Was Jesus a legalist?

[timewerx]

Jesus only cares about the Truth.... Jesus is the Way, The Truth, and The Life. Now if the Truth is legalist, you decide for yourself.

Of course, if the Truth can be something else other than the Truth, it wouldn't be truth anymore doesn't it?

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

. If the Bible is God's preserved word, I'm sure he let the story stick around for a reason. If you have any reason to believe the bible has been, at any point, tampered with--then God has not preserved his word, and we have no reason to believe any of scripture.

The Holy Spirit preserves God's Word. If any of it is fiction, then all of it is fiction, and there is no Almighty God. It amazes me how people can say they do not believe all of the Bible is truth.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Yes or no .... and provide your reasoning.

Updated 5-3-2020 (some may want to update their answers ???)

Definitions according to Webster

Definition of legalist

1: an advocate or adherent of moral legalism
2: one that views things from a legal stand point especially : one that places primary emphasis on legal principles or on the formal structure of governmental institutions

Definition of legalism

1: strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code


Mods ... if not posted in the correct place .... please move it. Thank you.

No, Jesus was not a legalist, but that does not mean He did not follow the law. He followed and fulfilled the law of God down to the letter and perfectly. He had to do so in order to qualify to be that needed sacrifice for our sins. Had He not done so, His death would have been in vain and we would still be in our sins.

The legalists were the scribes and the Pharisees who, instead of working within the confines of the law added to the law; more than what God had intended. They had placed their trust in an outward performance rather than an inward transformation, but Jesus does not simply just want to change a man's outward behavior, but He changes the man from within.

A legalist, as you have defined may view right and wrong from the standpoint of "legal" and "illegal" but Christ defines right and wrong on the basis of what is pleasing and displeasing to the Father who is the definer of what is right and wrong and this is what makes His law flawless whereas any governance founded on anything apart from the law of God will clearly be flawed and corrupt; declaring wrong what God has declared right and right what God has declared wrong.

Just because something is made illegal, does not necessarily make it wrong in the eyes of God. And just because something may be made legal, does not make it right in the eyes of God.

But our reasoning for applying the law of God to our lives should not be because we think we can earn His favor by it, because we cannot, but out of love for Him and in appreciation for the forgiveness of sins that we have received in Christ, but we should neither add to nor detract from the law He has given.

 

[HARK!]

There's far too much involving the textual criticism of that passage to cover, and I do not wish to derail the thread--however, while I agree that the text was likely not actually a part of the Gospel of John, most of the scholars who agree that it was inserted at a later date only take issue with its placement in scripture; which is why it is only in the footnotes.

The pericope is not found in most of the early Greek Gospel manuscripts. It is not in P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} 66 or in P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} 75, both of which have been assigned to the late 100s or early 200s, nor in two important manuscripts produced in the early/mid 300s, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia

If you have any reason to believe the bible has been, at any point, tampered with

List of major textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia

 

[fhansen]

This is a good answer ;o) ....

That would mean that the 10 commandments are actually laws of love and when kept out of love for the Lord then there is no legalism ... nor works.

1 Corinthians 13:13
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

John 15:10
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

Jesus kept the law out of love for the father and is evidence of abiding. An example of how to abide through love.

Hebrews 10:16

Berean Study Bible
“This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws (of love) in their hearts and inscribe them on their minds.”

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things (about His laws of love) and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

The laws are to be kept .... but kept out of love for the Lord and for no other reasons.

Love must be the motivation in keeping the law ... anything else is legalism or works.

When kept out of love .... this is the Spirit of the law ... the Holy Spirit working in the believer to help them keep the law ... through love.

Jesus did keep the letter of the law .... but did so out of love for the Father.

So ... was He a legalist? No .... because the motive was Love for the Father.

Yes. I mean, love does act, or work, by its nature. Not out of desire for ones own good but always serving, self-sacrificing-for other's good. So Jesus worked-for our good. But not work motivated by fear or desire for gain or prestige-in trying to fulfill some external law to prove that we're already righteous. Love compels such things as those done "for the least of these" in Matt 25, acts which Jesus praised. Or those prepared for us to do as per Eph 2:10. Or those mentioned in James 1:27.

Love is righteous-it's righteousness-and constitutes an internal law, of its own. Works of love don't equate to legalism. Nothing borne out of agape is wrong, but just the opposite. And love excludes or opposes sin by its nature, and thus fulfills the law (Rom 13:0). Anyway, I really appreciate the words of Basil of Caesarea, a 3rd or 4th century believer:

"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

 

[Broken Fence]

This is a good answer ;o) ....

That would mean that the 10 commandments are actually laws of love and when kept out of love for the Lord then there is no legalism ... nor works.

1 Corinthians 13:13
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

John 15:10
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

Jesus kept the law out of love for the father and is evidence of abiding. An example of how to abide through love.

Hebrews 10:16

Berean Study Bible
“This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws (of love) in their hearts and inscribe them on their minds.”

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things (about His laws of love) and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

The laws are to be kept .... but kept out of love for the Lord and for no other reasons.

Love must be the motivation in keeping the law ... anything else is legalism or works.

When kept out of love .... this is the Spirit of the law ... the Holy Spirit working in the believer to help them keep the law ... through love.

Jesus did keep the letter of the law .... but did so out of love for the Father.

So ... was He a legalist? No .... because the motive was Love for the Father.

Thank you for this I understand the mystery here of abiding in God's perfect law through love. By the grace and truth of the gospel.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

The pericope is not found in most of the early Greek Gospel manuscripts. It is not in P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} 66 or in P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} 75, both of which have been assigned to the late 100s or early 200s, nor in two important manuscripts produced in the early/mid 300s, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia

I already said that most scholars simply take issue with its place(or lack thereof)in scripture/status as 'inspired' writing; not many doubt that the encounter actually did happen, as there is good extra-biblical evidence that it did. As I've said, it is highly likely the Apostle Luke wrote the passage but it did not make it to the final 'cut' of the biblical canon.

List of major textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia

I don't think translations and word semantics count. I was talking about adding a fabricated story to scripture--not changing the wording of verses for translations to other languages.

 

[HARK!]

I already said that most scholars simply take issue with its place(or lack thereof)in scripture/status as 'inspired' writing; not many doubt that the encounter actually did happen, as there is good extra-biblical evidence that it did. As I've said, it is highly likely the Apostle Luke wrote the passage but it did not make it to the final 'cut' of the biblical canon.

I know what you did. I backed my assertion up by citing my source. You are repeating your opinion as fact.

I don't think translations and word semantics count.

Correct.

I was talking about adding a fabricated story to scripture

So was I.

not changing the wording of verses for translations to other languages.

Exactly.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I know what you did. I backed my assertion up by citing my source. You are repeating your opinion as fact.

Does the Passage Belong in the Bible? The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)

John 7:53-8:11 -- is it authentic?


Is John 7:53-8:11 original to John's gospel?

The Historicity of the "Pericope Adulterae" (John 7:53-8:11)

It is also worth noting that the wikipedia page you cited does not take a stance on the authenticity of the story, only that it was not present in earlier versions of the gospels. The links to other sources listed on the wikipedia page also tend to agree with my position, that despite being a later addition to the NT it still 'holds all trademarks of historical authenticity'. The most common reason proposed for why such a story would be excluded from the canon is that the story might have been taken as Jesus being too 'lenient' on adulterers and that people might try to abuse the grace given to them.

I'll quote that wikipedia article you linked me to give you an example;

"Jerome, writing around 417, reports that the pericope adulterae was found in its usual place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West. This is confirmed by some Latin Fathers of the 300s and 400s, including Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:

Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."

Correct.

Okay.

So was I.

I mean, perhaps you should've included a more fitting link then because what you gave me had nothing to do with fabrications. It was a list of textual differences, which is in essence word semantics and translation changes.

Exactly.

Ok.



Personally, I don't see what the uproar is about the passage. As I said, it doesn't really teach anything 'new' about Jesus; his behavior seems quite normal to what he portrayed in the other gospels. In addition to this, he did not tell the woman 'Go and commit adultery as much as you want' he said 'Go and sin no more'--he essentially saved her from a stoning as an act of grace so that she might repent, which is the kind of theme the entire NT is based on and coincides perfectly with Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[HARK!]

I mean, perhaps you should've included a more fitting link then because what you gave me had nothing to do with fabrications. It was a list of textual differences, which is in essence word semantics and translation changes.

Wrong. If you read it carefully you'll see major differences. That's why scholars classify them as major variants.

 

[HARK!]

Personally, I don't see what the uproar is about the passage.

If you went back and reviewed what I was responding to; maybe it would be more clear.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Wrong. If you read it carefully you'll see major differences. That's why scholars classify them as major variants.

var·i·ant
/ˈverēənt/

noun

1. a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

'variant' would imply that it is simply a different version of the same thing. I do not understand how this equates to a fully forged, false story.

If you went back and reviewed what I was responding to; maybe it would be more clear.

First off, I mean this in good-will but perhaps you could stand to be a little more polite to the people you're speaking to? Second, you said that the passage was a work of fiction after someone had used it as an example in his post, and I just proved to you that scholars only disagree with the idea that it was originally part of the gospel of John; not that the event described never actually happened.

I had used 'I don't see what the uproar is about' referring to the fact that even without that passage, it doesn't change Jesus' character as he stays thoroughly consistent throughout the entire NT.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Yes or no .... and provide your reasoning.

Updated 5-3-2020 (some may want to update their answers ???)

Definitions according to Webster

Definition of legalist

1: an advocate or adherent of moral legalism
2: one that views things from a legal stand point especially : one that places primary emphasis on legal principles or on the formal structure of governmental institutions

Definition of legalism

1: strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code


Mods ... if not posted in the correct place .... please move it. Thank you.

A legalist is a pejorative term and should not be used when describing the character of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He did not teach legalism, He taught love. He gave the laws and they are both love.
Be blessed and stay healthy!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The pericope is not found in most of the early Greek Gospel manuscripts. It is not in P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} 66 or in P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} 75, both of which have been assigned to the late 100s or early 200s, nor in two important manuscripts produced in the early/mid 300s, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia



List of major textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia

From my end, the images you are posting are not coming up. I had problems before uploading images directly within my posts on Christian Forums.

There is another way to add photos so that they will appear in your posts for all to see.

The solution is to:

#1. Go to Christian Forums main page.

#2. Click on the Media button.

#3. Click on the "Add Media" button.

#4. Choose from drop down box to "Create Album" and name it (Note: Make sure you select the option called “Owner Only” (You) Can add/upload images when creating the photo album).

#5. Click upload image.

#6. Click the Save button.

#7. Select the Image to View it in your Media Gallery.

#8. Right Click on the Image you want to use.

#9. Select the Option called "Copy Image Address."

#10. Go back to the thread you want to a post a picture at.

#11. Select the picture icon (Next to the video icon).

#12. Paste the image link in the pop up window and voila!​

I hope that helps;

And may God bless you.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

OK, so this means you trust Encyclopedia Britannica and the author of this article for the truth more than you trust the canon of scripture. Suit yourself .

Do you ever trust people with help interpreting parts of scripture? If so why do you trust them? Or do you only trust scripture and scripture alone?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

So you do not believe the story written as scripture to be true of the Lord Jesus Christ's life? Wikipedia is not scripture truth. How do you determine which scripture is truth and which is "fiction" ?

I think a lot of people go off of what “experts and historians say on the subjects. I mean the reason you believe the cannon is accurate is because you believe the ones who put it together right?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I can not believe that you would say such things about The Holy Bible if you knew how many people have given their lives over the centuries so you could hold that Bible you would reverence the pages there in. Those words were written in the blood of the saints of Lord God Almighty.

What if it is a forgery? Is this even a possibility in your view that something in the Bible isn’t original?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I feel the Holy Spirit has protected and preserved what we have today in His book?

You may believe this but a lot of historians and so called experts would disagree with you. It’s weird because we accept the findings of historians in some areas but won’t in others areas where it clashes with our personal beliefs. So to you it’s not even possible that what we are reading today and the original has some differences in its contents?

 

[Broken Fence]

What if it is a forgery? Is this even a possibility in your view that something in the Bible isn’t original?

Nope I believe God has supernaturally protected His word. Reading the Bible has a supernatural effect on you and those around you, even if you don't understand. For faith cometh by hearing the Word of God. Also God choose to save people through the foolishness of preaching. Psalms 12:6-7 Romans 10:17 1 Corinthians 1:18-31

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

The Holy Spirit preserves God's Word. If any of it is fiction, then all of it is fiction, and there is no Almighty God. It amazes me how people can say they do not believe all of the Bible is truth.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

What about acknowledging the possibility that something could have been added later. Are you denying that this is possible at all?