leonarde

Partial repost by Baidarka: I understand it this way:

1)the Law (in the widest religious sense)was a
means to express a Jew's devotion to and
love of God.

2)when asked about the greatest law Jesus
talked about loving God without limits and without
reservation and about loving one's neighbor
as oneself.

3)again item 1)(whether a dietary law, a law about
what was okay on the Sabbath etc. etc.) was a way in most instances, of expressing the
love called for in 2).

4)all such things (ie religious practices) are
culturally bound; that means, among other things,
that they will change in expression over time,
and sometimes over space (ie in different geographical areas).

5)Jesus' life itself (putting his death and resurrection aside)was the fullest expression of
divine revelation in history: 30 to 35 years of
human contact with the divine, some of that contact in the most quotidian of circumstances.
He could have, in principle, utterly broken with
Judaiism during his own lifetime. He obviously
didn't do that: he accepted much of his own religious heritage.

6)Jesus' conflicts with and criticism of the Pharisees had mostly to do with their externalism:
their perfectionistic observation of 1) without
any of the love called for in 2). IOW the means had become the end . (This
temptation is not, of course, limited to one time
and place: it is a constant one even today)

7) Jesus exhorted people to do as the Pharisees
said, but not to follow their (cold, self-
righteous, formalistic) example.

8)the evolution of the degree of "Judaiisation"
necessary for a Gentile convert to Christianity
seems to have taken at least decades and perhaps
more than a century: Peter's dream/vision about eating "unclean" animals made keeping kosher optional for Gentile Christians. No doubt Paul
and other respected Church leaders phased out--
or at least made optional---OTHER Jewish practices. The degree that this happened in each
local church probably varied. But happen it did.

Cheers!

Baidarka

Leonarde
I think that you have distorted Jesus’ words. Why would he speak so clearly if he was trying to say something so contrary to the plain meaning of this statement?

leonarde

Partial repost of Baidarka: Which words specifically do you think I've distorted?

Baidarka

leonarde
His words are a clear and unambiguous affirmation of the importance and supremacy of Torah Law. There is nothing in here about how the law can change as it is adapted into the gentile world. The innovations introduced by Paul and Peter (according to the NT) are clearly contrary to this statement.

leonarde

Partial repost of Baidarka: Hmmmm perhaps if taken in isolation, they might be
merely construed that way. But we have 4 entire Gospels with many of his sayings. At least
a few indicate that Jesus didn't intend any such
absolutist interpretation.

Divorce: when this subject comes up (don't have a
Bible handy to look it up)Jesus asks what did Moses say regarding divorce??? The answer is
that Moses permitted it (with a writ of divorce). (since by tradition---but probably not in fact----Moses is credited as the author of the first 5 books---the Law---the question can be rephrased as "What does the Law say about divorce?")
After receiving the academically correct answer Jesus says (I paraphrase): 'Moses gave you that law because of the hardness of your hearts. But I say to you whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.' Later in private, the apostles ask him about this and he
reiterates his, in this case, HIGHER standard than the Torah one.

Ritual washing(s): Jesus is asked about why his diciples don't wash the outside of the cups they
use. He gives a long answer about how what goes
into a man is not nearly so important as what comes out of him (lies, lust etc.) Jesus pooh-poohs the importance of these externalities
in the practice of religion.

Food and drink: Jesus is asked why he doesn't fast
and abstain from drink. He then notes that the same people who are criticising him for this gave
John the Baptist no credit for extreme asceticism
but somehow expect it from Jesus.

Jesus in many a saying seems to have expanded what
is permissible on the Sabbath.

But getting back to the original statement:
I take it that
the "law and the Prophets" are being lumped together (I don't believe the word "Bible" was then in use for the OT). So a paraphrase would be:
'Don't think that I have come to abolish the Old
Testament; I have not come to abolish them but to
fulfill them".

That is my understanding but I'm not a real scholar of the Bible.

Cheers!

K

That was just too good to pass up (ala Homer Simpson).

Editor: I need a food critic who won't just pooh-pooh everything right away.

Homer: Oh no, it usually takes me a day or two.

leonarde

K,
Nice observation. I didn't even notice. Hope this
doesn't get the thread in deep doggie doo.....
wouldn't be prudent at this juncture....

Jayhawker Soule

There is a distinction between logical contradiction and unreasonable discrepancy. A logical contradiction between {A} and {B} exists when the truth of {A} necessitates the falsity of {B}. I think it highly unlikely that such a 'smoking gun' would be found in the NT for a couple of reasons: <ol type="A">[*]The stories rarely have enough specificity.[*]There has been more than enough time for any true contradiction to be 'resolved' by well-meaning scribes[/list=a]Any remaining and unresolved contradiction would have long sinced silenced Christian fundamentalism.

Baidarka

leonarde
You make my point for me.
The statement that I site is an unambiguous affirmation of the law. While the statements that you cite are clearly abrogations of the law. So either Jesus changed his mind or these statements do not all originate with Jesus.
This is a clear example of a Biblical contradiction of a very important nature.

leonarde

Partial repost by Baidarka: Well, my point was/is that saying 'statement X is an
unambiguous affirmation of Y' is already an interpretation. I agree that if we had ONLY that
statement by Jesus we might think that he was an
Orthodox Jew, but an orthodox Jew only. But
as I say, we have many other statements which indicate:

1)he claimed a personal authority higher than that
of the "Law".

2)he overruled or disregarded the old "Law" in some instances.

Moreover if we posit that he was responsible for
Peter's dream/vision of eating "unclean" food then
we have him making less than absolute the dietary
laws.
Ergo another, looser interpretation seems in order.
For those who are not absolutists....

Cheers!

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>