Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric, xongsmith (6 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,562 Year: 18,598/19,786 Month: 1,018/1,705 Week: 270/518 Day: 34/60 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the coming of Jesus render the Law of the old testament null and void
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 80 (665943)
06-20-2012 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LexM1985
06-16-2012 7:48 AM


Who to Blame
I'm fairly new to theology and I want to hear other and alternate positions than the usual Christian one.

The question as you have phrased it is really theological in nature. Afterall, in a technical sense, the 'coming' of anyone does little more than bring about their existence. However, the only way to provide an 'alternate position than the usual Christian one' is to set aside the theology and look at the development of the religious movement as it's recorded in the texts of the New Testament. That is, we have to look at things from an historical perspective; not a theological one.

So don't worry about being 'new to theology'. Theology is irrelevant. This is history (sort of).

From this perspective, your question makes more sense if it asks whether Jesus specifically declared the Law 'null and void' or whether it was someone else who did this. The reason we ask it in this way is that we get too many different answers if we ask your original question and attempt to search the text for guidance (the purpose of the Bible Study forum). We need a single answer for a single answer if it is to have any meaning. So we ask instead: Where in the split of Christianity from Judaism did the Law get dropped as being necessary?

Was it with the teachings and actions of Jesus?

Our earliest mentions on the life of Jesus come from a handful of scant references in Paul. In Galatians 4:4, Paul clearly tells us that Jesus was "born under the law", indicating that he was born a Torah-observing Jew. The authors of our gospels put Jesus' teachings in a very Law-focused light, even having Jesus rebuke his detractors for their lack of respect for the Law as written:

quote:
Mark 7:6–13 (NRSV):

He said to them, 'Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
"This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines."
You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.'

Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, "Honour your father and your mother"; and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die." But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, "Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban" (that is, an offering to God)— then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.'


In other occasions, Jesus debates finer points of interpreting the Law with the Pharisees (e.g., Mk 2:23–28, Lk 14:1–6). If Jesus really did nullify the Law, why isn't his answer to every challenge about the Law not simply answered with "I nullified the Law; 'nuff said"? And as you have already pointed out, specific quotes attributed to Jesus make a good case that the gospel writers (especially the authors of the Synoptics) did not see Jesus as nullifying the Law. As far as I can tell, in all the text of the New Testament, there is little to indicate that Jesus was ever viewed as declaring the Law 'null and void'; the Passover is littered with some unlawful pagan notions, but there's nothing to indicate that such things trace back to Jesus in their full form.

It seems unlikely that Jesus was responsible for Christianity's disregard of the Law. But then who is?

Was it the disciples?

This really seems unlikely. According to Luke 24:50–53, the disciples return to Jerusalem after Jesus' ascension, where they spend their time "in the temple blessing God". Paul further indicates in Galatians 2:11ff that the earliest members of the Jesus movement are still working from the standpoint that being a Christian means being a Law-abiding Jew. In fact, Paul devotes an enormous amount of time in his letters to the issue of whether Christians must observe the Law. While he seems to indicate that some early Christians certainly were compelled to do so, he himself is very clear that the Law is no longer necessary.

So, if we want to figure out who to blame for the Christian disregard for the Jewish Law as originally practiced by the earliest band of Jesus' followers, we can look to the most zealous anti-Law early Christian we have on record: Paul. As much as our records tell us, Paul created a Christianity marketable to Gentiles that stressed the belief that the Law was no longer applicable.

Paul's the one we should blame. Let's blame Paul.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LexM1985, posted 06-16-2012 7:48 AM LexM1985 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 06-20-2012 12:35 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 80 (665960)
06-20-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by GDR
06-16-2012 5:54 PM


Jesus said this in the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew 5:
quote:
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This gives us a more specific case to work with.

It gives us a specific case, yes, but is it a relevant case? Even Paul, who says: "it is evidence that no man is justified before God by the law" (Gal 3:11), gives moral teachings, particularly on marriage (see 1 Corinthians , for example). Marriage, murder, adultery—these things are still part of the Christian moral teaching; these parts of the Law didn't just disappear like other parts.

The parts of the Law that are really relevant are keeping kosher and circumcision. These were, as jar already pointed out, 'deal breakers' for early Gentile Christians who did not like having to give up certain foods or be bothered by the finer points of food preparation and were even more so against mutilating their penises.

These are the parts of the Law that really got dropped and set aside as the Jesus movement developed into the Christian religion.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 06-16-2012 5:54 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 06-20-2012 11:26 AM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 06-20-2012 9:00 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 80 (665994)
06-20-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by purpledawn
06-20-2012 12:35 PM


Re: Who to Blame
quote:
So, if we want to figure out who to blame for the Christian disregard for the Jewish Law as originally practiced by the earliest band of Jesus' followers, we can look to the most zealous anti-Law early Christian we have on record: Paul. As much as our records tell us, Paul created a Christianity marketable to Gentiles that stressed the belief that the Law was no longer applicable.

Paul's the one we should blame. Let's blame Paul.


I don't feel that Paul did nullify the Mosaic Laws. He didn't have that authority.

Sure; you can say that. But my point was not that the Mosaic Laws were somehow magically protected such that only certain people could alter them. My point was that there were folk making declarations that becoming Christian didn't necessarily mean keeping all of the Torah and that one of those people was definitely Paul. Paul said that following Jesus didn't necessarily mean following the Law.

Galatians 2:11 is not about abolishing the Mosaic Laws for the Jews. Politics of the time.
...
It was more about hypocrisy.

It's about a lot of things. But I wasn't trying to interpret Paul's message, I was simply reading his words as insight into the nature of the early Christian movement, and Galatians 2:11 does indicate that at least some early Christians were working from the viewpoint that following Jesus meant keeping the Jewish Law. I mean, why else would Cephas refuse to eat with the Gentiles? And what else would the 'circumcision party' be other than a group of Jesus followers who believed following Jesus meant following the Law?

Right behavior was still expected.

I know. Did I ever say I thought otherwise?

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 06-20-2012 12:35 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by purpledawn, posted 06-20-2012 4:59 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 80 (666060)
06-21-2012 4:59 PM


Are we going to talk about the parts of the Law that were dropped as Christianity developed?

Edited by Jon, : clarity


Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by purpledawn, posted 06-21-2012 7:32 PM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 06-21-2012 8:04 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 80 (666160)
06-22-2012 7:31 PM


Still using nitpicking to avoid the subject I see.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2012 6:16 AM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 80 (666173)
06-23-2012 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by purpledawn
06-23-2012 6:16 AM


Re: Dropped Laws
The idea of the word drop as you're using it means to give up, abandon, or discontinue.

Again; you're just nitpicking. If I use the phrase 'made unnecessary', will you stop pretending you don't understand what I'm saying?

Jewish reformists were working on adjusting the Jewish laws for Jews before Jesus was even born.

So?

IMO, adjusting laws as a civilization changes is pretty standard.

Sure; and part of that 'adjustment' as the Jewish Jesus Movement developed into Gentile Christianity was the decision that all but the most basic and expected Laws were unnecessary.

The only OT rules the Non-Jewish Christians were supposedly bound by were the rules given in Acts 15.

Abstain from:
(1) Eating food sacrificed to idols;
(2) Sexual immorality;
(3) Eating the meat of strangled animals; and
(4) Eating blood.

And how many Christian sects still feel themselves bound by those last two?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2012 6:16 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2012 9:43 AM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 80 (666188)
06-23-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by purpledawn
06-23-2012 9:43 AM


Re: Dropped Laws
Christianity began as a cult movement within Judaism. Jesus was a Jew. His direct followers were Jews. The whole concept of what Jesus was was entirely entrenched in a Jewish world view. He was the Messiah who was resurrected after being executed during the Passover; he offered spiritual reinterpretations of the Law; and so the list goes on.

The Jesus Movement was a Jewish movement for Jews. The new movement didn't become Christianity until it started to become populated with non-Jews. The abandonment of the necessity for keeping certain parts of the Law was part of the general movement away from the Jewish Jesus Movement to a more universal Christianity.

Did this not happen?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2012 9:43 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2012 6:11 PM Jon has responded
 Message 29 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2012 9:18 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 80 (666191)
06-23-2012 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
06-23-2012 6:11 PM


Re: Dropped Laws
Save the nonsense for someone else, Buz.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 06-23-2012 6:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 80 (666212)
06-24-2012 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by purpledawn
06-23-2012 9:18 PM


Re: Dropped Laws
The Non-Jewish half couldn't abandon what they didn't have.

The fact that a non-Jewish half even existed is what this thread is all about!


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2012 9:18 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2012 2:31 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 80 (666306)
06-25-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
06-25-2012 2:31 PM


You need to offer some textual support for your claims.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2012 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2012 8:16 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 80 (666374)
06-26-2012 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by purpledawn
06-26-2012 8:49 AM


Re: Fullness of the Gentiles
Jewish Christians were still bound by any Jewish laws they were already following

Evidence?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2012 8:49 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2012 3:16 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 80 (666394)
06-26-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by purpledawn
06-26-2012 3:16 PM


Re: Jewish Christians
Evidence that becoming Christian didn't stop Jewish Christians from following the Jewish law as they did before becoming Christian.

No. Evidence that: "Jewish Christians were still bound by any Jewish laws they were already following" (Message 51).


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2012 3:16 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2012 4:30 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 80 (666407)
06-26-2012 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by purpledawn
06-26-2012 4:30 PM


Re: Jewish Christians
You only prove that there was disagreement over whether keeping to the Law was still a requirement or not to be a member of the new Jesus movement.

I'm afraid you're still picking the wrong nits.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2012 4:30 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2012 6:22 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 80 (666413)
06-26-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by purpledawn
06-26-2012 6:22 PM


Re: Jewish Christians
If you disagree, make your argument and show support.

I've already made my argument and shown my support. Just click on the Jon Posts Only link under my avatar. You may not feel as though I've made my case, but I don't have the time to repeat myself. Others can decide for themselves who made the better argument based on our posts as they stand.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2012 6:22 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AdminPhat, posted 06-27-2012 11:58 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019