Should Christians follow the Law?

[Muffled]

Actually S is correct by Jewish Law (halacha): "An observant Jew who follows Jesus should keep the Judaic Law. A Gentile, however, is not constrained (by biblical precedent) to convert to Judaism, and thus is not obliged to keep Judaic Law."

The last sentence I omitted and will not comment on.

I believe otherwise. A christian is only obligated to follow Jesus.
Ga 3:28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

I believe there are Jewish Christians who choose to keep certain ceremonies because it preserves their heritage but they are not obligated to do so.

 

[metis]

I believe otherwise. A christian is only obligated to follow Jesus.
Ga 3:28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

I believe there are Jewish Christians who choose to keep certain ceremonies because it preserves their heritage but they are not obligated to do so.

We don't disagree with what you say in your first sentence, but a Jew has no other option but to try and follow the Law as best as possible. There simply is not one reference in the Tanakh that states or even hints that a messiah could or would negate the Law, nor is it even remotely logical. Why would God give the Law, punish those who don't follow it, which sometimes included death, and then say it's really not important after all?

And, btw, to say that it's only important for a Christian to "follow Jesus" seems to miss the mark because wouldn't it be far more accurate to say the it's only necessary for Christians to "follow God"? Jesus cannot logically actually be God because Jesus separates himself from being "the Father".

 

[CG Didymus]

...There simply is not one reference in the Tanakh that states or even hints that a messiah could or would negate the Law, nor is it even remotely logical. Why would God give the Law, punish those who don't follow it, which sometimes included death, and then say it's really not important after all?...

The behavior of God is not consistent with a just, loving, truthful Supreme Being... If He gave the Law only as a trial or test for his people to try and follow knowing they would fail. It is much easier for me to believe the Laws were made by the leaders of the Hebrews and then attributed to God. But that doesn't work for the Christian, because they are taught to believe the Law came from God. They must believe it is The Truth.
The early Christian leaders seem to have put Christianity on the road of separating themselves from Judaism. Yet, somehow, maintaining that everything written in the Jewish Scriptures is true? The same early Christians also had to decide what they were going to accept as their new, improved "Word of God"... and that included Paul's letters. I don't know if Christian can justify not obeying the Law without Paul's letters. So it's lucky, or convenient, that they were given "Word of God" status.
But one of the quotes used in the OP was... "Do not think I came to abolish the law or the prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one on the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same shall be called the least. Matthew 5:17...
How do Christians explain away this one? This quote is from Jesus. And since the earth and heaven haven't passed away yet, then I have to assume all has not yet been accomplished. So that would mean the Law is still valid too, wouldn't it? But for me, it's a Christian problem. They're the ones that claim the Jewish part of their Bible is the Word of God, yet they find ways to negate what it says to do. Anyway, thank you Metis for asking the hard questions. I appreciate the things you say in your posts.

 

[metis]

The behavior of God is not consistent with a just, loving, truthful Supreme Being... If He gave the Law only as a trial or test for his people to try and follow knowing they would fail. It is much easier for me to believe the Laws were made by the leaders of the Hebrews and then attributed to God. But that doesn't work for the Christian, because they are taught to believe the Law came from God. They must believe it is The Truth.
The early Christian leaders seem to have put Christianity on the road of separating themselves from Judaism. Yet, somehow, maintaining that everything written in the Jewish Scriptures is true? The same early Christians also had to decide what they were going to accept as their new, improved "Word of God"... and that included Paul's letters. I don't know if Christian can justify not obeying the Law without Paul's letters. So it's lucky, or convenient, that they were given "Word of God" status.
But one of the quotes used in the OP was... "Do not think I came to abolish the law or the prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one on the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same shall be called the least. Matthew 5:17...
How do Christians explain away this one? This quote is from Jesus. And since the earth and heaven haven't passed away yet, then I have to assume all has not yet been accomplished. So that would mean the Law is still valid too, wouldn't it? But for me, it's a Christian problem. They're the ones that claim the Jewish part of their Bible is the Word of God, yet they find ways to negate what it says to do. Anyway, thank you Metis for asking the hard questions. I appreciate the things you say in your posts.

Thank you for your comments, I like what you posted above, and I thank you for your last line especially. BTW, by chance did you notice my signature statement? I don't think we're likely too far apart.

 

[CG Didymus]

Thank you for your comments, I like what you posted above, and I thank you for your last line especially. BTW, by chance did you notice my signature statement? I don't think we're likely too far apart.

It fits me perfect. The anthropologist in me, I took at least four courses in college, makes me see how people need their religion. And then, how they have to argue, or fight, trying to defend it.
But getting back to the OP, in John 14:15, Jesus says that if you love me you'll keep my commandments. I wonder what exactly Christians believe those commandments were?

 

[metis]

But getting back to the OP, in John 14:15, Jesus says that if you love me you'll keep my commandments. I wonder what exactly Christians believe those commandments were?

My experience is that most do not know about the 613 Commandments, only the Ten.

 

[CG Didymus]

My experience is that most do not know about the 613 Commandments, only the Ten.

Christians definitely have rules or "commandments" of how they should act. I wonder how many aren't covered in the Jewish Law? Like love God? Yes. Forgive others? Yes. Don't lie? Yes. And on and on. But then there's all those other laws... do this, don't do that... you can eat this but not that... don't touch this or you'll be unclean... do this and you'll be clean again. Who wants to abide by all those? Even if God really said all those things. So I do what Christians do, I pick and choose which Laws are useful and sensible to follow and ignore the rest. Thank you Paul.

 

[metis]

Christians definitely have rules or "commandments" of how they should act. I wonder how many aren't covered in the Jewish Law? Like love God? Yes. Forgive others? Yes. Don't lie? Yes. And on and on. But then there's all those other laws... do this, don't do that... you can eat this but not that... don't touch this or you'll be unclean... do this and you'll be clean again. Who wants to abide by all those? Even if God really said all those things. So I do what Christians do, I pick and choose which Laws are useful and sensible to follow and ignore the rest. Thank you Paul.

It's not so much a matter of what one wants to do, but more a matter of what they think is the right thing to do? Morality isn't always a matter of convenience. I certainly am not an orthodox Jew, nor do I live like one, but I give them credit for doing what they think is right, and I feel the same way about people in other faiths who try to live a moral life and who try and help others do much the same.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's not so much a matter of what one wants to do, but more a matter of what they think is the right thing to do? Morality isn't always a matter of convenience. I certainly am not an orthodox Jew, nor do I live like one, but I give them credit for doing what they think is right, and I feel the same way about people in other faiths who try to live a moral life and who try and help others do much the same.

I believe you're absolutely right. And when you look at just the moral rules taught in many religions, they are very similar. Yet, each religion believes they have the only truth or at least a better version of the truth. That's why I was asking if Christianity brought any new commandments into the world that weren't already mentioned in Judaism. Even when it comes to having faith in Jesus, how different is that then a Jew who has their faith in God?

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe otherwise. A christian is only obligated to follow Jesus.
Ga 3:28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

I believe there are Jewish Christians who choose to keep certain ceremonies because it preserves their heritage but they are not obligated to do so.

Technically, i think you are correct. There are verses that imply that once one follows the 'physical' laws, like / circumcision, then they are obliged to follow the entire Torah laws. So, a xian can't really do both
/unless they want to disagree with the Bible

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe you're absolutely right. And when you look at just the moral rules taught in many religions, they are very similar. Yet, each religion believes they have the only truth or at least a better version of the truth. That's why I was asking if Christianity brought any new commandments into the world that weren't already mentioned in Judaism. Even when it comes to having faith in Jesus, how different is that then a Jew who has their faith in God?

Read the Bible? Xianity specifically differentiates itself from Judaism.

 

[idav]

Technically, i think you are correct. There are verses that imply that once one follows the 'physical' laws, like / circumcision, then they are obliged to follow the entire Torah laws. So, a xian can't really do both
/unless they want to disagree with the Bible

So Jesus wasn't cut?

 

[metis]

Read the Bible? Xianity specifically differentiates itself from Judaism.

But it didn't at first as they saw themselves as a reformed version of Judaism. Jesus and the apostles worked from a Judaistic paradigm, especially since the central dispute dealt with the Law itself and how it should be interpreted and applied.

 

[Desert Snake]

But it didn't at first as they saw themselves as a reformed version of Judaism. Jesus and the apostles worked from a Judaistic paradigm, especially since the central dispute dealt with the Law itself and how it should be interpreted and applied.

There were those that disagreed with the teachings/religious tenets, as there still are. Not sure why that is any sort of argument against the spiritual and religious beliefs, however.

 

[metis]

There were those that disagreed with ___ the teachings/religious tenets, as there still are. Not sure why that is any sort of argument against the spiritual and religious beliefs, however.

I'm not certain what you mean by the last sentence, so maybe you can clarify this? Also, if you included the words "... some of ..." in the little underlined space I put in, we'd be in agreement.

 

[Desert Snake]

But it didn't at first as they saw themselves as a reformed version of Judaism. Jesus and the apostles worked from a Judaistic paradigm, especially since the central dispute dealt with the Law itself and how it should be interpreted and applied.

...

I'm not certain what you mean by the last sentence, so maybe you can clarify this? Also, if you included the words "... some of ..." in the little underlined space I put in, we'd be in agreement.

Although ''Xianity'' worked from a 'Judaistic' paradigm, it certainly does not work from a paradigm of Talmudic Judaism, first off, and secondly, does not work from a specific ''Judaism'', that would necessarily disagree with the spiritual and religious tenets of the religion. /Xianity. There 'were', different perspectives, that all are part of a ''Judaistic paradigm'', hence the different groups of Israelites, who varied in belief.
Now, the idea of a type of Xianity, or Jesu adherence, that is incomplete in religious understanding, encounters problems in the concept of the fulfilled law, and also is not usually compliant with a theistic position, that is logically sound.

The last sentence merely means that an argument should address the subject/s/ in a manner that is relevant to the religious tenets, as they are, not what they theoretically might be, according to an arbitrary revised idea of what the person thinks the religious tenets,'should be', or what have you. An example, could be, some one, who adheres to the idea, that G-d cannot have form, or forms, and does not present Himself thusly, /such as has been argued, by some, practicing Judaism. ''Xianity'', /Jesu Praise Him! adherence ,,does not have this deific , or deity idea, constraint. So, an argument thusly in the context of ''Xianity'', should address that idea, in a manner that does not assume that deity cannot, have form, or does not present Himself, in such a manner. One can certainly make arguments such as, 'I hold this opinion', or arguments, from logic, if they wish,,, however, we have to assume the inherent principles, and beliefs, in a given religion. There is of course, the issue, that a person may not know the relevant beliefs in a given religion, or religious adherence, as well.

 

[metis]

...



Although ''Xianity'' worked from a 'Judaistic' paradigm, it certainly does not work from a paradigm of Talmudic Judaism, first off, and secondly, does not work from a specific ''Judaism'', that would necessarily disagree with the spiritual and religious tenets of the religion. /Xianity. There 'were', different perspectives, that all are part of a ''Judaistic paradigm'', hence the different groups of Israelites, who varied in belief.
Now, the idea of a type of Xianity, or Jesu adherence, that is incomplete in religious understanding, encounters problems in the concept of the fulfilled law, and also is not usually compliant with a theistic position, that is logically sound.

The last sentence merely means that an argument should address the subject/s/ in a manner that is relevant to the religious tenets, as they are, not what they theoretically might be, according to an arbitrary revised idea of what the person thinks the religious tenets,'should be', or what have you. An example, could be, some one, who adheres to the idea, that G-d cannot have form, or forms, and does not present Himself thusly, /such as has been argued, by some, practicing Judaism. ''Xianity'', /Jesu Praise Him! adherence ,,does not have this deific , or deity idea, constraint. So, an argument thusly in the context of ''Xianity'', should address that idea, in a manner that does not assume that deity cannot, have form, or does not present Himself, in such a manner. One can certainly make arguments such as, 'I hold this opinion', or or arguments, from logic, if they wish,,, however, we have to assume the inherent principles, and beliefs, in a given religion. There is of course, the issue, that a person may not know the relevant beliefs in a given religion, or religious adherence, as well.

I wish you had just answered the question directly and clarified the other directly in just a couple of sentences or so instead of rambling.

Yes, nowadays Judaism and Christianity are quite different, but my main point was that it wasn't always that way. A classic example is the Sermon On the Mount, which is about as "Jewish" as Jewish can get.

 

[Desert Snake]

I wish you had just answered the question directly and clarified the other directly in just a couple of sentences or so instead of rambling.

Yes, nowadays Judaism and Christianity are quite different, but my main point was that it wasn't always that way. A classic example is the Sermon On the Mount, which is about as "Jewish" as Jewish can get.

This is vague, or at best, arbitrary. 'Jewish', could mean anything, /in this context,, anyways, your subjective interpretations still don't address the main ideas that I presented. //addressing the relevance of your argument.

 

[metis]

This is vague, or at best, arbitrary. 'Jewish', could mean anything, /in this context,, anyways, your subjective interpretations still don't address the main ideas that I presented. //addressing the relevance of your argument.

IOW, the Sermon On the Mount could be read pretty much in full at any synagogue yesterday or today and the reaction would be of nods of approval. Is that clear enough?

 

[Desert Snake]

IOW, the Sermon On the Mount could be read pretty much in full at any synagogue yesterday or today and the reaction would be of nods of approval. Is that clear enough?

So? Anyways, the subjective nature of the interpretations is clear, from the presence of the many differing groups both regarded as ''Judaism'', and of course, ''Xianity''.