Old Laws Still Valid?

Actually, Matt 5:17-19 pretty clearly states that Jesus came to change the law, even if he didn't come to abolish it. The part that says "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it," is literally to "bring it to fullness, expand it, or fill it up." He then goes on, in the rest of the chapter, to explain exactly what he means by that. Instead of a law against adultery, even looking to lust is forbidden. Instead of a limit on divorce, there's a ban on them. Instead of fulfilling our oaths, we have to fulfill every word.I don't think there was ever a problem with the Law being flexible. The Law requires that sacrifices be offered at the temple or tabernacle. Yet God received offerings from David and Samuel, neither Levites, in all sorts of places. The Law requires the exposure and stoning of adulteresses, but Joseph is called good for being minded to put away Mary, his betrothed, privately and prevent her from being shamed.Sure, the Law of Moses is said to be a revelation from God, but is there anything saying that the revelation wasn't only an appropriate one for their time and culture? Couldn't things that are "good" to us become honored as good over time, such as Joseph's actions?The Letter to the Hebrews says that Jesus brought a new Law (7:12). Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah predict a time when the covenant with Israel would be changed.The Law, according to Jesus, was not done away with, it was "filled up." It was brought to a standard fit for those who would live by the Spirit of God and not merely by law.Unfortunately, what passes for Christianity these days knows nothing about these things and certainly does not demonstrate these things. It shouldn't be a surprise, though. The Christianity we see around us could hardly be the real product of Christ's teachings, because Christ said few would find the path of life, not many, and Christianity is certainly "the many."May God grant the world to see a real demonstration of Christ's teachings. More Christians like Gandhi would provide a powerful testimony to the laws of Christ and end a lot of arguments against them.

it makes sense to view jesus as a late old testament minor prophet, aside from any religious, son-of-god issues. alot of his preaching in the gospels (well, the synoptic ones anyways) seems to revolve around reforming judaism. he specifically says he has not come to abolish judaism......that's actually the most accurate reading of "the law" in his statement about fulfilling the law. ha-torah, "the law," is what defines judaism, and it is not something he is striking from the record. rather, he seems to have sought to again make the law meaningful when the jews of the time had lost track. his teachings do not contradict the law, to my knowledge, except in a few places, but rather internalize it and return it to being moral choices instead of rules and loopholes. jesus was a jew, and spoke like a jew, and said many things that were entirely consistent with post-1st temple and 2nd temple judaism's minor prophets. i entirely understand, being a (former fundamentalist) christian myself. it's not a belief that is actively held, but you're not asking the right questions or examining the underlying philosophy closely enough. god loves us enough to sacrifice his own son for us, which is an incredibly powerful and moving gesture.but why should he need to? and sacrifice to whom? does god not have the power to forgive sin? if he truly loves us, why the game about sending us to hell if we don't believe, and the need to uphold the law? can't he love us unconditionally? can't he forgive us without anyone dying?according to popular christianity, the only thing stopping him is himself, and his "just" nature. so yes, in some regard, christians do believe in a harsh god -- one that demands blood be spilled to reconcile blame. this is not the god the jews believe in, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of jewish practices.further, this blind adherence to the letter of the law but no the intent is exactly the kind of philosophy that jesus himself seems to spend so much time arguing against. the intent of the law and sacrifices is not because god demands it, but because we love god, and it is our duty to respect the ones we love. this is what jews believe, and this is what jesus taught. why isn't it what christians believe? it seems that jesus's life and the way we understand his death are at odds. there is no need for sacrifice, except our own. this is why the jews sacrificed animals (something that MATTERED to them at the time), and why today they have a time for atonement. and this is why many christians, including myself at one point and many people i have known, have incredible guilt problems. we have nothing to do with our guilt.when we screw up, it's already forgiven 2000 years ago. all we can do is repent, say we won't do it again, but what does that actually mean? we probably will. there's nothing physical we can do make us feel productive, or like we actually did something that make it better. instead, we just feel more guilty for being the cause of the suffering of the son of god.jesus does not abolish our personal need for sacrifice, because it is just the way our brains are wired. we are not making the sacrifice, it is already made. so instead, we backslide for a while, go to a revival or two, repent like crazy, and come back into the church even stronger than before. all we can really give up is more of our time, more of our lives, and more of our minds and free will. stop me if this sounds familiar.the problem is that this christian guilt cycle only encourages cultish, obsessive behaviour. i have personally seen it destroy lives and families. and when people get out, they rarely come back. many never again call themselves christian. there is something very, very wrong about the core beliefs of christianity that does this to people, and something needs to be reexamined.to this day, i have a number of fundamental issues with the basic core of my own faith (some of which are described above) that i can find no reconciliation for, and no solution. the questions are too hard, and i don't feel there are answers to some of these. i'm not sure. i keep different answers on this one. the most literal biblical belief is one of "paradise," a coming kingdom of god, ruled by the messiah, where judah is reinstated as a country, a son of david sits on the throne, the temple of solomon is rebuilt, and there is peace on earth for 1000 years (or eternity?). this should sound familiar -- revelation draws heavily from this tradition. the emphasis was on "gaurantee." god keeps his word, right? jews are not condemned or exalted based on their following of the law, like paul seems to indicate (in, say, galations). paul's tradition of judaism, if he WAS a jew, would have been parushim -- as a pharisee. the people jesus argued against. of course his perspectives are a little wonky.but judaism is much, much more concerned with this life than any next one. and this is a point that jesus perhaps weights about 50/50 with the afterlife, and modern christianity has all but abandoned. this is another problem with modern fundamentalism, imho. too much focus on isolation, staying away from "the world," and prepation for the afterlife. it is distorting the focus of jesus's work and ministry, which was compassion and moral living -- more similar to judaism. there are a number of promises, actually. the one i mean here is the "chosen people" one.

quote:

---

Deu 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

​

Deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

​

Deu 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

​

Deu 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

​

Deu 7:11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.

​

Deu 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

​

Deu 7:13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

​

Deu 7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

​

Deu 7:15 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.

---

it's important to note the order here: god loves you and rescued you, and he keeps his promise. therefore, you should keeps his commandments in return. if you do this, god will continue to keep his promise.it's not "follow the law or die." it's "i rescued you, just do these things and we'll get along great." in fact, the ten commandments are even phrased this way: "i am god, i did this for you. now do this for me." but we don't do them because god demands it, we do it because we respect the wishes of our god. the difference between a good marriage and a bad one, for instance, is whether you blindly obey your spouse out of fear of sleeping on the couch or divorce, or if you do things they live because you love and respect them. yes. a key aspect is special-ness, and being unique. many of the laws revolve around making them ritually clean and inique. no, this is a much later christian invention. before the exile, there was no need for a messiah. the need for a messiah comes about when god breaks a promise to teach israel a lesson or two. there's another promise, given to david on his coronation day, that his line will be on the throne of judah continuously until eternity. when babylon conquers judah, and deposes a few kings in a row, finally carrying off nearly all of judah and their king zedekiah to exile, no other son of david ever sits on the throne again. to this very day, no son of david has sat on the throne of judah since. not even jesus, who was never a physical king.the jews at the time (the author of chronicles, and jeremiah if i recall) rationalize this as judah really screwing up big time and angering god so much that god decides to teach them a lesson. by definition, the messiah is son of david that sits on the throne, as king of judah. there might be other minor messiahs, but THE messiah is definied by literally being king. again, another big problem. jews do not recognize christ as the messiah, and they have some very good reasons not to. not the least of which is the one provided in matthew: jesus is not in the proper line of kings. matthew places him as a son of josiah (son of jehoiakim, whom jeremiah curses), NOT zedekiah. the kingly line has to go through the last legitimate king of judah, and josiah is NOT one of them. so even if jesus had literally ruled the country, he would not fulfill the promise and thus not be the messiah. it's gotta be both.but it's not just a technicality. he simply did not do the things the messiah was supposed to have done. he did not reunited the country, he did not remove foreign powers and influence. he did not bring the lost tribes home. he did not force peace on earth. he may have saved or souls and whatever, but this is not what the jews are looking for. they already have that.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

jesus is not adding law, he is placing emphasis on intent. morality, as opposed to following the letter and skating around loopholes. the law is contradictory, mostly because of deuteronomy, which appears to be a mid-1st temple text designed as fuel for the conflict with judah's northern neighbour israel, in their civil war. deuteronomy forbids worship elsewhere (say, bethel, in israel), but clearly nobody had even heard of this law before then. judah literally has to tear down hundreds of temples because of this text.yet the middle east is strewn with altars, according to genesis. sure, as any rigid and literal set of rules is. the parts of jesus's message that stand the test of time do so because they are moralistic, not legalistic. made meaningful again, i think, is the best explanation. it is a bitter irony that christianity today bears more resemblance to the traditions and philosophy of the pharisees than it does to those of christ.

---

Modern Christians universally say that animal sacrifices were done away with by Christ's final sacrifice. However, on this issue like so many others, there was a time that Christians universally said something different.In the second century the standard argument was that God never wanted sacrifices. It was always a concession to man. In fact, in a verse that was utterly bizarre to me when I was a more mainstream Christian, Jeremiah says that God said he never told the Israelites to sacrifice when he brought them out of Egypt (he didn't???). The early church quoted that verse all the time, as well as Ps 51, of course, about God not desiring sacrifices.The sacrifice of Christ, then, was not a sacrifice to God, who needs no sacrifice, but a sacrifice in the way that diving on a grenade to save others is a sacrifice. The early Christians described it as an example, but also as an act that somehow purified and affected the whole earth spiritually, not just Christians.I know that sounds like I'm presenting a theology, but I'm just trying to offer an alternative--once the standard Christian alternative--to God requiring a sacrifice to forgive sin, which he repeatedly said he does not need, even in the Tanakh (OT). Normally I don't point out people's misspellings, but this word has thrown me for years. Why I have so much trouble remembering where to put the u is beyond me. In your case, maybe this was just a typo, but in my case there's only a couple words I've had horrible problems memorizing, and this is one of them. I have things that don't make a lick of sense to me, too. On the other hand, the faith I live has been so effective that I can't reconcile not believing, either.

How so? In the case of the grenade there exists a system that has a series of cause-and-effect relationships that lead to disastrous consequences. That is, there are chemical reactions, material properties, dynamic reactions and biological effects.The person diving on the grenade is limited in their options. If he could defuse the grenade, or stop the chemical reaction, or shield the shrapnel, etc. they most certainly would. It is a last act of desperation of a human, being constrained by the physical laws and rules of their world.Now, by saying that Christ sacrifices compares to the grenade jumper, is saying that another external system exists beyond God of which God has no control.You are ultimately saying that God is limited in his set of responses and exists within a universe restricted by a set of external constraints.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

jeremiah (and psalms) are a kind of reading of the text, using a different implication and function. it's important to remember that these texts pre-date the 2nd century ad, closer to 600 bc. they certainly existed in christ's time.it is true that in exodus god sets forth rules about sacrifice. the question is, is god demanding them? or setting guidelines for a voluntary ritual? or somewhere in between -- providing for the food of the levites? i'm not sure this makes sense either, even in the 2nd century. what are we being saved from? a grenade explodes; what does sin do? quietly rot our souls? we don't need someone to die for that, rather someone to live and lead and teach us the right way. english spelling makes no sense in general. and i tend to consistently mistype words even if i do know how to spell them lol. my faith is not a concious thing, it's simply a part of me. a part that i no longer know exactly what to do with.

---

I believe Jesus was more than a prophet; I still believe that all of the above is a very good discription of His mission as a man. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Old Law, but men had lost the sense of why they were following it.The more I think about it, the more I feel the Law has not been abolished. There are so many aspects at least of Catholicism that either directly or symbolically follow Judeaism. There is of course the commandments, the passover, the sabbath, the tabernacle, the vestments, etc.I am surprised you were once a fundamentalist. I would have thought you were Jewish hands-down. I want to talk this next part even if I am late; Yes God can love unconditionally, and He can forgive. Thing is, no one was looking for forgiveness or even acknowledging sin, just as now they are not in our time. Even the Jewish leaders were getting cocky about following the Law and feeling justified by that. It is like the 'faith versus works' debate now.truthlover, I think it was, was right about the grenade analogy. Jesus was not so much sacrificed to someone, as sacrificedfor us. His sacrifice may be viewed as the simple fact that instead of remaining in His divine nature and without suffering, He chose to become man and be subject to all of our frailty, including death.I do not feel there is any game about sending people to hell; it is a hard doctrine, but it still makes sense that if we chose to be outside of God's plan, we have created our own 'hell'. I believe there was a need to uphold the Law, as I said before, for without it Jesus would have come in vain and His message would not have been heard with the impact that it has been. God would have still forgiven us through His death; it would not have been valueless, but we men would not have known how to seek God any more clearly than we had.This post is surprising to me; you have revealed much of yourself. For all of your understanding of scripture, it has left you cold. I am not at all judging, but surprised. In a way it is easier to deal with a spiritual emptiness than a barage of historical facts about the Bible. This includes your previous 3 paragraphs.....I hear new christians constantly talking about how great it is to be forgiven and 'born again'. They rarely talk about second-generation members who have been born into Christ. Most of them have converted and are so happy about it that they take awhile to realize that their ideas do not answer all of the questions of the long-term. I am sure that my humble post can not change your mind, but on this one topic I wish that born-agains were not so gosh-darn adamant about their feelings toward confession and sacrifice of the catholic church. The Cath. church takes into consideration the human's need for repentance. We have an explicit and embaressing confession practice which calls for aknowledging sin in detail, and even to how many times it was commmitted. Penances tend to be light but can really be up to the priest. For instance, a person who steals can be asked to give the object back in spite of embaressment, or to give something of equal value to the poor or to the church. We are asked if at all possible to make physical restitution for sin, or this being impossible, to pray. The point is, it alleviates natural guilt, and causes us to be less likely to forget in the future. It is along the lines of 'if your right eye has sinned, gauge it out'.So, the covenant to the Jews was more of earthly prosperity? I see therefore the need to gain visible success as proof of this, but I see also why Jesus said 'my Kingdom is not of this world'. Most christians and Catholics are active in compassionate ministry, but rightly do not seek earthly prosperity. Jesus did do those things, but again, not in an earthly literal way. The Jews were not looking for that, it is true, and that is the whole point. What they have done was admirable and necessary, but it is now a dead Law which shall have no further fulfillment.

I don't think anyone is without moments of doubt, no matter what faith. Obviously you've been through things which I have not spiritually; I have my own problems though, like; no matter how I can find sense in religion, I still have no proof. Even realizing that proof would destroy faith, I think it never sunk in until I was older that I would not get any. I agree with truthlover that life without faith would pose way more questions and probably despair. I do not think that many christian religions nowadays even allow for this time of doubt. I personally have been told that to look at the bible as something that can be misinterpreted is devilish, and have been cut off in communication with these types of christians.

that's because typing and spelling are in different parts of the brain. i often double the wrong letter. this is why.

Maybe. I don't think spiritual things are so easy to figure out. The early church believed Christ's death exercised an influence that affected the whole world and calmed it. Irenaeus explained that Christ went through every part of man's life in order to purify it all, becoming a baby, young man, grown man, and older man (he believed Christ lived to near 50) and then going through death to purify it and break its power.If you're assuming none of that is true, then what matter if it makes any sense. If it is true, then do I really understand enough of how such a thing would work to say that it doesn't make sense?I most definitely do not believe that God exists within a universe that constrains him by its rules.

you could always try what many do--make money off of it or scream that the world is ending.

i get that a lot. even in my hebrew class. i'm not even remotely jewish in terms of ethnicity. in beliefs, however... well, this i think is something caused by losing sight. "faith" and "works" are not mutually exclusive. in judaism, one follows the law because of their faith. it's not the law that save, in fact it's not anything that saves at all. it's just something that the faithful do out of reverence for god. but it doesn't exactly fit. what did his death do that his life did not? what's blowing up, exactly? in the sense that it is a choice, maybe i agree. the father can only throw the prodigal son a feast when he returns -- but he forgives and loves the son even when the son is laying homeless in the gutter straving to death. i don't think god's love is conditional, but we can choose to accept it or ignore it. did isaiah come in vain? or jeremiah? or ezekiel? did they need to die? jesus didn't come in vain, but what was the point of his death? the problem is that there is no need to uphold the law, at penalty of death like the epistles seem to indicate. but god forgives us anyways. he forgives people all over the old testament. jesus forgives people before his death. and jesus's life taught us quite well how to seek god. it has not always left me cold, only upon examining it closely and asking very hard questions. and certainly, not all of the scriptures. in fact, through study, i have found much more meaning and importance in texts i would have ignored in my fundamentalist days. it's simply this keystone of modern christianity that no longer makes sense to me. it did before i had all the facts.i'm glad that you seem to understand that preaching at me will not work. a lot of members try this when i raise objections to certain things. really, i have heard it before, and intellectual discussion is more important to me than bible thumping. it's like falling in love. eventually, the excitement dies down, and you start running into the difficulties involved in real life. the question from there is if you can deal with them or not.the problem is that too many people live on the excitement. they begin to treat it like a drug, getting their "born-again" fix every so often. it starts to lose its effect, making people work harder and harder. that's a dangerous behaviour. well, yes. and this makes the catholic church much more stable as an organized religion, and less like fanatacism. it makes for more stable people, too. well, one cannot claim to be the jewish messiah if one does not fit the definition of messiah as determined by judaism. we might have some wiggle room with the everlasting-kingdom business, but really, one has to be literal king of judah, on the davidic throne. the kingdom is supposed to be here.it's sort of like revelation, really. that heaven, "new jerusalem" is on the earth. the promises made in revelation are actually quite similar to what the jews expect from the messiah. so jesus's second coming might well be accepted. but you can clearly see how he did not do those things in revelation during his earthly ministry, can't you?

---

ironically, i've never questioned that part of my faith. i am absolutely sure that god exists, and i have very little issue with not having any proof. this is why i continue to call myself a christian.really, it's all the dogmatic bits abotu doctrine, and the details of the religion that i have issues with. as an atheist, i was perfectly ok. i have never looked to religion to answer questions, or provide hope, etc, like mahy do. i think this might be another issue with religion in general. people use it like a crutch. yes, i don't think so either. yet it should really be integral. we should be asking questions. it is a weak religion that cannot withstand simple doubt and logical questions. you'll find that many christian faiths are subconciously scared of the bible. there is a lot of stuff in it that is just plain difficult to rectify, especially with their particular subset of beliefs. many people lose their faith entirely when faced with the realities of the text.i have seen a lot of willful ignorance, and ignorance of a slightly less willful nature, regarding the text. i have seen people remove loved ones from their lives because they questioned too much. i have seen the church justify this behaviour with the words of christ, and intense fear of doubt and the outside world. it is such a frail structure of interpretation of the text that it cannot bear the slightest wind of external influence, or it will come toppling down.

---

Would I be amiss in saying that you have to ask these questions, because Romans 7 is not something that you believe? The whole subject of whether the Law can be kept is at issue here, I think. Paul's response to Romans 7 is "What the Law could not do, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, as a sin offering, to condemn sin in the flesh" (Rom 8:3,4).What's blowing up is people & society. Christ has a better way for people to live: where conflict between teenagers and their parents is not the norm; where every third death among young people is not suicide; where people don't have to turn their hat sideways and drop to eye level with the dashboard in the driver's seat to feel good about themselves.

But none of those are related in anyway to Jesus death but rather to his life, his teachings.Jesus as Blood Sacrifice is a simple, dramatic story that was vivid, fast, and frankly, a good marketing tactic for Paul. Paul was one great spinmeister and showed that time after time. He would have been very comfortable in todays 30 second spot media world.The idea though of the Sacrifice being GOD becoming Man, just man, is more complex though and one that is more difficult to explain. It is one that cannot be sold through sound bites, and instead needs time for reason and contemplation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion