Initially, I was thinking it was going to be a quick side-trip, but it seems to have developed a life of its own, so I have started a new thread to continue the subject. For anyone wanting some background on the topic, a review of the previous thread may be in order.
UpperLimits
*****************
POST 200
Colossians 2:14) . . .and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.
Paul tells us the 'Law was a tutor leading to Christ' (Gal 3:24) and was taken out of the way at the time of Christ's death.
Is that a precise enough answer?
But during the time before his death, he stated
(Matthew 5:17-19) 17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches mankind to that effect, he will be called ‘least’ in relation to the kingdom of the heavens. . . .
POST 204
The Mosaic Law Code, with it's 600 laws, according to Paul, was set aside.
Laws and principles that apply to Christians were brought forth from the Law, and other instructions added, such as the instructions to preach, to be 'in agreement,' to be hospitable, to keep marriage honorable, to follow the headhip arrangment, children to 'be obedient' and parents to 'not exasperate their children,' to marry 'only in the Lord,' etc. there are really quite a few.
In Acts 15, it was made clear that circumcison was no longer binding, not a 'law' for Christians, but the other 'necessary things' were biggies.
POST 217
editing to add---I am not sure that 'loosened' is the best word for what Jesus did regarding the oral traditions, since they were never 'binding' on the Hebrews the way that the Mosaic Law was. I would say that Jesus just disregarded them, and in a least one case, showed them up as being self-serving for the religious leaders.(Mark 7:9-15) But Jesus never 'loosened' any laws of God, while they were still in force, and he never transgressed against them.
Granted, the oral traditions were never legally binding, but they were very strongly socially impressed upon the people. However we are not talking about a matter which was merely an oral tradition. We are talking about the Mosaic law and that law is quite clear.
Now a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife is one who commits adultery with the wife of his fellowman. He should be put to death without fail, the adulterer and the adulteress as well. Lev 20:10 NWT
The adulterer and the adulteress were to be put to death. Immediately. That's not an oral tradition. That's the Mosaic law.
I don't know where you get this idea that the law was ever abolished. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Fulfill does not mean to abolish, or end, or to stop. Rather, it means just the opposite.
Fulfill plēroō
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally 1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
b) to consummate: a number 1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect 2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise 1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute 2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish 3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment
Jesus not only affirmed the Mosaic law, he strengthened its grip so as to demonstrate to the people just how helpless they were in trying to meet its requirements on their own.
He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill." Then he added " whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause" is already guilty.
Then he said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery". The oral tradition you referred to had said, "Hey, it's not the first look that's bad - it's the second look - so make the first look a really long one..." (I took a little liberty there, but you get the idea.) But Jesus said "Whoever even looks at a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery."
I want to point out something: Regardless of you empty claims to vindication, the only person on this thread who has introduced the suggestion that Jesus was a law-breaker, and keeps repeating the suggestion that the implication is being made that Jesus was a law-breaker - is YOU.
In every aspect, Jesus fufilled the law, and strengthened the grip of the law. The law is Gods character. The fulfilment of the law is the expression of Gods character. Jesus fully expressed Gods character in His life. Therefore He fulfilled the law. This fulfilment has absolutely nothing to do with abolishing anything.
Jesus knew that it was impossible for unredeemed man to keep the law. But the law of God will stand forever. It will never pass away. But Jesus did not end the law and establish a new set of laws. Rather he showed us HOW to live the law and to fulfill the law in our own lives. This is GOOD NEWS!
Jehovah's Witnesses have this silly little idea that God is going to set them up in a paradise and spend a thousand years teaching them 'how not to sin.' (In light of the obstinance I sometimes see in this forum, I have to seriously question if a thousand years will be enough time... But I digress...) I submit to you that Jesus already has shown us how to stop sinning. The secret is available to us in the here and now. We already have everything that we need to know.
Those passages you quoted, out of context, have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with the misguided interpretation you have attached to them.
In Matthew 5: 21,22 Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.”
This was the standard of righteousness that Jesus taught the people they needed to achieve. What is the difference between Jesus and the religious people of His day?
The difference is this: one is the action (murder); the other is the attitude that lies behind that action (anger). One has to do with external things; the other has to do with internal change of heart. One has to do with what they did; the other has to do with what they are. One is about conduct (that was the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees); the other is about character.
Jesus says, the issue is not whether you actually put a knife into somebody’s back or a bullet between their eyes. That in itself isn’t the issue because you might not do that simply because you’re scared of getting caught and you won’t do a clean enough job to get away with it. That’s the only reason you don’t murder. But actually it is your heart that is the problem.
This is not amending or revising Moses words; He’s digging underneath what Moses spoke to get to the root cause behind the effect.
God made a promise by the prophet Ezekiel (Ch 36: 27). God is speaking to Ezekiel about the New Covenant He is going to make and He says,
“And I will put my spirit within you,” (which is what would take place on the Day of Pentecost) “and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them]. ”
“I am going to put My Spirit in you” and this is the result: "the Spirit in you will move you to follow my decrees and keep my laws.”
The laws of God are right. There is no need to set anything aside and give us a new set of rules. What a ridiculous proposition!! The Law of God is good but its fulfillment is not going to come simply through some external desire or personal will of men to attempt to keep it. What God has in store for the Christian is far more liberating and exciting than that. God says “I’m going to put My Spirit in you (and the Spirit of God in you has an appetite for holiness and righteousness) “and I will move you to follow My decrees and keep My laws.”
This is the True Gospel according to Christ and the apostles. The Gospel goes to the deepest recesses of the human soul and changes what we are. Then as a direct result, we will change what do! When the law of God is written onto the tablet of the human heart, following the law becomes almost a natural thing. It works as an internal guide, changing you from the inside - out. There's a new affection in the heart; new desires in the heart; new appetites in the heart.
Christianity is unique among all the religions in the world. It is the ONLY religion where a man's God comes to live inside of him, into a temple of clay, and help him to meet the requirements that are demanded of him. Every other view; every other ism and schism on the face of the planet, in one way, or another, demands that a man give his obedience, his all, in exchange for his soul. The God of the universe gives us life, and that life, more abundantly.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God. Revelation 21:3
So yeah... I think what Christ did was to "loosen things up a bit." No wonder the message of the apostles was able to shake their world! That IS GOOD NEWS!!
Prayer is not a "Spare Wheel" that you pull out when in trouble. Rather, it is a "Steering Wheel" that directs the right path to avoid trouble....
In the "Cookie of Life", friends are the Chocolate Chips!
God desires that our lives would bear spiritual fruit - not religious nuts.
Initially, I was thinking it was going to be a quick side-trip, but it seems to have developed a life of its own, so I have started a new thread to continue the subject. For anyone wanting some background on the topic, a review of the previous thread may be in order.
UpperLimits
*****************
POST 200
Colossians 2:14) . . .and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.
Paul tells us the 'Law was a tutor leading to Christ' (Gal 3:24) and was taken out of the way at the time of Christ's death.
Is that a precise enough answer?
But during the time before his death, he stated
(Matthew 5:17-19) 17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches mankind to that effect, he will be called ‘least’ in relation to the kingdom of the heavens. . . .
POST 204
The Mosaic Law Code, with it's 600 laws, according to Paul, was set aside.
Laws and principles that apply to Christians were brought forth from the Law, and other instructions added, such as the instructions to preach, to be 'in agreement,' to be hospitable, to keep marriage honorable, to follow the headhip arrangment, children to 'be obedient' and parents to 'not exasperate their children,' to marry 'only in the Lord,' etc. there are really quite a few.
In Acts 15, it was made clear that circumcison was no longer binding, not a 'law' for Christians, but the other 'necessary things' were biggies.
POST 217
editing to add---I am not sure that 'loosened' is the best word for what Jesus did regarding the oral traditions, since they were never 'binding' on the Hebrews the way that the Mosaic Law was. I would say that Jesus just disregarded them, and in a least one case, showed them up as being self-serving for the religious leaders.(Mark 7:9-15) But Jesus never 'loosened' any laws of God, while they were still in force, and he never transgressed against them.
Granted, the oral traditions were never legally binding, but they were very strongly socially impressed upon the people. However we are not talking about a matter which was merely an oral tradition. We are talking about the Mosaic law and that law is quite clear.
Now a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife is one who commits adultery with the wife of his fellowman. He should be put to death without fail, the adulterer and the adulteress as well. Lev 20:10 NWT
The adulterer and the adulteress were to be put to death. Immediately. That's not an oral tradition. That's the Mosaic law.
I don't know where you get this idea that the law was ever abolished. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Fulfill does not mean to abolish, or end, or to stop. Rather, it means just the opposite.
Fulfill plēroō
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally 1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
b) to consummate: a number 1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect 2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise 1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute 2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish 3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment
Jesus not only affirmed the Mosaic law, he strengthened its grip so as to demonstrate to the people just how helpless they were in trying to meet its requirements on their own.
He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill." Then he added " whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause" is already guilty.
Then he said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery". The oral tradition you referred to had said, "Hey, it's not the first look that's bad - it's the second look - so make the first look a really long one..." (I took a little liberty there, but you get the idea.) But Jesus said "Whoever even looks at a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery."
I want to point out something: Regardless of you empty claims to vindication, the only person on this thread who has introduced the suggestion that Jesus was a law-breaker, and keeps repeating the suggestion that the implication is being made that Jesus was a law-breaker - is YOU.
In every aspect, Jesus fufilled the law, and strengthened the grip of the law. The law is Gods character. The fulfilment of the law is the expression of Gods character. Jesus fully expressed Gods character in His life. Therefore He fulfilled the law. This fulfilment has absolutely nothing to do with abolishing anything.
Jesus knew that it was impossible for unredeemed man to keep the law. But the law of God will stand forever. It will never pass away. But Jesus did not end the law and establish a new set of laws. Rather he showed us HOW to live the law and to fulfill the law in our own lives. This is GOOD NEWS!
Jehovah's Witnesses have this silly little idea that God is going to set them up in a paradise and spend a thousand years teaching them 'how not to sin.' (In light of the obstinance I sometimes see in this forum, I have to seriously question if a thousand years will be enough time... But I digress...) I submit to you that Jesus already has shown us how to stop sinning. The secret is available to us in the here and now. We already have everything that we need to know.
Those passages you quoted, out of context, have absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with the misguided interpretation you have attached to them.
In Matthew 5: 21,22 Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.”
This was the standard of righteousness that Jesus taught the people they needed to achieve. What is the difference between Jesus and the religious people of His day?
The difference is this: one is the action (murder); the other is the attitude that lies behind that action (anger). One has to do with external things; the other has to do with internal change of heart. One has to do with what they did; the other has to do with what they are. One is about conduct (that was the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees); the other is about character.
Jesus says, the issue is not whether you actually put a knife into somebody’s back or a bullet between their eyes. That in itself isn’t the issue because you might not do that simply because you’re scared of getting caught and you won’t do a clean enough job to get away with it. That’s the only reason you don’t murder. But actually it is your heart that is the problem.
This is not amending or revising Moses words; He’s digging underneath what Moses spoke to get to the root cause behind the effect.
God made a promise by the prophet Ezekiel (Ch 36: 27). God is speaking to Ezekiel about the New Covenant He is going to make and He says,
“And I will put my spirit within you,” (which is what would take place on the Day of Pentecost) “and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them]. ”
“I am going to put My Spirit in you” and this is the result: "the Spirit in you will move you to follow my decrees and keep my laws.”
The laws of God are right. There is no need to set anything aside and give us a new set of rules. What a ridiculous proposition!! The Law of God is good but its fulfillment is not going to come simply through some external desire or personal will of men to attempt to keep it. What God has in store for the Christian is far more liberating and exciting than that. God says “I’m going to put My Spirit in you (and the Spirit of God in you has an appetite for holiness and righteousness) “and I will move you to follow My decrees and keep My laws.”
This is the True Gospel according to Christ and the apostles. The Gospel goes to the deepest recesses of the human soul and changes what we are. Then as a direct result, we will change what do! When the law of God is written onto the tablet of the human heart, following the law becomes almost a natural thing. It works as an internal guide, changing you from the inside - out. There's a new affection in the heart; new desires in the heart; new appetites in the heart.
Christianity is unique among all the religions in the world. It is the ONLY religion where a man's God comes to live inside of him, into a temple of clay, and help him to meet the requirements that are demanded of him. Every other view; every other ism and schism on the face of the planet, in one way, or another, demands that a man give his obedience, his all, in exchange for his soul. The God of the universe gives us life, and that life, more abundantly.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God. Revelation 21:3
So yeah... I think what Christ did was to "loosen things up a bit." No wonder the message of the apostles was able to shake their world! That IS GOOD NEWS!!
Thanks for pointing this out:
"I want to point out something: Regardless of you empty claims to vindication, the only person on this thread who has introduced the suggestion that Jesus was a law-breaker, and keeps repeating the suggestion that the implication is being made that Jesus was a law-breaker - is YOU."
But isn't it true that Jesus did, in fact, break the mosaic law at times? For example, when the woman with the flow of blood touched him wasn't he then to be unclean until evening. Or when he touched the leper to heal him himself become unclean. Two small examples but I think you get the point.
At one time he gave the example of David and his men eating the show bread which WAS unlawful. They broke the law.
My impression has always been that he was highlighting mercy, justice and faithfulness over strict law keeping. Now, in my opinion, this is in stark contrast to the unbending nature of Yahweh in the old testament but that's another story.
If in fact Jesus made the laws more stringent so to speak than don't the JWs have a point on the blood thing.
But isn't it true that Jesus did, in fact, break the mosaic law at times? For example, when the woman with the flow of blood touched him wasn't he then to be unclean until evening. Or when he touched the leper to heal him himself become unclean. Two small examples but I think you get the point.
At one time he gave the example of David and his men eating the show bread which WAS unlawful. They broke the law.
My impression has always been that he was highlighting mercy, justice and faithfulness over strict law keeping. Now, in my opinion, this is in stark contrast to the unbending nature of Yahweh in the old testament but that's another story.
If in fact Jesus made the laws more stringent so to speak than don't the JWs have a point on the blood thing.
Anyway, I welcome any thoughts on this...
imho Jesus removed the need for animal and otherwise sacrifices...but just because folks didn't have to trot down cattle to the priest everytime they sinned did not mean it was a free for all.
Like you mentioned "he was highlighting mercy, justice and faithfulness over strict law keeping". Which he demonstrated by delibrately disregarding the pharisee's mishneh, oral rules and regulations that they judged and enforced unfaithfully , unjustly ,and mercilessly...ergo the comparison to WTS requirement that a person die than accept a one time emergency medical treatment of blood transfusion that WTS uses to divorce that person from God and label them an enemy and opposer of God to the extent of excumunicating, disfellowshipiing and shunning, while WTS condones regular treatments of blood derived blood fractions in vaccines, and treatments to live ......longer (?!)
imho Jesus removed the need for animal and otherwise sacrifices...but just because folks didn't have to trot down cattle to the priest everytime they sinned did not mean it was a free for all.
From my reading of the scriptures I would agree...
Like you mentioned "he was highlighting mercy, justice and faithfulness over strict law keeping". Which he demonstrated by delibrately disregarding the pharisee's mishneh, oral rules and regulations that they judged and enforced unfaithfully , unjustly ,and mercilessly...ergo the comparison to WTS requirement that a person die than accept a one time emergency medical treatment of blood transfusion that WTS uses to divorce that person from God and label them an enemy and opposer of God to the extent of excumunicating, disfellowshipiing and shunning, while WTS condones regular treatments of blood derived blood fractions in vaccines, and treatments to live ......longer (?!)
Again, I would agree that the WT is pharisaic in their rigid approach to interpreting scripture. Clearly this is in stark contrast to the message most of us understand Jesus to have presented.
I guess I'm just not following how the fact that some JWs on here are saying Jesus broke the mosaic law supports their side of the blood argument while others that believe he didn't supports the mercy, righteousness and faithfulness side of the argument.
Long post. I will need to take this piecemeal. Are you okay with us getting first out of the way, whether or not the Law code of over 600 laws that was binding on the Israelites was abolished, or not?
Your comment---I don't know where you get this idea that the law was ever abolished. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Fulfill does not mean to abolish, or end, or to stop. Rather, it means just the opposite.
The Biblical facts.
Galatians 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor " NAS
Analyze the verse. The law was a tutor, to lead us to Christ, we are no longer under a tutor (the law)
No longer under the law.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Roman 10:4 NAS
Christ ended the law.
abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, Eph 2:15 NAS
Christ abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances
having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Col 2:14 NAS
Recognizing that Paul wrote all of these references, helps us see that in Colossians when he spoke of the 'decrees against us' he was referring to the 'law of commandments contained in ordinances.'
The law of 'decrees against us' was abolished, as though nailed to the instrument of Jesus' death.
It is important to note, however, that previous to Jesus' death, this Law consisting of (over 600) decrees was still in effect.
“People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” ― Epictetus
Life is like photography, you need a clear lens, and the picture you get depends on what you focus on.
Attaching to (choosing not to let go of) your own painful interpretations of events, ideas, people, etc. results in 'self-created suffering.'
Anger stems from irrational beliefs about others, anxiety stems from irrational beliefs about yourself.--- http://www.amazon.com/The-Brain-Mechanic-Maximize-Emotional/product-reviews/0757315569/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
But isn't it true that Jesus did, in fact, break the mosaic law at times? For example, when the woman with the flow of blood touched him wasn't he then to be unclean until evening. Or when he touched the leper to heal him himself become unclean. Two small examples but I think you get the point.
At one time he gave the example of David and his men eating the show bread which WAS unlawful. They broke the law.
My impression has always been that he was highlighting mercy, justice and faithfulness over strict law keeping. Now, in my opinion, this is in stark contrast to the unbending nature of Yahweh in the old testament but that's another story.
If in fact Jesus made the laws more stringent so to speak than don't the JWs have a point on the blood thing.
Anyway, I welcome any thoughts on this...
There was no law in the Mosaic law to not eat the removed showbread. What you are referring to is mentioned at
(Matthew 12:3-4) 3 He said to them: “Have YOU not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?
And referred to
(Leviticus 24:8-9) . . .. 9 And it must become Aaron’s and his sons’, and they must eat it in a holy place, because it is something most holy for him from Jehovah’s offerings made by fire, as a regulation to time indefinite.”
which shows that the Levites were commanded to eat it in a holy place.
However, there is no Law, and definitely no 'death penalty offense law' like Sabbath breaking, that said no one else could eat the showbread. When the priest gave it to David's men, he was not breaking any law. By the 'it was not lawful' means that it was not prescibed by law, to David and his men. But the priest gave it to them, and it wasn't an emergency, David's men just needed food. They weren't going to die of hunger before they got to the next town. So this is what the priest said and David answered
(1 Samuel 21:3-5) . . .” 4 But the priest answered David and said: “There is no ordinary bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; provided that the young men have at least kept themselves from womankind.” 5 So David answered the priest and said to him: “But womankind has been kept away from us the same as formerly when I went out, and the organisms of the young men continue holy
So the priest determined the young men were ceremonially 'clean' and gave them the bread. Do you think the priest would have broken a binding commandment, just to give them bread?
There was no law against touching a leper, the law directed lepers to live outside the camp, and the law directed how and when a leper could be declared 'clean,' (later stage leprosy is not contagious, and in that stage, they could be declared 'clean' again.) But Jesus broke no law when he touched the leper.
And it was not against the law to touch a ceremonially unclean man or woman, as long as you were willing to 1) bathe, and 2) stay out of the temple until the next day. Being in a condition of ceremonial uncleanness was a fairly common occurence for all Israelites. A man was 'unclean' anytime he had sex or even just a wet dream, or suffered a running discharge. A woman was unclean during her menstrual cycle. A person became unclean if they touched a dead body. Men purposely avoided sex previous to going into battle so that they could go out in a sanctified condition, so that their 'organisms proved holy.' So even if Jesus touched the woman with the running discharge back after she touched him, all he had to do was bathe and stay out of the temple for the day.
Aren't we all glad that all these laws were abolished, set aside, nailed to the torture stake? I mean, even with all this ceremonial uncleanness being temporary (and NOT being used to SHUN people) it still sounds like a lot to keep up with.
But while these laws were in force, Jesus did not break them, as he never sinned in any way.
“People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” ― Epictetus
Life is like photography, you need a clear lens, and the picture you get depends on what you focus on.
Attaching to (choosing not to let go of) your own painful interpretations of events, ideas, people, etc. results in 'self-created suffering.'
Anger stems from irrational beliefs about others, anxiety stems from irrational beliefs about yourself.--- http://www.amazon.com/The-Brain-Mechanic-Maximize-Emotional/product-reviews/0757315569/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
I want to point out something: Regardless of you empty claims to vindication, the only person on this thread who has introduced the suggestion that Jesus was a law-breaker, and keeps repeating the suggestion that the implication is being made that Jesus was a law-breaker - is YOU. Upperlimits
I beg to differ. In your insistence that 'carrying a cot' was 'work' of the kind forbidden in the Law, you labeled Jesus a lawbreaker, by accusing him of doing exactly what Satan did, leading others in to sin. In your comment that Jesus would 'loosen restrictions (laws) you labeled Jesus a lawbreaker, because there is no such thing as law loosening, only law keeping, or law breaking. In your comment that Jesus would 'cut some slack' in the keeping of the law, you made Jesus out to be a hypocrite, because Jesus would never have taught the breaking of any of God's Laws while they were still in force, or else he would be contradicting himself
(Matthew 5:19) 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches mankind to that effect, he will be called ‘least’ in relation to the kingdom of the heavens.. . .
Your charge against me is false. I have done nothing but endeavor to show that Jesus never broke one single law.
“People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” ― Epictetus
Life is like photography, you need a clear lens, and the picture you get depends on what you focus on.
Attaching to (choosing not to let go of) your own painful interpretations of events, ideas, people, etc. results in 'self-created suffering.'
Anger stems from irrational beliefs about others, anxiety stems from irrational beliefs about yourself.--- http://www.amazon.com/The-Brain-Mechanic-Maximize-Emotional/product-reviews/0757315569/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
So the next question is, in what way did Christ both fulfill, and abolish the law? It rests in one of the definitions you posted
b) to consummate: a number 1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect 2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking
The Law was a contractual obligation, a covenant, made between the Israelites and Jehovah through their mediator, Moses. This contractual obligation was being brought to an end, or fulfilled, by Christ. It was no longer in effect, abolished.
A new covenant then, was inaugurated.
(Hebrews 8:13) 13 In his saying “a new [covenant]” he has made the former one obsolete. Now that which is made obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away.
The former covenant was obsolete, abolished.
“People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” ― Epictetus
Life is like photography, you need a clear lens, and the picture you get depends on what you focus on.
Attaching to (choosing not to let go of) your own painful interpretations of events, ideas, people, etc. results in 'self-created suffering.'
Anger stems from irrational beliefs about others, anxiety stems from irrational beliefs about yourself.--- http://www.amazon.com/The-Brain-Mechanic-Maximize-Emotional/product-reviews/0757315569/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
I want to point out something: Regardless of you empty claims to vindication, the only person on this thread who has introduced the suggestion that Jesus was a law-breaker, and keeps repeating the suggestion that the implication is being made that Jesus was a law-breaker - is YOU. Upperlimits
I beg to differ. In your insistence that 'carrying a cot' was 'work' of the kind forbidden in the Law, you labeled Jesus a lawbreaker, by accusing him of doing exactly what Satan did, leading others in to sin. In your comment that Jesus would 'loosen restrictions (laws) you labeled Jesus a lawbreaker, because there is no such thing as law loosening, only law keeping, or law breaking. In your comment that Jesus would 'cut some slack' in the keeping of the law, you made Jesus out to be a hypocrite, because Jesus would never have taught the breaking of any of God's Laws while they were still in force, or else he would be contradicting himself
(Matthew 5:19) 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches mankind to that effect, he will be called ‘least’ in relation to the kingdom of the heavens.. . .
Your charge against me is false. I have done nothing but endeavor to show that Jesus never broke one single law.
WT 2005 3/15
Questions From Readers
Does the eating of the loaves of presentation by David and his men indicate that God’s law can be broken with impunity under difficult circumstances?—1 Samuel 21:1-6.
According to Leviticus 24:5-9, the loaves of presentation that were replaced on each Sabbath were reserved for the priests to eat. The principle behind this use was that the loaves were holy and were to serve as food for the men engaged in God’s service—the priests. Giving them to a common laborer or eating them just for pleasure would definitely be wrong. However, the priest Ahimelech did nothing sinful when he shared the showbread with David and his men. David appeared to be on a special assignment from King Saul. David and his men were hungry. Ahimelech determined that they were ceremonially clean. While their eating of the loaves of presentation was technically unlawful, it was in harmony with the basic designated use of the showbread.
This consideration permitted Ahimelech to make an exception to the rule.Jesus Christ himself used this incident to illustrate the impropriety of the unduly rigid application of the Sabbath law demanded by the Pharisaic interpretation of it.—Matthew 12:1-8.
Jesus deliberatly broke the ' nit picky" interpretationss of the pharisee, which required suffering pssibly death even in an emergency just like WTS's liability for some jw deaths due to refusing emergency medical treatment of whole blood under pain of 'breaking God's law' and being thrown out of their spiritual community as an undesirable.
