I want to add a little about the Gospels and Paul’s writings. From what I learned, the Gospels were written later, alright, but because the people who’d met Jesus were getting old and dying. They wanted to preserve their story, so they were written down.
I prefer calling Paul the first Theologian, rather than evangelist. if you have two theologians, you’ll have 3 opinions. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by astorian *
1) Sweet, lovable, inclusive Jesus NEVER tried to preach to non-Jews.
Er… Pontius Pilate was a Jew now?
Well, not in so many words.
I’d hardly call his teachings ammendments though. He gave a new law which was more full than the old one – I’m sure if he wanted all those silly minor laws to apply he would have mentioned something. I don’t have to eat kosher for example – it is what comes out of a man’s mouth, not what goes into it, which condemns me. I’m almost sure that was Jesus, right?
Look, I don’t believe that whole cruxifiction/atonement thing – I think Paul was talking out of his [radio edit].
At the same time, I don’t think Paul made up xtianity. I don’t see how this is an either or thing. Although I’d like to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, I can’t help but think he liked to hear himself talk – or write – and we shouldn’t have to deal with that legacy.
::shrug:: Hey, God can change his mind, can’t he? Isn’t he always going to think “this time I mean it forever?” If God is struggling to bring us to salvation, he’s certaintly allowed to work it out as he goes a long.
I also don’t think there is any reason to think that “God” gave us the Mosaic law – so much of it seems pretty crockpot. I mean damnation for eating a pig? C’mon! Sure some man said it came from God at some point but use some common sense.
You mean like Matthew 5:17-19? 
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The argument, is, of course, that J.C. meant “until I am resurrected” when he said “till all be fufilled”. The plain meaning of the text seems to me to be saying “not until heaven and earth pass, not until all is fulfilled,” which sounds to me like “obey the law until judgment day.” But hey, it’s not my religion.
No, I think the argument lies in what J.C. meant when he said “the law.” He goes on in the rest of the chapter to define what parts of the law he is concerned about, i.e. “these commandments.”
Sure, like just looking at a woman lustfully is adultery and don’t marry people who are divorced. It just doesn’t make much sense to say “I’m not taking anything away from the law and prophets, not one little bit” and them promptly do so. He says “don’t break these commandments that I’m going to tell you”, but he never says “but breaking all the other previous laws is OK”; in fact, he specifically says he won’t (at least in this section). The Jewish laws J.C. did break (theft, gathering food on the sabbath), he always had Biblical arguments about why it had always been OK, he didn’t say “Oh, that’s not a real law, we don’t have to do it anymore.”
Didn’t Jesus tell the Apostles to “go into ALL the world” and make disciples of EVERYBODY? (Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-16)
And didn’t God (who I’m told is also Jesus) tell Peter in a vision to preach to the Gentiles, telling him not to call anything unclean that he had made clean? (Acts 10)
Or am I imagining those parts of the Bible? If I’m not, then it would be utterly disingenuous to claim that it was all Paul’s idea to preach to the Gentiles.
Yeah, but it is a lot like Marcus Aurerlius in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar saying “I come to bury Caesar not to praise him” and then going on to rail against Brutus and, by virtue of this fact praise Caesar by comparison. Jesus is saying his is not an anarchist – he is just presenting a more full vision of “love” than previous Jewish law, primarily the ten commandments, provided. I have never read most of the OT, so I don’t know really what weird laws there might be out there that I am unaware of, or what laws were “in vogue” in 1st century Judea. Certaintly he adresses stoning people as wrong, kosher eating as meaningless, not touching the sick, etc. So I’d have to think he is being very “political” when he says he’s not come to abolish the law.
I might also point out that when he says not one jot or tittle will disappear from the law, he perhaps means the fulfilled law which he mentioned from the previous sentence, not the unfulfilled law. Since the fulfilled law is not written down (or is written in men’s hearts, which Paul said IIRC – knew we’d get back to the OP here somehow) this statement is verifiably true
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**
**
Actually, that story is a later addition.
**
Where did Jesus say this?
It seems to me that Jesus never said that it was appropriate to entirely disregard the Law- only that the Law was made for people, rather than being made for Yahweh. For example, he didn’t say that it was a good idea to run to the office on the Sabbath. What he said was that the Sabbath isn’t much of a day of rest if it’s hedged about with burdensome regulations.
It seems to me that Jesus would eat spam if he were on a desert island, but not otherwise.
-Ben
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ben *
**
**
Huh?
What comes out of a man’s mouth, not what goes into a man’s mouth, condemns him. I could have sworn he said that.
I’m afraid I don’t follow you here.
Dex, good points. I’m sorry I was pressed for time this morning, because as I was driving to work, I realized I hadn’t made myself perfectly clear on all my points.
In mentioning that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, I was pointing out that Jesus’ ministry was not just for the pure Israelites. Other posters have pointed out that Samaritans were not considered Gentiles. Perhaps that was not the best example, but the caffeine hadn’t kicked in yet. My other points were that Jesus referred to himself as the stone which the builders rejected, yet which becomes the cornerstone. Also, that Jesus told his disciples: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them in also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”
Paul addresses the Jewish members of the Roman church, who were feeling superior to the Gentile members, because they have Torah. Paul’s argument is that it is faith, not works, that is the basis of salvation, Torah notwithstanding. Actually, to make it clearer, the context from Romans 3:27 - 31 is “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? (my emphasis) No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” Paul doesn’t advocate the abolition of Torah (rather, he finds all of God’s laws and commandments to be good); he just doesn’t see it as the defining point for reconciling man to God.
As far as Torah being eternal, yes, it is. And Christians believe that Jesus, being Eternal God, fulfilled that law perfectly while incarnate. The law still exists, being perfected in Jesus. My faith in Jesus results in his perfection, in a sense, “covering for” my lack of ability to live up to Torah.
**
The story of “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” was a later addition, not found in the original.
**
Ah, I see now.
I don’t think I can make it any clearer. Jesus’ interpretation (IMO) was that God told us to keep the Sabbath, not because he wanted to make us follow rules and regulations, but because he wanted us to have a day of rest, and ditto for a lot else (like keeping kosher.) In other words, Jesus was one of many Jews throughout history who wanted to get away from petty legalism and back to the “real” (whatever that means) meaning of Judaism.
I’m reminded of Feynman’s “is electricity fire?” story, in which a bunch of rabbinical students asked him to give a lecture on electricity, and then interrupted him during the lecture to ask, “ok, but let’s cut to the chase: is electricity fire?” Because, you see, you can’t make fire on the Sabbath, and if electricity is fire, you can’t push elevator buttons on the Sabbath, and you have to hire a Gentile to do it for you. I think Jesus’ logic would have been that this is ridiculous: it’s not whether you’re making fire when you push the button, it’s whether you should be going off in the elevator at all when you should be home with your family.
It seems to me that this is the reason why it seemed Jesus was breaking the law, even when he said he wasn’t going to do away with it. He would break the letter of the law in order to make an example by keeping the spirit of it, for example when he picked wheat on the Sabbath.
-Ben
**
Really? How much later? Perhaps this was part of the oral tradition someone forgot to write down – unless you are saying this showed up in the 12th century or something.
But, yeah, I got you. I think. The Holy Spirit is what is important – not any law in and of itself. True, true.
**
What- you mean oral tradition can’t last 1200 years? And are you also saying I get to alter books because I think the author left something out, and my additions are legit?
Check http://www.religioustolerance.org’s section on Biblical forgeries and whatnot, and it will have more info. I must admit, my memory on this point is embarassingly rusty.
Well, the “don’t touch a hot stove” law is pretty important, but God won’t send you to hell for violating it. It seems to me that if Jesus was really the Messiah, then Christians are shafting themselves by ditching the Torah.
-Ben
So there are other posts on this bboard besides C&L …
A brief comment. I believe that it is quite possible that what Jesus meant about not one jot or tittle of the law being removed was very simply an argument against something that is still heard to this day: “The Old Testement doesn’t apply today … yeah you’re quoting OT passages, do you have any NT passages to support your position? …”
In other words, I think it’s possible that Jesus was merely saying … don’t now relegate the OT to a second rate part of the Bible. Not a single word of it is going away. None of it should now be removed or lowered from the Bible.
I’ll admit I’ve wondered why the OT is so important at times. In a Bible study years ago, I learned some interesting points made in Hebrews that unlocked why I should still be interested in burnt offerings in the year 2000 in the USA.
Basically … the OT is not just the fascinating history of the Jewish people. It is also chock full of “types” of Christ. There are books written by Bible teachers that take literally every detail of the OT law and shows how they are a shadow or type of the Christian life today.
So no, we don’t have to slaughter lambs anymore and follow a zillion regulations … but each one of those is a shadow of something spiritual today. It’s like an entire layer of truth on top of the basic stories of what happened.
Just as an example of what I’m saying … there are some stories in the OT that are “types of Christ” in a very direct way. The most common one that most people notice right off is Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac being a “type” of God sacrificing Jesus, right down to “Take your son, YOUR ONLY SON, Isaac, whom you love …”.
Then there’s Noah and the Ark … a multiple type. It’s a type of salvation – in that man can’t save themselves, but God can. Who shuts the door of the ark? God does. It’s also a type of the end times … God taking away believers while the earth suffers judgment.
There are many, many more. One of my favorites is the OT Tabernacle. It’s an amazing “type” of entering into God’s presence that individual Christians can experience in the privacy of their own hearts. Every piece of furniture has meaning.
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth on the subject.
Really? Oh, thanks, Ben, I guess I’ll go slaughter some goats and stone some homosexuals. No reason to let love stand in the way of following the rules of some ancient confusianistic society. (I’m joking – I’ve never read the Torah. I tried – I got to the point in Genesis where someone was begetting someone and dozed off. But does he Torah have all those “bad” rules in there?)
I checked out the link. Yes, the part of John does seem to have been part of the oral tradition.
"and Jesus said unto them – let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And at once a stone flew from the back of the crown killing the women dead. And Jesus spoke unto the thrower of the stone “Oh, mom, now cut that out!”
FoG makes a good point about the archetypes for Jesus presented in the OT. One might conclude that God cultivated the Jews as some sort of chosen people so the messaiah, when he came, might get a decent foothold (as opposed to some bear worshippers in outer Mongolia who’d probably stone Jesus the first time he points out God is not in fact a bear). But I think Jesus makes clear that the fulfilled law supercedes the unfulfilled one and repeatedly makes clear Love is what is important.
**
You mean Christians don’t aready kill goats and homosexuals? Funny, I thought they frequently did.
What I meant by “ditching the Torah” is that Christians may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
**
Hmmm… I guess you’re the expert, then!
And maybe if you actually knew Jack about Judaism you’d understand what love has to do with the Torah. Sheesh…
-Ben
Hey – I’m all ears. What I object to is modern day xtians quoting obscure passages of Leviticus to excuse their intolerances. (My folks raise goats so if I can get some more sacrifices going on, all the better.) How do Jews extricate themselves from such passages? I rarely see them being bashed the way xtians are (waiting for Christianity and Love Part 17 before I get back on that thread). Maybe Jews really are anti-gay and it is simply politically incorrect to bach them.
Anyway, it is all that cult hopper Paul’s fault.
At times I am given to anger over the opinions of others, and that anger blinds me to the admonition that I must love mankind, as I love the Lord. When that happens, it is my sin, of course, not a failing of the Lord. At times I do things which others see as loving, and kind. When others see that they tell me that I am a good Christian. They are identifying the act with me, and the goodness of Christ as mine. If it is mine, it is only because the Lord gave it to me.
Paul was like I am. He was impassioned with the Love of God, and greatly desired to show others that they could gain this precious gift as well. But to sit in the light of two thousand years of Monday Mornings and judge Paul is no more the office of man than is the office of Paul to define the true Way. Paul was just a man. He spent much of his life in the passion of his faith, and the work of his vision of the ministry of his belief. But the works of Paul are the works of a Man.
There is great truth in the Bible. You can find the Lord in its pages, if you humbly seek Him. But you can find words to justify every petty sin that man has ever done, for it tells the story of men, and the petty sins of their lives. What you find in the Bible will reflect your heart. Therein lies its great truth. But you will not find my heart there, nor will you see Paul’s heart. For he and I have given our hearts to someone else. Paul’s journey is ended now, and mine has but a few short years left upon this earth.
I am pretty smart. Paul was pretty smart too. That has nothing to do with the great miracle that he and I experienced. You cannot figure your way to Salvation. Paul and I are sinners. Don’t follow us. You must seek the Lord yourself. You must be the guide of your own heart to the true Word. The bible is the story of others who have made this journey, to meet the Lord. Make your heart a dwelling place fit for the God of all creation, and read it. Ask Him to enter your heart, and make your whole with His love. You might not get answers to all your questions, but you will find much that you never even knew to question.
Tris