Why do Christians still keep the Torah as part of their canon? Is it not written: "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it" (Mat 5:17) ? Meaning Jesus's incarnation already signifies the fulfilling and end of the old law, thus beginning a New Law, that of his own flesh and blood, as is recounted in the Good News.
Why do Christians so adamantly and stubbornly argue for circumcision, stoning as a form of punishment and tithing as form of Christian religious practice? None of these things are part of Christ's law, as they are the Law of the Jews.
I'm an iq89 so someone be patient enough and explain this to me please
we dont argue for circumcision you are mistaken its a jew hokes in the US
Christian Bennett
>we dont argue for circumcision
But it's what the Bible says to do, no?
Aaron Morales
The Torah was God's law. At the very least it wouldn't be left out for its historic value. Of course, there's much more to it than that--the Torah shows how much God truly expects of Christians (its impossible to keep all the laws). Additionally, the ideas behind the laws in the Torah are paralleled in the laws given / repeated in the NT. There's great value to it. Circumcision has been fashionable in the US, that is all. 99.99% of Christians don't argue for stoning, and the death penalty is an issue independent from Christianity.
James Gray
Old Testament gives you the history of how Genesis links to Revelation. Jesus also quotes Prophets, Psalms, Deuteronomy, Genesis, Judges, Samuel, etc, etc. Back in the times of catechumens of Muscular Christianity. dudes like Cyril of Jerusalem would read new believers the entire Bible in 50 hours or so.
It’s important. Plus Ecclesiastes, Job, Proverbs, are just good shit. Read it all. Read it again.
Circumcision was the outward symbol of Israel's covenant with God. Christ brought a new covenant (that includes Gentiles) which does not demand circumcision, but baptism.
Gavin Kelly
So then Christians just selectively choose what suits them from the Old Testament while leaving the rest out? Then what do you leave out and what do you leave as continuation as part of your religion? Doesn't sound consistent at all.
Brody Jenkins
Cringe as fuck, you clearly didn't read the posts
Eli Adams
What i got exactly from those posts was that Ecclesiastes, Job, Proverbs, Prophets, Psalms, Deuteronomy, Genesis, Judges, Samuel are part of official Christian Canon because it's .. "Good shit"
While things like circumcision which is also found in Genesis is omitted because.. reasons
To fully understand this reasoning, i'm just assuming that things related to the metaphysical ideas of Christianity found in the OT are kept, while the ethical parts are selectively kept out?
Lucas Reyes
The Torah in its entirety is canon, but not all the laws that were given to Israel 3500 years ago are to be followed today. This is key: Christians aren't the ones selecting. OT laws that are kept today are -repeated- in the NT.
Wyatt Jackson
Then what about the ideas regarding Christ and God not repeated in the NT but used to explain theology anyways?
Nolan Rivera
I’m recommending it to you bro!! Stop reading in between the lines of my personal post to you. I just found just last year.
The Torah has followed the same structure for thousands of years, Jesus Christ quotes the Bible involved with teaching. The Bible is a story too you know! A census. A history lesson. Moral instruction. It’s more than you think.
Circumcision is explained in Hebrews and Paul’s letters, and Jesus constantly reaffirms the disciples that it isn’t what a symbol of faith is, but faith itself. Abraham was faithful to God and received blessings before circumcision. It became a sign of those who were chosen to follow the Law. Jesus Christ fufilled the law, died a sinless death for sinners, then rose from the dead. He told everyone ethical instruction explicitly on Sermon in the Mount, just for starters!
There are truths to be derived from examining Mosaic laws which are no longer followed today but anyone advocating that these laws be followed is misguided. Would appreciate an example from you to better answer that question.
Julian Young
I'm referring to the case of Adam and Even being used to explain the origin of man, but then when it comes to what happens next in the story and actually the entire basis for justifying the story, i.e the fact that Israel's tribes are direct descendants from God's original creations, is completely left out by christians. And then tower of babel, then the settlement into the land of canaan, etc
Doesn't make any sense considering the entire Torah makes a nice continuous and self-contained story for a specific purpose while Christians just take aspects out of it and create a whole new unrelated context from it's original intent.
Joshua Sullivan
catenabible.com/bible/gn/1/1 here every line has an explanation form the church fathers, how and why it fits whit Christian beliefs, where you can find jesus and the trinity in the old testament and so on.
Cooper Rivera
>the fact that Israel's tribes are direct descendants from God's original creations, is completely left out by christians. And then tower of babel, then the settlement into the land of canaan, etc What Christians have you been talking to? You realize Christ shows how God’s blessings come from a spiritual inheritance rather than a bloodline of C tribe.
Benjamin Flores
When you say "Christians" I'm left assuming you're referring to, say, southern baptist churches and other such denominations. There's no denying many self proclaimed Christians today pick and choose what they live by and even twist that which is clear (ex. the mainstream "prosperity gospel"). But this is what's important: every theologian, or even merely any person who has done the least bit of research into hermeneutics, should realize fully that the Bible in its entirety is a cohesive and multilayered text that must be approached in its entirety. You may find this highly informative: xenos.org/book/export/html/3759
Jayden Reed
But that only reinforces my point. Church fathers gave commentaries from that site mainly on Genesis while on other books of the Torah they simply were not interested at all, like Leviticus or Numbers for example.
OK but that idea is scriptural only insofar as it is present in the Torah from where the entire idea of God christians got from in the first place, and that idea had it's own specific context and relation to the greater narrative of the israelites as found in the Torah
Ethan Turner
Romans specifically talks about whether Christians need to circumcise, and whether there is any benefit from Jews doing it and Christians not etc.
Parker Baker
I understand that, but taking the entire Bible as a self-contained text in itself wouldn't really make any sense considering the number of contradictions between the Torah and the Good News.
If it's a past religious idea no longer explicitly prescribed to your new religion, why then still keep it as part of your canon is what i don't understand.
If there's so many ideas from the Torah already found in the Good News why the need to keep as part of Canon in general at all.
Ryder Ramirez
Which top 3 contradictions are you contending with currently? Give me the Old and New Testament verses and I’ll do my best. I know some Hebrew and Greek.
God bless you and your pursuit for truth love and joy.
Man, I think you need to read the Bible. There aren’t questions you need to be bugging people about. This shit isn’t hard and you’re throwing so much assumptive attitude in all your posts.
Do you know Numbers and Leviticus are about? Read Your Bible!! Stop asking anons why Bible does X. You’re criticizing it without reading the book! You’re reviewing a movie based on not actually watching the movie. Stop watching the reviews. Stop watching the spin off inspirations. Just Read your Bible. It will make more sense the more you read it. Jesus wasn’t an idiot, nor were the disciples.God is a personal relationship anyways, stop letting others sway you from just reading and understanding it all yourself. If you’re serious on your journey toward truth, use free lectures online from professors and prestigious universities, they have FREE college classes on theological matters from Princeston, Yale, etc. give them a watch. Keep learning. Keep growing.
What i mean by "Contradiction" i guess is the ethical and moral contradiction of the same idea expressed differently in the same canonical script. For example
Deuteronomy 19:21 says Eye for an Eye is OK Matthew 5:38 says it's not
Leviticus 20:10 says Adultery is punishable by death John 8:3 says it's not a capital punishment so long as the one who committed the offence repents.
Both are scriptural solutions to a moral prescription.
Let's say a good Christian will accept the Christian explanation of the Torah in it's theology as has been mentioned ITT (whatever that is) and want to live by the moral and ethical prescriptions of his religious texts.
Which books do you choose and which one takes precedence over the other if both are canonically authoritative in the religion of Christianity?
That only makes it worse because explaining all those shows how incompatible the OT is with the NT.
By the way, how do christians reconcile the idea of the wrathful god found in numerous cases in the Torah, with the all loving and forgiving God found in the Good News?
Henry Morales
Even if i did that, to my understanding there's various branches of Christianity that deal with some issues in the same way and in others completely different
You said "Read the bible" to make my own understanding of it, but isn't that a point of view only protestants share?
Dylan Mitchell
I’m telling you to begin the journey and stop planning the itinerary.
Justin Phillips
Then you can't answer some basic things from your own religion then?
Mason Harris
The OT is still the foundation of Christianity and helps us understand God. The moral law is not abolished, the ceremonial/sacrificial laws (diet, circumcision, sacrifices, fashion etc) are fulfilled, but the moral law never passes. Homosex, adultery, murder, rape those are always immoral.
>Why do Christians so adamantly and stubbornly argue for circumcision, stoning as a form of punishment and tithing as form of Christian religious practice? None of these things are part of Christ's law, as they are the Law of the Jews. Christians don't argue for circumcision except some weirdo zionist prots.
Jayden Ward
There you go again with assumptive conclusions.
I’ve spent plenty of effort in this thread answering your questions. My answers, along with other anons in the thread are clearly not sufficient enough to satisfy your needs. So I provided you free resources of smarter people than you or me at prestigious universities whom spend decades of their lives reading and writing about the Bible.
You also have to realize that you’re not in the best place to find dieheart Christians who can explain their faith with zeal. I said before I found Jesus just under 1 Year ago. I’ve spent countless hours reading and listening, Doing what Jesus says in his Sermons and parables and seeing how it changes my life. It has in incredible ways I promise you that. And I’ve only just begun to scratch the surface.
I hope a takeaway from the thread is that the Bible is worth reading. You’ll find a denomination or be non-denominational. Who knows. But stop making note of weeds and tares when the point is the glorious garden to be cultivated. This isn’t fast learning, so I’m afraid if you want to understand the Bible you’re going to have to read it. Ask questions like today. Ask other people questions. Research. Continue to grow in your faith. I’m praying for you brother.
The five books of Quintus Sept. Flor. Tertullianus Against Marcion Book by Tertullian Is the refutations of what you are looking for with is marcionisum eg Jesus is not connected to the God of old testament.
Ryan Foster
>"I Have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it" >"So ThEn WhY dOn'T yOu AbOlIsH tHe LaW?!?!?!"
Please elaborate by first defining exactly what "moral law" means for your denomination because i couldn't find it anywhere and not even the Church Fathers. Is this a law that exists but not enforced, a law that is enforced but in word only? A law that is enforced but with no exact actual political social means?
You are saying just read the Bible but that would be like inventing the wheel. There's other people that done it centuries ago and they provided a certain understanding of the Bible already but their explanation does not cover the bible in it's entirety which is why i made the thread
Yes, but that address you gave me says God is a deductive perspective people had written about in the OT and NT, whereas church fathers say Scripture is the inspired word of God. Then which is the correct interpretation?
James Taylor
>please elaborate on moral law >Where it found Most mainstream denominations separate the Old Covenant and New Covenant along with making distinctions between the ceremonial/judicial laws and the eternal moral law that never changes. It's a very basic christian teaching, I'm eastern orthodox and I've seen it a lot.
>the death penalty is an issue independent from Christianity What's unclear in "Thou shalt not kill"
Jordan King
Yes, but is there an official teaching somewhere that writes of an exact methodology on what separates both and why some parts of it are moral laws while some are ceremonial/judicial as you said? Because it only makes sense that moral laws are made to enforce a specific conduct/social situation
This against makes me go back to my issue. How do Christians explain upholding the 10 laws of Moses when the things that led to them in the narrative of the OT are simply deemed as not important to Christian religion? Like for Christianity the beginning is somewhere around "Genesis" then "10 laws" then "Prophets" tada "Christ" and Christianity.
I've read that church fathers relied on Philo to assert that OT should be interpreted as allegories, but did the writers or the messages in the OT were meant to be allegorical or literal?
Joshua Sullivan
>Yes, but that address you gave me says God is a deductive perspective people had written about in the OT and NT, whereas church fathers say Scripture is the inspired word of God. Then which is the correct interpretation? i dont get what your objection is. blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/god-old-testament/ oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/the-god-of-joshua Scripture is not the timeless record of God’s unchanging will, not a revelation of God’s first and last word on every subject. That is how the Qur’an views Scripture, but not how we view it. Our Christian approach is more paedological. That is, it records how God worked with His people throughout the centuries to lead them, as children, from immaturity to maturity, but infancy, through childhood, to adulthood. Thus Saint Paul writes that before Christ came, Israel was confined under the Law, so that the Law was Israel’s custodian, taking care of them like a tutor cares for a young child (Galatians 3:23-4:3). The Law with its provisions was never meant to be God’s final word to His people. It was a stage through which they had to pass on their way to mature adulthood in Christ. It suited them then and was necessary for their development at the stage they were once at, but it was never meant to be the goal of their national life. That goal, that end (Greek telos) was Christ (Romans 10:4). a more orthodox reading, but the ,against Marceon, books shoulder be enough do dispel any problem you have with that, since they where so good scholars managed to reconstruct his teaching based on the refutations, even tho nothing of his teaching was left.
Levi Hernandez
>Unlike many Church fathers, Tertullian was never recognized as a saint by the Eastern or Western catholic tradition churches. Several of his teachings on issues such as the clear subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father,[13][15] and his condemnation of remarriage for widows and of fleeing from persecution, contradicted the doctrines of these traditions.
Jace Clark
Also you did not answer which is the correct interpretation a christian should have on the Torah/Old Testament.
Do people observe god and then write scripture about the way his will works, or does god speak directly to humans which makes them write scripture?
>Our Christian approach is more paedological. That is, it records how God worked with His people throughout the centuries to lead them, as children, from immaturity to maturity, but infancy, through childhood, to adulthood. Thus Saint Paul writes that before Christ came, Israel was confined under the Law, so that the Law was Israel’s custodian, taking care of them like a tutor cares for a young child (Galatians 3:23-4:3). The Law with its provisions was never meant to be God’s final word to His people. It was a stage through which they had to pass on their way to mature adulthood in Christ. It suited them then and was necessary for their development at the stage they were once at, but it was never meant to be the goal of their national life. That goal, that end (Greek telos) was Christ (Romans 10:4)
Because according to this interpretation, the people in the Old Testament where Christians? But then aren't Christians different to Jews and didn't Christianity appear after Jesus was trialed by Jews?
How does the orthodoxy you speak of reconcile this fundamental aspect that Christianity shares common scripture with the same people that killed Christ?
Mason Brooks
this makes it clear you haven't read the New Testament. Read John, then Romans, and one of 1 or 2 Tim or Cor, then Acts, at least, to understand what the NT is, then you will appreciate why the OT is in the Bible. But the NT should come first in the Bible.
Henry Lopez
>But the NT should come first in the Bible But this contradicts what has been said so far with regards to how Christ is the fulfillment of scripture. In this case shouldn't scripture start at the beginning?
Justin Adams
Think of it this way. You're a school teacher. You tell the entire class not to run in class, not to eat during lessons, and to take off their hats when they enter the classroom. You write this list on the blackboard. Then you divide your class into two groups. Group one follows the main rules on the blackboard. Then you tell group two that everyone in group two has to follow the basic rules, but also wear special bracelets every day so you can tell who is in which group. You give group two a little handout with all the rules. After a couple of weeks, you announce that everyone in the class can be part of group three if they want to be. Which rules does group three have to follow?
Christopher Davis
It depends if the teacher and classmates are Jews or Christians
Matthew Jones
I don't understand how you could misunderstand this analogy...
Evan Collins
That does not invalidate his crtique of marceon Yes they where Jews not Christian there was no Christianity before Christ. And what if it Jews killed most of the prophets, people are not infaliable and make mistakes and you can even say that is the reason why the covenant was broken and the new one was formed. I still don't get what you mean how do we read the old testament I gave you multiple commentarys and answers what exactly do you want answered? You read the old thestement true the revelations of the new.
And scripture is both inspired by God and a record of his actions it's no one or the other.
Ethan Lopez
this desu
The point isnt narritive consistancy, thats why they are called christians, not a subset of jewdiism. Its more the metaphysical meaning for christians rather than the legalistic nature of Conservative Jewdism. Thats the reason why most of the percieved trivial, or hyper context sensitive decrees, like eating only kosher food or circumcision, were abandon. The ones that were kept were usually only for symbolic effect.
David Williams
explain your rationale then
Yes, but his teaching is not orthodox according to wikipedia
I am specifically asking if the OT takes precedent in all matters regarding theology, continuity and jurisprudence over the NT or is it the opposite? Because so far i've been reading of historical christian figures that draw directly from the OT when it comes to interpreting God and Jesus as the Christ but not from the NT which is the foundation text of Christianity
Hunter Flores
teacher = god blackboard rules = natural law, Edenic covenant, Noahide covenant group 1 = gentiles group 2 = Hebrews rules handout = Abrahamic covenant, Mosaic covenant, Priestly covenant, Davidic covenant bracelets = civil and ceremonial laws group 3 = Christians
Jose Lopez
If it's merely a record of his actions then what about other religions who record it differently? Wouldn't this case mean that it's human perspective on divine will and not divine will on human perspective? i.e Do you extract a point of view from scripture knowing it's god's words, or do you explain scripture using human arbitration knowing that it's human perspective on god's words and will
Otherwise it seems to me that OT has a clear linear set of ideas of God's will being manifested to people along with precepts of what they are to do and not to do.
Then Christians interject this Will saying it is a different unfolding of the story with Christ in the picture, effectively inserting human arbitration in what was otherwise considered a linear unfolding of Divine will prior to that. It just doesn't make any sense why they would continue to claim this linear continuity as being theirs, when they claim the moral and legal aspects of the old continuity to be effectively nill to their own vision, but then still say there is theologic continuity, because the old theologic continuity from the OT is absolutely inseparable from all of the legal and moral aspects it says people should follow. How do Christians reconcile this?
I go back to my previous point then, why care for the 10 laws of Moses if it's all metaphysical then? When and how do christians place a solid line between what's metaphysical and what's to be taken literally in the OT? And if they do that, why don't they just follow everything literally from the NT if the OT is already contained there?
Matthew Rogers
Blackboard rules apply to entire class. Rules handout only applies to group 2, though it also reiterates blackboard rules, while adding bracelet rule. Bracelets only serve as identifying marker for membership in group 2. Group 3 isn't really group 1 or group 2, though it's still part of class, so must follow blackboard rules. Members of groups 1 or 2 can join group 3 at will. Do students retain membership in groups 1 or 2 if they join 3? Or is there no difference between 1 and 2 if they're in 3? Should students from group 2 who join group 3 still have to wear the group 2 bracelet? Or do they leave group 2 upon joining group 3? Maybe, maybe not. Teacher didn't make it so explicit. Group 3 will have to work that out on their own later. At the very least, it's handy to have a written copy of all the rules, so good idea to keep a copy of the handout. Do students from group 1 who join 3 suddenly have to follow group 2's rules and start wearing a bracelet? That last one is obvious. No, of course not. They were never members of group 2. They were only ever members of group 1 and 3. Still, it's useful that the students from group 2 who joined group 3 have a written copy of the rules, including the blackboard rules.
Ryan Collins
Yes but then what happens when they try to enforce these rules? Do they enforce the blackboard rules or their copies?
Ethan Wood
The 10 commandments given to the Hebrews are in large part a repeat of the laws already given to all of humanity, in particular the 7 laws of Noah. While given only to the Hebrews, the 10 commandments are also a reiteration and clarification of the laws that Christians and all people are bound by. They're part of the moral law. The only part of the 10 commandments that Christians (who aren't Hebrews by the way--last I checked I'm Irish not Jewish) aren't bound by is the prohibition against graven images, because that is part of the ceremonial law given specifically to the Hebrews (how to conduct their worship practices) that was never given to the gentiles, although Christians can still learn from that prohibition about the dangers of substituting the material for the spiritual in worship. Christians are allowed to make images and statues of God.
Connor Sanchez
I don't know where you went to school, but where I'm from the teacher enforces the rules.
Lucas Hughes
The Gospel is what saves and the quickest way to understand the Gospel is to read the NT. Once you understand the Gospel you can understand what is meant by the Gospel being the fulfillment of the OT Law.
Ryder Mitchell
What about in Matthew that defined the law in a christian sense? From 5:20 to 5:48 Why do christians still regard the laws of moses as important when their foundation texts already interprets it in a christian way?
In this case will the teacher enforce the rules given to group 2 or 3?
Yes, but if it's already fulfilled meaning the OT became obsolete, why did Christians feel the need to still include it as their sacred text in canon when it was compiled?
Jaxson Jones
>Why do Christians still keep the Torah as part of their canon? Is it not written: "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it" (Mat 5:17) ? >Meaning Jesus's incarnation already signifies the fulfilling and end of the old law,
is this what they call cognitive dissonance? he LITERALLY says >I have not come to abolish the law
Austin Thompson
I guess it's just too much to ask from an anonymous message board and best if i stuck to research it myself
I've read that the Orthodox have an unbroken chain of tradition since the founding of Christ, what can Yea Forums tell me about them are their interpretations of christian religion as true as they claim?
Jose Ortiz
Yes, but from 5:20 to 5:48 he then proceeds to define what that law is, and it has a different meaning in that it now Christians gain their own understanding of what the law actually means
The explanation I received was that the old law is fulfilled in the same way one fulfills a debt contract. It was not voided or declared invalid (abolished), but rather completed. And like a debt contract, once the debt is paid, one stops making payments. This is different from annulling a contract, which is to declare it retroactively improper. The distinction is to maintain the view that the old law was the correct and righteous path for those to whom it was given, but it does not extend now to Christians, for they have received a different contract or agreement.
>Why do Christians so adamantly and stubbornly argue for circumcision, stoning as a form of punishment and tithing as form of Christian religious practice? Are you stupid bro? Bad bait.
Also, exactly as that quote “I have not come to abolish the law, but fullfill it” indicates, christianity does not equal antinomianism. But you don’t have to be a genius to realize, when you read the OT, that the old covenant was a pretty bad deal for the israelites because of their own innate tendency to slip into perdition. The Law is of God, is altogether perfect and demands nothing short of perfection. Well try and live by it! Never lie, cheat and steal and love your neighbour as you love yourself.
The message “be good and God will love you for that” damn people — to despair or hubris (as per the pharisees).
The Law functions as a mirror in the dialectic of Christian faith; it shows us how dirty we are. But the Gospel of christianity is about what God did on behalf of you out of love for his creation. God took fallen flesh, deifying that flesh, and died to destroy the tomb from within. He resurrected to concur death, evil and sin, and he promises the believer part in this victory. Through faith Christ takes home in our lives and promises an ontological change in our very being so that the creatures who were once slaves to the force of spiritual gravity that is fallenness may be raised up straight and have their god-likeness (imago dei) restored. The once who were lost and could never do the good may have the FREEDOM to not be a slave to sin no longer. The gospel stresses the freedom in this message. The Law of the old covenant thus is relegated to the function of mirror and moral inspiration, not demand (see the idea of the third use of the law).
Luke Wright
*ones
Hunter Johnson
But if it's a mystery then how does he know the things he says and why does he ever bother explaining it then? Mystery means something you can't know for sure
And this part of the text implies everything from Genesis to the Incarnation is referred to Christians and that Adam and Eve and Moses and everyone was Christian?
Christians are really a confused bunch over their own beliefs
Nathan Gutierrez
Look into the controversy around Marcion maybe, he was a heretic who declared Yhwhe an evil demiurge and preached that Jesus was a distinct deity that saved people from the Jewish God. Fact of the matter is, there is a reason he was deemed heretical.
Elijah Harris
>What about in Matthew that defined the law in a christian sense? From 5:20 to 5:48 Why do christians still regard the laws of moses as important when their foundation texts already interprets it in a christian way? (note: Jesus didn't consider the Pharisees righteous at all.) Jesus applies the law to demand inner perfection. That doesn't lessen the law, but merely demonstrates its deeper meaning and implications.
>In this case will the teacher enforce the rules given to group 2 or 3? That depends on which group the particular students in question belong to, apparently. Maybe the teacher had more instructions?
Anthony Smith
>Deut 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. >Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. >Psalm 30:6 Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar. >Jeremiah 26:2 This is what the LORD says: Stand in the courtyard of the LORD's house and speak all the words I have commanded you to speak to all the cities of Judah who come to worship there. Do not omit a word.
Ian Bell
He was heretic because he was a Gnostic. The issues he raised were perfectly well placed if not for his Gnostic explanations and now Christians can never address those issues ever again lol
But how can you say it's the same? It's like saying version 1.0 is the same as the 1.1 version of a given app
Jack Cook
>And this part of the text implies everything from Genesis to the Incarnation is referred to Christians and that Adam and Eve and Moses and everyone was Christian? In a way. Christianity is merely a new revelation that Jesus gave the world during his ministry and resurrection, the latest in a series. But Jesus has always been, and played a role in the history of the world before the incarnation. Christianity is merely the continuation of older revelations, and the line of faith leading to it goes back to the dawn of time. Jesus harrowed Hell and gave the Gospel to the dead during the three days his body was in the tomb. It's assumed that the figures of the Old Testament who demonstrated the grace of God accepted Christ as their savior and ascended to Heaven. While saints proper are Christians who died in a state of grace, the Old Testament figures can be numbered along with the saints in this consideration. Were they Christians in life? Not formally, no, but spiritually. So to answer your question, yes and no.
>Christians are really a confused bunch over their own beliefs It seems to me that a lot of doctrine that was once common knowledge even among lay people and "went without saying" has vanished beyond a veil of ignorance in the wake of the recent mass apostasy and the decline in religious instruction. That says nothing about the coherency of the doctrines themselves.
Cooper Campbell
It is the same. From the time it was handed down, the law of Moses was never merely about governing outward behavior, but was meant to reshape the Hebrews inwardly. Jesus didn't teach something new in that case, but rather reminded them of something forgotten.
Jacob Ross
Look up the Council of Jerusalem
Jayden Perry
judaism is a heresy of christianity
William Murphy
I understand now but then why the first time the word "Christian" was used was many years after Jesus was dead? I recall in Acts "Anointed Ones" became the first time followers of Jesus called themselves in Antioch so how does this tie into the historical context?
It seems that every explanation has it's particular explanation and makes theological and scriptural sense but there is a lack of a common overarching explanation that ties all of them together in a single idea that takes into account more factors
Yes, but that is a wholly Christians perspective as modern Jews would maybe disagree no?
Jaxson Davis
Yeah but the OT law is meant to be brutal and impossible to live by to teach man his need for God. It's also as Paul says to provide accurate knowledge of what is sin. But even in Hosea God says "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgmentof God rather than burnt offerings." Sacrifice and burnt offerings are both requirements of the law yet here God says it's more important to be merciful and understand what they're really about, but the Jews were just trapped in legalism which Christ solved by saying love and mercy are what really matters most.
Adam Roberts
Jesus and the saints who wrote the NT make tons of references to the OT, thus the OT needs to be included as an appendix, otherwise we wouldn't know what Jesus was referring to when He says "have ye not read..."
Kayden Smith
If Jesus was alive today he would have been a really big fan of Post-Modernism lol
Owen Martin
According to scholarship on the NT Jesus did not write anything and instead was written decades after he died by his followers. This way it seems natural that each Gospel would actually be an interpretation of the Torah/Old Testament with a Christian twist.
Jace Lopez
>then why the first time the word "Christian" was used was many years after Jesus was dead? I recall in Acts "Anointed Ones" became the first time followers of Jesus called themselves in Antioch so how does this tie into the historical context Sometimes something comes into being long before the current name for it sticks. The name doesn't change the thing into something else. Sometimes a fruit begins as a seed that grows. While a seed and its fruit are different, are they truly different things?
>It seems that every explanation has it's particular explanation and makes theological and scriptural sense but there is a lack of a common overarching explanation that ties all of them together in a single idea that takes into account more factors Have you heard of the Great Commandment and the Second Like It?
>Yes, but that is a wholly Christians perspective as modern Jews would maybe disagree no? I don't consider modern Jews to be any more the inheritors of the tradition of Abraham and Moses than Rastafarians or Mormons are. Their sects would be alien even to the ancient Pharisees. The Pharisees' creed and practices were deeply impacted and changed by their conflict with Christianity and the destruction of the Temple, and continued to mutate in all sorts of strange ways. What would Moses make of the Talmud, or Kabbalah, or 18th century Polish hats, or Atheist Judaism? I wouldn't consider modern Jews an authority on what "real Hebraism" is anymore than I would a random Hindu. People have this mistaken idea of current "Judaism" being the parent and Christianity being the offspring, but in truth Christianity and Pharisaism in the 1st century were more like brothers, two rival sects among many.
Michael Brown
Multiple unique authorship speaking of a Christ figure who had the recurring theme of being born of Mary, healed the sick, blessed the poor, did not sin, casted our demons, gave moral instructions to his followers m, persecution by his closest friends and tribe. Died on a cross. Rose from the dead. Is that not a big deal to you? What other piece of literature in humanity antiquity has that level of credibility? The oldest Iliad copy was hundreds of years after the original. Same with the biography of Alexander.
Historian Diodorus Siculus, 1st century BC, oldest source relating to Alexander the Great, yet he lived and died 356 BC – 323 BC. Nobody questions the validity of our secular history even though it’s much more speculative than anything written in New Testament.
Even gnostic gospel of Thomas strengthens the credibility of the other gospels and letters. New Testament dating was within the lifetime of the disciples and Jesus.
>I understand now but then why the first time the word "Christian" was used was many years after Jesus was dead? You should have a look at the epistles of Clement and Ignatius of Antioch or some of the other early church fathers because the refer to themselves as Christian all the time. Tacitus refers to Christians as Christian too so I don't know where you got the idea that the word wasn't used, not that it really matters.
Camden Powell
He wouldn’t though?
Owen Moore
I don't think the poster you responded to claimed that Jesus wrote anything, merely that he referenced the OT in his sermons. The texts of Matthew and Luke are in part likely drawn from a much older "sayings of Jesus" manuscript.
Jordan Rodriguez
>and instead was written decades after he died by his followers. That's not true even if you take the latest reasonable dating of the gospels as fact because the gospels aren't the onlyrecords Jesus' life and death. There's literally hundreds of documents throughout the first century and many of the dating within the first decade.
Landon Wood
Sauces?
Liam Moore
Interesting, if Christianity and modern Judaism are different interpretations of the same religious text, how would the name of that religion be named considering that it was ancient Israelites created it and upheld it up to a certain point.
Wouldn't modern Jews be it's inheritors since it was their ancestors that wrote this common scripture from which they and Christians derive their respective religions? This is where the "Parent-Offspring" comes from i believe.
Landon Brooks
It was related to the idea of the meaning of Christian if it applied only after Christ or ante-Christ scripture too
Luis Diaz
>if Christianity and modern Judaism are different interpretations of the same religious text They aren't. Judaism is based off of the Talmud, in much the same way that Muslims have the Koran but really they follow the Hadiths. The Torah is the text of the first five books of the Bible that Christians keep, but Jews follow a body of secret oral teachings they call the "Oral Torah" which they claim was handed down by 70 elders when Moses received the Ten Commandments. These teachings were never supposed to be written down, but they eventually were in the Talmud or whatever. Jesus condemned the "Oral Torah" as a fabrication, the mere "traditions of men." The Talmud is overall a collection of loopholes and ways to avoid following the laws in the actual Torah, mixed in with some nastier stuff. In a way, the religion of Judaism is built on *not* following the Torah, in that they flee from the spirit of the law by searching for technicalities in the letter.
>how would the name of that religion be named considering that it was ancient Israelites created it and upheld it up to a certain point I prefer to call it Hebraism, because the religion was handed down to all the tribes of Israel not just one. Certain other tribes (just barely) survive to this day, and they have very different perspectives on the original religion than Jews do.
>Wouldn't modern Jews be it's inheritors since it was their ancestors that wrote this common scripture from which they and Christians derive their respective religions? Everyone alive on earth today (with the exception of the North Sentinelese and some tribes in the Amazon) is descended from Abraham. Endless genealogies don't matter on a long enough timeline. The traditional view is that Moses wrote the Torah and his sons were never recorded as having had children themselves, so really we can't say that Jews are descended from Moses. Being of a certain supposed "race" doesn't make you a religious authority any more than being Asian makes you a kung fu master.
>This is where the "Parent-Offspring" comes from i believe. Christianity really doesn't care about ethnicity so much as souls. Jesus said the Pharisees' spiritual father is Satan.
