A serious theological question

EternalDamnation
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-06-21
User is offlineOffline
A serious theological question

I don't intend for this topic to be debate or divisive at all.  I've got a serious question about modern Christian theology, and I'd like to hear some personal perspectives.  Mods, please do move this if it belongs elsewhere.

I'm an agnostic-turned-athiest, and my spouse is a Christian theist (we've been separated for three years).  Her theological position is a common mainstream one, I think - she believes that only the new testament applies, and that the old testament laws do not have to be followed by Christians any longer.   I think that this position is supported by the gospel of Paul, but is contradicted elsewhere.  She's not able to provide a scriptural defense for her position, it's what she was taught, that's her story, and she's sticking to it.  I've found this position to be interesting and it's one that I have not really been able to grasp.

I'd like to gain a better understanding of the scriptural support regarding conformance (or non-conformance) to the OT laws.   So I guess what I'm looking for is scriptural references in the NT regarding the new covenant vs. the old.

 

 

I'm going to hell.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Lets pretend that she is

Lets pretend that she is 100% correct. What does that make the old testament? A story book? (cough) Did people at one time follow this old testament? Is it called the "old" testament because it came before the "new"? Does that somehow nullify all the jibberish and terrible things "god" did?

Should we write a newer testament and crucify Pat Robertson to pay for gods sins?

The ten commandments are where?

And here is a handy (looks christian even) website on the topic. http://www.thebible-tencommandments.com/did-jesus-abolish-law.html

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Jesus once said he had

Jesus once said he had fulfilled the law, and instead gave the golden rule: do unto thy neighbour as ye would like him to do unto thee (And honour God above all else).

In my church, we do read the ten commandments every day, so they are still guidelines, according to mainstream Christianity. They also find hidden meaning in the commandments, because, like Jesus or some other guy said: "If you look to a woman lustfully, you have already committed adultery". You can find more about this in the Heidelberg Catechism.

Edit: The first text I was talking about is Matthew5:17,18
I seem to have quote mined it, though, because it says Jesus didn't abolish the law, but fulfilled it. What the heck that is supposed to mean, is guesswork for me.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
http://skepticsannotatedbible

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:Jesus once

Thunderios wrote:

Jesus once said he had fulfilled the law, and instead gave the golden rule: do unto thy neighbour as ye would like him to do unto thee (And honour God above all else).

In my church, we do read the ten commandments every day, so they are still guidelines, according to mainstream Christianity. They also find hidden meaning in the commandments, because, like Jesus or some other guy said: "If you look to a woman lustfully, you have already committed adultery". You can find more about this in the Heidelberg Catechism.

Edit: The first text I was talking about is Matthew5:17,18
I seem to have quote mined it, though, because it says Jesus didn't abolish the law, but fulfilled it. What the heck that is supposed to mean, is guesswork for me.

This carp is all interpreted in the way they like, that's the whole problem today. If everyone took it literally as a "god" would have written it we wouldn't have christianity.

Interpretation is like duct tape, it may fix your leaky pipe or haim up something but the law of nature and progress will cause it to eventually fall apart and you must reapply the tape or actually fix it. As atheists we have fixed it, they keep applying tape.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


EternalDamnation
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-06-21
User is offlineOffline
Interesting... I read

Interesting... I read Matthew 5:17-20 as meaning that Jesus was affirming the OT laws.

Thunderios wrote:

Jesus once said he had fulfilled the law, and instead gave the golden rule: do unto thy neighbour as ye would like him to do unto thee (And honour God above all else).

Edit: The first text I was talking about is Matthew5:17,18
I seem to have quote mined it, though, because it says Jesus didn't abolish the law, but fulfilled it. What the heck that is supposed to mean, is guesswork for me.

I'm going to hell.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2356
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Old law goodly......

 

 

 

                    It is just one more christian who does NOT know their bible.

 

                           Matthew 5:17  "Do not think I have come to abolish the law of Moses or the prophets. I have NOT come to abolish them, but to fulfill them!"

 

 

                    There's an interesting jesus quote in Matt:5:32 Jesus tells the true believers NOT to make an oath on a holy book "it is not for men to do so" with no promise to tell the truth being a good christian could realy screw up our court system. On a lighter-nonchristian-aside. Testimony comes from testicles, which comes from the Roman custom of holding their balls and promiseing to tell the truth or loose said balls.

 

 

                     Mark 6:11  Jesus  quote,"and whoever shall Not recieve you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony AGAINST them.  Verily I say unto you, IT SHALL Be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement then for that city.

                     In other words J.C. wanted vengence on any city that did NOT bow down and kiss his "peace loving" ass.  The land of pedophiles and Sodomites was more tolerable to Jesus then the towns who just didn't want to hear his spiel.

 

 

                   Mark 7: 9 - 10  check out the skeptics annotated bible for the actual wording. But Jesus is bitching at Pharisees for NOT killing their disobdient children.   "Jesus loves the little children, all little children of the world..."  is a load of bull shit according to Mark,  Jesus proclaims any child who does not honor their mother and father  "..should die the death".  Because the O T law says so.

                    

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
source: carm.org

 

Thunderios wrote:

I seem to have quote mined it, though, because it says Jesus didn't abolish the law, but fulfilled it. What the heck that is supposed to mean, is guesswork for me.

 The terms "abolish" and "fulfill" read like  they  come out of  a second year  law student's nap-sack. In other words, "technical   terms"

 

 I can cut and paste this if you want me to . .  

Did Jesus abolish the Law or not?


Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:14-15

  1. No. (Matt. 5:17), "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."
  2. Yes. (Eph. 2:14-15), "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace."

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus is speaking about the Old Testament principles and authority of rule and revelation. When Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, He came to establish it and demonstrate how it pointed to Him and how He would live it perfectly.

In Eph. 2:14-15, Paul is speaking about how the gentiles who were called the uncircumcision (v. 11), were separated from Christ (v. 12), but have now been brought near (to God) by the blood of Christ (v. 13). Jesus removed the requirement of having to follow the Law in order to please God, established justification by faith, and thereby united both Jew and Gentile into one group in Christ. This is when Paul says in verse 15 that he abolished in his flesh the enmity which is the law of commandments in ordinances. The Law was that which separated Jew from Gentile and since it has been fulfilled in Christ, it is no longer something that would separate Jew and Gentile.


source: carm.org

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Don't you mean

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

 The terms "abolish" and "fulfill" read like  they  come out of  a second year  law student's nap-sack. 

 

 

 

sleeping bag?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

 

Thunderios wrote:

I seem to have quote mined it, though, because it says Jesus didn't abolish the law, but fulfilled it. What the heck that is supposed to mean, is guesswork for me.

 The terms "abolish" and "fulfill" read like  they  come out of  a second year  law student's nap-sack. In other words, "technical   terms"

 

 I can cut and paste this if you want me to . .  

Did Jesus abolish the Law or not?


Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:14-15

  1. No. (Matt. 5:17), "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."
  2. Yes. (Eph. 2:14-15), "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace."

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus is speaking about the Old Testament principles and authority of rule and revelation. When Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, He came to establish it and demonstrate how it pointed to Him and how He would live it perfectly.

In Eph. 2:14-15, Paul is speaking about how the gentiles who were called the uncircumcision (v. 11), were separated from Christ (v. 12), but have now been brought near (to God) by the blood of Christ (v. 13). Jesus removed the requirement of having to follow the Law in order to please God, established justification by faith, and thereby united both Jew and Gentile into one group in Christ. This is when Paul says in verse 15 that he abolished in his flesh the enmity which is the law of commandments in ordinances. The Law was that which separated Jew from Gentile and since it has been fulfilled in Christ, it is no longer something that would separate Jew and Gentile.


source: carm.org

 

So Jesus didn't but Paul did?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1379
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Dont drag me into this . .

 Dont drag me into this . . 

 The problem with  TOO MUCH of the New Testament is it is based on what St. Paul 'thought'.  Most miss the fact that Paul was an extreme response to the Jews.  Him having been a Jew and trying to stamp out Xianity. He seems to have done a 180 according to Acts. Evermore coming up with reasons to support something I guess he missed altogether. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: Dont

danatemporary wrote:

 Dont drag me into this . . 

 The problem with  TOO MUCH of the New Testament is it is based on what St. Paul 'thought'.  Most miss the fact that Paul was an extreme response to the Jews.  Him having been a Jew and trying to stamp out Xianity. He seems to have done a 180 according to Acts. Evermore coming up with reasons to support something I guess he missed altogether. 

 

I was hoping you could go to carm and ask for me - they make me want to throw stuff at my monitor and I don't have a spare.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 Matthew 7:12New

 Matthew 7:12

New International Version (NIV)

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Let me sum up the score, Jesus: 2, Old Testament: 1, Jesus wins Sticking out tongue

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: Matthew

Luminon wrote:

 Matthew 7:12

New International Version (NIV)

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Let me sum up the score, Jesus: 2, Old Testament: 1, Jesus wins Sticking out tongue


Except that "the Law and the Prophets" is basically referring to what is in the Old Testament.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: Matthew

Luminon wrote:

 Matthew 7:12

New International Version (NIV)

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Let me sum up the score, Jesus: 2, Old Testament: 1, Jesus wins Sticking out tongue

 

 

 

Tell him what he's won, Don Pardo...

leaving it up to everyone to see if they get the reference

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
EternalDamnation wrote:I

EternalDamnation wrote:

I don't intend for this topic to be debate or divisive at all.  I've got a serious question about modern Christian theology, and I'd like to hear some personal perspectives.  Mods, please do move this if it belongs elsewhere.

I'm an agnostic-turned-athiest, and my spouse is a Christian theist (we've been separated for three years).  Her theological position is a common mainstream one, I think - she believes that only the new testament applies, and that the old testament laws do not have to be followed by Christians any longer.   I think that this position is supported by the gospel of Paul, but is contradicted elsewhere.  She's not able to provide a scriptural defense for her position, it's what she was taught, that's her story, and she's sticking to it.  I've found this position to be interesting and it's one that I have not really been able to grasp.

I'd like to gain a better understanding of the scriptural support regarding conformance (or non-conformance) to the OT laws.   So I guess what I'm looking for is scriptural references in the NT regarding the new covenant vs. the old.

It's really not that difficult.  There are three types of laws in the Bible: God's moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law.  The latter two were part of the theocracy that applied only to Israel during that era, and it had to do with the kind of society that Israel was during that time period.  God's moral law, however, is eternal; murder will never be okay, nor will stealing, rape, or telling a lie.  When Jesus fulfilled the law, he was referring strictly to the laws of the theocracy.  They do not apply today because we are not a theocracy.

================

"The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15)."

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

"The Old Testament laws were there to be obeyed by the Israelites only, not by Gentiles. I emphasize that at that time Egypt was there, but they were not obeying the law. So were Assyria, Syria, the Philistines, Babylonians, Amelekites, Ammorites, Edomites, Persians, Midianites and so on. All these nations were there and were not the doers of the law simply because they did not know God's law. The Almighty Father chose Israel alone as His children and gave them His law. Nowhere in the Bible will we find Gentiles obeying God's law before the death of Jesus Christ, for instance observing the Sabbath. Does that mean the Old Testament Gentiles will not be judged? No, they will be judged by nature. The wicked will not go unpunished. "For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves." 

"I would like to explain Matthew 5.17-18 which many people, even the so-called priests, are misinterpreting. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall an no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This teaching of Christ has confused many people, churches, sects, etc. Are you among them? Then, read on. The way Jesus fulfilled the prophets is the same way He used to fulfill the law. Many are saying Jesus came to continue the Old Testament Law or that he came to add some laws to the old one. No, it is not so. But rather if you study the Bible you shall know that He came to abolish the old law in his flesh. "Pleroo" is the Greek word for fulfill meaning "to come true.""

"To fulfill never means to add or continue. Webster defines fulfill as to carry out a promise, to do a duty, to satisfy a condition, to bring to an end, to complete. Jesus Christ came to fulfill or to bring to an end the promises and prophecies concerning Him in the Law and in the Prophets."

"The Law that Jesus spoke of is not the Ten Commandments as many state it. but rather the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy)."

http://www.churches-of-christ.net/tracts/job092u.htm

"Perhaps the popular image of God’s being more judgmental in the Old Testament arises from the fact that in the Old Testament we have, at least for a time, a theocracy, where God was the head of the government. Society’s laws and God’s laws were the same. In such a circumstance the awful holiness of God is brought directly to bear on people’s sinful actions. We see how much God hates sin and what punishment it deserves in His eyes. But Israel ceased to be a theocracy. By the time of the New Testament Israel was under the rule of the Roman Empire. So what is moral and what is legal fall apart. Judgement is deferred until the general resurrection at end of history. Similarly, today we do not live under a theocracy. That’s why it’s a mistake when Christians try to make God’s laws the law of the land. What is immoral need not be illegal. For that reason, in arguing for the prohibition of certain actions, like abortion on demand, we cannot just quote the Bible but must develop non-sectarian arguments with a broad moral foundation. Anyway, it may be that a lack of understanding of the different circumstances has fostered this misimpression that God as revealed in the New Testament has mellowed in His view of sin."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6013

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1. You mean God's moral law

1. You mean God's moral law that he need not abide by?

2. When did the Ten Commandments become separate from the Pentateuch?

3. I would say that simply believing that you are forgiven of your sins without repentance (thanks Paul) is a mellowing on sin from the OT and the Gospels.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin