Exactly.
Sort of.
Sola Scriptura is doctrine in Protestantism.
BUT the Catholic and Orthodox churches (be they Eastern, Western or Oriental) have tradition and scholarship be sources of the Magisterium alongside the biblical texts (texts which they believe must be interpreted by professionals anyway). Their own tradition and scholarship, certainly – but just as extensive and authoritative for those churches as Talmudic scholarship is for Jews. And those churches add up to the nominal majority of Christianity.
But you’re helping make my point. If the above is what you believe, and presumably what most Jews believe, then this is in direct disagreement with what Jesus said, who said she should not be stoned.
It doesn’t matter if you think Jesus was right or not. The issue is that Christians should follow what Jesus said, and what he said is in contradiction to what Jewsish law says. So, how can Jewish law be part of Christianity?
Maybe we can cut to the chase here:
Polerius seems to say (and if I’m wrong, please correct me) that Christianity can exist by simply following Jesus’ teachings without the trappings of the Jewish bible and it’s stories (myths, whatever…).
Ultimately, I don’t think you can, for the following reasons:
(1) What makes Jesus so special in Christianity is the fact that he is held to be the Messiah. His claim to being the Messiah is rooted in the prophecies of the Jewish Bible. Without those claims, there is nothing special about Jesus that couldn’t be applied to many other people in the world. You might as well start up a religion based on the teachings of Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi. It’s only because Christians maintain that Jesus was the messiah that makes his message anything special to begin with.
(2) Jesus didn’t exist in a vacuum. He was a product of his times and the place he lived in. As such, his teachings took the form that it did. Had he lived in sixth-century Scandinavia, eighth century Arabia, or the Wild West of the 1870-80s, his “teachings” and life story would have taken a wildly different shape. But he lived where he lived while following the lifestyle that was laid down by the Jewish Bible. So to divorce him from that is like divorcing the story of George Washington from the American Revolution.
Zev Steinhardt
And that leads me back to the question I linked to earlier in the thread.
Jewish law is NOT part of Christianity. Christianity has, more or less, tossed out Jewish law and no longer follows it. When was the last time you saw a Christian fast on Yom Kippur? When was the last time you saw a Christian put on tefillin (Madonna aside… :rolleyes: ) ?
But that still doesn’t mean you can completely divorce Christianity from it’s roots. At least not logically. See my last post.
Zev Steinhardt
Background supporting documents. Jesus says “I’ve come not to overthrow the Law and Prophets, but to fulfill them”. So the Christian Churches have included at least the Tanakh, and often additional materials, in their Bibles, as a way of indicating what is it that Jesus fulfilled (or rather, radically reinterpreted).
I’m not about to get into a debate with these guys on this subject Polerius as most here are well read regarding the scriptures and much more in regards to the same. I will however say this…
You ask: “Is there such a sect…?” No major Christian theology that I am aware of rejects the Old Testament. There probably are some minor sects that do disregard much of the Bible in the sense that they teach directly from the New Testament. I have been to churches where they taught from the New Testament and used the Old more as a “history” of mankind and his relation with God. I’ve even heard preachers make this claim: The New Testament is what WE (Christians) should live by. The Old Testament is for the old world and the relationship man had with God before Christ. Jesus changed much of that and for those of us who are saved by Christ, we need only to follow his examples.
This is on a small scale though and NOT any particular Christian sect AFAIK.
Again you ask: “Does it make sense…to reject?” If you are Christian and believe in the teachings of Christ then you can not reject the Bible since it is where most of his teachings originated. Jesus did not reject the Bible so how can you.
I’m not gonna argue analogies or examples like an “eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” because the contexts are different. Vengence on the other hand is something to be left for God, not man. Sounds kinda Christ-like to me. Yet it does imply a vengeful God, doesn’t it? Then again…there’s Revelations isn’t there? So…not exactly consistent is it?
I agree with you that there are some contradictions though. Jesus admitted as much.
Anyway, as far as I know (to answer your question) there are no major Christian sects which outright disregard the Bible.
Personally, I try to live by the examples Jesus showed us. The Old Testament is not obsolete but not exactly something I try to follow by the book, so to speak.
It’s pretty good reading for the most part though.
Whether or not I accept all of this on a “scientific” level…is well nobody’s business. But I think living my life by these principles is a good thing. 
live and let live
Jesus did not say that the stoning was wrong. He just said whoever threw the first one should be sinless. He didn’t even say the others had to be sinless, just the first one.
Under the law, the person required to throw the first stone was the accuser. So Jesus was not commenting on the merit of legal punishment but on the qualifications of humans to carry it out (or to make a capital judgement).
So Jesus was not condemning Jewish Law, he was making a statement about the ability of humans, on a moral level, to be able to perfectly enforce it.
That was not the same as saying that the laws should not be obeyed.
I just closed the wrong tab in Firefox, deleting almost an hour’s worth of work replying to Friar Ted and Ploycarp. I almost wish for the time I still used IE. At least then it usually wasn’t my fault when a post got eaten! Now, after consuming an entire bag of choloate chip cookies in memory of my lost post, am prepared to recreate it as best I can. Any lack or defect you may find in this post was, I assure you, entirely absent in the original. 
Now then, I don’t think I’ve causght this much flak since I tried to give Duck Duck Goose advice on childrearing. Boy was I wrong then!
But is are the Noahide laws part of Torah? In the narrowest sense of the word, no: there is no clear summation of the laws in Genesis. Rather, I believe they were derived (authoritatively) from the recognition that the Scriptures frequently presuppose a common morality not dependant on the revelation at Sinai. The point was not that Torah doesn’t provide laws for guiding the behavior of non-Jews, but that Judaism has always recognized that there are sources of morality accessible apart from the revelation of Sinai. (Whether they are accessable apart from some divine revelation and whether righteousness is possible apart from the recognition of and response to that source are, I understand, open questions.) Christians believe they are accountable to universal moral principles accessible to anyone (to which Paul makes explicit recourse) as well as to those moral principles found in the teaching and example of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Since the Mosaic Law includes and embodies (often in great depth and elaboration) the universal moral principles and has the same source as the teaching and example of Christ and the counsel of the Holy Spirit, it may be used as a source of guidance as to how God would have us live out the universal moral principles, the sort of teaching Jesus might give on various matters (this requires careful study of the ways in which Jesus used the Law, but he used and refered to it often and so it is implied that we are to do so as well), and what it would be consistant for us to believe is the guidance of the Holy Spirit (for example, God has been pretty consistant on the whole adultery thing, and so the Mosaic Law might serve as an example leading to skepticism in the face of one who claimed the Holy Spirit led him into adultery). In no case, however, is a Christian obligated solely by the force of the Mosaic Law itself. This is true even of the commandments against murder and adultery (or any if the 10 Commandments). There are other reasons for believing those acts to be unconcionable, which study of the Mosaic Law might nevertheless point to.
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that Jewishness and rudeness are the only two reasons for using the term “Tanakh.” The absence of a parenthetical definition and the context of a question that basically asked if the OP knew what he was talking about led me to suspect rudeness, and I contrasted that with what I saw as the most likely alternative explanation. I, too, sometimes use the term “Tanakh” out of respect. (Though, as an aside, I worry that coming from me it can be a bit too show-offy. As if I’m saying, “Hey, Jews, I’m not some ignorant Gentile! See, I know the lingo!” This may, however, be a reflection of the fact that on some level, that is exactly what I’m doing! :dubious: )
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down!
The dictionary comment was a jab at Necro Romancer, not you! I was basically accusing him or her of taking a cheap shot at you by getting you to admit your supposed ignorance (which I agree isn’t real, substantial ignorance, hence the cheapness of the shot). I still suspect, though I’m not sure, that this is what Necro Romancer was doing. I attempted to soften the charge by admitting that I may very well have committed the exact same rudeness myself.
OK, here you actually have some cause for offence. That came across as belittling and patronizing you far more than I meant for it to. I appologize. I agree with the others who have explained why your premise is flawed, but I didn’t mean to express it so disrespectfully. I supose it must be some form of Gaudre’s Law that in a post berating another’s rudeness, I am even ruder to you myself.
:o
OK, now that that’s taken care of, here’s my take on the current debate. Jesus himself never advocated rejecting the Jewish law. On the contrary! He said, “Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments [the Mosaic Law], and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt 5:19, NRSV). Jesus clearly believed that his teachings were consistant with Jewish law and not contradictory to it.
Where he did differ with (at least some of) the then-current religious authorities was in how the Law was to be obeyed. Commandments such as the one ordering the stoning of an adulterer were not actually to be carried out, according to Jesus, but were intended to set a moral standard for the community. This is not very different from the modern Jewish understanding of these commandments. There is almost no practical situation in which modern Judaism considers the necessary conditions for actually stoning someone to be met. Jesus effectively said that there are NO human circumstances in which the necessary conditions are met. The practice is rejected on very similar justifications by both traditions, in the one case on the basis of the Oral Law, and in the other on the words of Jesus. In neither case is the commandment itself rejected.
No, I wasn’t taking a shot at Polerius. I don’t like saying Old Testament in general, and I especially don’t want to say it when the OP believes it’s inferior or invalid.
I wasn’t going to write a time consuming post explaining why it’s, in my opinion, completely ridiculous for any Christian to believe the Tanakh is inferior or invalid if that poster has made their conclusion based on a few sentences they’ve heard in a movie or on the radio.
Fair enough.
Agreed. In this instance, that appears not to be the case.
It seems I always get to these things late…
That probably wasn’t intended straight-faced, but a follower of “Jesus’” cheek-turning dictum (and that’s what I believe it was, a dictum) would not argue that we should give al Queda more planes, but more buildings, which is exactly what was decided should be done.
In my view, to claim that following “Jesus’ moral code” is impossible is just to give Christians an excuse for not really trying.
Polerius is far closer to the goal of “Jesus’” teachings and dicta, Dex. There’s nothing “horrible” in turning the other cheek at all, especially not for a true follower of Christianity. Dr. King had it right when he said (or quoted, IIRC): "An eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind."
Without intending to insult my Jewish friends, Hebraic laws and teachings were often more or less abominable – or at least rude – and it should come as no surprise. After all, they were written largely by fairly ignorant goatherds whose culture was no match for the more enlightened civilizations of the time.
Jesus’ teachings, like the Stoics and Cynics, was more advanced and sophisticated yet they called for living a hard and difficult life in which it was literally necessary to turn the other cheek; it was no weak little symbolic idea! These guys meant it!
Now, if you find that goal too stringent (as do I) or, worse, “horrible”, then all that can be said is that we’re not Christians. It cannot be said that to follow these teachings is “horrible”!
It did not mean that people in general should have no recourse, it meant that Christians must not apply for recourse!
Yes! At least if you want to be a Christian!
Now, that doesn’t mean that you can’t seek to protect your family (or at least I so suppose), but loving such an enemy is mandatory for a Christian, and in any case might very well be the best defense. Remember, to be a follower of “Christ” was never meant to be easy! If it was, then just about anyone could call themselves a Christian. (I am of the belief that very, very few people are Christians in the sense of truly following “Jesus’” teachings).
No, it only means you can’t fight back. If you were a true “Jesusian” Christian, you wouldn’t have a bank account or wallet in the first place.
You and others are manifestly missing the point. Christian principles were never meant to be guidelines for living a “practical” life! They are for living a Christian life, which requires great sacrifices, certainly including turning the other cheek. (But nowhere does it say you must offer up your family members to be murdered; Christianity contains teachings for individuals, not collective groups.)
Christians are taught to separate from their families and give everything they have to the poor; being spit on without fighting back would be a very trivial sacrifice indeed. Far more is demanded.
No, that’s righteousness for a Christian. In my view you are not helping yourself, dear Zev, by contrasting your beliefs in such a stark way with what most people – certainly sincere Christians – would consider to be, or at least akin to being, nobility of character. The morality you appear to hold seems more than a bit overly materialistic and legalistic, which to my mind is hardly praiseworthy.
And your remark about abetting robbery is also a serious misfire: there is nothing immoral about handing over your wallet to a robber; indeed, bank tellers and the like are required to just hand over the loot. They are never prosecuted for abetting a robbery!
Christ effectively taught that loving the thief and sharing His teachings with the thief would be enough – or at least all that a Christian should do – to protect other potential victims.
**Excellent, Polaris! That “needs to be bronzed and erected into a monument placed at the entrance of Great Debates”, so that all those who wish to claim or imply manifestly unfair similarities between Judaism and Christianity can be sent over to look at it.
You’ve done it again, Zev. The answer is an unabashed “YES” to sincere Christians. And well it should be! Christianity is not about appointing deputies and gathering posses, as you very much seem to be painting Judaism to be.
What is so exceedingly difficult for you to grasp? Christ taught that wrongdoers should be loved and be given his teachings, not rounded up and punished or slaughtered! It is up to the individual to choose a moral, Christian life – it is never to be imposed on someone!