Aspects of Christian belief that strike me as highly questionable - Part 1.

Acts 15.

Basically, a dispute arose as to whether non-Jewish believers in Jesus needed to observe Jewish law (specifically, whether they needed to be circumcised). The early church decided that - aside from four specific things* - we do not need to observe the law.

*No idolatry, no fornication, no eating blood or strangled animals.

Perhaps if you read that passage, you might come back with any follow up questions?

The OT laws can be divided into three groups, the civil laws, cerimonial laws relating to conduct in or preparing for worship in the temple and moral laws.

As we do not live in or as part of the kingdom of Israel the civil laws do not apply to us. So laws about stoning adulters, disobedient sons, the hygiene rules, marriage arangements etc do not apply.

The cerimonial laws about sacrifices and preparing for worship in the temple do not apply because there function was to put the worshipper in a right relationship with God and all these rules and regulation were fulfilled by Jesus.

That only leaves the moral laws, the 10C, which still apply as the enable us to determine what is or is not a right action as far as God is concerned.

The gospels certainly record Jesus as saying some things which relativise (if not outright do away with) various aspects of the law. (For example, that it's not what you eat that makes you unclean). But the passage I pointed to is probably the clearest and most unambiguous place it's dealt with.

Ophiolite said:

Could you provide Chapter and Verse on a couple of these examples? That would be helpful.

Click to expand...

Have a look at Matthew 15:1-20, for example; or Mark 2:23 - 3:5.

The other thing worth remembering is that although the gospels record Jesus' words, in fact they were written later than most of the letters; so for some of the earliest reasoning on these matters, one must actually look to what Paul had to say.

Ophiolite said:

I try not to be selfish, but I really don't want to wade through scores of threads to find a focused discussion on the matters that currently interest me. I'm sure that each of the points I may raise have likely been raised multiple times before. That being the case feel free to point me to any thread or post where that matter is dealt with clearly and succinctly rather than taking the time to explain things, yet again, to a non-believer.

Background declaration: my profile says agnostic, because that is what I am, but in regard to the Christian God I am atheist.

I have several quibbles with what I understand to be the generic Christian position, but wish to restrict discussion to one per thread. I'll hope to reach a conclusion or an irreconcilable impasse on one, before starting another.

So, I'll open with one where I think you will actually stand a reasonable chance of educating and convincing me.

I don't recall the correct terminology, but I understand that the NT subsumes the OT rendering some of the rules and regulations defunct. For example, it is no longer necessary to stone adulterers and one may even eat shellfish. Would someone identify where that arrangement is detailed in the NT. Thank you.

Click to expand...

God made a covenant with a particular people in Sinai, which included giving them a specific set of instructions and laws--the Torah--that covenant established them as His covenant nation. It was never intended to be a universal law for everyone. So, for example, Deuteronomy 5:1-3 reads,

"Hear, O Israel, the statutes and ordinances that I am addressing to you today; you shall learn them and observe them diligently. The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today."

Additionally, the Psalmist writes,

"He declares his word to Jacob,
his statutes and ordinances to Israel.
He has not dealt thus with any other nation;
they do not know his ordinances.
Praise the Lord!" - Psalm 147:19-20

Thus these commandments were never for everyone, but only the covenant nation.

A controversy that arose early in Christianity was how to address the conversion of the Gentiles to Christianity; namely must Gentiles become Jews? One faction argued yes, that Gentile converts to Christianity must convert and become Jews, receive circumcision and observe all the commandments of Torah. This position was rejected by the Apostles, most notably the Apostle Paul, and the Council of Jerusalem decided explicitly that there was no requirement for Gentiles to become Jews--that Gentile Christians were valid in and of themselves as Gentiles. One can read about these events and the Council of Jerusalem in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament.

Traditional Christian thought confesses, further, that Jesus Christ is the fullness and fulfillment of all God's covenants and promises which He made prior--for example to Abraham, to Israel, and to David. Thus we see mention of a "new covenant" several places in the writings which make up the New Testament, most notably at the Last Supper where Christ speaks of "the cup of the New Covenant which is in My blood" and the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews which says, "But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises." (Hebrews 8:6) and "In speaking of 'a new covenant,' he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear." (Hebrews 8:13) Thus the position of the author of the Hebrews is that the new covenant and promises established in and through Jesus, the Messiah, render everything that came before unnecessary. And traditional Christian thought affirms this, insofar as it comprehends all that came before as serving the purpose of pointing forward to Jesus, and thus with Jesus the fullness of what those things sought to point to are no longer necessary.

St. Paul the Apostle writes in his letter to the Ephesians,

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God." - Ephesians 2:13-22

What he is saying is that Gentiles, who once were aliens and foreigners from Israel, are no longer; but that in Jesus God has made both Jew and Gentile a single and united people, a "new humanity". The former things which kept Jews and Gentiles separate no longer do so, because in Jesus there is something new which makes both one united people of God.

So there's several things ultimately going on:

1) The commandments given to the Jews in the Torah were only ever intended for the Jews as part of the covenant God made with them on Mt. Horeb through Moses.
2) Jesus, as the Messiah, is the fulfillment and fullness of every promise and covenant which came before; and in and through Him is a new covenant for all people.
3) Christians, both Jew and Gentile, are a new people of a new covenant in Jesus the Messiah.

We don't stone people, because the Church has no command to punish; that command is only relevant to the Jewish people as part of the covenant God made with them at Horeb and was only relevant while they were in the land, with a valid Sanhedrin (a court of law to pass judgment). Not only does the Church have no command to punish, we read in the writings of the Church Fathers,

"Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins." - St. Clement of Alexandria, Fragments, Maximus, Sermon 55

-CryptoLutheran

Ophiolite said:

Very interesting. I have never previously encountered this explanation. What is it in scripture that identifies the various laws as being in one or other category?

Click to expand...

To an extent it depends how one reads them.
Most people would take laws about marriage or the use of fair weights in trade etc as being civil laws.

While laws to do with sacrifice and ritual purity/cleanness etc are cerimonial.

I have a question for you.

What do you think of Jesus, of the historical facts that he existed, wes executed, burried and the tomb was found to be empty?

Arguing about OT laws, Gods's action in the OT etc are really side issues.

The important question is as I've already asked what do you think of Jesus?

Paidiske said:

Acts 15.

Basically, a dispute arose as to whether non-Jewish believers in Jesus needed to observe Jewish law (specifically, whether they needed to be circumcised). The early church decided that - aside from four specific things* - we do not need to observe the law.

*No idolatry, no fornication, no eating blood or strangled animals.

Perhaps if you read that passage, you might come back with any follow up questions?

Click to expand...

Does that mean that jewish followers of jesus are still expected to stone adulterers, kill people who don't observe the sabbath and are allowed to keep human slaves and treat them as their personal property?

Also, based on what exactly did that "early church" decide this?

Tolworth John said:

What do you think of Jesus, of the historical facts that he existed, wes executed, burried and the tomb was found to be empty?

Click to expand...

Those are historical claims, not facts.

Arguing about OT laws, Gods's action in the OT etc are really side issues.

Click to expand...

How so?

Paidiske said:

The gospels certainly record Jesus as saying some things which relativise (if not outright do away with) various aspects of the law. (For example, that it's not what you eat that makes you unclean). But the passage I pointed to is probably the clearest and most unambiguous place it's dealt with.

Click to expand...

Just throwing more wrenches in the works, but that particular passage you mention has always bothered me as well. First Jesus says that no laws from the Old Covenant should be done away with, then He makes all foods clean, then Paul does away with a lot of the other laws, but says some food is still unclean.

Now people explain to me that the "until" that Jesus spoke of was "until His death and resurrection", and frankly I'm not buying that, but even if it was the case, He made food clean before His death. And Paul stated some food is unclean after His resurrection, so...

Ophiolite said:

I try not to be selfish, but I really don't want to wade through scores of threads to find a focused discussion on the matters that currently interest me. I'm sure that each of the points I may raise have likely been raised multiple times before. That being the case feel free to point me to any thread or post where that matter is dealt with clearly and succinctly rather than taking the time to explain things, yet again, to a non-believer.

Background declaration: my profile says agnostic, because that is what I am, but in regard to the Christian God I am atheist.

I have several quibbles with what I understand to be the generic Christian position, but wish to restrict discussion to one per thread. I'll hope to reach a conclusion or an irreconcilable impasse on one, before starting another.

So, I'll open with one where I think you will actually stand a reasonable chance of educating and convincing me.

I don't recall the correct terminology, but I understand that the NT subsumes the OT rendering some of the rules and regulations defunct. For example, it is no longer necessary to stone adulterers and one may even eat shellfish. Would someone identify where that arrangement is detailed in the NT. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Welcome. I will be happy to assist. I am currently at work right now. But I will have time to respond in a couple hours.

Ophiolite said:

For example, it is no longer necessary to stone adulterers and one may even eat shellfish. Would someone identify where that arrangement is detailed in the NT. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Since you asked about stoning adulterers, we are taken by what Jesus did in exactly that situation --

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

John 8 NIV
--------
Every Old Covenant punishment and also all the small and many detailed rules for cleanliness and sacrifices and such under the Old Covenant are entirely done away with -- and instead we now have the real and true spirit (ultimate goal) of all the Law, fulfilled and restated by Christ as He established a New Covenant.

He brought to us the true spirit of the Law in it's now-perfected form, now "written on our hearts" once we come to Him in faith.

This --

37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

And here is the way He said to do these --

"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the prophets."


(The Law and the prophets here means all Law, rules and instructions in the Old Testament, from A to Z. They are now in final form, in truth and in spirit, written on our hearts.)

DogmaHunter said:

Does that mean that jewish followers of jesus are still expected to stone adulterers, kill people who don't observe the sabbath and are allowed to keep human slaves and treat them as their personal property?

Click to expand...

Well, for one, you'll note that Jews aren't doing any of those things today; because the commandments of the Torah don't exist in a vacuum, they exist within a living tradition and context. For example there needs to be a Sanhedrin in order to exercise judgment, and there are rules which govern the conduct of the Sanhedrin and how to execute justice--there must be reliable witnesses for example. And further, Jewish halacha and rabbinical precedent establish that the death penalty is the most extreme course of action that can be taken and in order for it to be taken there must be sufficient grounds for it. In some cases, an example being the "rebellious son", rabbinical and Jewish legal interpretation holds that the the "rebellious son" is near impossible, and that at no point in the history of Judaism has anyone ever charged with it and sentenced to death under Jewish law.

So, no, Jewish Christians aren't going to go around stoning people if for that reason alone--there's no Sanhedrin and thus no valid legal authority to exercise judgment on such matters. But further, Jewish Christians are under the same religious obligations as Gentile Christians--the law of Christ is absolute, and He says, "Love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek".

Also, based on what exactly did that "early church" decide this?

Click to expand...

An examination of the things prohibited by the Council of Jerusalem indicates that these are pagan observances or things associated with paganism and pagan worship. For example the word translated as "fornication" in the New Testament is inappropriate contenteia, which refers to prostitution/have sex with a prostitute, and it often shows up within the context of pagan practices indicating that, often, what is being condemned is temple prostitution. Sacred prostitution was an institution in the ancient Greco-Roman world, sex with a temple prostitute was an act of pagan worship, along with eating foods sacrificed to idols, and the like; thus the charge was that Gentile Christians, converts to Christianity who were formerly pagans, should be admonished against continuing certain practices associated with paganism. And that is precisely the position the Jerusalem Council takes, while submitting that Gentile Christians were under no obligation to be circumcised (i.e. become Jews) and observe Torah.

So the early Church came to this conclusion based on the fact that Torah observance was for the Jews only (this itself firmly established in the Torah itself, and is Jewish religious teaching both ancient and contemporary); and upon the conviction that God accepts Gentiles as Gentiles and thus there is no need for Gentiles to become Jews. Further, the Christian belief that in Jesus God brought fulfillment and fullness to the ancient covenants and promises which He had previously made, and thus in Jesus a new covenant was established that sets forth a new reality for both Jew and Gentile as a single people united together mystically by God in Jesus the Messiah.

-CryptoLutheran

Nicholas Deka said:

Just throwing more wrenches in the works, but that particular passage you mention has always bothered me as well. First Jesus says that no laws from the Old Covenant should be done away with, then He makes all foods clean, then Paul does away with a lot of the other laws, but says some food is still unclean.

Now people explain to me that the "until" that Jesus spoke of was "until His death and resurrection", and frankly I'm not buying that, but even if it was the case, He made food clean before His death. And Paul stated some food is unclean after His resurrection, so...

Click to expand...

A perhaps more standard interpretation is that Jesus is "making full" (πληρῶσαι plerosai) the "law and the prophets"; that is as the Messiah He is the one toward which the Law and Prophets ultimately point to. As the Messiah He is the fullness of all that came before. They are not abolished, but rather have fulfilled their ultimate goal and purpose. Further, one might also argue that for Jews (non-Christian Jews that is) the covenant does still remain. This would make sense in terms of some of St. Paul's statements he makes in his letter to the Romans, and also the statement in the Torah itself that the covenant established at Mt. Horeb is "forever" or "everlasting"; though in other cases the Torah seems to suggest the covenant is contingent on holding fast to the Torah itself. In either case, the mainstream Christian position is that Christians--whether Jew or Gentile--are under the new covenant established in the Messiah, and that we are therefore a singular Christian people.

-CryptoLutheran

Ophiolite said:

Thank you for your rapid response. I have re-read the passage, though doubtless careful study would reveal more information. (I don't recall it from much earlier Bible readings.)

If I were searching for Jesus I would find it troubling. My simplistic interpretation runs a little like this:

"They're not happy about this circumcision business. Any ideas?"
"It's got me flummoxed. Let's go back and see what the others say."

Much debate and argument ensues.

"So, we are agreed on this compromise. Just four, not especially arduous proscriptions and the rest can be ignored. That way we don't lose the momentum we are building up with these Gentile conversions."

I had hoped that the explanation would be directly manifest in the reported words of Jesus rather than as the outcome of a political decision made without full recognition of the breadth and duration of its impact.

Click to expand...

This is why you are not making progress understanding Christianity. Anachronism is a real problem.

Had you done any work at all understanding how the second-temple Jew thought, or what type of cultural influences surrounded them you would have some background to set the context. As it is you create a straw man out of a text you take out of context.

Two fallacies for the price of one, fantastic value!

Please don't ask people to do you homework for you. A 30-second internet search could have provided ample material. Instead of trying not to be selfish, why don't you try not to be intellectually lazy, or misrepresent ancient texts.