Law will never pass away”.

The Torah will never pass away because it's divinely inspired.

The reason is because no one incarnates with Spiritual knowledge, because it’s something that has to be acquired through ones life walk. So by default everyone starts out with faith and being under the written Law until they eventually move into Spiritual truth and come to knowledge of “Spiritual Law”…

See, you just reinterpreted the New Testament as Jesus did the Old. Same same.

The written Law acts as a starting point and catalyst; it’s keeps you on the straight and narrow so to speak, until you eventually come into spiritual Law. And because the written Law has spiritual Law contained within, it helps guide a person on their journey into Spiritual Law/truth. Therefore the written Law is useful and is why Jesus said “it will never pass away”

So from one perspective the Law is seen as bad or not the ideal because everyone is supposed to be led by Spiritual Law, which is kinda true. But from another perspective the written Law helps a person go on that journey into finding the true Spiritual Law, which is good.

It’s a similar parallel to the good and evil learned in the garden of Eden story. The duality allows you to find the truth which is wisdom. The darkness helps you see the light, which is good, it’s only the staying in the darkness which is what’s bad.

- JC

I don't personally follow the Torah like a devout Levite or Cohen or even a casually observant Jew, I follow my God given gifts of conscience and wisdom and take everything as a parable, the New Testament and the Old Testament are books of hidden wisdom to me personally and not something I take as factual history.

a reply to: Taxiarch

Originally posted by Taxiarch
He didn't show reverence to or come to fulfill the "added Laws by men"

Yes, that’s what I’ve been saying all along, but with just a slightly different take on it than yourself.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
Heaven and earth haven't passed, Jesus hasn't returned and the Torah and Prophets, the Tanakh is still as valid as it ever was and was obviously not the laws of men in the eyes of Jesus.

Just for the record here, I’m not a Christian. I’m more of a Gnostic but I do believe that Jesus taught great spiritual truth.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
Matthew 5:17-19 The Law and the Prophets

" Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) or Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
…
So you think that the only valid part of the New Testament is the ten commandments.

No that’s not what I’m saying. Jesus teaches about the nature of God through parables, so they are just as important as Jesus teachings about the Law.

But the only Laws I see Jesus predominantly teaching and bringing greater understanding on, is the Ten Commandments. For example, he teaches about marriage, he teaches about how it’s wrong to kill people, he teaches people how to understand the Sabbath better and so on and so forth…

If Jesus was teaching all of the extra 613 Torah Laws and bearing in mind not all that was written about Jesus made into the “so called” 4 canonical gospels, then statistically speaking at least some of those (613 Torah Laws) teachings should have made there way into text.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
No big deal it just doesn't make sense that Jesus esteemed both Torah and the Prophets so highly, highly enough to not violate them because he needed to die without sin and fulfill prophecy and have them attached to the account of his life if the teachings were to be abandoned.

You are essentially using a Christian theological argument to defend your position. In that Jesus esteemed the Law so much which is why he had to…or needed to die without sin.

From the above it appears you are a Christian but you also wrote this below in another post…

Originally posted by Taxiarch
But the fact of the matter is the Gospels are pure fiction, not historical fiction, too many miracles for it to be true a la walking on water and feeding 3 or 5000 people with a few fish (depending on what book).

So I’m not sure what to make of it.

Anyway, to answer your point about Matthew 5 verses 17 to 19. When Jesus said he hadn’t come to abolish the Prophets, I don’t believe he’s tying in aspects of Law with the word “Prophets”, he’s only talking about not abolishing The Prophets IMO, i.e. no element of Law is being brought into play with that statement. And the reason he’s not abolishing the Prophets, is because they contain great teachings about the nature of God.

When he said he hasn’t come to abolish the Law, which Law is he talking about; Torah Law including all of the 613 Laws, or Torah Law just including the Ten Commandments, I believe it’s the later for reasons already explained…

Also, according to prophecy Jesus is said to come to fulfil the Law, which in my view means explaining those Laws better to the people. Which Jesus does do with the Ten Commandments, because we can clearly see him expanding on them in the texts…but where does Jesus teach about the other 613 Laws…?

Originally posted by Taxiarch
I see were your misunderstanding is, when you hear Jesus speak of the Torah is any time he says Law. Law and the Prophets is the Torah and the Prophets, not the ten commandments only. Reinterpretation was his style of teaching not abolition.

See my comment above…

Originally posted by Taxiarch
I don't personally follow the Torah like a devout Levite or Cohen or even a casually observant Jew, I follow my God given gifts of conscience and wisdom and take everything as a parable, the New Testament and the Old Testament are books of hidden wisdom to me personally and not something I take as factual history.

This is great, you should follow your “God given gifts of conscience and wisdom” because the Spirit of the living God resides in you, and everyone else.

And yes, there is a lot of coded wisdom in the Parables of Jesus, including the stories themselves. For example some people don’t see Jesus walking on water literally, but see it as referring to having power over or moving in the spirit.

Although regarding history vs parables, I believe it’s a combination of the two…I don’t think Rome could have (forced) gotten people to accept it, if it didn’t actually contain some true history and real historical figures etc…even if many of those figures didn’t actually do all of the things the texts state they did…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

I am also more Gnostic than Christian, big into Nag Hammadi, I just started reading Philo Judaeus today (vol. 1) who is like an early Jewish Gnostic that speaks of the Logos which is translated Reason but in Christianity it means Word and Reason, something I have yet to look into as to why.

So I view the Bible as a parable or allegory yet believe that YHWH is the demiurge and not God Most High, which the Bible actually supports.

You're right that the Mosaic law was not much expounded upon by Jesus in the New Testament, but Peter masterfully does so in the best book you have never read, Recognitions of Clement, a book possibly as old as the New Testament or written/revised shortly after.

It is a deep book that discusses evolution vs. creation, atomic theory and the Torah, as well as the teachings of Jesus on, and like I said Jesus was an interpreter of the Torah, not an abolitionist of.

Which makes its transition to Sethian Gnosticism interpreting the god of Abraham as a malevolent and vindictive lesser god and Abraham as a dupe. So I am not one who follows the god of Abraham or the demiurge, my God is God Most High the Great (unseen) Spirit and followers of the Great Spirit don't need laws or oaths being addicted to Righteousness and Truth.

But the Jewish followers of Jesus were staunch Yahwists who needed a way to interpret their Holy Books without seeing God as a demiurge so he introduced a thing called the parable as a means of reconciling common sense with the brutal stories of the Old Testament, the point, lost on modern Christianity, being that the Torah did not need to be taken literally to be fulfilled.

Peshers, Midrash and Mishnah and the Zohar all do the same thing as does Philo Judaeus, who I believe every person who studies the Bible should consider a Prophet and study vigorously as his allegorical and philosophical doctrines of interpretation are second to none (I have read parts of his work but just got vols. 1&2 yesterday).

Truth be told James and the Holy Spirit decreed that only the 4 laws in Acts were all that was required of Greeks, Romans and the nations so as not to burden them with laws that were never required of non Jews.

But the NT also declares that people should study the scriptures like the Bereans so obviously some value is placed in the entire Tanakh, not for legalism but morality and esoteric wisdom.

So I basically agree with you.

a reply to: Taxiarch

It shows that neither of you believe God preserved his words to all generation as promised in Psalm 12:6,7. The proof is you argue about Tertullian's Paul and Marcion's Paul.

But let me tell you the Paul of the preserved bible is neither, he is Jesus Christ's Paul. Called by Jesus himself, and sent by Jesus to the Gentiles. But Paul never neglected his own he always reached out to them first. Until he wipe his hands with them and went just to the Gentiles.

After the rejection of Jesus by the Jews via the Holy Ghost through Stephan God set Israel aside and moved on with the new testament in Christ blood to justify, to save and to make men righteous by faith alone on the finished work of the cross.

this is why many of you have a hard time accepting scriptures, just like Martin Luther you cannot make the two fit together and you try and try. Yet all that can be done is to reject god's word and accept the parts you like and claim all else is either error or made up.

You both will study, argue and listen to other men and you will never come to the knowledge of the truth.