Mormonism

peanut_butta_jellay · 2012-05-26T11:45:28.249634+00:00

that would be fine if the exodus story was the only thing in the bible.

horse_panini · 2012-05-26T11:39:36.961908+00:00

there is no greek word for wife or husband, these words are judged by their context. so wife/woman is the same greek word.

Youngs Literal Translation:(11-12) "Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection, and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness, "

It's about husband and wives for a start, doesn't apply to all women/men as shown by Paul's continuous greetings to women who work in the ministry and even calls apostles.

So it really says "let a wife (in quietness) learn (from her husband) in all subjection (ie. when the husband has something to teach the wife - regarding the scripture or something - let her listen to him and defer to him) - and the wife shouldn't instruct or rule her husband ('usurp authority' as one translation puts it) - ie. shouldn't be ordering him about and ruling over him (note the opposite does not necessarily apply by default).

horse_panini · 2012-05-26T11:25:58.949582+00:00

well first I think you are misreading the quote; Jesus said "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."

So he's not just talking about the Law (meaning the OT instructions/rules) but also the OT prophets and prophecies - the whole of the Jewish scripture really. He came to fulfil all of that; and he did not come to 'abolish' (to destroy) the law or the prophets.

This is a big read but this article is pretty extensive and gives a good breakdown. It's too big to go copying and pasting in here, but if you give it a read I believe it will help.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T22:36:05.667465+00:00

first, you said 'how many times Jesus says that you CANNOT be his follower unless you give ALL of your possessions to the poor' (emphasis yours).

Jesus never said you can't follow him unless you give all your possessions to the poor, never. You think all the disciples did that? They had a treasurer called Judas (ie they carried money around with them). Some of the disciples had families, and they didn't abandon them and sell all their shit/house.

Thus, your claim was just plain wrong. Jesus said no such thing, but you of course are able to misunderstand things. You seem to be quite good at it.

I'm sorry I offended you, but you clearly have no interest in having a better understanding of Christian theology, you simply want to bash it. That's cool, I get it, you're an ex Christian with a lot of hurt feelings. But go do that on /r/atheism.

If you're serious and want to know more about why Christians don't follow the OT, I think you'll find it laid out above - or you could use google.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T22:28:37.280673+00:00

covenant means agreement, so the quick answer is that God had to make progressive agreements to prepare mankind for redemption through the final covenant of Jesus. That obviously starts with basic introductory stuff, showing who he is and his power, then moves to showing his faithfulness, truthfulness and love for the Jews and then the wider world.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T22:26:30.544168+00:00

no, Christians do not become "the chosen people", that is sometimes called replacement theology, which I don't subscribe to. God has not rejected or replaced the Jews, they are still the chosen people and have a part to play/a position of reverence amongst all peoples.

Those who reject Christianity I believe are missing out, but I believe many religious Jews will eventually see the true Messiah is Jesus and worship him as such. I certainly believe the NT is a fulfilment of the old, and there is a solid thread running through the whole thing which hopefully one day many Jews will see.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T14:28:41.051494+00:00

I'm telling you your interpretation is based on a particular modern definition of law; you're thinking of civil laws or something like that.

The OT is not that, it is essentially a contract/covenant/testament. That concept runs through the OT and NT, and is why I think we're suffering this confusion.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T14:26:44.397453+00:00

well this just shows me you are very confused about the subject and don't know a lot about it.

Do you have any Jewish friends? Have you ever asked them why they don't kill people that work on Sundays/have slaves/stone adulterers etc? What's the answer?

after all I'm no Jew. Were the Jews still killing people for working on Sundays during the time of Jesus? could it be you have a bit more to learn about the topic?

how many times Jesus says that you CANNOT be his follower unless you give ALL of your possessions to the poor

not once.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T14:18:33.353029+00:00

I'm sorry if it comes across like that, but you do seem to be displaying a lack of knowledge about a complicated subject, and demanding I simplify it to suit your needs. It would be a lot easier if you did some reading yourself, and instead of arguing with me, you tried to understand the writers of the NT and Jesus, and consider that maybe Christians for 2000years have a coherent picture of their beliefs, and it makes sense, even if you don't like it. And part of that includes not following the OT laws.

With a contract, you have two parties who mutually agree upon a certain outcome. "I'll do X if you do Y." Once that exchange occurs, the contract is no longer valid. This analogy does not apply in the case of Judaic law.

This is what I'm talking about - it does! read the OT covenants, and you'll see god said exactly that: If you do x, I'll do y, as long as you do it, I'll do it, this is our agreement. There is no 'cut off' for agreements of lifelong protection, prosperity, health etc.

Plus you need to understand there were different covenants for different things, at different times. not all rules applied universally, for all time. Ask a Jew.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:56:07.831273+00:00

God's law wasn't a contract because it involved God dictating to man.

I'm afraid this shows how little you know about the subject. You could start here), to help you get to grips with what the OT Law/covenants actually meant and mean.

This is a pretty big chain of unestablished conclusions. Where can I find this explanation in the NT?

Read the book of Romans. Or Hebrews. (And then the rest of Paul's letters will help too).

And this is a pretty short list of forbidden things. It doesn't include "don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't molest children," or any of those other important ideas.

and thus you are beginning to get it.

I know you want "black and white" answers and the whole of christian theology/morality within a few short replies, but you aren't going to get it. You need to do some foundational research, get your head around the concepts of the OT and what it represents and means, understand the context and then read the NT with that understanding. There is in fact a lot of 'middle ground' because this is a big subject with a lot of simultaneous truths.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:47:44.416313+00:00

Luke 16:17 - "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."

Matt 5:17-19 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So which bit says Christians should be practicing the Law?

The closest thing you have is this; "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

guess what? I'm not breaking any of those commandments. I'm fulfilling them by loving everyone as I love myself.

And you raise a good point; Jesus 'makes it' (doesn't really) stricter. So the law isn't good enough, right? Well should I follow the law or not? If the Pharisees and co, who are all fulfilling the law, aren't making the cut, what's the missing piece?

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:31:06.162614+00:00

I know the gospels. Got any verses where he says they "should still apply?"

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:29:52.006946+00:00

Whether or not he broke any law is irrelevant.

I'm afraid its actually a critical part of Christian theology.

He says "no abolish, yes fulfill." When you complete a law, the law doesn't go away.

no, but when you complete a contract, it does. That's what the word "testament" means - ie. last will and testament. It's a legal term. The OT is not a book of rules for the running of society. It's a contract, or rather a series of contracts between god and man.

Consider the rule "don't steal". What is the point of that rule? It's to teach others that morally, stealing is wrong. People might want to steal, but they shouldn't. People still stole. The law was still in effect, but people broke it. Jesus came and fulfilled the law, including not stealing.

Are Christians then free to steal? well no, stealing is bad. But the motivator is not the law itself (do not steal), but the love one for another. If you love one another, you won't steal in the first place. The law is not abolished (the principle is not abolished, it's still wrong to steal), but the demand of "you must not steal" is no longer pride of place. The law itself is not important; it's the fulfilling of it that matters (doesn't matter how you get there, as long as you get there).

So in one sense, yes the Law still stands. It is still wrong to steal, people will face consequences both in this life and the next for stealing. But the instruction has shifted from targeting the consequence (the breaking of the law) to the root of the problem; not loving other people like you love yourself. The Law has not been abolished, it's been fulfilled by Jesus, and now we can fulfil it too, by default.

Acts 15 is where the disciples get together to discuss this issue. They conclude: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You 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." - Acts 15:28-29

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T13:05:27.575525+00:00

what verse implies Paul wants to keep women out of primary leadership roles?

You probably mean the couple of verses that are often used by sexist dudes to keep women down, and I would say are very badly misinterpreted - especially if you care to look at Paul's relationship with women who were actually already leaders in the church.

And again, disdain for homosexuality? You mean the few occasions he mentions it in passing?

There really is no difference in their positions. Jesus had mainly male disciples and apostles, but he also had women followers , some of whom supported him financially for example. And Jesus was a Jew, well aware of the OT laws regarding homosexuality, he never contradicted them, he said God made them "man and woman" in the beginning and endorsed (what we would now call "heterosexual") marriage.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T12:52:48.845067+00:00

because they agree, quite simply.

horse_panini · 2012-05-25T12:51:39.071016+00:00

fulfil meaning; followed, met every demand of the law. Every rule of the law, Jesus completed it. He didn't break any element of the law, so he 'fulfilled' it.

It of course has further meanings; fulfil as in finalise, like a contract would be finalised. and once a contract is finalised, there's no debt/outstanding demands of the contract that need to be met. It has been paid in full.

Keeping the OT rules 'around' is not exactly a problem, rather it is helpful in understanding why and what Jesus came to do. The point behind the OT is not the rules, it's what's going on behind the rules; why they exist in the first place, who gave them, the prophecies, the examples, etc.

And actually a lot of churches work on this principle. They do not abandon or dismiss the OT, they simply recognise it's place, and the primacy of place that Christians should give to the NT, as did the early Christians (not following the Jewish law, but not breaking it either. essentially doing the most loving thing, which often times wouldn't involve 'breaking' any OT law at all).

Paul elaborates on it in some detail, saying that there is no OT Law demand on new converts, on Christians. But that Christians, especially Jewish Christians, should be careful not to appear to be breaking the traditional laws, or cultural ways, because it may offend or confuse or put off the non-christian Jews, or new Jewish Christians.

horse_panini · 1 day

he didn't come to change the law. He came to fulfil it.

The OT is not void, but the commands have been superceded by a new and better covenant. There is plenty to learn from the OT, it is the story of God's redemptive plan being worked out via the Jewish people. The commandments are from god, to a particular people at a particular time. So Christians can and do learn a lot from the OT, as examples of faith, history, context, the nature of God, the plan of redemption etc.

horse_panini · 1 day

citation needed.

horse_panini · 1 day

If you are following the teachings of Christ you will by default follow/agree with Paul's interpretations and explanations.

horse_panini · 1 day

nope.

of course they will fulfil the ten commandments by default by loving their neighbour as themselves, and loving one another as Christ loved us.

horse_panini · 1 day

ok great. sorry to keep you up. I live in the UK so I get the same problem sometimes; everyone else in full flow and I need to sleep!

cheers.

horse_panini · 1 day

no problem.

I think it comes down to Paul not repeating verbatim Jesus, because of course Paul never met Jesus (pre-resurrection). He heard the oral teachings being passed amongst disciples, but he himself received a revelation not from man.

His letters are there to help churches and give them understanding and guidelines. So he covers various different topics; but he is teaching people who were in a different situation to those Jesus taught. Jesus taught Jews, non-born-again people, Paul taught born-again Christians. That framework will help you understand a lot of the apparent differences between the two.

As for the cleansing the temple; it is indeed a bit of a pain for a lot of Christians. It doesn't sound like the Jesus we often think of; meek and mild and never a bad word for anyone. But it's consistent with his words and teachings; the seriousness of sin, the goodness and holiness of god, the desire of god to redeem mankind. It's right there in scripture (multiple times), alongside all the 'nice Jesus' bits. It might be difficult, but we can't throw it out.

horse_panini · 1 day

ah right.

well Paul is talking exclusively about how Christians should treat one another. The previous verse is "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law...." so he is just going into expanding that thought; and explaining that Love is the fulfilment of the law in regards to how to treat others.

Also Paul doesn't say this is "the greatest commandment", rather he says this commandment (to love one another) sums up all the other commands of the law (no murder, no stealing etc.). He doesn't touch on the 'command' to love God, because that is both assumed and outside of the topic he is discussing.

I think for your logic to stick you'd need to propose Paul did not believe christians needed to love God, but just to love one another. I think you would struggle to make that case.

horse_panini · 1 day

haha, ok.

First, to clarify the Holy Spirit one; Paul doesn't mean "we don't know what to pray" as in "we have no idea what to say". A lot of Paul's letters are made up of prayers! Paul knows what to pray. 1 Cor 14:15 - "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

Paul is saying "sometimes, regarding certain situations, we don't know what to pray for. We don't know exactly what God's will is for a specific circumstance, but we want to pray for God's will to be done, so we rely on the Holy Spirit".

I think one part of understanding this is knowing that there are different kinds of prayer. Prayers of praise, thanksgiving, supplication, faith, intercession. ("And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. - Eph 6:18). when Paul says "we know not..." I think he is referring to an intercession kind of prayer; 'doing business' in the spirit, praying for god's will to be done. Not just thanking god or talking to god. I hope that makes sense.

For the Romans/Matt new one; I really don't see an issue! Both Paul and Jesus agree explicitly; the Law and prophets and commandments are all summed up in "Love God, love your neighbour as yourself". can you explain what exactly you see the problem to be here?

edit: sorry, forgot to include the Jesus flipping out verses, you can find them here. Here is brood of vipers, and here is dog. Also this is dog.

horse_panini · 1 day

he is still advocating judging! Whether it's of non-believers or other believers, either way, I think Jesus is pretty clear about that.

I think we need to define "judging", and what Jesus meant by it. If you read it in context (the whole of Matt 7) I think it is clear Jesus means "don't criticise or condemn people or point out faults" not "there should be no law, no civil courts or judges".

To put it another way; Jesus spent his life 'judging'. He judged between right and wrong, and often pointed out the faults of the pharisees and religious leaders (snakes! brood of vipers!), amongst others. He called the syrophoenician woman a 'dog'! He turned over tables and made a whip. He wasn't afraid to confront wrong and evil when he saw it.

So Paul and Jesus are on exactly the same page; advocating that Christians (and in particular leaders in the church) should discern between right and wrong to keep out the bad and keep in the good. This is a principle that runs throughout Jesus' parables (future judgement, wise and fools), and one Paul simply puts more explicitly into instruction sometimes.

And on the third point (the holy spirit) - I would simply ask; what then did Jesus send the holy spirit for? The Lords prayer is great, but evidently there was a need for a holy spirit for some reason; to lead us "into all truth". apparently Jesus did not deliver "all truth" in his teachings while he was here on earth!

Also I see no contradiction between your new example. One is Paul saying Christ died and is now Lord (meaning highest authority) over the dead and living. In Luke Jesus says God is not the god of the dead (meaning to God there are no such thing as dead people) but the living. God is not the god of dead men; Abraham, Issac etc. - these guys still live, in heaven.

honestchristian

TROPHY CASE

honestchristian

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login