Jesus was an OT Jew----Constantine was a Roman
Zone1 Why are there so many Old Testament Christians?
- Thread starter PeterPilot
- Start date
Carl in Michigan
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 60,820
- 46,023
- 3,615
Jesus explained that they put UNNECESSARY restrictions on Sabbath which He never commanded when He gave the Law to Moses.
Nobody who observes the Feast of Unleavened Bread will eat leavened products "to be neighborly"
Carl in Michigan
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 60,820
- 46,023
- 3,615
I know that. Do you think I follow Constantine? I am not Catholic
There has NEVER been any restriction on CURING on the Sabbath. I have worked (in the practice of medicine)
with VERY orthodox jews. If he set up a practice with a sign---
"I do routine work on Sabbath"---that would be a violation. Why would a person HAVE TO EAT leavened bread just to be
neighborly----EMERGENCY CARE?----is that why priests play
with choir boys?
Carl in Michigan
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 60,820
- 46,023
- 3,615
The Pharisees of His day had a problem with it. I'm glad you approve of healing Someone if it's in your power. But with Jesus it was a free GIFT. The recipient didn't go into debt for healing
Carl in Michigan
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 60,820
- 46,023
- 3,615
Your whole tone with me is you seem to want to argue with someone who is mostly on your side. I don't think you understand that or you just like to hear yourself talk
you remain clueless. The Pharisees never had a problem
with it. Phari-phobia is the evil that afflicted Constantine
with good reason----he was a mass murderer and the
Pharisees hated him and other Roman notables for it and wanted him OUT OF JUDEA. Phara-phobia also afflicted
Constantine's close descendant---JUSTIN who invented the
laws of the INQUISTION and his much later descendant--- Adolf who modeled his NUREMBURG LAWS on the genius
of Justin
ReinyDays
Gold Member
My Bible says this:
6 - But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 - But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 - For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
--- Matthew 12
We're to hold the Sabbath as Holy ... however, mercy is Holier still ... something Moses never learned ...
Matthew was a shill for the Roman rulers----learn some history. On what basis have you decided what Moses
learned or did not learn? Who asked his opinion? Moses
has never been considered a ""member of the "godhead" ""
"POLYNITY" The Pharisees are interpreters of the law---even
they do not WRITE IT
As a Bible student and Bible teacher, it is impossible to competently understand the New Testament without a solid grounding in the Old Testament. With the possible exception of the writer of the Gospel of Luke and Acts--we have no way to know for certain--the New Testament was written by devout Jews who became Christian. But they were all raised as, schooled/educated as orthodox Jews and wrote from that perspective, history, culture, understanding.
Jesus himself certainly did not dismiss his Jewish heritage, culture or that history. Nor should we.
you got that "we have no way to know for certain"---who wrote what with the possible exception of Luke---who was
a greek speaking Greek and never met Jesus and was not
raised as a jew or converted to Judaism (we also have
no reason to believe that Jesus spoke greek) I believe that
some of the letters written by Paul (the very hellenized
son of putative converts) are sorta extant. Then there are
a multitude of "johns" That Jesus was a Pharisee is made
clear in the NT with his foray into the Temple to get rid of
the "money changers"-----That his cousin JOHN, the mikveh
man. was a Pharisee is made clear by the fact that Herod
killed him
Not to belabor the point but what you are reciting is all scholarly theory not embraced universally. There is no proof or evidence for exactly who Luke was and I think honest teaching has to acknowledge that it is theory unsupported by any verifiable proof.
Luke did not identify himself in either the Gospel or in Acts but is mentioned several times in Paul's letters and apparently accompanied Paul on some missionary journeys. Most of Luke's manuscript is written in almost classical Greek suggesting a very well educated man but also contains passages that are semitic in context and vocabulary.
oh---that's not enough?----I am fascinated to know his
"semitic context" In any case---it SEEMS that jews and
greeks mingled in Antioch---which at that time was part
of the ROMAN empire (???)----it seems likely that Antioch
was the site of the roman/jewish syncresis
Perhaps you could start another thread on the Gospel according to Luke? I think we've hijacked this thread sufficiently at this point as the topic is why Christians embrace the Old Testament.
I do not start threads. Another interesting question is--Do
christians believe that Jesus repudiated the OT?
There is no indication that he did. He did repudiate those who demand that the law be followed to the letter as the Pharisees required but who neglect the finer points of the law re kindness, caring, charity, tolerance, forgiveness. He was very much opposed to hypocrisy and very big on common sense.
But as for what Christians believe, that comes from their own education, instruction, culture, experience that guides what they do and do not believe. Among the billions of Christians on Earth, probably no two agree on every single point of doctrine, history, disciplines, beliefs etc.
your concept of PHARISEES is that which you learned---
it was TAUGHT TO YOU and is a manifestation of the
hatred that CONSTANTINE had towards Pharisees who
were the backbone of the resistance to Roman Rule and
occupation and exploitation of Judea. He was also a mass
murderer of Pharisees. That Jesus attacked the money changers in the Temple and was crucified is more than enough
evidence that HE WAS A PHARISEE but by no means the only evidence. His cousin, John the Mikveh man---is virtually a confirmed Pharisee, too. Matthew was described as a tax collector. I wonder what you learned about that group--or what you learned about CAIAPHAS---the "high priest"
GMCGeneral
Diamond Member
Because the OT is part of the entire Canon of Scripture. And Jesus preached more on sin, judgement, rand repentance than on love.and tolerance. Nowhere in Scripture is tolerance taught.. Christ's mission was to pay the full penalty for the sins of man. But as individuals we MUST make the choice whether to heed G-d's warning and be born again, or disregard it and face His wrath.
GMCGeneral
Diamond Member
Not entire true. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. And if you examine the literary style of the Gospels, they are Jewish.
Meriweather
Not all who wander are lost
- Oct 21, 2014
- 20,013
- 4,287
- 165
So you keep insisting, but there is plenty to indicate he was not. For example, Pharisees in Jesus' day followed both the written law and the oral law. Throughout the Gospels we see that while Jesus did support the Written Law, he was not much of a fan of the Oral Law--that is the what one might see as the fine print added to the written law. For example, the oral law noted that a tailor should take care not to leave that extra needle pushed into clothes he was wearing on the Sabbath.
Similar threads
