Except when asked who is my neighbor, Jesus responds with the parable of the good samaritan (the samaritans and jews were enemies) which basically says, everyone, including your enemies, are your neighbors. It's the whole "do good to those who hate you".
On a more serious note: while that is true, there are a lot of conflicting views on how those passages interact with the rest of the gospel. Especially considering that Jesus literally said he didn't want to abolish the old laws but then contradicted them. A lot of it can't be taken logically as absolute commands (otherwise the commands would conflict with each other) yet it isn't clear how contradictions should be resolved.
EDIT: Also Samaritans are generally considered Hebrews, even though their claims of origin were disputed by the "real Jews" at the time.
> Especially considering that Jesus literally said he didn't want to abolish the old laws but then contradicted them.
There are two distinct laws found in the Bible. One is the ceremonial law, which applied to the Israelites and revolved around the sacrificial system which pointed to and culminated in Jesus' death on the cross. After this event, the old, ceremonial law (animal sacrifice, circumcision, etc.) was no longer necessary, as the type had met antitype [0][1][2].
The second, everlasting law, which represents the character of God Himself, is the moral law, found in the 10 commandments. These were summarized when Jesus said to love God and love your neighbor[3].
So there was no contradiction in Jesus' words. He came not to abolish the law, meaning the moral law, but after His death, the purpose of the old ceremonial law was fulfilled, and thus was no longer necessary. The moral law, however, was and will be forever necessary, as evidenced by the writing of New Testament authors[4][5][6].
After the Jews rejection of Christ was complete, all people were granted invitation to join the figurative, spiritual Israel[7]. Not coincidentally, if you study it out further, you will find that almost everything found in the Old Testament in literal Israel, events which led up to the death of Christ on the cross, were a figurative type of what spiritual Israel would go through after Jesus' death and ascension into heaven.
This evidence also goes a great length in explaining away most other apparent contradictions Christians and others find in the Bible.
What Jesus said was that he came not to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them.
Another thing Jesus said about the Old Testament law was that it was a lowered standard. "You have heard it said" not to murder, but Jesus said being angry (unjustly) is committing murder in your heart. In the same way, lust is like adultery.
And again, in conversation about divorce, the religious leaders of his day told Jesus that Moses allowed them to divorce, but Jesus said "Moses gave you this law because your hearts were hard".
So it's clear that in Jesus' eyes, the OT law was not the ultimate moral standard, which he said was summarized in "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself". If we truly did those things, of course we'd not murder, etc.
It's a bit like rules for children. I tell my toddler not to pull his sister's leg, but I want him to someday mature to the point where he doesn't need that rule, because he loves her and wants what's best for her.
The OT law, with its low standards, was still too hard for humans to keep, pointing to the need for Jesus to fulfill it for us - and He fulfilled not just the low-standard law, but the true one.
>Especially considering that Jesus literally said he didn't want to abolish the old laws but then contradicted them.
Not to be a pedant, but what literally happened is someone, likely well after after Jesus' lifetime, claimed Jesus said this and that. No one actually knows what Jesus literally said.
Well, depending on which Christian sect you subscribe to, the biblical accounts contain the direct words of Jesus Christ and Yahweh respectively. So I'll cede that if we're already going to treat the Bible as if it were objectively factual.
Otherwise we'd have to get into an argument who "Jesus" even was (assuming we accept the majority interpretation of history that there was someone who at least vaguely matches the biblical character of Jesus of Nazareth -- specifics aside).
The parent said "depending on which you subscribe to." There are millions of people who believe the phrase you quoted. So it is a counter argument, regardless of its objective true-ness.
Exactly. If we were discussing Harry Potter lore I would treat those books the same way. I honestly don't see any meaningful distinction between religions and fandoms of other creative works (except maybe that fewer people have been killed in the name of Harry Potter).
That said, I was really just making a witty remark. I have no reason to treat biblical accounts as factual (especially given the long and complex history of why biblical canon is what it is and the unreliability of narrators with questionable identities who weren't even alive at the time of the events they're describing).
The direct speech of Jesus in the bible is not necessary the literal word of Jesus of Nazareth the (possible) historical person, but under various interpretations of Christianity it is the literal word of Jesus Christ, the (fictional) character in the biblical narrative. The only difference is that Christians generally seem to think the biblical character is an exact description of the historical person -- for which there doesn't seem to be any reliable basis.
