• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Your righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees"

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
The text is referring to Abraham's would-be-sacrifice of Isaac as his act of faith, is it not?
The sacrifice of Isaac did not come for another 7 chapters, so no it did not refer to that.

You are probably thinking of Acts 15, and I am prepared to discuss the issues of its canonicity, which many scholars think is a later addition.
I was thinking more in terms of those foolish Galatians.
 

Shermana

Heretic
The sacrifice of Isaac did not come for another 7 chapters, so no it did not refer to that.
Even so, in Genesis 15:8, Abraham's "faith" involves directly communicating with G-d and believing in something that G-d tells him which is quite outlandish. To compare that to simply believing something that someone else says demonstrates that Paul wasn't very close in comparing the relevance. It's hard to compare believing someone else's claims about G-d to someone who actually listened to G-d Himself. Also, where was Abraham's faith in the next part?

He also said to him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.” 8But Abram said, “O Sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?”
9So the Lord said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.”
10Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. 11Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.
So did Abraham lose faith here? Why did he ask for a sign? Why was he told to make sacrifices in order to be told in a dream what will happen? We also see in 26:5 the reason why Abraham was blessed:

New International Version (©1984)
because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."

So....Abraham's reward was due to....keeping the requirements, commands, deecrees, and laws.....

I was thinking more in terms of those foolish Galatians.
Galatians is one of the books I use to show that Paul directly clashes with James and Jesus himself.

As usual, we can see that the Epistles of Paul such as in Galatians differ radically and clash with Jesus himself says. You are welcome to accept them as canonical, but for the sake of objective debate, if you're going to use Paul's epistles to contradict what Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-20, it proves my point. The Righteousness JESUS was referring to was one's obedience to the commandments. To say that Paul says differently is more grist for the mill of showing how the Pauline epistles have warped the original message.

For instance, Paul asks the "foolish Galatians"

are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
Apparently Paul didn't hear when Jesus instructed his disciples to "Strive for the narrow gate" and Jesus's instructions on human behavior. Clearly a contradiction. In fact, this "goal by human effort" makes absolutely no sense in reference to Paul's other epistles considering all the restrictions on behavior he himself puts on.

http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html

Jesus reportedly teaches that BEHAVIORAL requirements (works/deeds), rooted in an internal change of spiritual growth within the person (not external or apart from the person, though the gift of teaching and techniques to achieve this personal change are a gift of grace not earned or deserved by us, but requiring ACTIONS [deeds] to implement), are integral to salvation. While perhaps it is not possible for us to "earn" the "free gift" that Jesus reportedly provides -- a teaching of the universal compassionate love by which the evil within us CAN be transformed into a more holy kindness of love -- the Jesus account clearly includes a behavioral component to his requirements for "salvation." While he does not say that this satisfies any "debt," he still requires it; perhaps he is demanding merely a small partial "payment" as a gesture of "good faith." (In fact, James suggests this by his comments in James 2:26, that we demonstrate our faith -- if it is genuine -- BY our works or deeds.)
Some will say that puny mortals can never perform enough good behavior to "earn" or "merit" salvation based on the value of their deeds -- that the attempts at human righteousness is as "filthy rags."
Aside from the fact that this simply contradicts Jesus, the point is not whether or not our puny mortal attempts at righteousness have sufficient intrinsic value. Jesus never says that compassionate deeds "earn" salvation, or that any of us could ever "merit" the very gift of our existence. He merely sets that as the standard for compliance. Just as a child may offer its parents or grandparents an awkwardly-drawn piece of art, which likely holds little real artistic merit (perhaps in terms of art critics it might be as "filthy rags"), still the parents sincerely and genuinely cherish such efforts. It may not "merit" winning an art contest and may be able to "earn" very little, but loving parents find it good enough to represent the qualities THEY deem of real and lasting value. The point is that Paul sets the standard for salvation as faith or belief in accepting Jesus (see below) while Jesus explicitly rejects this standard (see Matt 7:21-27) and sets the standard at universal compassionate love expressed in actions, as noted in greater detail in the next few paragraphs.
Why would a loving god, as spiritual father on a more perfect scale, for those who believe him to be that, not be able to give even greater acceptance, even of "filthy rags," if sincerely offered as the best effort ... ESPECIALLY if he has said that he would do so?
 
Last edited:

punkdbass

I will be what I will be
This is what I think of Jesus and the Law:

-He does not consider the Oral Torah laws to be binding laws that we MUST follow
-I dont think Jesus rejects the Mosaic Law whatsoever, but I think he values the ethical laws more than the ritual ones. For it is not whether or not one follows a ritual law that determines if he is clean or unclean, rather is is whether they have a good(ethical) heart. "For from out of the heart the mouth speaks"

IMO ethics are the main thing that matters, and God will never reject a good, ethical person.. and I dont think Jesus would have ether
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Even so, in Genesis 15:8, Abraham's "faith" involves directly communicating with G-d and believing in something that G-d tells him which is quite outlandish. To compare that to simply believing something that someone else says demonstrates that Paul wasn't very close in comparing the relevance. It's hard to compare believing someone else's claims about G-d to someone who actually listened to G-d Himself. Also, where was Abraham's faith in the next part?

So did Abraham lose faith here? Why did he ask for a sign? Why was he told to make sacrifices in order to be told in a dream what will happen? We also see in 26:5 the reason why Abraham was blessed:

New International Version (©1984)
because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."

So....Abraham's reward was due to....keeping the requirements, commands, deecrees, and laws.....
Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness, not his action. It's pretty simple but perhaps this is a bunny trail.

Galatians is one of the books I use to show that Paul directly clashes with James and Jesus himself.

As usual, we can see that the Epistles of Paul such as in Galatians differ radically and clash with Jesus himself says. You are welcome to accept them as canonical, but for the sake of objective debate, if you're going to use Paul's epistles to contradict what Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-20, it proves my point. The Righteousness JESUS was referring to was one's obedience to the commandments.
First question, has anyone not broken one of the commandments?
 

Shermana

Heretic
Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness, not his action. It's pretty simple but perhaps this is a bunny trail.

Yes, but as demonstrated Abraham's faith appears to have been quite a bit different than the faith that Paul was preaching, and it says that G-d chose Abraham to begin with because he kept all the statutes and commandments. The Context is a bit of a different picture. And James, when referring to Abraham's faith, brings up Isaac's sacrifice:

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
First question, has anyone not broken one of the commandments?

Irrelevant, that's where repentance comes in. Christ says "I have not come for the righteous".
 

Shermana

Heretic
Okay, so Matthew 5:17 is irrelevant then. Now, how does one obtain righeousness?

How does that possibly render Matthew 5:17 irrelevant? One has to repent of their sins and thus be more obedient to the commandments than the Scribes and Pharisees, should be simple to see what he means. Jesus said one must "Strive for the narrow gate", that means they have to work for their salvation. He says that he did not come for the righteous, what does that mean? That implies there were people who already at the time were perfect in their obedience. The Scribes and Pharisees were often hypocritical in their application of the Law according to their own faulty and artificial interpretations.

One obtains righteousness by being obedient to the commandments and repenting when they fail, and performing penance and atoning for their deeds through actions.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
Because you said that breaking a commandment was irrelevant.

Perhaps you misunderstood. The point was that its irrelevant to ask "Who has never broke any commandments" since it's possible to atone and go back to obedience, though certain sins carry greater weight than others.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Perhaps you misunderstood. The point was that its irrelevant to ask "Who has never broke any commandments" since it's possible to atone and go back to obedience, though certain sins carry greater weight than others.
So what Jesus said in Matthew isn't as critical as you made it out to be?
 

Shermana

Heretic
So what Jesus said in Matthew isn't as critical as you made it out to be?

No, it's very critical. I have no idea why you would think it's not from what I said, and I think you're either deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying or ignoring the implications of what I've said, since you're straw-manning my argument to mean something I didn't. Why don't you explain what you think Jesus meant, and what I said about it. Jesus specifically said you must be more righteous than the Pharisees. You asked if anyone was perfect in the law. I said that's irrelevant because one can go back to righteousness through penance and atonement, then you interpreted what I said to mean that Matthew 5:17 is irrelevant. I don't think you're honestly trying to understand what I meant about what Jesus meant, or what Jesus meant to b begin with. If you're not interested in being more righteous than the Pharisees and thus obedient to the commandments, that's your deal not mine. But Jesus said one must be more obedient to the commandments. If you break and teach others to break the commandments, you shall be known as among the least. If your works are not enough, you will be called lukewarm and cast out. If you are lawless, even if you say "Lord, lord" to Jesus, you will be rejected. What I've said is pretty much clear, repentance involves going back to being obedient and doing atonement, so the only way I can imagine you saying that what I said about Jesus said being "not as critical" is from a deliberate distortion from what I said. Nothing that I said means that what Jesus said is not that critical. I don't know why you'd think I implied that what Jesus said wasn't critical. Do you believe that what Jesus said was not that critical? It seems the grand majority of Christians believe that what Jesus said was not that critical, and I can only wonder if they are just being deliberately dismissive of rest of the facts like this. Why don't you explain what you think I meant so I can see where you're coming from here, and go ahead and explain how you interpret what Jesus said here.
 
Last edited:

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
No, it's very critical. I have no idea why you would think it's not from what I said, and I think you're either deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying or ignoring the implications of what I've said, since you're straw-manning my argument to mean something I didn't. Why don't you explain what you think Jesus meant, and what I said about it. Jesus specifically said you must be more righteous than the Pharisees. You asked if anyone was perfect in the law. I said that's irrelevant because one can go back to righteousness through penance and atonement, then you interpreted what I said to mean that Matthew 5:17 is irrelevant. I don't think you're honestly trying to understand what I meant about what Jesus meant, or what Jesus meant to b begin with. If you're not interested in being more righteous than the Pharisees and thus obedient to the commandments, that's your deal not mine. But Jesus said one must be more obedient to the commandments. If you break and teach others to break the commandments, you shall be known as among the least. If your works are not enough, you will be called lukewarm and cast out. If you are lawless, even if you say "Lord, lord" to Jesus, you will be rejected. What I've said is pretty much clear, repentance involves going back to being obedient and doing atonement, so the only way I can imagine you saying that what I said about Jesus said being "not as critical" is from a deliberate distortion from what I said. Nothing that I said means that what Jesus said is not that critical. I don't know why you'd think I implied that what Jesus said wasn't critical. Do you believe that what Jesus said was not that critical? It seems the grand majority of Christians believe that what Jesus said was not that critical, and I can only wonder if they are just being deliberately dismissive of rest of the facts like this. Why don't you explain what you think I meant so I can see where you're coming from here, and go ahead and explain how you interpret what Jesus said here.
Ok, so Matthew 5:17 speaks of people who are already in the Kingdom who have broken a commandment, therefore obtaining righteosness that is greater than the pharisee's does not come from the Law. How, did people who came before the Law, obtain righeousness?
 

Shermana

Heretic
Ok, so Matthew 5:17 speaks of people who are already in the Kingdom who have broken a commandment, therefore obtaining righteosness that is greater than the pharisee's does not come from the Law. How, did people who came before the Law, obtain righeousness?

It says they will be called the least "in the kingdom". This does not necessarily mean they will be in the kingdom. It says they will be called the least IN the kingdom. This can mean the angels are calling them least. It doesn't necessarily mean the person being called least is in the kingdom. Regardless, Jesus is specifically talking about the Law, in context of the passage. I'm sure anyone reading objectively apart from dogma can see that clearly. As for those "before the Law", it's arguable that there ever truly was a stage "before the Law". How did Noah know which animals were clean? Why did Abraham know to make sacrifices to Malchezdiek? "Righteousness" means obedience to G-d ultimately, in scriptural terms. As I showed, G-d says he chose Abraham because he followed his commandments and laws. Where does it say what those laws and commandments were before then?



New International Version (©1984)
because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."
Nowhere does it say what those requirements, commands, decrees, and laws were before Moses, but apparently Abraham kept them. So then....we see that Abraham's "faith" included complete obedience to whatever those "commands, decrees, and laws" were, and we can possibly ascertain hints from the "Apocryphal" writings.

And the verse you're referring to is 5:19. 5:17 says that Jesus came to "fulfill" the Law (the word fulfill doesn't mean to make no longer necessary, as he says "I did not come to abolish". "Every man must fulfill the Law") the Law.

There's no way around it, the same "Righteousness" that Jesus spoke of is that which David spoke of, which is obedience to G-d and his commandments. We can bring Matthew 7:22-23 into the equation too. Just because you have faith in Jesus and call him "Lord" doesn't mean you won't be cast out. Same thing with the Luke warm.
 
Last edited:

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
It says they will be called the least "in the kingdom". This does not necessarily mean they will be in the kingdom. It says they will be called the least IN the kingdom. This can mean the angels are calling them least. It doesn't necessarily mean the person being called least is in the kingdom. Regardless, Jesus is specifically talking about the Law, in context of the passage. I'm sure anyone reading objectively apart from dogma can see that clearly. As for those "before the Law", it's arguable that there ever truly was a stage "before the Law". How did Noah know which animals were clean? Why did Abraham know to make sacrifices to Malchezdiek? "Righteousness" means obedience to G-d ultimately, in scriptural terms. As I showed, G-d says he chose Abraham because he followed his commandments and laws. Where does it say what those laws and commandments were before then?



Nowhere does it say what those requirements, commands, decrees, and laws were before Moses, but apparently Abraham kept them. So then....we see that Abraham's "faith" included complete obedience to whatever those "commands, decrees, and laws" were, and we can possibly ascertain hints from the "Apocryphal" writings.

And the verse you're referring to is 5:19. 5:17 says that Jesus came to "fulfill" the Law (the word fulfill doesn't mean to make no longer necessary, as he says "I did not come to abolish". "Every man must fulfill the Law") the Law.

There's no way around it, the same "Righteousness" that Jesus spoke of is that which David spoke of, which is obedience to G-d and his commandments. We can bring Matthew 7:22-23 into the equation too. Just because you have faith in Jesus and call him "Lord" doesn't mean you won't be cast out. Same thing with the Luke warm.
So when Jesus said in John 3 that those who believe in Him are not condemned and those who believe not are condemned He's referring to Law?
 

Shermana

Heretic
So when Jesus said in John 3 that those who believe in Him are not condemned and those who believe not are condemned He's referring to Law?

Most likely. The word "Believe in" more likely means "believe in all the things that I'm teaching", as well as "Believe in me that I'm the Moshiach who has been sent to fix all the loose ends and problems in the Pharisaic governance" as well as "Believe in me as the Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53" unless of course you don't believe he meant that one has to actually believe in what he's teaching. The concept of "believing in" as just blind faith without any responsibility to uphold the teaching does not save, according to James. So do you not believe one has to actually obey Jesus's teachings? It seems most "Christians" don't. In fact, it seems a LOT of Christians think that John 3:16 somehow trumps everything Jesus actually teaches as if he contradicts himself and just wastes a lot of breath teaching unnecessary things that don't actually matter or something. And then they usually base all their teachings on Paul from there. So I'm assuming you think one need not actually obey his teachings? (And his teachings apparently include obedience to the commandments).

And if you believe that Isaiah 53 applies, then you should also believe Isaiah 66 applies.

So thus, "believing in Jesus" means more than just believing he "died for your sins", it means actually believing in what he taught and obedience to his teachings. But I notice that this part seems to not be too critical to the grand majority of the Christians, they think Jesus's teachings don't actually matter for some reason. (And I can guess what that reason is). Faith without works is particularly condemned by James, who actually knew Jesus in person and was his brother.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
What exactly do you believe Jesus was, Shermana?

The prophecied Moshiach, the Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53, the one who leads the chosen of Israel by the Father to the Truth of righteousness, the one who revealed the hypocrisy and distortions of the Law of the Pharisees, the one who would usher in the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah where the Law would be written upon the hearts of the elect, the highest of the Angels incarnated, the Firstborn of all Created souls, the "Wisdom", the "Logos", the Greatest created one of the Kingdom, the one who sits at the Right Hand of the Father, he who will physically reign from Jerusalem in the end days.
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
The prophecied Moshiach, the Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53, the one who leads the chosen of Israel by the Father to the Truth of righteousness, the one who revealed the hypocrisy and distortions of the Law of the Pharisees, the one who would usher in the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah where the Law would be written upon the hearts of the elect, the highest of the Angels incarnated, the Firstborn of all Created souls, the "Wisdom", the "Logos", the Greatest created one of the Kingdom, the one who sits at the Right Hand of the Father, he who will physically reign from Jerusalem in the end days.

Ah, okay.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Most likely. The word "Believe in" more likely means "believe in all the things that I'm teaching", as well as "Believe in me that I'm the Moshiach who has been sent to fix all the loose ends and problems in the Pharisaic governance" as well as "Believe in me as the Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53" unless of course you don't believe he meant that one has to actually believe in what he's teaching.
How interesting it is that in every point I bring up, in order to make your point, the verses have to mean something other than what they say.
 

Shermana

Heretic
How interesting it is that in every point I bring up, in order to make your point, the verses have to mean something other than what they say.

You mean what you think they say. How interesting it is that you completely avoid ever explaining what you think the verses mean when asked. As if you know what they REALLY say and I somehow don't of course. As if you've proven somehow that I misinterpreted them with your one-liners. Typical "Christian" mentality. As if you've actually disproven anything I've said. As if this response somehow debunks what I've said about them. As if you've actually responded to my question of "What do you think they meant"? Do you think this is an appropriate substitute for actually addressing my question of what you think the verses mean? Apparently. And of course, you can go ahead and ignore what I said about James denouncing the thing about faith without works. You say "Every point I bring up"....what points? You ignore all my points, and I've shown how each and every one of your "points" is out of context, and you don't even bother to counter my points, you just say things like this. How do you think that looks to the reader?

If you don't want to actually debate my claims or answer questions and if you want to completely ignore the contextual arguments, stick to the discussion board. If you're going to make "points", you're going to have counter to the counters to your so-called "points". Why do you think you know how to interpret the verse correctly but I don't? Why are my interpretations wrong? You haven't bothered to actually disprove anything I've said. Your points involve Jesus contradicting himself or negating what he said altogether. Otherwise, your comment here is one big "nuh uh". If you don't like the fact that there's other interpretations, you can choose to either not respond and go somewhere else, or bother to actually discuss the counterpoint. I have backed each and every one of my points and counters to your points up, you have not.

I guess I was accurate when I said

unless of course you don't believe he meant that one has to actually believe in what he's teaching.
 
Last edited:
Top