Whence cometh righteousness?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #1

Post by Athetotheist »

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. (Romans 3:20)

And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us. (Deuteronomy 6:24-25)

Any Christian commentary on this?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #11

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:14 am [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #9
We seem to have three elements or questions here, though maybe only two, or even just one.
I would say we have only one question here: Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah? From his inconsistent teaching on the law of Moses, the logical answer is "No".
Again three approaches to this :D

(a) was jesus the jewish messiah according to the Jews? Majority No, absolutely not "There were certain things he did not do" is the Jewish take on this. (Jews for Jesus aside, and it isn't sure whether they are are converted Jews or Gentiles trying to deconvert Jews).

(b) the view of the gospel writers. Yes, absolutely. If Jesus contradicted the Mosaic law it was because the Mosaic law needed updating.

(c) the Bible critical view. As you say, the contradictory take on the OT by Paul never mind the gospels, No absolutely not; Jesus as understood by Paul and even more contradictory as in the gospels because (in my view) it was different writers working in isolation adapting the same material and putting in their own stuff. You are going to get contradictions that apologists will have to do back flips to explain or just ignore them.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #12

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11
(b) the view of the gospel writers. Yes, absolutely. If Jesus contradicted the Mosaic law it was because the Mosaic law needed updating.
But Jesus himself endorsed the law as it was in the very midst of negating parts of it, which was itself a violation of the law (Deut. 4:2), so even the gospel writers' endorsement of Jesus doesn't work.

In John 5:47 Jesus asks his critics how they can believe him if they don't believe what Moses wrote, but given his own negations of the law of Moses, how could they believe him if they did believe what Moses wrote?

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #13

Post by Eloi »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:12 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11
(b) the view of the gospel writers. Yes, absolutely. If Jesus contradicted the Mosaic law it was because the Mosaic law needed updating.
But Jesus himself endorsed the law as it was in the very midst of negating parts of it, which was itself a violation of the law (Deut. 4:2), so even the gospel writers' endorsement of Jesus doesn't work.

In John 5:47 Jesus asks his critics how they can believe him if they don't believe what Moses wrote, but given his own negations of the law of Moses, how could they believe him if they did believe what Moses wrote?
Where did Jesus "contradict the Mosaic law" or "negate parts of it"?

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #14

Post by Athetotheist »

Eloi wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:34 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:12 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11
(b) the view of the gospel writers. Yes, absolutely. If Jesus contradicted the Mosaic law it was because the Mosaic law needed updating.
But Jesus himself endorsed the law as it was in the very midst of negating parts of it, which was itself a violation of the law (Deut. 4:2), so even the gospel writers' endorsement of Jesus doesn't work.

In John 5:47 Jesus asks his critics how they can believe him if they don't believe what Moses wrote, but given his own negations of the law of Moses, how could they believe him if they did believe what Moses wrote?
Where did Jesus "contradict the Mosaic law" or "negate parts of it"?
Matthew 5:31-32 =/= Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Matthew 5:33-37 =/= Numbers 30:1-2, Deut. 6:13


Matthew 5:31-37 =/= Deut. 4:2, 12:32

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #15

Post by Eloi »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 3:04 pm
Eloi wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:34 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:12 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11
(b) the view of the gospel writers. Yes, absolutely. If Jesus contradicted the Mosaic law it was because the Mosaic law needed updating.
But Jesus himself endorsed the law as it was in the very midst of negating parts of it, which was itself a violation of the law (Deut. 4:2), so even the gospel writers' endorsement of Jesus doesn't work.

In John 5:47 Jesus asks his critics how they can believe him if they don't believe what Moses wrote, but given his own negations of the law of Moses, how could they believe him if they did believe what Moses wrote?
Where did Jesus "contradict the Mosaic law" or "negate parts of it"?
Matthew 5:31-32 =/= Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Matthew 5:33-37 =/= Numbers 30:1-2, Deut. 6:13


Matthew 5:31-37 =/= Deut. 4:2, 12:32
I do not see any CONTRADICTION or NEGATION there.
Do you have any notion what contradiction and negation mean?

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #16

Post by Athetotheist »

Eloi wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 3:09 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 3:04 pm
Eloi wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:34 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:12 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11
(b) the view of the gospel writers. Yes, absolutely. If Jesus contradicted the Mosaic law it was because the Mosaic law needed updating.
But Jesus himself endorsed the law as it was in the very midst of negating parts of it, which was itself a violation of the law (Deut. 4:2), so even the gospel writers' endorsement of Jesus doesn't work.

In John 5:47 Jesus asks his critics how they can believe him if they don't believe what Moses wrote, but given his own negations of the law of Moses, how could they believe him if they did believe what Moses wrote?
Where did Jesus "contradict the Mosaic law" or "negate parts of it"?
Matthew 5:31-32 =/= Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Matthew 5:33-37 =/= Numbers 30:1-2, Deut. 6:13


Matthew 5:31-37 =/= Deut. 4:2, 12:32
I do not see any CONTRADICTION or NEGATION there.
Do you have any notion what contradiction and negation mean?
contradiction (noun): a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another

negation (noun): the contradiction or denial of something

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #17

Post by theophile »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:02 am [Replying to theophile in post #7
I don't think it's any secret that Jesus turns the law on its head in the gospels. He breaks the law even as he says he'll fulfill it (that kind of thing). So there's obviously something subtle going on here.
If you read things in context, what's obvious is that there's something inconsistent going on here. As you say, he breaks the law even as he says he'll fulfill it, even as he's telling the crowd in Matthew 5:17-19 that everything in the law was still to be kept. What's "subtle" is the way he refers to parts of the law as being merely what they had "heard" had been "said" (Matthew 5:31-32, 33-37), obscuring the fact that he's actually telling them to disregard what Moses commanded them (Numbers 30:1-2, Deut. 24:1-4) and at the same time telling them to keep those same laws.

Now, if you were a 1st-century Jew who knew the law and heard Jesus tell you that you should still keep every jot and tittle of it, you would have no choice but to keep every jot and tittle of Deuteronomy 27:26....

Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out. Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”.....

.....recognize that this is exactly what's going on with Jesus when he "turns the law on its head", and realize that he is not the Jewish Messiah.
No, it's not an inconsistency. I get what you're saying (I said much the same thing), but what you're missing is how Jesus fulfills the law. It is not through strict obedience to what the law says. e.g., to stone the adulteress.. to not work on the Sabbath. Rather it is to fulfill the intent of the law, and what the law points us towards.

For example, if the intent of the law is to serve life, then fulfilling the law is to ultimately do whatever does that. It is not stoning the adulteress for example. and working on the Sabbath if that's what is needed..

Irrespective of whether Jesus existed, the writers of the gospels weren't idiots. Jesus was portrayed as a law-breaker. He didn't stone the adulteress and he worked on the Sabbath.. so when he says he fulfills the law he clearly means something different from strict obedience.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #18

Post by Athetotheist »

theophile wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:36 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:02 am [Replying to theophile in post #7
I don't think it's any secret that Jesus turns the law on its head in the gospels. He breaks the law even as he says he'll fulfill it (that kind of thing). So there's obviously something subtle going on here.
If you read things in context, what's obvious is that there's something inconsistent going on here. As you say, he breaks the law even as he says he'll fulfill it, even as he's telling the crowd in Matthew 5:17-19 that everything in the law was still to be kept. What's "subtle" is the way he refers to parts of the law as being merely what they had "heard" had been "said" (Matthew 5:31-32, 33-37), obscuring the fact that he's actually telling them to disregard what Moses commanded them (Numbers 30:1-2, Deut. 24:1-4) and at the same time telling them to keep those same laws.

Now, if you were a 1st-century Jew who knew the law and heard Jesus tell you that you should still keep every jot and tittle of it, you would have no choice but to keep every jot and tittle of Deuteronomy 27:26....

Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out. Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”.....

.....recognize that this is exactly what's going on with Jesus when he "turns the law on its head", and realize that he is not the Jewish Messiah.
No, it's not an inconsistency. I get what you're saying (I said much the same thing), but what you're missing is how Jesus fulfills the law. It is not through strict obedience to what the law says. e.g., to stone the adulteress.. to not work on the Sabbath. Rather it is to fulfill the intent of the law, and what the law points us towards.

For example, if the intent of the law is to serve life, then fulfilling the law is to ultimately do whatever does that. It is not stoning the adulteress for example. and working on the Sabbath if that's what is needed..

Irrespective of whether Jesus existed, the writers of the gospels weren't idiots. Jesus was portrayed as a law-breaker. He didn't stone the adulteress and he worked on the Sabbath.. so when he says he fulfills the law he clearly means something different from strict obedience.
Then what does he mean when he tells his listeners that any who break the least commandment of the law will be least in the kingdom of heaven?

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #19

Post by theophile »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:19 am
theophile wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:36 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 8:02 am [Replying to theophile in post #7
I don't think it's any secret that Jesus turns the law on its head in the gospels. He breaks the law even as he says he'll fulfill it (that kind of thing). So there's obviously something subtle going on here.
If you read things in context, what's obvious is that there's something inconsistent going on here. As you say, he breaks the law even as he says he'll fulfill it, even as he's telling the crowd in Matthew 5:17-19 that everything in the law was still to be kept. What's "subtle" is the way he refers to parts of the law as being merely what they had "heard" had been "said" (Matthew 5:31-32, 33-37), obscuring the fact that he's actually telling them to disregard what Moses commanded them (Numbers 30:1-2, Deut. 24:1-4) and at the same time telling them to keep those same laws.

Now, if you were a 1st-century Jew who knew the law and heard Jesus tell you that you should still keep every jot and tittle of it, you would have no choice but to keep every jot and tittle of Deuteronomy 27:26....

Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out. Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”.....

.....recognize that this is exactly what's going on with Jesus when he "turns the law on its head", and realize that he is not the Jewish Messiah.
No, it's not an inconsistency. I get what you're saying (I said much the same thing), but what you're missing is how Jesus fulfills the law. It is not through strict obedience to what the law says. e.g., to stone the adulteress.. to not work on the Sabbath. Rather it is to fulfill the intent of the law, and what the law points us towards.

For example, if the intent of the law is to serve life, then fulfilling the law is to ultimately do whatever does that. It is not stoning the adulteress for example. and working on the Sabbath if that's what is needed..

Irrespective of whether Jesus existed, the writers of the gospels weren't idiots. Jesus was portrayed as a law-breaker. He didn't stone the adulteress and he worked on the Sabbath.. so when he says he fulfills the law he clearly means something different from strict obedience.
Then what does he mean when he tells his listeners that any who break the least commandment of the law will be least in the kingdom of heaven?
It means they are still in the kingdom of heaven for one thing. That they are not destroyed but included in the end times. That's not nothing.

But what is the least commandment? No matter what it is, it still has the same broader intent and direction of all the others. i.e., to serve God / life. So breaking it may mean breaking with that deeper intent, which is essentially sin / idolatry.

Hence Jesus' teaching here I think. We need to be damn careful what we're doing. And remember why every single letter was added to the law before we decide what action best fulfills it. By which I mean its intent and broader direction.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Whence cometh righteousness?

Post #20

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to theophile in post #19
But what is the least commandment?
The least commandment is what Jesus tells the people to keep and teach others to keep in Matthew 5----every jot and tittle of it. There's no getting around that.

At the same time he's telling them, "The law says you can do this, but I say don't. The law says you can do that, but I say don't." So in light of the law's command in Deut. 4:2 and 27:26, they have to reject what he's telling them about the law in order to keep every jot and tittle of it.

Post Reply