Freethought & Rationalism Archive

zorq · 05-23-2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

Quote:

Originally Posted by zorq

New International Version (NIV) ... (snip)

The meaning of your first and third quotes, in context, are not ... (snip)

Yeah, I'm not a biblical scholar, I just thought I'd do a little research and provide what the OP requested. Honestly I barely see the point in having a comprehensive understanding of a piece of shit like the Bible. I was counting on others to provide the requisite contradictory passages.

kiwimac · 05-23-2009, 11:08 PM

Moved to BC & H.

steve_bnk · 05-23-2009, 11:21 PM

Some of the responses I've gotten in the past from Christians are:

1. Jeus died for our sins once and for all so we are free from all that
2. Jesus made a new covenenat for us humans
3. I am saved through Jeusu therfore it doen't matter what I do.

Matthew 5:17-19
"Think not that I (Jesus) am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, But to fulfill.
"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 is fulfilled.

It was Paul who allowed loosening of the Jewish laws for non-jew converts.

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2009, 12:34 AM

"It is finished".

Raises all sorts of questions - is it at Jesus' death that the law is abolished, or at his resurrection, or at his ascension or at a second coming - but if it is finished and as in Acts the spirit is with you what is this about a second coming?

It reads like more plot lines to make the story work that don't quite.

Is the second coming mentioned in Acts?

Jane H · 05-24-2009, 09:08 AM

You definitely get a better class of atheist here on FRDB! After a very short stint on Dawkins website, I concluded that the most advanced argument there ran “LOL you sux xians are dum”. Nice to deal here with people who understand the concept of debate.

The Law was never abolished, but it is obsolete. The idea, from the OT (e.g. importantly Jeremiah 31:31-34) , was that there would come a time when the nature of the Law would change. Hence the earlier quotes in this thread.

A key idea in Matthew 5 is of the law being fulfilled (v17 see also v18). Jesus is not abolishing the Law, but the ideas involved in obeying God are changing. Jesus enlarges on what this means in v20f. The morality in the new age will be far stricter- no longer a matter of obeying written law (in the OT Pharisaic legalistic way), but of having a personal morality which is virtually unlimited in depth. Note that the section deals with the moral aspects of the Law- the ritual aspects are not under consideration here.

“Fulfill” is, for Matthew, a “prophecy done” indicator, highlighting the OT background to the moving on from the status quo. Note the similarity in material in Luke 16:16-18 suggesting a wider knowledge of the material than Matthew.

This is the same thing that Paul was saying in the Galatians 3:23-25 quote given earlier.

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

in the OT Pharisaic legalistic way)

Warning assumption alert!

I must again refer people to Britannica and Jewish encyclopedia about these allegedly legalistic pharisees!

The reality is that the pharisees were anti slavery, promoters of the spirit of the law. The gospels in fact betray either ignorance of the varities of Judaism, a deliberate propaganda attack by another group on the Pharisses or that they are an amalgam of different views.

Quote:

Pharisee

Jewish history Main

member of a Jewish religious party that flourished in Palestine during the latter part of the Second Temple period (515 bc–ad 70). Their insistence on the binding force of oral tradition (“the unwritten Torah”) still remains a basic tenet of Jewish theological thought. When the Mishna (the first constituent part of the Talmud) was compiled about ad 200, it incorporated the teachings of the Pharisees on Jewish law.
The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabaean revolt, around 165–160 bc; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasideans. The Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes in contradistinction to the Sadducees, i.e., the party of the high priesthood that had traditionally provided the sole leadership of the Jewish people. The basic difference that led to the split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees lay in their respective attitudes toward the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the problem of finding in it answers to questions and bases for decisions about contemporary legal and religious matters arising under circumstances far different from those of the time of Moses. In their response to this problem, the Sadducees, on the one hand, refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah, i.e., the Written Law. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law, i.e., the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people. Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees admitted the principle of evolution in the Law; men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems. Rather than blindly follow the letter of the Law even if it conflicted with reason or conscience, the Pharisees harmonized the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas or found their own ideas suggested or implied in it. They interpreted the Law according to its spirit; when in the course of time a law had been outgrown or superseded by changing conditions, they gave it a new and more acceptable meaning, seeking scriptural support for their actions through a ramified system of hermeneutics. It was due to this progressive tendency of the Pharisees that their interpretation of the Torah continued to develop and has remained a living force in Judaism.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...55129/Pharisee

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2009, 09:49 AM

One jot or tittle is in fact Sadducean thinking.

Zenaphobe · 05-24-2009, 10:28 AM

Looking at some other views on the web, I came across this denomination that takes the view that Jesus did not intend for the OT to be considered obsolete.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn0...abolishlaw.htm

Here is a quote

Quote:

Jesus, as the Son of God, could perceive people's thoughts. In Matthew 5:17 He begins answering their unspoken questions: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets." In effect He was telling them: "If you think I came to destroy the law or prophets, you are not thinking clearly." He makes it plain that anyone who thought He was abolishing the law or prophets was mistaken. He assures them of His respect for God's law: "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

The meaning of "destroy" is fairly simple to understand. But Jesus' use of "fulfill" has confused some readers of the Bible. As Jesus continued to speak, He clarified what He meant by "fulfill." But at this point we can simply note that, whatever Jesus meant by the word, it did not involve destroying the law. Jesus emphatically said not to think such a thing.

The word for "fulfill" comes from the Greek word plerosai, which means "to fill." Some believe this filling of the law means Jesus somehow filled up the law and prophets, thereby somehow abolishing the law; the law has supposedly been superseded by Christ. In effect, this theory has Jesus saying, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to abolish or supersede." Such an interpretation, called antinomian (antilaw) theology, however, is in direct contradiction to Scripture.

I browsed around some of their other articles and it is an interesting study of a Christian sect that sees its faith as a fulfillment of the OT and not a dissolution of it.

aa5874 · 05-24-2009, 10:57 AM

And these are the words of Saul/Paul in Acts 13.38-39

Quote:

38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Saul/Paul renders the Law of Moses ineffective with advent of Jesus Christ.

gdeering · 05-24-2009, 11:00 AM

Kennedy was channeling Jesus on the topic of following the law and Jesus' new demands. JFK sums up the matter thusly:

Quote:

We shall do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

On a different, but related, tangent - I hesitate to guess where a doctrine based on Jesus' "thought control" philosophy might lead in practice, but clearly the issues of the law were meant to lead one to the fiction of personal enlightenment.

Does anyone remember a story about one pure soul (a "Desert Father") who could not recognize gold and jewels along the road. I have forgotten the story.

Gregg

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-23-2009, 11:08 PM	#12
kiwimac Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Mayfield, NZ Posts: 1,407	Moved to BC & H.

05-23-2009, 11:21 PM	#13
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	Some of the responses I've gotten in the past from Christians are: 1. Jeus died for our sins once and for all so we are free from all that 2. Jesus made a new covenenat for us humans 3. I am saved through Jeusu therfore it doen't matter what I do. Matthew 5:17-19 "Think not that I (Jesus) am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, But to fulfill. "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 is fulfilled. It was Paul who allowed loosening of the Jewish laws for non-jew converts.

05-24-2009, 12:34 AM	#14
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	"It is finished". Raises all sorts of questions - is it at Jesus' death that the law is abolished, or at his resurrection, or at his ascension or at a second coming - but if it is finished and as in Acts the spirit is with you what is this about a second coming? It reads like more plot lines to make the story work that don't quite. Is the second coming mentioned in Acts?

05-24-2009, 09:08 AM	#15
Jane H Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: UK Posts: 186	You definitely get a better class of atheist here on FRDB! After a very short stint on Dawkins website, I concluded that the most advanced argument there ran “LOL you sux xians are dum”. Nice to deal here with people who understand the concept of debate. The Law was never abolished, but it is obsolete. The idea, from the OT (e.g. importantly Jeremiah 31:31-34) , was that there would come a time when the nature of the Law would change. Hence the earlier quotes in this thread. A key idea in Matthew 5 is of the law being fulfilled (v17 see also v18). Jesus is not abolishing the Law, but the ideas involved in obeying God are changing. Jesus enlarges on what this means in v20f. The morality in the new age will be far stricter- no longer a matter of obeying written law (in the OT Pharisaic legalistic way), but of having a personal morality which is virtually unlimited in depth. Note that the section deals with the moral aspects of the Law- the ritual aspects are not under consideration here. “Fulfill” is, for Matthew, a “prophecy done” indicator, highlighting the OT background to the moving on from the status quo. Note the similarity in material in Luke 16:16-18 suggesting a wider knowledge of the material than Matthew. This is the same thing that Paul was saying in the Galatians 3:23-25 quote given earlier.

05-24-2009, 09:49 AM	#17
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	One jot or tittle is in fact Sadducean thinking.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.