Christianity and the law.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by eight bits

 

sk0rpi0n : Well Jesus said the law was to remain until heaven and earth pass away...

And so it does remain.

It remains as printer ink on the pages of the Bible. It isn't followed by Christians who were told to keep it by Jesus... because they believe its been abolished because Paul said so.

How were Christians supposed to keep the law after Jerusalem fell in 70 AD? And why did Jesus say that He gave two commands under the new covenant and in those two commands one fulfils "all the law and prophets"?

Was Jesus crazy or lying when He said that? Was He a cruel trickster requiring full Torah observance for millions of future Christians when He knew full well, (and predicted in exact detail), the soon future destruction of the only place allowed under the law for sacrifices and mandatory attendance for high holy days?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . and in those two commands one fulfills "all the law and prophets"?

Sorry, you got the story versions mixed up, between Matthew's and Luke's.
The principle of the Law is summed up in those two things.
The conversation in the story was not on how someone fulfills it, it was what was "the greatest".

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Thou shalt . . .

Jesus is stating what the Law is
Not giving it out as if he was then and there giving a new commandment
He was giving a recitation of a law already in existence
in a conversation about the Law, and what was the most important one.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Thou shalt . . .

Jesus is stating what the Law is
Not giving it out as if he was then and there giving a new commandment
He was giving a recitation of a law already in existence
in a conversation about the Law, and what was the most important one.

I never said He was giving a new commandment in that passage. His new commandment came after the last supper and His washing of the disciple's feet.

So are you advocating following the law for Gentile Christians under the new covenant?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

How were Christians supposed to keep the law after Jerusalem fell in 70 AD? And why did Jesus say that He gave two commands under the new covenant and in those two commands one fulfils "all the law and prophets"?

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

All the law hanging on those 2 commandments is not the same as "forget all those other laws, just keep these two

Jesus' 2 commands... "Love God" and "Love thy neighbor" .... meant all the laws pertaining to serving God and doing good to man rested on those two commands. If one loved God, he would perform all that the law required of him to serve God. And if he loved his neighbor, he would perform all that the law required of him to do good to man.

Also, two commands only thinking opens the door to several other theological problems.
If Jesus wanted Christians to follow just those 2 commands, then is it possible for a man to genuinely love God and their neighbors... AND engage in sexual deviancy with a consenting partner?
If all those other OT laws have been abolished and only those 2 laws matter, then on what grounds can you really call sexual deviancy with consenting partners wrong?

Was Jesus crazy or lying when He said that? Was He a cruel trickster requiring full Torah observance for millions of future Christians when He knew full well, (and predicted in exact detail), the soon future destruction of the only place allowed under the law for sacrifices and mandatory attendance for high holy days?

This is a good question. I don't know what Jesus was thinking... but we do know that Jesus' mission was confined to the Israelites and also instructed his disciples to avoid gentile towns.

Also, I think the lack of the temple affects only the sacrificial laws. Christians don't believe in animal sin sacrifices, considering they see Jesus as the "perfect" sacrifice.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Maybe, just maybe Christ was the final sacrifice for all man's sin. (Isaiah 53)

And if you want to advocate observance of the law the sacrificial system goes hand in hand with that.

So if the law is and always has been effectual mankind has been screwed for almost two millennia.

AND engage in sexual deviancy with a consenting partner?

No, that would fall under loving one's neighbor as you'd love yourself. If I had a lapse in judgment I wouldn't want another person taking advantage of that.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I never said He was giving a new commandment in that passage. His new commandment came after the last supper and His washing of the disciple's feet.

I don't know if you properly appreciate how uninformative your posts are.
Now, there is probably a good reason for that, such as being kind of busy, as in working, and posting by way of cell phone, so I'm not trying to be so critical.
You leave me guessing, a lot of the time, to what you are even talking about.
So I was just filling in some background for the benefit of people other than just me and you, who by the way do read these things, since it is, after all a public forum and not just a private conversation.

So are you advocating following the law for Gentile Christians under the new covenant?

Absolutely not, let me emphasize that a little bit:
NOT!!!
All that nonsense in Acts about rules and stuff is just that, nonsense and never happened and is just the way to have rabbinical control over the masses, despite their loss of authority since the demise of their temple and all of that type of thing by the Roman Empire.
We do not live under the authority of a council of Jewish men sitting around formulating laws.
That was exactly what Jesus came to free us from.
We live by the spirit, in Christ, any other way leads straight to Hell and the Lake of Fire with the beast and its image.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

All the law hanging on those 2 commandments is not the same as "forget all those other laws, just keep these two

People in the Gospel stories were always trying to find ways to trip up Jesus in matters about the Law.
So someone says, "Hey, What about the Law, what is the most important thing about it?"

Jesus is saying, "And . . so? Right, there is this thing, The Law, that you all think is so important.
"Well, let's see, what is this thing, exactly?
"OK, now if you were to study the thing, like really take it apart and pick out a couple lines from this huge document that you people like to examine and think you are so important and smart, as if society couldn't even exist without your constantly going around giving your opinions on it.
"Then you could pick out these fundamental concepts that seem to be what all the details are only trying to flesh out into minutia that can be used in litigation."

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And if you want to advocate observance of the law the sacrificial system goes hand in hand with that.

I'm not advocating observance of the law. I am just pointing out to the Biblical teaching that the law is to be kept. That is all.

So if the law is and always has been effectual mankind has been screwed for almost two millennia.

I'd say those who were told to keep the law by God and Jesus have been screwed.

No, that would fall under loving one's neighbor as you'd love yourself. If I had a lapse in judgment I wouldn't want another person taking advantage of that.

I don't get it. Are you telling me its ok to engage in sexual deviancy with a consenting partner as long as one loves God and his neighbors?

Also, Paul speaks against sexual immorality and homosexuality. Was Paul referring back to the law against homosexuality... or was he speaking from his own bias?

Again, is it possible for a man to follow the 2 commandments, love God and your neighbors and be a homosexual? How can homosexuality be a sin if the law against it was abolished?

Also, Paul speaks against sexual immorality and homosexuality. Was Paul referring back to the law against homosexuality... or was he speaking from his own bias?

Now there's a good question. We can narrow it down to Romans 1 if you like.

It's pretty clear that Paul was speaking against what he saw as the norm in this non-Abrahamic urban society. "The Law" is, after all, the national epic of a particular ethnic group, and Paul was of that group. So, it is unsurprising that an individual would profess views similar with the nation with which he identifies, and look askance on other nations' different views and behavior.

Paul does not use a formula which he uses elsewhere, distinguishing between what he thinks personally and what he received as an apostle of Jesus, God. That's not surprising in a letter, though, if he expects that his view is shared with the people he's addressing, regardless of why he holds the view, even if he holds it for a different reason than the people he's addressing.

I've always been blessed by having gay friends, men and women. I haven't noticed anything in them, or in how they live their lives, that could reasonably be expected to affect adversely their attitude toward God or toward their fellow humans. God has often been used as a pretext for their fellows to hector them, but that says nothing about them. In answer to your less interesting question, in my view,

is it possible for a man to follow the 2 commandments, love God and your neighbors and be a homosexual?

Why of course. It's like asking wherther a man or woman who liked to eat scallops could still love God and their neighbors. Some other people have historically seen that as a religious issue, and can even cite scripture against it. OK, but if the question is whether the scallop-gourmet can also love God and neighbor, the answer is obviously so.

In any case, the Jerusalem Council, not Paul, set the standards for church membership by Gentiles. The only black-letter sexual requirement was not to marry kinfolk. Paul actually is wishy-washy about another black-letter conciliar requirement, how strictly one must observe the ban on eating sacrificed meat (although it is impossible to determine for sure whether he is presenting a position that he will argue at a council still to come, or interpreting conciliar legislation already passed).

So, as with all law, there is what is written and what is applied. And, unless there is amendment, we can never know how it applies to new situations. That is, we simply will never know what Paul, or any other ancient, thought about homosexuality within marriage, because that idea wasn't invented yet. It is therefore a human assumption, not a divine one, that same sex marriage isn't a proper response to Paul's concerns, and a cultural assumption whether that's same sex marriage among four people, two people, or whatever other number might be locally normative.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I'm not advocating observance of the law. I am just pointing out to the Biblical teaching that the law is to be kept. That is all.

Fine then. Sucks for the entire world since 70 AD huh? Hope the Jews hurry up with that temple so I have a shot at heaven. And no I never said it's okay to engage in sexual deviancy. I said that act would village the command to love one's neighbor as oneself.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I'd say those who were told to keep the law by God and Jesus have been screwed.

I don't think anyone needs to worry about that being a possibility.
The verses some people may interpret as a sanction for hanging onto the old law are sparse and ambiguous, while the places that argue against that idea in the New Testament are many and unambiguous.