-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jesus did not condemn the pharisees for obeying the law, but for teaching others to obey the law but breaking it themselves. The law is the litmus test of failure, it is not the cure. So a pharisee is all about appearing to be perfect while doing whatever they please in private, because they know they have no victory over the law or its ideas.
That is why they opposed Jesus, because they did not understand the power he was talking about, their failure, because to them all of life is hypocracy, and they assumed Jesus just wanted their power for himself.
So in you street analogy, the guy who is stopping at the light during the day, and ignoring at night he stops for nothing, while condemning the person who he sees breaking the law during the day....
That is why they opposed Jesus, because they did not understand the power he was talking about, their failure, because to them all of life is hypocracy, and they assumed Jesus just wanted their power for himself.
So in you street analogy, the guy who is stopping at the light during the day, and ignoring at night he stops for nothing, while condemning the person who he sees breaking the law during the day....
Oh, I don't know, why not ask the Galatians? They were the ones who were slipping back into it...
Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
They had the Spirit but were slipping back into false practices.
Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
They had the Spirit but were slipping back into false practices.
And what part of that passage says to ignore the Law?
Jas 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
Jas 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
Jas 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Where in this passage does it say to disregard the Law? The point James was hammering at was that having respect of persons is a sin just as breaking the Commandments he listed.
Jas 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
Jas 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
Jas 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Where in this passage does it say to disregard the Law? The point James was hammering at was that having respect of persons is a sin just as breaking the Commandments he listed.
E
so where in this passage does it say to fallow the law loosely (pick which parts of the law to follow and which parts not to follow)?
this passage makes it clear. you break even ONE aspect of the law. your found by the law as guilty (condemned)
so as I said, and still stand by,
if your going to follow the law. your required to follow all of it. not just certain parts. break one aspect. your guilty.
S
Friend, what exactly are you saying here? That you agree with the accusers of the Messiah, Stephen, and Paul that they "ignored the Law"? And what do you mean by saying that the Messiah "ignored the Law"? If by "ignored the Law" you mean that He violated the Law and taught against it, you are getting into the dangerous territory of Him not qualifying as the sacrificial Lamb.
Following this train of thought is painting the Messiah as disobedient and the Pharisees as truly obedient ones. On the contrary, we find that the Messiah's charge against the Pharisees is that they weren't keeping the Law, but instead were breaking the commands of God in order to honor their own man-made regulations (cf., Matt. 15:1-9).
On the issue of Stephen, as someone else has already asked, where does the book of Acts record that Stephen was ignoring the Law? Here is what we find in Acts 6:
Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” -- Acts 6:11-14 (NIV)
Seems like a rather straightforward narrative piece to me. These secretly persuaded men are false witnesses who bring a false testimony. The false testimony they bring is that Stephen speaks against the Temple and the Law, saying that Jesus will destroy the Temple and change the Law. If the testimony is false, then Stephen was not speaking these things. If Stephen was speaking against the Law, and saying it was changed by Jesus, then the testimony would be true. So which is it?
Let me offer a different perspective:
The Pharisees and teachers of the Law falsely accused the Messiah of violating the Law. The reality is that He kept the Law and was without sin. He only violated their misunderstanding of the Law, the fences they built around the Law, and their man-made regulations they bound upon the people. The Pharisees and teachers of the Law were the ones breaking the commands of God by putting the Law aside in order to elevate their man-made regulations. They end up putting the Messiah to death on the false charge of blasphemy. Fast forward to Stephen who, in a similar manner, is falsely accused of speaking against the Law and teaching that the Messiah would change the customs handed down from Moses. They end up stoning Stephen to death after levying this false charge. Now onto Paul, he faces similar false accusations when he visits Jerusalem, that he is teaching Jews to not be circumcised or follow their customs. He makes a public demonstration that there is no truth to the false accusations and that he himself walks in obedience to the Law. Later at the time of his incarceration and after, he is again falsely charged and the book of Acts records him defending himself three times.
So I ask in a similar way to you phrased it: 2,000 years later, are we agreeing with the false accusations of the people who killed the Messiah, Stephen, and Paul?
Following this train of thought is painting the Messiah as disobedient and the Pharisees as truly obedient ones. On the contrary, we find that the Messiah's charge against the Pharisees is that they weren't keeping the Law, but instead were breaking the commands of God in order to honor their own man-made regulations (cf., Matt. 15:1-9).
On the issue of Stephen, as someone else has already asked, where does the book of Acts record that Stephen was ignoring the Law? Here is what we find in Acts 6:
Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” -- Acts 6:11-14 (NIV)
Seems like a rather straightforward narrative piece to me. These secretly persuaded men are false witnesses who bring a false testimony. The false testimony they bring is that Stephen speaks against the Temple and the Law, saying that Jesus will destroy the Temple and change the Law. If the testimony is false, then Stephen was not speaking these things. If Stephen was speaking against the Law, and saying it was changed by Jesus, then the testimony would be true. So which is it?
Let me offer a different perspective:
The Pharisees and teachers of the Law falsely accused the Messiah of violating the Law. The reality is that He kept the Law and was without sin. He only violated their misunderstanding of the Law, the fences they built around the Law, and their man-made regulations they bound upon the people. The Pharisees and teachers of the Law were the ones breaking the commands of God by putting the Law aside in order to elevate their man-made regulations. They end up putting the Messiah to death on the false charge of blasphemy. Fast forward to Stephen who, in a similar manner, is falsely accused of speaking against the Law and teaching that the Messiah would change the customs handed down from Moses. They end up stoning Stephen to death after levying this false charge. Now onto Paul, he faces similar false accusations when he visits Jerusalem, that he is teaching Jews to not be circumcised or follow their customs. He makes a public demonstration that there is no truth to the false accusations and that he himself walks in obedience to the Law. Later at the time of his incarceration and after, he is again falsely charged and the book of Acts records him defending himself three times.
So I ask in a similar way to you phrased it: 2,000 years later, are we agreeing with the false accusations of the people who killed the Messiah, Stephen, and Paul?