Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is the Old Testimate Obsolete?

Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 9:03:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God"s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."

Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

http://www.catholic.com...

The moral law of the old testament is still applicable because what God considered moral he still considers moral. The ceremonial and civil laws have changed.

If memory serves me correctly, I think a theologian was explaining how to read the old testament using Apocalypse (Revelation) 5.

And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?...And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne. And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

So we are to read and understand the Old Testament through the understanding of the lamb that was standing as it were slain. Thus read and understand the Old through the understanding of the loving God who united himself with us out of love to bring us salvation from our sins.
MLC
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 9:20:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One would like to think that eventually, the entire Bible will become obsolete as people learn to think for themselves and adopt a personal moral compass that doesn't revolve around punishment or reward from a magical ethereal being.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 11:37:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

I think the Christian interpretation of the Tanakh -- the Hebrew Bible canon that underpins the foundations of what Christians call the Old Testament -- is actually pathological and revisionistic, Chaosism. But I think the so-called New Testament is too.

To explain why, I need to introduce a definition of nationalism, and frame the Tanakh within that. Then I need to explain what I think Christianity has done with that and why. But I'll do it as a sketch too, since it may not be exactly what you're looking for. If you're interested in more detail, you're welcome to poke me.

We can think of a national identity as an abstract but cohesive whole to which individuals and societies identify -- typically represented by distinctive traditions, culture, language and politics. While in modern times, a national identity is often also a state identity (so we might think of ourselves as American or Australian), or an ethnic identity spanning states (e.g. Chinese), in fact a national identity might span either, neither or both.

Ignoring its atrocious methods for a moment, a modern example of a national identity with no clear state or ethnic bounds can be found in Islamic State -- a political identity founded on a sense of religious nationhood spanning ethnicities and states, now seeking its own statehood. Not that every national identity is so brutal, but the idea of a pan-German identity in Nazism is also an example of nationalism. Other, less brutal examples include the Basque nationalism in Spain and France, or the Kurdish nationalism spanning Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria.

I believe that the Tanakh was written as the product of a religious and cultural revolution spanning centuries. I think it was both a product of, and a chief contributor to, a growing sense of Israelite nationalism (eventually becoming Judaic nationalism), and spanning the period of Babylonian captivity/exile (around the 6th century BCE), was embraced at a time when landless Israelites desperately needed a national identity to preserve cultural cohesion, political and economic cooperation and continuity. I think this greatly helps to explain the nationalistic jingoism in the Tanakh (for example, the Jews as the 'chosen people' of an undefeatable god), its xenophobia (i.e. proscriptions about cultural and religious purity), its monotheism (a single god for a single nation), the nature of its sin and punishment myths, its meticulous focus on law and custom, its sometime exhortations to militant brutality and genocide against its enemies, and its strident exhortations toward kindness and loyalty to fellow Jews.

I think the Tanakh remains key today as an anchor for Judaic nationalism -- a primary source of traditions, culture, language and even political attitudes, and that this has remained a principal purpose for it in the entire history of Judaism. Along with high levels of Jewish literacy, I think the existence of the Tanakh goes a long way toward explaining how Jewish people managed to survive culturally for thousands of years without a land or state of their own. I recognise that Judaic nationalism has been applied both benignly and militantly in a spectrum spanning everything from tribal Jewish brotherhood to Zionist expansionism -- and that the Tanakh has been used to support this whole spectrum.

I think the adoption of the Tanakh by Christianity, rebadging it as the 'Old Testament' cannot be understood solely in terms of Christian history. I think doing so makes it prone to Christian revisionism and the inevitable distortions of Christian hagiography. I think that the New Testament too, cannot be solely understood in terms of the impact and influence on Christian thought in the Roman Empire and subsequently, but that one has to understand early Christianity in terms of its relationship with Judaism under Roman occupation, and the subsequent irreconcilable faith split.

I think that when one does that, one begins to see that early Christianity began not as a faith pitched for the whole of humanity, but a Judaic reform movement that failed, got displaced to Europe, and rebooted itself to market to a different culture -- one it was already well-disposed to engage. And I think this explains the oddly ambivalent way the Old Testament has been adopted in Christianity: the way that Christianity can't really separate itself from the myths and imagery of the Tanakh, while never being able to fully honour its laws and customs either.

[I think it also helps explain the frequent 'WTF' expression on Jewish faces, when Christians condescendingly explain to them what their cherished blueprint for Jewish nationhood 'actually' means. :)]

Anyway, that's a sketch of how I as a non-Christian but with a layman's interest in the Ancient Near East and monotheistic thought, think the OT and NT fit together. I suspect there aren't many Christians who'd agree with me (few seem to ever have questioned why the OT is somehow 'theirs', when they don't share its language, traditions, culture or laws), but I think it may be a worthwhile alternative view.

In any case, please poke me if you'd like some more explication and links.
cr_lewis
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 12:06:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you. : :

Most of the OT prophecies have not been fulfilled yet so be patient.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 7:30:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 12:06:31 AM, cr_lewis wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you. : :

Most of the OT prophecies have not been fulfilled yet so be patient.

Most were written post event and none have been fulfilled.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 8:41:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

Anytime I see some bible christian using old testament law or examples to justify what ever this is always a good one to have on hand.....

Deuteronomy 22

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman"s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father"s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father"s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 5:08:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Back in the day, men used to have a say in matters pertaining to abortion.

*lifts up a rock*

No, the Old Testament is still good for study. The New Testament makes it pretty clear that believers of the Gospel are not required to practice Jewish traditions.

The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law brings life! Idolatry of scripture is a real thing, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ calls great attention to it.

~~~~

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations" "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using"according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 1:01:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 9:03:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God"s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."

Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

http://www.catholic.com...

The moral law of the old testament is still applicable because what God considered moral he still considers moral. The ceremonial and civil laws have changed.

I would agree with this as God is described as unchanging. He wouldn't change what is moral or immoral.

I see the slavery-related passages drudged up relatively frequently, so what do you think about the OT's positive view of slavery? There are passages in Leviticus (25:44) and in Exodus (21:21).

If memory serves me correctly, I think a theologian was explaining how to read the old testament using Apocalypse (Revelation) 5.

And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?...And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne. And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

So we are to read and understand the Old Testament through the understanding of the lamb that was standing as it were slain. Thus read and understand the Old through the understanding of the loving God who united himself with us out of love to bring us salvation from our sins.

Thank you for responding. I'll have to read the last bit more to understand.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 1:04:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 11:37:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

I think the Christian interpretation of the Tanakh -- the Hebrew Bible canon that underpins the foundations of what Christians call the Old Testament -- is actually pathological and revisionistic, Chaosism. But I think the so-called New Testament is too.

<snip>

In any case, please poke me if you'd like some more explication and links.

Thank you! Very nice, I believe that I understand what you are explaining, here.
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 3:37:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

My understanding is that the spiritual revelation of Christ transcends (and fulfills) the religious revelations of Judaism and the old testament. That doesn't render the OT useless, as there is still plenty of spiritual wisdom to be found, there, but it does mean that we do not have to be Jews to be Christians. Nor do we have to believe what Jews believe, or perform the rituals that Jews perform, or follow the mandates of ancient Jewish religious law. We are freed from all that, though the spirit of God's love and forgiveness and kindness and generosity that exists within us, as human reflections of our divine creator.

Use the OT to the degree that it's useful. Discard it if it proves to be of no positive spiritual use.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:43:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.
Well, we have to understand that Jesus did indeed fulfill the laws of the old covenant. Many of those laws were pertaining to the Jews and Israel (birthright). Jesus did not come for the Jews only, so we see those laws are no longer used. Those laws include things such as the dietary rules. Obviously the OT provides great insight to the early Christians and history. We should not ignore it completely. As well, it is not wrong to reference laws of the old covenant to support laws of the new. If you have any questions about specific laws then simply ask.

God bless.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 8:26:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:43:43 PM, tstor wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.
Well, we have to understand that Jesus did indeed fulfill the laws of the old covenant. Many of those laws were pertaining to the Jews and Israel (birthright). Jesus did not come for the Jews only, so we see those laws are no longer used. Those laws include things such as the dietary rules. Obviously the OT provides great insight to the early Christians and history. We should not ignore it completely. As well, it is not wrong to reference laws of the old covenant to support laws of the new. If you have any questions about specific laws then simply ask.

God bless.

Thank you.

What about the many laws that prescribe stoning/death as a punishment, such as:

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
- Exodus 35:2
turnaround
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 8:35:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 8:26:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2015 7:43:43 PM, tstor wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.
Well, we have to understand that Jesus did indeed fulfill the laws of the old covenant. Many of those laws were pertaining to the Jews and Israel (birthright). Jesus did not come for the Jews only, so we see those laws are no longer used. Those laws include things such as the dietary rules. Obviously the OT provides great insight to the early Christians and history. We should not ignore it completely. As well, it is not wrong to reference laws of the old covenant to support laws of the new. If you have any questions about specific laws then simply ask.

God bless.

Thank you.

What about the many laws that prescribe stoning/death as a punishment, such as:

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
- Exodus 35:2 : :

The religious Jews who started Judaism and Christianity didn't understand any of the prophecies or that the early Jews added their religious laws to the prophecies written by God's prophets.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 8:36:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 8:26:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:

What about the many laws that prescribe stoning/death as a punishment, such as:

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
- Exodus 35:2
This verse pertains to the Jews at that time. The law was not binding to the gentiles, especially not under the new covenant. Consider Romans 6:14:
"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace." (NIV)
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 9:24:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

How much of the OT is unimportant to anybody today depends on one thing and one ting only: that person. what are they seeking? what do they want to Know? Do they have God in their lives? Do they want God in their lives? What do they think of Jesus?
Answer those questions for me brother and I'll humbly offer to you how important the Torah is to you. (or to get technical, the Tanakh which includes the Prophets and the "writings" like Psalms, Prov.; Eccles; Job & Solomon.)

God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
mindtrainer
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 9:31:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 9:24:21 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

How much of the OT is unimportant to anybody today depends on one thing and one ting only: that person. what are they seeking? what do they want to Know? Do they have God in their lives? Do they want God in their lives? What do they think of Jesus?
Answer those questions for me brother and I'll humbly offer to you how important the Torah is to you. (or to get technical, the Tanakh which includes the Prophets and the "writings" like Psalms, Prov.; Eccles; Job & Solomon.)

God Bless. : :

The Beast will never give a believer the correct answer to their questions. Only our Creator can teach His believers the correct answers through the gospel that His chosen believers listen to.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 12:20:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 8:36:54 PM, tstor wrote:
At 8/17/2015 8:26:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:

What about the many laws that prescribe stoning/death as a punishment, such as:

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
- Exodus 35:2
This verse pertains to the Jews at that time. The law was not binding to the gentiles, especially not under the new covenant. Consider Romans 6:14:
"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace." (NIV)

OK, so as Geogeer stated, the moral laws are what remain. Does that include the passages against homosexuality?

I'll have to go over it again and look for specifics.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 12:24:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 9:24:21 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

How much of the OT is unimportant to anybody today depends on one thing and one ting only: that person. what are they seeking? what do they want to Know? Do they have God in their lives? Do they want God in their lives? What do they think of Jesus?
Answer those questions for me brother and I'll humbly offer to you how important the Torah is to you. (or to get technical, the Tanakh which includes the Prophets and the "writings" like Psalms, Prov.; Eccles; Job & Solomon.)

God Bless.

Actually, I'm asking because I want to understand where that argument is coming from because it is used so often to defend the Bible against critical accusations of immorality. Many that oppose the Bible bring up the slavery passages and whatnot, for instance.

Also, the book of Job is one that demonstrates how petty God can be (wagering with the devil at Job's cost), so if there is any validity in that story, it doesn't paint a pretty picture (like much of the Old Testament).
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 2:00:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 12:24:58 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Actually, I'm asking because I want to understand where that argument is coming from because it is used so often to defend the Bible against critical accusations of immorality. Many that oppose the Bible bring up the slavery passages and whatnot, for instance.

Also, the book of Job is one that demonstrates how petty God can be (wagering with the devil at Job's cost), so if there is any validity in that story, it doesn't paint a pretty picture (like much of the Old Testament).

The 'validity' of a story is not dependent upon it's historical or scientific factuality. As in most cases the purpose of story-telling is to convey information about something other than historical events, or physical processes. And this is certainly true of mythical stories, which is what you're talking about in the Bible's old testament.

So that how God behaves in these mythical stories is not intended to be taken as an historical account of God's actual behavior. The story is intended to convey some ideal relative to the story-teller's conception of God, and his understanding of how that idea registers in his experience of the world.

These mythical stories are very old, and because our culture and intellects have changed so much since they were first being used, our grasp of them is likely very different from the way people grasped them in their own time. Which may render them, or at least some of them, pretty well incomprehensible, and obsolete. However, because they were intended to convey the wisdom of their time to succeeding generations, and we humans are still human after all, these mythical stories can and do still convey SOME of that wisdom, even to this day.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 5:58:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 12:20:21 PM, Chaosism wrote:

OK, so as Geogeer stated, the moral laws are what remain. Does that include the passages against homosexuality?
I don't think that is a particularly good way of wording it, but it is a good concept. As for homosexuality, it is also deemed wrong even in the NT. Consider Romans 1:26-27:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 6:05:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 5:58:22 PM, tstor wrote:
At 8/18/2015 12:20:21 PM, Chaosism wrote:

OK, so as Geogeer stated, the moral laws are what remain. Does that include the passages against homosexuality?
I don't think that is a particularly good way of wording it, but it is a good concept. As for homosexuality, it is also deemed wrong even in the NT. Consider Romans 1:26-27:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Alright, here is where my biblical ignorance may shine. I knew that the New Testament was still against it, but In the passage above, it calls for "due penalty". Does the New Testament ever state what that is? If not, does the "due penalty" refer to the Old Testament's sentence of death?

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
- Leviticus 20:13
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 6:14:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 6:05:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Alright, here is where my biblical ignorance may shine. I knew that the New Testament was still against it, but In the passage above, it calls for "due penalty". Does the New Testament ever state what that is? If not, does the "due penalty" refer to the Old Testament's sentence of death?
It is clearly not death because there have been no penalties associated with execution throughout the NT. In this specific verse though, we read that due penalty will be "received in themselves". This is clearly an internal or spiritual penalty.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 6:21:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 6:14:23 PM, tstor wrote:
It is clearly not death because there have been no penalties associated with execution throughout the NT. In this specific verse though, we read that due penalty will be "received in themselves". This is clearly an internal or spiritual penalty.

If we continue on with Romans (1:28-32)...

"28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

What is the meaning of passage 32, then?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 6:26:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 6:21:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:

If we continue on with Romans (1:28-32)...

"28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

What is the meaning of passage 32, then?
The meaning is that they (the sinners) are worthy of death. There is no mentioning that we should go out and kill them. Nor is there anything showing how we should kill them if we do. We all will die, but some of us will remain in the grave while others are resurrected into the new earth. Nonetheless, being worthy of or deserving of death does not mean that we are the ones who are supposed to enforce it.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 8:28:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 12:24:58 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:24:21 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

How much of the OT is unimportant to anybody today depends on one thing and one ting only: that person. what are they seeking? what do they want to Know? Do they have God in their lives? Do they want God in their lives? What do they think of Jesus?
Answer those questions for me brother and I'll humbly offer to you how important the Torah is to you. (or to get technical, the Tanakh which includes the Prophets and the "writings" like Psalms, Prov.; Eccles; Job & Solomon.)

God Bless.

Actually, I'm asking because I want to understand where that argument is coming from because it is used so often to defend the Bible against critical accusations of immorality. Many that oppose the Bible bring up the slavery passages and whatnot, for instance.

Also, the book of Job is one that demonstrates how petty God can be (wagering with the devil at Job's cost), so if there is any validity in that story, it doesn't paint a pretty picture (like much of the Old Testament).

I would strongly advise using the OT to refute atheist claims of biblical amorality. LOL. its full of it and cruelty and alleged acts by the old Hebrew God that are on par with HItlers and Pots. Go to the Word of Jesus for defense on Bible morals. Or Proverbs or Psalms. I never never liked Job. and I hope you know its pure fabrication? just a fable extolling how Faith in God will persevere, and how we are not to question the ways of God. I DO agree with those two ideals, but MY God would never put a man thru all that he did Job for the sake of a bet with Satan. God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 8:30:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 12:24:58 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:24:21 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

How much of the OT is unimportant to anybody today depends on one thing and one ting only: that person. what are they seeking? what do they want to Know? Do they have God in their lives? Do they want God in their lives? What do they think of Jesus?
Answer those questions for me brother and I'll humbly offer to you how important the Torah is to you. (or to get technical, the Tanakh which includes the Prophets and the "writings" like Psalms, Prov.; Eccles; Job & Solomon.)

God Bless.

Actually, I'm asking because I want to understand where that argument is coming from because it is used so often to defend the Bible against critical accusations of immorality. Many that oppose the Bible bring up the slavery passages and whatnot, for instance.

Also, the book of Job is one that demonstrates how petty God can be (wagering with the devil at Job's cost), so if there is any validity in that story, it doesn't paint a pretty picture (like much of the Old Testament).

agreed, and I just finished a post on that. I never liked the story of Job. I never read it. It's pure BS and fabrication. A fable, meant to show that we're not to question God's Ways, and that we should keep the Faith. Two good lessons, yes! but not in that way of the Job fable. Please. God putting a devout believer thru all that for a bet with Satan? (which is his (Satan's) only appearance in the OT, btw.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
lemano
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2015 9:30:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/18/2015 8:28:30 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/18/2015 12:24:58 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/17/2015 9:24:21 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

How much of the OT is unimportant to anybody today depends on one thing and one ting only: that person. what are they seeking? what do they want to Know? Do they have God in their lives? Do they want God in their lives? What do they think of Jesus?
Answer those questions for me brother and I'll humbly offer to you how important the Torah is to you. (or to get technical, the Tanakh which includes the Prophets and the "writings" like Psalms, Prov.; Eccles; Job & Solomon.)

God Bless.

Actually, I'm asking because I want to understand where that argument is coming from because it is used so often to defend the Bible against critical accusations of immorality. Many that oppose the Bible bring up the slavery passages and whatnot, for instance.

Also, the book of Job is one that demonstrates how petty God can be (wagering with the devil at Job's cost), so if there is any validity in that story, it doesn't paint a pretty picture (like much of the Old Testament).

I would strongly advise using the OT to refute atheist claims of biblical amorality. LOL. its full of it and cruelty and alleged acts by the old Hebrew God that are on par with HItlers and Pots. Go to the Word of Jesus for defense on Bible morals. Or Proverbs or Psalms. I never never liked Job. and I hope you know its pure fabrication? just a fable extolling how Faith in God will persevere, and how we are not to question the ways of God. I DO agree with those two ideals, but MY God would never put a man thru all that he did Job for the sake of a bet with Satan. God Bless. : :

I never never liked Job. and I hope you know its pure fabrication?

Why are you teaching lies my friend? Job is a very important piece of work by a prophet with lots of prophetic messages in it that are not fulfilled yet. Job is very interesting for us saints to read because it reminds us of what we have to go through in order to be prepared to start testifying to the knowledge of God.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:58:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 1:01:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/14/2015 9:03:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/14/2015 8:00:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I am somewhat, but not well versed in Biblical studies. I've heard the argument that the New Testament "fulfills" or nullifies the old mosaic laws of the Old Testament. My questions are: to what extent does this affect the OT? What parts can be done away with?

Thank you.

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God"s saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."

Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism). (CCC 121-123)

http://www.catholic.com...

The moral law of the old testament is still applicable because what God considered moral he still considers moral. The ceremonial and civil laws have changed.

I would agree with this as God is described as unchanging. He wouldn't change what is moral or immoral.

I see the slavery-related passages drudged up relatively frequently, so what do you think about the OT's positive view of slavery? There are passages in Leviticus (25:44) and in Exodus (21:21).

I don't think slavery in the Old Testament is something difficult to understand or necessarily evil (although it does open itself to abuses).

Slavery was a protection for the poor. In an agrarian society with no social safety net, the poorest face a much more difficult life than the poor in modern society.

So we can see that the law tries to protect the poor. Deuteronomy 24 gives rules that you cannot take in pledge a piece of equipment that the family needs for survival, you have to pay the poor hired hand daily (the hand to mouth crowd), you must return a cloak given in pledge at night so the man does not freeze, when harvesting wheat olives and grapes you must leave some in the fields for the poor to take for themselves, etc...

Slavery was to be a final resort for people whereby they could sell their labour to you in exchange for debt repayment or basic survival. Slaves became part of the household, they observed the sabbath (a day's rest) and they celebrated the festivals with the household. Different times, different circumstances.

So, with that understanding, let's look at the passages you cite.

Leviticus 25:44

"44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have"you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
45"Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
46"You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."


So it says that you MAY have slaves from the nations around you and from foreigners who have settled in the nation. Jews were also permitted to buy Hebrew slaves. Foreigners within Israel could own Hebrew slaves. So slavery is a standard economic reality in the nation. Undesirable, but for the good of the slave in that they become protected in a household that is able to provide for them and to pay off their debt.

Now the law proscribed that Jews were to be given easier burdens with their property and freedom being returned to them at fixed times because they were God's chosen. An advantage of citizenship...

Exodus 21:21

20 "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished."
21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.


So if we look around this verse you'll see that this portion of Exodus is not about slavery, but rather about severe penalties.

Above we see that death is warranted for striking another man in a way that kills him, if you cleverly kill your neighbour, kidnaps a man (aka makes him a slave against his will - chattel slavery).

If you assault another man with your fists or a stone, but he recovers you aren't put to death, but instead you pay for his lost wages and are responsible to take care of him until he his healed.

If we look just beyond this we find that if the slave owner ruins the eye, breaks a tooth, etc... the slave is given freedom.

And even further, if you own an ox and it kills someone the ox is to be killed (a serious cost in an agrarian society). If the ox had a history of goring and the owner knew about it and the ox kills the owner's life is forfeit (in addition to the ox). The owner can buy his life from the affected party of the ox. And if an ox kills a slave the slave's owner is paid 30 silver pieces (the price of a slave).

Slave who ran away from oppressive masters were effectively freed (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)

Finally we know the saying spare the rod, spoil the child which comes from Proverbs 13:24 - Whoever spares the rod hates their children... So we can see that the rod is an implement of discipline.

Additionally, if we go back to Rome 1AD a soldier was paid 225 denarii a year, however a female slave went for 4,000 denarii. Now while this may have been a particularly expensive slave and values vary. It shows that the cost of a slave was considerable.

So going back to the passage:

20 "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished."
21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.


So the owner is striking the slave with a rod. The rod is an instrument of correction. So if the slave dies in the first couple of days it shows intent on the slave owner to beat his slave to death. Given the use of vengeance in line 21 it seems prudent that the owner would have been put to death. If the slave were to live it seem plausible that the slave would be freed.

Now the law could be to distinguish between dying of natural causes and those of infliction by the owner. What was written were examples of judgements made, it is not necessarily legalese. The final judgement was up to the priests. In this case they may have found that the death of the slave could not be proven to be a result of the "correction" used by the owner. They may have found that it was accidental and, since the norms of the times was correction with a rod, that the owner while doing wrong was not criminally liable. Thus he was sufficiently penalized for his misdeeds by the loss of the cost of the slave (which may have been an equivalent of $100,000 in modern terms).

Try to read it through the understanding of the time.