ahdenai

of all the aspects of christianity that I have difficulty understanding, this is the hardest. First God gave Moses some eternal laws, and then he sent his son to tell others that the laws don't matter anymore. God changed his mind. Jesus is the word, and the word is it's OK to disobey the earlier word. Or maybe not.

Some christians chose to quote old-testament laws when it suits them. The puritans burnt witches based on an old-testament law (exodus 22:18), and ante-bellum southern preachers defended slavery quoting old testament law (leviticus 25:45-46 and many others). In the early 20th century, racists condemned miscegenation based on leviticus 19:19 but which christian chooses to follow the second half of that verse (NEITHER SHALL A GARMENT MINGLED OF LINEN AND WOOLLEN COME UPON THEE)? If the laws are convenient for you, follow them, if not, look for passages in the new testament to help you justify ignoring them. All you have to do is love the big J and it's all good. Hakuna Matata, baby. Jesus was the first moral relativist.

Chris Weimer

I think you're conflating different things here: what the original Jesus intended, what Matthew intended, Jewish theology, and various Christian interpretations. It's probably not smart to lump them all together.

Gamera

I think this isn't a very good reading of the Christian scriptures or the texts of historical Christianity.

Here's the party line, which I think is supported by the texts:

1. Christians assert that the OT laws were intended to convince Jews of a need for a savior, since nobody can live up to them.

2. Jesus offered a "way out" from the condemnation of the Law, through grace, i.e., acceptance of the gospel message.

3. Thus Jesus didn't invalidate the Law, the Law still stands and will stand forever, condemning all who try to live up to it (and Paul adds that although not under Law, similar principles apply to nonjews, hence his evocative phrase that the gentiles are "a law unto themselves").

4. The point is Christians can avoid that eternal and everlasting condemnation that comes from the failure to live up to the Law, through acceptance of the gospel message.

I don't really think this is so complex. It is a total reinterpretration of the Hebrew Scriptures, but that's why Christians are Christians and Jews are Jews.

ahdenai

your point just paraphrases mine. and you're right - it's not complex, it's rediculous.

but you miss my other point, which is more important... christians selectively invoke old testament law when it suits them, to burn witches, hold slaves, deny blacks the right to marry whites, suppress homosexuals, and keep women subservient to their husbands. Jesus also says don't defend yourself, embrace poverty, abandon your family (if you're married to a non-believer). The essence of Christianity is selectively chosing which laws to follow. And that's not complex either, but it's also rediculous.

Blui

There is no better post that completely refutes the fact that the mosaic laws were repealed then Noah's.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...64#post3307364

As a summary, the OT flatly states that Gods commandments in the OT are to be followed forever, Matthew and Luke affirm this though Matthew makes mistakes now and then on Jewish law.

Paul flatly overturns all of this, he contradicts Matthew, Luke and the OT.

spamandham

It isn't wise to strive to understand crazy talk. It'll make you crazy too.

Chris Weimer

Noah's concerns are a matter of theology. The majority of scholars would disagree with you on Luke, and a good number would disagree with you on Matthew.

Gamera

I don't know what your definition of "ridiculous" is, so I can't argue with it, but I don't think religious beliefs of any kinds are rational.

While I agree with you that "christians" with various agendas, almost always for the purpose of institutional power, have disregarded the Christian scriptures and invoked the Law for pernicious political and religious purposes, I don't think that has anything to do with the nature of the Christian Scriptures themselves, which are amazingly clear on this issue -- the OT Law is toast.

Gamera

Reform Judaism itself disagrees with the posters' fundamentalist interpretation of the Hebrew Scripture, much less Christians.

spamandham

...except that it isn't clear. If it were, there would be no real debate about the meaning.

Read Matthew 5:17 carefully, (ASV)

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil."

Notice the part in bold. 1st century Jews would have understood the phrase "the law or the prophets" as a reference to the totality of the Jewish scriptures. Notice that he does not say he came to 'fulfil the law'. He merely says that he came 'to fulfil'. To fulfil what? The next sentence has the answer.

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

What is he talking about "all things be acomplished"? He's referring to the completion of the Jewish story - the fulfillment of the outstanding prophecies. This is a claim of messiahship, not a disposal of laws, which is why he makes it explicitly clear that he is not disposing of any portion of the law (the first 5 books of the OT).