Jesus and the law

[billcu1]

I do not believe Jesus came to us non Jews, not at first. The scriptures say “He came to his own…” and the woman he was going to turn away but didn’t “…the dogs…” scripture. But the apostle to the Gentiles tells us we are allowed in.

Now about the law. Jesus said he didn’t come to destroy the law. And the Apostles said later. There is no law against any certain foods. There’s what over 600 some laws out the door. The 7th day is no longer the sabbath. Stoning and so on gone. What has happened?

Bill

 

[TimothyH]

Jesus went to many areas which were not part of Israel and healed many non-Jews.

The healing of the Gedarene demoniac is one such incident. Gedara is not in Israel and the man possessed by demons was not Jewish.

The woman at the well was another such incident. Jews wouldn’t even step foot within the borders of Samaria and would never talk to a Samaritan. Jesus went to her specifically.

The idea that Jesus didn’t come for non-Jews indicates someone who has not really read nor studied the Bible at any depth.

-Tim-

 

[ProdigalSun]

I do not believe Jesus came to us non Jews, not at first. The scriptures say “He came to his own…” and the woman he was going to turn away but didn’t “…the dogs…” scripture. But the apostle to the Gentiles tells us we are allowed in.

Now about the law. Jesus said he didn’t come to destroy the law. And the Apostles said later. There is no law against any certain foods. There’s what over 600 some laws out the door. The 7th day is no longer the sabbath. Stoning and so on gone. What has happened?

Bill

Jesus is the fulfillment of Judaism, Christ came to fulfill the law. It is not what goes into a mans mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out of it and out of his heart. All ten commandments are still valid The Sabbath was not changed to Sunday. The Sabbath is still on Saturday. The Lords day is Sunday! Christians uphold the spirit of the law by giving to God their Sunday. Hope this helps!

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

The Law given by Moses was always subject to interpretation. In fact, without such commentary, most Jewish sects held that the Law could not be understood at all.
In regards to interpretation, there is either extrapolation or contraction. For instance, the Law: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” is extrapolated to not eating meat and dairy at the same meal, and even further to being required to have two complete sets of cooking and eating utensils (one for meat and one for dairy.)
But the Law: "You must love your neighbor as yourself " becomes contracted to mean that you only have to love a fellow Jew as yourself.

It’s things like this that our Teacher was referring to when He criticized the Jewish leaders for their “traditions.” One can imagine that, for a poor Jewish family, the purchase of two complete sets of cooking and eating utensils would be a hardship.
Jesus endowed His disciples and their Church with the authority to make their own interpretation of Moses’s Law (to emphasize and de-emphasize as they saw fit) in light of His Teachings.

 

[ProdigalSun]

The Law given by Moses was always subject to interpretation. In fact, without such commentary, most Jewish sects held that the Law could not be understood at all.
In regards to interpretation, there is either extrapolation or contraction. For instance, the Law: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” is extrapolated to not eating meat and dairy at the same meal, and even further to being required to have two complete sets of cooking and eating utensils (one for meat and one for dairy.)
But the Law: "You must love your neighbor as yourself " becomes contracted to mean that you only have to love a fellow Jew as yourself.

It’s things like this that our Teacher was referring to when He criticized the Jewish leaders for their “traditions.” One can imagine that, for a poor Jewish family, the purchase of two complete sets of cooking and eating utensils would be a hardship.
Jesus endowed His disciples and their Church with the authority to make their own interpretation of Moses’s Law (to emphasize and de-emphasize as they saw fit) in light of His Teachings.

Actually he endowed his church with the authority and gave the keys to this kingdom over to Simon who he named the Rock (Kephas) Peter! Peter the first pope held the keys as the Vicar. Upon his death they were handed down to his predecessor. This has continued down to this day. Those same keys are held by none other the Pope Francis. The Church led by the pope has the power to lose and bind just like it says in the bible.

 

[billcu1]

Jesus went to many areas which were not part of Israel and healed many non-Jews.

The healing of the Gedarene demoniac is one such incident. Gedara is not in Israel and the man possessed by demons was not Jewish.

The woman at the well was another such incident. Jews wouldn’t even step foot within the borders of Samaria and would never talk to a Samaritan. Jesus went to her specifically.

The idea that Jesus didn’t come for non-Jews indicates someone who has not really read nor studied the Bible at any depth.

-Tim-

Then what does it mean “He came unto his own and his own received him not.” So he turned to us to take out a people? He would not give to “the dogs.”

 

[ProdigalSun]

Then what does it mean “He came unto his own and his own received him not.” So he turned to us to take out a people? He would not give to “the dogs.”

Not sure why it matters if he went first to his people or not. His every intention was to bring all into his church. If his people would not have rejected him and they all realized who he was do you think the gentiles would have been left to the side or something? He still would have told the jews that what goes into your mouth does not make you unclean. Do you think his teachings would have been different? Most of his early followers were Jews. So many believed him and followed. I’m not understanding what you are trying to get across?

 

[billcu1]

Not sure why it matters if he went first to his people or not. His every intention was to bring all into his church. If his people would not have rejected him and they all realized who he was do you think the gentiles would have been left to the side or something? He still would have told the jews that what goes into your mouth does not make you unclean. Do you think his teachings would have been different? Most of his early followers were Jews. So many believed him and followed. I’m not understanding what you are trying to get across?

I understand the Jews were given 40 years. The temple continued to make reparation for sin. I understand the judgment was issued when the Romans destroyed the temple and the Jewish nation. Circa 70. Why then is it said they rejected him? If they did follow?

 

[ProdigalSun]

I understand the Jews were given 40 years. The temple continued to make reparation for sin. I understand the judgment was issued when the Romans destroyed the temple and the Jewish nation. Circa 70. Why then is it said they rejected him? If they did follow?

Some did some didn’t. Overall most did not and more importantly the Hierarchy did not follow him or believe him. They actually had him killed for blasphemimg the name of God. Calling himself GOD!

Cheeers!

 

[fhansen]

I do not believe Jesus came to us non Jews, not at first. The scriptures say “He came to his own…” and the woman he was going to turn away but didn’t “…the dogs…” scripture. But the apostle to the Gentiles tells us we are allowed in.

Now about the law. Jesus said he didn’t come to destroy the law. And the Apostles said later. There is no law against any certain foods. There’s what over 600 some laws out the door. The 7th day is no longer the sabbath. Stoning and so on gone. What has happened?

Bill

Jesus said our righteousness must exceed mere law-abidance, as the Pharisees epitomized; we must be changed in the hearts first of all; we must come to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. Then the law is fulfilled, as per Rom 13:8. This is what it means to fulfill it by the Spirit rather than by the letter. The Church teaches that we’re still bound by the moral law, but it can only be obeyed authentically by love, infused and maintained in us by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is the New Covenant way. Sabbath is still observed in this manner but on the Lord’s Day now, according to Church practice since the beginning of Christianity.

 

[TimothyH]

Then what does it mean “He came unto his own and his own received him not.” So he turned to us to take out a people? He would not give to “the dogs.”

It means exactly what it says. He went to the his own people and they would not receive him. The Jews - his own people - rejected him.

The mention of “dogs” was a reflection of the common belief among Jews that non Jews were unclean, no better than animals. Jesus said this to test the Caananite woman who asked Jesus to exorcise a demon from her daughter. He also did this as an example to the Jews and present who accused his followers of not following the Jewish law, of eating with unclean hands. Jesus acted just like the Jews, stating that non Jews are dogs and that he was sent to help only the Jews. But then unlike the Jews, he turns around and grants the non-Jewish woman’s request because of her faith. It is a lesson to those around him that just because you are an ethnic Jew doesn’t mean that you are special, that faith in God is what matters.

Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip, who was from Beth-sa’ida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus. And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. (John 12:20-23)

Jesus knows that his work is almost complete because Greeks - non-Jews - are starting to receive his message. The indication that his earthly work is almost done and that it is time to enter into his passion is when his teaching reaches non-Jews. As soon as non-Jews start asking to see him he knows that it is his time.

-Tim-

 

[ProdigalSun]

It means exactly what it says. He went to the his own people and they would not receive him. The Jews - his own people - rejected him.

The mention of “dogs” was a reflection of the common belief among Jews that non Jews were unclean, no better than animals. Jesus said this to test the Caananite woman who asked Jesus to exorcise a demon from her daughter. He also did this as an example to the Jews and present who accused his followers of not following the Jewish law, of eating with unclean hands. Jesus acted just like the Jews, stating that non Jews are dogs and that he was sent to help only the Jews. But then unlike the Jews, he turns around and grants the non-Jewish woman’s request because of her faith. It is a lesson to those around him that just because you are an ethnic Jew doesn’t mean that you are special, that faith in God is what matters.

Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip, who was from Beth-sa’ida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew went with Philip and they told Jesus. And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. (John 12:20-23)

Jesus knows that his work is almost complete because Greeks - non-Jews - are starting to receive his message. The indication that his earthly work is almost done and that it is time to enter into his passion is when his teaching reaches non-Jews. As soon as non-Jews start asking to see him he knows that it is his time.

-Tim-

So all the Jews rejected Jesus?

 

[TimothyH]

So all the Jews rejected Jesus?

“All the Jews rejected Jesus” are your words, not mine.

Don’t start this again.

I left out the Jews in one thread and was accused of being politically correct and an apologist for the Jews. Now you are going to do the opposite, accuse me of being an anti-semite because I mention the Jews?

St. John uses the phrase “The Jews” sixty one times in his Gospel. Don’t start this. It has nothing to do with the topic. I’m asking you to please stop.

 

[ProdigalSun]

“All the Jews rejected Jesus” are your words, not mine.

Don’t start this again.

I left out the Jews in one thread and was accused of being politically correct and an apologist for the Jews. Now you are going to do the opposite, accuse me of being an anti-semite because I mention the Jews?

St. John uses the phrase “The Jews” sixty one times in his Gospel. Don’t start this. It has nothing to do with the topic. I’m asking you to please stop.

Oh my, that is a lot to pile on my beleaguered conscience. I was not even thinking any of that. I in no way think your anti anything. I was just pointing out that not all the jewish people rejected Jesus. Certainly the Jewish authorities did and that was an important group. I just think CHrist came for all of us, the notion that Christ came for the Jews first and since he was rejected by them decided to see if the gentiles were interested doesn’t really sit well with me.

Peace!

 

[TimothyH]

Oh my, that is a lot to pile on my beleaguered conscience. I was not even thinking any of that. I in no way think your anti anything. I was just pointing out that not all the jewish people rejected Jesus. Certainly the Jewish authorities did and that was an important group. I just think CHrist came for all of us, the notion that Christ came for the Jews first and since he was rejected by them decided to see if the gentiles were interested doesn’t really sit well with me.

Peace!

That’s fine. I’m just a little sensitive, that’s all. Every time “The Jews” are mentioned someone jumps down my throat.

No, not all the Jews rejected Jesus but as I said, St. John uses the term “The Jews” dozens of times. The Jews tried to kill him and the Jews plotted against him, etc. It’s not my deal. If people have an issue one way or the other it is with St. John, not with me.

Sorry if I caused anxiety.

-Tim-