Jesus Was A Capitalist

[norwegen]

No, it isn't. He was a carpenter - or could have been, anyway, but chose not to pursue that trade.

How do you think St. Paul supported his missions? By his trade as a tentmaker, choosing not to burden others for support. He set up shop in different cities wherein he would preach the gospel.

you are making the same mistake as the OP, you are assuming that there are only two choices...socialist and capitalist.

But that is not the case.

No one in the Bible is castigated for his wealth except for the temple elite, such as in James Chapter 5. Misery and decline had descended on the wealthy temple leadership, as he details in his letter to the diaspora (Js 5:1-6).

These Pharisees were something akin to the leadership we find in socialist governments.

This person was not a temple elite.


17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!

Nicodemus was indeed a Pharisee, the aristocracy who derived their authority from the Mosaic Law, or as the apostles called it, the law of sin and death. And Jesus did not condemn him; he invited him into the kingdom.

And I am not making the mistake of calling Jesus a socialist.

Jesus never disavowed the Old Testament.

The faith is Judeo-Christian….not two separate faiths.

The Old Testament laws remain in effect…as per Matthew 5:18 is the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has just reported that he came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In this verse this claim is reinforced.

Matthew 5:17–18 is a key text for interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and the entire gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Jesus says that not one iota (jot) or dot (tittle) will pass away from the law. These most likely refer to the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet, indicating that the Old Testament is completely trustworthy, even to the smallest detail. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude elsewhere. Never do we find Jesus disagreeing with Scripture.

Jesus is the end of that law, or its culmination (Rom 10:4). Jesus did not come to fulfill 600 or so edicts committed to animal skins. He fulfilled not Torah – not the law of sin and death – but rather the law of God. That is, to love God and to love others, for the whole law and prophets hang on these two commandments (Mt 7:12; 22:37-40; Gal 5:14). The Law is not rescinded, per se; it takes on a new holy expression of completeness in the Messiah, a higher standard of virtue arrived at not by mandate but at the pleasure of those who would uphold the Father’s commandments.

When Jesus came to fulfill the law, he annulled Torah but not the eternal law of God, not the command to love Him and others. A change in the priesthood necessitates not a new law per se, but a change in the Law (Heb 7:12), and Christ changed the priesthood, being not of the order of Aaron but of Melchizedek, who was not just a high priest but also a king. As Melchizedek was not a Levitical priest, he had no genealogy as such, i.e., no priestly lineage (Heb 7:3). He did not inherit his post; God specially appointed him to the estate, and so his priesthood would remain forever. In the same way, Jesus had no genealogy, his mother being of the tribe of Judah and his father being God. And without his own posterity to inherit the post, he reigns forever as both king and high priest with his people (2 Tm 2:12; Rv 5:10).

 

[Jitss617]

Jesus had nothing in common with the Jews we used her body as a vessel,, and he gave us what the American man should look like and act. Thank you god

The Jews were and still are God's chosen people. In the end times they will be raised above all else and America does not even exist.

Falsehoods. We forgive you son . God loves youb

Why do you call God a liar? That is what His word says will happen at the end times.

We forgive you son

But God does not forgive you for your hate and your blasphemy

I’m going on the image every church in America has of Jesus Christ.. sorry your hate can’t set you free

 

[Jitss617]

Jesus had nothing in common with the Jews we used her body as a vessel,, and he gave us what the American man should look like and act. Thank you god

The Jews were and still are God's chosen people. In the end times they will be raised above all else and America does not even exist.

Falsehoods. We forgive you son . God loves youb

Why do you call God a liar? That is what His word says will happen at the end times.

We forgive you son

Is that the royal "we"?

Huh

 

[norwegen]

I mean, yea, you're right.

Still, Jesus did not condemn him. And he was among the elite, as rich rulers tend to be.

Actually, Jesus did condemn Him to hell. He could not do what Jesus demanded of him, thus he was not going to be a part of the kingdom of heaven.

Can you show us where he condemned the rich ruler to hell?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pop Quiz....Socialism or Capitalism.....

Based on forced re-distribution of one's earnings.
Based on free will and generosity of the individual.

Take your time.....

Based on forced re-distribution of one's earnings....Socialism


Based on free will and generosity of the individual....Neither.

Capitalism has nothing to do with generosity and generosity has nothing to do with Capitalism.

Capitalism has no moral compass - it is nothing more than an extremely basic economic system.

Unlike socialism....it is supported by the Bible.

Hence any biblical references by Leftists is apocryphal.

Of course, if The Communist Manifesto is your bible, you may not agree.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Jews were and still are God's chosen people. In the end times they will be raised above all else and America does not even exist.

Falsehoods. We forgive you son . God loves youb

Why do you call God a liar? That is what His word says will happen at the end times.

We forgive you son

But God does not forgive you for your hate and your blasphemy

I’m going on the image every church in America has of Jesus Christ.. sorry your hate can’t set you free

Liar

 

[DrLove]

Shouldn't this OP have gone in the Humor section?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, it isn't. He was a carpenter - or could have been, anyway, but chose not to pursue that trade.

How do you think St. Paul supported his missions? By his trade as a tentmaker, choosing not to burden others for support. He set up shop in different cities wherein he would preach the gospel.

you are making the same mistake as the OP, you are assuming that there are only two choices...socialist and capitalist.

But that is not the case.

No one in the Bible is castigated for his wealth except for the temple elite, such as in James Chapter 5. Misery and decline had descended on the wealthy temple leadership, as he details in his letter to the diaspora (Js 5:1-6).

These Pharisees were something akin to the leadership we find in socialist governments.

This person was not a temple elite.


17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!

Nicodemus was indeed a Pharisee, the aristocracy who derived their authority from the Mosaic Law, or as the apostles called it, the law of sin and death. And Jesus did not condemn him; he invited him into the kingdom.

And I am not making the mistake of calling Jesus a socialist.

Jesus never disavowed the Old Testament.

The faith is Judeo-Christian….not two separate faiths.

The Old Testament laws remain in effect…as per Matthew 5:18 is the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has just reported that he came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In this verse this claim is reinforced.

Matthew 5:17–18 is a key text for interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and the entire gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Jesus says that not one iota (jot) or dot (tittle) will pass away from the law. These most likely refer to the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet, indicating that the Old Testament is completely trustworthy, even to the smallest detail. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude elsewhere. Never do we find Jesus disagreeing with Scripture.

Jesus is the end of that law, or its culmination (Rom 10:4). Jesus did not come to fulfill 600 or so edicts committed to animal skins. He fulfilled not Torah – not the law of sin and death – but rather the law of God. That is, to love God and to love others, for the whole law and prophets hang on these two commandments (Mt 7:12; 22:37-40; Gal 5:14). The Law is not rescinded, per se; it takes on a new holy expression of completeness in the Messiah, a higher standard of virtue arrived at not by mandate but at the pleasure of those who would uphold the Father’s commandments.

When Jesus came to fulfill the law, he annulled Torah but not the eternal law of God, not the command to love Him and others. A change in the priesthood necessitates not a new law per se, but a change in the Law (Heb 7:12), and Christ changed the priesthood, being not of the order of Aaron but of Melchizedek, who was not just a high priest but also a king. As Melchizedek was not a Levitical priest, he had no genealogy as such, i.e., no priestly lineage (Heb 7:3). He did not inherit his post; God specially appointed him to the estate, and so his priesthood would remain forever. In the same way, Jesus had no genealogy, his mother being of the tribe of Judah and his father being God. And without his own posterity to inherit the post, he reigns forever as both king and high priest with his people (2 Tm 2:12; Rv 5:10).

"... he annulled Torah..."

Clearly not what it says in Matthew.

 

[Jitss617]

Falsehoods. We forgive you son . God loves youb

Why do you call God a liar? That is what His word says will happen at the end times.

We forgive you son

But God does not forgive you for your hate and your blasphemy

I’m going on the image every church in America has of Jesus Christ.. sorry your hate can’t set you free

Liar

The truth will set you free

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I mean, yea, you're right.

Still, Jesus did not condemn him. And he was among the elite, as rich rulers tend to be.

Actually, Jesus did condemn Him to hell. He could not do what Jesus demanded of him, thus he was not going to be a part of the kingdom of heaven.

Can you show us where he condemned the rich ruler to hell?

He asked Jesus " “ “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” ...Jesus told him "go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

He did not do this, thus he did not have eternal life...which means he is condemn to hell.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another example of the endorsing of capitalism:


9. “How about Jesus's Parable of the Talents (talents were a form of money in Jesus's day)? A man entrusted three of his workers with his wealth. The two who invested the money and made a profit were praised and the one who buried his share so he wouldn't lose any of it was reprimanded. Sounds a lot more like an endorsement for capitalism than socialism, doesn't it?


Was Jesus promoting a socialist model when he kicked the "moneychangers" out of the Temple in Jerusalem? Again, the answer is no. Note the location where the incident occurred: it was in the holiest of places – God's house. Jesus was not angry at buying and selling in and of themselves; he was angry that these things happened in a house of prayer. He never drove a "moneychanger" from a marketplace or from a bank.”




10. ….Jesus offers his Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. In it, a landowner hires some laborers to pick grapes. Near the end of the day, he realizes he needs more workers to get the job done.

To recruit them, he agrees to pay a full day's wage for just one hour of work. When one of the laborers who had worked an entire day complains, the landowner answers, "I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?" That's a testament to the principles of supply and demand, of private property, and of voluntary contracts, not socialism.” Was Jesus a Socialist?



Can I get an "AMEN!!!"

 

[norwegen]

No, it isn't. He was a carpenter - or could have been, anyway, but chose not to pursue that trade.

How do you think St. Paul supported his missions? By his trade as a tentmaker, choosing not to burden others for support. He set up shop in different cities wherein he would preach the gospel.

you are making the same mistake as the OP, you are assuming that there are only two choices...socialist and capitalist.

But that is not the case.

No one in the Bible is castigated for his wealth except for the temple elite, such as in James Chapter 5. Misery and decline had descended on the wealthy temple leadership, as he details in his letter to the diaspora (Js 5:1-6).

These Pharisees were something akin to the leadership we find in socialist governments.

This person was not a temple elite.


17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!

Nicodemus was indeed a Pharisee, the aristocracy who derived their authority from the Mosaic Law, or as the apostles called it, the law of sin and death. And Jesus did not condemn him; he invited him into the kingdom.

And I am not making the mistake of calling Jesus a socialist.

Jesus never disavowed the Old Testament.

The faith is Judeo-Christian….not two separate faiths.

The Old Testament laws remain in effect…as per Matthew 5:18 is the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has just reported that he came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In this verse this claim is reinforced.

Matthew 5:17–18 is a key text for interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and the entire gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Jesus says that not one iota (jot) or dot (tittle) will pass away from the law. These most likely refer to the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet, indicating that the Old Testament is completely trustworthy, even to the smallest detail. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude elsewhere. Never do we find Jesus disagreeing with Scripture.

Jesus is the end of that law, or its culmination (Rom 10:4). Jesus did not come to fulfill 600 or so edicts committed to animal skins. He fulfilled not Torah – not the law of sin and death – but rather the law of God. That is, to love God and to love others, for the whole law and prophets hang on these two commandments (Mt 7:12; 22:37-40; Gal 5:14). The Law is not rescinded, per se; it takes on a new holy expression of completeness in the Messiah, a higher standard of virtue arrived at not by mandate but at the pleasure of those who would uphold the Father’s commandments.

When Jesus came to fulfill the law, he annulled Torah but not the eternal law of God, not the command to love Him and others. A change in the priesthood necessitates not a new law per se, but a change in the Law (Heb 7:12), and Christ changed the priesthood, being not of the order of Aaron but of Melchizedek, who was not just a high priest but also a king. As Melchizedek was not a Levitical priest, he had no genealogy as such, i.e., no priestly lineage (Heb 7:3). He did not inherit his post; God specially appointed him to the estate, and so his priesthood would remain forever. In the same way, Jesus had no genealogy, his mother being of the tribe of Judah and his father being God. And without his own posterity to inherit the post, he reigns forever as both king and high priest with his people (2 Tm 2:12; Rv 5:10).

"... he annulled Torah..."

Clearly not what it says in Matthew.

The Law and the Prophets were until John. (Luke 16:16)

For hundreds of years, the words of Malachi, the prophet of doom, lay in limbo for the object of their indictment to emerge. At last their time came with John the Baptist, whose message of the kingdom heralded the irrelevance of the Law and the prophets.

 

[norwegen]

I mean, yea, you're right.

Still, Jesus did not condemn him. And he was among the elite, as rich rulers tend to be.

Actually, Jesus did condemn Him to hell. He could not do what Jesus demanded of him, thus he was not going to be a part of the kingdom of heaven.

Can you show us where he condemned the rich ruler to hell?

He asked Jesus " “ “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” ...Jesus told him "go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

He did not do this, thus he did not have eternal life...which means he is condemn to hell.

Jesus said he was condemned to hell?

 

[JoeB131]

You still haven't learned, you dunce????


I'm never wrong.

Um, no, you just babble. Not that I even think Jesus existed to start with, but what was attributed to him was certainly not capitalist.

When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven."

It appears in the Gospel of Matthew 19:16–30, the Gospel of Mark 10:17–31 and the Gospel of Luke 18:18–30.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you are making the same mistake as the OP, you are assuming that there are only two choices...socialist and capitalist.

But that is not the case.

This person was not a temple elite.


17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!

Nicodemus was indeed a Pharisee, the aristocracy who derived their authority from the Mosaic Law, or as the apostles called it, the law of sin and death. And Jesus did not condemn him; he invited him into the kingdom.

And I am not making the mistake of calling Jesus a socialist.

Jesus never disavowed the Old Testament.

The faith is Judeo-Christian….not two separate faiths.

The Old Testament laws remain in effect…as per Matthew 5:18 is the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has just reported that he came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In this verse this claim is reinforced.

Matthew 5:17–18 is a key text for interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and the entire gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Jesus says that not one iota (jot) or dot (tittle) will pass away from the law. These most likely refer to the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet, indicating that the Old Testament is completely trustworthy, even to the smallest detail. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude elsewhere. Never do we find Jesus disagreeing with Scripture.

Jesus is the end of that law, or its culmination (Rom 10:4). Jesus did not come to fulfill 600 or so edicts committed to animal skins. He fulfilled not Torah – not the law of sin and death – but rather the law of God. That is, to love God and to love others, for the whole law and prophets hang on these two commandments (Mt 7:12; 22:37-40; Gal 5:14). The Law is not rescinded, per se; it takes on a new holy expression of completeness in the Messiah, a higher standard of virtue arrived at not by mandate but at the pleasure of those who would uphold the Father’s commandments.

When Jesus came to fulfill the law, he annulled Torah but not the eternal law of God, not the command to love Him and others. A change in the priesthood necessitates not a new law per se, but a change in the Law (Heb 7:12), and Christ changed the priesthood, being not of the order of Aaron but of Melchizedek, who was not just a high priest but also a king. As Melchizedek was not a Levitical priest, he had no genealogy as such, i.e., no priestly lineage (Heb 7:3). He did not inherit his post; God specially appointed him to the estate, and so his priesthood would remain forever. In the same way, Jesus had no genealogy, his mother being of the tribe of Judah and his father being God. And without his own posterity to inherit the post, he reigns forever as both king and high priest with his people (2 Tm 2:12; Rv 5:10).

"... he annulled Torah..."

Clearly not what it says in Matthew.

The Law and the Prophets were until John. (Luke 16:16)

For hundreds of years, the words of Malachi, the prophet of doom, lay in limbo for the object of their indictment to emerge. At last their time came with John the Baptist, whose message of the kingdom heralded the irrelevance of the Law and the prophets.

So the Ten Commandment don't apply to the New Testament?


Really?

 

[Jitss617]

The image of god

 

[JoeB131]

Another example of the endorsing of capitalism:

9. “How about Jesus's Parable of the Talents (talents were a form of money in Jesus's day)? A man entrusted three of his workers with his wealth. The two who invested the money and made a profit were praised and the one who buried his share so he wouldn't lose any of it was reprimanded. Sounds a lot more like an endorsement for capitalism than socialism, doesn't it?

NO, it sounds like a badly drawn parable that doesn't contradict all the other things Jesus said about people who put greed above helping others.

Luke 16:14-15: “The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.”

First Timothy 6 “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”

 

[norwegen]

Nicodemus was indeed a Pharisee, the aristocracy who derived their authority from the Mosaic Law, or as the apostles called it, the law of sin and death. And Jesus did not condemn him; he invited him into the kingdom.

And I am not making the mistake of calling Jesus a socialist.

Jesus never disavowed the Old Testament.

The faith is Judeo-Christian….not two separate faiths.

The Old Testament laws remain in effect…as per Matthew 5:18 is the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has just reported that he came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In this verse this claim is reinforced.

Matthew 5:17–18 is a key text for interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and the entire gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Jesus says that not one iota (jot) or dot (tittle) will pass away from the law. These most likely refer to the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet, indicating that the Old Testament is completely trustworthy, even to the smallest detail. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude elsewhere. Never do we find Jesus disagreeing with Scripture.

Jesus is the end of that law, or its culmination (Rom 10:4). Jesus did not come to fulfill 600 or so edicts committed to animal skins. He fulfilled not Torah – not the law of sin and death – but rather the law of God. That is, to love God and to love others, for the whole law and prophets hang on these two commandments (Mt 7:12; 22:37-40; Gal 5:14). The Law is not rescinded, per se; it takes on a new holy expression of completeness in the Messiah, a higher standard of virtue arrived at not by mandate but at the pleasure of those who would uphold the Father’s commandments.

When Jesus came to fulfill the law, he annulled Torah but not the eternal law of God, not the command to love Him and others. A change in the priesthood necessitates not a new law per se, but a change in the Law (Heb 7:12), and Christ changed the priesthood, being not of the order of Aaron but of Melchizedek, who was not just a high priest but also a king. As Melchizedek was not a Levitical priest, he had no genealogy as such, i.e., no priestly lineage (Heb 7:3). He did not inherit his post; God specially appointed him to the estate, and so his priesthood would remain forever. In the same way, Jesus had no genealogy, his mother being of the tribe of Judah and his father being God. And without his own posterity to inherit the post, he reigns forever as both king and high priest with his people (2 Tm 2:12; Rv 5:10).

"... he annulled Torah..."

Clearly not what it says in Matthew.

The Law and the Prophets were until John. (Luke 16:16)

For hundreds of years, the words of Malachi, the prophet of doom, lay in limbo for the object of their indictment to emerge. At last their time came with John the Baptist, whose message of the kingdom heralded the irrelevance of the Law and the prophets.

So the Ten Commandment don't apply to the New Testament?


Really?

The Holy Spirit is the power of forgiveness and Spirit of truth (Jn 20:22-23; 14:17). He is the power of a divinely inspired ethical standard that ultimately relegated the apostasy of the Jews and the moral relativism of the pagans to the dustbin of history. He is the power of the new age. This power animated within the human psyche a thirst not for vengeance and prestige but for fraternity and charity.

Of course Christians honor their parents. They do not murder and covet and all the rest. They simply need no edict to tell them these things.

In fact, I would say that with or without Torah or the Ten Commandments, Christians would have transformed the world into its cruciform shape. The Ten Commandments are very much a part of the Christian's law, as they are now written on their hearts.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I mean, yea, you're right.

Still, Jesus did not condemn him. And he was among the elite, as rich rulers tend to be.

Actually, Jesus did condemn Him to hell. He could not do what Jesus demanded of him, thus he was not going to be a part of the kingdom of heaven.

Can you show us where he condemned the rich ruler to hell?

He asked Jesus " “ “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” ...Jesus told him "go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

He did not do this, thus he did not have eternal life...which means he is condemn to hell.

Jesus said he was condemned to hell?

According to the bible there are two choice...eternal life in heaven or eternal death in hell. There is no other option given. This young man would did not do what was needed for the former, thus he got the latter.

Unless of course he changed over time, which we will never know.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nicodemus was indeed a Pharisee, the aristocracy who derived their authority from the Mosaic Law, or as the apostles called it, the law of sin and death. And Jesus did not condemn him; he invited him into the kingdom.

And I am not making the mistake of calling Jesus a socialist.

Jesus never disavowed the Old Testament.

The faith is Judeo-Christian….not two separate faiths.

The Old Testament laws remain in effect…as per Matthew 5:18 is the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has just reported that he came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In this verse this claim is reinforced.

Matthew 5:17–18 is a key text for interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and the entire gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Jesus says that not one iota (jot) or dot (tittle) will pass away from the law. These most likely refer to the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet, indicating that the Old Testament is completely trustworthy, even to the smallest detail. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude elsewhere. Never do we find Jesus disagreeing with Scripture.

Jesus is the end of that law, or its culmination (Rom 10:4). Jesus did not come to fulfill 600 or so edicts committed to animal skins. He fulfilled not Torah – not the law of sin and death – but rather the law of God. That is, to love God and to love others, for the whole law and prophets hang on these two commandments (Mt 7:12; 22:37-40; Gal 5:14). The Law is not rescinded, per se; it takes on a new holy expression of completeness in the Messiah, a higher standard of virtue arrived at not by mandate but at the pleasure of those who would uphold the Father’s commandments.

When Jesus came to fulfill the law, he annulled Torah but not the eternal law of God, not the command to love Him and others. A change in the priesthood necessitates not a new law per se, but a change in the Law (Heb 7:12), and Christ changed the priesthood, being not of the order of Aaron but of Melchizedek, who was not just a high priest but also a king. As Melchizedek was not a Levitical priest, he had no genealogy as such, i.e., no priestly lineage (Heb 7:3). He did not inherit his post; God specially appointed him to the estate, and so his priesthood would remain forever. In the same way, Jesus had no genealogy, his mother being of the tribe of Judah and his father being God. And without his own posterity to inherit the post, he reigns forever as both king and high priest with his people (2 Tm 2:12; Rv 5:10).

"... he annulled Torah..."

Clearly not what it says in Matthew.

The Law and the Prophets were until John. (Luke 16:16)

For hundreds of years, the words of Malachi, the prophet of doom, lay in limbo for the object of their indictment to emerge. At last their time came with John the Baptist, whose message of the kingdom heralded the irrelevance of the Law and the prophets.

So the Ten Commandment don't apply to the New Testament?


Really?

Do you keep the Sabbath?