To Christians: What if Christians followed Christ...

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T14:28:41.051494+00:00

I'm telling you your interpretation is based on a particular modern definition of law; you're thinking of civil laws or something like that.

The OT is not that, it is essentially a contract/covenant/testament. That concept runs through the OT and NT, and is why I think we're suffering this confusion.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T14:26:44.397453+00:00

well this just shows me you are very confused about the subject and don't know a lot about it.

Do you have any Jewish friends? Have you ever asked them why they don't kill people that work on Sundays/have slaves/stone adulterers etc? What's the answer?

after all I'm no Jew. Were the Jews still killing people for working on Sundays during the time of Jesus? could it be you have a bit more to learn about the topic?

how many times Jesus says that you CANNOT be his follower unless you give ALL of your possessions to the poor

not once.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T14:18:33.353029+00:00

I'm sorry if it comes across like that, but you do seem to be displaying a lack of knowledge about a complicated subject, and demanding I simplify it to suit your needs. It would be a lot easier if you did some reading yourself, and instead of arguing with me, you tried to understand the writers of the NT and Jesus, and consider that maybe Christians for 2000years have a coherent picture of their beliefs, and it makes sense, even if you don't like it. And part of that includes not following the OT laws.

With a contract, you have two parties who mutually agree upon a certain outcome. "I'll do X if you do Y." Once that exchange occurs, the contract is no longer valid. This analogy does not apply in the case of Judaic law.

This is what I'm talking about - it does! read the OT covenants, and you'll see god said exactly that: If you do x, I'll do y, as long as you do it, I'll do it, this is our agreement. There is no 'cut off' for agreements of lifelong protection, prosperity, health etc.

Plus you need to understand there were different covenants for different things, at different times. not all rules applied universally, for all time. Ask a Jew.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:56:07.831273+00:00

God's law wasn't a contract because it involved God dictating to man.

I'm afraid this shows how little you know about the subject. You could start here), to help you get to grips with what the OT Law/covenants actually meant and mean.

This is a pretty big chain of unestablished conclusions. Where can I find this explanation in the NT?

Read the book of Romans. Or Hebrews. (And then the rest of Paul's letters will help too).

And this is a pretty short list of forbidden things. It doesn't include "don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't molest children," or any of those other important ideas.

and thus you are beginning to get it.

I know you want "black and white" answers and the whole of christian theology/morality within a few short replies, but you aren't going to get it. You need to do some foundational research, get your head around the concepts of the OT and what it represents and means, understand the context and then read the NT with that understanding. There is in fact a lot of 'middle ground' because this is a big subject with a lot of simultaneous truths.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:47:44.416313+00:00

Luke 16:17 - "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."

Matt 5:17-19 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, 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. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So which bit says Christians should be practicing the Law?

The closest thing you have is this; "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

guess what? I'm not breaking any of those commandments. I'm fulfilling them by loving everyone as I love myself.

And you raise a good point; Jesus 'makes it' (doesn't really) stricter. So the law isn't good enough, right? Well should I follow the law or not? If the Pharisees and co, who are all fulfilling the law, aren't making the cut, what's the missing piece?

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:31:06.162614+00:00

I know the gospels. Got any verses where he says they "should still apply?"

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:29:52.006946+00:00

Whether or not he broke any law is irrelevant.

I'm afraid its actually a critical part of Christian theology.

He says "no abolish, yes fulfill." When you complete a law, the law doesn't go away.

no, but when you complete a contract, it does. That's what the word "testament" means - ie. last will and testament. It's a legal term. The OT is not a book of rules for the running of society. It's a contract, or rather a series of contracts between god and man.

Consider the rule "don't steal". What is the point of that rule? It's to teach others that morally, stealing is wrong. People might want to steal, but they shouldn't. People still stole. The law was still in effect, but people broke it. Jesus came and fulfilled the law, including not stealing.

Are Christians then free to steal? well no, stealing is bad. But the motivator is not the law itself (do not steal), but the love one for another. If you love one another, you won't steal in the first place. The law is not abolished (the principle is not abolished, it's still wrong to steal), but the demand of "you must not steal" is no longer pride of place. The law itself is not important; it's the fulfilling of it that matters (doesn't matter how you get there, as long as you get there).

So in one sense, yes the Law still stands. It is still wrong to steal, people will face consequences both in this life and the next for stealing. But the instruction has shifted from targeting the consequence (the breaking of the law) to the root of the problem; not loving other people like you love yourself. The Law has not been abolished, it's been fulfilled by Jesus, and now we can fulfil it too, by default.

Acts 15 is where the disciples get together to discuss this issue. They conclude: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell." - Acts 15:28-29

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:05:27.575525+00:00

what verse implies Paul wants to keep women out of primary leadership roles?

You probably mean the couple of verses that are often used by sexist dudes to keep women down, and I would say are very badly misinterpreted - especially if you care to look at Paul's relationship with women who were actually already leaders in the church.

And again, disdain for homosexuality? You mean the few occasions he mentions it in passing?

There really is no difference in their positions. Jesus had mainly male disciples and apostles, but he also had women followers , some of whom supported him financially for example. And Jesus was a Jew, well aware of the OT laws regarding homosexuality, he never contradicted them, he said God made them "man and woman" in the beginning and endorsed (what we would now call "heterosexual") marriage.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T12:52:48.845067+00:00

because they agree, quite simply.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T12:51:39.071016+00:00

fulfil meaning; followed, met every demand of the law. Every rule of the law, Jesus completed it. He didn't break any element of the law, so he 'fulfilled' it.

It of course has further meanings; fulfil as in finalise, like a contract would be finalised. and once a contract is finalised, there's no debt/outstanding demands of the contract that need to be met. It has been paid in full.

Keeping the OT rules 'around' is not exactly a problem, rather it is helpful in understanding why and what Jesus came to do. The point behind the OT is not the rules, it's what's going on behind the rules; why they exist in the first place, who gave them, the prophecies, the examples, etc.

And actually a lot of churches work on this principle. They do not abandon or dismiss the OT, they simply recognise it's place, and the primacy of place that Christians should give to the NT, as did the early Christians (not following the Jewish law, but not breaking it either. essentially doing the most loving thing, which often times wouldn't involve 'breaking' any OT law at all).

Paul elaborates on it in some detail, saying that there is no OT Law demand on new converts, on Christians. But that Christians, especially Jewish Christians, should be careful not to appear to be breaking the traditional laws, or cultural ways, because it may offend or confuse or put off the non-christian Jews, or new Jewish Christians.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T12:27:25.867332+00:00

he didn't come to change the law. He came to fulfil it.

The OT is not void, but the commands have been superceded by a new and better covenant. There is plenty to learn from the OT, it is the story of God's redemptive plan being worked out via the Jewish people. The commandments are from god, to a particular people at a particular time. So Christians can and do learn a lot from the OT, as examples of faith, history, context, the nature of God, the plan of redemption etc.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T12:12:13.058619+00:00

citation needed.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T12:12:00.946656+00:00

If you are following the teachings of Christ you will by default follow/agree with Paul's interpretations and explanations.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T12:11:10.983761+00:00

nope.

of course they will fulfil the ten commandments by default by loving their neighbour as themselves, and loving one another as Christ loved us.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T11:07:00.834174+00:00

ok great. sorry to keep you up. I live in the UK so I get the same problem sometimes; everyone else in full flow and I need to sleep!

cheers.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T10:57:46.133909+00:00

no problem.

I think it comes down to Paul not repeating verbatim Jesus, because of course Paul never met Jesus (pre-resurrection). He heard the oral teachings being passed amongst disciples, but he himself received a revelation not from man.

His letters are there to help churches and give them understanding and guidelines. So he covers various different topics; but he is teaching people who were in a different situation to those Jesus taught. Jesus taught Jews, non-born-again people, Paul taught born-again Christians. That framework will help you understand a lot of the apparent differences between the two.

As for the cleansing the temple; it is indeed a bit of a pain for a lot of Christians. It doesn't sound like the Jesus we often think of; meek and mild and never a bad word for anyone. But it's consistent with his words and teachings; the seriousness of sin, the goodness and holiness of god, the desire of god to redeem mankind. It's right there in scripture (multiple times), alongside all the 'nice Jesus' bits. It might be difficult, but we can't throw it out.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T10:32:15.867374+00:00

ah right.

well Paul is talking exclusively about how Christians should treat one another. The previous verse is "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law...." so he is just going into expanding that thought; and explaining that Love is the fulfilment of the law in regards to how to treat others.

Also Paul doesn't say this is "the greatest commandment", rather he says this commandment (to love one another) sums up all the other commands of the law (no murder, no stealing etc.). He doesn't touch on the 'command' to love God, because that is both assumed and outside of the topic he is discussing.

I think for your logic to stick you'd need to propose Paul did not believe christians needed to love God, but just to love one another. I think you would struggle to make that case.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T10:20:57.069417+00:00

haha, ok.

First, to clarify the Holy Spirit one; Paul doesn't mean "we don't know what to pray" as in "we have no idea what to say". A lot of Paul's letters are made up of prayers! Paul knows what to pray. 1 Cor 14:15 - "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

Paul is saying "sometimes, regarding certain situations, we don't know what to pray for. We don't know exactly what God's will is for a specific circumstance, but we want to pray for God's will to be done, so we rely on the Holy Spirit".

I think one part of understanding this is knowing that there are different kinds of prayer. Prayers of praise, thanksgiving, supplication, faith, intercession. ("And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. - Eph 6:18). when Paul says "we know not..." I think he is referring to an intercession kind of prayer; 'doing business' in the spirit, praying for god's will to be done. Not just thanking god or talking to god. I hope that makes sense.

For the Romans/Matt new one; I really don't see an issue! Both Paul and Jesus agree explicitly; the Law and prophets and commandments are all summed up in "Love God, love your neighbour as yourself". can you explain what exactly you see the problem to be here?

edit: sorry, forgot to include the Jesus flipping out verses, you can find them here. Here is brood of vipers, and here is dog. Also this is dog.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T09:55:10.893403+00:00

he is still advocating judging! Whether it's of non-believers or other believers, either way, I think Jesus is pretty clear about that.

I think we need to define "judging", and what Jesus meant by it. If you read it in context (the whole of Matt 7) I think it is clear Jesus means "don't criticise or condemn people or point out faults" not "there should be no law, no civil courts or judges".

To put it another way; Jesus spent his life 'judging'. He judged between right and wrong, and often pointed out the faults of the pharisees and religious leaders (snakes! brood of vipers!), amongst others. He called the syrophoenician woman a 'dog'! He turned over tables and made a whip. He wasn't afraid to confront wrong and evil when he saw it.

So Paul and Jesus are on exactly the same page; advocating that Christians (and in particular leaders in the church) should discern between right and wrong to keep out the bad and keep in the good. This is a principle that runs throughout Jesus' parables (future judgement, wise and fools), and one Paul simply puts more explicitly into instruction sometimes.

And on the third point (the holy spirit) - I would simply ask; what then did Jesus send the holy spirit for? The Lords prayer is great, but evidently there was a need for a holy spirit for some reason; to lead us "into all truth". apparently Jesus did not deliver "all truth" in his teachings while he was here on earth!

Also I see no contradiction between your new example. One is Paul saying Christ died and is now Lord (meaning highest authority) over the dead and living. In Luke Jesus says God is not the god of the dead (meaning to God there are no such thing as dead people) but the living. God is not the god of dead men; Abraham, Issac etc. - these guys still live, in heaven.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T09:26:37.400909+00:00

Ok let's look at these;

your first example is Paul saying that Christians will in the future judge the world - ie. at/after the second coming.

Just a few verses earlier Paul says "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? [Christians today should hear that!] Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."

So Paul is not saying Christians should 'judge' non-believers. Jesus command also doesn't mean there should not be judges, law etc. in society - but that individuals should not pre-judge or condemn others. No contradiction.

Second example; Paul says if what I eat causes my brother to sin, I won't eat it, to stop them from falling into sin. He didn't say eating it was sinful in itself. Jesus said similar things; Luke 17:1 - "Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come."

Paul knew there was nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols, but he didn't want to do it if it caused confusion or led people to sin.

Third; Jesus didn't mean "you should only ever pray this prayer and never do anything else". The Lord's prayer was not a poem to be repeated verbatim, it was guidelines and principles for effective prayer.

Paul is speaking about the Holy Spirit praying through the believer, in certain circumstances (ie. in some cases we don't know what to pray regarding a certain situation, but the Spirit does). The holy spirit was given by Jesus;

John 14:16 - "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--"

John 16:13 - "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

I see no contradictions.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T08:58:08.321331+00:00

ok I would agree with that. But I would say Paul etc. never made up his own teachings, he followed Jesus teaching and example, and wrote accordingly.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T08:52:41.193469+00:00

If the Christians followed Christ they would follow the bible, specifically the New Testament.

Christians shouldn't be living as though the OT Law still applies to us, or that OT prophets are our examples in particular. So if you mean drop the Leviticus quotes for anti-gay stuff, I agree.

However, the NT is the revelation of Jesus and what he means, starting with Paul's letters. They are principles and instructions and teaching for Christians to help them understand and live accordingly. If you follow Jesus, you'll be following what the NT teaches.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T08:46:51.915621+00:00

This is Jesus forbidding others from teaching? Do you have any other scripture support, because this looks pretty slim to me.

Matthew 28:19-20 - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Mysticbus · 2012-05-25T08:39:39.025404+00:00

held as holy by who? Not by the majority of Christians.

Yes, some small side groups had their own texts. Often written much later, claiming authority but having none, and not adopted or ever used by the majority of the Christian community. As such the Christians never held them as 'holy', and never abandoned them.

Mchinga · 2012-05-24T22:43:03.197840+00:00

actually it seems it does. - follow the thread.

honestchristian

TROPHY CASE

honestchristian

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login