• 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!

Ex Christians

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
In such a situation, it becomes a matter of in depth specific detailed debate.

Hey! No Fair you edited it.... :sad4:

If I was God I'd keep it simple for simple minded folks like myself.

I suspect most of the depth is added by religious folks in an effort to support their position.

The depth maybe there but there's no reading the mind of Jesus. We're left making some assumptions regardless of what position one's trying to support.
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
The first commandment is "thou shalt not kill", not "thou shalt not murder", and was reiterated in the NT by Paul in Romans 13:8:

13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


I don't blame you for being confused about what is moral and what isn't if you're trying to base it all on the Bible. The commandment against killing, which is continually violated - even by God Himself - throughout the entire book, without consequence, is one of the most stark self-contradictions in the history of literature.
Actually, the first commandment is "You shall not have other gods before me."
"You shall not murder." is number nine.

I know you know better, Alceste.
 

Shermana

Heretic
I would agree on that Jesus(p) was sent to learn the Jews to be merciful for one and another and teach them also Spirituality, but not to dismiss the law entirely. For example an Eye for a Eye was used for a quick justice when Moses(p) travelled the desert, but when Jesus(p) came everyone was save and were already settled therefore a less strict law was brought and many people were already following the law in the time of Jesus(p).

I think what Jesus meant was that the law was being misunderstood and abused to have metaphorical implication and wrong-used literal alike. People would not be willing to forgive accidental injustices or petty injustices and used the Law as a means to avenge things that the "Spirit of the Law" wasn't meant to have within the "Written Law". Do Jews today even carry out this Law to its complete written extent? If a Jew accidentally broke another Jew's nose, are they gonna break his nose? Apparently then, they would have the same interpretation today if that's what Jesus meant. And even then, by (what I think is) the closer meaning of the original literal, if a Jew intentionally broke another Jew's nose, should that be done? Is it done?
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Or is is not that the laws were done away with at all, but that ONLY Jesus Christ was capable of completely fulfilling them so that all who come to Christ for salvation receive His fulfillment of the law applied to their life and therefore may enter into eternal life.

Jesus did provide a set of commandments. He did I believe reiterate the 10 commandments but also added some, or refined them at least.

Christians claim Jesus fulfill the Prophecy of the OT law. But it's really generalizing the word law to take it to mean he somehow fulfilled the commandments and even if he did, how it that to be taken these commandment no longer apply.

There's a lot of Commandments in the Tanakh I forget how many atm, but Jews seem certain of being able to deal with them. However Jesus said one had to surpass even the righteousness of the teachers of the law. So you're not off the hook. It's still necessary to abide by the commandments Jesus gave wouldn't you think?
 

Shermana

Heretic
Hey! No Fair you edited it.... :sad4:

If I was God I'd keep it simple for simple minded folks like myself.

I suspect most of the depth is added by religious folks in an effort to support their position.

The depth maybe there but there's no reading the mind of Jesus. We're left making some assumptions regardless of what position one's trying to support.

If you want to have a conversation about Space Travel, you have to know all the specifics about Space Travel. If you want to talk about World War 2, you need to know all the specifics about World War 2. If you want to talk about Ancient Israelite Beliefs and how to interpret them within various "Christian" lenses, you need to know about Ancient Israelite beliefs and how the various "Christian" lenses interpret them.

It's not too bold to say that we can possibly gleam what was the "mind" of the "Jesus" in the story as it was intended to be viewed. Just like we can't know if some guy named Ronald Mcdonald really is running Mcdonalds from his Underground Lair poisoning the population himself with a real-life purple mutant with huge fangs named Grimace on a chain, we can't know if Jesus wasn't a Space Alien from Niburu. What we have is the text, and we decide what the text says based on what other texts are available within the collection, just as we would any other Historical method. What we know is that Jesus apparently existed. What was said about him is one thing. How do we know? We take it based on how we interpret the evidence. I know that it says Elisha raised folk from the dead, so in my Jewish belief, this concept isn't out of line. However, the way most "Christians" interpret Jesus completely clashes with my own interpretation, and the way to prove that they are wrong and that's why their interpretation clashes is through a logical method of examining what the text says and comparing the meanings of words and phrases versus presumptions based on questionable understandings of the passage.


From here, you can start literally dozens of threads all on dozens of specific issues pertaining to the differences in interpretations between Messianic Jews who deny Paul and Protestants who deny Jesus for Paul's version.
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Jesus had no right to change any law given by G-D to the jews.

Deutoronomy 4

2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

I think Jesus at least saw himself as having the authority of the Son of God. But really not that he was diminishing the laws but making them more stringent.

Like...

Matt 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
It's not too bold to say that we can possibly gleam what was the "mind" of the "Jesus" in the story as it was intended to be viewed.

I disagree with that. I know everyone who thinks to support a specific religious ideology with the Bible likes to make that claim. However no unanimous consensus on exactly what that intent was. I won't disagree that I reasonable argument can't be made but that's my point, I've heard many different ones and some assumption are always made.

From here, you can start literally dozens of threads all on dozens of specific issues pertaining to the differences in interpretations between Messianic Jews who deny Paul and Protestants who deny Jesus for Paul's version.

Which Protestants are denying Jesus?

I'm just saying there's an argument for their view. You may not buy it but plenty do. I'm sure plenty of them have spent time with the Bible as I assume you have. All them Protestants can't all be dumb. Maybe they have a vested interest but then maybe so do you?

I know a few Jews that really dislike the Messianic folks. I assume they know the Hebrew Bible pretty well too. If it was so obvious you'd figure there'd be less disagreement.

With all these folks disagreeing it seems reasonable that there is room for it.
 

Shermana

Heretic
maybe so do you?
I most certainly do. That's to make my fellow Jewish brothers and sisters understand who Yashua was as I and many other "Messianic" minded do (though with differences on key issues with the majority of them) and let them make up their own minds without all the (what I consider) false representations doing the representin'.

To bring as many to what is (what I see as) the most objective way of regarding the historicity of Jesus and the texts available.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I most certainly do. That's to make my fellow Jewish brothers and sisters understand who Yashua was as I and many other "Messianic" minded do (though with differences on key issues with the majority of them) and let them make up their own minds without all the (what I consider) false representations doing the representin'.

To bring as many to what is (what I see as) the most objective way of regarding the historicity of Jesus and the texts available.


Does God expect people to get it right? I mean if a person doesn't get it and chooses the wrong understanding to accept as true, what happens to them. All them Paul loving Protestants? Well intended but misguided, I'm assuming, in your view?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I gave you two words that show murder's being refered to not killing. I don't see that as being in denial. Do you not believe those are the actual Hebrew/greek words. You don't have to take my word for it. Just look them up, but please don't say I'm in denial for pointing the difference out.

But the distinction you make is so silly and childish - "I didn't steal those cookies, mummy, I TOOK them." Half the English translations choose "kill" and the other half choose "murder". Seems to me like many of the most esteemed theologians of your religion don't share your personal conviction that killing each other is OK as far as Jesus Christ is concerned.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Actually, the first commandment is "You shall not have other gods before me."
"You shall not murder." is number nine.

I know you know better, Alceste.

You got me. I got the number wrong! Oh my! Big error! ;) Nevertheless, as Shermana points out, the distinction between "murder" and "slaying" is not as clear cut as Vadergirl would like to believe.

Also, as I pointed out, MANY English translations use "kill" instead of "murder".
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
I think Jesus at least saw himself as having the authority of the Son of God. But really not that he was diminishing the laws but making them more stringent.

Like...

It doesn't matter. G-D said

Deuteronomy

4:2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

12: 28. Keep and hearken to all these words that I command you, that it may benefit you and your children after you, forever, when you do what is good and proper in the eyes of the Lord, your God.

13:1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

Do you think that G-D was just joking when he said these things? :no:
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Jesus did provide a set of commandments. He did I believe reiterate the 10 commandments but also added some, or refined them at least.

Christians claim Jesus fulfill the Prophecy of the OT law. But it's really generalizing the word law to take it to mean he somehow fulfilled the commandments and even if he did, how it that to be taken these commandment no longer apply.

There's a lot of Commandments in the Tanakh I forget how many atm, but Jews seem certain of being able to deal with them. However Jesus said one had to surpass even the righteousness of the teachers of the law. So you're not off the hook. It's still necessary to abide by the commandments Jesus gave wouldn't you think?

I believe Jesus only had two commandments of his own: 1: Love God, 2: love your neighbour.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:17-20


During his earthly ministry, Jesus)p) told his hearers to obey sacrificial aspects of the Law of Moses(p) (Matthew 5:23-24). He told a man he healed of leprosy: "Go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing" (Luke 5:14). If the animal sacrifices are the only part of the Law of Moses(p) that are "done away," as some believe, then that idea contradicts Jesus’ actions and teachings—if we assume that we must follow his example in this area. Jesus(p) did not tell people to stop sacrificing. In fact, as the Scripture in Luke shows, Jesus(p) told people to offer the appropriate Mosaic sacrifice. But does this mean Christians should do so? The Answer would be Yes if they are really ''Christians'' Followers of Christ.

Let’s continue with that line of thought. Jesus(p) worshipped at and upheld the sanctity of the temple (Matthew 12-13; Mark 11:15-17). He told his disciples and the Jewish people to obey the teachers of the law and the Pharisees, who sat "in Moses(p) seat" (Matthew 23:1). What would these individuals have instructed people to obey? They would have taught obedience to the entire Law of Moses(p), as they understood it. But must Christians keep the Law of Moses(p) because Jesus(p) told people to do so.. you make the decision off-course.

Jesus(p) was circumcised according to the Law (Luke 2:21). His parents kept the precepts of the Law of Moses(p), including the purification rites (Luke 2:22-24, 39). Jesus(p) kept the old covenant Passover from his early childhood and throughout his life (Luke 2:41-42; 22:11). He kept the annual festivals and other traditional Jewish festivals (John 7:2-10; 10:22).
To summarize, during his lifetime Jesus(p) commanded sacrifices, obedience to the religious leaders who taught all of the Law of Moses(p), and temple worship, with all that this entailed. In short, by his example and words Jesus(p) taught obedience to the ritual laws of Moses(p). We cannot assume that Christians nowadays are real Christians.
Are Jesus(p) remarks or practices regarding the Sabbath or annual festivals proof that Christians must keep these days as holy time? I would say yes since the term still means ''Follower of Christ'', Christians would be obliged to offer sacrifices, participate in temple worship and follow those who taught obedience to the Law of Moses(p). Christian men would also have to be circumcised for religious reasons because Jesus(p) was circumcised (Luke 2:21). Christian women would have to fulfil the specified Mosaic rites of purification after childbirth.
In short, if we say that Jesus(p) remarks in the Gospels are proof that Christians must keep the Mosaic Sabbath or annual festival regulations, then we must accept all of the commands of the Law of Moses as being binding upon us (Galatians 3:10).
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Or is is not that the laws were done away with at all, but that ONLY Jesus Christ was capable of completely fulfilling them so that all who come to Christ for salvation receive His fulfillment of the law applied to their life and therefore may enter into eternal life.
How does one 'fulfill' a law, exactly?

that's a catchy phrase but it really doesn't have any meaning.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Ahhhh, right, even though sin just continues anyway. Catchy!

Yeah, not only continues, but is the natural state into which every human infant is born.

It's religion - nobody said it had to make sense. ;)

Still waiting for someone to explain how Jesus can be his own father.
 
Top