[Andyman_1970]

So, all that junk to learn from could just as easily be disregarded in your opinion, so long as one loves god and other people?

Not disregarded, placed in it’s proper context, there’s a difference between portions of the Bible that are prescriptive and portions that are descriptive. I mean, I don’t (nor do any reasonable Christians) teach that women should be silent in church (Paul teaches this in his letter to the church in Corinth). Is that applicable to me today in Little Rock Arkansas in 2006, nope. By studying the background, Corinth in the 1st century, and several other things can I learn from those letters, which may or may not be applicable in my teachings.

Why do Christians even need to go to church more than once?

Gathering as a community of followers of Jesus has much more to do than just learning the “what are you allowed to do”.

What about the Christians of Jewish heritage? Are they more responsible for following the NT?

The Jewish Christians I know follow the teachings of Jesus and observe the Torah. Now for these people since the majority of Paul’s letters are to Gentile communities, these Jewish Christians don’t spend the same amount of time as most protestant Pauline types do.

Either way, you've drawn a line in the sand that most would not agree with. How do you square your stance with theirs?

Since the Hebraic context of the New Testament (and the Old Testament for that matter) has been largely ignored for 1500+ years I really don’t care if they don’t agree with me or not.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Most Christians are Gentiles, and per Acts 15 (the Jerusalem council) the "rules" a Gentile follower of Jesus are to abide by are outlined..........no mention of stoning.........again context is key here (not pointing to you OMGF, but pointing to those Bible thumpers who ignore context).

All this passage really is (and Jesus is not in it) is a group of guys figuring out how to more easily convert people. They did impose guidelines on the gentiles as well.

The only other binding command for a Gentile follower of Jesus is the two most important commands He outlines in Mark 12, love God and love others all the other 611 commands hang (or are more "heavy" to use a rabbinic idiom). No stoning is mentioned here for a follower of Jesus.

If someone is truly going to claim they are a disciple of Jesus (a talmid in the Hebrew) then that person's whole life will be devoted to living out those two commands of their rabbi.

Jesus said they are the most important ones, but not that the others should not be followed or need not be followed. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this, because his words were not that those two commandments were the ONLY binding ones.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'm calling BS on that. Slavery was common practice of the day and is completely fine in the OT. A Jew back then would have followed the OT.

Really, read Leviticus 19 (I think) it talks about how to treat (and then free) someone who because of debt had to become a slave. The Torah is full of stuff about letting slaves go, the whole year of the Jubilee for instance.

For a Pharisee in the 1st century slavery was a last resort, or in the case of rabbi Hillel prohibited...........that whole love your neighbor as yourself deal he taught.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Not disregarded, placed in it’s proper context, there’s a difference between portions of the Bible that are prescriptive and portions that are descriptive. I mean, I don’t (nor do any reasonable Christians) teach that women should be silent in church (Paul teaches this in his letter to the church in Corinth). Is that applicable to me today in Little Rock Arkansas in 2006, nope. By studying the background, Corinth in the 1st century, and several other things can I learn from those letters, which may or may not be applicable in my teachings.

So, you admit that our morals have evolved over the years, correct? Was it from Christianity or from societal evolution?

The Jewish Christians I know follow the teachings of Jesus and observe the Torah. Now for these people since the majority of Paul’s letters are to Gentile communities, these Jewish Christians don’t spend the same amount of time as most protestant Pauline types do.

See my last post.

Since the Hebraic context of the New Testament (and the Old Testament for that matter) has been largely ignored for 1500+ years I really don’t care if they don’t agree with me or not.

1500+ years means from its inception. So, who is really not following Christianity? If from the early years it was similar to what we have now, then maybe you are not truly following it, but following some rough draft version. (Note: again, not trying to dis you here, just throwing some ideas out there.)

Looks like we hijacking another thread.....

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Really, read Leviticus 19 (I think) it talks about how to treat (and then free) someone who because of debt had to become a slave. The Torah is full of stuff about letting slaves go, the whole year of the Jubilee for instance.

For a Pharisee in the 1st century slavery was a last resort, or in the case of rabbi Hillel prohibited...........that whole love your neighbor as yourself deal he taught.

They also took slaves from vanquished foes. And, slaves were freed from time to time in the Roman culture too. It doesn't really matter. They were still slaves, whether they were slaves for life or for some number of years.

 

[fluff]

While I align (generally) with your moral standards, who is to say your morals are the real ones instead of theirs? The fact is, you're both looking at the same document... do you think maybe the morals come from somewhere else, and you just selectively confirm them with the Bible?

It appears that I missed my smiley and my light-hearted post fell into the serious category.

However there is no doubt in my mind that my morals are the right ones.

And I see that Andy and the Funkster have taken over another thread. Perhaps they need one all of their own.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It appears that I missed my smiley and my light-hearted post fell into the serious category.

However there is no doubt in my mind that my morals are the right ones.

And I see that Andy and the Funkster have taken over another thread. Perhaps they need one all of their own.

Of course you don't think your morals are wrong, else you would change them. I certainly don't fault you for that.

Also, I'll apologize for my part in the thread hijacking.

 

[fluff]

Of course you don't think your morals are wrong, else you would change them.

Hasn't always been the case I'm afraid...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Hasn't always been the case I'm afraid...

Sounds like a confession coming on. What did you do? How bad was it?

 

[fluff]

Sounds like a confession coming on. What did you do? How bad was it?

Well DT would send me to hell for some parts of it, but it's really simply an admission that for a time in my life following divorce I found moral expendiency suited me. I'm long past that now and I hope I never find myself there again.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Well DT would send me to hell for some parts of it, but it's really simply an admission that for a time in my life following divorce I found moral expendiency suited me. I'm long past that now and I hope I never find myself there again.

I don't think there's a time in anyone's life where they can't say the same thing. Don't let it get you down.

 

[Andyman_1970]

All this passage really is (and Jesus is not in it) is a group of guys figuring out how to more easily convert people. They did impose guidelines on the gentiles as well.

From a cynical point of view one could look at it as “how’s the best way to get more people into this deal”. However, this was a persecuted sect of Judaism (at least by some of the sects of Judaism) and the point was Gentiles were coming to faith in this Messiah and becoming part of the Messianic community, so how do Gentiles how aren’t kosher, don’t observe Torah live in community (this group of people lived very communally and gathered daily) with Torah observant Jews who are kosher (they ate a lot together to table fellowship was a huge issue). A group of Christian Pharisee’s were advocating making all the Gentile Christians convert to Judaism, and another group was advocating just having the Gentiles observe the Noachide laws.

Acts 15 is how to have two very different groups of people live in harmony with each other and outlines what a Gentile Christian “must do” in regards to the Torah – remember at this time Christianity was still a sect of Judaism.

This process is known as rabbinic binding and loosing, and Jesus gives them authority to do that in Matthew 16.

Jesus said they are the most important ones, but not that the others should not be followed or need not be followed. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this, because his words were not that those two commandments were the ONLY binding ones.

Jesus’ yoke, His interpretation of Torah (which I shared with you on an earlier thread) consisted of loving God (Deuteronomy 6) and loving your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18). Remember about 20 years before Jesus a rabbi with s’mikah named Hillel taught that the whole Torah “hung” on Leviticus 19:18, in effect that commandment was “heavier” than all the others.

This is the tradition that Jesus came from, most of the questions Jesus answers line up with the teachings of Hillel (except for divorce which Jesus “sides” with rabbi Shammai on that issue). So the point of a rabbi’s yoke was to boil down the Torah into something someone could quickly understand and capture the spirit of their interpretation of Torah, so for Jesus that was loving God and loving others, all the other commands are fulfilled so to speak when these to are lived out.

 

[Andyman_1970]

They also took slaves from vanquished foes.

Please cite for me where in Second Temple, Pharisaic Judaism where they took and kept slaves?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

From a cynical point of view one could look at it as “how’s the best way to get more people into this deal”....

Exactly, they were persecuted, so why wouldn't they want to draw more people in? Strength in numbers and all that.

Jesus’ yoke, His interpretation of Torah (which I shared with you on an earlier thread) consisted of loving God (Deuteronomy 6) and loving your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18)....

But, it still does not invalidate all the other teachings, nor the teachings that are orthogonal to those two. Plus, when god says to kill someone, how does one love that person in the process? It's contradictory to say that one only need follow those two teachings in order to satisfy all requirements.

 

[fluff]

I don't think there's a time in anyone's life where they can't say the same thing. Don't let it get you down.

Oh I don't. 'Twas a marvellous lernin experience

 

[Andyman_1970]

1500+ years means from its inception. So, who is really not following Christianity? If from the early years it was similar to what we have now, then maybe you are not truly following it, but following some rough draft version. (Note: again, not trying to dis you here, just throwing some ideas out there.)

I’m with you bro, no offense taken and thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.

IMO, the most “accurate” Christianity (that is the Messianic movement started by Jesus’ disciples after He ascension) was from the first of Acts (Pentecost essentially) to the early part of the second century before the big Jew / Gentile split that took place. Once that happened, IMO lots of “contextual” misunderstandings were introduced (the departure from the Hebraic roots of Jesus’ movement), things like baptism for instance were (and are) misunderstood when compared to the Hebraic understanding.

Even in the last 200 years some movements have tried to “restore” the church to how it was in Acts in an effort to be more “accurate”………….the church of Christ movement for instance. While this is a noble effort, sadly these movements at their inception did not take into account the context of the Scriptures and have IMO misunderstood what a 1st century church was all about.

My desire is to try to study as in depth as I can, how “they” did it as real people in a real place in a real time and center my teachings around that…………..so maybe what I do is a rough draft, I sure don’t have all the answers.

Looks like we hijacking another thread.....

Maybe we need a steel caged Bible death match thread………..LOL

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Please cite for me where in Second Temple, Pharisaic Judaism where they took and kept slaves?

From the biblegateway.com site:

I did a search for slaves and found these passages listed under "Captives of war became slaves."

Deuteronomy 20:14; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 2 Kings 5:2; 2 Chronicles 28:8; 2 Chronicles 28:10; Lamentations 5:13 (King James Version)

 

[Andyman_1970]

Exactly, they were persecuted, so why wouldn't they want to draw more people in? Strength in numbers and all that.

Except “strength” was not something this movement (in the 1st century) was know for or tried to achieve.

But, it still does not invalidate all the other teachings, nor the teachings that are orthogonal to those two. Plus, when god says to kill someone, how does one love that person in the process? It's contradictory to say that one only need follow those two teachings in order to satisfy all requirements.

See my comments on a previous thread about some commands being “heavier” than other commands…….this was the whole point of the rabbi’s when two commands conflicted which one was heavier……….Jesus taught with His yoke which one’s were heavier.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Even in the last 200 years some movements have tried to “restore” the church to how it was in Acts in an effort to be more “accurate”………….the church of Christ movement for instance. While this is a noble effort, sadly these movements at their inception did not take into account the context of the Scriptures and have IMO misunderstood what a 1st century church was all about.

This was really about societal morals and how they evolve. Do you really think it is possible to really "go back" to the original context? I wouldn't think so unless one took out the extraneous stuff, as you seem to be willing to do. But, you lose the ability to claim the complex system of morals that we claim to have as a society by doing that.

Maybe we need a steel caged Bible death match thread………..LOL

It would have to be on pay per view.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Except “strength” was not something this movement (in the 1st century) was know for or tried to achieve.



See my comments on a previous thread about some commands being “heavier” than other commands…….this was the whole point of the rabbi’s when two commands conflicted which one was heavier……….Jesus taught with His yoke which one’s were heavier.

Actually, according to this passage and some others you have cited, it might seem that strength in numbers was a concern.

Also, I would think that a command from god was "heavier" than "love thy neighbor." If god says "kill" you kill. But, what about orthogonal stuff?

 

[Andyman_1970]

From the biblegateway.com site:

I did a search for slaves and found these passages listed under "Captives of war became slaves."

Deuteronomy 20:14; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 2 Kings 5:2; 2 Chronicles 28:8; 2 Chronicles 28:10; Lamentations 5:13 (King James Version)

Kings, Chronicles, Lamentations are not “binding” for a Jew, they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Also, study how different those laws for captured slaves was compared to the other people groups around them. Notice also that the slave is to be treated with respect, allowed to mourn, and released as a free person if it doesn’t work out, and is not to be sold to someone else as a slave.

I also said please cite from Second Temple Pharisaic Judaism (which is the tradition Jesus came from) where slaves were taken. Now, both the Sadducees and Herodians (both of which were the rich ruling class of the day) had slaves (even Jewish ones), but Jesus speaks against these two groups.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Also, I would think that a command from god was "heavier" than "love thy neighbor."

That’s why you’re not a rabbi……….LOL “love thy neighbor” is a command from God, it’s one of the 613 mitzvot.

But, what about orthogonal stuff?

Like?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Kings, Chronicles, Lamentations are not “binding” for a Jew, they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Also, study how different those laws for captured slaves was compared to the other people groups around them. Notice also that the slave is to be treated with respect, allowed to mourn, and released as a free person if it doesn’t work out, and is not to be sold to someone else as a slave.

I also said please cite from Second Temple Pharisaic Judaism (which is the tradition Jesus came from) where slaves were taken. Now, both the Sadducees and Herodians (both of which were the rich ruling class of the day) had slaves (even Jewish ones), but Jesus speaks against these two groups.

Deuteronomy is definitely binding, and slaves are slaves, regardless of whether they are treated well or not.

Let's also look at your request. Their holy book was the OT. If they changed it to suit their culturally evolved morals, that's one thing, but it seems a little bit weird (for lack of a better word) for you to insist that present Christians follow the book, laws, etc. as they were, but then insist that the Jews of that time not follow the book, laws, etc. as they were for them.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That’s why you’re not a rabbi……….LOL “love thy neighbor” is a command from God, it’s one of the 613 mitzvot.

I understand that, but when god says kill, it is in direct opposition of "love they neighbor."

Like?

For instance, what do the rules of dietary habits have to do with loving one's neighbor?

 

[Andyman_1970]

I understand that, but when god says kill, it is in direct opposition of "love they neighbor."

According to Jesus, and other rabbi's, loving your neighbor is heavier and thus more important of fulfill than the killing part.

For instance, what do the rules of dietary habits have to do with loving one's neighbor?

Again, loving your neigbor is the heavier requirement.

 

[Andyman_1970]

........ but it seems a little bit weird (for lack of a better word) for you to insist that present Christians follow the book, laws, etc. as they were, but then insist that the Jews of that time not follow the book, laws, etc. as they were for them.

Now you've confused me, where have I said that Jews of Jesus day did not follow the Scriptures and Christians today do?

 

[MikeD]

Deuteronomy is definitely binding, and slaves are slaves, regardless of whether they are treated well or not.

Let's also look at your request. Their holy book was the OT. If they changed it to suit their culturally evolved morals, that's one thing, but it seems a little bit weird (for lack of a better word) for you to insist that present Christians follow the book, laws, etc. as they were, but then insist that the Jews of that time not follow the book, laws, etc. as they were for them.

What he means by 'descriptive' and 'proscriptive' is this:

"Thou shalt have slaves" would be proscriptive, and require a Jew to have slaves.

Describing a manner in which slaves are to be kept or punished is not actually requiring anyone to have slaves at all. (and, IMHO, can be considered more of an artefact of the time in which the document was written than a command of any kind.)

Then again, I'm an atheist who thinks the real spiritual issues of religion are way outside this kind of doctrinal argument anyhow. I think documents are a pointer to a spiritual/mental state, not a literal desription of things, places, people, or actions to be taken. So don't listen to me...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

According to Jesus, and other rabbi's, loving your neighbor is heavier and thus more important of fulfill than the killing part.



Again, loving your neigbor is the heavier requirement.

So, one should ignore a direct command from god? Unlikely.

In regards to diet, loving one's neighbor has NOTHING to do with diet, therefore to say that one is heavier has no bearing.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Now you've confused me, where have I said that Jews of Jesus day did not follow the Scriptures and Christians today do?

As I understand it you are saying that Jews of Jesus' day followed certain morals and made interpretations of the OT to get there. They didn't follow what was specifically laid out, like their ancestors did. And, that seems to be OK with you.

Now, you are saying that present day Christians have changed since Jesus' day and do not follow the NT and should follow exactly what Jesus said.

So, in Jesus' time, it was OK not to follow the teachings of old to the letter because they made different interpretations than the people that wrote the holy books, but it is NOT OK for Christians to do that now.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

What he means by 'descriptive' and 'proscriptive' is this:

"Thou shalt have slaves" would be proscriptive, and require a Jew to have slaves.

Describing a manner in which slaves are to be kept or punished is not actually requiring anyone to have slaves at all. (and, IMHO, can be considered more of an artefact of the time in which the document was written than a command of any kind.)

Then again, I'm an atheist who thinks the real spiritual issues of religion are way outside this kind of doctrinal argument anyhow. I think documents are a pointer to a spiritual/mental state, not a literal desription of things, places, people, or actions to be taken. So don't listen to me...

I'm not saying that it is proscriptive. I'm simply saying that the Bible says it is all right to own slaves.

 

[Andyman_1970]

So, one should ignore a direct command from god? Unlikely.

Go ask a rabbi. The real question is which direct command from God (remember "lover your neighbor" is just as direct as "go kill") is "heavier" and each rabbi had their set of interpretation on the matter, rabbi Hillel and Jesus' indicate that loving one's neighbor was "heavier" than all the other 612 commands.

In regards to diet, loving one's neighbor has NOTHING to do with diet, therefore to say that one is heavier has no bearing.

Evidently it does, see Acts 15.

 

[Andyman_1970]

As I understand it you are saying that Jews of Jesus' day followed certain morals and made interpretations of the OT to get there. They didn't follow what was specifically laid out, like their ancestors did. And, that seems to be OK with you.

You also have to understand that for the rabbi’s/Pharisees the Oral Torah was just as “binding” as the written Torah, so we (by only seeing the written Old Testament) aren’t seeing the “whole picture” as it were with respect to what commands were more important and such.

Like when I said to cite from me where in Second Temple Pharisaic Judaism that slavery was permitted or performed, Judaism has been in as many flavors as Christianity has been in the last 2000 years.

Now, you are saying that present day Christians have changed since Jesus' day and do not follow the NT and should follow exactly what Jesus said.

IMO some have misunderstood the Text, yes.

So, in Jesus' time, it was OK not to follow the teachings of old to the letter because they made different interpretations than the people that wrote the holy books, but it is NOT OK for Christians to do that now.

Not everyone had authority to make a new interpretation of the Torah, only rabbi’s with s’mikah (authority) were allowed to make a new interpretation – there were only about 10-12 in the 1st century out of the 1000 or so rabbi’s that existed in the 1st century.

Interestingly (which probably runs counter to some of my opinions……hey at least I’m honest) is that Jesus in Matthew 16 gives His followers the authority to “bind” and “loose” Torah (which we see in Acts 15) – some say, and I think it’s a valid argument, that this authority extends to Christians today, thus all the different “flavors” of Christianity we have. Again, do some research on rabbinic binding and loosing for further info on this. Keep in mind this is not a concept I fully grasp so you may have questions I can’t answer on this.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Go ask a rabbi. The real question is which direct command from God (remember "lover your neighbor" is just as direct as "go kill") is "heavier" and each rabbi had their set of interpretation on the matter, rabbi Hillel and Jesus' indicate that loving one's neighbor was "heavier" than all the other 612 commands.

I'm sorry, but a direct command from god is worth all those 613 commands plus some.

Evidently it does, see Acts 15.

No, it still doesn't. Acts does not say that one can fulfill the dietary requirements simply by "loving one's neighbor."

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You also have to understand that for the rabbi’s/Pharisees the Oral Torah was just as “binding” as the written Torah, so we (by only seeing the written Old Testament) aren’t seeing the “whole picture” as it were with respect to what commands were more important and such.

Like when I said to cite from me where in Second Temple Pharisaic Judaism that slavery was permitted or performed, Judaism has been in as many flavors as Christianity has been in the last 2000 years.

And my argument still holds. If they were changing what was written to suit their needs as the years rolled on, how can you know condemn (maybe too harsh of a word) modern Christians for doing the same thing?

IMO some have misunderstood the Text, yes.

So, it still comes back to why modern day Christians should be bound by a set of morals and rules that is thousands of years old, but Jews at the time of Jesus were not.

Not everyone had authority to make a new interpretation of the Torah, only rabbi’s with s’mikah (authority) were allowed to make a new interpretation – there were only about 10-12 in the 1st century out of the 1000 or so rabbi’s that existed in the 1st century.

Interestingly (which probably runs counter to some of my opinions……hey at least I’m honest) is that Jesus in Matthew 16 gives His followers the authority to “bind” and “loose” Torah (which we see in Acts 15) – some say, and I think it’s a valid argument, that this authority extends to Christians today, thus all the different “flavors” of Christianity we have. Again, do some research on rabbinic binding and loosing for further info on this. Keep in mind this is not a concept I fully grasp so you may have questions I can’t answer on this.

Certainly, in the early church the popes would have that power (and still in Catholicism.) But, with the split of Christianity, I don't think s'mikah is completely binding on how Christians interpret scripture. Why would it? One can not impose Jewish rules on Christians, the two are separate entities.

 

[lonewolfe]

Men should not be having sex with other men, it's that simple.

They should be having sex with 12 year old girls, preferably as their fifth or sixth wife. Jesus, people are so immoral these days. What must the young people think?

Dude!

Have you read "Under The Banner Of Heaven" by John Krakower?

If not, you should. I bet that you'd love it!

 

[Silver]

Dude!

Have you read "Under The Banner Of Heaven" by John Krakower?

If not, you should. I bet that you'd love it!

Oh yeah. Right after it first came out. "Into the Wild" is a great book, along with "Eiger Dreams" even though they weren't his big hits.

 

[blue]

To magnify that nobody cares about arguing Christian dogma:

LOOK WHAT THAT HORRIBLE MOVIE HAS DONE TO OUR CHILDREN!!!!!!11213124751927518265efhdskhgfldshgwet wtfbbqomghax:

 

[Reactor]

I'll never look at a RockShox the same way.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'm sorry, but a direct command from god is worth all those 613 commands plus some.

You realize those 613 commands are a direct command from God? Again, do some research on rabbinic binding and loosing if you want a more in depth explaination than I can provide here as to the rationale of the rabbi's in their deciding one command was "heavier" than another.

No, it still doesn't. Acts does not say that one can fulfill the dietary requirements simply by "loving one's neighbor."

No but it says that those who aren't Jews don't have to be Jews in the new Messianic movement that was growing - this is an example of binding and loosing, this yeshiva decided to prohibit some commands and permit other things.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Certainly, in the early church the popes would have that power (and still in Catholicism.) But, with the split of Christianity, I don't think s'mikah is completely binding on how Christians interpret scripture. Why would it? One can not impose Jewish rules on Christians, the two are separate entities.

So it's "ok" to interpret Scriptures in a manner that was different / foreign from what would have been "normal" for the authors and first followers of Jesus (who were Jewish)? Again, I believe when we remove the Scriptures from their historical, cultural, and linguistic context a hermenutical "gap" of understanding is created in which man can and does insert his own understanding on the Text........and example of that is in the 20's and 30's German theologians denied the historical aspects to Jesus to the point of painting him as almost arian.......which helped the rise of the Nazi party.

Look at what denominations are today, they are groups of people who have bound (prohibited) somethings, and loosed (permitted) other things so to say it doesn't go on today is not exactly accurate. In the early church (which I define as the church described in the book of Acts) the binding and loosing was done communally, never individually........Peter also warns against that.

The early Christians were Jews, without Judaism there would be no Christianity, the roots of Christianity are in Judaism........the Christian baptism comes from the Jewish mikvah, the Lord's Supper/Communion from the Passover Seder, the whole concept of a Messiah is Jewish. I would argue the "intent" was never that Christianity "leave" Judaism.........Jesus didn't come to start a new religion.