Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:08 pm
Look – I’ve come out as a bit of Quaker at heart and I really think that it is not want people think that makes them Christian or what specific grid they use to interpret scripture but what is in their hearts. So I’m always loath to jump into disagreements about scripture with guns blazing; there has to be some latitude of difference and tolerance here (Christians down the centuries have been quoting scripture at each other sure that the other has the wrong interpretation). But I am with Bird on this one and think her post is excellent. (And Anthony knows ha and I have differences on this one, which is fine)
In the Jewish Testament there is the ritual law with all of its strange sounding purity taboos. One of the functions of this is/was to pattern life, and sanctify and make it beautiful as an offering to God. The problem arose/arises when it became/becomes a fetish used as a method of exclusion and as a stumbling block against works of justice and compassion. Against this use of the ritual law the Prophets spoke –and Jesus our saviour was also a Jewish prophet in a line of Jewish prophets.
There are the Ten Commandments and the seven Noahide Laws – the latter of which the Jews see as binding upon Gentiles who wish to lie righteously. And there is also the legal code – especially as developed in Leviticus. The harshness of the Levitical code, even during the time of Jesus, was mitigated in the direction of mercy in the debates of the Rabbis by prioritising a horror at the shedding of blood and the bearing of false witness over the implementation of savage punishments.
Likewise the practice of summarising the Law – ‘Love God and your neighbour is the Law, the rest is commentary’, was common among Rabbis at the time of Jesus – and Jesus our Saviour was also a Jewish Rabbi.
The hastily convened, kangaroo court that condemned Jesus was rather like the court that tried to condemn the woman taken in adultery whom Jesus saved (and this perhaps is one meaning of the jibe of the crowd under the cross that, ‘He saved others but could not save himself’). Both courts were illegal, and the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus in panic over Roman power and retribution. Jesus was finally condemned to death not as a blasphemer under Jewish Law, but as a Rebel and a Traitor under Roman Law.
In Jewish Religion and Jewish Law God is always gracious and forgiving, and repentance is always possible.
It has been argued that the real issue about the Law in the letters of Rabbi Paul centres on the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Covenant in the fullness of time.
So yes Bird – do start a new thread on this one - and have a proper discussion about this, resepcting differneces and listenitng carfully to what is behind each others words.
The subject of the Law is relevant to Original sin in that the Eastern view of Ancestral sin is very akin to the idea o f ’First sin’ found in the Rabbis. Also, it is relevant to any discussion of passages from Rabbi Paul concerning Law and Sin.
All the best
Dick
Would still like some feedback about little blessings and little blighters
.
In the Jewish Testament there is the ritual law with all of its strange sounding purity taboos. One of the functions of this is/was to pattern life, and sanctify and make it beautiful as an offering to God. The problem arose/arises when it became/becomes a fetish used as a method of exclusion and as a stumbling block against works of justice and compassion. Against this use of the ritual law the Prophets spoke –and Jesus our saviour was also a Jewish prophet in a line of Jewish prophets.
There are the Ten Commandments and the seven Noahide Laws – the latter of which the Jews see as binding upon Gentiles who wish to lie righteously. And there is also the legal code – especially as developed in Leviticus. The harshness of the Levitical code, even during the time of Jesus, was mitigated in the direction of mercy in the debates of the Rabbis by prioritising a horror at the shedding of blood and the bearing of false witness over the implementation of savage punishments.
Likewise the practice of summarising the Law – ‘Love God and your neighbour is the Law, the rest is commentary’, was common among Rabbis at the time of Jesus – and Jesus our Saviour was also a Jewish Rabbi.
The hastily convened, kangaroo court that condemned Jesus was rather like the court that tried to condemn the woman taken in adultery whom Jesus saved (and this perhaps is one meaning of the jibe of the crowd under the cross that, ‘He saved others but could not save himself’). Both courts were illegal, and the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus in panic over Roman power and retribution. Jesus was finally condemned to death not as a blasphemer under Jewish Law, but as a Rebel and a Traitor under Roman Law.
In Jewish Religion and Jewish Law God is always gracious and forgiving, and repentance is always possible.
It has been argued that the real issue about the Law in the letters of Rabbi Paul centres on the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Covenant in the fullness of time.
So yes Bird – do start a new thread on this one - and have a proper discussion about this, resepcting differneces and listenitng carfully to what is behind each others words.
The subject of the Law is relevant to Original sin in that the Eastern view of Ancestral sin is very akin to the idea o f ’First sin’ found in the Rabbis. Also, it is relevant to any discussion of passages from Rabbi Paul concerning Law and Sin.
All the best
Dick
Would still like some feedback about little blessings and little blighters
.