>Matthew 13:34 is Jesus explicitly and unequivocally giving a commandment that went beyond the Mosaic Law.
This is Matthew 13:34:
>All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable.
Where is this commandment you speak of?
>Mark 5:25 is the story of a woman who had menstrual complications. Jesus handled that situation completely contrary to Jewish law
How do you figure that? What did he do that was against Jewish law?
> Contracts are obsolete when they are fulfilled. I
The only way to "fulfill" a law is to obey it. All Jesus was saying was that he was being completely obedient to the law. I don't know why Christians get that verse so twisted. Is murder legal now? Adultery? Idolatry? Are any of the Ten Commandments still in effect?Why did Jesus say that not a letter of the law could be changed until the end of time?
I would suggest a book for you written by a Catholic Priest and a highly respected NY scholar named JP Meier. Meier has written a series of books called A Marginal Jew which examimse the historical Jesus and his Jewish contect in great detail. Volume IV of this series is called Law and Love which delves deeply into this canard that Jesus taught anything contrary to Jewish law. The debate was about how to observe it, not whether it was valid. It is actually absurd to think that Jesus taught anything about himself being an atoning sacrifice that made murder and adultery legal all of a sudden.
>Despite your claim Romans 3:28 does not contradict James 2 in context.
I would disagree, but both Romans and James are irrelevant to what Jesus himself taught anyway. Jesus himself said to follow the law. It doesn't matter what Paul thought he heard in his own hallucinations.
>I don't have any idea why you said Jesus would not have had any concept of the original sin.
There was no such concept in Judaism and actually nowhere in the New Testament either. Original Sin is a post biblical Catholic invention.
>He was alive and well when it happened.
When what happened? Adam and Eve? I hope you're not serious. There was no Adam and Eve, dude, that is factual, even if you want to make a claim that Jesus was preexistent or something. That's just silly and nothing that deserves to be taken seriously as an argument unless you have some actual evidence.
>It seems to me like you have a superficial knowledge of the bible but it's almost like you read it off some website and regurgitated it without checking for accuracy. I'm not certain of that of course but that's my perception.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this perception is wrong. I got my degree in this shit. I studied the Bible formally and have studied it informally for over 20 years now even after college. I learned Greek so I could read the New Testament in Greek. I've read a ton of scholarship on it. probably in the hundreds of books and journal articles. Honestly, you are the one who appears to have a superficial understanding, probably from selected readings in bible study groups or something. You didn't even know that original Sin is not in the Bible. And I still don;t know what you meant with that Matthew 13:34 quote. Did you mean John 13:34, when Jesus says "love each other?" Do you think that's anti-Jewish? That is Judaism. That's Leviticus, man.