Jesus Believed in a Literal Interpretation of the Old Testament

[whiskeytown]

the Old Testament was the Bible Jesus read, yes, and he believed it and taught it, yes - but because he believed the historical accounts doesn't mean that he came teaching the Old Testament.

he taught that WITH HIS COMING, the old order (old Testament) had no application/bearing on the Christian life and the New Testament is the guiding book for Christians, not the OT - and specifically the Gospels - and for those of us who are not Jewish, the OT is nice to read for it's poetry and it's backstory, but we (Gentiles) are not under Jewish law and are never meant to be.

the OT is not the book that Christians follow - Jesus gave us a new commandment and a new way to live - and the law is dismissed as just a yardstick to which we can never reach -

There is talk about the law in the NT, however -

Romans 2:1-5

2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.
2:2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things.
2:3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment?
2:4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?

by the way, saying you're not a homosexual won't help you, for he who violates one small precept of the law violates the whole thing, therefore, when you slander and spread hateful messages, you're just as guilty as the folks you're trying to righteously condemn.

so what good is the law?

Romans 7:4

7:4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God.

Romans 9:30-33

9:30 What shall we say then? – that the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness obtained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith,
9:31 but Israel even though pursuing a law of righteousness did not attain it.
9:32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but (as if it were possible) by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

----------

There are commandments in the NT, but those are for personal conduct and the NT/Jesus are very clear that we judge not lest we be judged - the Christian faith emphasises personal holiness, not a Dominionist view of the OT that allows us to institute OT law as the Governing law of the land. Perhaps if you're going to go slinging around the name of Christ you'd be advise to read the teachings of his church? - hmmm? - perhaps a little more knowledge before speaking?

you do what you want - if you think following the Old Testament can save you, feel free, but it's not Christianity, it's not the point of Christianity, it's not what Christ came to accomplish - [censored], it's not even the Christian's book -

furthermore, my faith is my faith, not yours - you get no part of it and you get no say in it.

it is not my place to make personal judgements for people - if the NT goes after homosexuality, then that's between the individual Christian and God, not you. That's why it's HIS personal faith and not yours.

Pharisees existed long before Jesus and they'll exist long afterwards - meh. Even the devil can quote scripture, but if you cannot comphrend it, then how will you sound like anything but a noob babbling in the wind?

RB

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
the Old Testament was the Bible Jesus read, yes, and he believed it and taught it, yes -

he also taught that the old order (old Testament) had no application/bearing on the Christian life and the New Testament is the guiding book for Christians, not the OT -

This is not the book that Christians follow - Jesus gave us a new commandment and a new way to live - and the law is dismissed as just a yardstick to which we can never reach -

There is talk about the law in the NT, however -

Romans 2:1-5

2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.
2:2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things.
2:3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment?
2:4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?

Romans 7:4

7:4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God.

Romans 9:30-33

9:30 What shall we say then? – that the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness obtained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith,
9:31 but Israel even though pursuing a law of righteousness did not attain it.
9:32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but (as if it were possible) by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

----------

There are commandments in the NT, but those are for personal conduct and the NT/Jesus are very clear that we judge not lest we be judged - the Christian faith emphasises personal holiness, not a Dominionist view of the OT that allows us to institute OT law as the Governing law of the land.

you do what you want - if you think following the Old Testament can save you, feel free, but it's not Christianity, it's not the point of Christianity, it's not what Christ came to accomplish - [censored], it's not even the Christian's book -

our faith is our faith, not yours - you get no part of it.

and it is not my place to make personal judgements for people - if the NT condemns homosexuality, then that's between the individual Christian and God, and you have no say in the matter in the slightest. God doesn't have to and won't consult you for advice in this manner, so I have no reason to listen to you either.

Pharisees existed long before Jesus and they'll exist long afterwards - meh.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
There's about 40 references in the old testament and a few in the new about homosexuality. Many are very, very clear about homosexuality being filthy, an abomination, and worthy of death.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. Homosexuality is never even mentioned in the Bible. In fact, the closest thing to a "clear" reference to homosexuality is in the highly ambiguous passage you referenced earlier. Specifically, Leviticus 18:22 - "v’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee," or literally "and with a male you shouldn't lay lyings of a woman, it's an abomination." This passage seems likely to represent homosexuality in some sense, but it's very vague and could be referring to something completely different.

Also it appears in Leviticus, a very interesting book detailing ancient Hebrew law. The first half of Leviticus is devoted primarily to sacrificial ritual, but it does contain some interesting restrictions such as the admonition to touch no unclean thing (including the bodies of pigs and shellfish, for example). The second half, where we find the apparent stricture against homosexuality, is a collection of rules and regulations. Many of the things listed there are fairly unclear, but there's enough in there to raise some eyebrows. For example, certain objects (such as any food involving blood, pigs and shellfish, some fruits and vegetables, and "creeping things," including the flying creeping things with four feet), certain people (such as the ugly, the disabled, men with damaged testicles, and sometimes the bald), and certain practices (improperly disposing of semen, seeing your neighbors naked, interacting with a woman on her period, or wearing garments made from more than one material) are abominations. This is followed by a brief recapitulation and description of various torturous penalties for those who transgress (and their children, of course). Many suggest that Leviticus no longer applies, having been superceded by the "new law" of Jesus. Curiously, these are often the very people most fond of quoting Leviticus as being applicable in the modern day.

As to ignorance of culture and history, I would pin that label more readily on those who fail to realize the Bible is written in Hebrew and English translations don't represent any kind of authority than those who recognize the text is written ambiguously in an ancient version of an almost-dead language.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish you'd used the word "or" instead of "and"

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that was a typo. And I'm just ribbing you guys anyway, most modern Christians know little about the bible or simply believe the sanitized (and false) version told in church. Or just don't care that about the issue.

[CallMeIshmael]

This thread is in serious need of more cowbell

[PLOlover]

http://georgegordon.org/Radio_Archives.htm#Archives

30 - Broadband - Dial -up -- Is The Law of God Abolished? - Part 1 of 7
1 - Broadband - Dial -up -- Is The Law of God Abolished? - Part 2 of 7

2 - Broadband - Dial -up -- Is The Law of God Abolished? - Part 3 of 7

3 - Broadband - Dial -up -- Is The Law of God Abolished? - Part 4 of 7

4 - Broadband - Dial -up -- Is The Law of God Abolished? - Part 5 of 7

5 - Broadband - Dial -up -- Is The Law of God Abolished? - Part 6 of 7

6 - Broadband - Dial -up -- Is The Law of God Abolished? - Part 7 of 7

[RJT]

Chez,

Footnotes to the relevant passage from The New American (Catholic) Bible:

“Israelite tradition was unanimous in ascribing the destruction of Sodom And Gomorrah to the wickedness of these cities, but tradition varied in regard to the nature of this wickedness. According to the present account of the Yahwist, the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, which is therefore also known as sodomy; but according to Isaiah (1, 9f; 3, 9), it was a lack of social justice; Ezekiel (16, 46-51) describes it as a disregard for the poor, whereas Jeremiah (23, 14) saw it as general immorality."


Regarding the OP. Jesus spoke/taught in metaphors, allegories and parables. For Him to quote the OT and not distinguish whether (that) it was allegorical fits in fine with His persona.

RJT

[Phil153]

Good post. However, my point is not that you should live according to the old testament.

The point of the OP is that if you're a Christian, you HAVE TO believe in the stories and factual accounts in the old testament. You have to believe that God created Adam and Eve as the first and only people, that Cain killed Abel, that Noah's worldwide flood really did happen as described in the bible. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. Jesus explicitly and clearly confirmed these stories as true. I hope you can understand the profound implications of this.

If you don't accept this, and the many, many quotes where he speaks of the OT as truth and uses them in his teachings, then the accounts of Jesus given in the New Testament are completely unreliable. Given that we have no independent, non biblical evidence of Jesus's comments or life (or even of his existence, beyond a few, dubious one or two line references to the name of Jesus), this throws the whole veracity of the bible and Christianity into dispute.

You either have to be a young earth creationist who believes in the literal story of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood, or you don't have a leg to stand on and your religion is nothing but falsehoods.

The extremely obvious and incredibly important point is lost on the majority of non fundamentalist Christians.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the OP. Jesus spoke/taught in metaphors, allegories and parables. For Him to quote the OT and not distinguish whether (that) it was allegorical fits in fine with His persona.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is utter nonsense. Read Jesus' quotes in the OP. They're pretty damn clear. He's referencing actual historical events or deliberately misleading his followers.

Also, the actual existence of Jesus and many of the things he said make no sense at all without the concept of Original Sin - which requires Adam and Eve to have actually existed.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
or deliberately misleading his followers

[/ QUOTE ]

It's confirmed in the gospels that he did this.