yunea Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Some Christians say that the OT is only there so you can understand NT better, and Jesus fulfilled the law given to Moses so blood sacrifices were to be never needed again. I didn't understand this fulfilling the law business when I was Christian, but it was easy to live with not understanding, because you know how god is mysterious and humans are small and it's all about love and blah blah yadda etc. But I'm curious now. What is this supposed to mean? How are laws fulfilled so that they become obsolete? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 It's mumbo jumbo. It's a weak excuse Christians make up to explain away how Christianity and the New Testament are completely at odds with Judaism and the Hebrew scriptures. (sarcasm) See under the Old Covenant when a man raped an unbetrothed virgin he simply paid the girl's father 50 pieces of silver (for the damage to the father's property) and married the rape victim. But now the law had been completed so as long as you rape unbetrothed virgins out of love you don't suffer any penalty. Isn't Jesus great? (/sarcasm) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I forget, and I can't look it up because Maya is lying in my lap: don't the Torah and other parts of the OT announce themselves as valid forever? Does the Pauline idea that the law was temporary violate any OT verses? Centauri would be up on this; haven't seen him since like last fall. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted April 22, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2015 God originally required specific blood sacrifices from the Hebrews as atonement for specific things. This was in line with earlier beliefs way before the Hebrews got their shit together. Anyway, God's laws were so numerous and ridiculous there was no way mere mortals were able to obey all of them and sacrifices abounded. Enter Jesus. This was presented as the ultimate sacrifice, so great that it could replace all the maneuvering around technicalities of the Law. The Law is still there, but the one big sacrifice, Jesus, is substitutionary blanket atonement if one accepts the terms attached to this sacrifice. God is one legalistic and picky sonofabitch who is apparently locked into the blood sacrifice thing and is powerless to abolish it. No, it never made sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ Fuego ♦ Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 The point a lot of preachers make is that the law was not abolished, but fulfilled or completed. With the "one sacrifice to rule them all", all of the law was fulfilled for we whose very natures are stained. Stained by the original sin (magic fruit tree that god totally didn't want humans to eat from, so he put it in the same garden as them instead of in a different galaxy, then blames them and the talking snake for eating it). God has no "bend over and be spanked" punishments, just death and torture. Kind of an asshole since he tells us to just let it go and turn the other cheek. So because Jesus fulfilled or completed the first covenant, all of the rules of that covenant are thereby fulfilled. So all of the "don't eat pork and shrimp" rules went poof. Paul gives the additional angle that when Jesus died, he died in our place, so since we are regarded as dead the contract we were under is now void. This ushered in the new covenant. Romans is the book that uses lots of run-on sentences to try and explain these concepts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I forget, and I can't look it up because Maya is lying in my lap: don't the Torah and other parts of the OT announce themselves as valid forever? Does the Pauline idea that the law was temporary violate any OT verses? Centauri would be up on this; haven't seen him since like last fall. How about Gen 17:7 http://biblehub.com/genesis/17-7.htm King James: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." I'm sure there are others. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ Fuego ♦ Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Then again, Jeremiah 31:31-34 god is saying he will make a new covenant with Israel, not like the old one. I'm not seeing a direct contradiction since it is mentioned. The main problem is that Christianity wasn't and isn't accepted by Israel as true. That is where Paul went off on his own converting gentiles and calling them spiritual Israel and coming up with verses that justify his changes. He was most adamant that people not attempt to follow the law after converting to Christianity, except where he and the apostles did impose their own laws (don't eat blood of food sacrificed to idols, men shouldn't have long hair, no sex outside of marriage). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorPoet Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I forget, and I can't look it up because Maya is lying in my lap: don't the Torah and other parts of the OT announce themselves as valid forever? Does the Pauline idea that the law was temporary violate any OT verses? Centauri would be up on this; haven't seen him since like last fall. How about Gen 17:7 http://biblehub.com/genesis/17-7.htm King James: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." I'm sure there are others. Forget confining yourself to the o.t., let's look at the words of jesus himself. Matt. 5:18 (kjv) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled". I never realized it until I deconverted, but as an ex-c looking at what the book says clearly shows that Paul had some very different ideas from the founder of his religion. One other point, it doesn't matter what the theology says regarding old covenant verses new covenant. By being christian, people are worshiping a god, who is supposedly unchanging, that once upon a time said that all of the atrocious things written in the o.t. law were good. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Maybe a decade or so ago I had read a Rabbi explain that in Rabbi speak "to fulfill" in sort of context really means "to explain fully or properly" so what's really being said is that jesus is simply explaining the law properly to those who have lost or failed to understand its meaning. There is no such thing as "fulfilling" a law in the sense that it comes to completion and then it goes away. There's no way that jesus could possibly "complete" all the laws since some were intended for women or priests (ie. he simply was in no position to fulfill the entire set of laws). With this definition in place, at most, he could complete some of the law, but not all of the law. However, he could explain all of the law with no problem and this would not interfere with anyone continuing to follow the law. At worst his school may disagree with the others on various issues (and given the gospels there seems to be little difference in philosophy when it comes right down to it). mwc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted April 23, 2015 Moderator Share Posted April 23, 2015 This sacrifice that Jesus made (according to all the new age 'covered under grace' believers) are taught that this blood sacrifice included ALL people on earth. Heathens, witches, other religions, etc. I have a girlfriend right now who believes I am 'saved' because of this blood sacrifice which was to wipe out all original sin. I followed this for a while in my end stages at her church. It certainly was a nice concept of christianity. It only lasted 6 months and I finally left the church once and for all. I couldn't drink the blood of jesus anymore. But it did help me to like god a little better back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Some Christians say that the OT is only there so you can understand NT better, and Jesus fulfilled the law given to Moses so blood sacrifices were to be never needed again. I didn't understand this fulfilling the law business when I was Christian, but it was easy to live with not understanding, because you know how god is mysterious and humans are small and it's all about love and blah blah yadda etc. But I'm curious now. What is this supposed to mean? How are laws fulfilled so that they become obsolete? It speaks to the central paradox of Christianity: why are non-Jews using the Jewish scriptures, when the Bible specifically says that the Jews are the chosen people? Apparently, a way to "solve" this paradox is to invent a bizarre myth about the Son of God being crucified by "the Jews." Why was he crucified? To "fulfill the law," thereby making non-Jews "saved" and giving them the keys to the kingdom. It doesn't make sense at all, but then, myth isn't supposed to make sense. There is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament about a future human sacrifice "fulfilling the law," much less a sacrifice by the Jews. "One day, I'm going to have a son, but you shall murder him, so sayeth God to Moses" appears nowhere in the Bible. Lost to time are the real origins of Christianity -- why some sects of non-Jews began using the Bible as if it was written by, for, and about them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I was a member of the Church of Christ so I am aware that Paul's teaching trumps Jesus. I'm assuming everyone knows the Church of Christ is the one and only true Church created by Jesus personally on the day of Pentecost. Seriously, everybody knows that, right? Anyway, in the Church of Christ the hierarchy of worship is as follows: The bible-The bible is god in written form, therefore the bible is to be worshiped first and foremost. Nobody can do nut'n unless the Bible says it's okay. And if you do it when the bible say's you can't then you are going to hell. Case closed. Paul is next in line because he knew everything there was to know about God and the Law, both OT and NT. Paul and God chit chatted a lot so Paul knew things even Jesus didn't know, like the fact that the law was nailed to the cross and that put everyone under grace not law. Jesus clearly didn't know that. Jesus is next in line. Jesus said the law would never pass away but he only meant it wouldn't pass away until he was crucified and rose again. At that point the law was fulfilled and replaced by grace, cause Paul said so, and Paul knew stuff like that. Jesus supposedly told Paul all about that on the road to Damascus, even though Paul doesn't seem to remember any of that happening. God, of course is next in line, because,...well, he's God,....and Jesus,....and the Holy Spirit who is needed to do the mundane daily spiritual kind of stuff that God simply doesn't have the time to do. Okay, question answered. Any other questions? If so, go back and read my post again. It is really quite clear how that OT- NT thing works. Pay attention! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Here are some verses that say that the Torah cannot be altered: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/26425/can-a-prophet-add-to-or-change-the-torah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yunea Posted April 26, 2015 Author Share Posted April 26, 2015 Awesome, I knew I could trust you all to give me a good read! Thanks all! How true it is that the more I learn about the Bible, the more weird it seems. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I was a member of the Church of Christ so I am aware that Paul's teaching trumps Jesus. I'm assuming everyone knows the Church of Christ is the one and only true Church created by Jesus personally on the day of Pentecost. Seriously, everybody knows that, right? Anyway, in the Church of Christ the hierarchy of worship is as follows: ... ... Okay, question answered. Any other questions? If so, go back and read my post again. It is really quite clear how that OT- NT thing works. Pay attention! <insert preferred slow clap/applause .gif here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts