Alan Smithee says: Paul spent quite a bit of ink trying to convince his flock that things like incest and idolotry, though no longer forbidden to Christians by the Torah (and in fact never forbidden to the Gentile Christians by the Torah) were nevertheless Not Good Ideas.Actually the Noachic laws do specifically forbid idolatry & the Rabbinic commentray thereof forbid incest as under the law against adultery . Btw, for some reason, I can only type in the italics or bold section to post. I can’t make the screen accept regular text from my keyboard.
Well, I am not now, nor have I ever been, Jewish, though I learned a lot from a good friend going through Bar Mitzvah classes (he is now a rabbi, though we’ve been for the most part out of touch since high school graduation).
But I use Tanakh to mean Old Testament regularly, usually defining one as the other in a brief parenthetical aside, outside any intra-Christian debate or discussion, simply as a mark of respect to Jewish readers of my posts.
So, if I understand you correctly (and if I’m not, please tell me so), Christian denominations (and I realize that I’m overgeneralizing here) hold that anything revealed at Sinai was for the Jews only, but those commandments revealed earler would apply to all of mankind.
But then why do most Christian denominations forbid witchcraft. Witchcraft doesn’t show up as a prohibition until after Sinai? And why would they permit the eating of the sciatic nerve, which shows up in Genesis?
Zev Steinhardt
Pull up a chair, Zev. This makes sense, but takes a great deal of mental calesthenics to see it.
First, start with Jesus’s remark that “I have not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.” The point here is a once-for-all satisfaction of the full requirement of the Law. Much as the 24 Just Men justify not destroying the world, Jesus living a perfect life according to the requirements of the Law and then offering Himself up as a perfect sacrifice, taking upon Himself the sins of the whole world, past, present, and future, fulfilled completely God’s justice in requiring full recompense for sin. This freed up the potential to offer forgiveness to all mankind.
Remember that in the context of Jesus’s time, the keeping of the Law had come to very closely resemble the stance of conservative Protestants today – a sense of fear of God leads them to attempt to keep His commandments as they understand them from Scripture to the utmost detail, recognizing that the Mosaic Law is in abeyance, but holding to any element that is confirmed by the New Testament. The dietary laws are out: the words of Jesus that “not what goes into a man’s mouth but what comes out of it, from his heart, makes him unclean” and the vision given Peter in Acts 10, when he is faced with the issue of the conversion of Cornelius the Roman centurion, make clear that they no longer hold. Several books, the Letter to the Hebrews in particular, go into the idea that the self-sacrifice of Christ in atonement for all sins effectively wipes out the requirements of the ritual law – the keeping of feasts and sacrifices.
Remember how Hillel summarized the Law on one foot? Jesus uses the same passages and says, like Hillel, that they encapsulate the entire requirement of the Law. Paul riffs on this theme at great length, but the bottom line is one that’s interesting. Remember what a paidogogos was in Greco-Roman times? A slave whose task it was to exercise authority over his master’s child to keep him safe en route to and at school? Paul makes clear that his vision of the Law is that under the Mosaic Law we were spiritual children, kept in safety by the Law acting as paidogogos to us, but now we have become spiritually mature, and need to keep the spirit of the Law by radical love of God and of our fellow man.
For the conservative Christians, the advice incorporated by Paul in his letters becomes a sort of “new Law” – not in the sense that it is enactments like Torah, but in the sense that it confirms elements of Torah that are moral in impetus, and makes them binding as the proper way to live out the love of God and man. It’s from this that are derived the arguments that the Leviticus 18 prohibitions on sex are valid on Christians today while the passages about shellfish and linsey-woolsey clothing are not.
For more liberal Christians, the issue is more one of practical ethics – we accept fully the Pauline concept of Law as paidogogos and the Two Great Commandments. But living them out from day to day is a matter for individual moral judgment, reading Paul as giving guidance, not commandments, and sometimes very particularistic guidance – as in the issue of the Corinthian womens’ hair.
Does that make any sense whatsoever to you, now?
True, some things just don’t seem to follow simple logic. But, some denominations, or leaders (past and present) in those denomonations, have taken it upon themselves to determine the probable principle behind certain laws and apply them to current faiths.
Take witchcraft, for instance. Some view the Commandment of having no other gods before Him as indicative of the underlying principle that any other form of worship is unacceptable. A stretch? Maybe. But, who ever said Humans were logical?
Yeah, I had to make some Star tRek reference.
Woe is me, I don’t have a dictionary 
What on earth are you talking about? Type “define Tanakh” in Google and you get 11,000 results in 0.43 seconds. But, of course, I didn’t even bother to do that when writing my reply because it took me 5 picoseconds to figure out that Tanakh means Old Testament, based on the context.
The reason I said “I don’t know what the “Tanakh” is, but I assume you are referring to the Old Testament”, is because I find it annoying when people use their own terminology when there is no need to. This is like if we were talking of Los Angeles and someone said “Yes I believe Atiquee is a nice city”, just because it is the name of Los Angeles in some native American language (ficticious example).
If you want to bring up another term for the same concept being discussed, at least be decent enough to do what Polycarp says he does:
Gee, thanks oh Wise One :rolleyes:
Why do you think I didn’t know what I was talking about? I was raised Christian and learned all the Old Testament myths (Adam and Eve, Noah’s Arc, …) when I was a kid, and I also learned about the teachings of Jesus. So I know a fair amount about the issue to be able to make the comparison.
And as I said above, you don’t have to be a Bible scholar to see that Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy” is fundamentally different from “an eye for an eye”.
In general, I don’t see why Christians should accept as part of their religion a book that
- Describes a God that has a “Chosen People”
- Describes a God that is mean and vengeful (not always, but a lot of times)
- Describes myths that are obviously false (like Noah’s Arc)
- Describes an attitude that is antithetical to Jesus’ teachings (“an eye for an eye”)
I don’t see why the Ten Commandments* and the teachings of Jesus can’t be the basis for a religion, without the need for extraneous myths.
- I know these are from the Old Testament
Thank you for the thoughtful reply Polycarp. I (think I) understand what you are trying to say there, but I’m afraid, you’ve left me with more questions.
You write that the NT explicitly abrogated some of the laws (such as kashrus for example) and I can easily understand that. Likewise, if you want to say that Jesus’ sacrifice obviated the need for further sacrifice, I can see your position on that also.
But there are many other laws that are not explicitly abrogated in the Christian Bible, nor are they clearly “ritual law,” but yet are ignored by Christians worldwide today.
For example, there is a commandment to build a fence around your roof. (Duet 22:8). The verse even goes so far as to explain why (as a safety measure). I would hardly classify this as “ritual law.” Furthermore, it clearly fits into what I believe you would call “the Spirit of the Law.” It definitely fits under “love your neighbor…” and yet I’m willing to bet that 99% of Christians aren’t even aware of this verse. Is it incumbent upon Christians to build fences around their roofs (rooves?)? And if not, why not?
To borrow from the same chapter, verse 7 tells us that if we want to take a bird’s eggs, we should first send away the mother bird. This law, too, doesn’t really fit into “ritual law” and should fit into what you call the “Spirit of the law” in that it shows compassion to animals. Do Christians do this as well on a routine basis?
Leviticus 19:9 and 23:22 tell us that when we reap our fields, we should leave over the corner for the poor to come and take. This certainly falls within the purview of giving charity (which, I’m fairly certain, Christians believe in) and within “the Spirit of the Law.” Why don’t Christians do this?
Bringing up Hillel’s statement for a defense is fine and well. But Hillel wouldn’t have told the perspective convert that “Love your neighbor” was all he had to do. Hillel’s explaination was certainly not meant to be taken literally. He certainly held that the convert would have to keep kosher, observe Shabbos, bring sacrifices, learn Torah daily, etc. He was in no way saying “Just be kind to one another and the rest is unimportant…”
Lastly, you stated:
My reading of this (and if I’m wrong, please advise) is that the rules are then subject to individual interpretation by each person as to what’s acceptable and what’s not. Is Christianity really a define-it-for-yourself religion with no absolute standards? From what I’ve seen, I don’t think so. There must be a line that one crosses where most (all?) Christians would say “No, that’s not in the Christian spirit and is counter to Christian law.” But what is that line? If it’s “a matter for individual moral judgment” then who is to say a Christian marrying his sister is wrong? Who is to say that a Christian doctor performing active euthenasia is wrong (especially if he wouldn’t mind being euthenized under similar circumstances – “Love your neighbor”). Who is to tell a person who lends money at usurous rates that it is wrong – especially if he would pay those rates himself?
In short, what behavioral (as opposed to belief/faith) standards do all Christians have to maintain to still be said to be practicing Christianity?
Zev Steinhardt
Not a complete answer, but a good start.
(the link is to a NT scripture, Acts 15:28,29. If someone doesn’t want to read for religious reasons,* I understand.)
(*yes, that problem has come up before on this very board)
I use Tanakh and “Hebrew Bible” routinely out of respect for Jewish posters who do not regard their Bibles as the “Old” Testament but as THE Testament. On a board like this one I generally don’t bother to explain it because I assume that people either know what it means, can figure it out from context or are familiar with Google. I prefer not to have to dumb down my posts or edit out vocabulary that might confuse somebody. I would rather assume that people are intelligent than assume otherwise.
All of these things can be said about The New Testament.
Just a word on “eye for an eye,” though. This injunction is not about vengence but about measured justice. When you read the whole thing you see that it’s saying to temper justice, and not to let the punishment exceed the crime. IOW, “Take an eye for an eye, not a life for an eye.”
When you say “teachings of Jesus,” do you exclude the treachings of Paul? Do you exclude the resurrection? Do you exclude the soteriology? (Look it up. :p)
Do you exclude the purported miracles attributed to Jesus?
When you talk about accepting the Ten Commandments, do you include the commandments which allege that there is only one God and condemn idolotry?
If so, how did you decide that a belief in one God is less of a mythological belief than anything else in Hebrew scripture?
- I know these are from the Old Testament
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, Polerius I want to apologize for hijacking your thread. It certainly wasn’t my intent to do so. I hope you’ll forgive me for that.
As to your points…
You do realize, of course, that Jesus didn’t originate many of the concepts that he said. “Love your neighbor” comes right out of Leviticus. Jesus says that he heard that one should “hate their enemies” but that doesn’t appear anywhere in the Torah either. Indeed, the Torah tells us that we should try to preserve the property of even our enemies (Exodus 23:5).
While Christians don’t necessarily believe in a “Chosen People” concept, many of them certainly believe that only they are eligible for God’s favor and Salvation.
Jesus destroyed a fig tree because it wouldn’t give him fruit (Matthew 21). Mark 11 even made it plain that the reason that the tree had no fruit was because it wasn’t the right season for figs. Yet, Jesus cursed it causing it to wither and never bear fruit again.
If you’re going to posit an Omnipotent God and miracles, why is the story of Noah’s Ark any more “obviously false” than Jesus’ walking on water, ressurection, miracle of loaves and fishes, etc.
Do you mean the attitude that we give charity, pray daily, care for animals, show concern for our fellow man? Because those are all present in the Torah.
Zev Steinhardt
Echoing Diogenes’ comment, that the “eye for an eye” is a description of how courts of justice should be run, not a license for vengeance. We might say, the punishment must be appropriate to the crime. This can be contrasted to earlier law codes, like Hammurabi’s, where the punishment for stealing a loaf of bread was to have your hand cut off.
And remember that many of the Old Testament laws were intended as a civil code.
Jesus wasn’t trying to promulgate a civil code. In fact, to the contrary, he implied that the Romans could handle the civil code (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…”) and he preached an individual moral standard. (One that’s impossible to follow, by the way: think of that “turn the other cheek.” Who argues that, after the Sept 11 attacks, we should give al-Quada some more planes?)
Now, to the OP. If we leap to the 30,000 foot level, the whole point of Christianity is that God tried to save humankind with a set of laws and rules, and that attempt failed. Thus, Jesus came to provide a different method for salvation, and thus the Old Testament is “outdated” by Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. The poetry is still usable, but they can pick and choose which bits to rely on. However, if you push Christian theologians to the corner, they will ultimately admit that the entire Old Testament – Ten Commandments and all – is irrelvant because belief in Jesus is all that matters.
This is, incidently, why Jews reject the notion. The concept of God trying a form of salvation, declaring it to be eternal, and then deciding it had failed and changing His mind… well, that’s not consistent with the Jewish image of God.
Can you elaborate on on that?
I think you are wrong on this one, as the Sermon on the Mount shows
I think Jesus is directly refuting the “eye for an eye” attitude here.
Yes.
Not sure. How we handle this should be similar to how we handle the other miracles (see below)
I have several family members called “Soteris”, so I know what it means 
Not sure. Would have to think about that one. A quick thought though: the sheer scale of impossibility of the Noah’s Arc story eclipses some miracles (and in fact, I think Jesus said in many cases of “miracle” healing “You have healed yourself”, indicating perhaps some psychosomatic effects, akin to the placebo effect).
Well, the existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically, but the story of Noah’s Arc is scientifically impossible. So, it’s OK to keep the former, but not the latter.
Sigh
Firstly, the whole concept of “eye for an eye” only applies in a courtroom setting. It in no way means to imply that if (God forbid) someone puts out my eye that I can sneak into his house at night and put out his eye.
Secondly, 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.
Zev Steinhardt
See my reply to **Diogenes ** about the Sermon on the Mount.
Exactly, which is what I consider to be religion’s domain. So why does Christianity need to keep Jewish civil code under its umbrella?
BTW, I’m not very religious myself, but I always consider the “turn the other cheek” as an attempt to give us an ideal to aspire to. That is, human nature is (or can be) quite bad, literally in the gutter, and it is the purpose of religion to pull us out of the gutter.
By giving us such high ideals as “turn the other cheek”, it is giving us something pure to aspire to, with the hope that the overall effect is to pull us up from the gutter, even a little bit.
This is opposed to religions that say, “be nice, but if they harm you kill them”, which I think does nothing to pull people out of the gutter, but allows them to stay there by saying “well, my religion allows killing in some cases, and I consider this to be one such case”
If your religion *never * allows killing (even your enemies), then you can never use religion as your excuse to kill. (Of course morons throughout history have used Christianity to excuse their killings, but what can you do? There will always be morons who misinterpret any theory/religion)
Actually, the way I was taught Christianity, there was no mention of failure on God’s part. I was taught that it was always the plan that Jesus would come. Anyway, these are things I learned years and years ago, so I may be recollecting incorrectly.
Even if it was not to be taken literally, it is clearly against the spirit of “turn the other cheek”.
As for the courtroom interpretation, isn’t it clear from what Jesus said:
that he considered “turn the other cheek” to be the right course of action for individuals, in antithesis with the “eye for an eye” course of action?
Where does he mention the courtroom?
Of course, you can consider that Jesus was mistaken in assuming that “eye for an eye” is for individual behavior, but if you’re a Christian, I guess you have to assume that Jesus was God, and so couldn’t have been wrong.
If you think Jesus was not God, then I guess you’re not a Christian. Which is fine, but the question in the OP was about why Christians accept the Old Testament.
So, Polerius, what then do you think Jesus was advocating? That people could injure other people or damage their property and that they should have no recourse to recover damages?
And you still have not addressed my points above.
Zev Steinhardt
Ah, so the notion that after Sept 11, we should give al-Quada more planes… that’s “something pure to aspire to”? Sorry, but I think most reasonable people would reject “turn the other cheek” as a horrible philosophy, not a noble ideal.
Of course not.
Regarding “recourse to recover damages”, I don’t think that was of Jesus’ concern. As C K Dexter Haven said,
So the recourse to recover damages was left to the civil code. Jesus was just telling people how to react to their enemies and people who harm them. As to how realistic his advice was, see my reply to C K Dexter Haven
OK, let’s see:
Well, “Love your neighbor” is nice but it is on a different level than “Love your enemy”.
Did he imply that it was in the Torah?
“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”
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.
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 don’t think I can address the miracle issue, since scientifically it is hard for me to accept that they happened. But overall, since it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, I don’t consider belief in God “obviously false”. So, I would say that a “reasonable” version of Christianiy could have a belief in God, plus the Ten Commandments, plus Jesus’ teachings, minus the belief in miracles.
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”.
Actually, you yourself said “Jesus wasn’t trying to promulgate a civil code. In fact, to the contrary, he implied that the Romans could handle the civil code and he preached an individual moral standard”
So, “turn the other cheek” can be considered as applying to the *individual * moral code, i.e. it tells individuals how to act, not countries, which is what applies in the Sept 11 example. I don’t think Jesus said anything about how countries should react to enemies.
Also, you can consider that Jesus thought that the civil code would handle the practical aspects of dealing with enemies, he just wanted to make sure people forgive and are filled with love not hate.
Hopefully a Christian theologian, or at least a religious/practising Christian, will come along and explain this from the Christian point of view.
Well, I assume most Christians don’t reject it as a “horrible philosophy”, so are you implying that Christians are not “reasonable people”?
Here are elements of the Tanakh which you allege should be unacceptable to Christians but which are, in fact, all present in the New Testament.
The NT is very specific about who is saved and who isn’t. In fact, I would argue that the NT is more exclusive than the Tanakh and more punitive to the out-group.
You also have a very simplistic view of what “Chosen People” means in Judaism. It is not a designation of superiority but responsibility. Ask Zev to expound on that for you.
(It has nothing to do with a “race” either btw. Judaism is a religion, not a race.
Read the Book of Revelation.
It’s ark.
And come on. Do you really need an explication of “obvious mythology” in the NT?
Either you believe miracles can happen or you don’t. There is no gradation of plausibility. They are all equally possible or impossible.
You have not shown that this is antithetical.
The “eye for an eye attitude” is one of justice, not vengence. I could make an argument about the figurative, spiritual, internal meaning of “turn the other cheek” vs. a literal legalistic meaning, but I have a feeling I’d be wasting my time.
You may hang your hat on this point if you wish. Apparently, you believe that Christians should not favor legal justice for crimes. This has not been my experience of Christians, but whatever.