# Is there version of Christianity that rejects the Old Testament? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2004, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454 "2004-09-22T09:46:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/41 "2004-09-23T23:51:19Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Well, “Love your neighbor” is nice but it is on a different level than “Love your enemy”. > > [snip] > > “Try to preserve the property of your enemy” is not on the same level as “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” Do you _really_ think we should love our enemies? Is that realistic. And when I say “enemies” I don’t mean the guy who lives down the block from you and causes you occasional trouble about your lawn decoration. I’m talking about the “I want to kill you and your family” type of enemy. Do you really want to love them? > [@](#): > > But not because of their race, only because of the fact that they believe in God and are leading a moral life, which are things within their control, unlike one’s race. _Sigh_ Firstly, Judaism is not a race. It’s many things, but a race is not among them. Secondly, anyone who wants to can become Jewish. No one is restricted from being one of the “Chosen People” if they wish. Thirdly, being “Chosen” doesn’t mean that the Jews are racially or morally superior to anyone else. What it means it that they’ve been chosen to follow God’s commandments, to have a Covenant with Him and to be a Light unto the Nations. It means that they have a responsibility to live up to His commands that other people don’t have. Jews have to follow all 613 of God’s commandments; non-Jews only have to follow seven. It is _not_ a method of saying that the Jews are better because of “their race.” > [@](#): > > That’s it? A fig tree? You can’t come up with something stronger than destroying a fig tree? How does this even compare to flooding the world and killing everyone except a select few? Or to the Sodom and Gomorrah story? I wasn’t necessarily looking to compare and contrast. You held Jesus to be the ideal of human behavior and kindness. I simply pointed out that he cursed a poor fig tree for not having fruit when it wasn’t even in season. > [@](#): > > I’m not implying that the Torah tells people to be evil. I’m just saying that “an eye for an eye” is antithetical to “turn the other cheek”. I don’t know why you are so hung up on “turn the other cheek.” If someone were to mug you and take your wallet, will you also give him access to your bank account? If someone (God forbid) were to murder a relative of yours, would you parade others from your family in front of him too? Heck, if someone were to simply spit in your face, would you hold out your chin to him so he could do it again? “Turning the other cheek” is an open invitation for abuse, not a practical way to run one’s life. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/42 "2004-09-23T23:51:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I could make an argument about the figurative, spiritual, _internal_ meaning of “turn the other cheek” vs. a literal legalistic meaning I did not claim that it had a “legalistic” meaning. As to whether or not Jesus was being figurative about “turn the other cheek”, it’s hard to be sure one way or the other, but the related thing he said: “do good to those who hate you” is pretty clearly not figurative, nor internal. > [@](#): > > Apparently, you believe that Christians should not favor legal justice for crimes. I never said that. It’s possible to think that Jesus said something like: “Those of you who have reached the highest levels of consciousness will not want or need to have legal recourse to recover damages. However, the option to do so should be there in the civil code for the benefit of the majority of the people who have not reached this level yet. If you have not reached this level of consciousness, this is something you should strive for.” ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/43 "2004-09-23T23:55:45Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > It’s possible to think that Jesus said something like: > “Those of you who have reached the highest levels of consciousness will not want or need to have legal recourse to recover damages. However, the option to do so should be there in the civil code for the benefit of the majority of the people who have not reached this level yet. If you have not reached this level of consciousness, this is something you should strive for.” IOW, if someone breaks into your home and robs you, it’s a sign of righteousness to “turn the other cheek” and let them get away with it? That’s not righteousness - on the contrary, that’s furthering robbery! Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/44 "2004-09-24T00:07:36Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > Do you _really_ think we should love our enemies? Is that realistic. And when I say “enemies” I don’t mean the guy who lives down the block from you and causes you occasional trouble about your lawn decoration. I’m talking about the “I want to kill you and your family” type of enemy. Do you really want to love them? Well, I personally don’t like my enemies, and I do strike back when they strike. But, I’m not a very religious or practicing Christian. The OP was referring to Christians and whether \*they \* should reject the Old Testament or not. I was assuming that Christians do agree with the “love your enemies” ideal, at least in theory. > [@](#): > > I don’t know why you are so hung up on “turn the other cheek.” If someone were to mug you and take your wallet, will you also give him access to your bank account? If someone (God forbid) were to murder a relative of yours, would you parade others from your family in front of him too? Heck, if someone were to simply spit in your face, would you hold out your chin to him so he could do it again? “Turning the other cheek” is an open invitation for abuse, not a practical way to run one’s life. Look, if this world is just a “video game”, and some people attain a level of consciousness that enables them to see that this world is fake, then to some degree, if someone steals your car in this video game it is not that important. It is nothing to get angry about. It’s just a video game. For people who have not attained this level, of course they get angry when someone steals their car. Now, it’s possible that Jesus, like the Buddha and others, had attained this level, and it was from that point of view that he was saying these things. Or maybe, he knew that if you practised this philosophy it helped you on the path to enlightenment. What do I know? All I’m saying is that Christianity (at least what I get from Jesus’ teachings) is not an “urban survival guide”, full of practical advice on how to mow your lawn or how to cut your hair. It is a religion that tries to uplift humans and make them get closer to God (or help them achieve enlightenment, which may be the same thing). And I believe “turn the other cheek” is an integral part of that philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/45 "2004-09-24T00:12:03Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I did not claim that it had a “legalistic” meaning. Then you can’t claim it contradicts “eye for an eye.” > [@](#): > > As to whether or not Jesus was being figurative about “turn the other cheek”, it’s hard to be sure one way or the other, but the related thing he said: > “do good to those who hate you” > is pretty clearly not figurative, nor internal. “Do good to those who hate you” is not the same as withholding legal justice. In fact, “those who hate you” haven’t necessarily even committed a crime. They just hate you. > [@](#): > > I never said that. > > It’s possible to think that Jesus said something like: > “Those of you who have reached the highest levels of consciousness will not want or need to have legal recourse to recover damages. However, the option to do so should be there in the civil code for the benefit of the majority of the people who have not reached this level yet. If you have not reached this level of consciousness, this is something you should strive for.” So now you _do_ think it was legalistic? Make up your mind. Sure it’s possible to think that, but it would not have anything much to do with what _Christians_ think. Look. there’s two ways you can go on this. You can read Jesus’ words as being non-legalistic (and I’ve never met a Christian who didn’t), in which case they do not contradict with Levitical standards of justice, or you can say he meant them literally, in which case you have created your own sect of Christian interpretation for which perceptions of contradiction with Jewish legalism (and not just Jewish, but the rest of the human race) are a problem only for you and not for the other 2 billion Christians who have never interpreted those words legalistically. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/46 "2004-09-24T00:13:41Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > IOW, if someone breaks into your home and robs you, it’s a sign of righteousness to “turn the other cheek” and let them get away with it? If someone \*were \* actually able to reach such levels of forgiveness that enabled him to let the burlgar go, I would admire that (because I couldn’t do it). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/47 "2004-09-24T00:15:39Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > If someone \*were \* actually able to reach such levels of forgiveness that enabled him to let the burlgar go, I would admire that (because I couldn’t do it). What about a moral obligation to prevent further victimization of the innocent? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/48 "2004-09-24T00:28:30Z")
> [@zev\_steinhardt](#): > > the whole “eye for an eye” concept is not to be taken literally. The Talmud makes this very clear - _lex talionis_ was not practicied literally, but rather that the person who caused the damage would have to make restitution for the injury. BTW, I searched the web to find the exact text where it says “an eye for an eye”, just to see the context, but I couldn’t find it. All I found were websites that repeated your interpretation above. Do you have a cite where the actual words occur, so we can see whether it was meant literally or not? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/49 "2004-09-24T00:40:41Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > BTW, I searched the web to find the exact text where it says “an eye for an eye”, just to see the context, but I couldn’t find it. > All I found were websites that repeated your interpretation above. > Do you have a cite where the actual words occur, so we can see whether it was meant literally or not? Actually, I just found [this](http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=3639) > [@](#): > > The punishment for physical injury first introduced in Exodus 21:24 is repeated in our parsha: “ **And if a man maim his neighbor, as he has done, so shall be done to him** … eye for eye…” (Leviticus 24:19) This is interpreted in the Oral Law as referring to monetary payment. To me, the text is pretty clear. It talks about maiming, and the same shall be done to him. The fact that this was “interpreted” in the Oral Law to refer to monetary payment is irrelevant. And more from [here](http://bible.cc/leviticus/24-19.htm) > [@](#): > > If anyone injures his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be done to him > > fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has injured someone, so shall it be done to him Come on, it’s pretty clear that, at least originally, what they meant was literal. Maybe it later got interpreted into a financial issue, but the actual text is pretty clear. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/50 "2004-09-24T00:48:31Z")
Regarding the basic question in the OP: Compare [this](http://bible.cc/leviticus/24-14.htm) > [@](#): > > [Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying] bring out of the camp him who cursed; and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and **let all the congregation stone him**. to [this](http://www.gnic4u.com/withjesus/stone.shtml) > [@](#): > > Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? … But Jesus … said unto them, > “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” and tell me if these two statements should be part of the same religion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/51 "2004-09-24T00:53:52Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Actually, I just found [this](http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=3639) > > To me, the text is pretty clear. It talks about maiming, and the same shall be done to him. The fact that this was “interpreted” in the Oral Law to refer to monetary payment is irrelevant. > > And more from [here](http://bible.cc/leviticus/24-19.htm) > > Come on, it’s pretty clear that, at least originally, what they meant was literal. Maybe it later got interpreted into a financial issue, but the actual text is pretty clear. The “oral law” referred to is the Talmud. In Judaism The written law (the Bible) cannot be interpreted without the Talmud. They are parallel transmissions from God. The Torah, by itself, is an incomplete repository of the law. Thers is no _Sola Scriptura_ in Judaism. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/52 "2004-09-24T00:58:00Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The “oral law” referred to is the Talmud. In Judaism The written law (the Bible) cannot be interpreted without the Talmud. They are parallel transmissions from God. The Torah, by itself, is an incomplete repository of the law. Even if we forget the “eye for an eye” issue for now, what about the stoning passages I showed in the post before yours? Don’t they demonstrate a complete antithesis between the two beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/53 "2004-09-24T01:12:18Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The “oral law” referred to is the Talmud. In Judaism The written law (the Bible) cannot be interpreted without the Talmud. They are parallel transmissions from God. The Torah, by itself, is an incomplete repository of the law. > > Thers is no _Sola Scriptura_ in Judaism. Even if this is the case, Christianity does not use the Oral Law of Judaism, it just uses the written text. So, even if Jewish Oral Law has “interpreted” “eye for an eye” as figurative, that interpretation is not there in Christianity, only the raw text is. So: - “eye for an eye” in Judaism may not contradict Jesus’ message due to the phrase’s interpretation in Jewish Oral Law but - “eye for an eye” in the Old Testament does contradict Jesus’ message because it appears without the “figurative” interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/54 "2004-09-24T01:23:40Z")
Only if you think Jesus’ message was legalistic…which no Christian thinks. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/55 "2004-09-24T01:32:28Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Only if you think Jesus’ message was legalistic…which no Christian thinks. What about the stoning issue? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/56 "2004-09-24T01:37:49Z")
OK, couple of things, based on comments I’ve made on similar threads recently. (1) “eye for an eye” – the Mosaic/Hammurabian injunction was one of _proportionality_. Because before the rule of law was in place, the tendency was that if Ichar poked out Hagael’s eye, then Hagael’s relatives would come to the tent of Ichar’s family and poke out _both_ Ichar’s eyes, plus rape, maim and murder the women, children and old folk, and carry away all the cattle. It was to stop single assaults from escalating into blood feuds: to temper the natural desire for vengeance. (2) “turn the other cheek” – Jesus is proposing that his True Believers aspire to set the bar high in their moral decisions. It’s part of a longer passage containing teachings against being quick to use _even verbal_ violence: it tells Christians to go beyond tempering the desire for vengeance, to suppressing it. _HOWEVER_ as mentioned in this thread, the majority of brands of Christianity see this as not interferring in any way with the administration of justice against the wrongdoer. No (sane) mainstream Christian would say that this means that after 9/11 we should have just sat to wait for the next massacre, or that the Israeli Transit Authority should issue a special cut-price book of bus tokens for suicide bombers. Hey, the Sermon of the Mount _concludes_ with “be perfect, just as The Father is perfect” – an obvious impossibility. Jesus (or the evangelist) is presumably aware that any mere human will fall short of the standard, but is apparently using that unreasonable goal in order to motivate the Christian to do _more_ than is expected and never be satisfied that he’s already doing “good enough” (just before the “cheek” example, the Sermon literally tell Christians to “go the extra mile”). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/57 "2004-09-24T01:37:59Z")
Still legalistic. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/58 "2004-09-24T01:38:48Z")
The whole “let he who is without sin…” story presents a similar problem. So, only people who are perfect are authorized to punish others? IOW, we have to allow all the thieves, murderers, etc. in our midst to go because we ourselves aren’t perfect? She was _caught in the act_ and (assuming the story was true-- I have a concern or two with that story as well) should have paid the price for her crime. Keep in mind that in order to apply the death penalty under Jewish law, the witnesses have to warn the perpetrator that what they are doing is punishable by death - and then the perpetrator must state words to the effect of “I understand but am going to do so anyway.” If that’s the case - that she knew her act was illegal and capital and was forwarned right before committing the act and purposely chose to act anyway, then she should pay the penalty for the crime. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/59 "2004-09-24T01:42:04Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Only if you think Jesus’ message was legalistic…which no Christian thinks. No matter how you look at it, legalisticly or not, the basic fact is that “turn the other cheek” is not consistent with what is said in the Old Testament. Take for example **zev\_steinhardt** ’s comments on “turn the other cheek”. Do his comments indicate to you that it could be consistent with Judaism? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454/60 "2004-09-24T01:44:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Still legalistic. What do you mean? In one case, God tells people to stone someone to death. In the other case God (Jesus) tells people that they should not stone anyone to death (since only those without sin can do so, and no one is without sin, at least according to Christians) The two cases show God advocating two exact opposites. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-version-of-christianity-that-rejects-the-old-testament/265454.md?page=4)