"Your righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees"

[sandy whitelinger]

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

Since I'm a typical Christian I'll give you the typical Christian response. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man gets to the father but by me. Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdon of God. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

And since you won't accept Paul in, (perhaps because he doesn't back up you message) and I'll assume you won't accept Hebrews then I guess that's all I have to say.

 

[Shermana]

Since I'm a typical Christian I'll give you the typical Christian response. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man gets to the father but by me. Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdon of God. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

And since you won't accept Paul in, (perhaps because he doesn't back up you message) and I'll assume you won't accept Hebrews then I guess that's all I have to say.

So again, you avoid discussing the meaning of those verses. By your dodge (twice) from the question, I assume you believe you don't actually have to obey Jesus's teachings by your interpretation. And yes, Paul does indeed clash with not just "my message", but what Jesus says as well. This has been discussed thoroughly by not just myself but many other posters here on this forum in many threads. The result is often the same, those in defense of Paul use his epistles to try to trump and counter what Jesus says each time, giving weight to the contentions every time. Perhaps I can make another thread on the subject and you can chime in. I am far from the only person who doesn't "Accept Paul in". Either way, it seems you agree that you don't have to actually obey Jesus's teachings by your interpretation, as I said. You have your definition of "believe", I have mine. But your response, rather than discussing the 99% rest of what Jesus says, is to simply say that I am getting scripture to say something it doesn't as your response to anything I said, rather than giving your interpretation of the key passages I used to give context.

The Nazarenes and Ebionites rejected Paul for a reason. And also, just for the record, very few people, even among the Christian community, still believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, but that's another story. If you're going to bring in Paul, we can use this as a thread to debate whether Paul clashes with what Jesus specifically teaches. It seems you don't mind completely ignoring what James says, by the way. And yes, your response is in fact, the "typical Christian response" to this type of argument, and I appreciate you showing it for the sake of the argument. It seems "Typical Christians" have a problem with the idea of actually having to obey Jesus's teachings, and their defense when shown that their interpretation involves negating what Jesus said or getting Jesus to contradict himself is to say something like "You twist scripture to make it say what it doesn't say" as if their interpretation is somehow defacto right. And of course, you continually dodge and avoid addressing the question of what you think the scriptures in question mean when asked for a reason. If you want to believe that one verse (John 3:16 in your case) somehow trumps everything else Jesus says and as if your definition of "believe" somehow is correct but mines isn't without discussing the context and details of what ELSE scripture says, that's fine, feel free to demonstrate your logic and reasoning for the sake of debate, but like I said, if you don't want to actually debate and taking into consideration the counterpoints and contextual arguments, you should consider sticking to the discussion board.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So again, you avoid discussing the meaning of those verses.

My take on this issue is here.

 

[Nadia Faiazova]

Hi! The Pharisees sought opportunities to display their “righteousness” by praying or making contributions in public. (Matthew 6:1-6) They also tried to demonstrate their righteousness by adhering to countless laws and precepts—many of which were of their own making. Outwardly, they may have appeared to be righteous, but inside they were ‘full of lawlessness,’ or unrighteousness. (Matthew 23:28) Simply put, they really knew little about God’s righteousness.
As a result, the common people, who found it impossible to live up to the demands set by the scribes and Pharisees, likely imagined that God’s righteousness was far out of reach. (Matthew 23:4; Luke 11:46) Jesus showed that this was not the case. He chose his disciples from among these common people, and he taught them God’s righteous standards. For that reason, Jesus warned his followers.

 

[Shermana]

Hi! The Pharisees sought opportunities to display their “righteousness” by praying or making contributions in public. (Matthew 6:1-6) They also tried to demonstrate their righteousness by adhering to countless laws and precepts—many of which were of their own making. Outwardly, they may have appeared to be righteous, but inside they were ‘full of lawlessness,’ or unrighteousness. (Matthew 23:28) Simply put, they really knew little about God’s righteousness.
As a result, the common people, who found it impossible to live up to the demands set by the scribes and Pharisees, likely imagined that God’s righteousness was far out of reach. (Matthew 23:4; Luke 11:46) Jesus showed that this was not the case. He chose his disciples from among these common people, and he taught them God’s righteous standards. For that reason, Jesus warned his followers.

You're on the right track, the Pharisees had a warped and distorted version of the Law, while they neglected various commandments that involved things like caring for the poor. Jesus was teaching that true righteousness is through obedience to the Law but not in the version as the Pharisees were claiming to adhere to it.

 

[dan p]

Can't say there's any way of showing who was blameless. Jesus did say "I have not come for the righteous" however, so he may have been implying there were some who were blameless like how Job was called blameless.

Are you saying Jesus said it was impossible?

Hi , and read Luke 1:5-6 we see that Zacharias and Elisabeth were BLAMELESS , BY WALKING in all the commandments and Ordinances ,

In , Phil 3:6 , we see someone else , " touching the righteousness which is in the Law , BLAMELESS , and that was Paul .

Where are we , Rom 3:26 and we have the Righteousness of God through faith , dan p

 

[Desert Snake]

To enter the Kingdom, in Matthew 5:17-20.

Definition of Righteousness:
So was Jesus basically saying that one must obey the commandments (all of them) better than the Scribes and the Pharisees to enter the Kingdom?

Where does this leave Christian salvation doctrines in general?

The commandments, not all the Torah laws.

 

[Shermana]

The commandments, not all the Torah laws.

There is no distinction.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well for starters, for your righteousness to exceed that of the scribes or pharisees, it is arguable that you must understand what is and is not righteous (as opposed to merely doing what is righteous by chance or because it was your nature); for this reason, it is arguable that not only does this imply that people must strive to be good, but also that they must be informed - aware of what they believe their God intends of them - that is, this implies that believers should think for themselves (because they must do so in order to surpass the scribes and pharisees) on what God wants of them rather than just relying on what they are told.

That is difficult for many literalists to stomach, as well as those who place a great deal of emphasis on the teachings of others and THOSE interpretations as opposed to their own interpretations.

 

[not nom]

There is no distinction.

if that were granted, where *exactly* would that leave us? honest question.

and it's not like there is a distinction between the torah and the interpretation of it, either? so to me that's like shuffling around an air bubble under a sticker.. "my arbitrary is less arbitrary than your arbitrary!".

I found this bit interesting/insightful:

613 commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ibn Ezra writes "Some sages enumerate 613 mitzvot in many diverse ways [...] but in truth there is no end to the number of mitzvot [...] and if we were to count only the root principles [...] the number of mitzvot would not reach 613" (Yesod Mora, Chapter 2).

 

[Shermana]

if that were granted, where *exactly* would that leave us? honest question.

and it's not like there is a distinction between the torah and the interpretation of it, either? so to me that's like shuffling around an air bubble under a sticker.. "my arbitrary is less arbitrary than your arbitrary!".

I found this bit interesting/insightful:

613 commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And ironically, (or some other word) The "613 commandments" is an interpretation itself of the Laws, there are less than 613, as you can see, some laws are doubled and some make some very liberal interpretations of what the commandment means.


For instance, #25 "Not to follow the whims of your heart or what your eyes see Num. 15:39"



And here is the actual commandment: 39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;


Not exactly the same concept. Even if I agree that one one shouldn't go after every whim, it's not so much commanding but explaining the purpose. The part where they get this "Commandment" from is simply an explanation of the commandment to wear Tzitzit. Thus, the only way to really draw the meaning is to read it for oneself. Part of why I'm not exactly a fan of established Rabbinical tradition.

Likewise, even if I agree not to be "superstitious", the actual commandment is "26 Ye shall not eat with the blood; neither shall ye practise divination nor soothsaying. " Practicing divination and soothsaying is not the same thing as avoiding black cats, and avoiding sucb mediums and spiritists is already mentioned in the "613", so its an obvious extra that doesn't really belong, even if there's truth in the idea to avoid the idea of not walking under ladders, the concept is about not engaging in direct augery.

Another one: The commandment to say the Shema twice a day comes from this: #76 To say the Shema twice daily Deut. 6:7

7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

Why not four times instead? Where does it say twice? Where does it say to say the Shema specifically?

However, this does not mean there is an actual distinction between commandments and what's in the Torah, as they are ALL called commandments, including the sacrificial ordinances. If anyone can find anything in the scripture that says "These are commandments, these are not", go ahead. Granted, there are "ordinances" and "Statutes", but what's the difference exactly? Some things that are called "ordinances" are called "Commandments".

Let's look at the meaning of the word "ordinance" and "statute" while we're at it, in Hebrew and English.

Ordinance
1. an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command.


We see here that the KJV renders statute as "law", here, but "ordinance" later, while its' called "statute" by the NAS so the issue is Semantic, but ultimately means the same thing as "Commandment" in context.

http://concordances.org/hebrew/lechok_2706.htm

NAS: made it a statute concerning
KJV: made it a law over the land

KJV: this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons
INT: event this an ordinance and your children for

As for "statutes", the word "Mishpat" can also mean 'judgment"....and is also translated as "ordinances", while "ordinance" is often translated as statutes as we can see. Apparently these words are fairly interchanegable.

Nehemiah 9:13
BIB: וַתִּתֵּ֨ן לָהֶ֜ם מִשְׁפָּטִ֤ים יְשָׁרִים֙ וְתוֹר֣וֹת
NAS: them just ordinances and TRUE
KJV: them right judgments, and true
INT: heaven gave ordinances just laws
Jeremiah 4:12
BIB: אֲנִ֛י אֲדַבֵּ֥ר מִשְׁפָּטִ֖ים אוֹתָֽם׃
NAS: pronounce judgments against them.
KJV: unto me: now also will I give sentence against them.
INT: I pronounce judgments for

And as for "commandment", the word can also simply mean "precept" and "tradition".

Proverbs 6:20
BIB: נְצֹ֣ר בְּ֭נִי מִצְוַ֣ת אָבִ֑יךָ וְאַל־
NAS: observe the commandment of your father
KJV: thy father's commandment, and forsake
INT: observe my son the commandment of your father not
Isaiah 29:13
BIB: יִרְאָתָם֙ אֹתִ֔י מִצְוַ֥ת אֲנָשִׁ֖ים מְלֻמָּדָֽה׃
NAS: for Me consists of tradition learned
KJV: toward me is taught by the precept of men:
INT: consists afraid the precept he learned

 

[not nom]

wow, thanks

 

[Prophet]

This verse has been misused enough. Jesus is using sarcasm to mock the holiness of the scribes and Pharisees through reductio ad absurdum.

If your idea of holiness is adherence to laws and the punishment for failure to adhere to these laws is eternal torment, then it is perfectly logical for the religious hypocrite to dismember from himself any body part which can be used to break these laws.

 

[Shermana]

This verse has been misused enough. Jesus is using sarcasm to mock the holiness of the scribes and Pharisees through reductio ad absurdum.

If your idea of holiness is adherence to laws and the punishment for failure to adhere to these laws is eternal torment, then it is perfectly logical for the religious hypocrite to dismember from himself any body part which can be used to break these laws.

And was he being sarcastic when he said "He who teaches to disobey the Least of these commandments shall be called the least in Heaven?" Your idea of Jesus would completely contradict the very idea of what the Jewish Moshiach was supposed to be. (But to be fair, most Christian's idea of what Jesus is completely contradicts the Jewish prophecies, of which few of them have any clue about.)

So was Jesus also being sarcastic when he said "Away from me ye doers of lawlessness?" (Note: Law is, in the gospels, always in reference to Mosaic.)

Your interpretation of this would also contradict 1 John and Jude.

 

[Pegg]

Shermana, why was Abraham righteous? Why did God view him as such?

Was it not because he was a man of 'faith'? yes. Faith is the key to righteousness because a 'righteous person will live by reason of faith'

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, why was Abraham righteous? Why did God view him as such?

Was it not because he was a man of 'faith'? yes. Faith is the key to righteousness because a 'righteous person will live by reason of faith'

Like I said, it also says he obeyed all of G-d's teachings. So therefore "man of faith" would mean "one who is obedient to all that G-d commands".

 

[Pegg]

Like I said, it also says he obeyed all of G-d's teachings. So therefore "man of faith" would mean "one who is obedient to all that G-d commands".

thats right. He lived 400 years before Gods laws were put in writing and yet still lived by Gods laws...how did he manage to do that without having the written law? how did he know?

Faith is a fruitage of Gods holy spirit. A person of faith is guided into all things by the spirit of God. For that reason they can live by Gods laws from the heart without needing to see them written out in dot form.

Abrahams faith enabled him to live a righteous life. And God takes notice of those with faith so that they come to know him intimately.

 

[Shermana]

thats right. He lived 400 years before Gods laws were put in writing and yet still lived by Gods laws...how did he manage to do that without having the written law? how did he know?

How did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean? How did Abraham know to give 10% of his spoils to Malchezdiek? There's lots of gaps.

Faith is a fruitage of Gods holy spirit. A person of faith is guided into all things by the spirit of God. For that reason they can live by Gods laws from the heart without needing to see them written out in dot form.

Exactly. That's probably the concept of the New Covenant in Jeremiah. So a truly faithful person obeys the Law naturally by that logic.

Abrahams faith enabled him to live a righteous life. And God takes notice of those with faith so that they come to know him intimately.

Yes, those with true faith are brought to know and obey the fullness of his commandments in this logic.

 

[Pegg]

How did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean? How did Abraham know to give 10% of his spoils to Malchezdiek? There's lots of gaps.

noah knew about the animals because God brought the animals into to the Ark, So when Noah heard that the clean animals would come in by 7's and the unclean in pairs, he would have seen which animals were which when they came onto the ark by their numbers.

As for Abraham, he knew it was right and proper to support a Priest of Jehovah. So Abraham was motivated by holy spirit to give a 10th of all he owned in support of true worship. The key is that he was motivated by his faith to do so...not because someone told him it was a rule he must obey. Gods laws were in his heart because his heart was righteous.

Exactly. That's probably the concept of the New Covenant in Jeremiah. So a truly faithful person obeys the Law naturally by that logic.

Yes, those with true faith are brought to know and obey the fullness of his commandments in this logic.

The big question then.... What is true faith, and how do you get it?

 

[jtartar]

To enter the Kingdom, in Matthew 5:17-20.

Definition of Righteousness:
So was Jesus basically saying that one must obey the commandments (all of them) better than the Scribes and the Pharisees to enter the Kingdom?

Where does this leave Christian salvation doctrines in general?

Shermana,
What Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees had nothing to do with Christianity. Jesus was born a Jew and he was under the Mosaic Law Covenant all his life. All the things written in the Hebrew criptures had to be fulfilled during Jesus life. Christianity started on Pentecost 33CE. This was 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus, and 10 days after he returned to Heaven, Acts 1:3-5, 2:1-17. Being followers of Jesus, they started to be called Christians a little over a year later, Acts 11:26.
The Jews had been under the Mosaic Law Covenant over 1,500 years, so something out standing needed to be displayed to impress the Jews that God had turned his favor to the Christian Congregation, because the majority of the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, or Christ, and then killed God's son. That is why God poured out His Holy Spirit on this little band that caused they to be able to do miraculous things.
Just what Jesus was telling the Scribes and Pharisees was that they were hypocrits, who did not obey the Law,but just liked the attention and praise they received from the people. Jesus stated this in several places, Matt 6:1-8, 23:1-38.
On the night before Jesus was killed he instituted the NEW COVENANT that Jeremiah had prophesied, Jere 31:31-34, Luke 22:19,20, 1Cor 11:24-26. Paul showed that this had the fulfillment with Jesus, Heb 8:6-13, 10:1-18.