Jump to content

Need Some Theological Help With The Ot Laws And Jesus.


Recommended Posts

I'm debating a fundy, who at first tried to tell me that the OT laws don't count anymore, and when I pointed out to him that Jesus was here to uphold the OT laws, not to change them or abolish them. I could use some help formulating a response to this:

 

"When Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets," he did not mean that each specific law would stay exactly the same. He meant that the purpose and message of the Law and the Prophets remain exactly the same. The Law and the Prophets pointed to him and were intended from the beginning to be fulfilled by him.

 

Yet because they point to Jesus Christ and show how God interacted with a group of people at one time and place, the old covenant laws continue to give us insights into God's will. Even the laws of sacrifice are "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

 

Jesus fulfilled the purpose of God's laws. He did not destroy the fact that people should obey God, even though his crucifixion brought a change in some of the details of how they obey God.

 

Jesus did not emphasize the same things Moses did. Moses wrote many chapters about the tabernacle and the "place" in which God put his name. Jesus said that place did not matter (John 4:20-24). Moses wrote many chapters about ritual uncleanness; Jesus was much less concerned about it. Instead, Jesus gave much more emphasis to the way people should treat each other.

The law of Moses required many animal sacrifices, but because of the sacrificial death of Jesus, the sacrifices are no longer required. Moses wrote that sins could be atoned for through the performance of rituals, but this was a temporary and external atonement; Jesus simply forgave people as a permanent gift and a cleansed conscience. Jesus often told people to obey God, but Moses is not the standard by which obedience is now measured.

 

Things did change my friend, you are still the ignorant one."

 

Your thoughts and how would you respond?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I would just ask him how he knows "[Jesus] did not mean that each specific law would stay exactly the same. He meant that the purpose and message of the Law and the Prophets remain exactly the same." Where does Jesus say that? Is he reading Jesus' mind? Did an angel come deliver this creative interpretation so that your friend would not have to feel that uncomfortable cognitive dissonance we all know so well? This is one of my biggest pet peeves with fundy Christians. They want to use the Old Testament when it suits them, but they want to pretend it doesn't count when it doesn't back up their orthodoxy. I wish they would just pull a Marcion and rip the Old Testament out of their Bibles...

 

So let's suppose none of that Old Testament law counts any more. What rules should we follow? Only what Jesus (supposedly) said in the Gospels? Do we add what Paul says, and the other authors of the New Testament books? Are the 10 Commandments right out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm debating a fundy, who at first tried to tell me that the OT laws don't count anymore, and when I pointed out to him that Jesus was here to uphold the OT laws, not to change them or abolish them. I could use some help formulating a response to this:

 

"When Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets," he did not mean that each specific law would stay exactly the same. He meant that the purpose and message of the Law and the Prophets remain exactly the same. The Law and the Prophets pointed to him and were intended from the beginning to be fulfilled by him.

(Here are a few quick observations)

There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures that says the law would be less binding when a king messiah arrived.

It does say that this king would lead people into great compliance with the law.

 

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Jesus didn't do this and he undermined ( in Mark 7:18-19) parts of the law, such as the dietary regulations.

If Jesus really fulfilled the law, he would have upheld it.

The law is everlasting and eternal (Psa 119:152,160)

 

Yet because they point to Jesus Christ and show how God interacted with a group of people at one time and place, the old covenant laws continue to give us insights into God's will. Even the laws of sacrifice are "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

There is nothing in the new covenant, as defined in Jer 31, that says any part of the law would no longer be binding, or that faith in a human sacrifice replaced the need to keep the law.

 

The law doesn't point to a king messiah, the king messiah points people to the law.

Jesus wasn't even a valid king messiah.

He never sat on the throne of David and never performed the basic job requirements.

 

Jesus fulfilled the purpose of God's laws. He did not destroy the fact that people should obey God, even though his crucifixion brought a change in some of the details of how they obey God.

The purpose of God's laws is not fulfilled by an impostor that pretends to be king.

The law is not fulfilled by breaking it as Jesus did.

He added and subtracted from the law which is strictly forbidden (Deut 4:2).

 

Jesus did not emphasize the same things Moses did. Moses wrote many chapters about the tabernacle and the "place" in which God put his name. Jesus said that place did not matter (John 4:20-24). Moses wrote many chapters about ritual uncleanness; Jesus was much less concerned about it.

What Jesus was concerned about is irrelevant.

What's relevant is what God's law says.

And Jesus undermined the law by declaring all foods clean.

Such a teaching is heresy and abomination to God.

 

Instead, Jesus gave much more emphasis to the way people should treat each other.

The law of Moses required many animal sacrifices, but because of the sacrificial death of Jesus, the sacrifices are no longer required.

The sacrifice of Jesus breaks the very law he was supposed to be keeping.

There is no provision for a human to be used as a sin sacrifice.

It's illegal.

There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures that says a king messiah would remove the need for sacrifices.

 

Moses wrote that sins could be atoned for through the performance of rituals, but this was a temporary and external atonement; Jesus simply forgave people as a permanent gift and a cleansed conscience.

In the Mosaic law, sin was atoned for and it wasn't "temporary".

The specific sin was forgiven...period.

Animal sacrifices were primarily for unintentional sins.

Repenting and a contrite heart have the ability to atone for other sins.

Each person can save themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

 

Ezek 18:21-22,27

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

Jesus cannot atone for anything because there is no provision that states a vicarious human sacrifice is required to have forgiveness.

The sacrifice of Jesus was illegal in virtually every aspect of the law.

 

Jesus often told people to obey God, but Moses is not the standard by which obedience is now measured.

Massive bullshit alert.

The standard for obedience is the law that was from God, as delivered by Moses.

 

Psa 119:155

Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.

 

Mal 4:4

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

 

Things did change my friend, you are still the ignorant one."

Things changed because Christianity revised the rules, making up new ones in the process.

There is nothing in the Old Testament that says a king messiah would alter, end, or supersede the law.

Jesus wasn't even a valid sacrifice under the law.

The new covenant, as defined by Jer 31, says nothing about any part of the law ending and it says nothing about faith in a vicarious human sacrifice replacing the need to keep the law.

 

Your thoughts and how would you respond?

Be prepared for lots of Christian talking points that contradict the Old Testament to be tossed out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets," he did not mean that each specific law would stay exactly the same. He meant that the purpose and message of the Law and the Prophets remain exactly the same. The Law and the Prophets pointed to him and were intended from the beginning to be fulfilled by him.

 

Ah, another Christian judging when the Bible doesn't mean what it says. How original!

 

I don't debate Christians like that but if I were you I might try comparing final Salvation theology with the original covenant of Abraham. John 3:16 says God loved the whole world. Yet Genesis says that God's original plan was "Abraham you do what I say and I will kill everybody in Cuba and make you the new owner of Cuba" (or some other region). It's not love. It's not justice. It's just a get rich quick scheme and it's a strange motivation to follow a gawd. However it makes perfect sense that a thug who invades a region and kills everybody justifies his actions under "God told me to do it". Thugs like to make such claims.

 

 

Yet because they point to Jesus Christ and show how God interacted with a group of people at one time and place, the old covenant laws continue to give us insights into God's will. Even the laws of sacrifice are "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

 

Maybe ask him why rape was not a crime under that teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. Adultery is a crime. You can't have sex with a woman who is owned by another man. But once you pay her father you can rape your own wife as much as you like and beat her if she doesn't play along. Same thing for slavery.

 

Jesus fulfilled the purpose of God's laws. He did not destroy the fact that people should obey God, even though his crucifixion brought a change in some of the details of how they obey God.

 

This is a simple cop out. The OT laws were created to give the Israeli King legitimacy. The NT was created to give con men power over their flock. Creating a new religion by lying about older religions is nothing new.

 

The law of Moses required many animal sacrifices, but because of the sacrificial death of Jesus, the sacrifices are no longer required. Moses wrote that sins could be atoned for through the performance of rituals, but this was a temporary and external atonement; Jesus simply forgave people as a permanent gift and a cleansed conscience. Jesus often told people to obey God, but Moses is not the standard by which obedience is now measured.

 

I'm sure the Christian never stops to think why God needed cute, innocent animals to be killed in order for God to forgive. Some humans can forgive without the shedding of blood. Yet God seems to lack this power. Maybe it is because God was invented by barbaric men who could not forgive and had revenge hang ups. They could not imagine a God who was better than they were.

 

Sorry if none of this is helpful. Debating Christians is usually pointless because of their self delusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your friend said

The Law and the Prophets pointed to him and were intended from the beginning to be fulfilled by him.

 

I hardly know where to start with that statement. The law and prophets pointed to no one. Judaism is a system of salvation by works.

 

Christianity has completely changed the definition of the word "messiah" or "mashiach". The Hebrew people have been in bondage and captivity to various people groups throughout history and the mashiach was a person that God would use in order to bring the Hebrew people out of the bondage. If Jesus had broke the Roman rule, then he could have been the mashiach. But he didn't. Furthermore, there is absolutely no concept in Judaism that this person would be God. The Shema states that there is only one God, not two (counting Jesus), or now, three when the Holy Spirit is thrown in the mix. The idea of the messiah being a god/man or demi-god was an idea that was introduced by other cultures and an idea that Christianity adopted.

 

Centauri covered the problems of a human being a worthy sacrifice already so won't go there.

 

There is no bridging the gulf between Judaism and Christianity. It's two completely different systems of salvation: works vs. faith in a human sacrifice.

 

Your friend said:

Things did change my friend, you are still the ignorant one

 

Frankly, I'd be a little offended. Typical Christian tactic - belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time that laws in the old testament are to be ignored is if they were overturned by Jesus in the new testament. But what you could retort to him is that if the old testament no longer counts then he cant pick and choose which ones he wants to use such as the 10 commandments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

''Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them''.

 

The scripture goes on.....

 

.......''I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.............. (jesus and the finished work on the cross)

 

According to the 'grace' message, this scripture means that Jesus came to fullfill the 'prophecy' (in the O.T.) that one day...you would be 'saved 'by grace' alone...... by simply having faith in jesus and his death on the cross.... and not by 'works' or 'sarcrifices' in the OT anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blood sacrifice was never given to Moses from God, this is according to OT prophet Jeremiah. This also means that no matter how much your friend believes Jesus was a sacrifice, he was not because of what Jeremiah revealed concerning the law not given to Moses. It doesn't matter what Christians believe about Jesus because they are chasing traditional teachings of the Christian church and not the teachings of the Jewish religion. Christianity teaches lies in order to support its doctrines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm debating a fundy, who at first tried to tell me that the OT laws don't count anymore, and when I pointed out to him that Jesus was here to uphold the OT laws, not to change them or abolish them. I could use some help formulating a response to this:

 

"When Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets," he did not mean that each specific law would stay exactly the same. He meant that ...

 

[snip]

 

Your thoughts and how would you respond?

It's already been mentioned but how is this known?

 

What the fundy says is [...] but what he means is "I like tacos." How did I get from that long response (mostly snipped) to "I like tacos?" Check my ass. I pulled it from there.

 

Likewise it's others who will have been the ones to filled in these blanks with old "jesus." Taking what was written and telling everyone what was meant. Did Paul say something? Who cares...if you're debating what the literal words from a supposedly literal person meant. Paul didn't know him and couldn't know what he meant. We'd have to assume Paul was sent a magic message on the meaning of those words or that Paul was told by someone else what was meant and those people were told at some other time what was meant. Neither of these things are known. It can't be upheld. What is known is what is written. So as long as there isn't something that states otherwise (I don't think there is) then the only way around it is to check someone's ass and see if the answer is up there in the same way "I like tacos" was in my example.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just go strait for the big picture. The bible was written years after the time of the supposed Christ. I suspect many things were not entirely accurate about the account of his life & message. (If they are accurate, Jesus was bipolar, and that's another matter entirely.)

 

Jesus does not fulfill OT prophesies, ask your fundy to look up the cross references in the footnotes where it says he fulfills this or that prophesy and read the context surrounding each of these verses - they don't add up!

 

Jesus was rejected for a reason, and it wasn't because the Jewish leaders of the time were too pompous or jealous of him, it was because he did not cut the mustard and the Jewish leaders were educated enough in the laws to know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose your friend is right and OT laws don't count anymore. That does not mean they don't matter. God still commanded that people turn in their own spouses and children to be stoned for heresy, and whoever turned them in would throw the first stone. (Deut. 13:6-11.) Imagine participating in your children's execution. He still allowed men to rape foreign women without punishment and call it "marriage." (Deut. 21:10-14.) The women were "dishonored" by shaving their heads, not by being raped. Head coverings were a symbol of women's low status. (1 Cor. 11:6-10.) God still allowed Israelites to kidnap and enslave foreigners, but not their own people. (Lev. 25:44-46.) Racism was convenient in the Bible, as it gave the Israelites license to mistreat others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.