I responded as follows.
Yeah, but I can't imagine an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god would write the truth on our hearts with various intensities or not all for some people. Nor one that would write different laws for different times and cultures.
The laws varying according to time and place are a different matter. Look at the practical laws concerning harvesting. I live in a city. Was that law written for me? The ceremonial laws were for ancient theocratic Israel meant to point to Christ, why do you think they should apply today given that Messiah has already come?
To which replied:
I'd be curious to know where you find scriptural support for the idea that there are divisions in the law, such as ceremonial law, dietary law, etc..Ryan claims to have been a Christian yet he seems to have forgotten all the places where the ceremonial laws are directed to the people of Israel and not all of humanity. However instead of focusing on such passages, why don't we look at how Paul dealt with his question. I'm amazed how often it comes up because it should have been put to rest 2000 years ago. To follow the ceremonial laws would mean to become a Jew. From the beginning there were those thought to be Christian means you must also be a Jew. Paul dealt with this head on.
And even if you find some or stretch something else to accommodate yourself, you are still stuck with the very inconvenient line about jots and tittles. Surely even the parts about the harvest are included in every jot and tittle
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
- Galatians 3:15-25
Paul affirmed the Law not set it aside. IT has it's place but Jesus fulfilled the Law. The New Testament is very clear point. I did ask Ryan the following question:
how do you explain those who become born-again who were not raised as Christians or in a Christian context?
His answer:
Missionaries? Also, probably the same way I'd explain Christians leaving the faith or becoming Muslim, Buddhist, etc...
He is making my point for me. It is silly to argue that the only reason people are Christians is because they are raised in Christian families. He said: "I think the "pull" of Christianity for today's westerner is that western civilization has been steeping in the story for 1650 years. Probably the same reasons Muslims like Islam." He just admitted that isn't the case.
he seems to have forgotten all the places where the ceremonial laws are directed to the people of Israel and not all of humanity.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably due to the different way you and I (now) look at the bible. You see it as the sacred word of an omnipotent and omniscient God, so clearly books written by Jews for Jews would appear to be "directed" by the almighty.
I don't share that presupposition and see it simply as a collection of ancient texts.
But either way, why do you take Paul's word over what someone said Jesus said?
"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
So, unless you give Paul more credibilty then Jesus, you are on the hook to abstain from pork until heaven and earth pass away. Assuming you are a Christian, and not a Paulist.
Or does god change?
It is silly to argue that the only reason people are Christians is because they are raised in Christian families.
That would be silly if I believed that was the only reason. It is however demonstrably the statistically overwhelming reason.
Marcus,
ReplyDeletePardon the uncontextual comment but I think that my emails are not getting to you.
This may be of interest:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/fact-vs-fiction/superheroes-and-role-models?src=rss
Paul did not contradict Jesus. I don't think you have read all of Galatians 3. You have a presupposition that requires you to think that there is contradiction therefore you don't have to accept the Bible as the Word of God. The Laws of Moses distinctly prescribes the the ceremonial laws for Israel and not all of humanity. For example, who is the audience for Exodus to Deuteronomy? Israel. In Deut 4:9,10,6:2,6:7 the audience is required to teach the Law to their Children - um Jews!
ReplyDeleteMany of the ceremonial law descriptions include the following command: "This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come." For example Exodus 27:21
You're gonna have to do better than that if you want to justify your stubborn rebellion against God.
No problem, Mariano. I did not see any e-mail regarding that link. Thanks!! Very Interesting!
ReplyDeleteEvery jot and tittle Marcus.
ReplyDeleteMarcus said You have a presupposition that requires you to think that there is contradiction therefore you don't have to accept the Bible as the Word of God.
No, my presupposition simple allows me to think contradictions are possible.
Ryan, assuming the possibility of a contradiction is different than asserting that there is a contradiction. Given the historical and cultural context of the Torah and 1st Century Judea, explain why contradiction is the best explanation for what juxtaposing what Jesus said with what Paul said. I think you understand what Paul said yet not why but you don't understand what Jesus said or why he said it.
ReplyDeleteMarcus; again, this highlights one of the most convenient factors of your religion, you can make the words attributed to Jesus mean just about anything you want. That’s probably why there are 30,000 sects. Wouldn’t it honestly be easier to give up pork and ask your wife to sleep in the yard once a month instead of going through the mental gymnastics required to reconcile Paul and Jesus?
ReplyDeleteAs a heathen, I’ll just take the plain meaning of the words attributed to Jesus, which is that he didn’t want the people he was addressing (Jews, because he was a Jew speaking to a Jewish audience) to think that he had come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. He was very clear that until the very end of the world, not the smallest letter or the least stroke of the pen would disappear from the law. He also went on to say that anyone who breaks the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but if they do keep them, they will be called great in heaven. He concluded by telling the people that they needed to be better than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. Fairly simple.
Given the historical context, Jesus was a Jewish reformer living in an occupied territory, and Paul was part of the establishment, a cosmopolitan Roman Citizen who was founding a church way beyond the original audience, keeping the smallest letter of the law was a VERY tough sell outside of Judea.
Perhaps the most important point that you seemed to miss is that presupposing that contradictions are possible allows me to see when contradictions actually occur. If you presuppose they are impossible, then you cannot see them. I’d be impressed if you actually presupposed contridictions were possible, and still couldn’t find any.
You didn't address the point made about who the the ceremonial laws like eating pork and menstruating women sleeping outside the camp were applied to. I'll repost what i wrote:
ReplyDelete"In Deut 4:9,10,6:2,6:7 the audience is required to teach the Law to their Children - um Jews!" Not Gentiles. Which I am.
and
"Many of the ceremonial law descriptions include the following command: "This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come." For example Exodus 27:21"
I'm not presupposing that the Bible is inerrant so that there are no contradictions. I'm stating that it's inerrant because of no contradictions.
Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law not that he was expecting everyone to be able fulfill it. Or that the Law was still in effect. The purpose of the Law is to show us God's character and what is right according to God. As for prescription, Jesus was pointing to something greater than just the letter of the Law (which is perfect and what He meant in saying that it will never pass away). The religious leaders who He said our righteousness must surpass were keeping the Law remember? So it has to be more than that.
You are introducing contradictions because you are still taking Jesus and Paul out of context. Jesus knew that the ceremonial laws were going to be fulfilled Himself because there would be no more temple or tabernacle (fullfilled in 70 AD) Jesus said the temple would be destroyed in the lifetime of those who were listening to him and it was.
That's just the point Marcus. "Moses" and "Jesus" were not talking to you, you dog. Paul was though...
ReplyDeleteJesus said that he came to fulfill the law not that he was expecting everyone to be able fulfill it. Or that the Law was still in effect.
Putting words in Jesus' mouth? You wouldnt be the first...
What Jesus is actually credited for having said was "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. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Excuse me...No one..me nor Paul abolished the Law. Read Romans 9 and 10
ReplyDeleteThe Law has value. But not the way you are trying to force on it.
ReplyDelete