Understood.I've been reading some chapters of the Way Home in order to stop being taken aback by some of your (plural) insights. So I offer as a suggestion that you would do the same to see where I'm coming from. Have the feeling you (plural) are sometimes equally taken aback by my responses as I am with yours.
You can find the literature here. (don't worry, it's not a book)
Matthew 12:8-12Thanks for being straightforward. That's all I ask.
Feel like you're interpolating something into the Logos which doesn't belong. But let's save that for some other time.
I'd like to know what you make of the following scripture:
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
King of king's version: John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Considering that according to Mosaic Law, deliberately breaking the sabbath is a capital offense (Ex 3:15), which is what Jesus did in spite of the warnings of the Pharisees, how would you reconcile the incarnation of the Law with not being able to break the Law?
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
There are two fatal flaws in your argument @Artful Revealer .@A Freeman
I'm going to assume you agree that Jesus broke the sabbath, but that He has the authority to do so?
In that case, if it is lawful for the incarnation of the Law to break the Law, more problems arise:
Firstly, Jesus' disciples had also broken sabbath by plucking the ears of corn on sabbath day. The explanation that Jesus Christ is Lord over the Sabbath doesn't explain why His disciples were allowed to break the Law. Where does their authority come from? From Jesus? If they were allowed by Jesus to break the sabbath, why is there no mention of this in scripture?
Secondly, if Jesus wanted the Jews to follow the Law, shouldn't He have agreed with the Pharisees and rebuked His disciples? If Jesus is the Law incarnate and we have to follow the Law in order to be saved, Jesus should set the example and not the opposite by breaking it or having His disciples break it, let alone rebuke the Pharisees for taking sides with the Law.
Thirdly, the explanation Jesus gives, well-interpreted, basically implies that those who are in Christ have no use for the sabbath and that one can't be in Christ if one keeps to the sabbath (GoT 27). All the legalistic interpretations and arguments we find in Judeo-Christian apologetics are completely asinine. "The Torah says it's allowed to pluck the grain heads of a neighbour if they are for instant eating ...", "The oral tradition says that you are not allowed to put those grain heads in your pockets for harvesting ...". This is all childish nonsense of course, in light of what Jesus said, that it is lawful to do good on sabbath (or any day for that matter) regardless of the sabbath's prescriptions, for doing Good to another is the law of Christ. Anything that prevents this, even "the Law", is to be discarded.
If you don't believe Jesus broke the sabbath, then John's scripture is erroneous, for it unambiguously affirms it.
Some of this has been encountered before.I've been reading some chapters of the Way Home in order to stop being taken aback by some of your (plural) insights. So I offer as a suggestion that you would do the same to see where I'm coming from. Have the feeling you (plural) are sometimes equally taken aback by my responses as I am with yours.
You can find the literature here. (don't worry, it's not a book)
When Jesus condemned the scribes, the written Talmud did not yet exist. Why would He condemn scribes who had not yet scribed? Which scribes was He then condemning if not for those who had scribed the Hebrew scriptures, ie. the Torah??There are two fatal flaws in your argument @Artful Revealer .
First, The Master (Christ) IS The Master/Teacher. So thinking He should be doing as the scribes and pharisees instructed, who The Master rightly described as "the blind leading the blind", is exactly backwards. Christ is THE Master/Teacher NOT the blind guides of organized religion.
Secondly, there are no "oral traditions" that anyone needs to follow. Father's Law is everything we need, and it has been given to us IN WRITING to leave no doubt or excuses for not following it.
It was the scribes and pharisees, who added their "oral traditions" (Talmud) in direct violation of The Law (Deut. 4:2, 12:32), that were in the wrong, making the Commandments of God of no effect.
The Sabbath was made for man - to provide him with a day of rest from the ways of the world to learn and apply The Law (Justice, Mercy and Righteousness) - not the other way around.
The "oral traditions", i.e. the Talmud, first took on written form in BABYLON, where the "House of Judah" was taken into captivity c. 588 BC, as attested to by both the Prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer. 11:9-10, Ezek. 22:25-26). They were added to later in Jerusalem, but it is unquestionably these traditions (the Babylonian Talmud - the traditions of the fathers/elders) that Jesus was referring to in Matthew 15:3-6 and 23:4.When Jesus condemned the scribes, the written Talmud did not yet exist. Why would He condemn scribes who had not yet scribed? Which scribes was He then condemning if not for those who had scribed the Hebrew scriptures, ie. the Torah??
There is no "old law" or "new law"; there is only ONE Law: The Law that was given directly to Moses on Mt. Horeb in Sinai, exactly as God Himself has said in The Law.The Law, whether old or new, was given to us by scribes who had heard it.
The two stone tablets, upon which the 10 Commandments were inscribed, are the basic principles of The Law, but the first five books of the Bible, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, referred to as "the books of Moses", the Pentateuch" and "the Torah" in Hebrew, which means "The Law" in English, were also given to Moses in scroll form on Mt. Horeb in Sinai.The old law was written down 800 years after the tablets of stone, of which there is no archeological evidence, or the Ark of the Covenant in which they were stored. What then was the Law before it was written down in the Torah other than, at best, an oral tradition, or more probable, an unborn invention?
There is no such thing as a "new law" in Scripture. There is only ONE Law: The Law that God gave us, exactly as it says in The Law.The new law was written down by those who had heard it from those who had heard it.
Why would He/they? They already had The Law in writing. That's why Christ said He didn't come to destroy The Law (Matt. 5:17-20) and why Paul said that he too was living by The Law (Rom. 7:25) and establishing it everywhere he went (Rom. 3:31)Jesus did not write down the law, nor did He command His disciples to write it down, nor was it ever intended to be written down for Paul said the law is not written in tablets of stone, but on our hearts.
Except there is no such thing as a "new law". The Truth/Word/Message and the Commandments have been the same since the beginning (1 John 2:1-7), and will NEVER change.It was the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who helped spread His new law throughout the world. But God bless for those writings, since they render clear the Word of God regarding His mission, which is, not to destroy, but to render all things Good. That's the proper way to interpret the Sermon on the Mount, and the relation of the new law with the old.
There is no such thing as a "new law"; there is, and ever shall be, only ONE Law: God's Law. And Father's Christ (Anointed One), His Firstborn Son, Who is known in heaven as Prince Michael and is The Law made flesh, is referenced throughout both the Old Covenant, New Covenant and the Koran.We will never agree on this as long as our identification of the Christ is different. If you believe that the Christ of the New Testament who gave us the new law is the same as the Angel of the Lord of the Old Testament who gave the law on mount Sinai, then you have to believe Christ is master of both.
How then did David know of Christ and refer to Christ as his Lord?Naturally, He is not master of both in the sense that He gave both. Christ had not been revealed before the events documented in the Gospels, only prophecied, therefore the law given in the Torah was given by another.
What makes you think you understand anything given you've been taught all of the nonsense you post from the very same people that Christ warned us are "the blind leading the blind"?Only then can one begin to understand the dynamic between Jesus and the Pharisees on Sabbath day, which I have already given twice, so there's no need to repeat it a third time.