“You don’t have to follow God’s rules�

[Zzyzx]

.
“You don’t have to follow God’s rules�

Did Jesus ever say or imply, “You don’t have to follow God’s rules�?

Or, “It is okay to eat pork even though forbidden by God�?

Or, “Keep some of the rules but ignore most of them�?

Or, "Just love God and one another -- that's enough. Old rules don't matter"?

[Divine Insight]

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

So Jesus not only didn't teach that people don't need to obey God's laws, but to the contrary, he demanded that every jot and tittle of the law shall remain in effect until heaven and earth pass.

So yeah, no eating pork, or wearing mixed fabrics, no working on the Sabbath, or even collecting firewood on the Sabbath, etc. Very strict laws to be sure.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]


We know from the bible the Mosaic law has been abolished so those laws (which only really applied to those under the Mosaic law anyway) ended after the death of Jesus. Those that wish to be Christians should however obey Cnristian law and principle.

God obliges no one to follow his law if they dont want to.


JW

Go to other posts related to ...

CHRISTIANITY, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...SABBATH KEEPING

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

"Thus he declared all foods clean" is explicit permission to eat forbidden food like pork.

[Avoice]

What is all this I hear?

The law is abolished...all foods are clean?

SAID WHO?

If the law is abolished then why hide behind jesus? If they are abolished then what sins do you need saving from? What benefit is jesus? Either they are abolished or they aren't. Which is it?
The very fact that Christians are trying to hide behind their fig leaf (jesus) is admitting to Gid that you ABSOLUTELY KNEW of his laws and didnt keep them.

The only thing Christians talk about with the Eden narrative is about inheriting their sibful ways. Born a sinner?! Nonsensem We are sinners when we sin. They should focus on the story instead of using it as an excuse for their disobedience. Christians CAN keep the law they just refuse to do it. How di i know they can? Because I've asked Christians if they could keep from Sinning for a week fir a million dollars. They all say yes. This proves they can. Sadly only for their own gain not to please God.

Fig leaves dont hide sins. We can't hide.

[Mithrae]

Or, "Just love God and one another -- that's enough. Old rules don't matter"?

If you're leading into it with the world "just" perhaps you don't understand what love is, in the gospels (or most other literature for that matter). John the Baptist said that if you've got two coats and someone else has none, you should give one to him. You can hardly say you love or even care about someone if you have the means to help them and instead leave them naked or hungry! Jesus cut right to the logical conclusion and said to just give everything to the poor, keeping only your day-to-day essentials. And that's just the simpler, external aspect of loving one another.

Interestingly, after you dismissed these teachings as "nonsense" in a recent thread, you went strangely silent when I pointed out that such luminaries as Gandhi and Einstein also seemed to hold quite similar views:

• Mithrae wrote:

  Perhaps asking for nonsense teachings would have been easier?
  Love your enemies

  Mohandas Gandhi: "If you express your love-Ahimsa-in such a manner that it impresses itself indelibly upon your so-called enemy, he must return that love." "We can only win over the opponent by love, never by hate. Hate is the subtlest form of violence. We cannot be really non-violent and yet have hate in us. "
  
  Albert Einstein: "I agree with your remark about loving your enemy as far as actions are concerned. But for me the cognitive basis is the trust in an unrestricted causality. 'I cannot hate him, because he must do what he does.' That means for me more Spinoza than the prophets."
  

  Perhaps asking for nonsense teachings would have been easier?
  ....
  Give away all you have

  Gandhi: "It is open to the world...to laugh at my dispossessing myself of all property. For me the dispossession has been a positive gain. I would like people to complete with me in my contentment. It is the richest treasure I own. Hence it is perhaps right to say that, though I preach poverty, I am a rich man!"
  
  Einstein: "I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure characters is the only thing that can lead us to noble thoughts and deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistibly invites abuse. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus or Gandhi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?"
  
  Einstein of course was Time's "Person of the Century" and Gandhi the runner-up.

[Willum]

Nope, the Bible explicitly says everyone will fail, and no one is worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven.

No one is expected to be able to follow the laws, and thus...

Being a Christian is a waste of faith.

It is odd for me a Jehovah's Witness to agree on anything, but there you are.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

"Thus he declared all foods clean" is explicit permission to eat forbidden food like pork.

This Mark 7 quote creates quite the conundrum given the Matthew 5 passage Divine Insight quoted. Jesus seems to be contradicting himself.

It is also odd in light of Peter's vision in Acts 10:

• 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.â€�
  14 “Surely not, Lord!� Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.�
  15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.�

If Jesus had already declared all foods clean as we find in Mark 7, why would Peter not be aware of the message just a few years later?


Tcg

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

"Thus he declared all foods clean" is explicit permission to eat forbidden food like pork.

This Mark 7 quote creates quite the conundrum given the Matthew 5 passage Divine Insight quoted. Jesus seems to be contradicting himself.

Bust Nak's quote is not attributed to Jesus, it's a parenthetical comment by Mark (according to the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NET... NKJV is a rare exception, though even it mentions the consensus view in a footnote). But notably, even Matthew records the story in a very similar fashion, with Jesus saying that "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person":

• Matthew 15:10 Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, “Listen and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.â€�
  12 Then the disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?�
  13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.�
  15 But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.�
  16 Then he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.�

The problems with using Matthew 5:17-18 as a proof text or some kind of blunt theological instrument have been pointed out many times before, including to DI specifically. Most obviously, there's the fact that the rest of Matthew 5 immediately launches into a whole series of "you have heard it said '

,' but I say to you such-and-such" teachings, at least one of which (the teaching against divorce) seems to directly contradict the Law of Moses. A few decades before Jesus' ministry the famous rabbi Hillel the Elder reportedly said "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow; this is the whole of the Law. The rest is commentary; go and learn." Matthew 5 evidently follows that idea of zeroing in on the core principles of the law, and has Jesus not only upholding but drastically expanding those principles far beyond what had been written; Moses said don't murder, but I say don't even indulge in anger; Moses said don't commit adultery, but I say don't even indulge in lust; Moses said to provide proper legal documentation for a wife you send away, but I say don't send her away at all, and so on.

Moses had a man stoned to death for picking up wood on the Sabbath, but in chapter 12 'Matthew' repeats the story from Mark in which Jesus' disciples walk through the fields picking grain on the Sabbath; following the pattern from chapter 5, we might suppose the message is that while Moses said to keep the Sabbath ritualistically holy, Jesus taught his followers to keep every day holy and that whatever it was right to do, should be done on any day. (Hence for example, don't work for money on any day, Matt. 6:24-25ff.) Obviously Jesus didn't wander through the synagogues telling people to chow down on a leg of ham every Sabbath; even if he did intend to get himself killed eventually, he presumably wanted a bit more time to get his message out first But apparently what he did teach - such as "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" and "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person" - pretty strongly implied the conclusions that Peter/Mark eventually reached. I don't think it's entirely clear what the Jewish Christian community of 'Matthew' believed and practiced, but it's possible that they reached a similar conclusion too... even though it's considerably downplayed in their gospel to attract converts from mainstream Judaism.

[Tart]

.
“You don’t have to follow God’s rules�

Did Jesus ever say or imply, “You don’t have to follow God’s rules�?

Or, “It is okay to eat pork even though forbidden by God�?

Or, “Keep some of the rules but ignore most of them�?

Or, "Just love God and one another -- that's enough. Old rules don't matter"?

Great question... Am studying the law right now myself, because i stumble on it...

There was a time when i believed Jesus abolished the rules of the Old Testament, though im questioning that now. It is true, he did do things against what the pharisees and teachers of the law taught. Like gathering food on the sabbath... But was that breaking God's law? Im not sure... That would suggest if Jesus sinned, he was really a sinner, and couldnt have died for ours... But from gathering food on the sabbath? would that be rational to suggest? Say Jesus was sinless in all ways, innocent of any crime, but he gathered food on the sabbath... It's almost laughable...

But i suppose God gave the law in the Old Testament, Jesus fulfilled those laws (according to what some have said... is this subject in debate?), then the Law became in debate by the Apostles... And i suppose the fulfillment of the law became to live faithfully, as stated by Paul... Though JW's will point to the laws given to Noah, which i have no problem with either, in how i interpret them...

However, what good is this for us?

Jesus grew up a Jew, with Jewish laws. We grow up American with American laws... None of us even adhere to Old Testament Jewish laws.. Perhaps it is symbolic for the law of the land, or from beyond our own selves... And our own duties to fulfill though laws or to ignore them?