I really haven't searched for this. Maybe it would be a good thing if you read the 4 gospels in light of the laws and see if it could be assumed that he did by deduction?
-
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!
Question to Christians about Jesus' "Sinlessness"
I really haven't searched for this. Maybe it would be a good thing if you read the 4 gospels in light of the laws and see if it could be assumed that he did by deduction?
Is it considered questionable behavior in Judaism to never get a divorce? Would it seem like a bad sign if nobody was getting a divorce, like creepy and fake? Is divorce a sort of checkbox you're supposed to tick off?You missed getting married, having children, teaching them Torah and getting divorced.
Neuropteron
Active Member
Hi,
Tefillin:
Deut 6:8 was never meant to be taken literally, just as parallel texts such as Ex 13:9 or prov 3:3.
To wear the Tefillin correctly a Jew as to follow at least 20 other laws, all of them man made, before being accepted by the Rabbis.
The literal obligation to wear a box on the head is a practice that is unreasonable and falls under Jesus critisism that they were following their own man made tradition instead of God's law.Jesus said"All the works they do they do to be viewed by men, for they broaden the scripture containing cases that they wear as safeguards, and enlarge the fringes of their garments".
Tzitzit:
The scriptures make no mention of Jesus wearing tassels on his garments. There is no reason to believe he did not do so in a scriptural acceptable manner, but not necessarily according to the law of the Pharisees.
The word may derive from the Hebrew root נ-צ-ה [n-ts-h]. Tzitzit shares this root with the Hebrew for 'lock of hair', or 'dreadlocks'. For example, in the Book of Ezekiel an angel grabs the prophet "by the tzitzit of [his] head;" he could be said to be "dragged by his hair."
Techelet
This blue wool, known as tekhelet, was the hallmark of nobility, and in line with the tallit's purpose of reminding the Jew that he is a member of G‑d 's "kingdom of priests.". Similar to the tzitzit we don't know if Jesus wore a purple thread on his garment. Wearing the tekhelet was not part of the Mosaic law.
Taxes
We do know that Jesus did pay taxes, the bible does not mention how many times. If he had not done so, his enemies would not have needed to trump up fictitious charges against him.
mitzvoth and torah
Jesus was not king during his stay on earth, but would be enthroned much later. Thus was not required to follow laws imposed on kings.
Sin according to the bible is missing the mark of God's requirement. Anything not in harmony with God's standard or contrary to God's personality.
what specific sins are you saying he did not commit?
Failing to do what should be done and fulfill his earthly assignment.
None of the above puts in question Jesus perfection that was only possible due to the fact that he was not a descendant of our first sinful parents.
His integrity was put to an ultimate test. This made it possible to offer a sinless redemption price for us.
Cheers.
It was never stated in the NT... but having grown in a Jewish home... I would assume he followed the schedule of that time
It is assumed (though not specifically mentioned) that they celebrated the new moon.
From what I understand, I don't find recorded that he did. However, it is recorded that he plucked corn and did eat on the Sabbath.
Not that I am aware of during his ministry. He did go before to a synagogue in Nazareth. But he taught in many synagogues.
It is not mentioned.
it is not mentioned.
It would be easier just to say what he did do. He healed and he ate and he plucked some corn. After that, it is assumed he followed the Sabbath.
It is assumed he did was was customary for that time (other than healing and plucking corn to eat.
Miken
Active Member
The claim that Jesus personally fulfilled all 613 mitzvot is clearly not a reasonable one. Many of the mitzvot are applicable only to certain persons or situations. Nobody is in a position to perform all of them. There are mitzvot relating to priests and Levites, to judges and to the ruling king. There are some for those who run farms, who have servants and so forth. There is no real reason to think that Jesus did not obey those mitzvot that applied to him. I have met many Orthodox Jews who are very careful about this. In any case, to say that Jesus ‘fulfilled the law’ by performing all 613 mitzvot is a misunderstanding of Matthew 5.
Matthew 5
17 “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. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes 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 does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew is reinforcing the borders between his community of law observant Jewish Christians and Jesus-accepting but law-rejecting Pauline Christianity on one side and Jesus-rejecting but law observant Rabbinic Judaism on the other. Matthew has Jesus say that he is not here to abolish the Law, as Pauline Christianity wishes, or the Prophets, which is the source of most of Matthew’s scriptural quotes identifying Jesus as the Messiah. Rabbinic Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah and so to Matthew they are abolishing the Prophets.
Jesus is fulfilling the prophecies found in the Prophets. What about fulfilling the Law? Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and others for being obsessed with only the ritual details of the Law and ignoring the spirit of the Law, including charity and mercy. In Matthew 23 and in other parts of the Gospels, Jesus makes this very clear.
Immediately after the above quote from Matthew, Jesus proceeds to explain in the so-called Antitheses section that mere slavish obedience to the letter of the Law is insufficient. One must internalize the meaning and purpose of the laws and live them, not just obey them in a minimally literal way. This is not in place of the Law, which will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away. It is the fulfilment of the Law.
Matthew 5
17 “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. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes 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 does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew is reinforcing the borders between his community of law observant Jewish Christians and Jesus-accepting but law-rejecting Pauline Christianity on one side and Jesus-rejecting but law observant Rabbinic Judaism on the other. Matthew has Jesus say that he is not here to abolish the Law, as Pauline Christianity wishes, or the Prophets, which is the source of most of Matthew’s scriptural quotes identifying Jesus as the Messiah. Rabbinic Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah and so to Matthew they are abolishing the Prophets.
Jesus is fulfilling the prophecies found in the Prophets. What about fulfilling the Law? Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and others for being obsessed with only the ritual details of the Law and ignoring the spirit of the Law, including charity and mercy. In Matthew 23 and in other parts of the Gospels, Jesus makes this very clear.
Immediately after the above quote from Matthew, Jesus proceeds to explain in the so-called Antitheses section that mere slavish obedience to the letter of the Law is insufficient. One must internalize the meaning and purpose of the laws and live them, not just obey them in a minimally literal way. This is not in place of the Law, which will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away. It is the fulfilment of the Law.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Did Moses wear little boxes on his body?
Did King David wear little boxes? Did Isaiah? Did Elijah?
Probably not - neither did Jesus. He lived the words contained in those funny little boxes.
What I love about Jesus is that He went beyond symbols and captured the essence of God's
commandments. And He passed on to us - not ritual, not law, not Jewish customs but Godliness.
Scott C.
Just one guy
That’s quite a list. I don’t know. I believe Jesus always fulfilled the will of his Father. He never violated the will of God. That makes him sinless.
No, not at all. It's just that if you do end up wanting/needing a divorce, there's a commandment to do it with a special divorce document. So if you claim that you or someone else fulfilled all the commandments, that would have to be included...
I wish to note again, as previously mentioned in this thread that I wasn't intending to have a dig at Christians but was reminded of a true story I heard once.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Okay. I will try that and see if I find anything. Thanks.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
So, you are saying that according to Christianity Jesus did not wear tefillin and neither did Mosheh or any Israeli prior the about 2,500 years ago. Interesting.
So, how did Jesus perform or interpret/teach the meaning of the word (טטפות) Totophoth that is in the Hebrew text of the Torah? Also, do you beleive that he did not wear (ציצית) tzitzith? Thanks for your comment.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Greeings. So, in this vien do you consider the will of God to be some literal - do this and don't this? For example, in this concept did he simple spiritually/metaphorical do what he his father's will was? Or did actually have a list of things that one can say he actually did which constituted the will of his father? Like, heal this person but don't heal this person - do this particular miracle here and don't do a miracle for this - don't do this kind of work on the Sabbath but this kind of work do that on the Sabbath? Thanks for your comment.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Greetings. So, if I understand you correctly according to Christianity Jesus' view was that (טטפות) Totophoth was metaphorical and did not have a specific action connected to it. Also, according to Jesus the use of teckelth in tzitzith is not from the Torah. This is very interesting. Thank you for your comment.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
God's word should be written in our hearts - but that doesn't mean open heart surgery for the
purpose of getting tattoos on our heats. And if it was - would it make any difference?
And if God's word is to be written in our hands and we get scraps of paper tied to our hands,
does that make any difference? Is that what God wanted, a people walking around covered
in leather boxes?
This is what Jesus hated - this transference of spiritual things to symbolic worship that said
little about the person performing it. It's kind of evading the issues, really.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
So, if I understand you correctly Jesus' view was that many of the mitzvoth were spirtual metaphors with no practical thing to actually do. Does this include the mitzvoth concerning work on the Sabbath or building the Mishkan? Which mitzvoth did Jesus consider to have an actual literal application? How did Jesus' diffriciate between something that was metaphor and something that was literal? Thanks in advnace.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
There are three aspects to the Tanakh. The Commandments (do unto others what you would have them do unto you)
the Ordinances (what you refer to here) and the Judgements (inheritance, taxation etc..)
Jesus gave full weight to the Commandments. That's spelled out in Matthew 5,6 and 7.
Jesus said, as the Tanakh said, that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. To make that point the Temple was
completely removed. I see the Sabbath as being a part of the Commandments.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
So, there were commands in the Torah (like the Temple) that Jesus was saying were to be done away with. Were there any others he felt were to be removed? Also, if Jesus saw the Sabbath as a part of the Commandments what he saying was the correct way to do the Sabbath? For example, what were the definitions he used for what was and wasn't work? Thanks.
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
The important question that seems to underlie all these sub-questions is, What does it mean to live a righteous life under the law of Moses? The simple answer is found in Deuteronomy 5:1, where it says, 'And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.'
Jesus observed the commandments by doing all that he was required to do, and the Psalmist expresses the innermost heart of Jesus in the words, And I will delight myself in thy commandments, which I have loved [Psalm 119:47]
At his baptism, the Words of God were heard from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. [Mark 1:11]
What was God pleased with? The ministry of Jesus under the anointing of the Holy Spirit had not yet commenced. So God must have been pleased with Jesus' life under the law. IMO, God was pleased because Jesus had lived righteously under the law.
During his anointed ministry, Jesus summarised the greatest commandments by saying, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'[Matthew 22:37-40]
The law of Moses demanded righteous living, or DOING of the word. But Jesus demonstrated during his ministry what it meant to live righteously in heart (spirit) as well as in deed. He summarised this fulfilment of the law in the word LOVE.
I strongly disagree with the earlier post that suggested that Paul's teaching is not a natural successor to Jesus' teaching. All that Paul teaches follows from the life and promises made by Jesus.
I would also like to add a word about marriage. Jesus Christ did not marry whilst on earth, but he is due to marry spiritually when he comes again. The marriage feast is a coming together of the head and the body, of the groom and the bride.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The Tanakh said that God permitted the building of the temple. Permitting something
and wanting something are not the same. God also permitted divorce, but we can be
sure He did not want divorce.
As for the "correct" way to do Sabbath - that's complicated. Jesus DID respect the
Sabbath, but he did not respect the absurd legalistic way it was approached (such as
measuring how much milk you could have in your mouth as you walked on the Sabbath.)
As for definitions - that's a bit vague. Jesus didn't "define" anything other than how He
lived it.)
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Why would He have had to perform the mitzvoth of a Nazir to fulfill all of the Law? The Law is exemplified by two of its points, love God, love your neighbor.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your comment. The logic of the question is to understand what Christians mean when they say Jesus fulfilled. W/o the Christian definition of the statement it would open to lots of interpretation. Since I don't want to create an intereptation I want to under the one correct standard that Christians say it means.
So, if I understand what you are saying is that in Christianity, according to Jesus, if one loves God and their neighbor then there are mitzvoth that they no longer need to consider/do or that it was never the original intent for them to be done, after a certain point. Is this a correct interpretation?