# Who chose what parts of the Mosaic Code became part of Christianity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 26, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266 "2005-04-26T22:45:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/1 "2005-04-26T22:45:34Z")
I could never be mistaken for a Bible scholar, but my understanding is that there are a ton of rules detailed in the Old Testament (particularly in Leviticus), for instance forbidding people from eating shellfish, forbidding women from wearing traditionally male clothes, etc. Apparently, in the early days of Christianity, a lot of these Old Testament rules were thrown out. Yet certain rules, such as the rules against sexual promiscuity and against homosexuality remained. My question is, who decided which rules to reject and which to keep, and what was the basis for this decision? I mean, was this based on something Jesus said, or was it an independent decision by Paul, Peter, and the other early Christian leaders? Here’s a follow up question: If these decisions _were_ made by the Christ’s followers some time after his Crucifiction, then why do modern Christians assume that their decisions on these matters were definitely the correct ones? Is it typically believed that the early Church leaders were divinely inspired in making those choices? ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/2 "2005-04-26T22:46:50Z")
“Crucifiction” should of course be “Crucifixion.” :smack: Wasn’t trying to imply anything there, honest. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/3 "2005-04-27T00:55:22Z")
This is by no means a compete answer. FYI: Mosaic Code is called “The Law” 1. Some were reiterated in the New Testament. Jesus mentioned several of the ten commandments for people to follow. Acts opens up the ability to eat all animals. Romans reiterates the sin of homosexuality. 2. Some of the Old Testament laws that were not kept were cultural. Stuff like not eating a goat cooked in it’s mothers milk may sound odd and off the wall, but they were common practices of worshipers of other gods. God didn’t want his people getting mixed up in that. Many of them boiled down to “dress appropriately.” If dressing in a red shirt meant you were “slutty,” then the rule was don’t wear red shirts. Obviously, there is no such taboo against that today, but we could replace this rule with something like "don’t show too much cleavage.” Paul basically says that as Christians we are not bound by the law. The purpose of the law was to show us our sin and need for a savior. The law condemns, but Jesus saves. One without the other is no good. However, just because we are not “bound” by the law does not mean that we should do whatever we want. Twice, I Corinthians says “ ’Everything is permissible’- but not everything is beneficial.” He was countering a saying that “everything is permissible.” He says that may be true, but it isn’t good for you, and it doesn’t please God. You as a Christian should desire to please God, and an easy way to tell what does that is look at the Law. I hope this clears some of that up for you. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/4 "2005-04-27T01:21:13Z")
I thought the Mosaic code became Netscape and IE. Now that’s a geeky joke. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/5 "2005-04-27T01:57:46Z")
I asked pretty much this same question over in GD in the thread [Explain the “New Covenant” thing to me.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=302193) No one had a very good answer, but upon further research I found that Hebrews is where the New Covenant idea is covered, especially [Hebrews 8](http://www.bible.org/netbible/heb8.htm) - 10. The New Covenant as discussed in Hebrews is primarily concerned with the obsolescence of sacrifices since Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. So I guess we’re still supposed to stone to death witches, adulterers, and [pop-smarty children.](http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021%20:18;&version=31;) ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/6 "2005-04-27T02:13:16Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I thought the Mosaic code became Netscape and IE. > Now that’s a geeky joke. Damn you, **Revtim**! Only 5 posts and already beaten to it! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/7 "2005-04-27T02:54:28Z")
Well, according the most Xtian scholars- none of the Mosiac code applies. It’s _all_ supplanted by the “New Covenant”. The one law is the Golden Rule, and Christ is your Saviour. That’s about it. You’ll find few, if any specific “no-nos” in the Words of Jesus. Jesus said nothing about Promiscuity or Homosexuality. Paul- on the other hand- seems to have some hang-ups about Sex, and he had a couple diatribes against such (and drunkeness, and many other things). Paul is not Jesus, however. The Old Testament is pretty well just “sacred History” to a well read Xtian. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/8 "2005-04-27T03:08:38Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, according the most Xtian scholars- none of the Mosiac code applies. It’s _all_ supplanted by the “New Covenant”. The one law is the Golden Rule, and Christ is your Saviour. That’s about it. I don’t think that’s right at all - of course I’m not a Christain scholar, still… Certainly the Ten Commandments still apply. As far as I can tell, Jesus never talked about any New Covenant at all, this was all done later when trying to sell Christianity to the masses. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/9 "2005-04-27T03:26:27Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > You as a Christian should desire to please God, and an easy way to tell what does that is look at the Law. Fine, but which Law? That’s the fundamental question here. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/10 "2005-04-27T04:35:08Z")
> [@El Zagna](#): > > Fine, but which Law? That’s the fundamental question here. Sorry if I was unclear. I will be somewhat specific in this post, but at the end I will have a major conclusion that should make everything clear. Basically I would say that the Law fits into 4 categories: 1. Cultural Law (eg. What kind of clothes to wear, ways not to cook goat) – Don’t have to follow these. 2. Governmental Laws (eg If someone kills and eats your cow, they owe you 20 shekels.) – These were set up as governmental laws for the land of Israel. We have our own government laws… Don’t have to follow these. 3. Laws that were replaced in New Testament (eg. Eating pigs) – Don’t have to follow these. 4. Laws that were reiterated in New testament (eg. Honor father and mother) – It is suggested that you DO follow these. If you are having a hard time deciphering which of these that each law belongs to, or if you can find ones that do not fall into one of these four categories, contact your local pastor or priest. I’m sure he would be more than happy to talk to you about it. Most of the ones that you are familiar with, like the ten commandments, are in the New Testament. They are worded slightly differently and spread all over, but they are there. Conclusion: In other words, if you stick with all of the instructions in the New Testament, you should be a happy camper. All of the laws in the Old Testament that apply to you are in there. If you want a point by point for each law, I would say buy a big book. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/11 "2005-04-27T12:27:15Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > 1. Laws that were reiterated in New testament (eg. Honor father and mother) – It is suggested that you DO follow these. > … > > Conclusion: In other words, if you stick with all of the instructions in the New Testament, you should be a happy camper. All of the laws in the Old Testament that apply to you are in there. [Reminding myself that we are in GQ]. But this would mean that the Old Testament is not much more than an historical curiosity. You’re basically saying that if the rules aren’t stated or restated in the NT then they don’t count. I don’t think you’re going to find many Christians who will agree with that. More importantly, at least with respect to the OP, who made such a claim? And where in the NT is that claim stated? I don’t think Jesus talked about a New Covenant. If he did, then where? Other than Hebrews which I talked about earlier, can anyone give specific references in the NT that states that Law X is no longer needed? ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/12 "2005-04-27T13:43:16Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > 1. Some were reiterated in the New Testament. Jesus mentioned several of the ten commandments for people to follow. Acts opens up the ability to eat all animals. Romans reiterates the sin of homosexuality. > > . . . > > Paul basically says that as Christians we are not bound by the law. The purpose of the law was to show us our sin and need for a savior. OK, but this gets back to my other question: was Paul infallible? I mean, obviously he wasn’t infallible in his day-to-day life, but when he was writing portions of the Bible is it assumed he was infallible? Because there seem to be a lot of things (like homosexuality) that are addressed by Bible authors like Paul but aren’t actually mentioned by Jesus (or if they were, then those quotations didn’t make it into the Bible). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/13 "2005-04-27T13:45:38Z")
Just a general note to whoever might be interested: if you’re going to use the X, please remember that it replaces five, not four, letters. It should be Xian, not Xtian. ---
**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:** [April 27, 2005, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/14 "2005-04-27T13:54:23Z")
In the Book of Acts of the Apostles, [Chapter 15](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&version=31&context=chapter) it relates how the original Apostles held a council when Paul started bringing in a large number of non-Jewish converts (a few years after Jesus’ departure), to discuss what observances of The Law were to be required of the new Christians (most critically, whether they should be circumcised). Their conclusion was that only the laws forbidding people from partaking in “sacrifices to idols, sexual immorality, the meat of strangled animals, and blood” would be imposed on the converts by the new religion. Notice that: - The passage does not go very deep into how come these specific rules were the ones that “survived” the New Covenant, - The Chapter seems to imply, by the phrase about how “Moses is preached in the synagogues anyway”, that folks wanting to observe the whole caboodle could go ahead and convert to Judaism, - Avoiding “meat from strangled animals” is not made a big deal of by any of the major branches of Christianity, we twist the necks of chickens quite happily - They don’t define what they mean by forbidding “blood” (Jehovah’s Witnesses extend that to mean no transfusions) - Similarly they don’t go into technical detail as to what is “sexual inmorality” (“fornication” in the KJV translation). ---
**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:** [April 27, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/15 "2005-04-27T14:19:46Z")
Oh, and **tim314** if we’re talking about organizing the Church and defining its orthodox doctrine, the words in the NT attributed allegedly to the specific person of Jesus are **NOT** the one and only source. The _entirety_ of the NT, the output of the authors or teams of authors traditionally referred to as Paul, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Peter, James and Jude, would equally be considered inspired scripture by virtually every brand of Christianity extant today, and given the weight of authority each such branch gives to Biblical text. Thus the infallibility, or rather the _inerrancy_ of said writings, and whether even if inerrant in “deep meaning”, should the specific words be taken literally or interpreted symbolically, are matters for the theologians of each of those branches of the religion. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/16 "2005-04-27T14:38:13Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > In the Book of Acts of the Apostles, [Chapter 15](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&version=31&context=chapter) it relates how the original Apostles held a council when Paul started bringing in a large number of non-Jewish converts (a few years after Jesus’ departure), to discuss what observances of The Law were to be required of the new Christians (most critically, whether they should be circumcised). Their conclusion was that only the laws forbidding people from partaking in “sacrifices to idols, sexual immorality, the meat of strangled animals, and blood” would be imposed on the converts by the new religion. Acts 15 was brought up in the [Explain the “New Covenant” thing to me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=302193), also. What I find interesting about Acts 15 is that it came out of a debate on getting new converts. The way I read it, the whole discussion had less to do with theology than it did with the best strategy for a membership drive. Very practical, those early Christians. The other striking aspect of Acts 15 is the way that the requirments for being a Christian were toned down as \*\*JRDelirious \*\* suggests. Here is how Acts 15: 28-29 is translated in The Message: > [@](#): > > 28It seemed to the Holy Spirit and to us that you should not be saddled with any crushing burden, but be responsible only for these bare necessities: 29Be careful not to get involved in activities connected with idols; avoid serving food offensive to Jewish Christians (blood, for instance); and guard the morality of sex and marriage. > > ``` > These guidelines are sufficient to keep relations congenial between us. And God be with you! > > ``` For a more traditional translation (NIV) we have: > [@](#): > > 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. And for the King James die-hards: > [@](#): > > 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; > > 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-chose-what-parts-of-the-mosaic-code-became-part-of-christianity/301266/17 "2005-04-27T18:13:41Z")
> [@El Zagna](#): > > “You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” “…from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.” Note the huge difference. “Avoiding these things” is now _advice,_ instead of a Commandment. There is one real Commandment in the NT- Accept Jesus as your personal saviour (and there is some debate as to whther or not JC is then a "fast track’ or the “only” way to be saved- here the NT seems to contradict itself). The “New Covenant” doesn’t mean there are no more sins, it means that any sins can & will be forgiven. That in place of a long list of “Shall & Shalt not”, there is forgiveness for whatever sins. The New Covenant changes all of the rules, Commandments, and _Laws_ in the OT from “Laws” to “guidance”. And, in various NT books, they even cut back on those which were to be considered “from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.” A Xian can is hardly encouraged to violate the 10 Commandments- but to him they are no longer _Commandments_- if he fails to follow them, he will be Forgiven. On a mundane note- about that time it came to pass that almost\* no one- Jew or Xian was required to sacrifice- as the Temple was detroyed and there was no longer anyplace to sacrifice at. Even the most Observant Jew- even unto the Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem- no longer is required to sacrifice. - I say “almost” because the Samaritians & some others- which one \*could \*describe as “Jewish sects/cults”- still sacrificed on one of the other Holy Mountains, I think.