4 ms·

> While Christ was an outsider of the state who ruled no one, and while Christianity did not become a state religion until centuries after Christ’s birth Jesu

> While Christ was an outsider of the state who ruled no one, and while Christianity did not become a state religion until centuries after Christ’s birth Jesus was a jew, and while he wasn't a big fan of death penalties, he certainly believed that all 613 of the minutia-governing rules of judaism were important to obey. And a case could be made that the early (first generation) church was already pretty controlling and harsh. Take for instance the story of Ananais and Sapphira. It describes an incident in a church community led by Peter (the apostle), where the people practiced total communal ownership, and penalties for breaking the rules (or lying about breaking the rules, depending on your reading) were punished with summary execution. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205%3A1-11&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205%3A1-11...

dragonwriter 3y ago
> And a case could be made that the early (first generation) church was already pretty controlling and harsh. Take for instance the story of Ananais and Sapphira. It describes an incident in a church community led by Peter (the apostle), where the people practiced total communal ownership, and penalties for breaking the rules (or lying about breaking the rules, depending on your reading) were punished with summary execution. Read literally, no execution is described in the story in question (Acts 5:1-11), just two people who both spontaneously drop dead. Peter is said to have explicitly (and immediately before it occurred) predict the second, but no one is described as taking any act to cause either of the deaths, the first of which is implicitly from guilt, the second could be argued as either from that or knowledge of the first.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- knodi123 3y ago
  > Read literally, no execution is described in the story in question If you think that their deaths were a coincidence, then I hope you never sit jury duty in a murder trial. Nobody says they died of guilt, either. The modus operandi is simply not mentioned- all we have is means, motive, opportunity, and a pretty strong implication.
gred 3y ago
> he certainly believed that all 613 of the minutia-governing rules of judaism were important to obey I think he rather cared about the few core principles behind the rules, no? From Luke 10, for example: > On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." Further complicated by the fact that he came to fulfill old promises and replace the old rules. From Luke 6, for example: > One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. Some of the Pharisees asked, "Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Or as summarized by his followers 20 years after his death and resurrection, in Galatians 3: > Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
- knodi123 3y ago
  > I think he rather cared about the few core principles behind the rules, no? Rather? You mean, like, "instead"? No. He gave some core principles that could be an aid in interpretation, and he used those principles to argue against a certain rabbinic extrapolation of the law- but he still wanted all jews to follow all 613 of the laws of moses. > he came to fulfill old promises and replace the old rules He came to fulfill the prophecies. But according to Matt 5:17-20, until heaven and earth disappear, not a single commandment will be abrogated, and woe unto him who teaches that even the least of the commandments can be ignored. Unless you think that was a typo, or maybe Jesus didn't mean it, or didn't know what he was talking about in that passage from matthew? > Or as summarized by his followers 20 years after his death As summarized by a single guy, who never met him, writing to non-jews- sure.
wl 3y ago
> Jesus was a jew, and while he wasn't a big fan of death penalties, he certainly believed that all 613 of the minutia-governing rules of judaism were important to obey. The tradition of there being 613 mitzvot likely dates a century or two after the death of Jesus.
- knodi123 3y ago
  Then interpret my use of that number as a literary allusion meant to refer to {the set of all commands of prophetic origin}.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> And a case could be made that the early (first generation) church was already pretty controlling and harsh. Take for instance the story of Ananais and Sapphira. It describes an incident in a church community led by Peter (the apostle), where the people practiced total communal ownership, and penalties for breaking the rules (or lying about breaking the rules, depending on your reading) were punished with summary execution. Read literally, no execution is described in the story in question (Acts 5:1-11), just two people who both spontaneously drop dead. Peter is said to have explicitly (and immediately before it occurred) predict the second, but no one is described as taking any act to cause either of the deaths, the first of which is implicitly from guilt, the second could be argued as either from that or knowledge of the first.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
knodi123 3y ago
> Read literally, no execution is described in the story in question If you think that their deaths were a coincidence, then I hope you never sit jury duty in a murder trial. Nobody says they died of guilt, either. The modus operandi is simply not mentioned- all we have is means, motive, opportunity, and a pretty strong implication.

gred 3y ago

> he certainly believed that all 613 of the minutia-governing rules of judaism were important to obey I think he rather cared about the few core principles behind the rules, no? From Luke 10, for example: > On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." Further complicated by the fact that he came to fulfill old promises and replace the old rules. From Luke 6, for example: > One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. Some of the Pharisees asked, "Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Or as summarized by his followers 20 years after his death and resurrection, in Galatians 3: > Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

knodi123 3y ago
> I think he rather cared about the few core principles behind the rules, no? Rather? You mean, like, "instead"? No. He gave some core principles that could be an aid in interpretation, and he used those principles to argue against a certain rabbinic extrapolation of the law- but he still wanted all jews to follow all 613 of the laws of moses. > he came to fulfill old promises and replace the old rules He came to fulfill the prophecies. But according to Matt 5:17-20, until heaven and earth disappear, not a single commandment will be abrogated, and woe unto him who teaches that even the least of the commandments can be ignored. Unless you think that was a typo, or maybe Jesus didn't mean it, or didn't know what he was talking about in that passage from matthew? > Or as summarized by his followers 20 years after his death As summarized by a single guy, who never met him, writing to non-jews- sure.

wl 3y ago

> Jesus was a jew, and while he wasn't a big fan of death penalties, he certainly believed that all 613 of the minutia-governing rules of judaism were important to obey. The tradition of there being 613 mitzvot likely dates a century or two after the death of Jesus.

knodi123 3y ago
Then interpret my use of that number as a literary allusion meant to refer to {the set of all commands of prophetic origin}.