dongiovanni1976x

Many Christians say that what makes them unique from Judaism is that they are under a New Covenant and thus anytime they don't know how to answer something they find morally offensive in the OT they appeal to the argument that Jesus fulfilled the Old Law and now they follow a peaceful creed of love etc.

I was interested in discussing how this CONCEPT originated and evolved.

For example, Marcion saw the contradictions with Jesus and the Old god of the Jews and formulated his own canon and paradigm to fix the problem. What were some of the crucial steps in the formulation of Catholic tradition that shaped the modern concept of "The New Law" or would some want to argue that it was advocated by Paul himself and that Marcion was just a heretic...?

Faithful

Apparently Marcion completely rejected the Old Testament and Jewish roots roots, and established his own canon of scripture by dwelling on the teachings of Paul only, and rejecting the writings of other apostles. He believed that the God of the OT and NT were not the same being. Yes, he was a heretic.

The new covenant came into being with the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Mosaic laws were just a shadow of what Jesus would fulfill in the NT. If you read the sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5,6 and 7, He said he came to fulfill these laws which meant that they were fulfilled through his love, grace and mercy.

mountainman

The new covenant (as we know it today) was set in place
formally at the Council of Nicaea, when the government of
the Roman empire was essentially altered with massive new
changes in law: the establishment of separate civil and military
administrative structures whereas before there were one only
post in each region of the empire.

Additionally, with effect from the Council of Nicaea was continued
a massive construction project across the empire, of new
christian basilicas, or churches. Aside from two (claimed) exceptions
(Megiddo,Dura-Europa) the basilicas constructed by Constantine are
the oldest christian churches known. Thus, in parallel with the
splitting of civil and military admin structures in the empire, a new
Roman relgious order was given form and structure in the laws
of the empire, such that a triple layered system of administration
all independently reported to the intelligent supreme imperial mafia
thug Constantine, "Bishop of his bishops" -- the supreme spy.

In today's terminology, his formal title would be "dictator".

Substantial changes to laws occurred, especially with regard to the
individual. FOr the first time, a poll tax - for every person - was
introduced. Previous tax was simply based on land held. Massive
administration was required to effect the collection of tax from
each and every "citizen of the empire" for the first time. Tax
collectors were rapidly appointed.

The natural and ancient law of the rights and liberties of the
individual were made null and void by these massive changes
made under Constantine. He was the breaker of traditions, and
was a proselyter for the new Roman religion, and a destroyer
of the old Hellenic ancient order.

Julian discusses this issue specifically in his "Against the Galilaeans"
and the fact that the new religious order of the christians, is
neither in conformity with the (supposed) old traditons of the
Hebrew sages, neither in conformity with the old traditions of
the Hellenic sages.



Pete Brown

aa5874

The resurrection of Jesus cannot be confirmed and is likely to be false, therefore it is unrealistic to consider Jesus as a 'new covenant'.


It cannot be confirmed that the words, in Matthew 5,6 and 7, were spoken by Jesus. Matthew, Mark and Luke appear to have copied from one another or from some other uknown source.

It appears to me that you are confusing, I hope not deliberately, what you believe and actual facts.

aa5874

What one has to bear in mind, is that if Eusebius and Constantine were of the same doctrine as Marcion, then the Catholic tradition would essentially be the doctrine of the Marcionites.

It is my view that a theological tradition cannot be sustained effectively without some sort of powerful political stronghold. Just imagine a Marcionite Constantine followed by a Marcionite King Henry VIII.

Gamera

You raise a good point, dongio. Why indeed would the New Covenant get "reconciled" with the Old at the Old's expense.

Judaism was a 1000 year old religion with a body of texts and institutions. You would think that the reconciliation would work the other way round and the teachings of Jesus would have gotten subsumed into traditional Judaism, not the other way round, especially since the first Christians are former Jews, and not even former Jews, but Jews who think of themselves as Jews given a teaching that is fully in concert with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Instead, Christianity reinterpreted the Hebrew Scriptures, first piecemeal, then, by the end of the middle ages, in their entirety.

CreamFilledGiraffe

Apologies if I'm butting in but I have a query and it seems this might be the place to ask.

How does one do this? Isn't law followed or obeyed?

Many apologies if this is a derail.

Gamera

I don't think it's a derail at all. Jesus claims he came to fulfill the law, so the meaning is to be contemplated.

He says this in Matthew 5 and then proceeds to show us how he "fulfills" the law, using the trope -- "You have heard . . . But I say . . ."

In each case he takes the Law and transform it to have a spiritual, internal effect, rather than remaining an obligation to be following by action.

Thus,

21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23

Jesus here takes the Law against killing and expands it to apply to having unloving thoughts, which he claims are equal to murder.

That's quite a transformation, and it is the essence of how the New Covenant transforms the Law.

Apikorus

It's also a bit absurd, to equate "unloving thoughts" to murder.

CreamFilledGiraffe

So amended or expanded the law would be more accurate. I guess if Jesus hadn't died for our sins we would have run out of goats long ago. :devil3:

I'll have another look at Matt 5-7