Search Results
7/26/2025, 10:46:52 PM
>>24584788
>Christ's teachings broke from traditional Judaism in concrete ways
yes, by emphasising even stricter adherence to the laws!
you have to understand that the interpretation of the law that jesus tought isn't "different", it's merely his own interpretation that is in his mind, strictly following the laws by getting to the heart of the message.
For example
>You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council;
>You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
>It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
>Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.[n]
>‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well;
Jesus never *contradicts* the law, he simply makes it more strict by getting to the heart of it.
If a law says "the punishment should fit the crime", he sees that as a call for mercy, and therefore you need to go the extra mile and show EXTREME mercy, not resisting evildoers at all.
If a law says don't divorce, you need to take it to the extreme and not even plan to have a divorce, nor should you associate with divorced women at all.
And so on and so on.
The confusion comes from the fact that I am talking about the religion (rabbi) JESUS tought. You're talking about "christianity", which in the modern sense is the religion PAUL tought. See the Opening Post for more information on why those two are different.
>>24584806
first you're talking about how it's important jews AT THE TIME wouldn't call him rabbi (except his followers, who seem like the most important jews in this situation to me) but now you're talking about how jews 70 years later wouldn't call him rabbi, which is not the same thing.
>Christ's teachings broke from traditional Judaism in concrete ways
yes, by emphasising even stricter adherence to the laws!
you have to understand that the interpretation of the law that jesus tought isn't "different", it's merely his own interpretation that is in his mind, strictly following the laws by getting to the heart of the message.
For example
>You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council;
>You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
>It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
>Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.[n]
>‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well;
Jesus never *contradicts* the law, he simply makes it more strict by getting to the heart of it.
If a law says "the punishment should fit the crime", he sees that as a call for mercy, and therefore you need to go the extra mile and show EXTREME mercy, not resisting evildoers at all.
If a law says don't divorce, you need to take it to the extreme and not even plan to have a divorce, nor should you associate with divorced women at all.
And so on and so on.
The confusion comes from the fact that I am talking about the religion (rabbi) JESUS tought. You're talking about "christianity", which in the modern sense is the religion PAUL tought. See the Opening Post for more information on why those two are different.
>>24584806
first you're talking about how it's important jews AT THE TIME wouldn't call him rabbi (except his followers, who seem like the most important jews in this situation to me) but now you're talking about how jews 70 years later wouldn't call him rabbi, which is not the same thing.
Page 1