Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[GreNME]

Err, not to mention that the 613 laws (which aren't all of them, there are plenty more) aren't meant to all be followed by a single person. Many of them apply to vocation, tribe, and other criteria. The average person attempting to follow the Mosaic Law would be following a couple hundred at a time, with a few dozen at the forefront, not every single law that was written.

I'm all for criticizing literalism, but understanding the literature being taken literally is a good first step toward understanding what to criticize.

 

[joobz]

If I may focus on this part:I am not aware of any Xtians who say that the Law must be followed by Xtians, as opposed to the idea that principles may be found in them that apply to modern humanity. Help me out - which Xtian groups assert this (Mennonites?).

Assert what? Following the laws of moses? It varies to varying extents. There's a pentacostal church in louisville who are hard fast on following the dietary laws and respecting the sabbath on fri evening to sat evening.

My understanding is that Paul states that Xtians do not follow the Law but follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who doesn't appear to speak very clearly.

Certainly, and you are merely doing what I said. All of these groups can claim scriptural support for their beliefs.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Well, other than the letter of James.

Carry on.

I've just had a quick reread of James and I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Assert what? Following the laws of moses? It varies to varying extents. There's a pentacostal church in louisville who are hard fast on following the dietary laws and respecting the sabbath on fri evening to sat evening.

Wow, I don't know of anything like this in Britain. Acts, though, does talk about the abstaining from food made from blood etc during meals between Gentile and Jewish Xtians.

Certainly, and you are merely doing what I said. All of these groups can claim scriptural support for their beliefs.

But, as far as I am aware, I am stating what is the widespread mainstream view, to be found very early on in Xtianity.

 

[Hokulele]

I've just had a quick reread of James and I am not sure what you mean.

This goes back to the earliest schism in the Christian church. There were two schools of thought back then, one was that you must be a Jew in order to be a Christian (including following those Mosaic laws that applied to you, not necessarily all of them as GreNME pointed out), or that anyone could become a Christian without having to become Jewish first. This can be seen in the conflict between Paul and James, especially where Paul went on and on (and on and on) about circumcision, and how he didn't think it was necessary for a Christian.

James, on the other hand, held the law to be important, more important than faith. Most people today interpret the terms "works" to mean simple good deeds. When read in context, particularly in the second chapter of James' epistle, it is meant in context of both the Mosaic law and the prophetic books of the OT. The references to Mosaic law can be seen in the comments regarding "love thy neighbor" from Leviticus (the royal law) and the notion of the "law of liberty", and the references to the OT prophets can be seen in the repeated calls for charity, particularly to orphans and widows.

The law of liberty is probably the most controversial phrase in that epistle, in this debate. I have seen some people use that interchangeably with "the royal law" and "the Golden Rule", claiming that James was stating that this is the only law a Christian must follow. It isn't. The phrase seems to be a reference to the Mosaic code, particularly the 10 commandments, as similar phrases pop up in the OT. In the OT, it is called the law of liberty to indicate that following the laws is a freeing action, rather than submission to a type of slavery to God. James seems to be following in this tradition. He even specifically mentions 2 of the 10 commandments and states outright that breaking any one law is enough to make you a bad person. It doesn't matter how many of them you keep.

IIRC, one of the histories I read recently indicated that the early church finally settled on a subset of the OT laws as being binding (including the 10 commandments), even though there was nothing specifically in the NT regarding which ones could be kept and which ones couldn't.

 

[Simon39759]

Why do people think that Xtians have to follow the Law of Moses? The letters of the NT and Acts (Council of Jerusalem around chapter 15, I think) have a lot to say on Jesus fulfilling the law so that non-Jews don't have to follow it. Xtians do not follow the 613 laws of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Or, do you all know this and are successfully enjoying tying DOC in knots, in which case, carry on.

But then people, especially in the US, insist on putting the 10 commandments in public places or quote Leviticus by calling gays 'abomination'...


As you mention, Jesus did talk about fulfil the laws -fulfill, rather than "detroy". In the next sentence, however, he also mentions that "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished".

So; the idea that Jesus did render the ancient Israelite practices obsolete was clearly not in the texts. This interpretation, in my opinion, is really stretching the meaning of the term 'fulfil'.
But then, he kinda contradicts this statement by discarding the idea of diet purity...



For an atheist, that is not really a problem.

Jesus might have interpreted the Old testament's commandments in the light of the Greco-Roman influenced first century Palestine. A mistake in regard to the position of the original writers, a there is no evidence to indicate that the Laws were ever seen as anything but literal.

Or his position might have been modified or exaggerated by later writers to lend support to Paul's position in face of Jame's. The gospels were, after all, probably written in churches founded by Paul himself and doing away with the old Jewish practices was probably necessary to attract gentiles to the budding Religion. Without them, Christianity would have either withered or just become one of the component of proto-rabbinic Judaism.

 

[joobz]

Wow, I don't know of anything like this in Britain. Acts, though, does talk about the abstaining from food made from blood etc during meals between Gentile and Jewish Xtians.

It seems we get a wide variety of religions in the US....christian religions that is.

It reminds me of the blues brothers:

What kind of music do you play here?

We have both kinds, Country and Western.

But, as far as I am aware, I am stating what is the widespread mainstream view, to be found very early on in Xtianity.

Actually, I do not doubt that what you say is the "mainstream" view. My point is that the view isn't interpreted (even in the mainstream) in a hard and fast/clear cut way. If it was, we wouldn't even have an old testament. We wouldn't have the 10 commandments.

 

[Ducky]

 

[GreNME]

 

[Lothian]

Why do people think that Xtians have to follow the Law of Moses?

Perhaps what confuses people is the likes of Michael Nazir-Ali Bishop of Rochester giving sermons like he did yesterday stating homosexuality is a threat to the Christian way of life adding "When we ignore what the bible tells us we do so at our peril as we continually discover."

 

[amb]

The topic of this thread is truth. So, I declare that the writers of the story of Snow White and the seven dwarfs, and Cinderella were writing the truth as they saw it. OK?

 

[six7s]

...Michael Nazir-Ali Bishop of Rochester ...adding "When we ignore what the bible tells us we do so at our peril as we continually discover."

Oh, the irony!

When we accept what the bible tells us, we do so in ignorance of reality

 

[Simon39759]

An interesting article that I just discovered on another site.

Basically it illustrates what we have been saying in this thread. That the New Testament is a heterogeneous assembly of passages that have been modified and added through time, especially the resurrection story.

 

[amb]

Practically all ancient gods were resurrected. And born of virgins.

 

[DOC]

Doc,

You picked up on reference in my post to the decline of Christianity but ignored the main point which was to ask you a question for the third time.

Fourth time lucky.

You said Moses, who I understood to have a bit of intimate relationship with God, killed homosexuals.

Do you think homosexuals should be killed?

If you don’t can you point to where in the bible says Moses was wrong and is to be ignored.

My impression from the Bible is that same sex sexual relationships are not God's will for humans. And according to Billy Graham sin is anything contrary to the will of God. But the same thing could be said for casual sexual heterosexual relationships (aka one night stand) which would also be against the will of God.

Moses was of the Old Testament and was responsible for the survival, growth, and stability of his people. He and his laws did a good job because their still here. Christ came and revealed greater revelation. Christ said to love your enemy, and judge not lest ye be judged. I do not believe it is Christian teaching to kill someone who claims to have same sex desires and acts out on those desires. But I believe acting on those same sex desires as well as certain heterosexual desires are not in God's will and thus sinful.

I could say more on this but my time and energy is limited.

 

[Paulhoff]

My impression from the Bible is that same sex sexual relationships are not God's will for humans.

Hello Hello Hello

Before you go on and on about that sex suff, could you please please please prove this so-called god for your first.

That would be real nice.

Paul

 

[Simon39759]

Moses was of the Old Testament and was responsible for the survival, growth, and stability of his people. He and his laws did a good job because they're still here.

In sharp contrasts with Greeks that all were exterminated...

 

[Lothian]

My impression from the Bible is that same sex sexual relationships are not God's will for humans. And according to Billy Graham sin is anything contrary to the will of God. But the same thing could be said for casual sexual heterosexual relationships (aka one night stand) which would also be against the will of God.

Moses was of the Old Testament and was responsible for the survival, growth, and stability of his people. He and his laws did a good job because their still here. Christ came and revealed greater revelation. Christ said to love your enemy, and judge not lest ye be judged. I do not believe it is Christian teaching to kill someone who claims to have same sex desires and acts out on those desires. But I believe acting on those same sex desires as well as certain heterosexual desires are not in God's will and thus sinful.

I could say more on this but my time and energy is limited.

So Moses did not speak for God.

 

[DOC]

In sharp contrasts with Greeks that all were exterminated...

The Greeks weren't wondering in the desert for 40 years (after a long period of slavery in a foreign nation) which would not seem favorable to the likelihood of your nation surviving for 2000 years.

 

[DOC]

So Moses did not speak for God.

Christ never went into detail about Moses' law about a man laying with a man. But Christ did say to love your enemy and judge not lest you be judged. New Testament means "New".

Moses and Jesus also had different views on divorce. Christ said Moses believed the way he did about divorce because of the hardness of his people's hearts. Christ brought new revelation. If Moses had everything down pat, Christ would have never needed to come.