Did Jesus' Teachings Abolish the Old Testament Laws?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).
Perhaps the most widespread controversies about the teachings of Jesus concern His attitude toward the laws of God recorded in the Old Testament.

The approach of most churches and denominations regarding Jesus is that He brought a new teaching differing considerably from the instructions of the Old Testament. The common view is that the teachings of Christ in the New Testament annulled and replaced the teachings of the Old Testament. But do they?

It doesn't ultimately matter what people say about Him. Nor does it really matter what interpretations they give of what He said. What truly matters is what He really said, and whether we're going to believe and accept what He said.

Clear statement in the Sermon on the Mount

The Sermon on the Mount is a good place to begin. Since this is the longest recorded statement of Jesus Christ's teachings, we should expect to find in it His view toward the laws of God as recorded in the Old Testament. And indeed we do.

One of the reasons for some of Jesus' statements in the Sermon on the Mount is that—because His teaching was so different from that of the Pharisees and Sadducees—some people believed His intention was to subvert the authority of God's Word and substitute His own in its place.

But His real intention was to demonstrate that many of the things the Pharisees and Sadducees taught were contrary to the original teachings of the Torah (or Law) of Moses, the first five books of the Bible. Jesus refuted the erroneous ideas people had formed regarding Him with three emphatic declarations about the law. Let's look at them.

"I did not come to destroy but to fulfill"

Jesus explains His view of the law very early in the Sermon on the Mount: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).

So immediately we see that Jesus had no intention of destroying the law. He even tells us to not even think such a thing. Far from being antagonistic to the Old Testament Scriptures, He said He had come to fulfill "the Law and the Prophets" and proceeded to confirm their authority. "The Law and the Prophets" was a term commonly used for the Old Testament Scriptures (compare Matthew 7:12).

"The Law" referred to the first five books of the Bible, the books of Moses in which God's laws were written down. "The Prophets" referred not only to the writings of the biblical prophets, but also to the historical books of what came to be known as the Old Testament.

What did Jesus mean when He spoke of fulfilling the law?

Regrettably, the meaning of " fulfilling the law" has been twisted by many who claim the name of Jesus but don't really understand what He taught. They say that since Jesus said He would fulfill the law, we no longer need to keep it.

Another view of "fulfilling the law" is that Jesus "filled full" what was lacking in the law—that is, He completed it, partly canceling it and partly adding to it, forming what is sometimes referred to as "Christ's law" or "New Testament teaching."

The implication of this view is that the New Testament brought a change in the requirements for salvation and that the laws given in the Old Testament are obsolete. But do either of these views accurately reflect what Jesus meant?

Jesus' view of fulfilling the law

The Greek word pleroo, translated "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17, means "to make full, to fill, to fill up . . . to fill to the full" or "to render full, i.e. to complete" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2002, Strong's number 4137).

In other words, Jesus said He came to complete the law and make it perfect. How? By showing the spiritual intent and application of God's law. His meaning is clear from the remainder of the chapter, where He showed the spiritual intent of specific commandments.

Some distort the meaning of "fulfill" to have Jesus saying, "I did not come to destroy the law, but to end it by fulfilling it." This is inconsistent with His own words. Through the remainder of the chapter, He showed that the spiritual intent of the law made it more broadly applicable, not that it was annulled or no longer necessary.

Jesus, by explaining, expanding and exemplifying God's law, fulfilled a prophecy of the Messiah found in Isaiah 42:21: "The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will exalt the law, and make it honorable." The Hebrew word gadal, translated "exalt" or "magnify" (KJV), literally means "to be or become great" (William Wilson, Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, "Magnify").

Jesus Christ did exactly that, showing the holy, spiritual intent, purpose and scope of God's law through His teachings and manner of life. He met the law's requirements by obeying it perfectly in thought and deed, both in the letter and in the intent of the heart.

All will be fulfilled

The second major statement given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, in the exact same context, makes it even clearer that He did not come to destroy, rescind, nullify or abrogate the law: "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).

With these words, Jesus likened the continuance of the law to the permanence of heaven and earth. He is saying that God's spiritual laws are immutable, inviolable and indestructible. They can only be fulfilled, never abrogated.

We should note that in this verse a different Greek word is used for "fulfilled": ginomai, meaning "to become, i.e. to come into existence . . . to come to pass, happen" or "to be made, done, finished" (Thayer's, Strong's number 1096).

Until the ultimate completion of God's plan to glorify humanity in His Kingdom comes to pass—that is, as long as there are still fleshly human beings—the physical codification of God's law in Scripture is necessary. This, Jesus explained, is as certain as the continued existence of the universe.

His servants must keep the law

The third statement of Jesus, quoted earlier in chapter 2, pronounces that our fate rests on our attitude toward and treatment of God's holy law. Again, "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least [by those] in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great [by those] in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19).

The "by those" is added for clarification, since, as explained in other passages, those who persist in lawbreaking and teach others to break God's law will not themselves be in the Kingdom at all.

Jesus makes it very clear that those who follow Him and aspire to His Kingdom have a perpetual obligation to obey and uphold God's law. He is saying that we cannot diminish the law of God by even a jot or tittle—the equivalent in our modern alphabet of the crossing of a "t" or the dotting of an "i."

The value He places on the commandments of God is also unmistakable—as well as the high esteem toward the law He requires from all those who teach in His name. His disapproval falls on those who slight the least of God's commandments, and His honor will be bestowed on those who teach and obey God's commandments.

Since Jesus obeyed the commandments of God, it follows that His servants, too, must keep the same commandments and teach others to do the same (1 John 2:2-6). It is in this way that the true ministers of Christ are to be identified—by their following the example He set for them ( John 13:15).




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Must exceed the scribes and Pharisees

With the next statement in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus leaves no doubt as to what He meant in the previous three declarations.

He meant without question for His disciples to obey God's law—and He was requiring them to obey according to a standard that went beyond anything they'd heard before. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20).

Who were the scribes and Pharisees? The scribes were the most renowned teachers of the law—the interpreters of the law, the learned men, the experts.

The Pharisees, a related group, were commonly viewed as the most exemplary models of Judaism. They formed a sect of Judaism that established a code of morals and rituals more rigid than that spelled out in the law of Moses, basing much of their practices on years of traditions. The scribes and Pharisees were both highly strict and highly respected in Judaism (Acts 26:5).

While the scribes were the experts, the Pharisees professed the purest practice of righteousness. So when Jesus stated that one's righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, this was a startling declaration!

The Pharisees were looked up to as those who had attained the very pinnacle of personal righteousness, and the common people supposed that such heights of spirituality were far beyond their reach. But Jesus asserted that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees wasn't enough to entitle them to enter the Kingdom of which He spoke! What hope, then, did others have?

Jesus condemns religious hypocrisy

In actual fact, there was a real problem with the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. The heart of the matter was that their righteousness was defective in that it was external only. They appeared to obey the law to those who observed them, but broke God's law inwardly, where it couldn't be seen by others.

Notice Jesus' scathing denunciation of their hypocrisy in making a show of religion: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence . . . For you . . . indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness . . . You also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (Matthew 23:25-28).

These self-appointed religious teachers emphasized minor aspects of the law while neglecting more important issues. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone" (verse 23).

Jesus was concerned that every part of the righteous requirement be obeyed, and angry that they were blind to the "weightier" parts—the major spiritual aspects—of the law.

While they were fastidious with their ceremonial traditions, at the same time they took liberties to disobey God's direct commands. In some situations they actually elevated their traditions above the clear commands of God (Matthew 15:1-9).

Behind their actions was the base motive of self-exaltation and self-interest. They went public with what should have been their more private devotions toward God—prayer, fasting and giving of alms—all so they could be seen and thought of by others as righteous (Matthew 6:1-6; 23:5-7).

Religious leaders did not keep the spirit of God's law

Immediately after His statement that He had no intention of doing away with God's law, Jesus proceeded to give examples of the traditions and teachings of the Jewish religious leaders that completely missed the point or even contradicted the spiritual intent of God's laws.

The first example He gave was the Sixth Commandment, "You shall not murder." All that the Pharisees understood about this commandment was that the act of murder was prohibited. Jesus taught what should have been obvious, that the intent of the Sixth Commandment was not just to prohibit the literal act of murder, but every evil attitude of heart and mind that led to murder—including unjust anger and contemptuous words (Matthew 5:21-26).

He did likewise with their narrow view of the Seventh Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery." The Pharisees of the day understood the physical act of sexual relations with a woman outside of marriage to be sin. They should also have known, as in the case of the Sixth Commandment, that lust for another woman was sinful because the one lusting had already broken the commandment in his heart.

These are examples of the "righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" that Jesus characterized as making the outside of the cup and dish clean, while on the inside remaining "full of greed and self-indulgence" (Matthew 23:25, NRSV).

Jesus instructed His disciples that God's law must indeed be obeyed outwardly, but it must also be obeyed in the spirit and intent of the heart. When Jesus taught such heartfelt obedience to God's laws, He was faithful to what the Old Testament taught: "For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7).

The prophet Jeremiah looked forward to a time when God would establish a new covenant in which God promised to "put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33). God's original intent for His law was that people would observe it from their hearts (Deuteronomy 5:29). The failure of human beings to obey God's law in the "inward being" (Psalm 51:6, NRSV) inevitably led to outward disobedience.

Jesus did not change the law

Jesus prefaced His contrast of the scribes' and Pharisees' narrow interpretation of the law with its true spiritual intent using the words, "You have heard that it was said . . . But I say to you . . ." (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28).

Some erroneously think Jesus' intention was to contrast His own teaching with that of Moses and thereby declare Himself as the only true authority. They assume that Jesus was either opposed to the Mosaic law or was modifying it in some way.

But it's hard to imagine that Jesus, just after delivering the most solemn and emphatic proclamation of the permanence of God's law and emphasizing His own high regard for it, would now undermine the authority of that law by other pronouncements. Jesus wasn't inconsistent; He honored and upheld the law in all His statements.

In this passage He is not pitting Himself against the Mosaic law, nor is He claiming a superior spirituality. What He was doing was refuting the wrong interpretations perpetuated by the scribes and Pharisees.

This is why He declared that one's righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus was restoring, in the minds of His listeners, the Mosaic precepts to their original place, purity and power. (For a better understanding of these laws, request or download your free copy of the booklet The Ten Commandments.)

It should also be obvious that because the same God is the Author of Old and New Covenant alike, there can be no vital conflict between them, and that the fundamental laws of morality underlying both must be and are in full accord. God tells us in Malachi 3:6, "I am the LORD, I do not change . . ."



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Jesus and the Sabbath

Among those who claim to follow Jesus, no biblical command has aroused as much controversy as the Fourth Commandment— God's instruction to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy (Exodus 20:8-11). Here in particular we find that people's interpretations of Jesus' teaching are all over the map.

Some argue that Jesus annulled all of the Ten Commandments but that nine were reinstituted in the New Testament—all except the Sabbath. Some believe that Jesus replaced the Sabbath with Himself, and that He is now our "rest." Some believe that no Sabbath at all is needed now, that we can rest or worship on any day or at any time we choose.

Regardless of which argument one uses, an overwhelming portion of traditional Christianity believes that Sunday, the first day of the week, has replaced the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week.

Can we find support for these views in Christ's practice or teaching? In light of Jesus' clear teaching on the permanence of God's laws, what do we find when it comes to His attitude toward the Sabbath day?

In studying the Gospels, one of the first things we should notice is that Jesus' custom was to attend the synagogue for worship on God's Sabbaths (Luke 4:16). This was His regular practice. On this particular occasion, He even announced His mission as Messiah to those in the synagogue that day.

Interestingly, we later find that Paul's custom was also to worship and teach in the synagogues on the Sabbath day (Acts 17:2-3). Neither he nor Jesus ever so much as hinted to their listeners that they needn't be there or that they should worship on a different day!

Confrontations over how, not whether, to keep the Sabbath

Where many people jump to wrong conclusions about Jesus and the Sabbath is in His confrontations with the scribes and Pharisees. Yet these confrontations were never over whether to keep the Sabbath—only over how it should be kept. There is a crucial difference between the two!

For example, Jesus boldly challenged the Jews concerning their interpretation of Sabbath observance by performing healings on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6).

According to the Pharisees, rendering medical attention to someone, unless it were a matter of life and death, was prohibited on the Sabbath. And since none of these healings involved a life-and- death situation, they thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath.

But as the Savior, Jesus understood the purpose of the Sabbath, that it was a perfectly appropriate time to bring His message of healing, hope and redemption to humanity and to live that message through His actions.

To make His point, Jesus asked the Pharisees the question, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4).

He exposed their hypocrisy in that they saw nothing wrong with working to rescue an animal that fell into a pit on the Sabbath day, or watering an animal on that day, yet they were condemning Him for helping a human being—whose worth was far greater than that of any animal—on the Sabbath (Luke 13:15-17; Matthew 12:10-14).

He was rightfully angry at their inability to see that they placed their own traditions and interpretations over the true purpose of Sabbath observance (Mark 3:5). Yet they were so spiritually blind that they hated Him for exposing their distortions of God's commands (verse 6).

On one occasion Jesus' disciples, as they walked through a field on the Sabbath day, picked handfuls of grain so they would have something to eat. The disciples weren't harvesting the field; they were merely grabbing a quick snack to take care of their hunger.

But the Pharisees insisted this was not lawful. Jesus used an example from Scripture to show that the spirit and intent of the law were not broken and that God's law allowed for mercy (Mark 2:23-26).

In this context Jesus gives the true purpose of the Sabbath. "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," He said (verse 27). The Pharisees had reversed the priorities of the law of God. They had added so many meticulous regulations and traditions to the Sabbath commandment that trying to keep it as they demanded had become an enormous burden for people rather than the blessing God had intended it to be (see Isaiah 58:13-14).

Jesus then claimed to have authority to say how the Sabbath should be observed: "Therefore, the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath" (verse 28).

Judaism forsook Moses, Christianity forsook Christ

When it comes to Jesus and the law, we have to conclude that the "Christian" religion has let us down by not holding to the original teachings of Christ, who Himself held to the original teachings of the Old Testament scriptures. And as the teachings of Jewish religious leaders corrupted Moses, so did later teachers of Christ—that is, false teachers claiming to represent Him—corrupt His teachings. In reality, Jesus and Moses agreed.

Let's ask a question here. If Jesus were here today, which day would He observe as the Sabbath? It would be the day commanded in the Ten Commandments, the seventh day.

Jesus kept the law and expected His disciples to do the same. He made clear His attitude about anyone diminishing one iota from the law. Anyone not keeping it is only using the good name of Christ without doing what He said.

He warns us: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:21-23).

So where does this lead us? It leads us to the conclusion that not all churches claiming to represent Christ really represent Him accurately. Like so many of the ancient Pharisees, they have accumulated traditions that lead them astray.

Jesus often pointed out that His teaching was based in the Old Testament Scriptures. When others challenged Him concerning His teaching He responded, "Have you not read . . . ?" before pointing His challengers to the Scriptures that supported what He had said (Matthew 12:3, 5; 19:4; 22:31).

Those who say that Jesus departed from the authority of the Old Testament scriptures are simply wrong. I have demonstrated that the Jewish religious leaders of His own day and most professing Christians today are incorrect in their assessment of Jesus' teachings. Jesus faithfully taught the written word of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ is consistent, "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). He has not changed His view of God's law!

Please contribute to this thread. It is a free thinking discussion on any christian topic. I simply wanted to start out with the case about Jesus and the OT laws.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Where do you get off saying that I am following the catholic ways? I am in full support of the 7th day sabbath.
I realize the seventh day Sabbath is right but the reason it is critical is that it (Sunday) is the fulfillment of the "antichrist" prophecies. The little horn speaking blasphemies and the one in the temple claiming to be God. The Catholic church claims that the proof that their authority is above God's is the fact that they could replace the Sabbath with a day of their choosing.
They say it, this is the mark of their authority. It is the mark of the beast. In their own writings they show it for what it is and are unapologetic.
So, if the RCC is the Beast and the Pope is the antichrist, don't you think it might be important to not have a Catholic soteriology. (salvation theology)
What I was saying is that post of yours on the preexistence thread is exactly what is in the catechism on baptism.
Satan can masquerade in any form he wants, including apparent Sabbath keepers. Do you think I am kidding? I should know, living my entire life as a Seventh Day Adventist. Some of these guys are holy on Saturday and stab you in the back, the next day.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Well, thanks for clearing that up for me. I think I get what you're saying there. Interesting facts on the sabbath and sunday worship in the catholic church. You say they call it a mark of authority? That's pretty stupid of them if you ask me. I think the Catholic Study Bible has a reference to the harlot woman of revelation 17. They claim to be the harlot woman.... something I always believed to begin with. It's like the RCC is admitting to being the false church and anti-christ but no one in the organization notices. Just shows how powerful Satan's blinding deception really is.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Some of them yes and some no. The New testament is the authority on this, if the New Testament has in, it's still in effect. Otherwise no.
The sentence for crimes was also reduced, for example Adultery was punishable by death. With Jesus ransom, you could be forgiven, if you were an unrepentant adulterer you're evicted from the congregation.

Christian didn't stone people outside the city gates.

Locoman think about it, if you really want to embrace the Mosaic Law, you have to take an adulterer outside and stone them to death. What that's too barbaric?
I agree, so no stoning, no circumcision, I can eat pork chops, work on the sabbath, oh but one thing that does carry on, I can't drink blood.

You need to study Acts Chapter 15 my friend

The Council at Jerusalem
1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."
2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ......

28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.


Of all the things he could of mentioned from the old Mosiac law that was being debated because of the circumcision issue, look what he picked.

We don't have to worry that our local butcher sacrificed the cow to an idol that we are getting our steak from, or he strangled it today.

The things that we do encounter today are,
the intake of Blood & sexual immorality.
That solidified the end of the law.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


The difference between what a christain should follow and a Jew should follow concerning the laws is that instead of defining it as mosaic for christians, they are more of a spiritual law. The mosaic form of the law was flawed in the fact that it was a physical law that could be abused for the advantage of the religious leaders. Just look at Jesus' dispute with the scribes and pharisees. They became so high on their authority that they were no longer keeping God's laws in the proper manner. Jesus came to change that. We keep the laws in our hearts and systematically keep them so that they are not burdensom. We as christains should have joy in the laws. Why is it so hard for you guys to see that Jesus was preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God, but doing it through the teachings of the Old Testament. He was teaching the Jews how to properly follow God's laws and giving even more emphasis on these laws.... lust = adultry, hatred = murder, etc. By a Jewish standpoint, Jesus put more of a burden on the mosaic laws but the Jews didn't understand that Jesus was preaching on the spiritual side of the laws. The bible even says that Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it... not do away with but to fill in a void or fill to it's greatest potential. That void was the absense of the Holy Spirit. Jesus made the Laws whole when He invited the Holy Spirit to fill the hearts of men to help guide men to live righteously.

My argument is that the laws must be kept and Jesus never did away with them. The mosaic aspect of the laws are done away with and are fulfilled through the Holy Spirit given by Christ as our "stone tablets". Does that make any sense to you?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 

admitting to being the false church and anti-christ but no one in the organization notices.
Maybe ordinary parishioners, but anyone in the organization knows. They gloat over it. Why do you think Nicea is so evil? They say the Council is the highest authority, above the Bible, and above God. They say the Pope is God. They do not advertise it to the masses but they write it in their internal documents. The title of the pope is basically the antichrist, and God on Earth.
I can not think of something I would like to walk away with from the Catholic church. How are you saved? That's an important question. Are you going to trust the Catholic church for your doctrine of salvation? They have proved themselves to be wrong about everything else. They want to pretend that the Reformation was just an understandable reaction to the selling of indulgences. It goes deeper than that and it is the Gospel, which the RCC eliminated and replaced with their own doctrine of receiving salvation piecemeal. When you are baptized, it takes away original and restores free will. You are then expected to go on as this new person and not sin. If you do, there is something wrong with you and you have to be punished before you can be forgiven for that particular sin. You get restored by confessing your sin and doing penance, then Jesus is re-crucified and his flesh and blood restores you, temporarily, because somewhere down the road, you are bound to sin again. Unless you are sanctified as in a living Saint.
This of course is all wrong. Baptism is you symbolic death in Jesus. Jesus died once for all sin. He does not have priests handing out newly crucified flesh. There is no magical restoration of your free will. You are not a new sinless person. Your new person is held for you and you have that life, by faith. Which means you do not have it now, but you understand that you need never doubt that it is really there and you will have it.
Because you are dead in Christ the rule that demands your punishment holds no power over you. Becoming the good person you wish to be requires a growing process and as long as you are growing, that is evidence that you are spiritually alive.
The SDA has been in an internal war for thirty years over salvation doctrine. The thing is, the big powers that be at the top of the church hierarchy wanted to push out actual theologians and replace them with bureaucrats at the top. Once they got control, they started looking at the bottom line and decided we do not need to talk about free grace because it might take away from our emphasis on Sabbath keeping. So they replaced the Reformation Gospel with the Catholic version of salvation. (that was like 50 years ago) thirty years ago was when people in the church started investigating the reformation and realized we had completely moved away from it and had gone over to the dark side. That was when the war started. When the so-called leaders were confronted with it, the protesters ended up getting kicked out for questioning their authority. There had to be an underground movement with believers in the church who were not intimidated. Once people understood the issues, opinion has gradually moved away from the antichrist based theology to the reformation views. Sounds nice but it was tough on a lot of people who were devastated in the process.
Do not be fooled by people pretending to be protestant when they are at the core Catholic. Your leaders will run for cover to their Jesuit masters and laugh at you when it comes down to it. They will worship the beast. The Gospel the Gospel the Gospel. Know it love it.


[edit on 27-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 

Why is it so hard for you guys to see that Jesus was preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God, but doing it through the teachings of the Old Testament.
Are you sure about that? What Old Testament doctines did he preach on? Of course other than how the prophecies were being fulfilled through him.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


He was preaching on the laws. He was preaching throughout all the prophets and laws. Just read through the sermon on the mount.

Also, please visit my thread on Simon Magus being the actual Simon Peter of the RCC. There's a guy I need help with. He's hard-core catholic and keeps throwing this stuff from the catholic encycolapedia at me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
jews lived by laws and commandments.

christians live by principles and commandments.

ill illustrate.

you approach a crosswalk. the signal is red saying that you cant cross.

the law is that you cannot cross when the signal is red.

the principle that this law is taken from is that you should be careful and not get yourself killed.

you look both ways. you dont see any cars anywhere. you decide to cross.

you broke the law, however you did not violate the principle the law is based on.

---------------------------

DO NOT EAT PORK is the law, based on the principle that one should be careful not to harm your body.

THOU SHALL NOT KILL is the law based on the principle of loving your neighbor.

OBSERVE THE SABBATH is the law based on the principle that you should dedicate a certain about of time to focus on god. it also is a principle of keeping yourself balanced and healthy by taking time to relax.

the law is "end"ed - rom 10:4

it served its purpose.

christians are "discharged" from the law - rom 7:6

2 scriptures i have not seen you address

----------------------------------------------------

commandments are slightly different. while they can be based on principles, their purpose is specific.

sacrifices could be considered a commandment.

preaching the gospel is a commandment.

commandments and laws unlike principles can change.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 



Also, please visit my thread on Simon Magus being the actual Simon Peter of the RCC.
I read that thread a long time ago. I did not realize it was on-going. Maybe I should take another look. From what I remember it just looked like a bunch of speculation.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Jesus fulfills the laws in order to bring about understanding among the men on the proper way to follow the laws, and to show the difference between the laws of god and the laws and traditions of men.

Men were not following the laws properly, their was hypocrisy everywhere and people were sinning without even realizing it. They would kill the man who killed, believing that they were not sinning and doing gods work. But vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, thus these killings were not "justified" as the Pharisees taught, but were just more sins.

So, Jesus comes and is the example for all men to follow. He doesn't have to do it because he is not full of sin/mistakes and knows the way. But he does it anyway knowing full well what men will do to him in their sin. So that maybe you would see, understand and follow in his example and walk the path as well.

He doesn't change the laws, he only changed the understanding of them by fulfilling them and following them in the proper manner.

The laws are actually pretty easy to understand. It comes down to 2 very basic principles, and that I think is what Miriam is trying to say. If it imposes on another beings free will and consciousness, then it is wrong and a sin against god. This would of course not include pushing a man out of the way of a car and so forth, as it probably that persons will that you would help them out of harms way etc. And to love god. And as god is within all other people, then that means to love them as yourself.

When I came to learn the path, it was just a matter of being honest and thinking about how people would have to act towards one another in order to be peaceful. From there is was just obvious. Pretty much anyone can do that, and believe for the very works sake. Take an honest look around, see how things could be peaceful while not infringing on the free will of others, and then be that change. Can't expect to live in a society without theft if you yourself are a thief. How can one expect to live in a peaceful and heavenly society that respect your own free will if you do not do the same for others? Makes perfect sense to me.

If you love something, then you will set it free. If it loves you, then it will come back. Thus to love one another we must let them be free and who they are.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I always interpreted it as their ability to forgive sins as the ultimate blasphemy. When one reads through matthew or one of the other two similiar ones, it becomes clear there was a certain undertone to the whole thing...a certain hinting at things left unsaid...let the reader understand.
There are a lot of things on this site that pertain to what jesus said, imho.

I believe that what we learn in life is passed down somehow through genetics, or rather, the ability to learn/relearn things learned in the past becomes heightened after every generation. I believe that as humanity has progressed we have learned to control our thoughts, no just our actions, at a higher and higher rate of success generation after generation, until, here we are, the first time in history a one world government is viable.
If you get to heaven on a bike, organized religion would be the training wheels. God is the master manipulator.
peace!



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 



you seem to know stuff. where is the bible proclaimed as divine except by the words of man?



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
you seem to know stuff. where is the bible proclaimed as divine except by the words of man?


by its fruitage.

this site has many people that offer advice, prophecies, theories and such. you can always tell when what they are saying is worthless when it doesnt make sense, or when the prophecy doesnt come true.

the bible has shown to be reliable. the prophecies not pending, fulfilled. the advice it offers is sound.

even when someone accuses the bible of being a myth (for example the genesis account), it usually stems from a lack of understanding on the accusers part.

the bible is consistant, harmonious and has prevailed against heavy attempts to destroy it (by the church even). everything you would expect from the word of god.

this of course only works when you let the bible speak for itself. if you force the belief of things like hellfire or the trinity, then the bible is full of holes and contradictions.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
He was preaching on the laws. He was preaching throughout all the prophets and laws. Just read through the sermon on the mount.


jesus was jewish. so he ofcourse lived by the law.

but even the sermon on the mount was more than the law. it was the principles that guided the law. jesus was teaching not the "what" but the "why" of the law.

btw locoman. im still waiting on that scripture that says christians are still bound by mosaic law...



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by Locoman8
He was preaching on the laws. He was preaching throughout all the prophets and laws. Just read through the sermon on the mount.


jesus was jewish. so he ofcourse lived by the law.

but even the sermon on the mount was more than the law. it was the principles that guided the law. jesus was teaching not the "what" but the "why" of the law.

btw locoman. im still waiting on that scripture that says christians are still bound by mosaic law...


But he doesn't change the law. When he teaches them the "why" of the law, then he is only bringing understanding of the law, not changing them. So he doesn't not change the laws themselves, but rather changes the understanding on the proper way to follow them.

When you look at the why of the law that Jesus teaches, which commandments are still not to be followed?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
When you look at the why of the law that Jesus teaches, which commandments are still not to be followed?


every "law", because the law was no longer needed.

the mosaic law was set up so that man would understand the need for a saviour. man is imperfect, and they would have forgot that if they didnt have a standard to compare it too. if you want prove of this, just look at people today who live outside bible principles. "to err is to be human" as if it is only natural. "i am made the way god wanted me to be" they say to excuse personality flaws.

the mosaic law was to be a burden

gal 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:

paul is quoting deuteronomy

21:[22] And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
[23] His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God
that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

why is paul quoting deuteronomy? because the mosaic law condemns us to death. nobody can follow the law perfectly and therefore we all die.

it does not matter if you are mother theresa or ghandi or adolf hitler, we all grow old and die.

this is why paul said -

romans 5:[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
[13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
[14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

the law makes us aware of our sin. that is its purpose. this is also why the law bore heavily the requirements of sacrifice. it shows us that we cant redeem ourselves but actually needed a saviour.

the animal sacrifices were to show us what was to come. animals are not worth human blood so no amount of animal sacrifice could redeem even one man, but they were symbolic of the ransom that was to be paid.

when jesus died, the ransom was paid soon after in the "spiritual temple". so if the law was to condemn us and jesus freed us from condemnation, then what need was there for the law?


the problem is that advocates for christians under mosaic law get "standards" and "laws" mixed up. someone says that we arent under the law and they flip out thinking that means we can go on this killing spree.

thats not what it means. killing for example was not ok back then nor is it now. the standards are still there and they are summed up by the 2 commandments jesus outlined.

however the formalities and traditions of the law were no longer needed. christians were no longer required to make sacrifices, or observe the sabbath, or abstain from certain foods. the covenant GOD made with the isrealites was finished. jesus made a new covenant.

instead of worshipping god through tradition and ignorance, now they worshipped him in spirit and in truth.

john 4:[22] Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
[23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 
This seems too simplistic to me. There was more than one purpose or use of the Law. Just because there is one of them eliminated does not mean the law itself is eliminated.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join