Why did Christ upend the law

Hotly debated topic from the time of Christ himself. First of all I am aware of that Christ said "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it". Now this could be meant in different ways. One way to interpret it is that he fulfilled the part of the law that requires those under the law to die would they step out of it, i.e. the blood contract of the circumcision i.e. the old covenant itself.

That still doesn't answer why the law exist in the first place and why it is like it is. When Jesus says to the pharasees not to stone people or to turn the other cheek, he isn't doing that in the spirit of "well you know you had this old law but now is the time for a new law", but he is implying they have been doing it wrong the whole time, not knowing the true nature and character of God.

Thus, should we assume that Christ is not the prophesied messiah of the OT, and if he is, why would God purposely have led the jews into a false law? What am I missing?

Originally Posted by 1337_d00d

Hotly debated topic from the time of Christ himself. First of all I am aware of that Christ said "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it". Now this could be meant in different ways. One way to interpret it is that he fulfilled the part of the law that requires those under the law to die would they step out of it, i.e. the blood contract of the circumcision i.e. the old covenant itself.

That still doesn't answer why the law exist in the first place and why it is like it is. When Jesus says to the pharasees not to stone people or to turn the other cheek, he isn't doing that in the spirit of "well you know you had this old law but now is the time for a new law", but he is implying they have been doing it wrong the whole time, not knowing the true nature and character of God.

Thus, should we assume that Christ is not the prophesied messiah of the OT, and if he is, why would God purposely have led the jews into a false law? What am I missing?

IMO what you are missing is that the Spirit(that which enables one to communicate with God) had been withdrawn from man from the time of the expulsion from the Garden. See the following 2 scriptures:
John 7:37-41
Romans 11:1-10

Significantly the Law was written in stone.....having not yet being written on their hearts......

Originally Posted by Molearner

IMO what you are missing is that the Spirit(that which enables one to communicate with God) had been withdrawn from man from the time of the expulsion from the Garden. See the following 2 scriptures:
John 7:37-41
Romans 11:1-10

Significantly the Law was written in stone.....having not yet being written on their hearts......

Well the "Law", if you mean the 613 commandments, is a false law that Jesus led people away from, hence his crucifiction. He can still fulfill it by paying the price of every believer to "get out of Babylon", but it is clear he did not tell people to follow the law as it is written.

That being said, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world has always been there i.e. chi or kundalini energy and does certainly set the captives from alot more than just the law.

I think where the confusion arises is that the prophecy of "the one" seems to be accurate, but it was hijacked by the people of the law and therefore, when the one actually came, he did not regard the law because it was not from him. Therefore "you have heard that it was said", but it was not said by God.

Originally Posted by 1337_d00d

Thus, should we assume that Christ is not the prophesied messiah of the OT, and if he is, why would God purposely have led the jews into a false law? What am I missing?

the jewish faith does not accept that jesus was the messiah for the reasons you mention and for many more reasons as well.

[inavalan]

Christ said "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it"

Isn't "the Law", in this context, specifically about the religious dogma of that time?

Originally Posted by inavalan

Christ said "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it"

Isn't "the Law", in this context, specifically about the religious dogma of that time?

Absolutely not.......

[weareunity]

Hello.

If together we ponder with open minds regarding trying to find the ethos upon which a sustainable social and moral order can be established, then such pondering may well lead us to to consider whether encouraging/showing love for ones neighbours is--or will become--a more effective way of doing so rather than imposing order by means of using the fear of reprisal and punishment as the motivating agent.

For a variety of reasons, the latter method may be/have been the method initially required--and possibly with initial "good" intent--, but suffers from the possibility of losing the focus of that initial "good" intent and becoming instead more of a tool of repression if that initial "good" intent becomes lost to both sight and practice.

Re establishing that focus by means of the way of loving your neighbour can/could be understood as fulfilling what was originally intended.


Altered as edit later. Depression corrected to Repression.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello.

If together we ponder with open minds regarding trying to find the ethos upon which a sustainable social and moral order can be established, then such pondering may well lead us to to consider whether encouraging/showing love for ones neighbours is--or will become--a more effective way of doing so rather than imposing order by means of using the fear of reprisal and punishment as the motivating agent.

For a variety of reasons, the latter method may be/have been the method initially required--and possibly with initial "good" intent--, but suffers from the possibility of losing the focus of that initial "good" intent and becoming instead more of a tool of depression if that initial "good" intent becomes lost to both sight and practice.

Re establishing that focus by means of the way of loving your neighbour can/could be understood as fulfilling what was originally intended.

I have no objection to your suggestion, just how do you think you can make it happen? There are 7.8 billion people now, 328 million people in US, overwhelmingly divided and antagonized, of so many religions, levels of education, etc.. How do you see that transition happening? What can you do? What can I do? Do you think that if a Christ came, could he do it now?

I'm asking seriously.

[weareunity]

Hello inavalan.

Unlikely as it may seem, I believe that we can do it and are doing so.

We begin to understand more about the motivation of our own and others behaviour and also the consequences of such behaviour as the likely outcome of the choices we now make, collectively and individually, become more apparent and monumental.

All the best--to us all.

Originally Posted by 1337_d00d

Hotly debated topic from the time of Christ himself. First of all I am aware of that Christ said "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it". Now this could be meant in different ways. One way to interpret it is that he fulfilled the part of the law that requires those under the law to die would they step out of it, i.e. the blood contract of the circumcision i.e. the old covenant itself.

That still doesn't answer why the law exist in the first place and why it is like it is. When Jesus says to the pharasees not to stone people or to turn the other cheek, he isn't doing that in the spirit of "well you know you had this old law but now is the time for a new law", but he is implying they have been doing it wrong the whole time, not knowing the true nature and character of God.

Thus, should we assume that Christ is not the prophesied messiah of the OT, and if he is, why would God purposely have led the jews into a false law? What am I missing?

On first glance that line I bolded above sounds like a nutty idea. Incarnate to fulfill the law, by running afoul of the law, and getting executed according to the law.
Huh?

But when one thinks about it, it makes some sense, a lot of sense even. Here is someone who is purportedly without sin, yet has run afoul of the law, ‘God’s law’, as the Jews of the day believed it to be. Which begs the question, if the law requires the execution of someone like Jesus, then do the Jewish leaders of the day, those infamous Pharisees and Scribes, really know what God wants, and are they right when they say it’s ‘God’s Law’.

The love, compassion, and forgiveness Jesus was preaching, that don’t stone the adulterer, that go ahead and heal on the sabbath, that don’t worry about being kosher, etc, etc, was going to be a hard sell if it meant going against the ‘law of God’ that the Pharisees were preaching. By showing what that law really meant, requiring the execution of an innocent, perhaps even sinless man, who showed nothing but kindness, compassion, forgiveness, and love, his death may allow some to question that law and be able to hear and consider what Jesus was preaching.

Sometimes one must allow one's mind to question what it holds dearly as truth before it can consider something else that may go against it. A newborn babe does not hold such strong biases about what is ‘God’s law’, and what is ‘the truth’. Perhaps to understand what Jesus was saying, men needed to approach it in that way. This can be a difficult thing for an adult to do, absent anything to strongly shake their faith in what they already know as truth.