• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Old Testament for Christians

fschmidt

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2010
427
28
El Paso, TX
Visit site
✟32,865.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I am looking for feedback on something I wrote which is copied below. I don't know much about Messianic Judaism but I just ran into a Messianic blog about keeping the Torah, and that inspired me to post here. What I wrote below was written with Orthodox Christians in mind, but I am curious to know what Messianics think of it.



Q. What is the Old Testament?

A. The Old Testament is God's ethics explained in a collection of many types of writing.

Q. Is this ethics required for salvation?

A. No, not in the Christian view. The Christian view is that salvation comes from faith in Christ.

Q. Then what is the point of the Old Testament for Christians?

A. Those with true faith in Christ should want to follow Christ which clearly includes trying to adhere to God's will, and God's will includes the ethics of the Old Testament. Jesus prayed that "Thy will be done" (Thy referring to God). James said "faith without works is dead". Being ethical is referred to in Christianity as "works". Since faith should imply works, works are proof of faith.

Q. Is there any other benefit to following God's ethics?

A. Yes, the Old Testament repeatedly points out that a society that follows God's ethics will prosper but an unethical society will fail, for example in Deuteronomy 28. In an ethical society, people can trust each other and this trust makes the society strong. It also makes life better for moral people.

Q. What about those Christians who claim to have faith without works?

A. Their faith is a lie.

Q. But millions of Protestant claim this.

A. Modern Protestants are the world's biggest liars and their faith is the ultimate lie. These modern Protestants all believe that they are like prophets and have a direct line to God who tells them what to do. Of course this is nonsense and what they interpret as God's word is nothing more than their own emotions telling them what to do. So in fact their faith is in their own emotions, not in Christ or God. Their worship is self-worship. They do this in God's name, violating the third of the Ten Commandments which says not to misuse God's name. How can I be sure of this? Jesus addressed modern Protestantism directly here:

--------------------------------------------------
“Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So you’ll recognize them by their fruit.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’ Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’
--------------------------------------------------
Matthew 7:15-23

What kind of fruit does modern Protestantism produce? Clearly bad fruit, every modern Protestant society today is a moral disgrace.

Q. But wasn't the Reformation all about overthrowing the unjustified works of the Catholic Church?

A. Yes, but these works weren't God's works. The Catholic Church also misused God's name to invent works in the name of God that aren't actually works of God. Martin Luther rejected these Catholic works but offered no substitute. John Calvin fixed this by correctly pointing out that true faith should produce true works as found in the ethics of the Bible. Though Luther and the Eastern Orthodox Church disagree on many theological points, this is one point on which they are in complete agreement.

Q. So then Protestantism was on the right path?

A. Yes, on this issue, early Protestantism was on the right path. This was true of all early Protestant sects influenced by Calvin and was especially true of the Puritans. And what were the fruits of this form of Protestantism? The Enlightenment, the British Empire, and the United States. Not bad, I think. Judged by these fruits, the early Protestants were doing something right.

Q. So where did Protestantism go wrong?

A. In America in the early 1800s in the Christian Second Great Awakening. This was time of public fairs full of snake oil salesmen, and religion was much the same. All kinds of religious claims were being sold to the public, but the one that took hold, the easy remedy for salvation, was that an emotional experience that one took to mean "accepting Christ" was the means for Salvation. In particular, a preacher named Charles Finney promoted this view. This was a clear rejection of John Calvin's views including his view of the relationship between faith and works. So Christian works died for Protestants. From this point on, Protestant societies went into moral decline.

Q. Didn't Christ come to replace the Law with Faith?

A. The whole concept of "the Law" is misunderstood. The Old Testament is not a law book, it is a book of ethics. The Old Testament contains laws that were specific to the Israelite society of that time. These laws are examples of applied ethics, but these laws were never meant to be eternal, not even for Jews. The part of the Old Testament that contains these laws is called the "Torah" in Hebrew, and Torah means "teaching", not "law". Of course some laws are so basic that they are in fact fundamental ethical principles, so they are eternal because ethical principles are eternal. The obvious example of this is the Ten Commandments.

Q. So then what is all this talk about "the Law" about?

A. In fact it is the Pharisees who made Judaism legalistic. They focused on law instead of ethics and then they added their own laws. Jesus particularly objected to the added laws of the Pharisees. Jesus defended the Old Testament in Matthew 5:17-20. In English translations, Jesus seems to be defending "the Law" but in Hebrew versions of Matthew that were found, Jesus says "the Torah", not "the Law", which means that Jesus is defending the teachings of the Old Testament. Paul attacked the Law which is not what the Old Testament is really about and is largely a construct of the Pharisees.

Q. How can one be sure that the Old Testament is really about ethics and not law?

A. Just read it. What do the prophets talk about? What does most of the Old Testament talk about? Is it law or is it ethics? Read it and decide for yourself.

Q. Aren't Jews the ones who follow the Old Testament?

A. Not at all. Most Jews today are Rabbinic Jews and Rabbinic Jews follow the Talmud, not the Old Testament. The Talmud is based on the Old Testament but twists it beyond recognition and explicitly rejects God's authority which is replaced by the authority of the rabbis (Talmud, Bava Metzia 59a-b). The Orthodox rabbis of today are the direct descendants of the Pharisees. It is Orthodox Jewish law that every Orthodox rabbi must be taught by another rabbi which connects in an unbroken chain back to the Pharisees from the time of Jesus.

Q. Should Rabbinic Judaism be hated for twisting God's word?

A. No. Catholicism and modern Protestantism also twist God's word. We should focus on improving ourselves instead of hating others for being misguided.

Q. Is all Judaism so misguided?

A. No, Karaite Judaism follows the Old Testament, but it is a small sect of Judaism.

Q. Who else follows the Old Testament?

A. The Puritans followed the ethical principles of the Old Testament better than Jews ever did. The ethical principles of God are available to anyone who wants to follow them. Unfortunately it seems that few major religions are interested in God's ethics today. That is why the modern world is such a mess.

Q. How should a Christian follow God's ethics today?

A. Read the Bible and follow it.

Q. But many parts of the Old Testament seem archaic. How should these parts be applied?

A. One needs to understand the historical context and use this to find the underlying principles which can be applied today. I admit that this isn't easy. So it is best to do this with the help of an Old Testament Bible study group.

Q. Where can one find a good Old Testament study group?

A. I offer an online Old Testament study group here:

Scripturist

I also plan to offer a local group in El Paso where I live. You can also ask your priest.

Q. Are you, the author, Christian?

A. No, my beliefs are similar to Karaite Judaism.

Q. Why should we listen to you if you aren't Christian?

A. Jesus considered the good Samaritan to be his neighbor. The Samaritans weren't just any group, like most pagans. The Samaritans worshipped the same God as the Jews and had almost the same Torah. So Jesus's point was that people who share the same God and same ethics, and prove this by actually helping each other, are neighbors even if they have different beliefs and different ethnicity. True neighbors should help each other, so I would like to help Christians understand the Old Testament.
 

CherubRam

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2012
6,777
781
✟103,730.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Oneness
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There were the original protestant Christians, and there are those who came after them, and they also claimed to be the protestant Christians. The first group protested the teaching of Trinitarianism, Sunday Sabbath, Hell, and the authority of the Pope. The second group did not protest against those things. The Catholics discourage other religious groups from good works, but they encourage their own members to be involved. The New Testament comes from the Old Testament. The first Christians kept the commandments of God and the testimony of Yahshua. With the passing of the disciples other groups quickly stepped in, such as the Pagans, Gnostics, and Mystics. And so that is how we got to where we are today. In Babel / Babble. The laws that were done away with were the laws that govern the old priesthood and covenant. God's moral laws and Sabbath were not done away with in the New Covenant.
 
Upvote 0

Hoshiyya

Spenglerian
Mar 5, 2013
5,285
1,023
✟39,686.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I think your definition of Protestantism is very spot on, though I would probably define the "old testament" in different terms. It also appears to me you've never read the Talmud. Furthermore, Yeshua endorsed the Pharisee doctrine, but not the false religion of the Samaritans. Your view on Samaritans seems ahistorical and misguided. Samaritans and Jews were not "neighbours".
 
Upvote 0

fschmidt

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2010
427
28
El Paso, TX
Visit site
✟32,865.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Could you elaborate? I have browsed the Talmud, not read it. What part of the Talmud would you recommend I read? What Pharisee doctrine did Jesus endorse? What is wrong with my view of the Samaritans and what is wrong (nontrivially) with their beliefs?
 
Upvote 0

Hoshiyya

Spenglerian
Mar 5, 2013
5,285
1,023
✟39,686.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married

Regarding Talmud and Pharisees, do you expect me to launch into two separate lectures on these grand subjects ?

Briefly I can say: You should read the Talmud before commenting on it. I personally like seder Neziqin, but you can read it in almost any order. Make sure you read some introduction to the Talmud, written by a Rabbi. You probably cannot find a Talmud these days without some introductory notes, and for good reason !

Pharisaical Judaism and the teachings of Yeshua in the gospels agree on more things than they disagree. Their disagreements are apparently on matters like whether you "must" wash your hands before eating, or if you simply "should".

Remember: Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. (Matt 23:2-3)

Regarding the Samaritans, it is also a study on its own, but a bit easier to condense:

The Samaritans were not keeping Judaism. They would pretend to be Jews when it suited them, and would confess to not be Jews when it suited them. They were enemies of the Jews and would do things like throw corpses into the temple, and co-operate with the Romans against the Jews, telling them how and where to attack and win against the Jews. There is not a single endorsement of the Samaritan way or religion or attitude in scripture, whether TNK or NT. The "good Samaritan" mentioned in scripture is a FICTIONAL CONSTRUCT by Yeshua for the sake of a parable to prove that EVEN a Samaritan could HYPOTHETICALLY be good. The most famous Samaritan is Simon Magus, the first heretic.

The writings of Josephus are particularly of interest relative to the Samaritans.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fschmidt

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2010
427
28
El Paso, TX
Visit site
✟32,865.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Hoshiyya

Spenglerian
Mar 5, 2013
5,285
1,023
✟39,686.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
"What kind of fruit does modern Protestantism produce? Clearly bad fruit, every modern Protestant society today is a moral disgrace."

Agree completely. The non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christian nations are the most liberal, secular, hedonistic societies in the world.
However, you seem to view the British Empire and the United States as triumphs of Protestantism. The Protestant British and American civilizations INEVITABLY turn into secular societies, that's just inherent in Protestantism. So I do not adjudge the British Empire or the United States as "triumphs of Protestantism (as a religion)" by any means. They are no more triumphs than the Soviet Union.

The British Empire, the United States Empire and the Soviet Empire are all triumphs of Western-style Imperialism, but not triumphs of religion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
A

annier

Guest
Furthermore, Yeshua endorsed the Pharisee doctrine
It does not seem he did to me. I think this has to do with how a person defines the sect. I think many apply doctrines to the sect that do not necessarily apply to that sect alone. Other sects believed in the resurrection. Therefore this doctrine was not unique to the Pharisees alone. What was "unique" to the sect of the Pharisees, that defined them as Pharisees? And, what was unique to them alone that Christ agreed? Certainly he disagreed with their tradition as doctrine didn't he?
 
Upvote 0

Hoshiyya

Spenglerian
Mar 5, 2013
5,285
1,023
✟39,686.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married

Again, the agreements between Yeshua and the Pharisees are such that we can assume they agreed except when stated otherwise, something that does not apply to Buddhists or Zoroastrians or Odinists or Tzedukim. Any serious student of religion that does not have an ideological "axe to grind" will come to the same conclusion.

(The fact that you have to put unique in quotation marks means it is not a serious question you are asking.)

The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection, according to the NT, and there is no reason to dispute that New Testamentarian claim. The followers of Yeshua took the side of Pharisees over against Sadducees on this and probably other issues as well. There is NOT ONE recorded instance of a Sadducee following Yeshua or supporting the movement of Yeshua, whereas the gospels and NT is filled with stories of Pharisees converting or being favorable to Yeshua, from Paul to Nicodemus.

For those interested in learning the historical, unbiased truth about Pharisees and Sadducees, I recommend this excellent study:

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Pharisees-Sadducees
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fschmidt

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2010
427
28
El Paso, TX
Visit site
✟32,865.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Hoshiyya, we agree on more than we disagree on, but of course the parts we disagree on make for more interesting conversation, so...

Yes, Protestantism contains the seeds of its own destruction. But then so does a baby who is programmed to die after a finite period. Do we condemn the baby for this? British and American culture was a success before it went bad. During the 1700s and 1800s, this culture was moral and productive.

Creating a religion that is good and stable is very difficult and has never been done. But it is a challenge that we should always strive for. So it is worth looking at what went wrong with Protestantism. I believe the core problem was the idea of a priesthood of all believers. Democracy is fundamentally flawed because the average person is incapable of guiding society. It is no accident that Charles Finney did not complete seminary school. This is why I believe that a formal priesthood is essential for the stability of a religion. Karaite Judaism has this same flaw of a lack of priesthood and self-destructed for this reason.
 
Upvote 0
A

annier

Guest
Again, the agreements between Yeshua and the Pharisees are such that we can assume they agreed except when stated otherwise,
In other words, He agreed with certain teachings found among the Jews. Such is the case with the resurrection as taught among the Essenes as well. But he disagreed with certain sectarian teachings found among the Jew's, such as tradition according to the Pharisees? We could say he agreed with the Essenes, also if the resurrection were unique to them as a sect.

(The fact that you have to put unique in quotation marks means it is not a serious question you are asking.)
No they were "serious" questions. The Pharisees were not defined as a sect because they believed in the resurrection. The Essenes believed in the resurrection as well.
I agree that the Sadducees as a sect were unique in their denial of a resurrection. Thus it was a defining characteristic of the Sadducees. I believe the defining characteristic of the Pharisees were (and still is) their teachings on tradition.
 
Upvote 0

Hoshiyya

Spenglerian
Mar 5, 2013
5,285
1,023
✟39,686.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married


"British and American culture was a success before it went bad."

But it went bad QUICKLY. Egypt had at least three thousand years of history before it "went bad" (relative to itself). The analogy of the baby is therefore inappropriate, unless you want to compare a baby that dies within a day to a baby that lives until old age.

Compare China to Britain. One has been a basically stable empire for almost 5000 years, and the other suddenly became an empire, over-expanded, and now is a little country with all kinds of domestic problems indicative of the end of a civilization, similar to Weimar Germany.

If you haven't read Spengler, I recommend it. You seem like you have a mind for such things. Maybe Toynbee or Quigley could interest you as well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hoshiyya

Spenglerian
Mar 5, 2013
5,285
1,023
✟39,686.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married

I don't see why you focus on the English-Latin term "sect" so much. It is purely a definition game.

"the defining characteristic of the Pharisees was (and still is) their teachings on tradition"

Yes, and?
Yeshua only took issue with a few specific items in the Pharisaic tradition of the day. Most of those were not even important, just a matter of clarification. Some of those items are not even on the menu of Rabbinic Judaism today. So I have no clue what argument you try to make, except force through you definition of sect.

Let's say Yeshua had not corrected Pharisees on the issue of hand-washing. Big deal!
It wouldn't make the world any worse if people went around with clean hands!


To me it seems you try to turn everything into an issue of priests and Sadducees, and for the life of me I can't grasp why.

"We could say he agreed with the Essenes, also if the resurrection were unique to them as a sect. "

No, his agreements with the Pharisees were more specific than that, as any honest student of history will find.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
A

annier

Guest
I don't see why you focus on the English-Latin term "sect" so much. It is purely a definition game.
Would you prefer faction? Party? What?
"the defining characteristic of the Pharisees were (and still is) their teachings on tradition"
The term sect seems to bother you. Why? It seems to me anyway less abrasive than "faction".
To me it seems you try to turn everything into an issue of priests and Sadducees, and for the life of me I can't grasp why.
I never mentioned priests? You did! Tradition of the Pharisees concerned their authority and from where it came.
 
Upvote 0

Hoshiyya

Spenglerian
Mar 5, 2013
5,285
1,023
✟39,686.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Would you prefer faction? Party? What?


The term sect seems to bother you. Why? It seems to me anyway less abrasive than "faction".

I never mentioned priests? You did! Tradition of the Pharisees concerned their authority and from where it came.


Your argument/concern seems to revolve around a distinction that involves a definition-game. Re-read your own posts if you missed it.

Maybe you didn't mention priests, but you often do. You mentioned Sadducees, though. You keep bringing these interrelated issues up . . .
 
Upvote 0
A

annier

Guest
Your argument/concern seems to revolve around a distinction that involves a definition-game. Re-read your own posts if you missed it.
Defining things is not bad. It is good and helpful I think. The parties, factions, sects, whatever you desire to call these, were distinct groups. What made them distinct? perhaps distinct and distinctions are better terms for you? What made the pharisees distinct as a group o9f teachers? It is not the resurrection, as we know other sects believed and taught a resurrection from the dead.
Maybe you didn't mention priests, but you often do. You mentioned Sadducees, though. You keep bringing these interrelated issues up . . .
Mentioned Sadducees? Um, The Essenes were of the priestly class as well. The priesthood was not anti-resurrection teachings. The Sadducees were however. Therefore, this notion that the priestly class taught one thing and the justices taught another is not sound. The Essenes were of the priesthood and so were the Sadducees. Therefore the resurrection and no resurrection was taught among those of priestly descent. Who taught what among the priests was determined as sectarian.
 
Upvote 0

fschmidt

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2010
427
28
El Paso, TX
Visit site
✟32,865.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The video is really entertaining. Watch 5 minutes and tell me if you aren't hooked. It's a great shabbat activity.

You are actually confirming my point here. I agree that Protestantism went bad quickly, but during its brief success it shined brighter than the other cultures you mentioned. And as I said, one needs a priesthood or aristocracy for stability. Democracy is intrinsically unstable and doesn't last long. The cultures you mentioned weren't democratic, and China had a Confucian meritocracy which is close to optimal for stability.

I will look into the authors you mentioned, I haven't read them.
 
Upvote 0