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

[Moral Orel]

Jesus is referring to the fact that His followers weren't washing their hands before they eat, ritual hand washing or netilat yadayim was (and is) something done in Judaism. Ritual washings of various sorts are proscribed in the Written Torah (Pentateuch), though this case is chiefly something derived from the traditions from the Oral Torah (which was later written down as the Mishnah and Gemara, which comprise the Talmud). These religious leaders were offended that Jesus' followers weren't abiding by the rabbinic tradition of ritual hand-washing before eating; it is in response to this that Jesus says that it is what comes out of a person, not what goes in them, that makes someone unclean.

This passage is often used as a proof text that Jesus overturned Jewish dietary proscriptions, but contextually that's not what is happening here.

-CryptoLutheran

I know that what started the whole thing was them eating with unclean hands, and Matthew doesn't say it, but Mark 7:19 clearly states that He "declared all foods clean". If it was just the context of the story to go by, I'd agree with you. But Mark seems to have some additional insight that He meant more than just hand washing.

 

[Tolworth John]

Those are historical claims, not facts.



How so?

They are facts because there is evidence that they happened.

"Arguing about OT laws, Gods's action in the OT etc are really side issues"
What is the point in debating/arguing about these issues if one does not believe in them or that they happened?
It is at best an intellectual exercise and at worse point scoring.

 

[Tolworth John]

I think the historical facts are dubious.
I think Jesus may be a composite of a real individual, or individuals blended with myths.

Unfortunetly what you think is at odds with what even atheistic schollars know to be true.
see '
Bart Ehrman, who writes,
The resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith. Unfortunately, it also is a tradition about Jesus that historians have difficulty dealing with. As I said, there are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. I say with relative certainty because historians do have some questions about the traditions of Jesus' burial. . . .'
May I suggest reading more of what Bart Ehrman believes and also what Willial Lane Craig believes at:-
Contemporary Scholarship and Jesus’ Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

 

[DogmaHunter]

They are facts because there is evidence that they happened.

No, there isn't. There is only the bible story - which is the claim.

"Arguing about OT laws, Gods's action in the OT etc are really side issues"
What is the point in debating/arguing about these issues if one does not believe in them or that they happened?
It is at best an intellectual exercise and at worse point scoring.

In a thread called "aspects of christianity that strike me as highly questionable", what did you expect was going to be discussed?

The El Classico of FC Barcelona vs Real Madrid?

 

[Ophiolite]

Unfortunetly what you think is at odds with what even atheistic schollars know to be true.
see '
Bart Ehrman, who writes,
The resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith. Unfortunately, it also is a tradition about Jesus that historians have difficulty dealing with. As I said, there are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. I say with relative certainty because historians do have some questions about the traditions of Jesus' burial. . . .'
May I suggest reading more of what Bart Ehrman believes and also what Willial Lane Craig believes at:-
Contemporary Scholarship and Jesus’ Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

Thank you for this input. The historical authenticity of Jesus is one of the points I wish to discuss in a future thread. I'd like to defer further discussion on this until then.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Unfortunetly what you think is at odds with what even atheistic schollars know to be true.
see '
Bart Ehrman, who writes,
The resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith. Unfortunately, it also is a tradition about Jesus that historians have difficulty dealing with. As I said, there are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. I say with relative certainty because historians do have some questions about the traditions of Jesus' burial. . . .'
May I suggest reading more of what Bart Ehrman believes and also what Willial Lane Craig believes at:-
Contemporary Scholarship and Jesus’ Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

Are you really suggesting here that there is an atheist who thinks the resurection is a historical fact? Are you really being serious?

 

[Tolworth John]

No, there isn't. There is only the bible story - which is the claim.



In a thread called "aspects of christianity that strike me as highly questionable", what did you expect was going to be discussed?

The El Classico of FC Barcelona vs Real Madrid?

May I surgest you become aware of an atheistic scholar who is highly rated for his intellect.
Bart Ehrman, who writes,
The resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith. Unfortunately, it also is a tradition about Jesus that historians have difficulty dealing with. As I said, there are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. I say with relative certainty because historians do have some questions about the traditions of Jesus' burial. . . .
Far more than just a claim.

 

[Tolworth John]

Are you really suggesting here that there is an atheist who thinks the resurection is a historical fact? Are you really being serious?

Check him out, don't take my word for it.
or follow this link to a transcript of William lane craig debating with Bart Ehrman.
Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

 

[DogmaHunter]

May I surgest you become aware of an atheistic scholar who is highly rated for his intellect.
Bart Ehrman, who writes,
The resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith. Unfortunately, it also is a tradition about Jesus that historians have difficulty dealing with. As I said, there are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. I say with relative certainty because historians do have some questions about the traditions of Jesus' burial. . . .
Far more than just a claim.

There is no evidence there.
It's just a guy saying that "we can be certain about a couple things".

The quote doesn't even explain why. It doesn't even go into detail about which things.

And if you were under the impression that I would agree with whatever some supposedly "atheist" scholar is saying, simply because he's "atheist", then I can only say that you are mistaken.

What someone believes (or not) is of no interest to me, when it comes to the claims they make.
Claims fall and stand on their own merrit, not by who utters them or what they believe about whatever.

If it's right, it's right and if it's wrong it's wrong.
And the way to determine which is which, you need independent evidence. Not anecdotes or quotes.

Try again. And this time, post the actual evidence instead of some quote that doesn't say anything except repeating the claims.

 

[Halbhh]

you need independent evidence

Test His propositions then, His instructions on how to live in the accounts, the 4 gospels.

Test, get results.

 

[Tolworth John]

There is no evidence there.
It's just a guy saying that "we can be certain about a couple things".

The quote doesn't even explain why. It doesn't even go into detail about which things.

And if you were under the impression that I would agree with whatever some supposedly "atheist" scholar is saying, simply because he's "atheist", then I can only say that you are mistaken.

What someone believes (or not) is of no interest to me, when it comes to the claims they make.
Claims fall and stand on their own merrit, not by who utters them or what they believe about whatever.

If it's right, it's right and if it's wrong it's wrong.
And the way to determine which is which, you need independent evidence. Not anecdotes or quotes.

Try again. And this time, post the actual evidence instead of some quote that doesn't say anything except repeating the claims.

Then check him out.
That you don't know who is is says a lot about your lack of knowledge.

 

[Silmarien]

Are you really suggesting here that there is an atheist who thinks the resurection is a historical fact? Are you really being serious?

To clarify: Bart Ehrman seems to accept that the earliest Christians had what you could consider Resurrection experiences, and that this is what sparked early Christianity. Unsurprisingly, he would prefer a naturalistic explanation and has argued that they were hallucinations. He does not believe in the Empty Tomb or the Resurrection itself, but is extremely critical of fringe theories like the Jesus Myth.

The point is that if if both skeptical and non-skeptical biblical scholars agree on certain issues, you should probably listen to what they have to say and why they say it. It doesn't mean that you have to accept non-naturalistic explanations, though. Of course, if you're not really interested in the topic, it's certainly understandable that you don't want to explore it further. Just realize that this makes you unqualified to even begin to discuss issues of historicity.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Citation please.

 

[ToBeLoved]

To add a bit to my previous summary.

There were some things that tge apostles were still unsure of and duisagreed about after Jesus death. Jesus often spoke in parables and of spiritual things in parables.

The subject of food and what was ok to eat was one of these topics. God has to give Peter more than one vision showing Peter that food that was previously deemed unclean by Hebrew Jews were not unclean under Jesus.

So it’s not all cut and dry with Christ’s death. There were some things that God clarified later. This is part of scripture.

 

[Uber Genius]

Please take your distasteful, egregious accusations elsewhere. Thank you.

I was too quick to respond. My earlier comments were egregious. I have left them without edit to serve as a bad example.

I typed your query, "what is the role of jewish law in the new testament" into google and this is the first article it returned. It will take a couple minutes to read. But answers your question in a very complete fashion with references.

https://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament

Here is an excerpt:

"THE END OF THE MOSAIC LAW AS A RULE OF LIFE
THE FACT ESTABLISHED
Several passages of Scripture clearly establish that the coming of Christ has brought an end to the Mosaic Law. Paul specifically states that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). This instituted a new law or principle of life, i.e., the law of the Spirit, the one of liberty and grace (Rom. 8:2, 13). This fact was also clearly settled by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. A council was convened in the church at Jerusalem to look into the issue of the Law and its place in the life of believers because some were saying “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved,” and because even certain of the Pharisees who had believed were also saying “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.” The conclusion of the council, consisting of apostles and elders, was to reject the concept of placing New Testament believers under the yoke of the Law (15:6-11). The only thing the Jerusalem Council asked was that Gentile believers control their liberty in matters that might be offensive to Jewish believers, but they did not seek to place the believers under the yoke of the Law for they realized the Law had come to an end.

Finally, the book of Hebrews demonstrates that the old covenant of the Mosaic Law was only temporary and has been replaced by the coming of Christ whose ministry is based on (1) a better priesthood, one after the order of Melchizedek which is superior to Aaron’s, and (2) a better covenant with better promises (see Heb. 7-10). The old covenant was only a shadow of heavenly things, and if it had been able to make men perfect before God there would have been no occasion for a second or new covenant (see Heb. 7:11-12; 8:1-13). This change in the priesthood also necessitates a change in the Law. Such a change shows the Law has been terminated or done away."

Galatians Chapter 3 compares the Law with grace. It is a common text that demonstrates from one of the earliest Christian text, that the Law was viewed as fulfilled by Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. Further that following that law after it had been fulfilled was "foolish," "ignorant," and "bewitched."

Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 3 - English Standard Version

Hopefully my research on your behalf was more helpful than my previous comments.

 

[gadar perets]

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.

Yeshua fulfilled the Torah perfectly. Not one jot or tittle is defunct or abolished (Matthew 5:17-19), but they are in the process of being fulfilled. For example, Yeshua's sacrifice fulfilled animal sacrifices for those who receive him as their Savior and atoning sacrifice. However, animal sacrifices remain for those who reject Yeshua. Such sacrifices will again be offered during the Millennium by those who have not received Yeshua.

The death penalty is still in place for those who break certain commands, however, since we no longer live under a theocracy with YHWH as King or even under those who YHWH appointed kings in Israel, the death penalty has been taken out of Israel's hands and put in YHWH's hands to be administered at the appointed time (Hebrews 10:28-31).

As for the dietary laws, they are all in place. No believer or unbeliever is permitted to eat anything unclean such as shellfish, pig, etc.

 

[gadar perets]

BTW, there will be those who think it is OK to eat shellfish or that the entire Mosaic Law is abolished, etc. They have their interpretations and I have mine. One can be supported by Scripture and the other cannot. It takes time to study these issues out in Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have not come back, as I originally declared I would, with further comments and questions. This is for two reasons:

• The number and detail of the responses is greater than I anticipated.(Again, thanks to all.)
• There are multiple contradictions between different responses that I am seeking to get to grips with.

Watch this space.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I know that what started the whole thing was them eating with unclean hands, and Matthew doesn't say it, but Mark 7:19 clearly states that He "declared all foods clean". If it was just the context of the story to go by, I'd agree with you. But Mark seems to have some additional insight that He meant more than just hand washing.

I would note that this is a gloss added by the Evangelist, and not part of the pericope proper.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have not come back, as I originally declared I would, with further comments and questions. This is for two reasons:

• The number and detail of the responses is greater than I anticipated.(Again, thanks to all.)
• There are multiple contradictions between different responses that I am seeking to get to grips with.

Watch this space.

For what it's worth what I've sought to present in my responses in this thread is the traditional Christian perspective--others have also done the same in their own responses. As such I think what what I've said here is something that would be agreed upon by the vast majority of Christians from across different backgrounds--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. Perspectives which would suggest that, for example, Christians are still supposed to follow the dietary restrictions of the Torah represent a fringe perspective that, from the orthodox and traditional view, would be regarded as heterodox and is precisely the sort of thing which St. Paul and the ancient Church condemned as "Judaizing". I.e. teaching that it was essential for Gentiles to act like Jews in order to be Christians, some even saying that one couldn't be saved unless one was circumcised, and observed Torah. Paul condemns this in several places, notably in Galatians ch. 3 and Colossians ch. 2.

-CryptoLutheran