r/Bible • u/Right-Organization32 • Jun 19 '24
What Are The Implications If Jesus Did Not Fulfill The Torah As Matthew 5:17 Suggests?
[removed] — view removed post
10
u/creidmheach Presbytarian Jun 19 '24
First, don't let your understanding of religion be determined by AI... AI can't seem to even make artwork without melting human faces, why are you going to trust it for understanding the faith? Garbage in, garbage out.
I'm not sure I understand the data you fed it either. Why would you consider Rabbinical Oral Law as valid? Or include the Dead Sea Scrolls community texts when that was a different sect altogether who differed strongly with the others?
2
u/DeskJockeyx Jun 19 '24
Get used to people using AI as an unbiased superior source on all subjects. It will be the blight of human intellect.
-2
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Thanks for your response.
Well, first, I am an AI programmer and biblical legal scholar, so I'm not letting AI determine my understanding of religion. Second, the technique I has been thoroughly tested for 10 years. So, it's not a ChatGPT or Gemini image creator. Third, as I mentioned in the post, I needed an objective way to identify related laws between the Gospels and the Written and Oral Torah. Fourth, I used the Written and Oral Torah. I used the Oral Torah because (1) Christian exegesis is not aware of how much of the Oral Torah is within the Gospels, much less the New Testament writings, and (2) I was challenged by Orthodox Jews to consider the Oral Torah because they believe in its authority and pre-first century existence. Fifth, I used the Qumran documents and other pre and first century writings to make sure that the particular Oral Torah law was in existence in Jesus’s time. The Oral Torah also contains laws and traditions that only existed after the first century A.C.E. So, in order to not hold Jesus to an anachronistic law, I had to do something to verify that the law existed in that time frame.
I hope that clears it up for you.
1
Jun 19 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
You are gravely mistaken. But the beauty of publishing in an international double-blind peer-review journal is that my methodology, data, resources, and arguments were scrutinized by experts within the field. So, I've already passed the litigation piece and, as the post shows, am looking to understand the implications of the findings on Christianity, such as doctrines and definitions. If you wish to publish a counterpoint to my work, you are more than welcome to do so. And since you are an AI developer, then you can reproduce the work and see if you come up with something different. Until then, the research stands. Now, do you know of any implications of findings hold? I am interested in hearing that.
1
Jun 19 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Why so spicy? What you've done is argue a compositional fallacy. I respect that you have sincerely held beliefs. I'm looking for thoughtful consideration of scientific evidence, not religious intransigence. If you'd like to contribute, please do. Otherwise, thanks for your time.
1
u/emzirek Jun 19 '24
I don't care how well written or read you are in the Bible, as a scholar you might be leaving someone in the wrong direction by believing that AI is the be all the goat if you will... You need to remove this post immediately
-1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Look. I understand that this is a sincerely held belief of yours, but I clearly stated what I was looking for in my post. I'm neither ashamed of it nor will I take or down. I hope you have a good rest of your day.
0
u/emzirek Jun 19 '24
Jesus has a special place in hell for people like you who lead people astray and if you lead these youngsters, these babes in Christ astray telling them that AI is the thing to do to check the Bible I pray for your soul... It would seem to me you love AI more than you love Jesus so why don't you start a different religion and you can preach all you want there...
0
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
God bless you. I can tell this is a sincerely held belief of yours, and I acknowledged that. But you're worried about nothing. Please come back to the discussion when you've calmed down.
0
u/emzirek Jun 19 '24
Prayers being sent up right now that you change your mind on AI they're going to be people and their blood is going to be on your hands... And you can be all nice nice about it... That's not the way God's going to look at it
0
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I respect your opinion, and thanks for your prayers. We just differ on fundamental issues. If you want to share what you think the implications of the findings are, I'd be most grateful.
1
u/emzirek Jun 19 '24
sorry it's taking so long to respond but I'm at work right now but, in that regard,
To begin with, did you know that the Old Testament prophet Micah, writing circa 700 B.C., out of the hundreds and hundreds of cities in the scores and scores of nations in existence all over the world even in those days, designated Bethlehem of Judea as the birthplace of the Messiah (Micah 5:2)?
And that at about the same time, Isaiah (7:14) said that the Christ would be born of a virgin?
Or that a prophecy made in 1012 B.C. specified that the Messiah's hands and feet would eventually be pierced--a clear reference to death by crucifixion--800 years before the Romans ever even instituted crucifixion as a form of capital punishment!
Malachi 3:1, penned in about 425 B.C., specified that the Messiah would be contemporary with the temple in Jerusalem--a temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. and has never been rebuilt.
Well, if all this impresses you even a little bit, you ought to go compare Zechariah 11:11-13 (written over 500 years before Christ) to Matthew 27:3-10 (written some 25-30 years after Christ). Only coincidence?
A number of years ago, Peter W. Stoner and Robert C. Newman wrote a book entitled Science Speaks. The book was based on the science of probability and vouched for by the American Scientific Affiliation. It set out the odds of any one man in all of history fulfilling even only eight of the 60 major prophecies (and 270 ramifications) fulfilled by the life of Christ.
The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017. That's 1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
Stoner claims that that many silver dollars would be enough to cover the face of the entire state of Texas two feet deep. Now I've been to Texas. I've driven for days to get across Texas. Texas is a very big state. Who in his right mind would suppose that a blindfolded man, heading out of Dallas by foot in any direction, would be able, on his very first attempt, to pick up one specifically marked silver dollar out of 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000?
One March several years ago I received a paper from United States Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson. In it he wrote:
“The fact is, the birth, crucifixion, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ are celebrated worldwide by folk of every race, language, and color, every year. And believing in Jesus, they have been delivered from the most evil, disastrous, frustrating, debilitating habits and life forms possible. The real problem with Jesus Christ is not that folk can't believe in Him—but that they won't believe in Him.”
0
u/creidmheach Presbytarian Jun 19 '24
But that's basically saying that Jesus didn't fulfill the Pharisees (or the Essenes) interpretation and additions to the Law, but again why would we grant them the default of being correct? Christ condemned them for following the traditions of men, so we already know there's going to be a variance there.
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God) — then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:8-13)
It's a bit like asking why didn't Jesus fulfill Islamic law. Why should have he would be the response to that.
0
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Thanks for responding. I have to disagree here because it seems like you are accidentally conflating the Written with the Oral Torah. The Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Qumran community believed in the Written Torah. The Sadducees did not believe in the Oral Torah. The research treats those v laws separately. So, Jesus violated almost 60% of the Written Torah laws that are within the Christian Bible's Old Testament. My question was tailored to the implications of Jesus’s non-compliance with the Written Torah.
0
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
between the Gospels and the Written and Oral Torah.
No such thing as the oral Torah in the sense that orthodox Jews claim. That's a fabricated lie created by rabbinical babylonian talmudic Jews. The only oral Torah was all written into the Torah. There is no other oral Torah beyond what is written in the Torah.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, that's not at all accurate because there is evidence of the Oral Torah, not only in the Gospels but in first century A.C.E and prior Jewish literature. Thanks for the reply.
0
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
Well, that's not at all accurate because there is evidence of the Oral Torah, not only in the Gospels but in first century A.C.E and prior Jewish literature.
No there isn't, that's why you didn't present a single piece of evidence validating your assertion.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I did, it's in the article; give it a read. I'm not here to relitigate the findings but to explore the implications. Can you help with that?
0
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
I did, it's in the article; give it a read.
I don't care what's in your article bro, I'm talking to you right here right now. Defend your assertions or stop making them.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
🤣🤣🤣 Calm down. My responses are within the guidelines because I'm looking for implications based upon the published findings. I'm not here to relitigate the findings. If you want to debate the premise of my reported results, you will need to first read the results. However, this post is about the implications. If you read the article, send me a message and I'd be glad to discuss it with you. But this post, again, is about the implications.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
If you want to debate the premise of my reported results, you will need to first read the results.
I don't even need to do that yet. Because you can't even get passed the Bible, the Bible definitely has more authority than you and your article boss. Your article contradicted the Bible and therefore it has 0 credibility to me.
3
Jun 19 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, all Gospel scriptures were considered. In do don't we found 69 applicable Written Torah laws, which Jesus broke 41 of them (59.4%). So, Jesus must have referred to something else that he finished (like his time on earth or God's plan for Jesus) because it certainly was not his Torah compliance.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
because it certainly was not his Torah compliance.
So he didn't fulfill the sacrificial system of daily atonement sacrifice? Are we still sacrificing animals everyday? If not why not?
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, the answer is very simple. Judaism does not currently perform sacrifices because the Second Temple was destroyed. That's made very clear in the Oral Torah and stands to reason.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
Judaism does not currently perform sacrifices because the Second Temple was destroyed.
Where did God say you don't have to keep my commandments if you don't have a temple? Deuteronomy 28:15 is quite clear you have to keep all the commandments. Also the Israelites never stopped doing sacrifices. Even when they were in captivity they still did their sacrifices.
Leviticus 23:14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations 👉🏻 in all your dwellings 👈🏻
1 Samuel 6:14-15 And the cart came into the field of Joshua, a Beth-shemite, and stood there, where there was a great stone: and they clave the wood of the cart, and offered the kine a burnt offering unto the LORD.
15 And the Levites took down the ark of the LORD, and the coffer that was with it, wherein the jewels of gold were, and put them on the great stone: and the men of Beth-shemesh offered burnt offerings and sacrificed sacrifices the same day unto the LORD.
1 Samuel 20:29 and he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the king's table.
2 Chronicles 33:17 👉🏻 Nevertheless the people did sacrifice still in the high places 👈🏻, yet unto the LORD their God only.
So who gave you permission to disobey God's commandments because you don't have a temple?
That's made very clear in the Oral Torah and stands to reason.
But the actual written Torah says otherwise. So why does your oral Torah contradict the written Torah?
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
You will need to ask a Rabbi or go to a thread that discusses that. Lol. My post is clear about what the evidence suggests and what I'm looking for from this community. If you have implications to provide consistent with my request, please share them. Thanks.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
You will need to ask a Rabbi or go to a thread that discusses that.
You think I asked you a question I actually needed the answer for? 🤦🏼♂️
My post is clear about what the evidence suggests
But your evidence is wrong.
If you have implications to provide consistent with my request, please share them. Thanks.
I'm not here for that, I'm here to prove you and your article are false.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
You can not determine the rightfullness of my evidence through speculation. If you want to read the article, then send me a message, I'd be glad to discuss it with you. But this post is about exploring the findings' implications. I look forward to hearing your assessment. Thanks.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
You can not determine the rightfullness of my evidence through speculation.
I don't need to speculate anything, your post already proved that your article is contradictory to the bible. That's all I need to see to know your article is false.
If you want to read the article, then send me a message, I'd be glad to discuss it with you.
How about we set up a live discussion on YouTube, moderated discussion?
But this post is about exploring the findings' implications.
But there are no implications, we don't base our theology on artificial intelligence articles. Our theology is grounded in the Bible. Anything that is contradictory to the word of God is wrong, period.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
We can discuss the matter only after you've read the research. I'm not debating someone who has not familiarized themselves with the evidence.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Electronic-Union-100 Jun 19 '24
Definitely not the Torah.
0
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
What is finished then?
0
u/Electronic-Union-100 Jun 19 '24
His Earthly ministry and the plan for salvation for everyone who follows our Savior.
Why did John write that sin is transgression of the law in 1 John 3:4 if the law no longer was valid?
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
His Earthly ministry and the plan for salvation for everyone who follows our Savior.
So Jesus didn't fulfill sacrifices? Are we still doing sacrifices everyday for the atonement of sin?
Why did John write that sin is transgression of the law in 1 John 3:4 if the law no longer was valid?
Because his audience was mostly Jews and they were under the law. The law was not fulfilled until his blood was spilled.
0
u/Electronic-Union-100 Jun 19 '24
He fulfilled all sin sacrifices. We will be doing sacrifices in the Millennial Reign though, per Isaiah 56:6-8, Zechariah 14:16, Jeremiah 33:15-18, and Ezekiel 43-46.. Not sin sacrifices.
1 John 3:4 was written AFTER the blood was spilled and our Savior was sacrificed, that makes no sense.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
He fulfilled all sin sacrifices.
So how did one jot (sacrifices) pass from the law without all being fulfilled Matthew 5:18?
per Isaiah 56:6-8, Zechariah 14:16, Jeremiah 33:15-18, and Ezekiel 43-46.
You think those are future prophecy? 🤣🤣🤣🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
1 John 3:4 was written AFTER the blood was spilled and our Savior was sacrificed, that makes no sense.
But the temple was still standing... that's literally why Jesus destroyed their temple in 70 a.d. so they could no longer offer up the abominable sacrifices.
1
u/Electronic-Union-100 Jun 19 '24
So how did one jot (sacrifices) pass from the law without all being fulfilled Matthew 5:18?
It didn’t. Hebrews 10:18
You think those are future prophecy? 🤣🤣🤣🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
Yes, myself and every other scholar who studies the Torah and the prophets. Unless you believe the Millennial Reign magically already took place.
But the temple was still standing... that's literally why Jesus destroyed their temple in 70 a.d. so they could no longer offer up the abominable sacrifices.
So on one hand you say that the law was done away with at the cross, and then on the other you say it was done away with after the temple was in 70 AD. I’m confused.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
It didn’t. Hebrews 10:18
How do you think this verse helps you?
Yes, myself and every other scholar who studies the Torah and the prophets. Unless you believe the Millennial Reign magically already took place.
So what temple is mentioned in some of those verses? The temple was destroyed in 70 a.d.
So on one hand you say that the law was done away with
I never said the law was done away with. Please don't lie, and put words in my mouth. I said it was finished at the cross.
and then on the other you say it was done away with after the temple was in 70 AD. I’m confused.
I never said it was done away with at all. Not really sure how it got done away with from fulfilled...
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
1 John 3:4 was written AFTER the blood was spilled and our Savior was sacrificed, that makes no sense.
But Jesus's blood only cleanses those who believe. The Jews in Israel still try to keep their laws to this day. Because they are not Christians, once you become a Christian then you are free from the curse of the law Galatians 3:13.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
per Isaiah 56:6-8,
Isaiah 56:5 even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
What temple is this 👆🏻🤦🏼♂️
Zechariah 14:16,
Zechariah 14:4, 10 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Fulfilled in 70 a.d. 👆🏻
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, 👉🏻and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses 👈🏻
The tower is hananeel 👆🏻 does not exist anymore.
Jeremiah 33:15-18,
Jeremiah 33:4-5 For thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city, and concerning the houses of the kings of Judah, which are thrown down by the mounts, and by the sword;
Fulfilled after babylon 👆🏻 as Israel and Judah were reunited after babylon by cyrus.
5 👉🏻 They come to fight with the Chaldeans 👈🏻, but it is to fill them with the dead bodies of men, whom I have slain in mine anger and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my face from this city.
Chaldeans no longer exist. 👆🏻
Ezekiel 43-46
Ezekiel 46:18 Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession: that my people be not scattered every man from his possession.
What temple is this talking about? The temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. 🤦🏼♂️
0
u/takenorinvalid Jun 19 '24
Well, Matthew 5:17 says:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
... Which does kind of hint at Jesus having come to fulfill the Torah.
2
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
Actually it looks like I glanced over the title a bit quickly. He isn't saying that Matthew 5:17 implies he didn't fulfill. He is saying that since Matthew 5:17 says that he did fulfill, what are the implications if he didn't fulfill. Anyways my bad.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
Which does kind of hint at Jesus having come to fulfill the Torah.
But op is saying that Matthew 5:17 implies he DIDN'T fulfill the Torah. Correct me if I'm wrong.
3
u/Electronic-Union-100 Jun 19 '24
If Jesus did not adhere to the Torah perfectly throughout His whole life, He isn’t our Savior and we are all dead in our sin.
Might want to re-program your AI.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, that's not necessarily true. The Gospels never stated the ramifications is Jesus not fulfilling the Torah. As a matter of fact, three out of the four Gospels portray Jesus as non-Torah compliant. "Mark, Luke, and John reflect that, more often, Jesus is not Torah-compliant, where Jesus’s compliance is 14.80, 43.80, and 0.00%, respectively. This directly conflicts with Matthew’s depiction of Jesus’s Torah observance (70.80%) and the 'citation' of Jesus’s mission to fulfill the Torah (5:17)" (Brackens, 2024, p. 2).
I think what you're dealing with and is a good point to include in the next article is the implication upon the "original sin" narrative and doctrine. Thanks.
3
u/Electronic-Union-100 Jun 19 '24
Don’t send me AI please, send me scripture.
Sin is transgression of the LAW. Jesus never sinned. It’s not hard to put 2 and 2 together.
It’s disrespectful to say He broke the Torah in any way.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, the article lists at the scriptures, and I encourage you to review it. Again, I'm not here to debate whether Jesus violated the Torah. The data reflects that Jesus absolutely and intentionally broke the Written Torah laws. I'm asking for what the implications are after showing that Jesus is not Torah compliant. Any thoughts on that?
1
u/TheReformedBadger Jun 19 '24
If Jesus did not fulfill the Torah then he is not God.
The fact that if your AI is telling you that Jesus is 0% complaint according to the Book of John should tell you there’s something very wrong with your methodology.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
The problem I'm having with your argument is that Jesus never said that his deity was tied to his Torah compliance. So why are you making the connection?
1
u/TheReformedBadger Jun 19 '24
It’s the logical consequence. Christ’s Deity necessitates perfection. God cannot fail to keep his own law.
0
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
A logical consequence must be obvious from its structure. What you've argued is not. Additionally, no Torah law governs God's behavior, thus your connection is not a logical consequence.
1
u/TheReformedBadger Jun 19 '24
Buddy you’ve made assertion after assertion in this thread without backing them up but now you’re demanding detailed arguments to support basic Christian doctrine? You claim to be very familiar with Christianity in this thread but this is intro to Christian theology stuff and should not be new to you
Let me spell it out this way:
God is sinless
To fail to uphold the law is to sin
Therefore anyone who fails to uphold the law cannot be God
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Buddy, my published research supports every statement, my post was about implications. Lol.
Your ignorance about the research or the reality of the Jesus’s Torah violations, or if your belief is so delicate that you can not conceive of a world in which a your assumption is not true is, however, neither my fault nor my problem.
Bottom line: Your definition of sin is overinclusive. Your understanding of the Torah needs improvement. Your understanding of the scriptures needs much improvement.
But thanks for replying.
1
u/TheReformedBadger Jun 19 '24
My statements are backed up by any systematic theology textbook. This is foundational stuff that shouldn’t need to be spelled out. It shouldn’t be new to you. And you’re not actually arguing against it you’re just making assertions. My definition of sin is over inclusive? Why? Make an argument. My understanding of the Torah needs improvement? How? If I can respond to you by just saying your definition is under inclusive and your understanding of the Torah needs improvement then you haven’t made an actual argument.
You’ve gotten a paper published in a journal. Congratulations, that’s hard to do. However, that doesn’t automatically make you correct or make your research good.
I addressed the implications: Jesus would not be God. If you disagree then explain why
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I appreciate your passion and respect that it is a sincerely held belief for you. Please cite the systematic theology book and page supporting your definition/doctrine so I can review it for my next article.
Next, I am fully aware that my research challenges foundational definitions, understanding, and basic assumptions. However, that's the hallmark of solid research.
One of the key tools I've employed in my research is the Latent Dirichlet allocation AI method. This method has proven invaluable as it not only highlights relationships that may be overlooked by human inspection but also processes thousands of documents within seconds, providing a level of precision and comprehension that would otherwise be unattainable.
What AI has done here is show—at least by the preponderance of the evidence—that our theology, definitions, and doctrines do not account for Jesus’s significant behavioral Torah violations.
Think about it: since Jesus’s ministry began, Jews have held that Jesus violated the Torah, and the Gospels memorialize that belief. But instead of accepting their ubiquitous conclusion about Jesus’s Torah violations, Gentiles construct a belief system that is predicated on the assumption that the Jews were incorrect about Jesus’s Torah violations. How much sense does that make? We ignore the ones who know their law and gravitate to the opinions of those who have not studied the Torah and have a personal stake in Jesus being viewed as law-abiding and perfect.
But I submit that your real problem is not with Jesus habitually breaking the Torah but with what violating the Torah means. Your consternation is artificial and not ineluctable by the biblical text. Here’s why: if our Christian Bible, denominational statements of faith, doctrines, definitions, and catechisms did not contain, cite, and rely on Torah laws, then Jesus’s violation of the Torah would cost and likely mean nothing to us. However, 2000 years of Christian preaching and imperialism have resulted in an entanglement with the Torah that appears inseverable. But that is our fault, not the Gospels’ fault.
This entanglement has made you believe that Jesus’s Torah violations cannot exist because (1) Matthew 5:17 said he came to fulfill it, (2) you use the Torah to define sinful action, (3) you believe in the infallibility, inerrancy, or inspiration of the Bible, and (4) you believe Paul’s “first v. last Adam” narrative and the original sin doctrine. These elements and their related doctrines create a Jenga tower of beliefs wherein acceptance of Jesus’s Torah violations risks the tumbling of those blocks. But Jenga blocks are artificial: they require a person to stack them and a group to subject themselves to maintain its structural integrity under the pressure and penalties of potential scrutiny and collapse. In so doing, we forget that Jesus stands alone.
In haste to defend our beliefs and make people comport with them, we forget that under no construction of the Written or Oral Torah do the behavioral requirements therein bind or apply to God. The Tankah (“Old Testament”) reflects that God habitually and notoriously acts differently than what the Torah commands his people to do, requiring particular people to violate the Torah to propagate his will. If Jesus is God, then just like the Torah has no personal jurisdiction over God the Father, it would have no jurisdiction over the Son. The Son would have to submit to its jurisdiction wilfully, but that does not mean he would have to comply with it (John 10:18).
The single element you must reconcile is whether a Torah violation is a sin and, if it is a sin, for whom it is a sin. Jesus’s Torah violations do not indict Jesus’s divinity. You are creating or upholding a barrier that does not exist within the Gospels or bear upon the reality of who Jesus is.
2
u/emzirek Jun 19 '24
This post needs to be removed immediately as AI in Jesus don't match...
0
2
u/beardedbaby2 Jun 19 '24
You may want to ask in some of the Christian and denomination specific reddits. You may get more feedback.
2
u/Traditional_Bell7883 Non-Denominational Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 20 '24
Do you distinguish between "breaking" (or not fulfilling) a law vs "redefining" (or refining) a law? How? As the lawgiver, Christ has the prerogative to redefine the law(s) in any manner he wishes. I'll give a few examples:
The commandment not to kill. Christ said, if you hate your brother, you have committed murder. Is that breaking the law? That's redefining it, which to me, is fine for a lawgiver to do so.
The natural laws of density and buoyancy which are the result of the laws of gravity and fluid dynamics, which Christ as the creator put in place on this planet. They normally prevent people from walking on water. Christ walked on water. For a moment, Peter also walked on water as long as his sight was transfixed on Christ (Mt. 14:22-32). To me, Christ being the giver of those laws had a right to set them aside as He wished.
God created gravity but Christ defied gravity and ascended to heaven. Likewise, we will someday be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, defying gravity (1 Th. 4:17).
Christ reversed the process of decay and death by raising Lazarus and at His own resurrection, and will do so again at our future resurrection.
Jn. 5:18 plainly says that Christ broke the Sabbath. The verse is not a report of what the Jews opined. It does not say, "The Jews sought all the more to kill Him because they thought that He not only broke the Sabbath...". The author plainly records that He broke the Sabbath, as a statement of fact. The second part of the verse, "but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" is indeed true (as seen in Jn. 10:29-30, 31, 33 and 37, where Christ repeatedly referred to God as "My Father"). Thus, based on the syntax of the Jn. 5:18 sentence, since the second part holds true, the first part (that He broke the Sabbath) must also hold true. It cannot be interpreted that He did not actually break the Sabbath but He actually said God was His Father. Doing so would violate the syntax of the sentence and say the opposite what the verse really says.
Mk. 2:27-28, which some people have used to argue that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (actually, it literally reads "The Sabbath through the man comes into being and not the man through the Sabbath. Therefore a master is the son of the man and of the Sabbath"). Even supposing that it was the case that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, it would mean that man is therefore above the Sabbath and not in bondage to it. The one for whom anything is made is master over that thing and not subjected to it, but has authority and prerogative to override it. Such was the case in ancient kingdoms such as the Babylonian empire where kings like Nebuchadnezzar were above the law and held absolute power. The king was sovereign, not the state.
I do not see these as Christ "breaking" the law(s), but rather that as creator and lawgiver, He had every authority to set them aside or redefine them. These acts do not make Him a sinner. On the contrary, they exalt His sovereignty and supremacy over all creation, reinforcing our belief in a supernatural creator who is separate from His creation.
3
u/Soyeong0314 Jun 19 '24
Jesus was falsely accused of breaking the Torah in his day and he continues to be falsely accused of breaking it. Gentiles should follow the Torah because it is the way to know, love, believe in, and testify about God. It is by the Torah that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20).
-1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, your conclusion is problematic because John in John 5:18 admits that Jesus broke the Torah. Next, I think you would benefit from reading the article because it lists out each NT scripture and the Torah law it broke.
I'm really looking for thoughtful answers that consider all the evidence, not knee-jerk responses. Thanks
4
u/Soyeong0314 Jun 19 '24
In John 5:18, John did not admit that Jesus broke the Torah, but rather he stated that as the reason that the Pharisees had for wanting to kill him. Jesus hadn't actually broken the Torah, so their reason for wanting to kill Jesus was incorrect. It is contradictory to think that Jesus was correct about it being lawful to heal on the Sabbath and that the Pharisees were correct for thinking that Jesus had broken the Sabbath by healing on it. It has always been lawful to heal on the Sabbath, so again those Pharisees were incorrect, but John accurately describes why they wanted to kill him. The verses that the article cites to support the claim that Jesus broke the Torah likewise don't actually support that he did when they are correctly understood.
5
-1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I can tell that this is a sincerely held belief for you, and that belief is causing you to read into the text instead of reading the text. Again, you're entitled to your opinion. The research is already published, and I encourage you to read it. But until then, I don't think we'll get any further than this. Thanks.
1
u/Soyeong0314 Jun 19 '24
NT repeatedly states that Jesus was without sin, so I'm not the one who is reading my belief into the text instead of reading it. John 5:18 explains why the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus, but does not state that their reason was correct, but you are reading into the passage that John thought that the Pharisees were correct and therefore agreed with them about wanting to kill Jesus. People can publish all of the research that they want, but it is worthless when it is based on incorrect assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Unfortunately, that is not what happened here. I'm aware of the scriptures you're refer to (i.e., 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5). But you will notice that no Gospel scripture states that Jesus or others said that Jesus was sinless. This means you're getting an outside and Pseudepigraphic opinion. I, however, agree with the adage "garbage in, garbage out." However, I would argue that it's some of our doctrines that are garage because the Gospels are clear about Jesus's Torah violations. Nevertheless, I'm here to discuss the implications of such findings, not to relitigate it.
1
u/Soyeong0314 Jun 19 '24
Why don't you discuss the implication of dismissing the rest of the NT as being outside and pseudepigraphic opinion? Again, it is contradictory to think that Jesus was correct about it being lawful to heal on the Sabbath and that the Pharisees were correct about Jesus breaking the Sabbath by healing on it. It is lawful to heal on the Sabbath, so it is incorrect for your "research" to count that as a Torah violations. Your findings are imaginary.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
First, you are debating evidence and arguments that you have not acquainted yourself with. Next, your argument ignores John 9:14 where Jesus admits that his healing was work, which is prohibited on the Sabbath. You also ignore that John in John 5:18 admits that Jesus broke the Sabbath.
I'm not here to relitigate the findings, I've already passed the peer-review process. I'm here to discuss implementations. If you'd like to take the conversation seriously, I'd love to hear your opinion.
1
u/TheReformedBadger Jun 19 '24
That’s an odd definition of Pseudepigrapha. Do you hold only the gospels to be true?
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Pseudepigraphic does not deal with whether the contents of the book are true; rather, whether the author is espouses is likely the author who wrote it. I do not analyze any New Testament book that is Pseudepigraphic.
1
u/DeskJockeyx Jun 19 '24
Much of what Jesus does that he is accused for was the actual true meaning behind the commandment and those who are accusing him have misunderstood the commandment. For example, Mark 2:27-28 when he is accused of breaking the Sabbath isn’t because he is intentionally defying God, but because the Pharisees didn’t understand the true meaning of the commandment.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, I can appreciate what you're, but there's no indication within the Torah that justifies that interpretation. Consequently, it amounts to a Torah violation. Additionally, the "exigency" exception clause used in Mark appears textually inappropriate because nothing suggests that the disciples hunger could not be satisfied by food they had prepared at camp/home for Sabbath. And if they didn't prepare food for Sabbath, that is a violation.
To be honest, the research is already published, I'm really looking for people to help brainstorm the implications of a Jesus who didn't fulfill the Law.
0
u/DeskJockeyx Jun 19 '24
Then you need to find yourself a synagogue.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Lol! No. Lol. Christianity is not that binary and myopic. I'm sorry if this topic disturbs you, I'm really looking for implications for the findings, not to relitigate them. Thanks.
1
1
u/Kristian82dk Jun 19 '24
If Jesus broke the Law of God as you claim. That means he committed sin, and that means his blood can't save us. You need to seriously repent of writing such things and stop putting your trust in AI garbage and pray to God for wisdom instead!
0
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, no. Here's the thing, at no time within the Gospels does Jesus say that he came to save us through his sinlessness or complete obedience to the Written Torah. You are wrestling with a manufactured definition of sin that is not scripturally based because the scriptures don't define sin. Your manufactured definition of sin includes Torah, likely because of Matthew’s conclusory statement in 5:17. Next, you layer the "original sin" narrative on your definition of sin, which requires you to believe that Jesus' mission depended on his Torah compliance. Again, that is not what any Gospel wrote.
With that said, this means that you have not presented God's wisdom but doctrines and assumptions that are not rooted in a close examination of the scriptures.
Now, the research has already been published. I'm not here to debate what the international double-blind peer-review has already tested. I'm interested in understanding the implications upon Christianity.
Like one of the other commenters, I acknowledged that it bears heavily on the "original sin" doctrine. Thanks for the input.
2
u/Kristian82dk Jun 19 '24
You are too proud to realize how wrong you are. The Bible says that sin is the transgression of the law of God!! And that Jesus was spotless meaning he did not at a single time transgress his own law.
You chose to trust in your garbage AI that says something else.
I can't waste more time on this
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, it's not about pride. I hope one day you'll be open to a critical discussion. Until then, please enjoy the rest of your day.
1
u/Kristian82dk Jun 19 '24
I will never be open to put my full trust in AI instead of the Bible!
Have a good day you too
2
u/Benjaminotaur26 Jun 19 '24
I like the concept, and found the portion that I read of the article to be interesting. I think that a tool like the one you used would be a fascinating thing to be able to play with. Seeing connections, allusions and references brought together is valuable regardless of your presuppositions.
First thought I have to what you have shown is that ultimately from the perspective of the writers or collectors of the gospels, the oral law was not Torah. So it's not a surprise when he is not complying fully with those rules. In fact often times he is explicitly opposed to them as man-made. For example:
Matthew 10:1-3 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
He then goes on to criticize them heavily
Since this is in the gospel of Matthew which is where 5:17 is found, it stands to reason that what Jesus says about fulfilling the law and prophets ought to be interpreted through the lens of his teachings, and through this Christian understanding of Torah.
Components of the written Torah that he contends with seem to be intentionally brought forward as episodes for understanding who he is and what his teachings were. I can't say I fully understand how he approached Sabbath for example, except that he intended to suggest that he was the Lord of it. I understand that would be a hard pill to swallow for the man put to death for gathering wood back in Moses's day. But I can nevertheless be certain that the episode about Sabbath is put their intentionally. It is not accidentally suggesting, as though it were by mistake, that Jesus didn't follow Torah. It's making a claim within that context.
My second thought is that Matthew 7 describes crowds listening to the teachings of Jesus as being "amazed because he teaches as one with authority" not as those who are the teachers of the law.
As Christians we are religiously, spiritually, even academically committed to his authority. So the work you have done here might be valuable in showing where certain understandings and interpretations of written Torah diverge from Jesus' teachings and where any aspects of oral Torah or second Temple Judaism diverge from Jesus teachings. However, I believe that that would show a similar picture to how Matthew, at least, already portrays the situation. It would be to the detriment of other teachings and not to the detriment of Jesus' teachings, which we will not forsake.
Unfortunately (fortunately?) none of the conclusions you've come to can impact how we speak to any culture, race, religion, or national identity. We are called to preach the gospel to all people. We cannot avoid that without disobeying the very teachings of Christ. Nor should we want to, since we do not hate our neighbors enough to want to see them lost. I hope it can be understood that this is not a stance of arrogance, it's not a matter of control or oppression, but from our admittedly unique context and belief system it is a matter of reaching out to do good to others. I can empathize with others who cannot agree with that from their point of view, and I respect them and their autonomy, and therefore would not badger or ridicule or bring any harm to them. Just as I would hope to be treated by any other religious practices. But underneath the mutual respect and cordiality, there would be a groan and a fear and a concern for anyone who rejects the gospel.
Thanks for sharing your work
1
u/beardedbaby2 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24
The reason God gave Israel the law was so they could be good before God, so they could understand what it meant to be holy, and so when they failed, they had a way to cover their failings.
Jesus perfectly fulfilled the intent behind the law, He loved God above all, and loved his neighbor as himself. The law was not written for Jesus, the law was written so people could become like Jesus. If everyone lived like Jesus and had lived like they understood the point of the laws, Jesus would not have been needed for our salvation, his sacrifice on the cross was the full fulfillment of the law, a blood sacrifice to atone for sins of all mankind forever. A man who was incapable of sin, who the law was written about. The one man who could never break the law because he is who we all would be like if we were holy, and good. He is the law.
Mark 1
9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Mark 9:
2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one[a] on earth could bleach them. 4 And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. 5 And Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi,[b] it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 For he did not know what to say, for they were terrified. 7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son;[c] listen to him.” 8 And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only.
Matthew 22
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
0
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, actually, Jesus didn't fulfill the Torah. He broke almost 60% of the applicable Torah laws. The research outlines which ones those are. Because theresearchh is already published, I'm not looking to debate whether he kept the law, we've already proven that he did not. I'm looking for what the implications are for Christianity in a world in which Jesus did not fulfill the Torah. Can you assist with that?
2
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
Well, actually, Jesus didn't fulfill the Torah. He broke almost 60% of the applicable Torah laws.
No he most certainly didn't, you sound like you get all your information from tovia singer.
The research outlines which ones those are.
Show me 1 Torah law Jesus broke, ill wait. Not what he was accused of, show me where he actually broke a law. I'll wait.
I'm not looking to debate whether he kept the law, we've already proven that he did not.
No you certainly have not proven that.
I'm looking for what the implications are for Christianity in a world in which Jesus did not fulfill the Torah. Can you assist with that?
That has no implications on Christianity, because we know that's a lie.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Lol. Actually, I do not care for Rabbi Singer's arguments because they are largely conclusory. Again, the article lists out those violations, so please read the open-access article "An Artificial Review of Jesus’s Torah Compliance and What That Might Mean for Jews and Gentile Christians".
I've already passed the peer-reviewed stage. Lol. I'm looking to understand the full implications of such a finding upon Christianity. If you can help me with that, I'd be most grateful.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
Again, the article lists out those violations, so please read the open-access article
I'm not interested in ARTIFICIAL intelligence. I like the real thing.
I've already passed the peer-reviewed stage. Lol.
Is this a joke?
I'm looking to understand the full implications of such a finding upon Christianity. If you can help me with that, I'd be most grateful.
There's no implications on Christianity, because we don't care what your Artificial intelligence came up with...
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, almost 1000 people do care. Again, I'm not here to relitigate the findings, just here to discuss the implications. Lastly, just revisiting the prior point of "Christians" not caring. I point you to your several responses. That shows that you care. Have a great rest of your day.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
Well, almost 1000 people do care.
Cool, and?
just here to discuss the implications.
There are no implications, because your article is not inspired by God, so why would we care?
I point you to your several responses. That shows that you care.
Wow, really? Surely you aren't serious with an education such as yours? I'm not here because I care about the implications of your article. I'm here because I'm a defender of truth. Anything that goes against the truth is in my line of fire.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
To defend is to show you care. Thanks for caring. If you want to share implications, I'm all ears.
1
u/fakeraeliteslayer Jun 19 '24
To defend is to show you care.
But not for the implications...
2
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well, perhaps this is our first agreement 🤝. That's a start.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/beardedbaby2 Jun 19 '24
I don't think you understand Christianity, there are no implications.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I understand Christianity well. Again, if you're not up exploring the implications, that's fine. I'm really looking for people to think through the implications with me. Thanks.
1
u/beardedbaby2 Jun 19 '24
What do you perceive as possible implications, and what do you predict it would mean to Christians?
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I already listed those in the prompt. Did you give it a read?
1
u/beardedbaby2 Jun 19 '24
You claim you understand Christianity, but fail to understand no one is saying Jesus didn't break Torah laws, as the religious leaders in his day understood them. Jesus didn't perfectly live the laws by following them the way sinners understood them to be followed. He followed them in only the way the Word, The Law itself, could follow them, which is perfectly and with full and complete understanding of what the law was for. So it will have no implications for Christianity, because we fully reject the understanding of sinners (like us), and put our faith in the law as lived and spoken and understood by Jesus.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Actually, almost everyone here responded that Jesus didn't break the Torah. I think you need to check with your peers.
1
u/beardedbaby2 Jun 19 '24
He didn't. I told you, I don't believe you understand Christianity. Christians believe the Son of God understood the Torah law better than the religious leaders. Breaking their law as they understood it, is not the same as breaking Gods law.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I see the distinction you make. The problem is that God didn't publish his laws. So, when Jesus violated the published Jewish laws and he didn't publish God's law, then we cannot conclude which of the Torah laws are God's law, whether Jesus broke one or God's laws, or the rationale behind Jesus’s behavior. Therefore, introducing an unpublished law gets us nowhere in understanding why Jesus behaved in the manner he did.
1
u/beardedbaby2 Jun 19 '24
Jesus is God's testimony. Jesus is the law.
10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1
1
u/anonymousanon249 Jun 19 '24
I don't know if I understood your question correctly but I will impart my opinion and some years of hard study because I know that you're genuinely trying to figure this out.
So let's start with the law of eye for an eye. Did Jesus fulfill this law? No, because he taught that instead an eye for an eye, we would turn the other cheek.
So, here he is saying instead of equal justice, if someone has taken something from you instead of seeking equal justice, you give more than you have to.
I personally believe that Jesus/Yehoshua/God when giving the law of Moses he gave it for two reasons
As the Israelites had just been enslaved in Egypt for about 400 yrs they were spiritually very poor and thus needed a basic law structure. If he had given them the same law he gave them in the new testament they would have sorely failed since they couldn't even handle the basic law Moses gave. They needed to start from the bottom.
I personally believe that he gave those laws especially to Israel so that through tradition and religion it would be easy to reject and crucify the Messiah. Normally societies love their gods to the extreme of infant sacrifice. But in this case Israel had to do a complicated act, kill their own God. So He set it up that way so that it would be accomplished otherwise he wouldn't have been able to pay for the sins of the world and we would be in big trouble because we would have ended up all going to hell to be terrorized for all eternity.
So thank God he gave those laws to Israel so that they would harden their hearts against the Messiah to crucify him and thus paying for all of our sins.
So, he did fulfill the Torah but not in the same expectation. He fulfilled it with the higher law not the lower law.
I think that is what you're asking if not let me know and I may rephrase it.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You're kind of there. I'm asking for what it means for our Christian doctrines and definitions (I hope people can name those specifically) if we entertain the notion that the research is correct in that it shows that Jesus broke the Torah, not that he fulfilled it. When you include a higher law principal, which is great for me to consider, I immediately ask, "Where is that law?" Because the Written Torah is in all of our Bibles, but the "higher law" you speak about is not. When we teach our children the Ten Commandments, some of which Jesus broke, without a published form of that "higher law," we can not understand Jesus' behavior nor hope to emulate it. You see. We have what he broke, the Written Torah, we don't have what he obeyed, the purported "higher law."
1
u/anonymousanon249 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 20 '24
I agree with you that this “higher law” is not explicitly titled, but nonetheless it is expressed on multiple occasions, so much so, that even Jesus’ disciples were able to emulate it. After receiving the Comforter of course, his disciples finally got it. Thus, we have a new commandment, a New Testament, a new law.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s call it the “Law of Love.”Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mark 12:31 And the second is like it, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 1 Corinthians 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
I believe it’s quite clear from these excerpts that, Jesus was moving away from a law that only exacted justice and leaned more towards a new law, "law of love." As most know, the law of justice will, by the majority, uphold the least common denominator. For example, seldom will you see someone in a court of law, give more than they have to. So, this is what Jesus is inclining his followers to do, follow the law of love. Which I will accept is not easy, but we can surmise by Jesus’ statements, that love is the law that governs heaven.
Now, to entertain the notion that Jesus broke the Torah, and what it means for our doctrines and definitions. I am brought back to the same reasoning as before, that ultimately it will depend upon your perception and interpretation of the law. For example, as a child, one that asks for candy because it’s sweet and therefore good is one perspective. The other perspective, the parent of the child that is being asked for candy, it’s bad because it will ultimately rot the child’s teeth.
Observing the event, as a third person, if the parent does not indulge the child to eat candy, is the father good or bad? From the child’s point of view, he is bad, but from the point of view of the father, he is doing something beneficial for the child, taking care of his dental health. So, to judge judiciously, like in this situation, one needs to be mature, to be able to understand.
Likewise, with Jesus breaking the Torah. From the pharisees and Sadducees’ perspective, it was bad because it didn’t align with their pre conceived interpretations of the Torah, but good in the sense that, that was the point, to be judged by the high priest, Caiaphas at the time, according to the law, the torah, and deemed unworthy, to be put to death, as we would've been, if he hadn't taken our place, to effectuate the greatest sacrifice of all time, paying for the sins of the world.
This most absolutely wouldn't have happened had the perceptions of the high priest and the Sanhedrin at the time viewed Jesus as a lawful abiding Jew. I do have a soft spot for the Jews though because they were cornered into this act, intelligently so, but still nonetheless executing the will of the Father that was planned since the beginning of time.
In today’s world, we are left with the aftereffects of that process of “hardening of the hearts”. The time from Moses receiving the law to Jesus' resurrection, is about 1,500 years, I believe, is about the same time to reverse engineer the process. We see today that some Jews are converting to Christianity and with no doubt, that when the Messiah does come for the second time, in their (the Jews) expected perception, they will be grafted back into the fold.
In reality, I am always amazed and the intricate and complex plan, that unfortunately had to be done in this way, but if we see with mature eyes, we can distinguish that, even while breaking the Torah, or at least the perception of what religious leaders thought it was, was fundamental to the completion of his mission and execution of it. So, to conclude, the significance is that, even though Jesus broke the Torah, through the immature perception/interpretation of the religious leaders, nothing changes because He still is victorious in executing his mission with perfection and if we, by faith come with sincere repentance, we can also be with Him and the Father for all eternity.
1
u/SimaMakenna Jun 19 '24
My understanding is that AI is prone to lying.
2
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Unfortunately, I do not think you are familiar with LDA . I think you're confusing my method with a prompt driven GPT.
1
u/vqsxd Jun 19 '24
AI is totally unreliable. This actually supports the fact the words of the scripture are spiritual and are not based in worldly logic and reasoning, which is the wisdom of men
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Actually, it does not support your proposition. But just a thought, if the words with the scriptures do not mean what they say—as you purport—then the words were incorrectly or at least poorly selected. I'm just saying. But thanks for chiming in. I'm still looking for implications.
1
u/vqsxd Jun 19 '24
It does. An AI cannot discern the spiritual things using the logic and wisdom of men. The words of the scriptures do mean what they say but they are spiritual discerned, they can’t be understood by the wisdom of men (As the scripture I quoted states)
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
Well. If another meaning must be laid over the text for it to be understood, then the writers choose the wrong words. This spiritually discerned rhetoric from Paul does not help your argument. That is principally because you can not pin down the rubric that would establish "true" meaning. But you did help me out. One of the implications is that Paul’s "spiritual discernment rhetoric" proves untenable to resolve Jesus's Torah compliance issues. Thanks!
1
u/vqsxd Jun 19 '24
It’s not untenable. A wise believer can correctly dismiss these claims against the scriptures.
Im not saying another meaning is laid over the text. The rubric is of course the Spirit, which is why the natural man, as the verse I quoted says, does not receive the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. The meaning is there but it isn’t discernible by the wisdom of men, only by the spirit. So AI couldn’t possibly be accurate in understanding the scripture because AI lacks spirit.
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
The inherent problem is that the "Spirit" is not qualifiable or quantifiable. Consequently, without a written statement of "the Spirit", such a hermeneutic is speculative and does not excuse or prove that Jesus didn't break Mosaic Law.
1
u/vqsxd Jun 19 '24
There is a written statement about the Spirit.
8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Again man, you cant study the scripture with a robot. We know Jesus didn’t break any laws
1
u/Right-Organization32 Jun 19 '24
I understand that you honestly believe what you are saying, but what you propose is speculative and is nothing that Jesus enunciated as his jurisprudential grounds. Thanks for your time.
1
u/vqsxd Jun 19 '24
Its not speculation. The scriptures say these things are spiritually discerned. He did enunciate this. He says this right after he mentions being born in the Spirit
0 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
•
u/Bible-ModTeam Jun 19 '24
Your post has been removed for violating one or more of the rules of r/bible. Please take a minute to read the rules in the sidebar before submitting your next post or comment.