Robert said
I can. Plus, the common rabbinic interpretation that derives the kashrut practice of not preparing or eating meat and milk products together is rather ridiculous in my opinion and in the opinion of at least a couple of Galilean rabbis (especially Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai). I like to Jesus would have agreed with them. And if you believe Matthew's rather suspect account, legislative authority regarding these types of matters was handed over to Peter and the apostles. 
  

What about the bacon?

Robert said
No, the 'therefore' (οὖν in the underlying Greek) clearly ties verse 19 to the preceding text and is thus not the start of a new paragraph referring only to the more stringent following of the commandments recommended by Jesus. 
  

So we can't have bacon cheeseburgers? 🙁 

Stephen said
This here thread is an expansion of a recent forum conversation and sparked by a video I just watched.  The subject seems important enough to discuss further and in its own thread.  
Why Christians have to follow the law of Moses
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5,17-20 NRSV

I've been looking at these verses, Matthew 5:17-20. In my mind, I've been doing a bit of a breakdown of them.

The first part: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; ..." Is about the Law and the Prophets. Quite often, when people say, "The Law and the Prophets", they are talking about two sets of books. The Law is the first five books of Moses, and the Prophets are a set of prophetic books in the Jewish Bible/OT.

The New Living Translation even seems to state it this way: “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. ** you do not have permission to see this link **

So Jesus is talking about books here.

The next sentence also seems to be about writing: "not one letter, not one stroke of a letter,".

Jesus is saying that the books, writings, and even the letters and parts of the letters of the books of the Prophets and Moses will not pass away. - - To date, this could be true. Or possibly be true. Christians and Jews have been carrying around the Jewish Bible/OT for a very long time. I'm as sure as I can be that the Hebrew editions of the JB/OT are written with Hebrew letters, with all the "strokes of a letter" that Hebrew letters entail. It's also my understanding that the Jews are very fastidious about how they copy their Bible, whether handwritten on scrolls or even with modern printing methods. (We could talk about this latter: exactly how perfect are the letters and the words transmitted).

***

The next two verses (19-20) start with: "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments ..." and end with "... unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." --- Then Jesus goes on to list a number of Jewish commandments and how one can keep them even better than the scribes and the Pharisees. They concern: murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, eye for eye, & love for enemies. (see Matt 5:21-48). 

When Jesus says, "these commandments", is he referring to "these" upcoming commandments that he is about to list and speak about?

Or, is he referring to these, or perhaps one could say those, commandments that he had just mentioned that are in the books of the Law and the Prophets?

****

I guess what I'm asking is Jesus saying that we should follow All the Laws of the Jewish Bible/OT?

Or, is he saying that we should follow the following laws that he goes on to list, and do them even better as well?

****

Perhaps a paragraph break should be before the "Therefore" at the beginning of verse 19? idk

Does this make sense?

** you do not have permission to see this link **

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5,17-20 NRSV

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through the faith of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.  But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ,  and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.  I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Galatians 2,15-21 NRSV 

As I've noted repeatedly I was raised in a hardcore fundamentalist church community.  It was tacitly assumed that even given some differences in emphasis, the Bible was univocal, essentially telling one story from start to finish, centered on Christ, who was either being predicted or described.  

Of course this viewpoint doesn't survive any kind of serious scrutiny.   One of the real accomplishments of modern historical-criticism of the Bible is to demonstrate the diversity of the early Jesus community.   The early church was formed in controversy both externally and internally. The Apostle Paul is constantly arguing with others about what he regards as essential doctrines of the Faith.  It is interesting to realize that the folks he is arguing with are not outsiders but fellow Christians!  Christians who take the same testimonies and traditions that Paul received but interpret them differently.  Most fascinating of all, some of the folks Paul is in controversy with seem to be the leaders of the Mother Church in Jerusalem, Jesus own immediate disciples, presumably the ones who knew Jesus' teachings best.  

One of those early controversies (perhaps the earliest?) was how converts to the Faith stood in relation to the Jewish Law.  Do Christians have to be Torah observant?  Now we need to be careful here.  I don't think there is any place in Paul's surviving authentic letters where he actually tells Jewish converts to stop being Torah observant.   But he definitely believes the coming of Christ puts the believer in a different relationship with God's righteousness, a relationship not dependent on Torah observance.  This clearly contradicts Jesus' own teaching as recorded in the passage I quoted from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.

This raises all kinds of questions.  Did the "Pillars" in Jerusalem, James, Peter & John, really understand what Paul was teaching his converts?  Were they all really one big happy family, as depicted in Acts?  Could there have been, in fact, a schism, as is slightly hinted at in Galatians?  Whatever outcome we imagine, Paul's view won the day, and interpreters have been eliding Jesus' words in Matthew ever since.   I remember the first time I read Matthew with understanding myself, when the proverbial lightbulb went off.  I was flabbergasted.  That's not what I had been taught! Somehow we had transformed "fulfill" to mean "done away with".   

This also brings up another point.  Growing up I can remember very few sermons taken directly from Jesus' teachings in the gospels.  The overwhelming number of sermons were drawn from Paul's writings. Understandable perhaps since Paul and his imitators were dealing with issues that arose within the community.  Lots of "problem" passages were dealt with by simply being ignored.  

The clear conclusion here is that any consensus achieved by the Church was hard won after decades of debate and controversy.  None of the doctrines of the Church sprang complete and unmodified from the mouths of the first generation of believers.  I suppose people who are comfortable with the idea of Progressive Revelation will have an easier time of it than my bunch would have. 

Steefen:
Interesting.

vcharles93
I’m black in America and rotty in England. I grew up among English speaking people from England; Americans say toilet and they say potty. Americans say trash and they says garbage! Big deal! Learn the lingo. Everything is not racism. America says brown and they say rotty or rot, because that how they describe their color brown. It came from the German word rot to mean reddish brown.

Steefen:
Then case closed about David. But not Solomon.

John the Baptist:

“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Steefen:
Pentecost

= = = =

Paul says:

“All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead … we too might walk in newness of life.”

Steefen:
Pentecost was after Jesus' death and after he was raised from the dead--and after his ascension.

How about being baptized into his life, how about being baptized into the first half of his ministry?

“All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead … we too might walk in newness of life.”

Steefen:

I don't think the baptisms done by John the Baptist were about being buried with Jesus and rising from the dead with Jesus.

Paul expresses essentially the same transformation in several different ways, and importantly, he applies it to Gentiles as well as Jews.

The strongest parallels are these:

1. Paul calls Gentile believers a “new creation”

Paul says:

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”
— 2 Corinthians 5:17

And even more pointedly in Galatians:

“For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”
— Galatians 6:15

Galatians is particularly important because Paul is addressing the question of Gentiles entering the Christ movement without becoming Jews through circumcision.

So where Jesus says:

“You must be born from above”

Paul says:

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.”

Those are very close conceptual equivalents.

2. Paul explicitly describes a transformation involving the Spirit

Paul tells the Romans:

“But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.”

— Romans 8:9

And in Titus 3:5 he describes salvation as:

“the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”

That word “regeneration” (palingenesia) is particularly interesting because it denotes new birth/new beginning. Paul therefore has a vocabulary for the same general idea even though he doesn't reproduce John's anōthen terminology.

3. Paul connects this transformation with baptism

This gets especially interesting when you put John 3:5 beside Paul's Romans 6.

Jesus says:

“Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Paul says:

“All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead ... we too might walk in newness of life.”

— Romans 6:3–4

And in Galatians 3:27:

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Thus Paul's Gentile converts undergo a transition from an old existence into a new existence in Christ, associated with baptism and the Spirit.

4. Paul actually uses “new birth” language in a striking place

There is an especially important passage in Galatians 4:19. Paul says:

“My little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!”

Paul is speaking to the Galatians, including Gentile Christians, and describes Christ being formed in them.

That is not merely an ethical improvement. It is imagery of formation/new existence.

The important distinction

There is nevertheless a significant difference between John and Paul.

John 3 explicitly says:

You must be born from above to see/enter the kingdom of God.

Paul doesn't write to Gentiles, “You must be born from above.” Instead, his language is:

• “new creation” — 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15
• “renewal of the Holy Spirit” — Titus 3:5
• “newness of life” — Rom. 6:4
• “renewed in the spirit of your minds” — Eph. 4:23
• “put on the new self” — Eph. 4:24
• “Christ formed in you” — Gal. 4:19

So, yes, Paul does teach Gentiles that they must undergo the kind of transformation Jesus describes to Nicodemus—but he normally expresses it through his own “new creation / new life / Spirit / Christ in you” terminology rather than John's “born from above.”

And there is an interesting historical-literary question underneath your question: whether Paul's “new creation” language represents an independent formulation of the same concept, or whether Paul and John are drawing on a common earlier Jewish/Christian tradition about eschatological rebirth. That distinction becomes important if you're comparing the chronology or development of Paul's theology with the Gospel of John.

= = =

A-HA. The Jesus-Nicodemus exchange only appears in the Gospel of John.

So, with this, Paul comes after Gospel of John or before the Gospel of John?