Sheshbazzar

What Christian denomination or organization teaches this as acceptable doctrine?
For all of the faults to be found in the N.T. this kind of doctrine and teaching is not to be found, and it being of a private interpretation is refuted by whatever consensus or unity of common beliefs is held by the Christian community on a world-wide scale, as the book called Luke says,"to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us" there is to be found in the pages of the N.T. no such 'setting forth' of any such obscure belief system. Why? because it did not exist, and is only now the ongoing invention of this single individual. :Cheeky:

Non-believer

Not that it matters, but the 1912 Weymouth New Testament renders it as "born subject to law."

Other translations are in agreement with this interpretation.

Chili

No, he was born under the Law means that the Law caused the Messiah to be born which according to me was the rebirth of Joseph who was called Jesus in the Gospels and became known as Christ after the crucifixion of the old Jewish identity of Joseph. So the transition goes from the human Joseph to the dual Joseph-God identity called Jesus and on towards the singular God identity after the human identity of Joseph was annihilated by means of crucifixion.

Jesus never was a Jew to become an ex-Jew but Joseph may be called an ex-Jew since the entire event happened to him and he was the one who needed to bring Judaism to understanding on order to be set free from its yoke of slavery and sin. This still would not make him an ex Jew in that he did not leave Judaism behind like a filthy rag but had reached the end of Judaism in the state of mind called Isreal.

Reason tells me that the son of God is not subject to human laws no matter how inspired they may have been for the simple reason that the Laws are for the conviction of sin so the sinner may be brought to eternal life and that can only be done once.

Chili

But they are perfect and sure did a good job on Joseph. You must understand that the Laws are given for the conviction of sin and are written upon the human heart as if in stone from where they must convict the outer man of his wretchedness which they can only do if the believer is honest and upright with himself. For this a high standard of integrity is needed but with eternity on the side of the Law the element of time works against the durability of human glory. Let me take you to John 21:18 "I tell you solemly/ as a young man/ you fastened your belt/ and went about as you pleased;/ but when you are older/ you will stretch out your hands,/ and another will tie you fast/ and carry you off against your will."

The laws are always good if they convict and in this sense are they like a fishing bait that is used to catch the big one . . . wich is the human nature of man that was created with the original sin. To arrive at the place for which the Law was given.

Religion, and specifically Judaism here, is a means to an end and to reach this end the law is needed. It has been said that "the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners only" and that would fit well in this context. William Woodsworth writes that "to me alone there came a time of grief/ a timely uttering brought that thought relief" (Intimations of Immortality) and Northrop Frye explains that "to reach ecstacy we must journey through parody" (The Great Code). It, then, Judaism is, or can be, a means to the end it will be fullfilled when we reach the end after which time we can go our own way while the religion itself will remain just as it always was.

In Catholicism we have the Church Triumphant to recognize those who have reached this end. Many of these will return and become the strongholds for the Church while others will depart and just linger in Elysium (or go to Patmos and write their own Revelation).

Chili

Oh no, I am just interpreting what I read in the Bible. But then, I am not a teacher and maybe, just maybe, the mystery of salvation cannot be taught or it would not be a mystery and Judaism could not be a mystery religion.

Chili

This could very well be true but in the NT they were asking Jesus if he was the "one who was to come" suggesting that they were waiting for a deliverer of some sort by whatever name you want to call him.

Chili

Well that just doesn't say much for your bible translations.

For one, Mary was not just "a woman" but the perfect image of womanity which she declared when she was set free from captivity. Mary was not human for it is sinfull to be human and Mary was without sin.

Jesus was not born under the Law to be convicted by it but may have abided to avoid conflict untill the time had come to do otherwise. Ie, "my time has not come yet" suggests that Jesus was fully in charge of his destiny.

"To be under the control of Gods Law" indicates that Jesus was censored by natural law of which circumcision is symbolic. "A broken reed he shall not crush" speaks of this.

I can agree that Jesus was born under the [prevailing] conditions of the Law.

Editer to add: Mary was, is and always will be without sin or she will not be Mary theotokos but the first Eve trying to fill Mary's role here as well . . . in which case resurrection will not follow crucifixion as a natural sequence of events.

Chili

To say that Joseph was not the only one unto whom Christ is born and that is why Jesus was able to say "follow me" and also "you will do greater things" -- which would be impossible without the Blessed Virgin being our divine Mother who transforms earth into heaven.

Sheshbazzar

But Chili, it was you, and you alone that introduced the phrase "Jesus the ex Jew" into this thread, and now, "Jesus never was a Jew.."????
Kind of reminds me of that old ditty, "You better go on home son, and make up your mind.."
But getting this thread back on track, The authority which the Divine writ of Deuteronomy 17:8-12 and 21:5 and 25:1 gave to the Priesthood was virtually unlimited, so that what ever 'DECISION' (mish'pat, VERDICT, literally 'that which HAS been judged') these ordained ministers of the faith arrived at, and had DECIDED was to be obeyed by every Israelite without dispute,and without recourse, and the penalty for ANY trespass against that athoritive DECISION and DECREE, was at the sole discretion of this legal body, Wether fines, stripes, or even the death penalty. Thus at their discretion, they could level the death penalty for "work" preformed on the Sabbath, even a Divinely sanctioned precedent was recorded in Scriptures,Their only Law, and it was within their given sphere of authority at every instance to define what constituted "work"....to fail, or to refrain, from making the DECISION was also disobedience The Almighty.
Thus in Matt.121-2, it was a charitable act on the part of the Pharisees to endeavor to warn of the transgression taking place, taking into account its possible serious consequences. Yeshua rather than being humble, proclaimed himself to be above the law, (and by implication, also exempting the disciples that were likewise engaged in the trespass) This was an open affront to the entire God given Scriptural corpus and Theocratic government which was the foundation of the Jewish nation.
So he boldly stood there insulting all they believed in, and all that they lived for, insulting, literally the God of Israel, and all of His institutions, and the foundations of their entire society.
And what was wrong about this? He had not at all provided these people he was mocking and insulting any alternative other than an absolute enslavement to the letter of the law as the very definition of righteousness.
That is to say, God (Yahweh) Himself was the one responsible for putting them in that position by His very own WORD.

Non-believer

Here is another instance of a defender of the Bible telling everyone that the text didn't mean what it clearly said. According to believers I encounter it seems the text meant what it clearly said when it doesn't conflict with other parts of the Bible. Your run on sentence of evasion does nothing to help your position because the term “under the law� clearly meant just that.

No, reason tells you that he was “under the law� but since it conflicts with your desires you choose to hold on to your unsupportable position.

You're not arguing with me, Chili, you're arguing with the “word of God.�

“Original Sin� doesn’t exist in the Jewish Scriptures. Pauls quotes Deuteronomy 30:14 which doesn't support "Original Sin" and excludes its vital conclusion.

vs.