Deuteronomy 19:21
Matthew 5:38-48
Leviticus 20:10
John 8:3-11
What did he mean by this? Why does he say to obey the Scriptures and do as they say when he doesn't? He calls out the Jews for doing something and teaching something else and tells us to act based on their teachings and not their works, meanwhile he does literally the same thing - teaches us to obey the Scriptures, while doings and saying things that are contradictory to it.
Jesus is the New Deal.
If he is then why does he still say to obey the "Old Deal"?
Okay, I agree, but how is this relevant to the contradictions between the New and Old Testaments I posted about?
He had not yet died on the cross
Jesus doesn't contradict the OT, the church elders do.
All of these are the citations of Jesus contradicting the citations of Jesus posted in your image. This is what I'm asking about. Jesus clearly states on a number of occasions that the OT is supposed to be kept, while at the same time contradicting it.
So that negates all his teachings about the OT like for example the ones mentioned in pic?
Are you one of those that believe that Paul was a false Apostle?
The Lord Jesus was calling the Pharisees and others back to the original intention of the Law.
For example, in the first two passages you cite, the eye for eye stuff was never meant as a pretext for vengeance, but rather for justice.
In the Lord Jesus' time, the Pharisees and others had used it as a pretext to get revenge on others, but he used exaggeration to teach them that revenge is not the true way. It doesn't mean you should be a doormat, but that you should only seek justice and give everything to the Lord.
As for the second set of passages, indeed adultery was an offense punishable by death. However, in the situation brought before the Lord Jesus it was not done in justice.
After all, if they caught the woman in the act of adultery, they surely should have also seen the man. Since they only had the woman to stone, they clearly weren't following the full teaching of the Law (both the man and the woman should be stoned) and the Lord Jesus rebuked them for their hypocrisy (he who is without sin cast the first stone).
He also doesn't let the woman go off completely free, since she acknowledges her sin and He forgives her, telling her to sin no more.
tl;dr the Pharisees weren't following the Law and the Lord Jesus was correcting them to implant the full meaning of it; He fulfilled it in His Death and Resurrection
...
Ver. 21. Pity. This regarded the judge, who must act with impartiality.
The law admits of no mitigation, but inflicts the same punishment on the calumniating witness, as he intended should fall upon his brother.
Ver. 38. Hence your doctors have concluded that revenge, equal to the injury, was permitted.
Ver. 39. Not to resist evil; i.e. not to resist or revenge thyself of him that hath done evil to thee.
Turn him the other cheek. Let him have also thy cloak. These are to be understood as admonitions to Christians, to forgive every one, and to bear patiently all manner of private injuries. But we must not from hence conclude it unlawful for any one to have recourse to the laws, when a man is injured, and cannot have justice by any other means
What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge; but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ, nor S. Paul, turn the other cheek. S. John xviii. and Acts xxiii.
Hence also the Anabaptists infer, that it is not lawful to go to law even for our just rights; and Luther, that Christians ought not to resist the Turks.
Ver. 41. Go with him other two. I know many interpreters would have it to signify no more than two in all. But the literal sense of the Latin, and also of the best Greek MSS. (as Dr. Wells takes notice in his amendments to the Prot. translation) express two more, i.e. not only as far again, but twice as far. And thus it is expounded by S. Aug. Serm. Domini in monte. t. iii. p. 193. Ed Ben.
Continue to be his guide sooner than lose patience, or be wanting in charity.
Ver. 43. And hate thy enemy. The words of the law (Levit. xix. 18.) are only these: thou shalt love thy friend as thyself; but by a false gloss and inference, these words, and hate thy enemy, were added by the Jewish doctors.
Ver. 44. I come to establish the purity of the law, which they have corrupted.
Ver. 46. The publicans. These were the gatherers of the public taxes: a set of men, odious and infamous among the Jews, for their extortions and injustice.
Ver. 48. Jesus Christ here sums up his instructions by ordering us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect; i.e. to imitate, as far as our exertions, assisted by divine grace, can reach, the divine perfection.
See here the great superiority of the new over the old law. But let no one hence take occasion to despise the old. Let him examine attentively, says S. Chrysostom, the different periods of time, and the persons to whom it was given; and he will admire the wisdom of the divine Legislator, and clearly perceive that it is one and the same Lord, and that each law was to the great advantage of mankind, and wisely adapted to the times of their promulgation. For, if among the first principles of rectitude, these sublime and eminent truths had been found, perhaps neither these, nor the less perfect rules of mortality would have been observed; whereas, by disposing of both in their proper time, the divine wisdom has employed both for the correction of the world. Hom. xviii. Seeing then that we are thus blessed as to be called, and to be the children of so excellent a Father, we should endeavour, like Him, to excel in goodness, meekness, and charity; but above all in humility, which will secure to us the merit of good works, through the infinite merits of our divine Redeemer, Master, and model, Christ Jesus the Lord.
Ver. 10. Adulteress. Philo (de Joseph.) says, whoever discovered a man in the very act, might kill him; and the Roman law allowed the same liberty, impune necato. But God requires a juridical process, and witnesses, as we see in the case of Susanna, (Dan. xiii.) and in that of the woman who was brought to our Saviour. One witness might authorize a person to put his wife away, and if he then retained her, he was esteemed a fool. Prov. xviii. 23. But more witnesses were requisite before she could be put to death. They put their hands on the heads of the guilty, thus taking their blood upon themselves, if they accused them wrongfully. Solon allowed the husband to kill the adulterer. The woman was not permitted to wear any ornaments, or to enter any temple afterwards. If she did, any one might tear her clothes, and beat, but not kill her.
Ver. 6. Wrote with his finger, as one that was musing about something else.
Ver. 7. We cannot with any propriety reprehend or condemn faults in others, if we ourselves be guilty of the same, or other great faults, S. Cyril, in Joan.
Ver. 9. Went out one by one, confounded, and as it is in the ordinary Greek copies, convicted by their own conscience.
Ver. 11. Hence we may see how impious is the doctrine of those who say that God is the author of sin. Christ did not say to the woman: I do not condemn thy sin; or, go and live now as thou pleasest, I will free thee from all punishment due to any sin thou shalt commit: but he only said, Go, and from henceforth sin no more: thus preserving his amiable virtue of clemency, and still not encouraging vice. S. Aug.
Someone needs Nicolas treatment
I think it has something to do with him being Lord of the sabbath and all things, in these cases.
Matthew 12:5-8
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
wew laddie
Deuteronomy 19:16-21 involves court procedure and justice in the government of Israel
Matthew 5:38-48 involves the Israelites under the laws of Caesar and how they should treat one another.
Different things that dont contradict each other.
Leviticus 20:10 is the law on adultery which involves the punishment of death
John 8:3-11 is a story of the (((Pharisees))) trying to entrap Jesus into condoning the murder of an innocent woman.
Again, no contradictions.
Yes, because Paul's teachings make God inconsistent and Jesus a liar. There is a reason why the people drove him out of Jerusalem.>>662612
Whoops, looks like the rest of the Apostles were wrong and the entire Church has been wrong for two millennia. Guess the Gates of Hades did triumph over the Church after all.
Man, what a shame.
Oh Patrick
...
As Paul states, the Law was just as much a curse on the Israelites as it was a guideline. While the law was, given directly from God, was leagues above the moral codes of the Gentiles, it's main function was to foster the law of charity, embodied in the great commandment, which the Israelites had come to abandon in favor of pharasitic legalism, which accomplished nothing and was an abomination in the Lord's eyes. The Law fostered the love of the Lord, but it did so indirectly, impersonally and by the time of Christ's coming it had almost completely disintegrated as a means of fostering true faith. As such, God, by performing the ultimate act of charity in sacrificing himself in the flesh on the cross, fulfilled the purpose of the law entirely, and, by hanging on a tree, which the Law would label him cursed for, broke the Law entiterely. This was essentially a failsafe built into the law, and is why Jesus said he needed to be raised up like Moses raised up the serpent; by being a perfect sacrifice in God's eyes yet a curse under the law, the Law was both fulfilled and broken.
Paul talks about this topic extensively, as it was the most contentious issue among the early christians, as Acts chronicles.
Paul's theology is essential to being good christian, and it should be noted that the same one who wrote the Acts of the apostles also wrote Luke, so you really can't believe in the gospel period without believing in Paul's teachings. I doubt that's really a problem for you, but you did assent to that fringe user's poison, so if you have any more questions ask, because it is a difficult topic.
I'm uncertain if there is a contradiction, remember the law and the prophets hangs on only two commandments, these are;
1) Love God with all your heart, soul and mind
2) Love your neighbor as yourself
Everything regarding following the ways of the Pharisees is just an injunction against hypocrisy. We have a new covenant so we don't have to worry about Jewish ritual law anyway.
...
...
Hi Ahmed