|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: OT for Christians
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
In the thread on the cross as a symbol of Christianity, Mousethief came out with this line:
"Christians in general are amusingly inconsistent about which bits of the Old Testament they think apply to them, and which don't."
I think this leads to some interesting questions. To what extent are the strictures of the Old Testament relevant to Christians? I can imagine answers ranging from 100% down to 0%. As I recall, Peter and Paul were not always in complete agreement on this matter; the eventual outcome was that to become a Christian, one did not have to first become a Jew and thenceforth obey (for instance) the dietary laws. On the other hand, I don't think I have heard anyone claim (in so many words) that Christians need not obey the Ten Commandments.
I am hoping for some opinions and for some amusing
inconsistency.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
Before we get too far into the discussion, we might want to tighten up the language. It seems to me that there is a big difference from saying the OT is "relevant" versus "applicable."
I would, for example, suggest that the whole of the OT is "relevant" to help inform my understanding of the NT, but I would not say that all the restrictions of the OT are "applicable"--especially not the ones that Jesus altered (Keryg already has a thread semi-on this topic, re: shellfish).
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
Most Christians reckon to keep nine of 'the ten commandements', or maybe taking adultery into account that might be eight.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Most Christians reckon to keep nine of 'the ten commandements', or maybe taking adultery into account that might be eight.
Sounds quite generous: the Sabbath's quite generally taken to have been abolished. Jesus tells us to reject our father and mother. Most Christians seem to have been happy to take the Lord's name in vain, to have graven images, to worship other gods alongside, and to kill.
Adultery they're quite keen on policing, and they're not notably worse than anyone else on stealing, coveting and lying.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
To what extent are the strictures of the Old Testament relevant to Christians? I can imagine answers ranging from 100% down to 0%.
I thought everyone knew that the answer is 42 (%). ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
On the other hand, I don't think I have heard anyone claim (in so many words) that Christians need not obey the Ten Commandments.
Actually, I've heard that some Christians believe that God gave the Ten Commandments precisely to show us that we have no hope of being righteous on our own and that putting effort into obeying them is a form of spiritual pride. Personally, I think such a belief is wrong and counterproductive, but I can sort of understand the reasoning behind it.
quote:
I am hoping for some opinions and for some amusing inconsistency.
Being Swedenborgian, I use his principle that the Old Testament laws that Christians need not keep are the ones that are purely symbolic (e.g. sacrifices, ritual washing, mixing linen and wool), while the ones that are inherently meaningful should be kept, especially the Ten Commandments. Such a principle requires one to apply reasoning and therefore won't lead everyone to a common view, but it is a principle that one can try to apply consistently.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think Mousethief is probably right, that most Christians would say that they believe the OT to be very important, while struggling to identify what parts they would consider binding.
IMO, The OT is binding on Christians, except where the NT overrides it. The problem is that the NT overrides are quite broad. I think that the NT tries to take the legalistic edge off the rules, and look at the reasons and causes. These principles are what are important, and these are still important.
So what parts does this cover? Well, the social concerns - love your neighbours and all that this implies - are crucial. The precise definition of what this means have changed, and we need to re-interpret the principle in a modern society.
At the same time, the sense of a people set apart - physically - are not so critical. So we are not required to be circumcised, or to worship at Jerusalem. The concept of a nation set apart is replaces by a worldwide community.
Of course, Jesus makes it clear that "Love the Lord your God" is the first law. This principle stays, but the practicalities of how we worship God are not binding. So the sacrifices, the offerings etc are no longer binding. The principle is still important, that God comes first, but this is shown in new and different ways.
The 10C? Yes, I think these are still valid and still the standard for Christians. But they also need to be interpreted appropriately. We don't keep the Sabbath, because that is a Saturday. But we should take time apart for God. We should honour our parents, not murder etc etc etc. I am not saying that we all do this, just that they are still the standard for life.
The other big difference, I think, is that the OT attitude to breaking the laws was fourfold, depending on the law and the nature of the breaking: 1) A sacrifice is made 2) recompense is made 3) You are rejected from the society or 4) you are stoned to death. The NT approach is one of grace and forgiveness, based on a change in life and repentence.
That is - briefly - my take on it.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Being Swedenborgian, I use his principle that the Old Testament laws that Christians need not keep are the ones that are purely symbolic (e.g. sacrifices, ritual washing, mixing linen and wool), while the ones that are inherently meaningful should be kept, especially the Ten Commandments. Such a principle requires one to apply reasoning and therefore won't lead everyone to a common view, but it is a principle that one can try to apply consistently.
I can't think of a standard more likely to cause confusion than dividing things into the categories of "purely symbolic" and "inherently meaningful". Take, for instance, the stricture against idolatry. Idols are symbols representing a god, so does that make them purely symbolic? Or is the act of worshiping (or not worshiping) one "inherently meaningful"? What kind of meanings are non-inherent (exherent?), and how impure does symbolism have to be before it falls into the other category?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that the strictures of the OT are relevant to Christians when applied in their spirit rather than in their letter. Rules are of their time, set down for good reason. They lose their spirit when people bend them, bypass the good reason, or keep them even though they are out of time: doing so does not show goodness of heart.
Jesus was outspoken in this area against the religious people of his day who had lost the spirit of the law.
Paul indicated that without love nothing was valid in service to God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This reminds me of the allegation that Jesuits created the first real objective rating test for humans, which today we'd call a psychological test. Clearly, they used the 7 Deadly Sins.
An acronym I still recall from a very annoying grade 10 religion class for the deadlies is PALAGES: pride, avarice, lust, anger (wrath), gluttony, envy, sloth. 7 sins rated on a seven point scale each with a max score of 7×7 or 49. We're all good if we score low on these. If you're score is high, do some penance if your denomination does official confession. If they don't, and you're exceedingly scrupulous, tell someone who will punish you for it. Otherwise - as said in my boarding school - just tell Jesus who you just personally re-crucified today because you flog your monkey.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Being Swedenborgian, I use his principle that the Old Testament laws that Christians need not keep are the ones that are purely symbolic (e.g. sacrifices, ritual washing, mixing linen and wool), while the ones that are inherently meaningful should be kept, especially the Ten Commandments. Such a principle requires one to apply reasoning and therefore won't lead everyone to a common view, but it is a principle that one can try to apply consistently.
I can't think of a standard more likely to cause confusion than dividing things into the categories of "purely symbolic" and "inherently meaningful".
I take it as a straightforwardly observable given that God does not seem to be very concerned about avoiding confusion. My own belief is that he gives us the minimum instruction necessary in order to encourage us to do most of the thinking for ourselves.
quote:
Take, for instance, the stricture against idolatry. Idols are symbols representing a god, so does that make them purely symbolic? Or is the act of worshiping (or not worshiping) one "inherently meaningful"?
The principle is about whether the law itself is symbolic, not about whether the subject of the law is symbolic.
My understanding is that while icons per se are symbols and are not the objects of worship, idols are not symbols. Idolatry is worship of the idol itself, not the thing which the idol might have originally represented or symbolized. But in any case, the law against idolatry is not a symbolic law.
quote:
What kind of meanings are non-inherent (exherent?), and how impure does symbolism have to be before it falls into the other category?
Good questions, which is why I said that the principle requires us to apply reasoning and will generally lead different people to different conclusions. However, I don't see that as a problem.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The principle is about whether the law itself is symbolic, not about whether the subject of the law is symbolic.
Laws are usually regarded as symbolic if they have no penalty or enforcement mechanism. By that standard, very little of the First Testament qualifies as "symbolic".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
That is a common way to use the term "symbolic" when applied to laws, but it is not the way I was using it.
As far as I'm concerned, a lot of the Old Testament laws were (and are) symbolic in that there was no inherent value in following them literally. For example, I don't think people following the law against wearing linen and wool together led better lives as a result of following it. I think the only reason God gave it as a symbolic law was because society at that time was not mature enough yet to follow the spiritual principle it symbolized - they could accept a ritual because it seemed holy, but not a simple principle of life about not letting rules interfere with love (to illustrate a complicated subject with a single sentence).
However, anyone who followed the law against idolatry would have led a better life because they would have avoided getting involved in practices like child sacrifice.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The principle is about whether the law itself is symbolic, not about whether the subject of the law is symbolic.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
As far as I'm concerned, a lot of the Old Testament laws were (and are) symbolic in that there was no inherent value in following them literally. For example, I don't think people following the law against wearing linen and wool together led better lives as a result of following it. I think the only reason God gave it as a symbolic law was because society at that time was not mature enough yet to follow the spiritual principle it symbolized - they could accept a ritual because it seemed holy, but not a simple principle of life about not letting rules interfere with love (to illustrate a complicated subject with a single sentence).
I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile those two statements in an intellectually consistent manner. In the first statement you dismiss the symbolism of the law's subject as unimportant, in the second you claim the reverse. Explanation please?
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
However, anyone who followed the law against idolatry would have led a better life because they would have avoided getting involved in practices like child sacrifice.
Idolatry does not always lead to child sacrifice, and avoiding idolatry doesn't necessarily prevent it. This seems like a non-sequitur.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The principle is about whether the law itself is symbolic, not about whether the subject of the law is symbolic.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
As far as I'm concerned, a lot of the Old Testament laws were (and are) symbolic in that there was no inherent value in following them literally. For example, I don't think people following the law against wearing linen and wool together led better lives as a result of following it. I think the only reason God gave it as a symbolic law was because society at that time was not mature enough yet to follow the spiritual principle it symbolized - they could accept a ritual because it seemed holy, but not a simple principle of life about not letting rules interfere with love (to illustrate a complicated subject with a single sentence).
I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile those two statements in an intellectually consistent manner. In the first statement you dismiss the symbolism of the law's subject as unimportant, in the second you claim the reverse. Explanation please?
The symbolism of the law's subject is important, but that's a distinct question from whether or not a Christian ought to follow the law literally. In my first statement, I'm just saying that the symbolism of the law's subject is not the deciding factor in applying the principle I outlined because it's the symbolism of the law itself that's important, but only with regard to the principle about whether to follow it literally. If that's not sufficient to answer your question, then I'm at a loss to provide a better explanation.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
However, anyone who followed the law against idolatry would have led a better life because they would have avoided getting involved in practices like child sacrifice.
Idolatry does not always lead to child sacrifice, and avoiding idolatry doesn't necessarily prevent it. This seems like a non-sequitur.
Of course idolatry does not always lead to child sacrifice, and of course avoiding idolatry doesn't always prevent it, but those are statements about idolatry in the most general case, abstracted away from the specific context of the Old Testament. It is a consistent theme of the Old Testament that the Israelites exhibited a tendency to adopt some of the destructive practices and rituals that came with the idolatrous religions around them at the time. Following the law against idolatry in those circumstances would not have been a purely symbolic gesture. And neither would it be today for any Christian.
And the two stories you refer to (Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son and Jephthah's actual sacrifice of his daughter) are just that - stories. They were not laws that were to be obeyed repeatedly by everyone in the community at the time, let alone by Christians living centuries later. I'm pretty sure that the principle I outlined above is completely unnecessary for figuring out whether or not Christians ought to do the same today.
BTW, in what way is Hinduism relevant here? I'm not aware of any aspects of it that might be considered to be idolatry - are you?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The symbolism of the law's subject is important, but that's a distinct question from whether or not a Christian ought to follow the law literally. In my first statement, I'm just saying that the symbolism of the law's subject is not the deciding factor in applying the principle I outlined because it's the symbolism of the law itself that's important, but only with regard to the principle about whether to follow it literally. If that's not sufficient to answer your question, then I'm at a loss to provide a better explanation.
Nope, still not getting it. I'm not seeing how "don't worship idols" (which is about symbols and symbolism) is literal, but "don't wear mixed fiber fabrics" (which is a fairly literal proscription) is symbolic. Since we've exhausted your explanatory capability I guess we'll have to leave it there.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
BTW, in what way is Hinduism relevant here? I'm not aware of any aspects of it that might be considered to be idolatry - are you?
Worship practices that involve idols (theological hair-splitting aside) are generally considered "idolatry". If not, then the term really has no meaning.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I have always loved the OT and still think that far too many Christians know far too little about it for their own good.
But OTOH, it is so frequently misused and misunderstood that there really ought to be a health label attached to every copy.
The OT informs us about the way that (over along period of time) the Jewish people came to understand who God was and what God wanted. It is naive in the extreme to try and read a bit of the OT and say without question "this is what God wants of us". In all aspects, we have to look first at Jesus and then see what the OT looks like from his perspective.
Some of the Psalms can give us powerful words to address God (in praise or lament or anger); some of the writings of the prophets leave us with clear challenges about our attitudes and behaviour; and Job remains (in my eyes) a timeless and classic exploration of the impact of pain and suffering upon religious faith.
I think, however, that the laws (all of them!) are of historical interest only. In all cases, we have to go to Jesus' words on loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself. Cherry-picking which levitical laws to keep or regard as "superceded" makes no sense at all.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The Jewish view is that only the Noahide laws are binding on Gentiles. This was presumably the view of the earliest Christians, since a.) they were Jewish, and b.) the Noahide laws are sort of recapitulated in the Council of Jerusalem.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Laws which stand the test of time are those which have evolved with the human species.
Obviously both OT and NT contain much good advice for living and much that is definitely not useful. I cannot see that it is a good idea to allow oneself to follow 'religious' rules that date back at least 1600 years.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Being Swedenborgian, I use his principle that the Old Testament laws that Christians need not keep are the ones that are purely symbolic (e.g. sacrifices, ritual washing, mixing linen and wool), while the ones that are inherently meaningful should be kept, especially the Ten Commandments.
I can't think of a standard more likely to cause confusion than dividing things into the categories of "purely symbolic" and "inherently meaningful".
In practice, though, it causes little confusion, and has not been the cause of even the slightest controversy in this church. Instead people find it liberating and useful.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Take, for instance, the stricture against idolatry. Idols are symbols representing a god, so does that make them purely symbolic? Or is the act of worshiping (or not worshiping) one "inherently meaningful"? What kind of meanings are non-inherent (exherent?), and how impure does symbolism have to be before it falls into the other category?
Idolatry is an especially easy one. Few people in the West nowadays are inclined to literally make little images that they worship.
Most people would see this as more stupid than wrong.
But it is easy to see that all of us tend to "worship" in our hearts things that are not God. As Belle says to the young Ebenezer in Dickens "Christmas Carol", "A new idol has replaced me." Every reader knows that she is saying that he worships gold.
So while the literal commandment of not carving or molding images that we would set up in a room and say prayers to may not be especially relevant, we all know that we are guilty of devoting ourselves to "idols" that are not God and not especially good.
I would think that this understanding of the commandment would be so obvious that it would be intuitively assumed. It has certainly found its way into our language and literature.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not seeing how "don't worship idols" (which is about symbols and symbolism) is literal, but "don't wear mixed fiber fabrics" (which is a fairly literal proscription) is symbolic.
The laws about mnixed fabrics, as with the other so-called "laws of holiness" are acted-out symbols of the separatness of Israel as the chosen people. They are part of the covenants with Abraham and Moses and apply to Israel only. They simply aren;t relevant to the rest ofg us, they are not directed at us. As I said on the other thread, for a Gentile to follow those covenant laws would be like a civilian wearing a fake army or navy uniform. It would be a pretence. The rules simply don't apply to us. (other than as part of a conversion to Judaism of course - which I suppose would be like joining the navy or whatever...)
The idea that only God may be rightly worshipped is general, not specifically part of the covenant. At least as later interpreted by the prophets - it is arguable that the earlier parts of the OT often think of the LORD as the God of Israel, and other gods as the gods of other peoples.
So someone taking the whole OT seriously and literally would encourage Jews to follow their particular laws, but everybody to worship only God.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Idolatry is an especially easy one. Few people in the West nowadays are inclined to literally make little images that they worship.
Most people would see this as more stupid than wrong.
Given that depictions of Jesus, if not the most commonly produced images in the West are at least in the top 10, I'm not inclined to accept this assertion without further clarification.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So while the literal commandment of not carving or molding images that we would set up in a room and say prayers to may not be especially relevant, we all know that we are guilty of devoting ourselves to "idols" that are not God and not especially good.
I would think that this understanding of the commandment would be so obvious that it would be intuitively assumed. It has certainly found its way into our language and literature.
This just seems like more theological hair-splitting to get around the fact that Christians like to make graven images of their God so they've redefined idolatry to allow the practice. It's certainly not a definition that would be recognizable to Jewish interpreters of the Ten Commandments. I've commented on this before, and there doesn't seem to be any real benefit from taking a term like "idolator", which has a fairly useful and specific meaning, and making it synonymous with the generic "infidel", no matter how theologically or culturally convenient such a blurring of the lines may be.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The idea that only God may be rightly worshipped is general, not specifically part of the covenant. At least as later interpreted by the prophets - it is arguable that the earlier parts of the OT often think of the LORD as the God of Israel, and other gods as the gods of other peoples.
That seems contrary to the Jewish people's historic indifference (or sometimes outright hostility) to the idea of conversion. The God of Israel was precisely that. Whether other people worshiped other gods or false gods or no gods was, at best, an academic consideration.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That seems contrary to the Jewish people's historic indifference (or sometimes outright hostility) to the idea of conversion.
Depends on when you are talking about. From sometime round about the Exile or a little later, to sometime in the Roman Empire period, there were lots of converts to Judaism. (Even, at one point in the Hasmonean period, forced conversions of conquered cities)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The idea that only God may be rightly worshipped is general, not specifically part of the covenant. At least as later interpreted by the prophets - it is arguable that the earlier parts of the OT often think of the LORD as the God of Israel, and other gods as the gods of other peoples.
That seems contrary to the Jewish people's historic indifference (or sometimes outright hostility) to the idea of conversion. The God of Israel was precisely that. Whether other people worshiped other gods or false gods or no gods was, at best, an academic consideration.
This seems wildly out of synch with so much of the Hebrew Testament. It repeatedly talks about all nations coming to Zion in recognition of the primacy of the Lord God.
While you are right that Israel never seemed interested in converts until Paul came along, it was certainly true that Israel believed that the whole world should worship the Lord God. Reconciling these apparently opposing points requires recognizing that Judaism was both a nationality and a religion. Judaism seems to have often welcomed people to study at the synagogues -- creating the pent-up demand to become Jews that led to the explosion of Christianity when Paul offered the God-fearers a way of becoming Jews by embracing Christ. It seems that, over time, it has served both Judaism and Christianity to forget that these early Christians were actually converts to Judaism.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That seems contrary to the Jewish people's historic indifference (or sometimes outright hostility) to the idea of conversion.
Depends on when you are talking about. From sometime round about the Exile or a little later, to sometime in the Roman Empire period, there were lots of converts to Judaism. (Even, at one point in the Hasmonean period, forced conversions of conquered cities)
I'm talking about the indifference to worship practices of those living outside the territories of the Israelite (or Judean) temple-state. There was insistence on theological conformity within the borders (i.e. the land that was part of God's covenant with Israel), and a general indifference to anything that happened outside. That would seem to indicate that the worship of the God of Israel was regarded as part of the covenant, not some generally applicable standard.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I find it interesting that posters have mostly interpreted Mousethief's "which bits of the Old Testament they think apply to them, and which don't." as referring to Laws. This flys in the face of Jesus' and Paul's attitudes to the Law. It also misses much of the OT speaking about how God is constantly forgiving and wanting to bring back his whoring people.
I hope people don't see the Psalms and the SoS as places to find laws. But for those with a hammer everything looks like a nail.
My own tradition misread Jesus' statement (Matt) that He came to fulfill the Law (really the Tanakh - Law, Prophets & Writings) as meaning that He was going to keep the Laws, not that He was going to fulfill their promises. So do not God's promises in the OT apply to us?
It is time to abandon the deontological mindset.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
"You don't deconstruct laws because you want injustice, but because you want a justice even more essential than this or that law promotes."
Brian McLaren
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
