The Old Testament and Christianity

Asiaprod

PDN wrote: »

BTW, I don't see the Ten Comandments as being any holier than any other part of the Old Testament and certainly not a law binding on Christianity today. (Although nine of them are reinforced by the New Testament and so still refer to moral requirements). I suspect some other Christian posters will now doubt my orthodoxy.

Hum, you hinted before that the OT was no longer applicable and was superseded by the NT so I assume that this also relates to the 10 commandments. Can you expand on this a little for me. I am interested in the place of the OT in the current age. Also I would be interested in your take on Marcionism that postulated there were in fact 2 Gods: the OT God who was righteous, often inconsistent, jealous, wrathful and genocidal and the current God of the NT that stood for kindness, repentance and compassion?
If you want to start a new thread on this please move this out.

philologos

Asiaprod wrote:

God of the NT that stood for kindness, repentance and compassion?

So did the God of the OT, the difference is He punished those who didn't repent in the current lifetime.

Hosea 11:8-9 wrote:

How can I give you up, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, O Israel?
How can I make you like Admah?
How can I treat you like Zeboiim?
My heart recoils within me;
my compassion grows warm and tender.
I will not execute my fierce anger;
I will not again destroy Ephraim;
for I am God and no mortal,
the Holy One in your midst,
and I will not come in wrath.

Asiaprod

Split off from the Crime and Punishment thread

PDN

Asiaprod wrote: »

Split off from the Crime and Punishment thread

Thanks. This is a subject that keeps cropping up so probably merits a thread of its own.

BTW - I keep expecting the Crime and Punishment thread to be about Dostoyevsky.

Rev Hellfire

Jakkass wrote: »

So did the God of the OT, the difference is He punished those who didn't repent in the current lifetime.

Why the sudden change of heart? I'd prefer a bit more consistency from my deities, especially when dealing with one who is all-knowing who would not have the wrong stance to begin with.

Perhaps the god didn’t change but rather your view of him?

kelly1

Asiaprod wrote: »

Hum, you hinted before that the OT was no longer applicable and was superseded by the NT so I assume that this also relates to the 10 commandments. Can you expand on this a little for me. I am interested in the place of the OT in the current age.

Asia, the way I see it, God is constantly guiding His people towards greater and greater holiness. I the OT, God seems to deal with His people's transgressions very promptly. The commandments are simple and fairly black and white and transgressors are punished severely in this life.

In the new conventant, Jesus refines things for us. He makes it clear that keeping the commandments isn't enough. We must love as God loves us. We must love one another as Jesus loved us. The emphasis is on love and mercy and adhering perfectly to God's will for us. We are told not to hate our enemies but to bless them, to turn the other cheek. It's about becoming more like Jesus, our perfect model.

So I think we are seeing a progression in holiness when we move from the OT to the NT. God wants His people to mature in holiness with the help of the Holy Spirit.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I keep expecting the Crime and Punishment thread to be about Dostoyevsky.

Likewise, but thankfully, it's not. Raskolnikov really is one of literature's dullest characters.

JimiTime

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Why the sudden change of heart? I'd prefer a bit more consistency from my deities, especially when dealing with one who is all-knowing who would not have the wrong stance to begin with.

Perhaps the god didn’t change but rather your view of him?

In the Hebrew sciptures, God has a people who are very clearly indentifiable. They are a nation, Israel. How he deals with those who are not his people is shown within the Hebrew scriptures. We see the rewards for those who draw close to him, and the punishment for those who don't. When those he called his people rebelled, he punished them also.
In the NT, Christ opened the door to God for all peoples and Nations. Gods people are no longer identifiable by nation, for they are a spiritual nation. This spiritual nation are given a prophetic role (not that they are prophets, or tell the future etc) in bringing the Good news of the kingdom to all peoples. However, the OT serves as a warning as to what 'Will' happen when Gods appointed time arrives. Judgement day will show Gods love and mercy for his people and also how he punishes his enemies. So its not that he has changed, but that a) He see's his people in a different light though Christ and b) His next judgement will be final.

To summarise, if you think God has given up Judgement and punishment, you are very wrong.

Pompey Magnus

It is an interesting topic, I am currently reading a book on the subject, How Jesus Became Christian, which deals with the struggle in early Christianity as to how to best view the Hebrew Bible.

The author claims that Paul believed the Hebrew Bible has no role to play in his Christ cult and was acting almost entirely independent of the Jerusalem church of Jesus’ closest followers who were determined to continue to abide by the Torah. Paul’s new faith would have ultimately been at a disadvantage in the Roman world as new religions were frowned upon and to be taken seriously a religion needed age old roots. Luke realised this and so near the end of the 1st century he watered down Paul's opinions and his attitude to make him seem more closely tied to the Jewish church, perhaps even inventing the Jerusalem Council, an event which it seems Paul was not even aware he attended.

Paul’s Christianity succeeded as it drew in gentiles who associated with the Jewish faith but never converted due to the strict laws that it would entail, Christianity was an easy way into worshipping God with little work involved. The Jewish followers of Jesus, the Ebionites, remained a Torah observant fringe element in Judaism, eventually either returning into mainstream Judaism or converting to Islam and shaping the Muslim view of Jesus.

The justification that Christianity has for rejecting the Torah is not exactly water tight. Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, his followers were Torah observant Jews, if Matthew is correct then Jesus showed his full support for the continuation Jewish law and for his followers to be even more observant to the law than even the Pharisees. The question is did Jesus really decide to mislead his closest followers, as they were unaware that they were supposed to abandon the Torah and they were the ones to have witnessed his ministry, only for him to reveal his true teachings secretly to Paul, a man who had never once met Jesus?

JimiTime

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It is an interesting topic, I am currently reading a book on the subject, How Jesus Became Christian, which deals with the struggle in early Christianity as to how to best view the Hebrew Bible.

The author claims that Paul believed the Hebrew Bible has no role to play in his Christ cult and was acting almost entirely independent of the Jerusalem church of Jesus’ closest followers who were determined to continue to abide by the Torah. Paul’s new faith would have ultimately been at a disadvantage in the Roman world as new religions were frowned upon and to be taken seriously a religion needed age old roots. Luke realised this and so near the end of the 1st century he watered down Paul's opinions and his attitude to make him seem more closely tied to the Jewish church, perhaps even inventing the Jerusalem Council, an event which it seems Paul was not even aware he attended.

Paul’s Christianity succeeded as it drew in gentiles who associated with the Jewish faith but never converted due to the strict laws that it would entail, Christianity was an easy way into worshipping God with little work involved. The Jewish followers of Jesus, the Ebionites, remained a Torah observant fringe element in Judaism, eventually either returning into mainstream Judaism or converting to Islam and shaping the Muslim view of Jesus.

The justification that Christianity has for rejecting the Torah is not exactly water tight. Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, his followers were Torah observant Jews, if Matthew is correct then Jesus showed his full support for the continuation Jewish law and for his followers to be even more observant to the law than even the Pharisees. The question is did Jesus really decide to mislead his closest followers, as they were unaware that they were supposed to abandon the Torah and they were the ones to have witnessed his ministry, only for him to reveal his true teachings secretly to Paul, a man who had never once met Jesus?

I've seen this conspiracy theory before. But its built on the strawman, that Paul thought that the hebrew scriptures had no place in Christianity. In his letter to Timothy, he tells us that 'All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial etc etc'. At that point, scripture was the OT. He constantly refers to OT scripure, Just as Jesus did. Like Jesus had done, Paul tried to reveal the OT through the revelation of Christ. Peter also, revealed to Cornelius about the foods which had been now made clean. This whole 'Pauline Cult' conspiracy is filed under the same heading as DaVinci code in my mind.

Pompey Magnus

JimiTime wrote: »

I've seen this conspiracy theory before. But its built on the strawman, that Paul thought that the hebrew scriptures had no place in Christianity. In his letter to Timothy, he tells us that 'All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial etc etc'.

It is generally accepted that the letters to Timothy weren't written by Paul, they were written decades after he died by a supporter of his and attributed to Paul to lend them weight. "Its vocabulary, writing style, theological expressions, and presupposed historical situation all differ significantly what can be found in Paul's authentic letters" (Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities). Similarly for the other inauthentic Pauline letters: Titus, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thesselonians.

If you wish you can find some authentic quotes from Paul in his actual letters and use these to show that he in fact approved of continued use of the OT, if you are up for a challenge try and find something in Galatians.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It is generally accepted that the letters to Timothy weren't written by Paul, they were written decades after he died by a supporter of his and attributed to Paul to lend them weight. "Its vocabulary, writing style, theological expressions, and presupposed historical situation all differ significantly what can be found in Paul's authentic letters" (Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities). Similarly for the other inauthentic Pauline letters: Titus, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thesselonians.

If you wish you can find some authentic quotes from Paul in his actual letters and use these to show that he in fact approved of continued use of the OT, if you are up for a challenge try and find something in Galatians.

Liberal scholars tend to deny the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles while conservative scholars tend to affirm Pauline authorship. I would say that a majority of scholars side with the liberal view, but given that first rank biblical scholars can be found on either side of the question it is inaccurate to claim that anything is "generally accepted" concerning their authorship.

Galatians certainly does support the continued use of the Old Testament. In Galatians Paul bases one of his major arguments on what Genesis says about Abraham, right down to stressing the fact that one particular word (seed) is in the singular rather than the plural - a form of argument that would only hold water if Paul believed in the verbal inerrancy of the Old Testament.

There are at least 16 quotations from, or allusions to, the Old Testament in Galatians.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Liberal scholars tend to deny the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles while conservative scholars tend to affirm Pauline authorship. I would say that a majority of scholars side with the liberal view, but given that first rank biblical scholars can be found on either side of the question it is inaccurate to claim that anything is "generally accepted" concerning their authorship.

You are probably correct that not too much is "generally accepted" when it comes to conservative scholars vs liberal scholars, however of the disputed letters attributed to Paul it is the two Timothy letters and Titus which are deemed to be the most uncertain.

Galatians certainly does support the continued use of the Old Testament. In Galatians Paul bases one of his major arguments on what Genesis says about Abraham, right down to stressing the fact that one particular word (seed) is in the singular rather than the plural - a form of argument that would only hold water if Paul believed in the verbal inerrancy of the Old Testament.

There are at least 16 quotations from, or allusions to, the Old Testament in Galatians.

I wouldn't question that Paul referred to, and employed, the Old Testament in Galatians, but I think you would have a hard time arguing that he advocated its continued use by followers of Christ. He describes the Jewish law as "a curse" which was redeemed by Jesus. His comparison between the Jewish law and the child of the slavewoman makes his intentions pretty clear. I'm just after skimming through Galatians again and didn't find anything that indicates he saw any future in the Hebrew Bible.

Marcion seems to have been the most faithfull follower of Paul's message. He took the letters of Paul to their logical conclusion, he completely seperated the Hebrew Bible from Christianity.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I wouldn't question that Paul referred to, and employed, the Old Testament in Galatians, but I think you would have a hard time arguing that he advocated its continued use by followers of Christ. He describes the Jewish law as "a curse" which was redeemed by Jesus. His comparison between the Jewish law and the child of the slavewoman makes his intentions pretty clear. I'm just after skimming through Galatians again and didn't find anything that indicates he saw any future in the Hebrew Bible.

Marcion seems to have been the most faithfull follower of Paul's message. He took the letters of Paul to their logical conclusion, he completely seperated the Hebrew Bible from Christianity.

No, I think your logic is clearly at fault here.

Paul's argument is not that the law is going to be done away with, but that it had already been fulfilled in Christ and therefore at the time of writing Galatians (20 years later) it is no longer binding upon the Galatians. Now, if he was including the Jewish Scriptures as something that had been done away with in Christ then it would be entirely illogical of him to quote those Scriptures in an authoritative way 20 years after they had been abolished.

Even the quick skimming through of Galations you just indulged in must have shown you that one of the major planks in Paul's argument is that the Gospel of faith and grace is found in the Scriptural promises to Abraham which preceded the law of Moses. Again, this can only make sense if by "the law" that has become a curse, Paul is referring to the Mosaic regulations rather than to the entire Old Testament Scriptures.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Paul's argument is not that the law is going to be done away with, but that it had already been fulfilled in Christ and therefore at the time of writing Galatians (20 years later) it is no longer binding upon the Galatians.

How does he do this? Does he offer any particular reason to show why the law has been done away with? None that I can see anyway. He doesn't quote Jesus saying that the law is to be done away with after his death. He doesn't offer Biblical justification which shows that the Torah was not intended to be a perpetual series of laws but rather a filler until the Messiah arrived. No, all Paul does is to basically say that the Law is done away with because he says it is done away with.

Galatians is a poorly constructed mish mash of ideas and all Paul is doing is making up his own bizaare interpretations as he goes along. For example, when he brings up the point about how God made a promise to Abraham "and his descendent", I haven't a clue how Paul manages to conclude that the descendent was not the Jewish people but was actually Jesus. Paul basically concluded that God made a covenant with Abraham and to God. Again he doesn't care to explain why Jesus is this descendent, I suppose it is Jesus because Paul says it is Jesus and of course Paul knows better than centuries of Torah observant Judaism.

Paul then claims followers of Christ are descendents of Abraham via Sarah, the freewoman, whilst followers of the Torah (the Jews) are descendents of Abraham via Hagar, the slavewoman. He conveniently ignores the fact that Jewish descent is actually through Sarah, but hey, when he is making things up why not completely reverse very well documented genealogies? His following justification for throwing out the Torah because it is the same as the slavewoman borders on the ridiculous.

I can imagine Paul would have been an infuriating person to debate with, he completely twists things around to say what he wants them to say and doesn't bother justifying why he is doing it. With people like him on your side it is no wonder that the Jews weren't convinced by the Jesus story.

The most glaring ommission from Galatians though is any reference to Jesus' life and teachings. Paul does not defend his actions by pointing out how Jesus ignored the Torah and rejected it as being no longer binding. He does not quote Jesus saying that after his death humanity will be liberated from the law. Why not? Because Jesus was a Torah observant Jew. Jesus did not claim that the Torah was temporary and would be void after his death. In fact Jesus wanted his followers to follow it even closer than the most devout Jew. Paul could not use Jesus' life to defend his wild claims because he had nothing to go on.

Even the quick skimming through of Galations you just indulged in must have shown you that one of the major planks in Paul's argument is that the Gospel of faith and grace is found in the Scriptural promises to Abraham which preceded the law of Moses. Again, this can only make sense if by "the law" that has become a curse, Paul is referring to the Mosaic regulations rather than to the entire Old Testament Scriptures.

Out of interest when did the Mosaic law "become a curse"? Was it a curse the moment God gave it to Moses or some random time in between then and Jesus? It is strange how this curse is still clung to dearly by millions of Jews around the world even though they have been persecuted terribly for holding onto it instead of being liberated from it by kissing the cross. Instead they see it as a gift from God which they treasure.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How does he do this? Does he offer any particular reason to show why the law has been done away with? None that I can see anyway. He doesn't quote Jesus saying that the law is to be done away with after his death. He doesn't offer Biblical justification which shows that the Torah was not intended to be a perpetual series of laws but rather a filler until the Messiah arrived. No, all Paul does is to basically say that the Law is done away with because he says it is done away with.

He doesn't say the law is 'done away with' at all. He says it has served its purpose and so has been fulfilled.
BTW, the term 'Torah' is pretty ambiguous and is certainly not going to help understanding in this discussion.

Galatians is a poorly constructed mish mash of ideas and all Paul is doing is making up his own bizaare interpretations as he goes along. For example, when he brings up the point about how God made a promise to Abraham "and his descendent", I haven't a clue how Paul manages to conclude that the descendent was not the Jewish people but was actually Jesus.

I certainly agree with the bit about you not having a clue. Paul is basing his argument upon an extremely literal understanding of Genesis (remember, that was what we were discussing before you tried to change the subject) where the word 'seed' is singular (referring to a person) not plural (referring to a race).

Again he doesn't care to explain why Jesus is this descendent, I suppose it is Jesus because Paul says it is Jesus and of course Paul knows better than centuries of Torah observant Judaism.

That is a very interesting argument you use there. You belittle the fact that Paul (a trained Hebrew rabbi) should come to an interpretation that conflicts with centuries of Jewish scholarly interpretation. However you keep advancing theories on this board that, if we were to accept them, would mean that Depeche Mode (with no training in the subject) comes to an interpretation that conflicts with centuries of Christian scholarly interpretation. The weapon you try to fashion against Paul is much more likely to hurt yourself.

Paul then claims followers of Christ are descendents of Abraham via Sarah, the freewoman, whilst followers of the Torah (the Jews) are descendents of Abraham via Hagar, the slavewoman. He conveniently ignores the fact that Jewish descent is actually through Sarah, but hey, when he is making things up why not completely reverse very well documented genealogies? His following justification for throwing out the Torah because it is the same as the slavewoman borders on the ridiculous.

This is getting surreal. Galatians 4:24 clearly states that Paul is using the 'descendants of the slavewoman' (Hagar) and the 'descendants of the freewoman' (Sarah) in a symbolic or figurative sense. He is stressing the difference between the Covenant of slavish obedience to the Law and the Covenant of promise and grace. To try to pretend that Paul is talking about physical descent or genalogies here is silliness of the highest order.

I can imagine Paul would have been an infuriating person to debate with, he completely twists things around to say what he wants them to say and doesn't bother justifying why he is doing it. With people like him on your side it is no wonder that the Jews weren't convinced by the Jesus story.

Try learning about the context of a text. Paul's ministry was primarily to the Gentiles, not Jews. His arguments in Galatians are opposing the Judaisers, people who had already accepted the 'Jesus Story' but tried to enforce circumcision on Gentile converts.

The most glaring ommission from Galatians though is any reference to Jesus' life and teachings. Paul does not defend his actions by pointing out how Jesus ignored the Torah and rejected it as being no longer binding. He does not quote Jesus saying that after his death humanity will be liberated from the law. Why not? Because Jesus was a Torah observant Jew. Jesus did not claim that the Torah was temporary and would be void after his death. In fact Jesus wanted his followers to follow it even closer than the most devout Jew. Paul could not use Jesus' life to defend his wild claims because he had nothing to go on.

In early Christian preaching, as indeed today in biblical theology, Christ's death was actually more important than his life and teachings. His death is what saves us - His life and teachings then help us know how to behave after that all-important act of saving faith in His death.

Out of interest when did the Mosaic law "become a curse"? Was it a curse the moment God gave it to Moses or some random time in between then and Jesus?

It became a curse when people tried to present it as a means of salvation - something it was never intended to be.

It is strange how this curse is still clung to dearly by millions of Jews around the world even though they have been persecuted terribly for holding onto it instead of being liberated from it by kissing the cross. Instead they see it as a gift from God which they treasure.

So, the fact that millions of people cling to a belief even in the face of persecution is a measure of its validity? Do you really want to go down that road?

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

So, the fact that millions of people cling to a belief even in the face of persecution is a measure of its validity? Do you really want to go down that road?

Well what is a measure of a beliefs validity?

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well what is a measure of a beliefs validity?

I think there are a number of indicators. For example, consistency and congruence.

1. Consistency. Is the belief self-contradictory or not?
2. Congruence. How does the belief square with other things that I believe to be true.

I would also ask the opinions of others whom I trust. Also, I want to know what are the likely results of holding a particular belief. Then I want to examine the evidence for or against any proposed belief.

If you want to start a thread on any of these then feel free to do so.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Paul is basing his argument upon an extremely literal understanding of Genesis (remember, that was what we were discussing before you tried to change the subject) where the word 'seed' is singular (referring to a person) not plural (referring to a race).

It was Isaiah, wasn't it? This was the "He will see seed, He will prolong days" translation in which you claimed that the gentiles are the seed of Abraham. Reading the relevant passage in Galatians Paul seems to argue that the covenant was between God - Abraham - and God again. Paul seems to reject that it ever applied to the actual descendents of Abraham. Do you believe that there ever was a covenant between God and the Jews?

That is a very interesting argument you use there. You belittle the fact that Paul (a trained Hebrew rabbi) should come to an interpretation that conflicts with centuries of Jewish scholarly interpretation. However you keep advancing theories on this board that, if we were to accept them, would mean that Depeche Mode (with no training in the subject) comes to an interpretation that conflicts with centuries of Christian scholarly interpretation. The weapon you try to fashion against Paul is much more likely to hurt yourself.

I'm sorry but this comparison falls down at the first hurdle. Paul created a new theology himself, I on the other hand am not suggesting that the arguments are my own. For example on the subject of Paul's controversial attitude towards Hebrew customs you could go back to the very early stages of Christianity to find Christians supporting the very same points as I have made. It isn't a new argument and it certainly wasn't an interpretation first arrived at by me.

Try learning about the context of a text. Paul's ministry was primarily to the Gentiles, not Jews.

I know full well that Paul ministered to the gentiles. The point I made was that the Jews weren't convinced by his arguments, I'm sure I don't have to point out to you the instances where his debates with Jews proved futile. Damascus, Antioch, Iconium, Thesselonica, Corinth, Ephesus, Jerusalem all saw Paul debating with the Jews and more often than not the Jews were enfuriated with him he would have to run away before he was killed.

Everywhere he goes we find that most of the people who understand the context of the Hebrew Bible reject his strange interpretation of it and those who have only a vague (or no) knowledge of it happily accept his arguments.

In early Christian preaching, as indeed today in biblical theology, Christ's death was actually more important than his life and teachings. His death is what saves us

Em, this is exactly my point. You make the argument that Christ's death is more important than his life and teaching because Pauline Christianity became the Orthodoxy. Had the Jewish Christianity of the Jerusalem Church become the Orthodoxy you would be arguing the exact opposite, you would believe that Jesus' life was more important and that his death had no great, cosmic consequences.

You should have rephrased that sentence as "In early Pauline Christianity, as indeed today in Pauline biblical theology, Christ's death was more important than his life and teachings." As I was saying this is because Jesus' life and teachings did not support what Paul preached, if it did then Paul would have used them to support his case and you would be now providing a long list of examples in Jesus ridiculing the curse which is the Law.

It became a curse when people tried to present it as a means of salvation - something it was never intended to be.

Again I ask, where does this argument come from? Is it because Paul said it so it must be true? So why did Jesus follow the Law if it was a curse? Why did he not spend his time trying to point out that there was no salvation in the Law instead of what he actually did in advocating its observance?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It was Isaiah, wasn't it? This was the "He will see seed, He will prolong days" translation in which you claimed that the gentiles are the seed of Abraham.

No, the reference in Galatians is not to Isaiah. The reference in Galatians 3:16 is to the promise that was given to Abraham (Gen 12:7, 13:15 & 24:7). All of these use the word 'seed' in the singular.

You are getting confused with another discussion in which I mentioned Isaiah 53 as also being linked with the Genesis promise.

Paul seems to reject that it ever applied to the actual descendents of Abraham. Do you believe that there ever was a covenant between God and the Jews?

No, Paul does not reject any such thing. The covenant did indeed apply to Abraham's descendants, but it was not automatic, nor was it exclusive. So people could be cut off from the covenant due to unbelief, and those who were not physical descendants of Abraham could also become part of God's covenant people (eg Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute and Ruth, a Moabitess).

This is of course consistent with the teaching of John the Baptist (Matt 3:7-9) and Jesus (John 8) as anyone would see who is interested in learning what the Bible actually says rather than trying to posit a non-existent conflict between the teaching of Jesus and that of Paul.

I know full well that Paul ministered to the gentiles. The point I made was that the Jews weren't convinced by his arguments, I'm sure I don't have to point out to you the instances where his debates with Jews proved futile. Damascus, Antioch, Iconium, Thesselonica, Corinth, Ephesus, Jerusalem all saw Paul debating with the Jews and more often than not the Jews were enfuriated with him he would have to run away before he was killed.

Everywhere he goes we find that most of the people who understand the context of the Hebrew Bible reject his strange interpretation of it and those who have only a vague (or no) knowledge of it happily accept his arguments.

You would be hard pressed to name any evangelist in history who has ever seen over 50% of their audiences (in any culture) respond positively to the message. To try to use that as proof that Paul was wrong in his interpretation is a huge leap of logic.

Em, this is exactly my point. You make the argument that Christ's death is more important than his life and teaching because Pauline Christianity became the Orthodoxy. Had the Jewish Christianity of the Jerusalem Church become the Orthodoxy you would be arguing the exact opposite, you would believe that Jesus' life was more important and that his death had no great, cosmic consequences.

You should have rephrased that sentence as "In early Pauline Christianity, as indeed today in Pauline biblical theology, Christ's death was more important than his life and teachings." As I was saying this is because Jesus' life and teachings did not support what Paul preached, if it did then Paul would have used them to support his case and you would be now providing a long list of examples in Jesus ridiculing the curse which is the Law.

Not true. The Book of Acts, the Book of Hebrews, and 1 & 2 Peter all provide evidence of the prominence given to the death of Christ in early Jewish Christianity.

Again I ask, where does this argument come from? Is it because Paul said it so it must be true? So why did Jesus follow the Law if it was a curse? Why did he not spend his time trying to point out that there was no salvation in the Law instead of what he actually did in advocating its observance?

Jesus obeyed the Law as the only one who was able to perfectly do so. His own obedience to the Law demonstrated His own righteousness as the sinless Saviour who died for those who were unable to obey the Law (Gal 4:4-5). You might have noticed this, but maybe your skim through Galatians was a bit too quick.

PDN

Asiaprod wrote: »

Hum, you hinted before that the OT was no longer applicable and was superseded by the NT so I assume that this also relates to the 10 commandments. Can you expand on this a little for me. I am interested in the place of the OT in the current age.If you want to start a new thread on this please move this out.

Getting back on topic again, I wanted to address a couple of things in Asiaprod's OP.

I don't believe the Old Testament to be no longer applicable, indeed I believe that all of the Old Testament is the inspired Word of God and as such is profitable for "instruction, correction, reproof and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

What I do believe is that all of Scripture, be it in the Old Testament or the New Testament, needs to be read in context and with due regard to what type of literature it is. Who wrote or said it to whom? Why was it said or written? And what form did it take?

Some OT Scriptures give moral guidance. For example, commandments against murder, adultery or stealing. Since God does not change morally, we know that these principles will not change.

Other Scriptures obviously are addressed to a context that no longer exists. For example, many Old Testament verses relate to how worship was to be conducted in the Tabernacle or Temple with the Ark of the Covenant etc. Such worship has not existed for the last 2000 years. Other Scriptures were to provide guidance to the Israelites when they first occupied the Promised Land in the time of Joshua. These verses are still the Word of God, and they help us to know who God is and how He cares for His people - but they are not commandments for us to follow today.

Many Old Testament verses deal with a ceremonial and ritual law rather than moral requirements. For example, the prohibition against wearing clothing of mixed fibres, or the designating of certain kinds of meat as clean or unclean. Christians believe, on the basis of the New Testament, that this ceremonial law existed for the purpose of pointing the way forward to the coming of Christ. Now that Christ has come, we are not obligated to obey these ceremonies or regulations.

Also I would be interested in your take on Marcionism that postulated there were in fact 2 Gods: the OT God who was righteous, often inconsistent, jealous, wrathful and genocidal and the current God of the NT that stood for kindness, repentance and compassion?

Like most, if not all Christians, I believe that Marcion was seriously in error. There is only one God (capital G). However, God deals with man in different ways depending on the circumstances.

A useful illustration might be that of a democratic government that finds itself in a war for its very existence. Take the UK during World War II as an example. Emergency measures had to be taken in wartime, including measures that seemed to be restricting the very 'freedom' that the nation was trying to defend. So you get rationing, blackouts, the evacuation of children, conscription etc. - all things that seem contrary to what you should find in a free democratic society. However, if these things helped defeat the obscenity of Nazism then they were justified.

In the Old Testament you have God setting apart a small tribe of people so that through them He can bring forth a Saviour who will ultimately make salvation possible for everyone who is willing to be saved. That small tribe is surrounded by more powerful nations that would love to destroy them, and there is the constant danger that the small tribe will corrupt itself by copying the lifestyle and practices of the surrounding nations. Therefore some emergency measures will be necessary to preserve that tribe's existence and unique calling.

Now, please remember the point of this post. I am not attempting to excuse or justify everything that is in the Old Testament. In fact there are some things there that I am at a loss to understand or explain. So let's not drag this off topic with posts saying stuff like, "What about this incident?" or even "Did the emergency measures have to be quite so extreme?" I am simply explaining why there is a contrast between God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament (particularly in the first few books) and as he is portrayed in the New Testament.

Once Jesus had died on the Cross and been raised from the dead, the situation had changed dramatically. After the Day of Pentecost God's chosen people were now equipped with the power of the Holy Spirit to live a different way - so now the Church is supposed to behave differently.

Asiaprod

PDN wrote: »

Now, please remember the point of this post. I am not attempting to excuse or justify everything that is in the Old Testament. In fact there are some things there that I am at a loss to understand or explain. So let's not drag this off topic with posts saying stuff like, "What about this incident?" or even "Did the emergency measures have to be quite so extreme?" I am simply explaining why there is a contrast between God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament (particularly in the first few books) and as he is portrayed in the New Testament.

Thank you, that was very informative. I am only interested in the contrast:cool:

Dog Fan

robindch wrote: »

Likewise, but thankfully, it's not. Raskolnikov really is one of literature's dullest characters.

True, true.

that was one book I found to be very depressing.:(