5 ms·

NT Jesus states that the "ancient Jewish law" remains valid forever, so if you are going to disregard OT laws, you also have to cherry pick and disregard Jesus

by olavk 11y ago

NT Jesus states that the "ancient Jewish law" remains valid forever, so if you are going to disregard OT laws, you also have to cherry pick and disregard Jesus quotes you find inconvenient.

dvt 11y ago
It's funny because he says the complete opposite. The whole idea of the new covenant is that Jesus replaces the Jewish Temple of the Old Testament. Read Mark 12, where Jesus basically avoids a loaded question by the Pharisees dealing with exactly what you're bringing up (old vs. new law). Again, I don't mean to be rude, but it doesn't seem you have the theological background to have this debate.
- olavk 11y ago
  Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5&versi...
  - dvt 11y ago
    So to prove your point, you pick a hotly-debated verse that has had literally thousands of years of argumentation behind it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17 Trivializing its exegesis (and hermeneutic) doesn't do anyone any good, least of all your point. And you ignore the social and historical contexts: Jesus was speaking to Jews and probably didn't want to alienate them so his wording may have been political. Not to mention that Acts 15 explicitly addresses your point: it's very clear that Gentile Christians do NOT have to abide by Jewish (Mosaic) Law: > Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” (.. and a few verses down ..) > Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
    - olavk 11y ago
      What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Jesus was a strongly religious Jew, so it is not surprising that he considered the mosaic law God-given and eternal. Paul on the other hand wanted to convert non-Jews, and then the mosaic law was a hindrance. Obviously Paul won, which leaves some inconvenient quotes by Jesus, which theologians then have to work hard to explain away. My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation. For example if Mosaic law is brought up you can claim that Paul overruled Jesus and did away with Mosaic law. And if Pauls denigration of women is brought up you can say that this was only Paul, Jesus never said such a thing. In order to explain away the inconvenient quote you say maybe Jesus he was political and didn't want to alienate his audience. Problem is, you can explain away any quote that way. Maybe Jesus didn't really think we should love our neighbor, he just didn't want to alienate the audience. And take this quote by Jesus: If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A26&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A26&ve... Here Jesus is clearly preaching hate. So you can take away a message of love from the bible, but you can just as well take away a message of hate. That is not a good moral compass.
      - dvt 11y ago
        > What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. What we have here is you not applying the Principe of Charity and accepting the fact that Jesus was saying the things he was in a certain social and historical context. I don't know why you insist on approaching a religious text as a logic textbook. > My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation. Coming from someone that has studied ethics, I can assure you that most ethical theories rely on value judgments at some point down the line. If this is your only criticism, the ethical theories of the Bible share many similarities with many non-religious theories as well. Sure, maybe Christian ethical theory is not as strong as something like Kantian ethics of duty, but we're splitting hairs here. Is it maybe a sub-optimal moral compass? Sure, but a moral compass nonetheless. > If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible here, but you are grossly overreaching. There are literally dozens of explanations of the above quote on the internet, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm. The translation also doesn't quite capture the fact that "hate" should probably be "loves less" or, more correctly, "honors less" or "treat with less affection."
dragonwriter 11y ago
> NT Jesus states that the "ancient Jewish law" remains valid forever, so if you are going to disregard OT laws, you also have to cherry pick and disregard Jesus quotes you find inconvenient. This is addressed specifically in Acts 15. The ancient Jewish law continued to apply to Jewish Christians, but not to Gentile Christians.

by olavk 11y ago

NT Jesus states that the "ancient Jewish law" remains valid forever, so if you are going to disregard OT laws, you also have to cherry pick and disregard Jesus quotes you find inconvenient.

dvt 11y ago

It's funny because he says the complete opposite. The whole idea of the new covenant is that Jesus replaces the Jewish Temple of the Old Testament. Read Mark 12, where Jesus basically avoids a loaded question by the Pharisees dealing with exactly what you're bringing up (old vs. new law). Again, I don't mean to be rude, but it doesn't seem you have the theological background to have this debate.

olavk 11y ago
Matthew 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5&versi...
- dvt 11y ago
  So to prove your point, you pick a hotly-debated verse that has had literally thousands of years of argumentation behind it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17 Trivializing its exegesis (and hermeneutic) doesn't do anyone any good, least of all your point. And you ignore the social and historical contexts: Jesus was speaking to Jews and probably didn't want to alienate them so his wording may have been political. Not to mention that Acts 15 explicitly addresses your point: it's very clear that Gentile Christians do NOT have to abide by Jewish (Mosaic) Law: > Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” (.. and a few verses down ..) > Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
  - olavk 11y ago
    What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Jesus was a strongly religious Jew, so it is not surprising that he considered the mosaic law God-given and eternal. Paul on the other hand wanted to convert non-Jews, and then the mosaic law was a hindrance. Obviously Paul won, which leaves some inconvenient quotes by Jesus, which theologians then have to work hard to explain away. My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation. For example if Mosaic law is brought up you can claim that Paul overruled Jesus and did away with Mosaic law. And if Pauls denigration of women is brought up you can say that this was only Paul, Jesus never said such a thing. In order to explain away the inconvenient quote you say maybe Jesus he was political and didn't want to alienate his audience. Problem is, you can explain away any quote that way. Maybe Jesus didn't really think we should love our neighbor, he just didn't want to alienate the audience. And take this quote by Jesus: If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A26&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A26&ve... Here Jesus is clearly preaching hate. So you can take away a message of love from the bible, but you can just as well take away a message of hate. That is not a good moral compass.
    - dvt 11y ago
      > What we have is a simple contradiction between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. What we have here is you not applying the Principe of Charity and accepting the fact that Jesus was saying the things he was in a certain social and historical context. I don't know why you insist on approaching a religious text as a logic textbook. > My point is this: Scripture is a really terrible "moral compass" because due to contradictions like these you have to use your own value judgement to decide what is really the correct interpretation. Coming from someone that has studied ethics, I can assure you that most ethical theories rely on value judgments at some point down the line. If this is your only criticism, the ethical theories of the Bible share many similarities with many non-religious theories as well. Sure, maybe Christian ethical theory is not as strong as something like Kantian ethics of duty, but we're splitting hairs here. Is it maybe a sub-optimal moral compass? Sure, but a moral compass nonetheless. > If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible here, but you are grossly overreaching. There are literally dozens of explanations of the above quote on the internet, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm. The translation also doesn't quite capture the fact that "hate" should probably be "loves less" or, more correctly, "honors less" or "treat with less affection."

dragonwriter 11y ago

> NT Jesus states that the "ancient Jewish law" remains valid forever, so if you are going to disregard OT laws, you also have to cherry pick and disregard Jesus quotes you find inconvenient. This is addressed specifically in Acts 15. The ancient Jewish law continued to apply to Jewish Christians, but not to Gentile Christians.