Can anyone answer the question of what the Jewish Christians (Jerusalem church with James) thought that Jesus was saving them from. While they certainly believed in the concept of sin, my understanding is that it didn’t have the theological connotations it has for Christians. My understanding is that they they didn’t have a theology of original sin so (in my mind) they wouldn’t have thought they were being saved from original sin. So in what sense would they have thought of salvation as being saved from their sins and how would that help them? I may be wrong in this next statement but I don’t think they had a theology that their soul or spirit separated from their body and that their spirit went to heaven for eternity. My understanding is they believed in a resurrection on the “last day”. So whatever type of body they thought would be resurrected it would be in a future time and it would occur on earth not in heaven? So did they think belief in Jesus raised from the dead would give them a place in the ressurection on the last day here on earth?
If they thought salvation was the right to be/live with Jesus in a better life on earth, how did that get connected to the concept of salvation as remittance of sins. If they didn’t believe in original sin why would they believe in salvation from sin? Thanks for any responses. Tammy
No one can answer that because the only things we know about the Jesus group in Jerusalem comes from Paul and he didn’t address this and he wouldn’t have had much reason to. The book of Acts, if you want to appeal to it, was written possibly as late as a century after the events it describes and was written with an agenda. Nothing in Acts can be taken as reliable when viewed critically since there are so many things in it that are known to be untrue or unreliable at the very least.
tleblan2 said
Can anyone answer the question of what the Jewish Christians (Jerusalem church with James) thought that Jesus was saving them from. While they certainly believed in the concept of sin, my understanding is that it didn’t have the theological connotations it has for Christians. My understanding is that they they didn’t have a theology of original sin so (in my mind) they wouldn’t have thought they were being saved from original sin. So in what sense would they have thought of salvation as being saved from their sins and how would that help them? I may be wrong in this next statement but I don’t think they had a theology that their soul or spirit separated from their body and that their spirit went to heaven for eternity. My understanding is they believed in a resurrection on the “last day”. So whatever type of body they thought would be resurrected it would be in a future time and it would occur on earth not in heaven? So did they think belief in Jesus raised from the dead would give them a place in the ressurection on the last day here on earth?
If they thought salvation was the right to be/live with Jesus in a better life on earth, how did that get connected to the concept of salvation as remittance of sins. If they didn’t believe in original sin why would they believe in salvation from sin?
Thanks for any responses. Tammy
With the most optimistic (conservative) dating of Acts, the text could plausibly have been written less than 5 years after the events it describes with Paul living under house arrest at the end of Acts. According to the writer of Acts, Paul claims to have been trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts chapter 22 verses 3 to 5), and if one accepts that as truthful then Paul has some credentials in regards to Jewish non-Christian thought in Jerusalem. I see no reason to think Paul’s writings on sin and Adam to other churches don’t apply to some extent also the Jewish Christians or Jerusalem Church. Jews were not only found in Jerusalem but in the expansive Diaspora, and Paul would have recognised he had to cater to both Jew and Gentile in his writings. Moreover, it is hard to imagine there were zero gentiles in the Jerusalem Church, and so Jerusualem church’s ideas probably reflected to some extent – exactly how much we don’t know – the thought of Gentile Christians in Jerusalem. Romans chapter 5 verses 12 to 19 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, emphasis mine) states that
‘Just as through one human being sin came into the world, and death came through sin, so death has come to everyone, since everyone has sinned. Although sin was in the world, since there was no Law, it wasn’t taken into account until the Law came. But death ruled from Adam until Moses, even over those who didn’t sin in the same way Adam did—Adam was a type of the one who was coming. But the free gift of Christ isn’t like Adam’s failure. If many people died through what one person did wrong, God’s grace is multiplied even more for many people with the gift—of the one person Jesus Christ—that comes through grace. The gift isn’t like the consequences of one person’s sin. The judgment that came from one person’s sin led to punishment, but the free gift that came out of many failures led to the verdict of acquittal. If death ruled because of one person’s failure, those who receive the multiplied grace and the gift of righteousness will even more certainly rule in life through the one person Jesus Christ. So now the righteous requirements necessary for life are met for everyone through the righteous act of one person, just as judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person. Many people were made righteous through the obedience of one person, just as many people were made sinners through the disobedience of one person.‘
And 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verses 21 and 22 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, emphasis mine) states that
‘Since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came through one too. In the same way that everyone dies in Adam, so also everyone will be given life in Christ.’
The precise nature of the thought of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem on sin and salvation remains unclear, and open to wide debate.
col8lok8 said
With the most optimistic (conservative) dating of Acts, the text could plausibly have been written less than 5 years after the events it describes with Paul living under house arrest at the end of Acts. According to the writer of Acts, Paul claims to have been trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts chapter 22 verses 3 to 5), and if one accepts that as truthful then Paul has some credentials in regards to Jewish non-Christian thought in Jerusalem. I see no reason to think Paul’s writings on sin and Adam to other churches don’t apply to some extent also the Jewish Christians or Jerusalem Church. Jews were not only found in Jerusalem but in the expansive Diaspora, and Paul would have recognised he had to cater to both Jew and Gentile in his writings. Moreover, it is hard to imagine there were zero gentiles in the Jerusalem Church, and so Jerusalem church’s ideas probably reflected to some extent – exactly how much we don’t know – the thought of Gentile Christians in Jerusalem. Romans chapter 5 verses 12 to 19 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, emphasis mine) states that
First the answer you want, in terms of dating, is the most careful; not the one which happens to fit the agenda of the people providing the answer. Second, the professional consensus is that Acts was written around the year 90, at the earliest. It’s instructive that col8loc8 believed they were written, what was it? – hundreds of years after the fact when he was an “atheist” but now is willing to accept, what? the year 63?
Further, why would one accept the accuracy of Acts with reference to Paul when there are countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters? But whether Paul was “trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem” is unimportant. According to Paul’s own account, he was “…circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;” He certainly didn’t need special credentials and it’s odd that while citing the highlights of his reputation, he fails to mention he was trained “in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem”
Whether he was trained by Rabbi Gamaliel or Rabbi Bob wouldn’t affect his upbringing, participation in Jewish ritual or his understanding of non christian Jewishness. Further, there’s good reason to think Paul’s theological writing might not “apply” to Jewish Christians. Paul’s thinking was fundamentally altered by his conversion. He seems to have been the only Jew who believed Gentiles could become Christians without observing traditional Jewish customs; that his understanding of sin wouldn’t be affected by his conversion is exceedingly thin. I’m no expert but I’m going to say that there’s a big difference between Jewish ideas about sin are different, if not very different from of Christians.
While Greg Matthews has a solid point, I think it can be argued (speculated?) that Jewish Christians, like other apocalypticists, would have expected salvation to consist of God overthrowing his enemies (Rome) and establishing his good kingdom on Earth. My suspicion is they expected Israel to return to its former greatness under a Davidic King
Greg Matthews said
No one can answer that because the only things we know about the Jesus group in Jerusalem comes from Paul and he didn’t address this and he wouldn’t have had much reason to. The book of Acts, if you want to appeal to it, was written possibly as late as a century after the events it describes and was written with an agenda. Nothing in Acts can be taken as reliable when viewed critically since there are so many things in it that are known to be untrue or unreliable at the very least.
Would you buy the idea that the Jewish idea of “sin” was more in terms of, say disobeying a parent or rebelling against a ruler?
spiker said
col8lok8 said
With the most optimistic (conservative) dating of Acts, the text could plausibly have been written less than 5 years after the events it describes with Paul living under house arrest at the end of Acts. According to the writer of Acts, Paul claims to have been trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts chapter 22 verses 3 to 5), and if one accepts that as truthful then Paul has some credentials in regards to Jewish non-Christian thought in Jerusalem. I see no reason to think Paul’s writings on sin and Adam to other churches don’t apply to some extent also the Jewish Christians or Jerusalem Church. Jews were not only found in Jerusalem but in the expansive Diaspora, and Paul would have recognised he had to cater to both Jew and Gentile in his writings. Moreover, it is hard to imagine there were zero gentiles in the Jerusalem Church, and so Jerusalem church’s ideas probably reflected to some extent – exactly how much we don’t know – the thought of Gentile Christians in Jerusalem. Romans chapter 5 verses 12 to 19 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, emphasis mine) states that
First the answer you want, in terms of dating, is the most careful; not the one which happens to fit the agenda of the people providing the answer. Second, the professional consensus is that Acts was written around the year 90, at the earliest. It’s instructive that col8loc8 believed they were written, what was it? – hundreds of years after the fact when he was an “atheist” but now is willing to accept, what? the year 63?
Further, why would one accept the accuracy of Acts with reference to Paul when there are countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters? But whether Paul was “trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem” is unimportant. According to Paul’s own account, he was “…circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;” He certainly didn’t need special credentials and it’s odd that while citing the highlights of his reputation, he fails to mention he was trained “in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem”
Whether he was trained by Rabbi Gamaliel or Rabbi Bob wouldn’t affect his upbringing, participation in Jewish ritual or his understanding of “non christian Jewishness” (not to be confused with the much less prevalent Jewish Jewishness). Further, there’s good reason to think Paul’s theological writing might not “apply” to Jewish Christians. Paul’s thinking was fundamentally altered by his conversion. He seems to have been the only Jew who believed Gentiles could become Christians without observing traditional Jewish customs; that his understanding of sin wouldn’t be affected by his conversion is exceedingly thin. I’m no expert but I’m going to say that there’s a big difference between Jewish ideas about sin are different, if not very different from of Christians.
While Greg Matthews has a solid point, I think it can be argued (speculated?) that Jewish Christians, like other apocalypticists, would have expected salvation to consist of God overthrowing his enemies (Rome) and establishing his good kingdom on Earth. My suspicion is they expected Israel to return to its former greatness under a Davidic King.
spiker said
spiker said
col8lok8 said
With the most optimistic (conservative) dating of Acts, the text could plausibly have been written less than 5 years after the events it describes with Paul living under house arrest at the end of Acts. According to the writer of Acts, Paul claims to have been trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts chapter 22 verses 3 to 5), and if one accepts that as truthful then Paul has some credentials in regards to Jewish non-Christian thought in Jerusalem. I see no reason to think Paul’s writings on sin and Adam to other churches don’t apply to some extent also the Jewish Christians or Jerusalem Church. Jews were not only found in Jerusalem but in the expansive Diaspora, and Paul would have recognised he had to cater to both Jew and Gentile in his writings. Moreover, it is hard to imagine there were zero gentiles in the Jerusalem Church, and so Jerusalem church’s ideas probably reflected to some extent – exactly how much we don’t know – the thought of Gentile Christians in Jerusalem. Romans chapter 5 verses 12 to 19 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, emphasis mine) states that
First the answer you want, in terms of dating, is the most careful; not the one which happens to fit the agenda of the people providing the answer. Second, the professional consensus is that Acts was written around the year 90, at the earliest. It’s instructive that col8loc8 believed they were written, what was it? – hundreds of years after the fact when he was an “atheist” but now is willing to accept, what? the year 63?
Further, why would one accept the accuracy of Acts with reference to Paul when there are countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters? But whether Paul was “trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem” is unimportant. According to Paul’s own account, he was “…circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;” He certainly didn’t need special credentials and it’s odd that while citing the highlights of his reputation, he fails to mention he was trained “in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem”
Whether he was trained by Rabbi Gamaliel or Rabbi Bob wouldn’t affect his upbringing, participation in Jewish ritual or his understanding of “non christian Jewishness” (not to be confused with the much less prevalent Jewish Jewishness). Further, there’s good reason to think Paul’s theological writing might not “apply” to Jewish Christians. Paul’s thinking was fundamentally altered by his conversion. He seems to have been the only Jew who believed Gentiles could become Christians without observing traditional Jewish customs; that his understanding of sin wouldn’t be affected by his conversion is exceedingly thin. I’m no expert but I’m going to say that there’s a big difference between Jewish ideas about sin are different, if not very different from of Christians.
While Greg Matthews has a solid point, I think it can be argued (speculated?) that Jewish Christians, like other apocalypticists, would have expected salvation to consist of God overthrowing his enemies (Rome) and establishing his good kingdom on Earth. My suspicion is they expected Israel to return to its former greatness under a Davidic King.
I am not saying that Paul’s theological writings are 100% what Jewish Christians in Jerusalem believed. I am saying there is some extent in which Paul’s thought is comparable to theirs. We don’t know how much (5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%). There are obviously going to be some differences since he is originally from Tarsus to the north of Jerusalem, not Jerusalem. Your words
there’s good reason to think Paul’s theological writing might not “apply” to Jewish Christians
appear to be a blanket statement. With the exception of the word ‘might’, it seems to suggest there is absolutely nothing Jewish Christians believed on sin and salvation theologically that is comparable or identical to what Paul says in his epistles. Again, I said I don’t know how much, and that is primarily because we don’t know a whole lot about the precise nature of what Jewish Christians in Jerusalem believed.
col8lok8 said
tleblan2 said
Can anyone answer the question of what the Jewish Christians (Jerusalem church with James) thought that Jesus was saving them from. While they certainly believed in the concept of sin, my understanding is that it didn’t have the theological connotations it has for Christians. My understanding is that they they didn’t have a theology of original sin so (in my mind) they wouldn’t have thought they were being saved from original sin. So in what sense would they have thought of salvation as being saved from their sins and how would that help them? I may be wrong in this next statement but I don’t think they had a theology that their soul or spirit separated from their body and that their spirit went to heaven for eternity. My understanding is they believed in a resurrection on the “last day”. So whatever type of body they thought would be resurrected it would be in a future time and it would occur on earth not in heaven? So did they think belief in Jesus raised from the dead would give them a place in the ressurection on the last day here on earth?
If they thought salvation was the right to be/live with Jesus in a better life on earth, how did that get connected to the concept of salvation as remittance of sins. If they didn’t believe in original sin why would they believe in salvation from sin?
Thanks for any responses. Tammy
With the most optimistic (conservative) dating of Acts, the text could plausibly have been written less than 5 years after the events it describes with Paul living under house arrest at the end of Acts. According to the writer of Acts, Paul claims to have been trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts chapter 22 verses 3 to 5), and if one accepts that as truthful then Paul has some credentials in regards to Jewish non-Christian thought in Jerusalem. I see no reason to think Paul’s writings on sin and Adam to other churches don’t apply to some extent also the Jewish Christians or Jerusalem Church. Jews were not only found in Jerusalem but in the expansive Diaspora, and Paul would have recognised he had to cater to both Jew and Gentile in his writings. Moreover, it is hard to imagine there were zero gentiles in the Jerusalem Church, and so Jerusualem church’s ideas probably reflected to some extent – exactly how much we don’t know – the thought of Gentile Christians in Jerusalem. Romans chapter 5 verses 12 to 19 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, emphasis mine) states that
You are really stretching the bounds of credulity here. Majority opinion is that Acts was not written before 100AD and that the author was not a companion of Paul. Your opinions are not held by critical scholars, Christian or secular. Transferring what Paul preached onto the “pillars in Jerusalem” as what they believed in is disingenuous. You use phrases like “According to the writer of Acts” (a person who we have good reason to doubt the veracity of) and “if one accepts” (translation: if one views this through the lens of their religious beliefs) and “it is hard to imagine” to conceal the fact that we don’t know much of anything about what you state aside from what Paul tells us of his own beliefs.
Greg Matthews said
col8lok8 said
tleblan2 said
Can anyone answer the question of what the Jewish Christians (Jerusalem church with James) thought that Jesus was saving them from. While they certainly believed in the concept of sin, my understanding is that it didn’t have the theological connotations it has for Christians. My understanding is that they they didn’t have a theology of original sin so (in my mind) they wouldn’t have thought they were being saved from original sin. So in what sense would they have thought of salvation as being saved from their sins and how would that help them? I may be wrong in this next statement but I don’t think they had a theology that their soul or spirit separated from their body and that their spirit went to heaven for eternity. My understanding is they believed in a resurrection on the “last day”. So whatever type of body they thought would be resurrected it would be in a future time and it would occur on earth not in heaven? So did they think belief in Jesus raised from the dead would give them a place in the ressurection on the last day here on earth?
If they thought salvation was the right to be/live with Jesus in a better life on earth, how did that get connected to the concept of salvation as remittance of sins. If they didn’t believe in original sin why would they believe in salvation from sin?
Thanks for any responses. Tammy
With the most optimistic (conservative) dating of Acts, the text could plausibly have been written less than 5 years after the events it describes with Paul living under house arrest at the end of Acts. According to the writer of Acts, Paul claims to have been trained in Jerusalem under the Rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts chapter 22 verses 3 to 5), and if one accepts that as truthful then Paul has some credentials in regards to Jewish non-Christian thought in Jerusalem. I see no reason to think Paul’s writings on sin and Adam to other churches don’t apply to some extent also the Jewish Christians or Jerusalem Church. Jews were not only found in Jerusalem but in the expansive Diaspora, and Paul would have recognised he had to cater to both Jew and Gentile in his writings. Moreover, it is hard to imagine there were zero gentiles in the Jerusalem Church, and so Jerusualem church’s ideas probably reflected to some extent – exactly how much we don’t know – the thought of Gentile Christians in Jerusalem. Romans chapter 5 verses 12 to 19 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, emphasis mine) states that
You are really stretching the bounds of credulity here. Majority opinion is that Acts was not written before 100AD and that the author was not a companion of Paul. Your opinions are not held by critical scholars, Christian or secular. Transferring what Paul preached onto the “pillars in Jerusalem” as what they believed in is disingenuous. You use phrases like “According to the writer of Acts” (a person who we have good reason to doubt the veracity of) and “if one accepts” (translation: if one views this through the lens of their religious beliefs) and “it is hard to imagine” to conceal the fact that we don’t know much of anything about what you state aside from what Paul tells us of his own beliefs.
You do not reflect the majority opinion here. I am not claiming to reflect majority opinion with a pre-70 dating of Acts. I am saying, however, that the majority opinion is that Acts was not written after the first century. The anti-Marcionite Luke-Acts idea is not as convincing to majority of scholars as you seem to suggest with such a late dating on your part. Moreover, there is little to no evidence the writer of Luke used the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. These two factors push the date of Acts back before the end of the first century. Let us not also forget that Luke never cites the canonical Johanine literature (Johanine gospel, and 1-3 John). This indicates that Luke wrote his gospel in the second half of the first century (between 62-92) before John at the very end of the first century (90-99). That is the majority opinion of what might be described as all mainstream scholars. I refuse to limit discussion to just critical scholars. After all, it is not just those you call ‘critical scholars’ who present their work for review by their scholarly peers.
col8lok8 said
I am not saying that Paul’s theological writings are 100% what Jewish Christians in Jerusalem believed. I am saying there is some extent in which Paul’s thought is comparable to theirs. We don’t know how much (5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%). There are obviously going to be some differences since he is originally from Tarsus to the north of Jerusalem, not Jerusalem. Your words
Can you point me to the place where those were my words. I’m going to assume you were, perhaps, in a bit of a hurry responding and might have misread. I never made any claim about percentages, where Saul was from or that places outside Jerusalem were not in Jerusalem ( I will take your assurance of the latter), but let’s go to the video tape, shall we?
” I see no reason to think Paul’s writings on sin and Adam to other churches don’t apply to some extent also the Jewish Christians or Jerusalem Church. Jews were not only found in Jerusalem but in the expansive Diaspora,”
So it seems the question here is whether there is any reason, better yet, good reason, to think Paul’s ideas about Sin, as reflected in his writings, are comparable to those held by non christian Jews (or Jews). My response was that Paul’s conversion marked a fundamental shift in his thinking and that his ideas would reflect that. Paul seems to have been unique in his thinking about Gentile conversion and whether they needed to obey the law of Moses. This goes to the very heart of your question. I’m not even sure Jews have a concept of sin, but if they did, by its very nature, it would need to be fundamentally different from Paul’s being that his was shaped by the centrality of the resurrection in his thinking.
appear[s] to be a blanket statement. With the exception of the word ‘might’, it seems to suggest there is absolutely nothing Jewish Christians believed on sin and salvation theologically that is comparable or identical to what Paul says in his epistles. Again, I said I don’t know how much, and that is primarily because we don’t know a whole lot about the precise nature of what Jewish Christians in Jerusalem believed.
I think Greg is onto something here. You’re going to go with seems, appears, etc? There’s nothing in my statement about absolutes, but there is an awful lot talk about them in Christian apologetics. If we go outside to your car and I say there’s good reason to think you have a flat tire, do you say dude I don’t have four flat tires!
My point, apart from the seems to suggest the appearance of something like, kinda sorta, maybe if you accept the word of an anonymous writer ‘n stuff, is that Paul’s ideas have very little in common with those of his non Christian Jewish contemporaries (which you have now changed to Christian Jews for some reason) It’s no accident that those ideas led to a very serious separation between Judaism and it’s increasingly antisemitic sibling: Enough of a separation to make Jesus Jewishness a novelty to be discovered nearly 2000 years later by Critical scholars
There was no blanket statement. If you want to have a serious discussion you need to drop the apologetics. Saying I have a good reason to think Paul’s ideas were very different from those of his contemporary non-Christian , Rabbi Gamaliel and non Rabbi Gamaliel trained Jews, has nothing to do with absolutes, but has everything to do with the uniqueness of Paul’s views and to the seismic transformation that caused it
col8lok8 said
Greg Matthews said
You do not reflect the majority opinion here. I am not claiming to reflect majority opinion with a pre-70 dating of Acts. I am saying, however, that the majority opinion is that Acts was not written after the first century. The anti-Marcionite Luke-Acts idea is not as convincing to majority of scholars as you seem to suggest with such a late dating on your part. Moreover, there is little to no evidence the writer of Luke used the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. These two factors push the date of Acts back before the end of the first century. Let us not also forget that Luke never cites the canonical Johanine literature (Johanine gospel, and 1-3 John). This indicates that Luke wrote his gospel in the second half of the first century (between 62-92) before John at the very end of the first century (90-99). That is the majority opinion of what might be described as all mainstream scholars. I refuse to limit discussion to just critical scholars. After all, it is not just those you call ‘critical scholars’ who present their work for review by their scholarly peers.
You’re right about the date. I’ve been out of town and I was going from memory thinking 95-110 for the date when the range, which encompasses majority theological and secular critical opinion, is 70-110. I refuse to include very much scholarly opinion from theological sources unless they’re known to be critical. Otherwise, I’ll have to put up with debates over whether or not cavemen rode dinosaurs to the rock quarry each morning.
spiker said
col8lok8 said
I am not saying that Paul’s theological writings are 100% what Jewish Christians in Jerusalem believed. I am saying there is some extent in which Paul’s thought is comparable to theirs. We don’t know how much (5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%). There are obviously going to be some differences since he is originally from Tarsus to the north of Jerusalem, not Jerusalem. Your words
Can you point me to the place where those were my words. I’m going to assume you were, perhaps, in a bit of a hurry responding and might have misread. I never made any claim about percentages, where Saul was from or that places outside Jerusalem were not in Jerusalem ( I will take your assurance of the latter), but let’s go to the video tape, shall we?
” I see no reason to think Paul’s writings on sin and Adam to other churches don’t apply to some extent also the Jewish Christians or Jerusalem Church. Jews were not only found in Jerusalem but in the expansive Diaspora,”
So it seems the question here is whether there is any reason, better yet, good reason, to think Paul’s ideas about Sin, as reflected in his writings, are comparable to those held by non christian Jews (or Jews). My response was that Paul’s conversion marked a fundamental shift in his thinking and that his ideas would reflect that. Paul seems to have been unique in his thinking about Gentile conversion and whether they needed to obey the law of Moses. This goes to the very heart of your question. I’m not even sure Jews have a concept of sin, but if they did, by its very nature, it would need to be fundamentally different from Paul’s being that his was shaped by the centrality of the resurrection in his thinking.
appear[s] to be a blanket statement. With the exception of the word ‘might’, it seems to suggest there is absolutely nothing Jewish Christians believed on sin and salvation theologically that is comparable or identical to what Paul says in his epistles. Again, I said I don’t know how much, and that is primarily because we don’t know a whole lot about the precise nature of what Jewish Christians in Jerusalem believed.
I think Greg is onto something here. You’re going to go with seems, appears, etc? There’s nothing in my statement about absolutes, but there is an awful lot talk about them in Christian apologetics. If we go outside to your car and I say there’s good reason to think you have a flat tire, do you say dude I don’t have four flat tires!
My point, apart from the seems to suggest the appearance of something like, kinda sorta, maybe if you accept the word of an anonymous writer ‘n stuff, is that Paul’s ideas have very little in common with those of his non Christian Jewish contemporaries (which you have now changed to Christian Jews for some reason) It’s no accident that those ideas led to a very serious separation between Judaism and it’s increasingly antisemitic sibling: Enough of a separation to make Jesus Jewishness a novelty to be discovered nearly 2000 years later by Critical scholars
There was no blanket statement. If you want to have a serious discussion you need to drop the apologetics. Saying I have a good reason to think Paul’s ideas were very different from those of his contemporary non-Christian , Rabbi Gamaliel and non Rabbi Gamaliel trained Jews, has nothing to do with absolutes, but has everything to do with the uniqueness of Paul’s views and to the seismic transformation that caused it
You misread. After the words ‘Your words’ I quoted your actual words ‘there’s good reason to think Paul’s theological writing might not “apply” to Jewish Christians’. I wasn’t saying that percentage stuff *I said* was your words. Just that bit I quoted from you. That part I quoted from you is a blanket statement with the exception of the word ‘might’. But ‘might’ can means either it 100% applies or it might not apply at all (0%). If you say that Paul’s theological writing is not something that applies to Jewish Christians, then that is a blanket statement about Paul’s theological writings. To add nuance would be to say there are points in which Paul’s theological writing are identical or at least comparable to Jewish Christians, and point of difference. Hence the percentage stuff I said. We really don’t know how much difference, nor how much similarity. Insufficient source material.
What do your words ‘very different’ mean? Completely different (Jewish Christians did not hold Paul’s view on sin and salvation at all)? You have to show that the uniqueness of Paul’s views is found in his teaching on sin on humanity under Adam, and that Christ for Jewish Christians removed our curse and punishment by falling under curse/punishment (crucifixion as curse) himself even though he was completely guiltless and did not deserve to be under the curse/punishment.
Paul taught the Law of Moses needed to be obeyed, not for the sake of obeying the Law, but rather because it is the proper response to what God has done. This is very Jewish idea. The Ten Commandments, for example, begin by highlighting what God has done (Exodus chapter 20 verse 2). That is why the Law of Moses must be obeyed, because it is the proper response to God’s gracious action. This is not salvific. Jesus taught that. All the New Testament writers taught that.
The New Testament writers said for example that one needs to have a righteousness that surpasses the Pharisees. That is Jesus’ own righteousness imputed (given) to us. His righteousness saves. Yes, the Law of Moses is to be obeyed according to all New Testament writers but it is done as a response to what God has done and is not ultimately salvific. How does one obey the Law? As Jesus taught, loving God and loving neighbour. That is the Law of Moses for Jesus and for Paul. We don’t know whether or not Jesus taught circumcision, not working on the Sabbath, or obedience of Jewish dietary laws. It appears Jesus did not teach obedience to the Jewish law in such respects. I repeat: for all New Testament writers, the Law of Moses was to be obeyed by loving God and loving neighbour as a response to God’s grace. It does not save however. Reception of grace, after all, does not entitle one to sin (break the Jewish law). This is why Paul basically says ‘Shall we sin so grace my abound? No’. He suggests keeping of the Law through loving God and loving neighbour.
Another way of showing that Paul wanted people to obey the Law is that he stressed the importance of having the ‘mind of Christ’, having a mind within us which seeks to live God’s way by obeying his Law of loving God and loving neighbour. Who is to say this is not the view of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem since they followed Jesus and what he had taught about the Law?
You have to say that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem did not believe Jesus’ interpretation of the law in order for Paul’s thought not to be applicable to them because Paul and Jesus are on the same page in regards to sin and salvation. You have to say that Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, as opposed to Jesus, thought that Gentiles need to be circumcised. Jesus never said it. You have to say that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, as opposed to Jesus, thought that Gentiles needed to avoid sartorially mixing different fabrics. Jesus never taught that.
The New Testament writers said for example that one needs to have a righteousness that surpasses the Pharisees. That is Jesus’ own righteousness imputed (given) to us. His righteousness saves. Yes, the Law of Moses is to be obeyed according to all New Testament writers but it is done as a response to what God has done and is not ultimately salvific. How does one obey the Law? As Jesus taught, loving God and loving neighbour. That is the Law of Moses for Jesus and for Paul. We don’t know whether or not Jesus taught circumcision, not working on the Sabbath, or obedience of Jewish dietary laws. It appears Jesus did not teach obedience to the Jewish law in such respects. I repeat: for all New Testament writers, the Law of Moses was to be obeyed by loving God and loving neighbour as a response to God’s grace. It does not save however. Reception of grace, after all, does not entitle one to sin (break the Jewish law). This is why Paul basically says ‘Shall we sin so grace my abound? No’. He suggests keeping of the Law through loving God and loving neighbour.
i quote :
Remind those Christians that the original 12 apostles were Jewish, and therefore, what Jesus required of Jews was thus required of the Apostles? What did Jesus tell the Jews was the key to getting saved?
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
In context, it is clear that “your righteousness” (v. 20) cannot be anything other than “whoever keeps and teaches them” (v. 19. Therefore, Christians violate the cardinal rule of “immediate context” when they insist the righteousness in v. 20 is talking about the righteousness of Christ imputed to sinners through his death. His death is nowhere expressed or implied in the immediate or larger context, while the concept of obeying the law in one’s personal life is in v. 19.
The Christians will tell you that after Jesus died, the covenant was changed, and therefore the way of salvation taught by Jesus before the Cross, no longer applies.
That is false for a number of reasons:
1) Matthew was surely written only after Jesus died. Why did Matthew, writing long after Jesus died, chose to tell his readers what the gospel was like before Jesus died, if the gospel at that early point does not apply anymore? Wouldn’t that only tend to confuse the reader? This is all the more glaring in light of the fact that Matthew does not express or imply that the way of salvation in 5:19-20 somehow no longer applies, or was superseded by the Cross. Unless Christians wish to pretend that the cardinal rule of immediate context should not be applied to that verse, then they are stuck with a solid proof that the original gospel was the very sort of legalism most Christians now condemn.
2) the resurrected Jesus did not think his death on the Cross freed anybody from obligation to obey the Matthew 5:19-20 way of salvation; he tells the disciples require future Gentile believers to “obey” ALL of the things he had previously taught the disciples. Matthew 28:20.
You should point out to the Christians that although “grammar” and “context” are good examples of bible hermeneutics, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is denied by too many Christians and bible scholars to pretend that it should be exalted to the level of a rule of interpretation. For that reason, the mere fact that an interpretation of a bible verse conflicts with something the bible says elsewhere, does not function to prove that said interpretation is false.
Yes, the Law of Moses is to be obeyed according to all New Testament writers but it is done as a response to what God has done and is not ultimately salvific. How does one obey the Law? As Jesus taught, loving God and loving neighbour.
but the pagans can do that as well. they can love their gods and love their neighbour. yhwh is a god who wants his children to be different, i quote :
in the mind of moses, righteousness could only be obtained by obeying all of God’s instructions (deu 6:25). in the mind of moses, the only way for a hebrew to avoid serving other gods, is to actually serve the one true God. You do that by obeying him.
Greg Matthews said
You’re right about the date. I’ve been out of town and I was going from memory thinking 95-110 for the date when the range, which encompasses majority theological and secular critical opinion, is 70-110. I refuse to include very much scholarly opinion from theological sources unless they’re known to be critical. Otherwise, I’ll have to put up with debates over whether or not cavemen rode dinosaurs to the rock quarry each morning.
Yaba daba doo!
Kazibwe Edris said
The New Testament writers said for example that one needs to have a righteousness that surpasses the Pharisees. That is Jesus’ own righteousness imputed (given) to us. His righteousness saves. Yes, the Law of Moses is to be obeyed according to all New Testament writers but it is done as a response to what God has done and is not ultimately salvific. How does one obey the Law? As Jesus taught, loving God and loving neighbour. That is the Law of Moses for Jesus and for Paul. We don’t know whether or not Jesus taught circumcision, not working on the Sabbath, or obedience of Jewish dietary laws. It appears Jesus did not teach obedience to the Jewish law in such respects. I repeat: for all New Testament writers, the Law of Moses was to be obeyed by loving God and loving neighbour as a response to God’s grace. It does not save however. Reception of grace, after all, does not entitle one to sin (break the Jewish law). This is why Paul basically says ‘Shall we sin so grace my abound? No’. He suggests keeping of the Law through loving God and loving neighbour.
i quote :
Remind those Christians that the original 12 apostles were Jewish, and therefore, what Jesus required of Jews was thus required of the Apostles? What did Jesus tell the Jews was the key to getting saved?
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:19-20 NAU)
In context, it is clear that “your righteousness” (v. 20) cannot be anything other than “whoever keeps and teaches them” (v. 19. Therefore, Christians violate the cardinal rule of “immediate context” when they insist the righteousness in v. 20 is talking about the righteousness of Christ imputed to sinners through his death. His death is nowhere expressed or implied in the immediate or larger context, while the concept of obeying the law in one’s personal life is in v. 19.
The Christians will tell you that after Jesus died, the covenant was changed, and therefore the way of salvation taught by Jesus before the Cross, no longer applies.
That is false for a number of reasons:
1) Matthew was surely written only after Jesus died. Why did Matthew, writing long after Jesus died, chose to tell his readers what the gospel was like before Jesus died, if the gospel at that early point does not apply anymore? Wouldn’t that only tend to confuse the reader? This is all the more glaring in light of the fact that Matthew does not express or imply that the way of salvation in 5:19-20 somehow no longer applies, or was superseded by the Cross. Unless Christians wish to pretend that the cardinal rule of immediate context should not be applied to that verse, then they are stuck with a solid proof that the original gospel was the very sort of legalism most Christians now condemn.
2) the resurrected Jesus did not think his death on the Cross freed anybody from obligation to obey the Matthew 5:19-20 way of salvation; he tells the disciples require future Gentile believers to “obey” ALL of the things he had previously taught the disciples. Matthew 28:20.
You should point out to the Christians that although “grammar” and “context” are good examples of bible hermeneutics, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is denied by too many Christians and bible scholars to pretend that it should be exalted to the level of a rule of interpretation. For that reason, the mere fact that an interpretation of a bible verse conflicts with something the bible says elsewhere, does not function to prove that said interpretation is false.
Wow. You are very confused. I am not disobeying the principle of looking at the immediate context. You are. The immediate context proves we are guilty lawbreakers and unable to obey the law for salvation.
Murder is hatred given safe harbor in the heart. Adultery is lust given safe harbor in the heart. That is the context (Matthew chapter 5 verses 21 to 30). The point is that we cannot obey the law for the sake of obeying the law. It is impossible. We are vile lawbreakers, each and everyone of us. We can’t even obey one commandment of the Law. We cannot achieve righteousness that surpasses the Pharisees. Jesus can. He fulfills it all. Although we may think we are obeying the law when we don’t murder anyone, we don’t. For harboring hatred in one’s heart means those who do it are guilty lawbreakers who cannot save themselves. The same applies for adultery and adultery as lusting after women in the heart of a man. We cannot obey the law. Jesus fulfills the Law (Matthew chapter 5 verse 17). Yes, the resurrected Jesus told his disciples to obey everything he taught. That is a response to what has been done before their very eyes (the Resurrection of Jesus, salvation), not simply for the sake of obeying. “Your righteousness” is referring to verse 17 in which Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets (He is righteous as verse 17 says, we are not – even though we might say about ourselves that we never committed cold-blooded murder and adulterous sexual intercourse [verses 21 to 30]). We can’t obey because the Lord requires nothing less than perfection from us. We are not perfect in that sense. Are we perfect in and of ourselves? Or are we only perfect because Jesus is perfect? The latter. If you want to obey the law for your salvation, you need to obey the law to the fullest extent. One should not be looking for minimum ways to keep oneself from breaking the law. Trust Jesus for salvation. His righteousness. Respond with obedience.
Example:
If you want to obey the Law regarding owning slaves, you have to look for God’s heart in the matter. You have to treat your slaves better than 21st century employers treat their employees even though the Law of Moses sets a lower bar. Matthew chapter 25’s sheep and the goats lesson apply. If your slave is hungry, feed your slave. Don’t even let them go hungry would be best. If your slave is thirsty, give them something to quench his thirst. Don’t let them go thirsty is best. If your slave is naked, give them clothing. Not letting them run out of clothing to wear would be best. Obviously human have many other needs. Jesus is not giving an exhaustive list of needs. In short, love and care for people, even those considered lowest in one’s society, perfectly otherwise you do not deserve anything more than eternal fire prepared for the Devil (Matthew 25 verses 41 to 43). Anyone who had slaves (and this applies to anyone who has employees day) in Jesus’ day would realise that they were guilty lawbreakers. at some stage. They did not love their slaves perfectly. Obviously, in communicating this the Bible is encouraging people not to own slaves as we understand it (in the exploitative sense).
“Murder is hatred given safe harbor in the heart. Adultery is lust given safe harbor in the heart. That is the context (Matthew chapter 5 verses 21 to 30).
The point is that we cannot obey the law for the sake of obeying the law. It is impossible.”
seems like you washing your self with jesus’ blood has truly confused you.
it is your jewish man god who tells you to love god with “all thy heart”
how is that possible if the heart has murder and adultery in it?
** you do not have permission to see this link **, “I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.”
how did abraham obey god if he was filthy ?
We are vile lawbreakers, each and everyone of us. We can’t even obey one commandment of the Law.
do you have divine revelation that jesus did not lust in his heart?
how about satan poking him for 40 days and offering him cash and prostitutes?
are you sure he didn’t lust?
We cannot achieve righteousness that surpasses the Pharisees. Jesus can.
no, jesus says that his disiples can with good heart
“The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart”
no human sacrificial ritual or blood spilling required.
He fulfills it all. Although we may think we are obeying the law when we don’t murder anyone, we don’t. For harboring hatred in one’s heart means those who do it are guilty lawbreakers who cannot save themselves. The same applies for adultery and adultery as lusting after women in the heart of a man. We cannot obey the law. Jesus fulfills the Law (Matthew chapter 5 verse 17). Yes, the resurrected Jesus told his disciples to obey everything he taught. That is a response to what has been done before their very eyes (the Resurrection of Jesus, salvation), not simply for the sake of obeying. “Your righteousness” is referring to verse 17 in which Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets (He is righteous as verse 17 says, we are not – even though we might say about ourselves that we never committed cold-blooded murder and adulterous sexual intercourse [verses 21 to 30]). We can’t obey because the Lord requires nothing less than perfection from us.
can you explain how did jesus fullfill the law of punishing adulterers? did jesus do the act of stoning or did he do the act of adultery and then stoned himself ? how does it work? yhwh says to obey his laws so what does “fulfil” mean? fulfil to break?
if law is easily breakable then god sent easily breakable laws and then jesus added his own understanding to make it more difficult to keep. jesus added to the law of yhwh by changing it.
but i don’t see where it says that the laws should be broken because of human sacrificial ritual on cross.
We are not perfect in that sense. Are we perfect in and of ourselves? Or are we only perfect because Jesus is perfect? The latter. If you want to obey the law for your salvation, you need to obey the law to the fullest extent. One should not be looking for minimum ways to keep oneself from breaking the law. Trust Jesus for salvation. His righteousness Respond with obedience.
where does the text in matthew , chap 5 say anything about requiring “perfect ” jesus before one does the law in the ot ?
jesus broke the ot law because he himself was an imperfect person with imperfect excuses :
You are right to note that it was Jesus’ disciples that broke the law. On the other hand, one must wonder why their teacher stands there allowing them to break the law. However, when I wrote the parable, I was more concerned with the arguments Jesus makes rather than who was ‘driving the car’. The point is to examine the arguments and see if they make any sense.
And they do not.
You say that Jesus is not attempting to defend his disciples. On this I must say that you are quite mistaken. If he were not defending his disciples, the whole speech would make even less sense than it does. He could have just accepted the chastisement without castigating the Pharisees and certainly without the circumlocution upon which he embarks. Moreover, he tells the Pharisees that if they understood that God desires mercy and not sacrifice, they would not have condemned the guiltless. He is clearly excusing his disciples violation of the Sabbath.
The arguments he makes to justify his disciples, as reflected in the parable, are illegitimate. First, he compares their situation to the emergency situation in which David found himself, but the disciples are not in an emergency. Then he compares the violation with the Sabbath to the duties of the priests that would under other circumstances violate the Sabbath, but the disciples are not fulfilling a Torah obligation in violating the Sabbath. In fact, when he says that the “priests in the temple violate the Sabbath,” he is incorrect, and his argument is absurd. After this he attacks the Pharisees for condemning the guiltless. And he concludes by declaring himself Lord of the Sabbath. Each of these arguments is troubling, as reflected in my parable.The problem one has when reading the NT is that the NT already sets up Jesus as a noble soul. When Jesus makes grandiose statements people tolerate them, because they have already come to accept that Jesus has a right to say them. However, let them hear these same words come out of the mouth of another, and they would be horrified. They would not testify that such a man is a noble soul. They might think him insane. They might think him evil. But they would not think him a prophet, messiah, or divine.
::::
I have been trying to understand your comment: “I guess a phrase like “What they do is unlawful” would mean much more serious then than now.” I take it to mean that you read such a comment as an attack. I am going to respond to the comment that way. If, however, I have misunderstood, please forgive my mistake.
The reason I do not consider “What they do is unlawful” to be an attack, is because generally speaking, I do not consider it an attack when one accuses someone of a wrong they are doing openly. In fact, we might say that the Pharisees were actually doing a real good to Jesus and the disciples. After all, if you were breaking the law, would you wish someone to just stand by and allow you to continue breaking it? We might feel that way, but we know it is not to our benefit.
Consider the mission of Ezekiel (3:16-21). He was sent to reprove sinners. And God says that if Ezekiel does not warn those of whom God says that they shall surely die, then Ezekiel will have incurred
bloodguilt if they continue in their wrongdoing. But if he warns them and they ignore him, he will have saved his own life, even though they die. Moreover, he is to warn the righteous not to sin, with similar results.
Would we say that when Ezekiel tells people that they are doing wrong, would we consider this an attack? I would not. Though they might not wish to hear what he has to say, he is really performing for them a good.
And I would say that similarly, with the Pharisees, when they see the disciples violating the Sabbath, and they tell their master, this is not an attack. Obviously Jesus received it as an attack, but that does not make it one. Breaking the Sabbath is quite an offense, and the Pharisees ought to warn them that they are violating it. Sabbath is a deep bond between the Creator and Israel. One puts himself outside the covenant by taking it lightly. Rather than attacking Jesus and the disciples, the Pharisees have done them a great good. And they are repaid with evil for their efforts.
Now Christians often see Jesus as one reproving the Pharisees and the Jews in general for their own benefit. Yet, his ‘rebukes’ I would call attacks. Let us consider the language he uses, and I think you will see why I call on rebuke an attack and another I do not. In Matthew 23, we see exactly how abusive Jesus could be. In verse 15 he calls the scribes and Pharisees children of hell. In verse 17, he calls them blind fools (in violation of his own teaching. See Matthew 5:22). In verse 33 he calls them “snakes” and “brood of vipers”. In verse 35 he holds them responsible for the death of Abel, who predated the Jewish people by over a thousand years. Actually, he is holding them responsible for the deaths of all the righteous within Tanach. Jesus is using quite hateful language, and he is attributing to the Pharisees sins with which they obviously could have had no involvement. This is what I would call an attack.
I would ask you to compare the accusation of the Pharisees, which was true, that what the disciples did was unlawful. Compared to what Jesus says in Matthew 23, it is incredibly mild. So, I do see their accusation as serious. But I cannot see it as an attack. I hope this clarifies my comments.
….
I see that you have changed your mind. At first, you admitted that the disciples broke the Sabbath, but your assertion was that only they had done so and not Jesus. Now, as you call them innocent, you seem to say that they were not breaking the Sabbath. But of course, though Jesus calls them innocent, it is obvious from his arguments that they were not.
Please note that Jesus does not say that they never broke the Sabbath. He does not say that the Pharisees have invented restrictions that did not exist. Instead, he attempts to justify their behavior by likening it to the emergency situation of David and then to a priestly action performed on the Sabbath. Reread my parable to understand why these objections are false. These incoherent arguments of his would not be necessary if no law was being broken.
Hunger is not justification to break the Sabbath. The laws of God are not governed by our appetites; rather our appetites are to be governed by God’s law. The Jewish people have a covenant with God to observe and guard his Sabbaths. They are to be prepared for it. Recall how in the desert, God did not provide manna on the Sabbath, and the manna of the previous day was to be prepared ahead of time. The Sabbath is a weekly event, not one that comes upon one unawares. The disciples should have been prepared. And if they got to feeling hungry, then they could wait until they reached their destination. They could not be travelling terribly far; it was the Sabbath after all.
Surely you have had to bear up under hunger before. It is not a major inconvenience. The disciples were not starving. They were merely hungry. I have known Christians to fast for a day, enduring hunger for what they considered a greater good. The disciples were not being asked even to do that.
The Sabbath is a day in which the Jew acknowledges God as Master and Creator of the world. The ‘work’ from which the Jew abstains is not necessarily labor intensive. It is creative. The Jew, by abstaining from ‘work,’ proclaims that he is not the master of the world and that he relies upon God. It is not a day to be taken lightly. When the disciples place their hunger above this message, they are not properly acknowledging God as their Master. They treat their own desire as more important than guarding the Sabbath. Perhaps it would be better to say that they treat the Sabbath carelessly.
The disciples were not innocent. If they had been, Jesus would not need to resort to such strange circumlocution to justify them. Though the offense might seem light, it still needed correcting. The Pharisees did that without maligning Jesus or his disciples. They did not call them “sons of the devil” or “vipers”. They did not accuse the disciples of being guilty of the “blood of Abel” or Zechariah ben Berachiah (a prophet who was not killed by the way). For their troubles, however, they were maligned. Jesus’ response to this incident was incoherent and self-aggrandizing. It showed also that, though he did not mind publicly humiliating his opponents and heaping invective upon their heads in the name of correction, he could not accept much milder correction without ‘flying off the handle’.
god made easily breakable laws and then he comes down as a jew bound by jewish laws and makes jewish laws difficult to keep. then he kills himself because he wants to save everyone from doing what came out of his pre-incarnate mind.
christians have no evidence that jesus did not harbour lust and hate in his heart just like they have no evidence that john the baptist harboured lust and hate in his heart . jesus was born of a woman and was baptised for his sins .
Jesus about committing adultery in the heart does not actually identify that carnal behaviour as sinful. One can easily understand that Jesus is using figurative language as anyone with a working mind knows that by the standards of logic and language you cannot have sex in your heart. The most that can truly be discerned from the exhortation is that lusting after a woman is frowned upon
Rabbinic statement declares ‘Keep aloof from what leads to sin and from whatever resembles sin’. 7 Furthermore what does the commandment ‘do not covet’ imply? If you covet your neighbor’s wife and act upon it you have committed adultery. As an example we find in the Talmud the following statement: “Whoever looks lustfully at a women is like one who has had unlawful intercourse with her”. (BT Yoma 29a)
but none of this means that the the jews said that the torah laws should be trashed.
Even the pagans can tell one not to have hatred and lust in heart.
yhwh wants his children to be different than the pagan nations.
i quote :
in the mind of moses, righteousness could only be obtained by obeying all of God’s instructions (deu 6:25). in the mind of moses, the only way for a hebrew to avoid SERVING OTHERS gods, is to actually SERVE the one true God. YOU DO THAT BY OBEYING HIM.
Kazibwe Edris said
god made easily breakable laws and then he comes down as a jew bound by jewish laws and makes jewish laws difficult to keep. then he kills himself because he wants to save everyone from doing what came out of his pre-incarnate mind.christians have no evidence that jesus did not harbour lust and hate in his heart just like they have no evidence that john the baptist harboured lust and hate in his heart . jesus was born of a woman and was baptised for his sins .
Of course we can’t prove Jesus was perfect in his thoughts. We never have access to people’s psychology in such an intimate manner. We are not so effective at mind reading. But at the same time you can’t definitively prove he did harbour lust or hate in his heart/mind. It works both ways.
Abraham was counted as righteous for his faith/trust in God (Genesis chapter 15 verse 6). Abraham did not obey God perfectly. He was not a perfect man. He tried to achieve God’s promise to him of a son by having sexual relations with someone other than Sarah, namely Hagar.
John the Baptist likely did harbour lust and hate in his heart. Men who are not God do that. Lust is a big problem for men throughout human history.
The Hebrew Scriptures tell us King David could not keep his pants on and slept with his neighbour (neighbour’s wife) before killing her husband. I recommend reading Baruch Halpern’s David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (2001, Eerdmans: MI).
There is absolutely no human on earth today who is good and righteous and obeys the Law perfectly to the fullest extent without breaking it even once (Ecclesiastes chapter 7 verse 20). I trust even though I cannot definitively prove that the only man who never sinned is Jesus, and he was able to do so because he was God at the same time.
Abraham was counted as righteous for his faith/trust in God (Genesis chapter 15 verse 6). Abraham did not obey God perfectly. He was not a perfect man. He tried to achieve God’s promise to him of a son by having sexual relations with someone other than Sarah, namely Hagar.
** you do not have permission to see this link **, “I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.”
so are you a liar or your god is a liar or are there contradictions in your bible?
i can mention other prophets who according to yhwh could save THEMSELVES because of their works/rituals/righteousness etc
the strange thing is
yhwh makes laws which come out of his mind
he sends “born in sin” disease into the earth
adam passes his “born in sin ” disease to his children
all the way down to the time moses was given the jewish laws
if yhwh was impressed and had a thing for human blood sacrifices, why did he bother sending laws to moses?
if he knew that the people he sent the laws to lust in their heart and have hatred in their heart and he still gave them laws when his intention was lovely human flesh opening, why did he waste moses by deceiving him into thinking that human can make yhwh happy by doing his commands and rituals?
quote:
but this is all useless because like the pagan nations yhwh has a thing for human sacrificial rituals. according to christians you can only do the law if you have a god hiding inyour body , if you don’t then forget it.
yhwh is the greatest deceiver on the planet
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert