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

[Ophiolite]

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

I do recognise that some responses are closer to the central view than others. I'm seeking to address which of all responses seem both sufficiently accepted yet still puzzling to me to merit further questions.

 

[gadar perets]

The way to determine Biblical truth is not by following the majority view, but by in depth Bible study under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. ViaCrucis is among about 90 million other Lutherans, but Catholics number over a billion. Catholics believe in purgatory, but Lutherans do not. Should all Lutherans embrace purgatory since that is what the majority believes?

As for you, Ophiolite, you will never understand Biblical doctrine or come to know the truths contained in Scripture until you first receive Yeshua as your Savior and then receive the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth (John 16:13). Even if you were to somehow learn the truth about your OP, it will do you no good without receiving Yeshua as your Savior.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

I too happen to agree that the whole christian thing is likely based on an actual historical person (or group of persons) which is later refered to as Jesus Christus. Wheter that was his real name or not isn't even that relevant to me.

All religions have their origins and I consider it actually unlikely that the entire religion is simply invented out of thin air. Obviously, real people and real events will form the base of it.

I have no problems with that at all.

However, making that assumptions and then calling it "fact" and even going further by calling the supernatural bits "facts" as well - obviously that's the point where I'm gonna go "uhu....."

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

I'm asking you about the claims you were making.

Don't tell me to do your homework.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

How?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Not interested in a transcript of an apologetics debate.

Do you have any actual evidence that you can point to, instead of a professional apologetic who's just firing of one "argument" after the other in a gish-gallop without actually providing evidence for any of them.

I'm aware of who WLC is. I'm aware of his routine. There is no independently verifiable evidence there.

I'm not interested in name drops or mere "arguments".

Point me directly to the objective / independent evidence, if there is any.

 

[Silmarien]

However, making that assumptions and then calling it "fact" and even going further by calling the supernatural bits "facts" as well - obviously that's the point where I'm gonna go "uhu....."

I wouldn't use the words "historical fact" to anything here aside from the existence of the New Testament documents and Christianity itself, no. But I wouldn't refer to the conclusions of biblical scholars as "assumptions" either, as if they were in no better a position to shed light upon the matter than any random person dragged off the street.

I don't think anyone here has referred to the supernatural aspects of the story as "facts," though. Some of us certainly infer or allow supernatural explanations, but that's not the same thing.

Not interested in a transcript of an apologetics debate.

Do you have any actual evidence that you can point to, instead of a professional apologetic who's just firing of one "argument" after the other in a gish-gallop without actually providing evidence for any of them.

I'm aware of who WLC is. I'm aware of his routine. There is no independently verifiable evidence there.

I'm not interested in name drops or mere "arguments".

Point me directly to the objective / independent evidence, if there is any.

If you're expecting historical scholarship to operate like a hard science, you're going to be disappointed no matter what. There is relatively little direct evidence outside of the Bible, and what there is generally serves as corroboration that places and people weren't just invented--we know that Pilate existed, we know that High Priests Caiaphas and Annas existed, we have good reason to believe that the existence of Jesus and James was attested to independently. All of this helps build the case that the Gospels were historically based and not creative fiction.

Biblical scholarship involves the study of the biblical documents themselves as historical sources, though. Obviously the most important questions that come up initially are how they can be relied upon at all, given the circumstances, and precisely how we should be approaching them. There are some interesting cases to be made, though, from Bauckham's insistence that the Gospel of Mark was based on eyewitness testimony to James Dunn revisiting what oral tradition really means. (The latter is my favorite biblical scholar, as he's quite willing to challenge scholarship that would support his own Christian beliefs.)

I went into biblical scholarship a skeptic, and came out... well, sympathetic, if not convinced. I don't rule out mass hallucination, though not being a naturalist, I don't assume it either. But this is a field you need to learn to navigate on its own terms; you can't expect ancient history to be clean and clear cut on this issue when it isn't on anything else.

 

[variant]

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.

I've heard this before, but the laws in the Bible don't divide themselves up that way, it is interpretation after the fact.

 

[Tolworth John]

I've heard this before, but the laws in the Bible don't divide themselves up that way, it is interpretation after the fact.

Really. How else does one understand rules about preparing for worship, what is to be offered and when as sacrifices or laws concerning the rights of people in trade, marriage etc. Where would you fit rules about morality?
That there are gray areas I don't doubt. Try reading Deuteronomy.

 

[gadar perets]

Really. How else does one understand rules about preparing for worship, what is to be offered and when as sacrifices or laws concerning the rights of people in trade, marriage etc. Where would you fit rules about morality?
That there are gray areas I don't doubt. Try reading Deuteronomy.

The problem with dividing the law into various groups is that people put some laws in the wrong group. For example, the Sabbath is a moral law that is usually categorized as a ceremonial law. This is done to justify its abolishment for Christians since Christians believe all ceremonial laws are abolished.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've heard this before, but the laws in the Bible don't divide themselves up that way, it is interpretation after the fact.

Right, the dividing of the Torah into "moral law" and "ceremonial law" (and the like) is post hoc, and isn't derived from biblical exegesis. Biblically the Torah was only ever given to one people (Israel) as part of unique covenant established with them alone (Deuteronomy 5:1-3, Psalm 147:19-20). In the New Testament the case is made that Gentile converts to Christianity are under no compulsion to observe the Torah (Acts ch. 15), and "Judaizing" is explicitly condemned (Galatians ch. 3). The problem, I suspect, is in conflating Torah with all divine law. As though if Torah is solely for the Jewish people then, therefore, "Do not murder" does not apply outside of the covenant made with Israel; except that's not the case. Both the Old Testament and the New expect a certain level of moral behavior from everybody, not just the covenant people. Don't murder, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't mistreat orphans, widows, the poor, the hungry, act justly, be kind, etc. So there is some sort of moral expectation from all human beings. In Judaism this is sometimes described in rabbinical literature as the "Seven Noachide Laws", in Christianity a more vague concept of "Law" is used, in Lutheranism especially this is the case, as the Law is defined in Lutheranism as everything which God commands, in distinction to the Gospel which is what God promises. The dichotomy of these two is summed up in Martin Luther's Heidelberg Disputation as follows:

"The Law says 'Do this' and it is never done.
Grace says 'Trust this' and it is done already."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gadar perets]

In the New Testament the case is made that Gentile converts to Christianity are under no compulsion to observe the Torah (Acts ch. 15), and "Judaizing" is explicitly condemned (Galatians ch. 3).

That is not the case the NT makes. That is the case Christian interpretation makes. Acts 15:21 actually makes the case for Torah. Those four prohibitions were just the beginning. They were commands that the Gentiles needed to keep in order to foster fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. However, as the Gentile believers heard Moses read every Sabbath in the synagogues, they would learn the rest of Torah.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is not the case the NT makes. That is the case Christian interpretation makes. Acts 15:21 actually makes the case for Torah. Those four prohibitions were just the beginning. They were commands that the Gentiles needed to keep in order to foster fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. However, as the Gentile believers heard Moses read every Sabbath in the synagogues, they would learn the rest of Torah.

So the Council of Jerusalem argued that Gentiles didn't have to observe Torah in order that they could then learn to observe Torah later? Is that why St. Paul told the Judaizers that they might as well castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12)?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tolworth John]

The problem with dividing the law into various groups is that people put some laws in the wrong group. For example, the Sabbath is a moral law that is usually categorized as a ceremonial law. This is done to justify its abolishment for Christians since Christians believe all ceremonial laws are abolished.

And do you think that God is worried about quibbles over the law?
We are saved by faith in Jesus, not by keeping the law.
The 10C are our guide for Christian living, if someone wants to follow other OT laws like keeping Saturday as the Sabeth etc that is up to them.

 

[gadar perets]

So the Council of Jerusalem argued that Gentiles didn't have to observe Torah in order that they could then learn to observe Torah later? Is that why St. Paul told the Judaizers that they might as well castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12)?

-CryptoLutheran

Of course not. Keeping Torah was not the issue. Keeping Torah in order to be saved was the issue (Acts 15:1, 11). The case with the Galatians was similar except it concerned being justified by Torah rather than saved by Torah (Galatians 5:4). It is the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant that empowers the believer to keep the Torah that is written in his heart (Ezekiel 36:26-27; Jeremiah 31:33).

 

[gadar perets]

And do you think that God is worried about quibbles over the law?

Quibbles, no. Outright refusal to obey the law, yes. When you teach someone they don't have to keep the law, you teach them to sin for sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). That is a big deal to God.

We are saved by faith in Jesus, not by keeping the law.

Correct, but that doesn't mean we are free to break the law. Keeping the law is a fruit of our salvation, not the means to it. A believer will obey all Ten Commandments, for example, not so they can be saved, but because they are already saved.

The 10C are our guide for Christian living, if someone wants to follow other OT laws like keeping Saturday as the Sabeth etc that is up to them.

That is a contradiction. If the 10Cs are our guide, then they guide us to keep the 7th day holy which is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. They do NOT guide us to keep the first day holy (Sunday). Man does that.

 

[Hawkins]

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that the words of Jesus in this specific situation modified the OT law in regard to the stoning of adulterers. This is the sort of answer I was rather hoping for, but I wonder if there is something more generic, covering all the OT laws rather than "one at a time". The second part of your post seems to address this, but I need to reflect on it properly.

Laws and covenants are difficult topics to be harmonized with the Bible. You can however get a grips on how difficult the topic can be by referencing how human laws function in a typical western country such as England or the US. It's never something simple.

In a nutshell no laws ever need to be changed. A covenant is used to define "what law" under which you will be judged. People thus hop over from one covenant to another while no laws are ever needed to be changed. When you hop over from an older covenant to a new one, you are now subject to a new set of judgment rules. That said, the covenant signed off with Moses is a covenant applicable to only the Jews or converts. It's not a covenant for the gentiles. The Jews can hop over from this covenant to the New Covenant brought by Jesus, while the gentiles hop over from another older covenant (it's possible to be as old as the one signed with Noah) to the same New Covenant.

Thus stoning is still a valid law for the Jews under the Mosaic covenant. However by Jesus' behavior in the Bible it says that it's not the laws which becomes obsolete. It's the lack of the qualified executioners which virtually puts the laws into a state of "no enforcement". Jesus said that whoever thinks that he's qualified then he can throw his stone to the prostitute. In modern days, it says the one is not guilty not because of the laws are obsolete. It's because the lack of a valid jury and judge which puts the case into a "no verdict" state.

Moreover, the main purpose of laws and covenants are to identify the righteous from the wicked. Humans need to hop over to another covenant if the older covenant has lost the effect of capability to do this identification. The old covenant, after loosing its effect, virtually puts everyone under that covenant to death, righteous and wicked alike. That's why by the New Covenant the prostitute in the end is a righteous who the Mosaic covenant can never identify. To put it another way, the laws are for the righteous to stone the wicked. However if the execution of the prostitute did occur it became that the wicked stoned the righteous.

 

[gadar perets]

In a nutshell no laws ever need to be changed. A covenant is used to define "what law" under which you will be judged. People thus hop over from one covenant to another while no laws are ever needed to be changed. When you hop over from an older covenant to a new one, you are now subject to a new set of judgment rules. That said, the covenant signed off with Moses is a covenant applicable to only the Jews or converts. It's not a covenant for the gentiles. The Jews can hop over from this covenant to the New Covenant brought by Jesus, while the gentiles hop over from another older covenant (it's possible to be as old as the one signed with Noah) to the same New Covenant.

Yes, we are to "hop over" to the New Covenant, but the New Covenant consists of Torah written on the heart and mind (Jeremiah 31:33). It is not a new set of laws. It is the same Torah that existed under the OC, but administered in a new way. The Torah was external, but is now internal with better sacrifices, better priesthood, better Temple, etc.

 

[Soyeong]

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.

Hello,

I do not believe that any of the rules in the OT are defunct, but that God's ways are eternal, though sadly my view is not mainstream. However, it is important to keep in mind that even when the Law was first given to Moses, there was not a single person who was required to obey every single law, and not even Jesus obeyed the laws in regard to a woman's period or to giving birth. Some laws were only for the King, High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, people living in the land, strangers living among them, and for everyone. Furthermore, many of the laws come with conditions under which they apply, such as the Sabbath, which only applies when it is the 7th day, or to laws in regard to temple practice that only apply when there is a temple in which to practice them.

There is also the problem that the laws were given to a theocratic nation, so it becomes an issue of who has jurisdiction when we have citizenship in a different nation. Even when Jews were under a theocratic nation, they did not have a history of executing someone every time the Law prescribed it, but rather they often imposed a fine instead. The harsher penalty was to show the seriousness of the sin, whereas the light penalty was to show the mercy of God in the hope the person would repent from their actions. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that mercy was one of the weightier matters of the Law, so if mercy is not evident in how we are obeying it, then we are not obeying it correctly.

In John 8:1-12, it recounts an incident with Jesus and a woman accused of adultery, but this is example of Jesus following the Law rather than making changes to how it is obeyed. There was no judge to pronounce a sentence (Deuteronomy 19:17-21), there was no man accused (Leviticus 20:10), he didn't have any witnesses to examine (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 19:5), and he did not have a confession, so if he had condemned her, then he would have acted in violation of the Law. Just a few verses later Jesus said that he judged no one (John 8:15) and he also said that he came not to judge (John 12:47), so he did not exercise authority as a magistrate and did not condemn her, but he did recognize her action as sin, and told her to go and sin no more. In any case, Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins, so it would not be appropriate to to enforce a penalty that has already been paid, but I do think that Christians are required to refrain from eating unclean animals, such as shellfish.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Hello,

I do not believe that any of the rules in the OT are defunct, but that God's ways are eternal, though sadly my view is not mainstream. However, it is important to keep in mind that even when the Law was first given to Moses, there was not a single person who was required to obey every single law, and not even Jesus obeyed the laws in regard to a woman's period or to giving birth. Some laws were only for the King, High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, people living in the land, strangers living among them, and for everyone. Furthermore, many of the laws come with conditions under which they apply, such as the Sabbath, which only applies when it is the 7th day, or to laws in regard to temple practice that only apply when there is a temple in which to practice them.

There is also the problem that the laws were given to a theocratic nation, so it becomes an issue of who has jurisdiction when we have citizenship in a different nation. Even when Jews were under a theocratic nation, they did not have a history of executing someone every time the Law prescribed it, but rather they often imposed a fine instead. The harsher penalty was to show the seriousness of the sin, whereas the light penalty was to show the mercy of God in the hope the person would repent from their actions. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that mercy was one of the weightier matters of the Law, so if mercy is not evident in how we are obeying it, then we are not obeying it correctly.

In John 8:1-12, it recounts an incident with Jesus and a woman accused of adultery, but this is example of Jesus following the Law rather than making changes to how it is obeyed. There was no judge to pronounce a sentence (Deuteronomy 19:17-21), there was no man accused (Leviticus 20:10), he didn't have any witnesses to examine (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 19:5), and he did not have a confession, so if he had condemned her, then he would have acted in violation of the Law. Just a few verses later Jesus said that he judged no one (John 8:15) and he also said that he came not to judge (John 12:47), so he did not exercise authority as a magistrate and did not condemn her, but he did recognize her action as sin, and told her to go and sin no more. In any case, Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins, so it would not be appropriate to to enforce a penalty that has already been paid, but I do think that Christians are required to refrain from eating unclean animals, such as shellfish.

What is this about Jesus not obeying the laws of a woman’s period?