New Testament scriptures and God's commands.

[Prizebeatz1]

Of course not. Of course He didn't disobey God. See Matthew 5:17-20 NASB.

That doesn't answer the question. We're saying no Jesus did not disobey the law even though he broke the Sabbath? Doesn't make much sense. Is this not important? Should we not take a good hard look at this or should we turn a blind eye because it challenges what we want to believe?

 

[Jacob]

That doesn't answer the question. Is this not important? Should we not take a good hard look at this or should we turn a blind eye because it challenges what we want to believe?

Are you asking me if I believe Jesus sinned? I don't believe He ever did.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Are you asking me if I believe Jesus sinned? I don't believe He ever did.

Please explain how he broke the Sabbath and kept the law at the same time.

 

[Masculine Theology]

God's instruction in Torah and the rest of the TaNaKh plus the New Testament, and the old covenant law we read of in the Bible, are all from God.

I would agree, and I would add that some are binding on believers today than others.

 

[Jacob]

Please explain how he broke the Sabbath and kept the law at the same time.

I don't believe He broke the Sabbath. That is your idea.

 

[Jacob]

I would agree, and I would add that some are binding on believers today than others.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[jamie]

He didn't disobey the Sabbath or Moses' traditional law of stoning of a woman caught in adultery? Please explain your viewpoint.

The Pharisees had imposed numerous restrictions on what they considered permissible things that could be done on the Sabbath, so they accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath because the disciples picked heads of grain to eat. Jesus explained that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

According to Jesus' understanding of the Sabbath the disciples did not violate God's covenant.

With regard to the woman accused of adultery it is important to remember that the Mosaic law was based on a presumption of innocence and two or more credible witnesses had to have been witness to the violation. The witnesses were required by law to cast the first stone. All the men left and there was no one to accuse her.

Jesus couldn't accuse her because he was not a witness.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

New Testament scriptures and God's commands.

The Pharisees had imposed numerous restrictions on what they considered permissible things that could be done on the Sabbath, so they accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath because the disciples picked heads of grain to eat. Jesus explained that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

According to Jesus' understanding of the Sabbath the disciples did not violate God's covenant.

With regard to the woman accused of adultery it is important to remember that the Mosaic law was based on a presumption of innocence and two or more credible witnesses had to have been witness to the violation. The witnesses were required by law to cast the first stone. All the men left and there was no one to accuse her.

Jesus couldn't accuse her because he was not a witness.

So the law is subject to interpretation correct? I think no one cast a stone because no one was willing to claim they were without sin.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jamie]

So the law is subject to interpretation correct? I think no one cast a stone because no one was willing to claim they were without sin.

Yes, the law is subject to interpretation. The Pharisees had their interpretation and Jesus had a different interpretation. My interpretation of the account is that Jesus was correct in his interpretation.

As for the woman's accusers they all left and the presumption of innocence prevailed with an admonition not to sin anymore.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

New Testament scriptures and God's commands.

Yes, the law is subject to interpretation. The Pharisees had their interpretation and Jesus had a different interpretation. My interpretation of the account is that Jesus was correct in his interpretation.

As for the woman's accusers they all left and the presumption of innocence prevailed with an admonition not to sin anymore.

So your interpretation is one out of a number of different possibilities? Is one interpretation more correct than another and how do we decipher that? After all there are many different ways to interpret the same law and even the same scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nick M]

So your interpretation is one out of a number of different possibilities? Is one interpretation more correct than another and how do we decipher that? After all there are many different ways to interpret the same law and even the same scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Since you don't believe anything, we'll just ignore any "interpretation" you offer.

 

[JonahofAkron]

The Pharisees had imposed numerous restrictions on what they considered permissible things that could be done on the Sabbath, so they accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath because the disciples picked heads of grain to eat. Jesus explained that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

According to Jesus' understanding of the Sabbath the disciples did not violate God's covenant.

With regard to the woman accused of adultery it is important to remember that the Mosaic law was based on a presumption of innocence and two or more credible witnesses had to have been witness to the violation. The witnesses were required by law to cast the first stone. All the men left and there was no one to accuse her.

Jesus couldn't accuse her because he was not a witness.

Absolutely correct. Messiah is sinlessness. To claim He broke the Torah's commands is the same as saying He is a sinner. Not good exegesis.

Sent from my SM-N910T using TheologyOnline mobile app