Ohhh yea thats in the OT....

by flower 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  flower

  When people mention some of the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by God in the bible, the most frequently used argument seems to be something to this effect .."Thats in the Old Testament which is no longer binding for us today since Jesus as the 'lamb' cleared away the need for its rules and regulations"

  However, I do not know where they get this idea other than from religious leaders (JW or otherwise) who spoon feed them that reasoning so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes and so they can assign a kinder, more loving nature to God.

  I find no proof that the OT should be ignored. Even according to scriptures in the New Testament the OT should be adhered to. Scriptures from the NT:

  "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)

  ?Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

  "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.? (Matthew 5:18-19)

  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)

  So where do they get off expecting people to believe that, just because it makes God seem a little nicer, they can just disregard what the bible says and ignore the old testament? Hmmm could it be that people would be horrified when they open the OT and read about how 'loving' God really was?

  like how loving he was to the handicapped...

  Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron that in all future generations, his descendants who have physical defects will not qualify to offer food to their God. No one who has a defect may come near to me, whether he is blind or lame, stunted or deformed, or has a broken foot or hand, or has a humped back or is a dwarf, or has a defective eye, or has oozing sores or scabs on his skin, or has damaged testicles. Even though he is a descendant of Aaron, his physical defects disqualify him from presenting offerings to the LORD by fire. Since he has a blemish, he may not offer food to his God. However, he may eat from the food offered to God, including the holy offerings and the most holy offerings. Yet because of his physical defect, he must never go behind the inner curtain or come near the altar, for this would desecrate my holy places. I am the LORD who makes them holy." (Leviticus 21:16-23)

  or to slaves...

  However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46

  or women...

  If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.(Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

  If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

  Suppose you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God hands them over to you and you take captives. And suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home, where she must shave her head, cut her fingernails, and change all her clothes. Then she must remain in your home for a full month, mourning for her father and mother. After that you may marry her. But if you marry her and then decide you do not like her, you must let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her.(Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

  Oh I'm sure all these laws were 'a protection' for the victims. Kinda like dfing protects the congregation from us eeeevil apostates.
• 

  dustyb

  flower, read galatians 2:21 or somethin like that.

  "for if we adhere to laws, then Jesus died for nothing"

  EDITED:

  forgot to say that a lot of Pauls letters go against the very fact of laws and organization. paul promotes singleness and walking in Jesus' footsteps rather than Jehovah's footsteps...
• 

  flower

  Thanks for pointing out yet another biblical contradiction.
• 

  Leolaia

  There are indeed different points of view in the NT regarding the Torah. The Jewish-Christian view, represented in Q (utilized in Matthew and Luke) and the Epistle of James (and especially in extrabiblical works like the Didache, the Preaching of Peter, the Kerygma Petrou, and the Ascents of James), held that the rabbi Jesus fulfilled the Law by giving it its truest interpretation (bringing it into perfection) and passed on his interpretive authority to his disciples (cf. Matthew 18:18). This interpretation of the Law was, in comparison to the strict rules of the Pharisees, extremely liberal and followed what Jesus regarded as the "spirit of the Law" (as expressed in Leviticus 19:17-20 and Deuteronomy 6:5 which, in the view of many rabbis and Jewish-Christians, summed up the entire Torah) than the "letter of the Law"; thus the Jesus of the gospels repeatedly advocated "breaking" purity and Sabbath laws when they conflict with more important matters like social justice (e.g. the treatment of the poor, the hungry, the disabled), that is, where following the letter of the Law would conflict with showing love towards your neighbor -- the highest principle in the Torah. Thus they viewed themselves as still following the Law and did not believe that Jesus abolished the Law. The Pauline Christians, on the other hand, took the opposite view and -- as Paul argues in Galatians and Romans -- it is the grace that Jesus brought into the world through his death which justifies man from sin, not the Law. The Pauline communities were also largely composed of Gentile Christians who had no experience with the Law. The Jewish-Christian rhetoric in Q, and particularly in Matthew, is thus opposed to both extremes -- it equally condemns the literally "lawless" Pauline Christians who claim to follow Jesus but who reject the Law (cf. Matthew 5:17-19, 7:21-23; cf. James 2:10, 14-17) and condemns the self-righteous Pharisees who claim to follow the Law but really don't (cf. Matthew 23:1-36). The Ebionite Jewish-Christians came to regard Paul as an arch-heretic, and the later church fathers came to condemn the Jewish-Christians as heretics as well.
• 

  Narkissos

  Leolaia:

  I'm just back and start here (incredible how much you can miss when you're out of JWD for a few days!).

  This interpretation of the Law was, in comparison to the strict rules of the Pharisees, extremely liberal and followed what Jesus regarded as the "spirit of the Law" (as expressed in Leviticus 19:17-20 and Deuteronomy 6:5 which, in the view of many rabbis and Jewish-Christians, summed up the entire Torah) than the "letter of the Law"; thus the Jesus of the gospels repeatedly advocated "breaking" purity and Sabbath laws when they conflict with more important matters like social justice (e.g. the treatment of the poor, the hungry, the disabled), that is, where following the letter of the Law would conflict with showing love towards your neighbor -- the highest principle in the Torah. Thus they viewed themselves as still following the Law and did not believe that Jesus abolished the Law.

  I sincerely doubt the early judeo-christian sources which insisted on "fulfilling the Torah" would have regarded Jesus as "liberal" and the Pharisees as "strict". I suspect it was exactly the contrary: their Jesus, like John the Baptist and the Essenes, would dismiss the Pharisees' stance as hypocritical and overly accommodating. One echo of this view is Matthew 5:20:

  For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

  The repudiation sayings are a good example:

  "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

  The anomistic Jesus and his controversies against the halakha come from a quite different source, i.e. Hellenistic Judaism / Christianity, and are mostly introduced into the Gospels picture by Mark. Only when this portrayal of Jesus is mixed up with the positive Torah sayings do we have the notion of Jesus as a liberal rabbi with a lenient interpretation of the Torah.
• 

  jst2laws

  Flower,

  Only on JWD could you ignite a debate between scholars of Early Church History. I'm pulling my books out with glossaries to see if I can follow this.

  Narkissos and Leolaia,

  This feels like I'm auditing a college class.

  Now continue.

  Steve
• 

  flower

  LOL Steve....They put me in my place thats for sure! . Here I am trying to be a smart ass (not really) and I have no idea whether they agree or disagree with my points! LOL

  Oh well, I'll wait for you to figure it out and interpret. :)

  flower

  *walks away wondering ....Q? Isnt that the guy from Star Trek the next generation, whats he got to do with this?*
• 

  Leolaia

  I did not say that the Jewish-Christians viewed Jesus as liberal, far from it, I used the expression to represent the Pharisaical view of Jesus as presented in the synoptics. Yes, you are right that this comes from Mark and not Q, and I should not conflate these stories with the anti-Pharisee rhetoric in Q. But as Koester and others show in their analysis of Q, the Q community relativized purity and dietary laws and the point of many of the parables and aphorisms in Q and the special Matthean and Lukan material is against following purity laws in a way that shows a lack of love for your neighbor.
• 

  Narkissos

  LOL @ Flower & Steve!

  "Q" is just the traditional symbol (from German Quelle = "Source") for the very probable yet hypothetical document which lies behind the texts common to Matthew and Luke which do not come from Mark. Actually, Flower, you were quoting from Q!

  (http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/)

  To put it more simply, there are texts in the N.T. which interpret Jesus' faith as the best way to fulfill the Torah (Q) and others which interpret it as breaking away from the Torah (Paul).

  Just what is meant by "fulfilling the Torah" is the question... I personally tend to agree with you and think that the first Judeo-Christians (more accurately Nazoreans) did mean applying the whole Torah, including ritualistic issues (such as Sabbath or circumcision).