Way too much attention is paid to the structure of a church, any church, vs. the message of Jesus Christ. The structure of a church is man made and imperfect. Humans screw things up, we are so good at that. So just focus on Jesus and his messages. It is really remarkable that this God-made-man entered the middle east at a time when savag…
Way too much attention is paid to the structure of a church, any church, vs. the message of Jesus Christ. The structure of a church is man made and imperfect. Humans screw things up, we are so good at that. So just focus on Jesus and his messages. It is really remarkable that this God-made-man entered the middle east at a time when savagery, idol worship, and burnt offerings were the norm. He dismissed the 600+ laws of the Jews and distilled it down to one---Love God, Love you neighbor as yourself. No more angry, vengeful God of the Jews. Now God loved us so much, he humiliated himself and died for our sins. So pay no attention to the Pope or any other religious leader who doesn’t spend 100% of his time on Jesus’ teachings.
Jesus challenged the Pharisees on the laws related to eating.
“…their teachings are merely human rules.”
He goes on to challenge the Mosaic laws related to unclean food, saying, “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?..”
So Jesus declared all foods clean. I think that is at odds with Deu 14.
Maureen: If you want to see someone living the teachings of Jesus - take a look at a video by Peter Santenello called The Man with no Legal Identity - from the comments following the video, I think we all fell in love with young Titus - it is rare that you find anyone who doesn't preach or argue about "religion" but just goes about living the life. He wants to get married and have kids but few could live totally off the grid as he does - and I am far too old and off the grid adverse to qualify but am hoping he finds just the right woman.
By the way Peter has some really great videos I would recommend. He did one on life in Appalachia where I lived many years ago and also several on life at the border.
The great sage Hillel was asked by a gentile if he could teach the whole Torah while standing on one foot. “Do not to your neighbor that which is hateful to you. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary; now go and learn.”
Hillel lived a generation before Jesus.
Viewing “the God of the Old Testament” as angry and vengeful based on a superficial reading of the text blithely dismisses the entire religion of Judaism, one of the few religions that has survived for millennia, despite near-perennial persecution. Do you think if Jews saw their god as nothing but a vindictive psychopath, they would have willingly been burned at the stake rather than renounce their faith? Do you think modern observant Jews would choose a lifestyle that entails a great deal of discipline and sacrifice--not to mention expense and inconvenience --for such a deity?
Perhaps there’s a bit more to the “God of the Old Testament” than you think.
Oh come now. I live in Jerusalem. There's plenty of 'eye for an eye' theology put into practice around here. The Jews in Israel LOVE that God is both vengeful and on their side. It makes them feel invincible.
I would even say Old Testament is rather offensive, if you actually understand and know something about Jews. It’s called the Hebrew Bible. There’s nothing “old” about it.
You mean, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven”?
I think Jesus was saying, Pay less attention to how blood is to be splashed on an altar and more on loving your neighbor.
Maureen, please don’t read into my question anything other than a genuine interest in how to interpret a part of Scripture (and there are a few others) where Jesus seems to be saying “Don’t misunderstand me - I’m not striking Judaism, I’m building upon it.”
No one can show where Jesus then meticulously reinforces each of the Mosaic laws because he didn’t need to - can you imagine Jesus following up the whole “not one letter” clarity by then itemizing every part of Mosaic Law just to make sure he was clear? The larger picture seems clear: What the whole of Scripture suggests is that the Old Testament prefigures the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old (especially Isaiah). It seems clear that when Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees and Sadducees, he wasn’t throwing out the Law, he was telling them they’d lost their way by obsessing too much on those rules themselves - and lording it over the people like dictators (and of course he would then completely refute the Sadducees’ beliefs about bodily resurrection).
We may be saying the same thing actually, but I was curious how that Matthew 5:17-20 could be interpreted to mean that Jesus threw out the Law and replaced it *only* with love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He’s pretty clearly saying to the Jews “I did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.”
Matthew 22:36-40 says:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I see him saying, these are the most important, and everything has to flow from this. I don’t think he’s totally throwing out the Law and religious practices of the Jewish people. He’s saying that if the Law and the rules don’t flow from that, we’re missing the point of them.
Yes, thank you. As I posted below to someone else, there is a passage in Mark where Jesus rebuffed the Pharisees about their food prohibitions, saying no food was unclean. Wouldn’t you say that he refutes Deut 14 where food after food is declared unclean for Jews? It seems that he was saying, stop focusing on your man made rules so much and pay attention to what’s really important—he quotes honoring your father and mother for example.
The psyche holds its own dimensionality, reality and life. Looking beyond the symbol representing the myth, and attempting to experience the living forces informing the fact of the reality it try's to convey, allows the dogmatic road signs pointing the way to become guideposts to the transformative meaningful experiential.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
So show me where Jesus asked for burnt offerings and blood to be splashed on altars? The Pharisees didn’t like Jesus because he upended their order. He taught something new. The Law was about something much bigger than not eating pork and 600 other rules.
There's another interpretation, that the questioning was a device to get Jesus to explain his positions.. and after all we Christians trace ourselves to the origin of Rabbinic Judaism and have much in common. I recommend the book "Jesus First-Century Rabbi" by Rabbi David Zaslow.
I am only responding to your exact words. Normally I greatly enjoy your comments and feel that we are kindred spirits. I was this taken aback to see your dismissal of my religion and way of life as “not eating pork and 600 other rules.”
She was comparing Jesus' teaching with the Pharisees. You seemed to think that she was talking about Judaism as a whole. There were many branches of "Judaism" at the time of Christ, and Jesus' teachings were in opposition to the worst of the Pharisees. That has nothing to do with rabbinic Judaism that began centuries later, nor is it necessarily a rebuke to the other old temple practices of Israel.
Way too much attention is paid to the structure of a church, any church, vs. the message of Jesus Christ. The structure of a church is man made and imperfect. Humans screw things up, we are so good at that. So just focus on Jesus and his messages. It is really remarkable that this God-made-man entered the middle east at a time when savagery, idol worship, and burnt offerings were the norm. He dismissed the 600+ laws of the Jews and distilled it down to one---Love God, Love you neighbor as yourself. No more angry, vengeful God of the Jews. Now God loved us so much, he humiliated himself and died for our sins. So pay no attention to the Pope or any other religious leader who doesn’t spend 100% of his time on Jesus’ teachings.
No he didn't dismiss the 600 laws.. he added to them..Matthew 5:17;
Look at Mark 7:5-21.
Jesus challenged the Pharisees on the laws related to eating.
“…their teachings are merely human rules.”
He goes on to challenge the Mosaic laws related to unclean food, saying, “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?..”
So Jesus declared all foods clean. I think that is at odds with Deu 14.
Maureen: If you want to see someone living the teachings of Jesus - take a look at a video by Peter Santenello called The Man with no Legal Identity - from the comments following the video, I think we all fell in love with young Titus - it is rare that you find anyone who doesn't preach or argue about "religion" but just goes about living the life. He wants to get married and have kids but few could live totally off the grid as he does - and I am far too old and off the grid adverse to qualify but am hoping he finds just the right woman.
By the way Peter has some really great videos I would recommend. He did one on life in Appalachia where I lived many years ago and also several on life at the border.
The great sage Hillel was asked by a gentile if he could teach the whole Torah while standing on one foot. “Do not to your neighbor that which is hateful to you. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary; now go and learn.”
Hillel lived a generation before Jesus.
Viewing “the God of the Old Testament” as angry and vengeful based on a superficial reading of the text blithely dismisses the entire religion of Judaism, one of the few religions that has survived for millennia, despite near-perennial persecution. Do you think if Jews saw their god as nothing but a vindictive psychopath, they would have willingly been burned at the stake rather than renounce their faith? Do you think modern observant Jews would choose a lifestyle that entails a great deal of discipline and sacrifice--not to mention expense and inconvenience --for such a deity?
Perhaps there’s a bit more to the “God of the Old Testament” than you think.
Oh come now. I live in Jerusalem. There's plenty of 'eye for an eye' theology put into practice around here. The Jews in Israel LOVE that God is both vengeful and on their side. It makes them feel invincible.
I would even say Old Testament is rather offensive, if you actually understand and know something about Jews. It’s called the Hebrew Bible. There’s nothing “old” about it.
Indeed. Smacks of replacement theology.
Abraham and Isaac, the book of Job—these are the stories cited by anti religion people.
Maureen, how do you interpret Matthew 5:17-20?
You mean, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven”?
I think Jesus was saying, Pay less attention to how blood is to be splashed on an altar and more on loving your neighbor.
Maureen, please don’t read into my question anything other than a genuine interest in how to interpret a part of Scripture (and there are a few others) where Jesus seems to be saying “Don’t misunderstand me - I’m not striking Judaism, I’m building upon it.”
No one can show where Jesus then meticulously reinforces each of the Mosaic laws because he didn’t need to - can you imagine Jesus following up the whole “not one letter” clarity by then itemizing every part of Mosaic Law just to make sure he was clear? The larger picture seems clear: What the whole of Scripture suggests is that the Old Testament prefigures the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old (especially Isaiah). It seems clear that when Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees and Sadducees, he wasn’t throwing out the Law, he was telling them they’d lost their way by obsessing too much on those rules themselves - and lording it over the people like dictators (and of course he would then completely refute the Sadducees’ beliefs about bodily resurrection).
We may be saying the same thing actually, but I was curious how that Matthew 5:17-20 could be interpreted to mean that Jesus threw out the Law and replaced it *only* with love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He’s pretty clearly saying to the Jews “I did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.”
Matthew 22:36-40 says:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I see him saying, these are the most important, and everything has to flow from this. I don’t think he’s totally throwing out the Law and religious practices of the Jewish people. He’s saying that if the Law and the rules don’t flow from that, we’re missing the point of them.
Does that make sense?
Yes, thank you. As I posted below to someone else, there is a passage in Mark where Jesus rebuffed the Pharisees about their food prohibitions, saying no food was unclean. Wouldn’t you say that he refutes Deut 14 where food after food is declared unclean for Jews? It seems that he was saying, stop focusing on your man made rules so much and pay attention to what’s really important—he quotes honoring your father and mother for example.
Doesn’t it mean
“There is no way you are going to be good enough on your own to get into heaven.”
Channeling Luther.
The psyche holds its own dimensionality, reality and life. Looking beyond the symbol representing the myth, and attempting to experience the living forces informing the fact of the reality it try's to convey, allows the dogmatic road signs pointing the way to become guideposts to the transformative meaningful experiential.
Thinking more about 17-19:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
So show me where Jesus asked for burnt offerings and blood to be splashed on altars? The Pharisees didn’t like Jesus because he upended their order. He taught something new. The Law was about something much bigger than not eating pork and 600 other rules.
And you think Jews somehow managed to miss that bigger picture for a couple of millennia.
As is shown in the New Testament, the Pharisees repeatedly challenged Jesus and did not like his answers. They saw him as a threat to their order.
There's another interpretation, that the questioning was a device to get Jesus to explain his positions.. and after all we Christians trace ourselves to the origin of Rabbinic Judaism and have much in common. I recommend the book "Jesus First-Century Rabbi" by Rabbi David Zaslow.
And I am challenging your implication that Judaism consists of nothing but meaningless laws, devoid of love or compassion.
You choose to interpret my comments in the worst possible light.
I am only responding to your exact words. Normally I greatly enjoy your comments and feel that we are kindred spirits. I was this taken aback to see your dismissal of my religion and way of life as “not eating pork and 600 other rules.”
She was comparing Jesus' teaching with the Pharisees. You seemed to think that she was talking about Judaism as a whole. There were many branches of "Judaism" at the time of Christ, and Jesus' teachings were in opposition to the worst of the Pharisees. That has nothing to do with rabbinic Judaism that began centuries later, nor is it necessarily a rebuke to the other old temple practices of Israel.
Great post and well summed up.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself.........but don't take down the fence"
appropriating for future use
And there, dear children, is the Truth of it all. Thank you, Maureen.