Hebrews 10:1

DanMullin
DanMullin's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Hebrews 10:1

  

Hello everyone.

 

I've been debating with a theist over Mosaic Law.  There are many bible verses to support the idea that it still applies after Jesus.  His only response is to read Hebrews 10:1 to see the error of my ways.

 

So I looked:

 

Quote:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

 

What is it about this verse that nullifies those laws?  It seems to cast out with the bloody sacrifices, but it does not say that the law is thus no longer applicable.

 

Have I gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning?

 

My head hurts...


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
You're both right, though

You're both right, though it's a bit weird of your theist interlocutor to limit himself or herself to the first sentence of the letter, which does indeed go on to state in more explicit terms that Mosaic Law no longer applies in the author's view.

 

The "letter" (probably in fact written by Paul's buddy Priscilla) was a broadside delivered against what both he and she would have regarded as apostates but were in effect jewish christians who reckoned the descriptors were so synonymous in the new cult that nothing could be excised from the old laws (except male foreskins). Basically one had to be a jew to be a christian according to them.

 

Paul, Priscilla, Aquila and the gang on the other hand were famously on a different tack entirely, knowing full well that to have any chance of acquiring recruits from the gentile population (ie. the world, as they understood it and a potentially lucrative target group in terms of conversions) they would first have to get the "judaizers" to shut up. The letter, even though it's addressed to "Hebrews" is in fact targetting those jews in Rome calling themselves christian and messianic but ensconced very much in the traditional laws of their religion. Rome would have produced a variety of such hybrid views. The Pauline view was just another hybrid doing the rounds at the time, and may even have been in a noticeable minority amongst "christians" living in the metropolis.

 

So, while your theist is right to say that the letter repudiates Mosaic Law, it was still just a matter of opinion on the author's part, whoever he or she was. It would be a while yet before that issue was finally settled and, along with many other selectively promoted texts, before this letter would be retrogressively held up as a theological tenet suggesting a smooth and continuous departure of the cult from its jewish roots. No such thing happened.

 

Put simply, if the theist is attempting to prove in historical terms a clean break from Mosaic Law through reference to this letter then he or she has picked a bad example since the letter is, on the contrary, proof that the break was proving anything but clean at the time and that the issue was still up for grabs. Otherwise there was no need for it to have been written at all.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


One_week_ago (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
What are you asking?

DanMullin wrote:

  

Hello everyone. 

I've been debating with a theist over Mosaic Law.  There are many bible verses to support the idea that it still applies after Jesus.  His only response is to read Hebrews 10:1 to see the error of my ways.

So I looked:

Quote:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

What is it about this verse that nullifies those laws?  It seems to cast out with the bloody sacrifices, but it does not say that the law is thus no longer applicable.

Have I gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning?

My head hurts...

Perhaps your head should hurt. What do you mean by laws? A bunch of crap invented by illiterate goatherds is what you are talking about about. Make that shepards as they prohibit mixing linen and wool so the suckers have to buy all wool. Look for the union label.

I do not see a legitimate issue here. Who gives a rat's ass if bullshit is nullified by more bullshit? Why are you asking this in the form of a question when there is no question? Why call bullshit law?

 


DanMullin
DanMullin's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2008-05-09
User is offlineOffline
 One_week_ago wrote:Perhaps

 

One_week_ago wrote:

Perhaps your head should hurt. What do you mean by laws? A bunch of crap invented by illiterate goatherds is what you are talking about about. Make that shepards as they prohibit mixing linen and wool so the suckers have to buy all wool. Look for the union label.

 

Smiling Sorry.  I know the laws of the old testament are ridiculous nonsense.  The point was that I was talking to someone who believes them, but that they no longer apply.  I was trying to look at the argument from his point of view.  It was most likely foolish of me to try to get any logic through his Jesus force field.

 

One_week_ago wrote:

I do not see a legitimate issue here. Who gives a rat's ass if bullshit is nullified by more bullshit? Why are you asking this in the form of a question when there is no question? Why call bullshit law?

 

Agreed.


One_week_ago (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
DanMullin

DanMullin wrote:

 

One_week_ago wrote:

Perhaps your head should hurt. What do you mean by laws? A bunch of crap invented by illiterate goatherds is what you are talking about about. Make that shepards as they prohibit mixing linen and wool so the suckers have to buy all wool. Look for the union label.

Smiling Sorry.  I know the laws of the old testament are ridiculous nonsense.  The point was that I was talking to someone who believes them, but that they no longer apply.  I was trying to look at the argument from his point of view.  It was most likely foolish of me to try to get any logic through his Jesus force field.

I side with the foolish assertion. No blame.

Debating a believer means finding grounds for disagreement. You cannot do that from within his mindset. Look what happened. If you let him call it law then you get involved in its repeal or not. Never do that.

There is never any value in getting involved in his mindset. It never works. And in fact any such "debate" has likely been done better between believers centuries ago. They do debate such things. Rationally you start from the bottom. It is up to the believer to convince you it is other than bullshit.

As we were raised in a believing culture this is not easy. I suggest you work on eliminating why it is hard do disagree with cultural assumptions.

DanMullin wrote:
One_week_ago wrote:

I do not see a legitimate issue here. Who gives a rat's ass if bullshit is nullified by more bullshit? Why are you asking this in the form of a question when there is no question? Why call bullshit law?

Agreed.

Therefore we concede nothing in any discussion.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Often the most effective and

Often the most effective and adamant way to disabuse a religionist of their fallacial notions is to invalidate them within the context they purport to inhabit.

 

In this case the proponent of the fallacial argument is assuming an historical fact which is easy to debunk, and without even having to leave the terms of reference the theist herself proposed. That makes it all the sweeter.

 

Adopting the line "it's all garbage anyway" is essentially honest and true, but in an argument with a biased deluded interlocutor not worth much at all in terms of convincing them of the error of their ways. In fact it tends to lose the argument.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Yaerav
Bronze Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2008-02-28
User is offlineOffline
I had a similar debate

I had a similar debate recently and was pointed to Acts 15. Which, by the way, appears to also nullify the Ten Commandments.

Anyway, Matthew 5:17-18 does not seem to be important anymore, apparently modern Christians take Paul's word over that of Jesus.