Jesus Vs The Old Testament

[Graham]

I was discussing the Masons with someone today. The person with whom I was having the discussion is a very devout, self-righteous Christian who is very against the Masons, primarily because they apparently swear "blood oaths" which are apparently the invention of Satan and "against God". (yes, she actually said "an invention of Satan", I couldn't believe it)

Anyway, the conversation moved on and I speculated that there were probably Masons and Masons - Masons that really believe in all the Mombo-Jumbo and Masons who are Masons 'cos they think it'll give them an edge when they're bidding for construction contracts or whatever.

I drew a parallell with "regular" Christians and "fundy" Christians, pointing out that if you actually did all of the crazy stuff in the OT, you'd be into some crazy things.

Her response was "Well, it's just as well then that Jesus dies to free us from all that." At which I nodded, smiled politely and changed the subject.

I was wondering though if some of you with more biblical knowledge than myself could answer this statement purely for my benefit if nothing else.

Is it correct to say that Christians were freed from the requirements of the OT by Jesus? If so: all of them or which ones specifically?

Thanks

Graham

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Graham

Is it correct to say that Christians were freed from the requirements of the OT by Jesus? If so: all of them or which ones specifically?
You mean, after all that arguing about posting the Ten Commandments in US courtrooms, now we find out that the Ten Commandments were repealed two thousand years ago?!?

D'OH!

[Graham]

Originally posted by Upchurch

You mean, after all that arguing about posting the Ten Commandments in US courtrooms, now we find out that the Ten Commandments were repealed two thousand years ago?!?

D'OH!

Quite :)

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Upchurch

You mean, after all that arguing about posting the Ten Commandments in US courtrooms, now we find out that the Ten Commandments were repealed two thousand years ago?!?

D'OH!


The Ten Commandments!?

That is soooooo 33 A.D.

[Cleopatra]

This is what Ortodox -Greek Christians think.

( REMINDER: Ortodox in Greek is the one who hold the unique truth!!! So, pay double attention to what I am going to say for I I am the one who knows the truth:p )

The followers of Christ ( or should I say of Paul...) thought that they couldn't possibly ignore the O.T.

So. Old Testament is the tradition. We have included it to the Holly Bible just to remind us from where we started.

We started as paganists and Moses and the Prophets came and revealed us the forthcoming truth, the truth that would be revealed by the incarnation of God ( That was the trick to accept the bad jewish Prophets!)

So, The Commandements are respected more like our religious background, this is why , at least in Ortodox churches we don't recite the Ten Commandements, we just learn about them at school.

Maybe ( I am almost certain) it's another trick to enforce to us the idea that we are not as retarded as those who still believe in O.T...

It's like Law. Old Legislation exists and it's included in every book but it's the final word that counts.

Jesus said the final word and this final word is the one that counts.

[BobM]

A quick google search will reveal many opinions on this one.

The basic idea though is that Jesus's teachings replaced many or all of the OT laws.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Graham
Is it correct to say that Christians were freed from the requirements of the OT by Jesus? If so: all of them or which ones specifically?There are a lot more laws in the OT than just the Ten Commandments. Try reading, oh which is it, Numbers or Deuteronomy some day. There aren't enough pigeons and goats in the world to satisfy the sacrificial requirements there.

Jesus said that He brought a new covenant from God. He narrowed down all the old laws to just two:
1) Love God with all your heart.
2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

And then He died so that people that believed in His message could stop sacrificing all those animals.

The Ten Commandments remained good, relatively specific, examples of what Jesus' new covenant was supposed to cover. "Thou shalt not steal", for instance, falls under "Love your neighbor" in a fairly obvious way. "Remember the Sabbath" falls under "Love God" in a way that is not as intuitive.That's why Christians keep the Ten Commandments handy; they are convenient reference points to clarify the new covenant.

In my humble interpretation.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Beleth
He narrowed down all the old laws to just two:
1) Love God with all your heart.
2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
That's a very interesting way of putting it. Never really thought about it from that POV.

Now, just because I can't resist being a sarcastic b*st*rd:

How can you love your neighbor or yourself if you must first love God with ALL of your heart? I guess Christians must have love that goes all the way to 11.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Beleth
There are a lot more laws in the OT than just the Ten Commandments. Try reading, oh which is it, Numbers or Deuteronomy some day. There aren't enough pigeons and goats in the world to satisfy the sacrificial requirements there.

Jesus said that He brought a new covenant from God. He narrowed down all the old laws to just two:
1) Love God with all your heart.
2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

... Both these laws appear in the old testament if I recall correctly. They are repeated by Jesus as the principles which are the basis for eveything. (On these hang all the law and the prophets).

Many of the statements of Jesus in the NT refer back to the OT.

As for sacrifices, at least 1, and I believe all 4, of the gospels state something along the lines he was the one full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice which appears to suggests sacrifice is no longer required.

I believe the early church records show debate on what other old testament laws we were free from.

Walt

[thaiboxerken]

I find it strange that the christians want to post the 10 commandments in schools because it's "god's word" and yet they don't want to place "god's" proscribed punishments along with it. Hmmmm.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Upchurch
How can you love your neighbor or yourself if you must first love God with ALL of your heart? I guess Christians must have love that goes all the way to 11. That's not as sarcastic a question as you might think! It's a tough question to answer. Jesus mentioned something along these lines. It's the dreaded Luke 14:26.Originally said by Jesus
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.Which of course flies in the face of the "Honor thy mother and thy father" Commandment.

Beats me what Jesus was thinking when He said that. Apologists say that what he meant was "You have to love me so much that the affection and honor you give your family looks like hate by comparison," but I've never bought that. How can love ever look like hate?

[Shroud of Akron]

i was under the impression that jesus was supposedly a devout jew, and that he practiced the old school hebrew ideas hardcore. he supposedly came to restore the religion to the way it was before the phrisees ruined it with their extra stuff. except for the sacrificial stuff, i thought christians were still bound to the traditions of the old testament.

[neutrino_cannon]

My personal favorites are the mildew regulations in leviticus. When I pointed these out to a Catholic friend as examples of how ridiculous the bible is, he denied that they were part of the bible!:eek:

edited to add this:

Cleansing From Mildew
33 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 34 "When you enter the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as your possession, and I put a spreading mildew in a house in that land, 35 the owner of the house must go and tell the priest, 'I have seen something that looks like mildew in my house.' 36 The priest is to order the house to be emptied before he goes in to examine the mildew, so that nothing in the house will be pronounced unclean. After this the priest is to go in and inspect the house. 37 He is to examine the mildew on the walls, and if it has greenish or reddish depressions that appear to be deeper than the surface of the wall, 38 the priest shall go out the doorway of the house and close it up for seven days. 39 On the seventh day the priest shall return to inspect the house. If the mildew has spread on the walls, 40 he is to order that the contaminated stones be torn out and thrown into an unclean place outside the town. 41 He must have all the inside walls of the house scraped and the material that is scraped off dumped into an unclean place outside the town. 42 Then they are to take other stones to replace these and take new clay and plaster the house.
43 "If the mildew reappears in the house after the stones have been torn out and the house scraped and plastered, 44 the priest is to go and examine it and, if the mildew has spread in the house, it is a destructive mildew; the house is unclean. 45 It must be torn down-its stones, timbers and all the plaster-and taken out of the town to an unclean place.
46 "Anyone who goes into the house while it is closed up will be unclean till evening. 47 Anyone who sleeps or eats in the house must wash his clothes.
48 "But if the priest comes to examine it and the mildew has not spread after the house has been plastered, he shall pronounce the house clean, because the mildew is gone. 49 To purify the house he is to take two birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop. 50 He shall kill one of the birds over fresh water in a clay pot. 51 Then he is to take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet yarn and the live bird, dip them into the blood of the dead bird and the fresh water, and sprinkle the house seven times. 52 He shall purify the house with the bird's blood, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn. 53 Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields outside the town. In this way he will make atonement for the house, and it will be clean."
54 These are the regulations for any infectious skin disease, for an itch, 55 for mildew in clothing or in a house, 56 and for a swelling, a rash or a bright spot, 57 to determine when something is clean or unclean.
These are the regulations for infectious skin diseases and mildew.


fromhttp://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LEV+14&language=english&version=NIV

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
I believe the early church records show debate on what other old testament laws we were free from.

Walt

Sadly, the pinheads who put the Bible together left out the "Gospel of Thomas" which might have A. more authoritatively distanced Xian doctrine from the laws of moses and B. made Xianity more tolerable in general.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Graham
I was discussing the Masons with someone today. The person with whom I was having the discussion is a very devout, self-righteous Christian who is very against the Masons

Yes, a good example of ignorance. To join one branch of the Masons (the Knights Templar).you have to affirm a belief in Jesus. Most of your jewish masons join the Scottish Rite.

[Yahzi]

Graham

"Well, it's just as well then that Jesus dies to free us from all that."


Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

This seems pretty straight forward to me. But Paul said it was ok to eat pork cracklins and hang out with goyim. I guess Paul was more important than JC.

I think it's pretty clear JC meant to end the blood sacrifice. But the rest of it - like divorce - I dunno. Seems to me most Xians just make the Bible say whatever they want it to.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Graham Seems to me most Xians just make the Bible say whatever they want it to.
Amen to that!

Peter

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Graham

. I guess Paul was more important than JC.



Of course! It's HIS Religion after all... Christianity should be called Paulianism... Great mind, we must admit!

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
My personal favorites are the mildew regulations in leviticus.

Well, I'm not a biologist or in any other way an authority on mildew, but to me the regulations do have the looks of a sensible way for a pre-scientific society to prevent the proliferation of certain kinds of mildew. Remember that mildew could be a very dangerous crop-disease to an agrarian society.

Admittedly, to us the sacrifice of the bird seems rather silly and pointless to us, but if we put that down to adding "generic religious significance" to the act, I can't say they strike me as ridiculous at all.

Still, it is a very good example of how much of the bible (the old testament in particular) can't really be separated from the society of the time.

[Graham]

Thanks guys, lots of helpful comments. I'm engaged in an ongoing sort of cold war with this person (who's very evangelical and deeply disapproving of "my type"). Personally, I'd be happy enough to just leave the whole subject alone (since we have to sit beside each other every day and sooner or later we're going to have a row) but she will keep saying these things . . .

Anyhoo:

Cleopatra

( REMINDER: Ortodox in Greek is the one who hold the unique truth!!! So, pay double attention to what I am going to say for I am the one who knows the truth )


:p to you too.

Answer me these though, if you don't mind - is the Greek Orthodox church descended from the Byzantine tradition or is it just a coincidence of names? What is the connection/relationship (or is there any) between Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox?

Greek Orthodox thinking is descended from Paul's too - correct?

Beleth

I wasn't referring to the Ten Commandments specifically, in fact I was more interested in the various, wacky little instructions scattered around the rest of the OT.

And then He died so that people that believed in His message could stop sacrificing all those animals.

He should be like the patron saint of PETA then! Seriously though, did Jesus's reputed self-sacrifice supposedly wipe out all sin before and after that date or just before?

Seems to me it's the latter (since, presumably, no Christian would argue that we're free to sin as much as we like now since it's all, in a sense, pre-paid for) but if that's the case sure;y we should have started animal sacrificing and doing all the other stuff again as soon after the crucifixion as someone sinned?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally said by Jesus
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Can you give chapter and verse for this quote for future reference please?

Walter Wayne


Many of the statements of Jesus in the NT refer back to the OT.

As for sacrifices, at least 1, and I believe all 4, of the gospels state something along the lines he was the one full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice which appears to suggests sacrifice is no longer required.



See my comment to Beleth above - does this mean that any sin since the crucifixion is already sacrificed for and thus that we need not worry about any future cost?

I've never really understood the concept of "Jesus died for our sins" - unless the above is correct, it seems to me that the more time that passes since his death, the less meaningful that sacrifice is, no?

thaiboxerken

I find it strange that the christians want to post the 10 commandments in schools because it's "god's word" and yet they don't want to place "god's" proscribed punishments along with it. Hmmmm.

I think Beleth's comments cover this from the Christian perspective - i.e. outdated but still worthwhile and Yahzi covered the other angle with - most Xians just make the Bible say whatever they want it to.

It does make a farce of the regular Christian claim that their detractors "take things out of context" though, IMO.

neutrino_cannon

Instructions for removing mildew - that amazes me too, I wan't aware that the Bible said anything half that sensible ;)

Did Jesus's sacrifice remove the need to combat mildew, do you think? I'll think twice before accepting a dinner invitation from a Christian then :D

corplinx

Sadly, the pinheads who put the Bible together left out the "Gospel of Thomas" which might have A. more authoritatively distanced Xian doctrine from the laws of moses and B. made Xianity more tolerable in general

I'm not familiar with Thomas. I think I'll have to google for it. Offhand though, do you know why they left it out?

Yes, a good example of ignorance. To join one branch of the Masons (the Knights Templar).you have to affirm a belief in Jesus. Most of your jewish masons join the Scottish Rite

I was under the impression that to be a mason you just had to acknowledge a belief in a higher power of any sort - or is that the US government? ( ;) ).

The person I'm discussing this with is engaged to a chap whose father, brother and uncle are apparently big Masons (in the important sense, not the fat sense!). Her fiance, however, is a fundy baptist evangelical like her and has apparently been studying the Masons not-entirely-approvingly for some time as part of a course he's taking in college. She has promised to show me his final essay on the subject, which I'll be interested to read.

Most of my knowledge of Masons is derived from "The Hiram Key" and the other book that went with it.I found their conlcusions a bit of a stretch but the writers were Masons so presumably they got the basics right.

Yahzi

This seems pretty straight forward to me. But Paul said it was ok to eat pork cracklins and hang out with goyim. I guess Paul was more important than JC.

This seems to me to reflect the most basic paradox at the basis of Christianity - it's a Jewish religion, based on Jewish tradition, for Jewish people. If the apocalypse ever actually comes, the twelve tribes of Israel will be saved and everyone else will persih (or suffer eternal hellfire or whatever).

If you want to follow the teachings of Christ - go ahead, knock yourself out, but don't fool yourself into thinking that makes you one of the chosen people :rolleyes:

Cleopatra says Paul had a great mind, and so he probably did but doesn't it bother the Christians of the world that it's his message they're following and not Christs? Do they think that Paul will save them from the wrath of God and the Second Coming?

<sigh>


Graham

[Gregor]

The early church (50-90 CE) must have apparently had a huge fight between orthodox Jews that followed Jesus (read Peter and James) and converted gentiles (read Paul and Timothy).

Many of the Paulian letters demonstrate the fighting and Paul's argument that Jesus freed everyone from the contraints of the Law. And as others have noted in this thread, the "law" encompassed all of the rules of the Pentatuch, not just the ten commandments.

Portions of Matthew are written as a clear attack on Paul's followers

Matthew 5:18 "For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished."

How serious was this fight? Matt condemns Paul's followers to hell:

Matt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?' 23 Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!'

Read Chapters 5 through 8 of Matthew to your friend and ask your friend whether she keeps all of the OT laws. If she does not, does she think she's going to heaven?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Gregor
The early church (50-90 CE) must have apparently had a huge fight between orthodox Jews that followed Jesus (read Peter and James) and converted gentiles (read Paul and Timothy).

(snip)

Read Chapters 5 through 8 of Matthew to your friend and ask your friend whether she keeps all of the OT laws. If she does not, does she think she's going to heaven?

Gregor,

OK, I've read Matthew 5 - 8 for myself, I'm reserving further comment to my "friend" until I reach some conclusions.

BTW - I found this site BibleGateway.com (http://bible.gospelcom.net/) which has a facility to search a large number of bible versions by passage or keyword. A useful resource, IMO.

Now, Matthew 5 is the sermon on the mount, blessed are the cheesemakers and all that. Yahzi already mentioned a quote from this passage:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

which is immediately followed by your quote:

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And from there Jesus (or the writer) proceeds to make reference to a number of the "old" commandments and traditions.

Some he reinforces (
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.[/]) some he discounts ([i]33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:, etc)

Matthew 6 seems to be mostly a warning against hypocrisy, followed by what has become "The Lord's Prayer" (which I can still repeat many times faster than I can say just about anything else - the benefits of a religious education :rolleyes: )

Then it talks about God valuin swallows as much as men and warns no to ake any thought of the future - Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof Now there's a cheery thought!

Matthew 7 is judge not lest ye be judged and so on. That brings us to your quote about Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven. The passage continues:

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Now maybe I'm being confused by the olde-worlde language the whole thing seems to me to be a mass of contadictions:

By their works ye shall know them Fair enough, don't just talk the talk, walk the walk.

. . . in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Surely wonderful works constitute good fruit but now he's saying even if you've done wonderful works, if I don't "know you" you're screwed.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock Just do as I say and you'll be fine, never mind the "fruits".

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine No wonder - 2000 years later it still doesn't make sense to me.

Regardless, Gregor, it seems to me that Matthew 8 is in direct contrdiction to what you are saying and in agreement with Paulianity. A roman centurion has faith and his faith is rewarded.

8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

No? I look forward to your comments.

Graham

[Gregor]

reward. His "faith" brought about a healing, and that's it.

The differences in translations accounts for the other issue. But make no mistake, read Acts, Galatians, Matthew, and . . . (I forget the epistle where Paul said that the devil put a false prophet in his way (read James or Peter)), and you'll get a fuller sense of the internece feuding.

Matthew has a good dozen "you must be a good Jew first" type references.

[Graham]

Gregor,

To me, this seemed like the critical "bit" for our discussion:

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

That's apparently from the King James version. I've checked a number of other translations and they all seem essentially the same to me.

As far as I can see, this passage promises a place at the table to anyone who has faith even though some who are "of the kingdom" will be cast out into the dark.

How am I misreading this, in your opinion?

Graham

[Yahzi]

I've never really understood the concept of "Jesus died for our sins"
I was always told that his death atoned only for Original Sin.

I'm in the "feuding apostles" camp, so I agree that there are contradictory claims about being Jewish vs having faith.

[Dancing David]

Hello:
On the feuding apostles camp,
when we look at Xianity or the Jewish faith, we are looking at what has survived after a substantial time, and what has passed throughh many cultural filters. Then there are alos the monist elements in both faiths which went and deliberatly removed all the polytheistic elements. (Much as Ghandi is alleged to have done with Hinduism).

The Bible contains two creations, why because God made a mistake and destroyed the first one. There are also references to the 'elochiam chiam' (pardon any poor translation for the hebraic) being present at the creation, these are the 'female spirits of life'. Judism is heavily changed from it's original mix of monism and plurality.

Why should Xianity be any different.

I always agreed with a born again man I met who tried to maintain a kosher household. Jesus was jewish and allegedly followed the law whenever he could, although there is that thing about him harvesting grain on the sabbath.

dancing David

[Gregor]

Graham

I worked on the issue of Matt's intended audience last night. Pardon the lack of verse references, but I left my notes at home and am recreating them:

1. In the birth myth of Matt, Herod wants to kill all kids 2 and under. Jesus leaves his house in Bethlehem and travels to Egypt. He later returns to the area, but settles in Nazareth. This is intended for a Jewish audience (or at least to appear Jewish), as this is clearly a apocryphal recapitulation of the story of Moses and Pharoh.

2. Jesus advises his apostles early on not to go into the towns of the Gentiles or Samaria to preach, but stick with the towns of Israel.

3. I recalled one story from Matt 15:21:

"Jesus . . . withdrew into the district of Tyre. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." 24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25 But she came and ... bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" 26 And He answered and said, "It is not good ... to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 27 But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your ... faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.

4. At the trial of Jesus, Pilate washes his hand to say I find this man innocent. That act was a Jewish custom.

5. Jesus said "unless you are more honorable than the Pharisees, you wont enter the kingdom of heaven"

6. There are several references to false prophets.

Many authors argue that Matt was intended for a Jewish audience and that it reflects factionization in Xianity as early as 80 CE.

[hgc]

The Christians started out as just another messianic Jewish sect. But they were very successful and started recruiting outsiders (gentiles). This was facilitated by relaxing or dropping a lot of the OT laws that gentiles would find hard to stomach -- particularly circumcision.

[Graham]

Gregor Thank you for your comments, I will take some time to think and read up, if I may and reply tomorrow :)

Dancing David

(snip)The Bible contains two creations, why because God made a mistake and destroyed the first one. There are also references to the 'elochiam chiam' (pardon any poor translation for the hebraic) being present at the creation, these are the 'female spirits of life'. Judism is heavily changed from it's original mix of monism and plurality.

Why should Xianity be any different.

IMO, Christianity is, as you say like any religion, "passed through filters" and altered by time and distance from its inception. Do you agree, however, that the very basis of Christianity is flawed since Jesus was a Jewish Messiah for Jewish people?

I always agreed with a born again man I met who tried to maintain a kosher household. Jesus was jewish and allegedly followed the law whenever he could, although there is that thing about him harvesting grain on the sabbath.

I'll let Ned respond to that one for me:

Ned Flanders: Why me, Lord? Where have I gone wrong? I've always been nice to people! I don't drink or dance or swear! I've even kept kosher just to be on the safe side! I've done everything the Bible says; even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! What more could I do?"

:D

hgc But if, in starting to recruit gentiles, they were rejecting oneof the founding princiles of their religion (ie the whole chosen people thing) how can Christians expect to receive any reward for their pious endeavours? In other words, isn't the entire Christian religion utterly hopeless? (in an even more obvious way than most religions, I mean)

Graham

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Graham

IMO, Christianity is, as you say like any religion, "passed through filters" and altered by time and distance from its inception. Do you agree, however, that the very basis of Christianity is flawed since Jesus was a Jewish Messiah for Jewish people?


Graham [/B]

I agree that the message of Yeshua was most likely one meant for a Jewish audience, and it may be that he felt he was the messiah.
However I am not sure that this is a flaw for the people who may choose to follow the teachings of Yeshua, the message of a teacher may be used by a wider audience than was originaly intended.
On the issue of the political Jesus as the messiah, I always wondered why he said 'render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's'. It could mean that politics should be left to the politicians. Or that those who deal death will be killed.

Peace, dancing David

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Peace, dancing David

LOL! In my city there is a crazy guy named Dave who flails his arms in an exaggerated fashion when he walks many streets in downtown, with no apparent destination. He frequents several dance clubs and worms his way into dancing beside or with pretty young women. Many of the young women patronize him and giggle behind his back. They call him "Dancing Dave."

I see him around town a lot. I always think, "There goes Dancing Dave."

AS

[Ecce_homo]

Originally posted by Graham I've never really understood the concept of "Jesus died for our sins"

Let me clear that up for you. You know the expression "to die for"? It means you find something extremely desirable. Jesus died so we could sin, so don't forget to take advantage of his sacrifice.

[hgc]

Graham:

hgc But if, in starting to recruit gentiles, they were rejecting oneof the founding princiles of their religion (ie the whole chosen people thing) how can Christians expect to receive any reward for their pious endeavours? In other words, isn't the entire Christian religion utterly hopeless? (in an even more obvious way than most religions, I mean)
Graham,

The answers to these questions are beyond my ken. But from my experience, most religeous people think their endeavor is quite the opposite of hopeless. That's the nature of faith -- it clears the slate of all contradictions.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I agree that the message of Yeshua was most likely one meant for a Jewish audience, and it may be that he felt he was the messiah.
However I am not sure that this is a flaw for the people who may choose to follow the teachings of Yeshua, the message of a teacher may be used by a wider audience than was originaly intended.
On the issue of the political Jesus as the messiah, I always wondered why he said 'render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's'. It could mean that politics should be left to the politicians. Or that those who deal death will be killed.

Peace, dancing David

It may not be a flaw for those who chose to "follow the teachings of" Jesus but it seems to me that it is definitely a flaw for those who think that following the teachings of Jesus will bring them salvation.

As for render unto Caesar, I think the latter interpretation would be out of sync with most of the other stuff Jesus supposedly said. It's all Chinese whispers anyway though - second, third or five thousandth had reports. Who knows what he really said, much less what he meant by it?

[Graham]

Originally posted by hgc

Graham,

The answers to these questions are beyond my ken. But from my experience, most religeous people think their endeavor is quite the opposite of hopeless. That's the nature of faith -- it clears the slate of all contradictions.

Faith - I hate that word. It doesn't have to be true, logical or even semi-senseable, as long as you have faith. No proof required - just have faith. There's no arguing with it, no reasoning with it, faith is the answer to everything. Blind simple faith - the simpler and more blind the better.

That's the nature of faith - it clears the slate of all reason.

:mad:

[Graham]

Gregor

1. In the birth myth of Matt, Herod wants to kill all kids 2 and under. Jesus leaves his house in Bethlehem and travels to Egypt. He later returns to the area, but settles in Nazareth. This is intended for a Jewish audience (or at least to appear Jewish), as this is clearly a apocryphal recapitulation of the story of Moses and Pharoh.

"The birth myth" - ha! I like it. It's interesting that in the Moses myth it was God who slaughters the little children (the Egyptian first born sons). I've always though there wa sa lot of twisting done with towns, etc to make the story fit the prophecies.

2. Jesus advises his apostles early on not to go into the towns of the Gentiles or Samaria to preach, but stick with the towns of Israel.

And yet in Matt 15:21

3. I recalled one story from Matt 15:21:

"Jesus . . . withdrew into the district of Tyre. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." 24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25 But she came and ... bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" 26 And He answered and said, "It is not good ... to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 27 But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your ... faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.

Do as I say and not as I do? Why did the Canaanite woman not deserve the same consideration as the Roman centurion? If I had the power to heal people (especially children) I would like to think that I would not withold it from anyone for purely political reasons but then I am but human and not (as far as I know) the son of any god :rolleyes:

4. At the trial of Jesus, Pilate washes his hand to say I find this man innocent. That act was a Jewish custom.

This suggests to me one of three things:

(a) Pilate was a shrewd diplomat and had absorbed the customs of the Jewish people in order to fit in

or

(b) this never actually happened and the writer of "Matthew" was ignorant of the differences between Roman and Jewish culture.

or

(c) the writer of Matthew is making the point you suggest

I don't see why (c) is more likely than (b). Even (a) is a possibility.

5. Jesus said "unless you are more honorable than the Pharisees, you wont enter the kingdom of heaven"

6. There are several references to false prophets.

All of the prophets were Jews (presumably) therefore this could also be interpreted as a slight to the Jewish people, IMO.

Many authors argue that Matt was intended for a Jewish audience and that it reflects factionization in Xianity as early as 80 CE.

I've done a bit of readng about early Roman times and it seems to me that all the early Christians did was argue and factionize. They don't seem to have been aboe to agree on anything and the only reason they got it together at all was that Constantine put his foot down.

After that there was a period of relative stability and rationalisation but only because once one side got "on top" they made d*** sure they stayed there.

Graham

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Graham
Seriously though, did Jesus's reputed self-sacrifice supposedly wipe out all sin before and after that date or just before?

Seems to me it's the latter (since, presumably, no Christian would argue that we're free to sin as much as we like now since it's all, in a sense, pre-paid for) but if that's the case sure;y we should have started animal sacrificing and doing all the other stuff again as soon after the crucifixion as someone sinned?Let's see if I can remember the party line.

We are all tainted by sin when we are born ("original sin"). Jesus was sacrificed to pay for, among other things, that original sin, both before and after His death. People that died before His sacrifice whose only sin was Original got relocated out of Hell by Jesus in those three days between His death and His return.

Now, post-sacrifice, the standards are a little tougher. Believing that Jesus was the Son of God and that He died for your sins gets you into heaven, but it's also supposed to make you not want to sin any more.

So no, His sacrifice still takes the place of sacrificing all those animals, but only for those who believe that it does, and act like they believe that it does.

Different Christian denominations have slightly different spins on that philosophy but I think that's the core of it.

I'm not saying I believe it. I'm just saying that I can recite it. (On the other hand, I'm not saying I don't believe it either.)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally said by Jesus
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Can you give chapter and verse for this quote for future reference please?I gave it in the original, but here it is again. Luke 14:26.

[Graham]

Hello again Beleth,

Let's see if I can remember the party line.

We are all tainted by sin when we are born ("original sin"). Jesus was sacrificed to pay for, among other things, that original sin, both before and after His death. People that died before His sacrifice whose only sin was Original got relocated out of Hell by Jesus in those three days between His death and His return.

Now, post-sacrifice, the standards are a little tougher. Believing that Jesus was the Son of God and that He died for your sins gets you into heaven, but it's also supposed to make you not want to sin any more.

So no, His sacrifice still takes the place of sacrificing all those animals, but only for those who believe that it does, and act like they believe that it does.

Different Christian denominations have slightly different spins on that philosophy but I think that's the core of it.

I was brought up a Methodist so we didn't hear any of this kind of fun stuff in Sunday school - all we got was happy clappy tunes and "Jesus Loves You".

You know, it's not the people of "simple" faith that really confuse me - stupidity or even ignorance I can understand. It's the people who put so much thought into it and come up with such complex belief systems that I just can't understand. The level of stubborn determination that must be involved in continuing to believe even when the explanations get so long and convoluted . . .

Anyhoo, back to the discussion! I was under the impression that "original sin" was something of an out-moded concept - that no-one really believed in it anymore. Apparently I was mistaken in that. I always felt that "original sin" was inconsistent with a belief in free will, so necessary to Christianity. Now I know the exlanation that "the choice was Adam's, his free will is ours" but, if that is the case, how could humanity ever hope for saalvation since the enitre weight of all the sins of their ancestry rests upon the shoulders of every living person, getting heavier with each generation?

It seems to me that the "later" you're born, the more difficult it's going to be for you to be saved, or whatever. Eventually, it would surely have to reach a point where there simply wouldn't be enough time in a lifetime to even break even, sin-wise.


I'm not saying I believe it. I'm just saying that I can recite it. (On the other hand, I'm not saying I don't believe it either.)

Emm, OK, sure. ;)

I gave it in the original, but here it is again. Luke 14:26.

Do you know, I saw the quote and I saw the reference but somehow just never connected the two :rolleyes:

Thanks for your patience!

Graham

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Graham
I was brought up a Methodist so we didn't hear any of this kind of fun stuff in Sunday school - all we got was happy clappy tunes and "Jesus Loves You".I was brought up United Church of Christ so that's all I heard while I was growing up too. Then I took a History of Christianity course in college taught by a Jesuit priest, so I actually got more of a concentrated dose of Catholicism than I ever got of liberal Protestantism.

You know, it's not the people of "simple" faith that really confuse me - stupidity or even ignorance I can understand. It's the people who put so much thought into it and come up with such complex belief systems that I just can't understand. The level of stubborn determination that must be involved in continuing to believe even when the explanations get so long and convoluted . . .I realized after taking that history class that I am neither simple enough nor complex enough to be a Catholic.

Anyhoo, back to the discussion! I was under the impression that "original sin" was something of an out-moded concept - that no-one really believed in it anymore.You might be right. It was a history class I got this all from, after all.

how could humanity ever hope for saalvation since the enitre weight of all the sins of their ancestry rests upon the shoulders of every living person, getting heavier with each generation?It doesn't. It's only Adam's sin that weighs us down. I think.

[Graham]

I was brought up United Church of Christ so that's all I heard while I was growing up too. Then I took a History of Christianity course in college taught by a Jesuit priest, so I actually got more of a concentrated dose of Catholicism than I ever got of liberal Protestantism.

Yes, despite having been dragged to Sunday School every Sunday for thirteen or fourteen years, I came out of it knowing remarkably lilttle about the beliefs of what weas supposedly "my" church. I even took confirmation classes and still came out none the wiser. I used to wonder if perhaps I just wasn't paying attention at the time but no, I do don't think so. I think they tried so hard to reduce the whole thing to one basic message "Jesus loves you" they just forgot/declilned to back it up with anything. I think the "message" seemed so great to them, it never occured to them that anyone could want anything more.

I often wonder if I would have made a beter Catholic. The reams of dogma do have a certain comforting depth, when you're totally immersed in them. That said, my mother's family are all Catholics and I've been to Mass once or twice - the additional layers of trappings and formulas only made it seem more ridiculous to me, not less.

I realized after taking that history class that I am neither simple enough nor complex enough to be a Catholic.

You might be right. It was a history class I got this all from, after all.

It doesn't. It's only Adam's sin that weighs us down. I think. [/B]

FIrst of all, apparently it's still, technically at least, a part of the official dogma. I don't know where I got the idea that it wasn't. I think maybe they don't believe that unbaptised babies go to hell anymore, though I'm not entirely sure about that either.

Anyway, Jesus's sacrifice wipes out Adam's original sin then but that obviously was not the belief of the Christian churches for a long time since people were baptised to remove the stain of original sin, no?

Graham

[stamenflicker]

Anyway, Jesus's sacrifice wipes out Adam's original sin then but that obviously was not the belief of the Christian churches for a long time since people were baptised to remove the stain of original sin, no?

If you look a little deeper, it's not so much that God became man to do this thing as it is, more specifically put, Yahweh became Jesus. It was an unkindly thing for the barbaric god, yet his own personal atonement and a shift, a marked shift in theological thought for the time. The sacrifice of God, or divine suicide, still remains one of the most profound concepts of human mythology. Unlike say other gods who began their "lives" with a sacrificial motif, we have in the Judeo-Christian literature, a god who makes it a personal choice. The orginal sin removed is more an act of removing the original punishment, which Yaweh determined was quite ineffective in regulating human behavior.

Flick

[Graham]

Originally posted by stamenflicker

If you look a little deeper, it's not so much that God became man to do this thing as it is, more specifically put, Yahweh became Jesus. It was an unkindly thing for the barbaric god, yet his own personal atonement and a shift, a marked shift in theological thought for the time. The sacrifice of God, or divine suicide, still remains one of the most profound concepts of human mythology. Unlike say other gods who began their "lives" with a sacrificial motif, we have in the Judeo-Christian literature, a god who makes it a personal choice. The orginal sin removed is more an act of removing the original punishment, which Yaweh determined was quite ineffective in regulating human behavior.

Flick

I still don't understand, I'm afraid.

Regardless of your God's reason for removing original sin, why was baptism considered necessary to remove original sin if original sin had already been removed by the sacrifice/suicide of Jesus?

On a seperate point, if Yahweh became Jesus and Yahweh did not cease to exist with the death of Jesus, what sacrifice was made?

Graham