The person asking the question was a Pharisee part of the conspiracy to trap Jesus, "the law" as defined by Jesus was love God and others. He didn't endorse every law, or 613. He was changing, violating or ignoring laws, from divorce, cleanliness and the Sabbath to adultery.
They are suggestions, you even said they dont work in a civil govt setting. Thats why they're suggestions - not laws. Jesus didn't tell his followers to punish people who dont love God or others.
It would be correct in saying that they were trying to trap Jesus, because he had just silenced the Sadducees and now the Pharisees attempted to take a potshot. If you want to add context to the picture, then you cannot use these verses to say that Jesus was changing the law, because the context was not about changing the law at all, but to answer a trick question.
Your original statement was that Jesus changed the law. Even if that was just a trick statement, you cannot use it to prove a point, but to elicit a response.
I did not say that Jesus endorsed the laws, and neither did he break them nor changed them. He said that if you loved God with your whole heart, you would not work on the Sabbath, but if you are hungry, you could eat, even if it meant having to pick your own wheat and eat it. It was ok to heal someone on the Sabbath as seeing that did not cause any unnecessary work. The whole point is not working on the Sabbath but giving the Sabbath to God and if working is still apart of that, and not some selfish motive, then it is ok to work. Eating is not selfish, if God allows you to eat. Amassing wealth would be selfish, unless God allowed one to amass wealth and give it away in the end.
He did not change how divorce worked, he just said that GOD would suffer the way that Moses set things up. Divorce is still unacceptable to God and Jesus was not endorsing it. He did not change adultery. He told the woman to no longer practice it. What is the issue with taking a bath? Are you saying we should not practice hygiene, because Jesus thought the law was too stringent?
I will give you this one point. Jesus had the authority and power to change the law. God gave the law to Moses and God in the form of Jesus could change that law at any time. In fact Jesus never made it a command to keep practicing the law of Moses. He used a brilliant lawyer by the name of Saul of Tarsus to write and explain that the Law of Moses was just a way to teach humans that it was impossible for every one in every condition to live by such laws. In AD 70 the last Temple and access to the Holy of Holies was destroyed and humans no longer had access to God in that fashion. The Law was only kept in the hearts and thinking of those who claimed to be Jews as a right of acceptance.
You are also right that what Jesus said was just a "suggestion". Because it really does not matter to God if you love GOD or others before you do yourself. It will not bring any special favors or merit your way. That was the point, If the Pharisees had used what Jesus said as the "new" law, they would have admitted that he was GOD. The answer to the question would be there is no law of the 613 that is more important than any of the other ones. They must all be kept equally. My point was that to the Jews it would still have been a Law, and not just a suggestion as how to keep the greatest one, and avoid the others.
Jesus did not change any laws, what he did do is offer forgiveness for those found guilty. No law did he ever violate, what he did was show that the interpretation of the law was faulty, not the law itself. All the Bible says about the Sabbath is to"keep it holy and not work on that day". From that one law came many other laws in Jewish society that basically meant the reason behind the Sabbath had lost it's meaning.
That the law had been misinterpreted may be correct, but the teaching of Protestants that many laws came from one law, is not totally correct. The Jews to this day hold that there are only 613 laws and they all can be found in the Torah.
I like this point; it sticks out as being "obviously true". The problem I've run into, historically, is that some Christians seem to think the "moneychangers in the temple" incident is some time of "permission from Jesus" to punish people
Jesus by his actions and words is not an excuse to take matters into one's own hands. Governments are set up and punishments are prescribed, but that was not the point of Jesus life, and governing others is not really a good way to even emulate God on earth. God punished the whole of humanity when Jesus died on the cross. To carry out punishment personally in the name of God at any other time is just making a mockery and denying that GOD had already done so on the cross. That is why I don't agree when a mother kills her children and claims God said to. There is no reason to assume that God made that claim. You could apply that to God punishing the Jews, although they have seemed to be both blessed for thousands of generations, while at the same time been hunted down and killed at other times. However natural disasters do not make sense as God literally punishing people.
I don't see you antagonize anyone so far Timtofly, and it is alright to think other wrong while you are right, or other understand falsely while you are correctly, but it is wrong to force your version of truth upon other, and that is not what you are doing
In some case it do, even word sometime get expanding on meaning through its usage by time. But in some case it don't. If you define Christian is a group of peoples who worship Jesus or consider Jesus as God, it is like saying Muslims is a group of peoples that worship Allah, while it is only one part of being Muslims. And the Christian in Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia call God Allah so by this definition they are also muslims, and that is not true, that mean we cannot define something only by a part of something.
No, peoples of the books are refer to those who practice the book of Moses and Jesus (Torah and Bibel, or Taurat and Injil). err I don't want to highjack this thread into a discussion about Islam, but if you want to ask something about Islam, you can send me a private message, I will be happy to answer, but forgive me if sometime I late answering, I've been so leisure during this holiday try to resting my mind for a while after all of those lots paper and research (with strict target) it tired me a lots
I am not sure that any one actually practices the whole of any teaching, but yet I am not one even though I accept it as written? If it is determined by practice alone, then no one is a follower or believer in any religion. If they practice just parts, then I would have to be a person of the Book.
I thought there was an ask-a-about Islam thread around here somewhere.
