At What Point?

[Kafka]

Nice post.

Yes, I don't think the New Testament voids the prohibition against murder, theft, adultery in the OT. Those can be thought of divine eternal law.

It's reasonable to parse the law into "ritual purity" and "divine eternal" except insofar as the BIble does NOT make this distinction. Nowhere to my recollection does Jesus say "...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the "ritual purity" laws, till all be fulfilled."

It is a nice exegesis to break the law up this way. And certainly it kind of feels like dispensationalism.

It really seems that it is yet one more way to square the circle of the Bible. Along with simply jettisoning those books one doesn't necessarily feel comfortable with (as you do with the OT) it really helps move God into a more ecumenical, universal God.

As opposed to the fierce partisan for a tiny uplands tribe in a desertified corner of the world.

The fact that Jesus' sermons and parables about proper moral justice and human relations echo the divine moral law in the OT means in theory, you don't have to turn the pages back to the OT to see those laws... those eternal moral laws are echoed in the moral teachings of Jesus -- they're in the NT, you don't have to flip the pages back to the OT to understand the eternal divine law.

Yes, Jesus seems to on the whole recast the laws in simplified forms without reliance on the ritual purity laws. Or at least the authors of the Gospels do.

This is the stuff I find valuable in the Bible. It is the good stuff. But it is hard to parse that out from the OT when even Jesus states: "...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

It's the Jewish law in Torah that Paul wrote doesn't apply to gentiles.

Even THAT was a debate in the early Church. I believe you said elsewhere something I agree with: Paul is largely responsible for Christianity. (Apologies if you didn't say that, but it is something that makes a lot of sense) which really kind of is a "John Smith with the golden tablets" kind of moment. A way to see how the "sausage" of a new faith is created leveraging the tenants (loosely) of the old faith and upending it simultaneously.

But most Christians would still prefer the faith to be defined by Christ, not someone who never met him.

I think the reason the OT reads some differently from the NT is because the OT is based on a Mesopotamian cultural and religious motif. The NT was written by Hellenized Jews, and influenced by Greek philosophy and Greek Hellenized culture.

The reason it is important to keep the OT in mind when reading the NT or being a Christian is:

1. It is the "origin story" of the faith. Jesus relies on the older faith to build his newer church
2. It is as viable and valid a "biography" of God as anything else. It is presumably the SAME God as in the NT
3. It is disallowed per the Christian faith to simply jettison the OT (Marcionite Heresy)
4. It is an EXCELLENT x-ray of the "God-Concept" to show how God EVOLVES exactly as a human construction would be expected to. (Why would God suddenly become a lover of all people across the earth after being a partisan handing over towns to his chosen people to be slaughtered by them or commanding genocides through his prophet?)


The OT is where we first meet God. The NT is the next book in the series and the authors decided that they needed to "change up" the character to make him fit more current times.

We even see it today! God is constantly changing to meet our needs.


That's the whole point of keeping the OT in mind in these discussions.

 

[Kafka]

do you believe the same to be true of murderers?

So you compare homosexuals to murderers?

Interesting rhetorical gambit. Good luck with that.

Like I said earlier: enjoy your hate.

 

[Yakuda]

Another of your delusions.

Everything is true simply because a leftist says it.

 

[Yakuda]

As Obtenebrator said, "Enjoy the hate."

Two ignorant toads agree? What a surprise.

 

[domer76]

It's reasonable to parse the law into "ritual purity" and "divine eternal" except insofar as the BIble does NOT make this distinction. Nowhere to my recollection does Jesus say "...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the "ritual purity" laws, till all be fulfilled."

It is a nice exegesis to break the law up this way. And certainly it kind of feels like dispensationalism.

It really seems that it is yet one more way to square the circle of the Bible. Along with simply jettisoning those books one doesn't necessarily feel comfortable with (as you do with the OT) it really helps move God into a more ecumenical, universal God.

As opposed to the fierce partisan for a tiny uplands tribe in a desertified corner of the world.




Yes, Jesus seems to on the whole recast the laws in simplified forms without reliance on the ritual purity laws. Or at least the authors of the Gospels do.

This is the stuff I find valuable in the Bible. It is the good stuff. But it is hard to parse that out from the OT when even Jesus states: "...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."




Even THAT was a debate in the early Church. I believe you said elsewhere something I agree with: Paul is largely responsible for Christianity. (Apologies if you didn't say that, but it is something that makes a lot of sense) which really kind of is a "John Smith with the golden tablets" kind of moment. A way to see how the "sausage" of a new faith is created leveraging the tenants (loosely) of the old faith and upending it simultaneously.

But most Christians would still prefer the faith to be defined by Christ, not someone who never met him.




The reason it is important to keep the OT in mind when reading the NT or being a Christian is:

1. It is the "origin story" of the faith. Jesus relies on the older faith to build his newer church
2. It is as viable and valid a "biography" of God as anything else. It is presumably the SAME God as in the NT
3. It is disallowed per the Christian faith to simply jettison the OT (Marcionite Heresy)
4. It is an EXCELLENT x-ray of the "God-Concept" to show how God EVOLVES exactly as a human construction would be expected to. (Why would God suddenly become a lover of all people across the earth after being a partisan handing over towns to his chosen people to be slaughtered by them or commanding genocides through his prophet?)


The OT is where we first meet God. The NT is the next book in the series and the authors decided that they needed to "change up" the character to make him fit more current times.

We even see it today! God is constantly changing to meet our needs.


That's the whole point of keeping the OT in mind in these discussions.

It’s called evolution. A concept that fundamentalists hate.

 

[Yakuda]

So you compare homosexuals to murderers?

Interesting rhetorical gambit. Good luck with that.

Like I said earlier: enjoy your hate.

I suspect you know you lack the capacity to actually formulate an argument so instead you just dismiss what people say. It funny and sad at the same time. It's weak mindedness but then again leftists aren't really known for their intellect are they?

I predict you will attack me and not the fact that you can't muster a reasonable counterpoint.

 

[Litmus]

Yes. Maybe but if that 90% ignored your teaching because they thought they knew more or better than you then that would be their downfall. Pride kills people not an absence of clarity. The countless millions you referenced to were certain they knew better and more than God. They werent humble enough to listen, just like you. You can't be taught because you've already decided God is unclear. Stuff happens you don't like or agree with so you conclude you know better than God. That you know more than God. Therein lies your downfall

yes. prideful and haughty. caught in the earthly rewards of haughty.

What's amazing is I told you God was quite clear in his teaching but you haven't asked once to show you where. That alone tells us you refuse to listen because your mind is made up.

If you ask me what is the sum of 1+1 and I answer 2 it's not prideful to answer 2.

Tell me what I don't understand about my faith.

No and never claimed to be but pride is mans greatest sin and the basis for the others.

beause there are contradictions all over the Bible.

A thinking person sees that.

a self appointed circle jerk of assholes telling you the one true interpretation has nothing to do with Christianity, it's just bunch of power tripping incels.

 

[Cypress]

It's reasonable to parse the law into "ritual purity" and "divine eternal" except insofar as the BIble does NOT make this distinction.

Yes it does. It makes the distinction extensively and explicitly. The epistles of Paul go into substantial detail about the ritual law of the Jewish tradition, and why they do not apply to Gentiles. Paul's epistles are at the heart and core of the New Testament.

I doubt it would have been possible for Paul to bring the gospel to gentiles, or have Christianity spread so widely end successfully in the Roman Empire if potential converts were required to follow the laws of Torah and basically become Jews and practice Jewish religious custom.

 

[Yakuda]

yes. prideful and haughty. caught in the earthly rewards of haughty.

beause there are contradictions all over the Bible.

a self appointed circle jerk of assholes telling you the one true interpretation has nothing to do with Christianity, it's just bunch of power tripping incels.

You sound like a deranged idiot you know that right?

But I have nothing else to do so I might as well play along....what contradictions?

 

[Yakuda]

Yes it does. It makes the distinction extensively and explicitly. The epistles of Paul go into great detail about the ritual law of the Jewish tradition, and why they do not apply to Gentiles.

I doubt it would have been possible for Paul to bring the gospel to gentiles, or have Christianity spread so widely end successfully in the Roman Empire if potential concerts were required to follow the laws of Torah and basically become Jews and practice Jewish custom.

They do follow them but not the way they did previously Romans 2:12-29

 

[Kafka]

Yes it does. It makes the distinction extensively and explicitly. The epistles of Paul

Again, PAUL. Paul, as I think we both agree, is largely responsible for creating Christianity as we know it.

I doubt it would have been possible for Paul to bring the gospel to gentiles, or have Christianity spread so widely end successfully in the Roman Empire if potential concerts were required to follow the laws of Torah and basically become Jews and practice Jewish religious custom.

Oh I agree! 100% A new religion was being crafted and it caught on in the Grecco-Roman world since it correlated with the thoughts and philosophies of the time.

The best analogue would be Mormonism. Joseph Smith leveraged the NT to create a new religion which bears some commonalities with the older religion (Christianity) from which it sprang and adds new stuff in.

I cannot stress this enough: mine is not a critique of "God" per se, but rather a critique of how manifestly clear religions are man-made.

As an atheist I am open to new data coming in that proves God's existence but I have a pretty high bar for that data. I find it interesting to see the evolution of any given religion. They all have some commonalities and some jarring differences. But in the end all manifestly human constructs.

I enjoy talking about theology precisely because it is such an interesting and important part of the social experience.

 

[Kafka]

I suspect you know you lack the capacity to actually formulate an argument so instead you just dismiss what people say.

Then please tell me how to interpret the post in which homosexuality was compared with murderers.

It funny and sad at the same time. It's weak mindedness but then again leftists aren't really known for their intellect are they?

I predict you will attack me and not the fact that you can't muster a reasonable counterpoint.

You were wrong.

 

[Kafka]

It’s called evolution. A concept that fundamentalists hate.

Agreed.

But I actually "get" the fundamentalist position. Why on earth would the all-knowing, all-seeing, creator of all things (including time itself) ever "change"?

 

[Cypress]

Again, PAUL. Paul, as I think we both agree, is largely responsible for creating Christianity as we know it.




Oh I agree! 100% A new religion was being crafted and it caught on in the Grecco-Roman world since it correlated with the thoughts and philosophies of the time.

The best analogue would be Mormonism. Joseph Smith leveraged the NT to create a new religion which bears some commonalities with the older religion (Christianity) from which it sprang and adds new stuff in.

I cannot stress this enough: mine is not a critique of "God" per se, but rather a critique of how manifestly clear religions are man-made.

As an atheist I am open to new data coming in that proves God's existence but I have a pretty high bar for that data. I find it interesting to see the evolution of any given religion. They all have some commonalities and some jarring differences. But in the end all manifestly human constructs.

I enjoy talking about theology precisely because it is such an interesting and important part of the social experience.

You wrote that the distinction between Jewish ritual law and eternal divine law was found nowhere in the bible.

Paul is so important to the bible, works attributed to him make up almost half of the New Testament. And Paul was responsible for spreading Christianity to the Roman empire so successfully because he did explain why gentiles are not beholden to the Jewish ritual laws of Torah.

 

[Yakuda]

Then please tell me how to interpret the post in which homosexuality was compared with murderers.



You were wrong.

Let's start slowly. What was the claim you made about homosexuality?

For once. I think you responded the way you did just so you could say, "You were wrong". See how predictable you folks are?

 

[Kafka]

You wrote that the distinction between Jewish ritual law and eternal divine law was found nowhere in the bible.

Correct. I understand that Paul made such a distinction but where the laws are actually laid out in the OT they are never parsed that way and in the words of Jesus to my knowledge there is no such parsing.

But that's a fair enough point.

Paul is so important to the bible, works attributed to him make up almost half of the New Testament. And Paul was responsible for spreading Christianity to the Roman empire so successfully because he did explain why gentiles are not beholden to the Jewish ritual laws of Torah.

Again, I think we both agree that Paul essentially invented Christianity as we know it. Without Paul if Christianity had even survived it would likely be little more than a small Jewish sect.

More evidence of the man-made nature of the faith.

 

[Kafka]

Let's start slowly. What was the claim you made about homosexuality?

For once. I think you responded the way you did just so you could say, "You were wrong". See how predictable you folks are?

Please just read the post I was responding to. I don't have time to hold your hand and read it for you.

The poster compared being a homosexual to being a murderer.

If you think that's accurate: fine. Enjoy your hate.

If you think homosexuality is a "choice" (and hence can be a "sin") then tell me when you chose to be straight? How hard is it to remain straight for you?

 

[Litmus]

You have confused me with your fundamentalist chums, who believe the bible is the eternal, infallible, and inerrant literal word of God.

like all religions and their texts.

your catholic friend just insists that whatever the ecclestial college of self important butfucks says is the inerrant word of God. that's not better.

the people you target for derision most are the ones who actually encourage the most personal exploration of the texts themselves.

if this were academic you would be on their side.

but since ultiately you seek to hide real chrisitianity with your Masonic colonic cohorts, I forgive you for it.

 

[Litmus]

You sound like a deranged idiot you know that right?

But I have nothing else to do so I might as well play along....what contradictions?

like Jesus saying the whole of the law is the golden rule, versus your insistence that he's the fulfillment of OT law and backs it fully.

actually I think your position is less well represented.

 

[Yakuda]

like Jesus saying the whole of the law is the golden rule, versus your insistence that he's the fulfillment of OT law and backs it fully.

actually I think your position is less well represented.

Why do you keep claiming it's what I insist? Jesus said these things not me. Matthew 15: 17-18.
Matthew 22: 34-40. Love your neighbor as yourself isnt quite the same as the "golden rule".