Why don't modern Christians follow the OT? I believe the standard answer is that Jesus came to reinterpret it...

Why don't modern Christians follow the OT? I believe the standard answer is that Jesus came to reinterpret it, so they should only follow the NT, and the parts of the OT which the NT validates. But why would God give a commandment and subsequently withdraw it?

For example, Deuteronomy 22:21 says what should be done if a woman was not a virgin at the time of her marriage.
>"Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."
According to Catholic dogma, the Bible was inspired by God, so why would he set down these rules if Jesus would come along and revise them? Is God not infinite through time? If his rules change, then either God changes (he doesn't), or morality is arbitrary and has no significance outside of God's command, illustrated in Genesis 22. God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, and God’s command is good and just, so Abraham prepares to kill his son.

Is God just some sick fuck sitting up there bending us to his will, reminding us that if we don’t follow his commands to the letter then we’ll get buttfucked by Satan’s spiny phallus and filled with his searing hot loads for all eternity? What is God’s point in telling the Jews one thing, then coming to earth and saying another?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter's_vision_of_a_sheet_with_animals
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem
youtu.be/4r2m_cffRjI
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Nobody says it, but let's be honest. The Pentateuch is some crazy shit, and Moses was just a cult-leader who used God as an excuse to commit genocide and appropriate land. It's better to ignore that part of the Bible. The rest of the OT is solid, though I would argue none of it should properly be placed in a single tome with the New Testament. And I say this as a Christian.

There is no way to make sense of these sorts of passages and still claim that the Old Testament is in any way compatible with modern morality.

The only answer is that millennia ago, people (surprise) did fucked up things like stone people as ritualistic and functional exercises in the maintenance of a punitive, disciplinary social order.

It has literally nothing to do with any sort of transcendent morality or theory of the cosmos. If it did, christians today would say "yup it's pretty simple, god says stone people so we gotta do it"

The fact that they don't signals that they have a separate source of authority (modern morality, common sense, whatever) that trumps the Bible, or at least the Old Testament. That's at least a tacit recognition that the Bible isn't actually the word of God.

Isn't the idea that "turn the other cheek" is making the law stricter, rather than revising it, by limiting how you can punish people?
>t.read Mathew once

> If it did, christians today would say "yup it's pretty simple, god says stone people so we gotta do it"
>The fact that they don't signals that they have a separate source of authority (modern morality, common sense, whatever) that trumps the Bible, or at least the Old Testament. That's at least a tacit recognition that the Bible isn't actually the word of God.

OP here. I don't agree with your conclusions. Like said, there's I lot of "immoral" stuff that's said in the OT. A Christian would respond that they don't follow certain things in the OT today not simply because it doesn't feel moral, but because Jesus reinterpreted the Law and preached forgiveness. If Jesus never said any of that, then would your conclusion be correct. I understand your point, and yes, cherrypicking the OT does seem to invalidate the significance of "God's word," but I think you missed the argument in my first post.

God does what is best for the time. Simple as that. When Jesus comes things could be different and call for different rules.

Let me revise. When Jesus came things could have been different and could have called for different rules.*

lmfao poseurs

care to elaborate on that baseless claim?

why don't you read the New Testament? it's a short collection of books

Ill post some quotes that explain why Christians dont follow Mosaic law, from the first generation of Christians, even Jesus to some degree.

A few times in which Jesus contradicted, disregarded, or didnt interpret literally Mosaic law. BTW, Christians think Jesus was the end of the Law, he fulfilled it perfectly, turning it obsolete.

Why Christians dont follow Mosaic law is explained clearly in the epistles of Paul and Acts of the Apostles, but first Ill post from the Gospels.

-Contradicts Moses on divorce
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

-Contradicts Mosaic Law on stoning adulterous women
“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

-Interprets the Sabbath differently

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

-You dont become impure because of what you eat or because of your cleanliness

Jesus called the crowd to Him and said, “Listen and understand. 11A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it.”

from acts of the Apostle read these wikipedia articles

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter's_vision_of_a_sheet_with_animals

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

for the epistles there are too many to post. make a basic google search of Bible Law is Abolished, Law is fulfilled, Christ is the end of the Law, and Hebrews 10. Reading Romans and Hebrews should be enough.

There are three types of laws in the Old Testament: moral laws, judicial laws, and ceremonial laws. Moral laws deal with what is sinful, judicial laws deal with the punishment of crimes, ceremonial laws deal with ritual cleanliness, etc. The judicial, as specific prescriptions, expired with the state of Israel, to whom they were given. The coming of Christ abolished the ceremonial laws, which have been fulfilled. The moral law remains fully binding and is eternal. The fact that you are asking "Why don't Christians follow the OT" shows you've never researched Christian beliefs on this subject at all and are just following ignorant memes you hear in popular media and on the internet. You can start with the tripartite or threefold division of the law and do your own homework from there.

Christfag threads are the only reason to come here during summer

>There are three types of laws in the Old Testament: moral laws, judicial laws, and ceremonial laws

This is just an absurdity. The Old Testament doesn't classify it's laws. They are simply laws, all of them from Yawheh and all must be followed unconditionally.

This sounds like a type of revisionism by Christians that do not want to follow the rules of the OT. Make up some bullshit classification and shove the laws you don't like into the 'doesn't count' category.

You're welcome to research the issue yourself, since you apparently have never heard of it before, and find the justifications that Christians use for this system. But that is the general reason that Christians do not follow every law in the OT. But hey, maybe they're just stupid and don't want to do it, right? Why even ask the question if you don't want an answer to it?

>Why don't modern Christians follow the OT
We do. We just don't follow the certain laws that only applied to the Hebrews. We aren't Hebrews. We're Gentiles. Those laws never applied to us.

>I believe the standard answer is that Jesus came to reinterpret it, so they should only follow the NT, and the parts of the OT which the NT validates.
No He didn't. He came to fulfil the law not to abolish it.

>But why would God give a commandment and subsequently withdraw it?
The law still stands. We just aren't Hebrews. Not one letter passed away from the law.

>According to Catholic dogma, the Bible was inspired by God, so why would he set down these rules if Jesus would come along and revise them? Is God not infinite through time? If his rules change, then either God changes (he doesn't), or morality is arbitrary and has no significance outside of God's command, illustrated in Genesis 22. God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, and God’s command is good and just, so Abraham prepares to kill his son.
No the law has never changed. God has made different covenants that require different things of different people. Christians aren't bound by certain sets of laws but are by others. The cultural/ceremonial laws intended to distinguish Hebrews as a distinct nation among Gentiles doesn't apply to us because we aren't Hebrews we are Gentiles. Disobedience to God is sin.

You don't know what you're talking about. Reread the Bible then read the Church Father's and the Canon Law. The idea that Christians hypocritically ignore the Old Testament is a retarded meme.

I was in Bible school told that when Jesus died on the cross and that temple curtain tore in half, gods people were no longer bound by those old laws.

Logically the statements, "Do not murder," and, "If someone commits murder they are to be punished by X" are not the same type of law. At the most fundamental level one is proscription and one is prescription. Who is bound to carry out the prescription? If one is bound by both laws then disobedience to either is wrong. But there's the rub, of course. You are thinking obtusely.

youtu.be/4r2m_cffRjI

That's correct actually, Matthew has a big emphasis on Jewish law. One theme is that Jesus is completing the law by making it even more restrictive, e.g. "you shall not murder" now extends to not even insulting people. It's generally agreed the author of Matthew was Jewish due to the emphasis on the law and pharisees.

1 Cor. 9:9-10 For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Because people following all the OT precepts would be viewed as madmen, Fred Phelps-type people. Christianity would not thrive in first world societies if people tried to follow things like Deuteronomy 22:21.

Christians never followed those precepts, or at least, what would become Orthodox Christianity. There were Christians who did that, and they were called Judaizers, heretics. And there were probably Christians who continued going to the temple of Jerusalem, but that branch of Christianity died a few decades after Jesus when the temple was destroyed by the Romans.

No longer following dietary laws, no longer following purity laws, no longer circumciding people, is a big part of the new testament.

>reinterpreting
>withdrawing your word

Read Galatians bro

Benedict talks about this in his "Jesus of Nazareth" books. One of his main points is that Jesus' enhanced interpretation of the Law and the Prophets is partly a way of declaring his divinity. Like, for example, his ability to allow the disciples to pick wheat on the Sabbath. By talking about the example of David and his men, and then using that exemption to grant the Apostles an exemption, Jesus essentially declares himself Lord of the Sabbath--in other words, God. Benedict argues that the Sermon on the Mount, and the reinterpretation of the Law Jesus engages in, isn't just a freeing of Christians from the Mosaic Law, it's a declaration by Jesus of his RIGHT to grant that freedom. In other words, a declaration of his divinity. From now on, the new People of God will follow God by following a person instead of a law, and that person is Jesus Christ.

Here you go

In as few words as I can, it's not that NT retconned OT but God more-or-less reforming value-ethics with the maturation of society. You can't first teach a child specific rules because it's too much arbitrary information for the uncultured (primitive even) mind to immediately and all at once rationally assimilate, you must merely teach them to follow rules implicitly first as a behavior, and part of this is done by authority and "fear". (The "wrathful" Yahweh.) But once people know how to behave themselves, we can start to trim the fat and get down to the basic rules that we should abide by default (don't kill, stop stealing, be faithful to your wife) while the rest is left relatively open to interpretation and to be resolved by laws of man (people have all the rights, when rights conflict we'll resolve the disputation in a court under the microscope of context, moral culpability, responsibility, duty, creating in effect an "evolutionary" process of setting precedents and determining future law; such is man). OT and NT are related insofar as, it is the same God, but it demonstrates change of character, conscientiousness, maturation of morality and virtue. That is to say, "never forget where you came from" because the totality of who we are now is the result of our collective learning experience in the past exactly how it happened, no matter the minutia of any particular action, each had its gravity which influenced our direction in some way.

Or maybe I'm just talking a whole lot of shit, but that's what I took away from the ideas in these books.

wat

...

Just because people are less advanced doesn't mean they're stupid or childish. The ancient Hebrews could have understood a Christ-like message as well as 1st century people.

Given how the Jews received Christ even in the first century, I doubt it.

Modern theologians, atleast those that I know, see the bible as a historic work, and not as an absolute word of god.

Heretics.

Yeah, that's a funny word that we throw at each other's head every once in a while when we are in a bar or whatever.

Why do you bother? Is it just for the purpose of secularizing Christianity or do you actually think you're doing something constructive? I'd like to know.

I don't think our society can get much more secular. Secularism also means freedom of religion, so I am fine with it. Everyone should be allowed to have their personal relationship with God and faith.

Anyway, the idea that seeing something in its context means to weaken it is the theological equivalent of stuffing your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes. Yes, when reading a collection of texts that is not only many millenia old, but also originated over the course of several centuries by different authors, you should probably take its historic context into consideration. But the same can be said about the Odysseia, and no one would argue that means in some way weakening the Odysseia.

If you deny the divine inspiration of the Bible like user heretic friends do then you aren't a Christian.

If that is your opinion on the matter that is completely fine by me.

Dogma isn't opinion.

Dogma is a good movie.

Your taste is shit.

Ok, so if I had been lucky enough to be born an Amalekite, I'd have been murdered mercilessly. If I had been an Amalekite woman, I'd have been taken as a sexual slave.

If I had been born any kind of woman in OT times I'd have very few rights and would be the property of someone.

More so, if I had been born a slave in NT times, my slavery would have been ok.

Your taste is mean!

>More so, if I had been born a slave in NT times, my slavery would have been ok.
>sent from my iPhone

What would apply to a Christian with a jewish background?

So your argument is the modern slavery that people use to criticize capitalism. There's some truth to it. But you don't know anything about me, besides me having an internet connection and speaking English. You don't know shit about my personal philosophy and how consequential I am with it in my life.

>Sent from my Android.
You, twat.

So, there are some contexts in which cursing at your mother is a capital crime. Damn, who would have known God was such a utilitarian.

Third World slavery remains the basis of the global economy. Slavery never ended. It existed from the Upper Paleolithic until today. There are more slaves slaving under more slavers than at any point in history. Everything you own was made by slaves in Chinese labor camps. If you're OK with that fact to the point where you're unaware of it, then no you are not morally superior to the Bible. Slavery will be a fact of life until robots replace us. No, the Chinese babies who made your Android should not rise up against the Communists just to get slaughtered. If you call for that you're an idiot. That's why the Bible doesn't say overturn slavery. Because it's a fact of life. Fuck.

Did I say I was morally superior to the Bible?
On the other hand if you go and knock on the Vatican's doors and ask if they condemn the slavery you speak of, they will without a doubt say yes. Also, if you know on the doors of any other christian denomination.
It is undisputable that christianity nowadays condemns slavery, in every iterance, even slavery to social media and such things; but the OT instead of condemning set out a list of rules on how to do it. Fuck.

How to do it properly and how slaves shouldn't rebel just to get themselves killed. Fuck.

Why don't the church say how to properly conduct slavery nowadays then?

Because it's trying to appeal to sheltered liberal faggots like you. Most of the slaves in Chinese labour camps ARE Christians so why don't you go ask their pastors?

So, doctrine has to pander to secular society. How does debauching the word of the creator of the universe like that make any sense?

That isn't what the word doctrine means. And yeah I think pandering to people like you is a waste of time.

doctrine
NOUN

1A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
‘the doctrine of predestination’

The Bible's teachings on slavery are still part of the Roman Catholic Church's body of dogma, the Canon Law, and have been since the 13th century. That hasn't changed. Since slavery is no longer part of secular law the Church just doesn't have to enforce or worry about teaching that part of Canon Law anymore. The doctrine hasn't changed and if you think it has you don't know what the word doctrine actually means despite being able to Google dictionary definitions. Now, plenty of Protestant sects started with doctrines in support of slavery and plenty of others in opposition to it. That's the reason why the Transatlantic Slave Trade was stopped, because of Abolitionist Protestants. Even they said that slaves should not revolt against their masters, but that slavery should be stopped from the top down. You can say that is in opposition to the words of the Bible, but they would say it's in keeping with the spirit of the Bible. Either way slavery continues to be the basis of the economy, so what the Bible actually says about slavery remains wise advice because the practice isn't going anywhere anytime soon regardless of your naiveté.

Some of the opposition to American slavery among Protestants was that the Bible forbids gaining slaves by kidnapping.

It is not hard to deny it given all the contradictions it incurs

>Why don't modern Christians follow the OT?
Because all religions just make it up as they go.

>Trying to make sense of bible

The "Hey Abe, kill your son for me" thing was more of a "How devout are you to me?" test. As for OT to NT transitions, it's the same everywhere with religions. Some guy starts going around, saying he has divine teachings, and rewrites a little of the book at a time.Theoretically, Christianity is based off of Judaism, and Islam is based off of Christianity, but no where in the Jewish books does it say to cut down the infidels and Jews. Jesus and the others were just guys who got caught up in religion and tried to bs their way through it.

You are not, "lucky" to be born into a certain body. You are incarnated into the body that fits your soul (or Jiva) and then reincarnated when you die. The laws change according to the ebb and flow of the Jivas at the time in relation to the spiritual age, the Yuga. Certain Yugas need different laws. For example, in a less spiritual age, or Yuga, people need stricter rules about when to be spiritual. Hence why Christianity and Islam were the major religions of the least spiritual age. In certain other times, this is not the case and people can be spiritual without strict rules.