Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Cafe - Open Discussion
>
How do you know if you are NOT a Christian?
date
newest »
newest »
Question #1: If you do not love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and do not love your neighbor as yourself.
I'd say if you vote Republican, you can be sure you're not a real Christian.
A former rector at my parish often wondered if a person could be both Christian and Republican!
John what if you love THE WRONG GOD with all of your...?I have yet to meet a human that perfectly and fully Loves God/Jesus. WE are all struggling in this area.
I thought democrats didn't need a God - they don't sin. They don't believe in Sin. The only thing that could possibly be a sin is to be a Republican. :cp
I thought an often-cited criteria for "orthodox" Christianity is the Nicene Creed i.e. the father, son & holy ghost stuff. Imho Christians in general tend to agree with each other on the definition of Christian in principle but not necessarily in practice.
Good point Edyj.Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Sounds good to me: now we just have to define EVERY SINGLE word in the creed for clarity.
Apostolic church sounds GREAT! The Holy Catholic bit has certainly taken on different and abstract BENDY meanings over the last few hundred years.
I also think Charismatics and Liberals will feel seriously left out of those statements - and don't even start with the cults.
Rod wrote: "Good point Edyj.Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son o..."
Indeed, Xdyj and Rod. The Nicence Creed has been the doctrinal measure of Christians since the very beginnings of the church. I think it still holds true.
Erick wrote: "Indeed, Xdyj and Rod. The Nicence Creed has been the doctrinal measure of Christians since the very beginnings of the church. I think it still holds true."
Hi Erick, do you realize that the Nicene Creed came nearly 300 years after the resurrection?
Hi Erick, do you realize that the Nicene Creed came nearly 300 years after the resurrection?
Matthew wrote: "Erick wrote: "Indeed, Xdyj and Rod. The Nicence Creed has been the doctrinal measure of Christians since the very beginnings of the church. I think it still holds true."Hi Erick, do you realize t..."
I knew someone would say something like that. When one investigates the early Church Fathers, one can find evidence that they believed in the Creed. It was codified 300 years later, it wasn't created then, Matthew.
The quickest way to find out what the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed is to actually read what they wrote. The most exhaustive recourse is to the Ante-Nicene set of books which I have read most of; but one can also look at more concise treatments like this:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
HI Erick,
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky and play gotcha. I just think of the roots of Christianity as going back to Abraham and Moses, not the Anti-Nicene writers who did not consider themselves to be fathers of the Church.
Whenever these conversations come up I try to encourage people to remember that if you identify as a Christian you are actually identifying with a Jewish faith that has roots which extend far back beyond Pentecost.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky and play gotcha. I just think of the roots of Christianity as going back to Abraham and Moses, not the Anti-Nicene writers who did not consider themselves to be fathers of the Church.
Whenever these conversations come up I try to encourage people to remember that if you identify as a Christian you are actually identifying with a Jewish faith that has roots which extend far back beyond Pentecost.
Matthew wrote: "Whenever these conversations come up I try to encourage people to remember that if you identify as a Christian you are actually identifying with a Jewish faith that has roots which extend far back beyond Pentecost. "I didn't figure you were intending to be snarky, but, yes, I am familiar with Christian, as well as, Jewish, history. As far as saying that Christianity is basically Judaism, I must disagree; if that is what you are in fact claiming. Just a perusal of the Talmud would show that Christianity is far different than Rabbinic Judaism. So saying that it is a "Jewish faith" in terms of "Judaism" can only be a misnomer and might be anachronistic. There is much that is essential to the Christian faith that is denied by Rabbinic Judaism. And, indeed, there is plenty of evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was opposed to Pharisaism, which was what became normative Judaism. And, of course, the Talmud is blasphemous towards Christ.
Rod wrote: "Good point Edyj.Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son o..."
The word "catholic" here means "universal". Most liberal denominations do believe in all of these afaik. Not all early Christians believed in this though but those early dissidents were all exterminated a long time ago.
Xdyj wrote: "Most liberal denominations do believe in all of these akaik though nontrinitarian Christians don't."...Which would mean that the Apostolic and all "oneness" and Sabellian churches are non-Creedal and thus of questionable Christian standing. That is what I would claim. Also of questionable Christian standing would be Arian churches like the Jehovah's Witnesses and polytheistic churches like LDS.
Erick,
Sorry, I wasn't too clear. When I say Jewish I don't mean rabbinic, I mean Jewish in the sense that King David, the prophets, and the apostles were Jewish (or Israelites) and believed in the Jewish Messiah, the eschatological fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob etc.
The faith of the apostles which we call Christianity was completely rooted in biblical Judaism, something that the majority of the Church has left far behind. So if we are to go back to biblical Christianity as practiced by the apostles, then shouldn't we go back to biblical Judaism?
Sorry, I wasn't too clear. When I say Jewish I don't mean rabbinic, I mean Jewish in the sense that King David, the prophets, and the apostles were Jewish (or Israelites) and believed in the Jewish Messiah, the eschatological fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob etc.
The faith of the apostles which we call Christianity was completely rooted in biblical Judaism, something that the majority of the Church has left far behind. So if we are to go back to biblical Christianity as practiced by the apostles, then shouldn't we go back to biblical Judaism?
Matthew wrote: "The faith of the apostles which we call Christianity was completely rooted in biblical Judaism, something that the majority of the Church has left far behind. So if we are to go back to biblical Christianity as practiced by the apostles, then shouldn't we go back to biblical Judaism? "That would be a more acceptable definition, but my only issue would be whether or not the writers of the New Testament provided further elaboration and further revelation in addition to, or at least in clarification to, the Old Testament. I think they did do this.
Erick wrote: "my only issue would be whether or not the writers of the New Testament provided further elaboration and further revelation in addition to, or at least in clarification to, the Old Testament."
Yes, no doubt, those are critical questions to answer and it seems that how one answers them determines what Christianity "means."
I would suggest that this is where we have to do our most careful work and not assume that it has already been done.
Yes, no doubt, those are critical questions to answer and it seems that how one answers them determines what Christianity "means."
I would suggest that this is where we have to do our most careful work and not assume that it has already been done.
Matthew wrote: "I would suggest that this is where we have to do our most careful work and not assume that it has already been done. "I would agree; but I do think that the Church Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret the New Testament. The Creedal churches have defined Christian doctrine for 2,000 years I think. That has it's roots in the Church Fathers and what they did.
Erick wrote: "I would agree; but I do think that the Church Fathers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret the New Testament."
By Church Fathers do you mean Anti-Nicene writers? That is an interesting view. Can I ask what makes you think that they were inspired to interpret the New Testament and why we would need that?
By Church Fathers do you mean Anti-Nicene writers? That is an interesting view. Can I ask what makes you think that they were inspired to interpret the New Testament and why we would need that?
It is interesting that the world when they wrote the Creed and the religious world NOW is quite different (Christian Truth is similar though).A creed now has to carefully sort out Mormons, Liberals etc.
The Nicene Creed is still awesomely done. But the meaning of Catholic has indeed been heavily altered and dragged through the muck.
Matthew wrote: "By Church Fathers do you mean Anti-Nicene writers? That is an interesting view. Can I ask what makes you think that they were inspired to interpret the New Testament and why we would need that? "Not just the Ante-Nicene Fathers, but also the Nicene Fathers. Rod nailed it really. Almost every false doctrine was combated by them. Most pseudo-Christianities are just different flavors of the same errors that the Church Fathers dealt with.
Most people that I see who deny the authority of church tradition are usually guilty of holding non-Christian errors. Sometimes it's denying Christ's Divinity; other times it's denying the Trinity; or cherry picking texts in order to establish some false teaching etc.
Rod wrote: "It is interesting that the world when they wrote the Creed and the religious world NOW is quite different (Christian Truth is similar though).A creed now has to carefully sort out Mormons, Libera..."
If the purpose of a criteria is to excommunicate from Christianity all the people you dislike and deemed heretic, why not use "Christians are the people who agree with Rod"? :)
I think there's a serious danger in making Christianity too relativistic; then it no longer has any definition except the one somebody makes up. I see that as being a false Christianity. There is no longer any solidarity in idea. We can then just remove anything we like and add anything and it becomes a farce; an absolute joke, like many New Age religions. I think people who desire to do this are simply capricious, puerile and vain.
Matthew wrote: "Can I ask what makes you think that they were inspired to interpret the New Testament "Let me answer this more directly.
Let me first ask:
What makes you, or anyone else, preeminently inspired to interpret the New Testament? Do you believe you have more authority, personally, than the Church Fathers? Do you think somebody from the Hebrew roots movement has more authority? If so, why?
You'll encounter the same problem in answering those questions. What we as orthodox Christians have on our side is countless councils and established history. Not one Church Father can be singled out as formulating orthodox Christian doctrine; there were countless examples of Fathers all holding the same opinions at the same time; all interpreting the Bible pretty much the same way; often combating single individuals espousing errors. With cultic churches, you almost always have some single individual (e.g. Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, John Nelson Darby, et al.) attempting to establish novelties and errors; becoming, in point of fact, nothing more than a cult leader. Most of these errors aren't all that novel anyway; they are simply recycled falsehoods that have already been refuted with sound Spiritual reasoning by church theologians in the past. Almost anyone can pull anything out of the Bible and try to establish almost anything under the sun. Church tradition is a corrective and a mitigator of all such erroneous attempts.
One must be convicted Spiritually to either accept or reject what Christianity has been. I believe the Spirit has validated these particular ideas. That's enough for me. If one rejects it and tries to formulate some other Christianity, we have more than enough Christians that feel the genuine Holy Spirit conviction to reject all those formulations and combat them with sound Spiritual doctrine. That's how I feel about it. I think that is enough as far as I am concerned for me to accept orthodox Christianity.
Eric, I don't disagree with your premise of the importance of tradition. What I was more curious about was why pick the people who came after the apostles and prophets to understand the apostles and prophets?
Erick wrote: "Let me first ask:
What makes you, or anyone else, preeminently inspired to interpret the New Testament? Do you believe you have more authority, personally, than the Church Fathers? Do you think somebody from the Hebrew roots movement has more authority? If so, why?"
The Scriptures have preeminent authority, so I would go there first. Now, how do I interpret them? The same way the apostles and prophets did? They had the Spirit of God to guide them. That is the great part of the New Covenant.
I think this is what you are saying, right? The men you are referring to interpreted the Scriptures through the Spirit.
But so did the apostles and they also had tradition, and it was Jewish. So why not go back directly to what they taught and the traditions they drew from?
"One must be convicted Spiritually to either accept or reject what Christianity has been."
I think that is true, unfortunately, I think that if you rely on the people who came 50 to 300 years after the prophets and apostles at the expense of rejecting the teaching of the apostles that came before them, then you reject what was original Christianity.
Those original followers were all Jews and followed the customs and practices of the Jewish Messiah. That's not Hebrew roots, that just biblical roots.
BTW, just so no one misunderstands me, I am not advocating that Gentiles become Jews. That would completely go against God's plans. The Church needs both Jewish and Gentile believers and neither is better than the other, but they need each other.
The one significant danger I see in following the "Church fathers" is that many of them disconnected from the foundation of their faith and interpreted it through a non-Hebraic biblical world-view. Instead of being grafted into the existing olive tree (as Paul described), they basically started a new tree. I'm not suggesting that we through the baby out with the bathwater, but at least recognize that if you want original Christianity, you need to go back farther than the "Church Fathers."
Erick wrote: "Let me first ask:
What makes you, or anyone else, preeminently inspired to interpret the New Testament? Do you believe you have more authority, personally, than the Church Fathers? Do you think somebody from the Hebrew roots movement has more authority? If so, why?"
The Scriptures have preeminent authority, so I would go there first. Now, how do I interpret them? The same way the apostles and prophets did? They had the Spirit of God to guide them. That is the great part of the New Covenant.
I think this is what you are saying, right? The men you are referring to interpreted the Scriptures through the Spirit.
But so did the apostles and they also had tradition, and it was Jewish. So why not go back directly to what they taught and the traditions they drew from?
"One must be convicted Spiritually to either accept or reject what Christianity has been."
I think that is true, unfortunately, I think that if you rely on the people who came 50 to 300 years after the prophets and apostles at the expense of rejecting the teaching of the apostles that came before them, then you reject what was original Christianity.
Those original followers were all Jews and followed the customs and practices of the Jewish Messiah. That's not Hebrew roots, that just biblical roots.
BTW, just so no one misunderstands me, I am not advocating that Gentiles become Jews. That would completely go against God's plans. The Church needs both Jewish and Gentile believers and neither is better than the other, but they need each other.
The one significant danger I see in following the "Church fathers" is that many of them disconnected from the foundation of their faith and interpreted it through a non-Hebraic biblical world-view. Instead of being grafted into the existing olive tree (as Paul described), they basically started a new tree. I'm not suggesting that we through the baby out with the bathwater, but at least recognize that if you want original Christianity, you need to go back farther than the "Church Fathers."
Matthew wrote: "The Scriptures have preeminent authority, so I would go there first. Now, how do I interpret them? The same way the apostles and prophets did? They had the Spirit of God to guide them. That is the great part of the New Covenant.I think this is what you are saying, right? The men you are referring to interpreted the Scriptures through the Spirit. "
And how is that exactly?
Matthew wrote: "But so did the apostles and they also had tradition, and it was Jewish. So why not go back directly to what they taught and the traditions they drew from? "
To me you're dealing in ambiguities. You're saying go back to the prophets and apostles. But that is exactly what the issue is. How does one interpret these people? I don't think I can be clearer on what is at stake here. This is not an issue of establishing novel doctrine, it is about interpreting scripture. I think you are losing the point.
Matthew wrote: "I think that is true, unfortunately, I think that if you rely on the people who came 50 to 300 years after the prophets and apostles at the expense of rejecting the teaching of the apostles that came before them, then you reject what was original Christianity."
Once again, as I said, the issue is one of interpretation. So I still have no idea where you stand and what you are claiming. Who is fit to interpret scripture now? That is the question I was asking and I still am not getting a clear answer.
Matthew wrote: "Those original followers were all Jews and followed the customs and practices of the Jewish Messiah. That's not Hebrew roots, that just biblical roots."
Still need the same thing. Who is fit to interpret scripture now? You? Someone who is Jewish? Maybe a Messianic Jew? What are their qualifications? Talmudic tradition? If that isn't it, what is the basic qualification to interpret scripture now? If you say just reading the Bible, once again, it is an issue of whether scripture is being interpreted correctly. How does one know that it is, Matthew?
Matthew wrote: "The one significant danger I see in following the "Church fathers" is that many of them disconnected from the foundation of their faith and interpreted it through a non-Hebraic biblical world-view. Instead of being grafted into the existing olive tree (as Paul described), they basically started a new tree. I'm not suggesting that we through the baby out with the bathwater, but at least recognize that if you want original Christianity, you need to go back farther than the "Church Fathers." "
I disagree and I do not see a justification for what you are claiming here. Where do you get the insight as to what was Jewish tradition and how the Fathers departed from it? Does Jewish tradition teach the Trinity? If so, where can you find it exactly? How much do you know about what Jews believed at the time? Have you read through all the pseudepigrapha, aprocrypha and midrash? What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? I don't think you have read this material thoroughly enough to say you know what Jewish tradition was at the time and how the Church Fathers departed from it. I have read through this material and I think you are mainly coming from a particular ideological and religious persuasion, i.e. Hebrew roots. I don't think it is based on solid research. You are claiming the preeminence of Judaism but cannot show exactly what that means. I really would like to get a clear answer if there is substantial source authority that I can look to.
I say: read the bible carefully and enjoy the chaos. You can't get in line on judgement day and blame Joseph smith for your lack of Holy Spirit inspired scripture reading... Can't blame the Pope or Obama either --- simply, what did YOU do with God's Word.
Matthew,Earlier you said this:
Matthew wrote: "Erick,
Sorry, I wasn't too clear. When I say Jewish I don't mean rabbinic, I mean Jewish in the sense that King David, the prophets, and the apostles were Jewish (or Israelites)..."
Let me point this out:
David practiced polygamy and kept a harem. I don't believe that you are saying we should practice Davidic Judaism. That is the kind of thing Mormons believe though. At least, originally in practice, and they still do in principle. So I don't think we can literally practice Davidic Judaism. So what about the prophets? Elijah called fire down to burn up people (2 Kings 1:10-12). This is referred to in the New Testament and Jesus specifically disavows this sort of thing (Luke 9:54-55). So obviously this kind of prophetic Judaism is not condoned in the New Testament.
So what about Torah Judaism? Once again, the New Testament must speak for itself in it's interpretation of Judaism, and more specifically, of the New Covenant called Christianity.
Jesus has things to say about the Torah:
Divorce was accepted in the Torah:
Deuteronomy 24:1
Jesus denied the validity of this law:
Matthew 5:31-32
Taking oaths are allowed in the Torah:
Deuteronomy 23:21
Jesus denied it's validity:
Matthew 5:33-37
Stoning for adultery:
Leviticus 20:10
But read Jesus' edict:
John 8:3-11
What about the Torah on sabbath work?
Exodus 31:15
But see what Jesus says: John 5:16-17; Mark 2:27
Or how about the Torah law about an eye for an eye (Exodus 1:24-25)
And what does Jesus say? (Matthew 5:38-42)
And then there are the dietary laws (Leviticus chapter 11)
And what Jesus says about those (Mark 7:19).
Believing that the New Testament is simply a recapitulation of ancient Judaism is misguided and isn't borne out by New Testament scripture. We need to be more circumspect in making claims that are not validated by scripture itself.
Erick,
I appreciate your taking the time to answer and engage with me in this. I think this is such a large issue that it is hard to address every nuance in a few paragraphs, and I am not the most skilled at presenting a compact case. I think I need to be more clear about what I mean by Jewish.
So your main question seems to be "by what means or authority do I interpret Scripture?" My answer is by examining the text in light of its context and by the Spirit of God.
My argument is that both are necessary, and the context is not the context of the "Church Fathers" but the context of the Bible, which is a Hebraic cultural context.
Of course the Hebrew culture was diverse and varied greatly with regard to their own interpretations. But I am not suggesting that one should follow Pharisaical or rabbinic traditions, what I mean is that the Bible is the story of the Israelite's and their relationship with the Creator of the universe. It is a family story and we need to engage with it from their perspective. That does not mean that we agree with the wide variety of conclusions. I am simply asserting that we cannot interpret their discussions through a foreign lens.
I think the best way for me to address this is by addressing the examples you cite when you said,
"So what about Torah Judaism? Once again, the New Testament must speak for itself in it's interpretation of Judaism, and more specifically, of the New Covenant called Christianity."
I agree – Correct me if I am wrong, but I gather from the list you provided that you believe that these passages demonstrate that the NT tells us that the Torah was wrong or that Jesus changed the Torah in these passages. But that would be a terrible mistake.
Let's take Mark 7:19 for example:
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:19 NASB)
Many people interpret this to mean that Jesus declared that anything could be eaten, including things which were previously forbidden, such as pork or shrimp etc.
There are three problems with this interpretation:
1. What is food? In the Jewish mind, food was that which was prescribed in Lev. 11. Pork, shrimp, etc were never considered food. Therefore, "all foods clean" does not mean that non-foods were declared clean. If one reads this from a perspective that already believes that pork is food, then you have imposed a meaning that never existed in the biblical context.
2. What does "clean" mean? The word has a very specific meaning in Scripture. It does not mean allowable, it means that it will not defile you and make you unclean.
3. Most importantly, if Jesus was declaring all things edible, then He would have Himself been violating the Torah and could never be the Messiah! This is the major problem with interpreting anything Jesus said as if He disagreed with the Torah. Doing so would completely invalidate His claim to be the Messiah. Changing the Torah would violate it and thus make Jesus a sinner. Of course, Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Torah or change any part of it.
What you have referenced (divorce, taking oaths, stoning etc) are passages in which Jesus was rebuking them for interpreting the Torah by their traditions instead of by the Spirit. He was in no way saying that the Torah was wrong. He was saying that they were interpreting it incorrectly.
That is why it is vital to be careful with tradition, wherever it comes from, and get back to the Scriptures as our primary source for understanding the Scriptures. That is what I mean by biblical roots.
I appreciate your taking the time to answer and engage with me in this. I think this is such a large issue that it is hard to address every nuance in a few paragraphs, and I am not the most skilled at presenting a compact case. I think I need to be more clear about what I mean by Jewish.
So your main question seems to be "by what means or authority do I interpret Scripture?" My answer is by examining the text in light of its context and by the Spirit of God.
My argument is that both are necessary, and the context is not the context of the "Church Fathers" but the context of the Bible, which is a Hebraic cultural context.
Of course the Hebrew culture was diverse and varied greatly with regard to their own interpretations. But I am not suggesting that one should follow Pharisaical or rabbinic traditions, what I mean is that the Bible is the story of the Israelite's and their relationship with the Creator of the universe. It is a family story and we need to engage with it from their perspective. That does not mean that we agree with the wide variety of conclusions. I am simply asserting that we cannot interpret their discussions through a foreign lens.
I think the best way for me to address this is by addressing the examples you cite when you said,
"So what about Torah Judaism? Once again, the New Testament must speak for itself in it's interpretation of Judaism, and more specifically, of the New Covenant called Christianity."
I agree – Correct me if I am wrong, but I gather from the list you provided that you believe that these passages demonstrate that the NT tells us that the Torah was wrong or that Jesus changed the Torah in these passages. But that would be a terrible mistake.
Let's take Mark 7:19 for example:
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:19 NASB)
Many people interpret this to mean that Jesus declared that anything could be eaten, including things which were previously forbidden, such as pork or shrimp etc.
There are three problems with this interpretation:
1. What is food? In the Jewish mind, food was that which was prescribed in Lev. 11. Pork, shrimp, etc were never considered food. Therefore, "all foods clean" does not mean that non-foods were declared clean. If one reads this from a perspective that already believes that pork is food, then you have imposed a meaning that never existed in the biblical context.
2. What does "clean" mean? The word has a very specific meaning in Scripture. It does not mean allowable, it means that it will not defile you and make you unclean.
3. Most importantly, if Jesus was declaring all things edible, then He would have Himself been violating the Torah and could never be the Messiah! This is the major problem with interpreting anything Jesus said as if He disagreed with the Torah. Doing so would completely invalidate His claim to be the Messiah. Changing the Torah would violate it and thus make Jesus a sinner. Of course, Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Torah or change any part of it.
What you have referenced (divorce, taking oaths, stoning etc) are passages in which Jesus was rebuking them for interpreting the Torah by their traditions instead of by the Spirit. He was in no way saying that the Torah was wrong. He was saying that they were interpreting it incorrectly.
That is why it is vital to be careful with tradition, wherever it comes from, and get back to the Scriptures as our primary source for understanding the Scriptures. That is what I mean by biblical roots.
Erick wrote: "Believing that the New Testament is simply a recapitulation of ancient Judaism is misguided and isn't borne out by New Testament scripture.
I would never suggest that the NT is a recapitulation. What Jesus was doing was explaining the Spirit of Torah. He was providing the insight to help the people understand God's heart and the reasoning behind the Torah. That is the story we have entered into. God declared that the Torah is part of the New Covenant, however, it is written on our hearts and minds rather than on stone tablets (Jer. 31:33, Heb. 8:10).
So who has the authority to interpret the Scriptures? You do, if you have the Spirit of God dwelling in you. The problem we all face is that we find it hard to discern between the flesh and the Spirit. We typically read the Scriptures or find someone who explains them to us in a way we like, as opposed to just taking them for what they say.
Do the "Church fathers" contribute to our understanding the Scriptures, sure, sometimes. But sometimes they interpret things outside of the biblical context and thus, we need to check what they say, or anyone says, to see if it lines up with Scripture.
For example, Peter, who was present when Jesus spoke the words of Mark 7 and lived with Jesus for years, clearly did not believe that Jesus changed the food laws. In the vision of the sheet of all creatures, Peter responded to God's command to kill and eat by saying,
By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.(Acts 10:14 NASB)
Thus, years after the resurrection and Pentecost, Peter was still abiding by the Lev. 11 food laws. Did Peter really not get it? Should we believe him or someone like Augustine who said,
In this also the Jews carefully obeyed Moses, and so could not believe in Christ, who taught that all food is alike, and though he allowed no animal food to his own disciples, gave full liberty to the laity to eat whatever they pleased, and taught that men are polluted not by what goes into the mouth, but by the evil things which come out of it. In these and many other things the doctrine of Jesus, as everybody knows, contradicts that of Moses. (Augustine, reply to Faustus, Book XVI, 6)
I would never suggest that the NT is a recapitulation. What Jesus was doing was explaining the Spirit of Torah. He was providing the insight to help the people understand God's heart and the reasoning behind the Torah. That is the story we have entered into. God declared that the Torah is part of the New Covenant, however, it is written on our hearts and minds rather than on stone tablets (Jer. 31:33, Heb. 8:10).
So who has the authority to interpret the Scriptures? You do, if you have the Spirit of God dwelling in you. The problem we all face is that we find it hard to discern between the flesh and the Spirit. We typically read the Scriptures or find someone who explains them to us in a way we like, as opposed to just taking them for what they say.
Do the "Church fathers" contribute to our understanding the Scriptures, sure, sometimes. But sometimes they interpret things outside of the biblical context and thus, we need to check what they say, or anyone says, to see if it lines up with Scripture.
For example, Peter, who was present when Jesus spoke the words of Mark 7 and lived with Jesus for years, clearly did not believe that Jesus changed the food laws. In the vision of the sheet of all creatures, Peter responded to God's command to kill and eat by saying,
By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.(Acts 10:14 NASB)
Thus, years after the resurrection and Pentecost, Peter was still abiding by the Lev. 11 food laws. Did Peter really not get it? Should we believe him or someone like Augustine who said,
In this also the Jews carefully obeyed Moses, and so could not believe in Christ, who taught that all food is alike, and though he allowed no animal food to his own disciples, gave full liberty to the laity to eat whatever they pleased, and taught that men are polluted not by what goes into the mouth, but by the evil things which come out of it. In these and many other things the doctrine of Jesus, as everybody knows, contradicts that of Moses. (Augustine, reply to Faustus, Book XVI, 6)
Matthew,I do believe you are not being consistent with your interpretations; i.e. all foods are clean, but not clean (as if Jesus would have to declare that foods already thought clean were clean, when all Jews already knew what foods were kosher and not). Seems you believe an eye for an eye is still in force but so is turn the other cheek (utterly contradictory really). You also hold that Jews were interpreting divorce according to their Rabbinic laws even though the Torah clearly says it was permitted (Deuteronomy 24:1) and Jesus clearly attributed it to Moses (Matthew 19:8) and denied it's validity (19:9). You play fast and loose with the plain sense of the New Testament and seek to nullify it's meaning to re-institute legalism. I gave the citations in the Torah. Jesus clearly cited those verses and overturned them. To say He didn't, is simply to contradict Jesus' own words that show quite plainly that He was instituting something new and that those old laws were not applicable any longer for His followers in the New Covenant. To say anything other than that is to contradict Jesus and to return to the Jewish bondage (Galatians chapter 3 and 4) of the removed old covenant (Hebrews 10:9; Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:7-11; Ephesians 2:13-16). Sorry, that's what I think. Paul was far more worried about a Judaizing tendency in the early church than a Hellenizing one (Philippians 3:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:3 etc). The verse in Timothy Paul specifically cites food restrictions as a Judaizing trait. I think you are quite wrong as to the problem that the church faced in the earliest period. I think you are attempting to do exactly what Paul fought against. Yes, I think that is false doctrine.
If you say that Christians interpret scripture by the Spirit, but then deny it to the Church Fathers, that is also hardly consistent; it's simply denying it to one and giving it to another. It's an arbitrary application. You also once again divide what Paul said had no division in the New Convenant; i.e. that there is neither Jew nor Greek (Romans 10:12; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:14-16). You hold basically that only Jews can interpret scripture, and no one who was not Jewish in the early church could interpret scripture. That is utterly false. It makes the Spirit non-existent among the early gentile Christian thinkers and makes it only applicable to a contingent of people that have largely denied Christ for 2,000 years. What you are teaching is not New Testament scripture; it is at odds with the New Testament in fact.
Not much use in continuing this. Your idea of Christianity and mine are quite different. While you may seem to deny Talmudism, you still seek to validate the legalistic old covenant Judaism that Paul and Christ clearly replaced with the New Covenant of Christianity. Very little good will come of trying to re-institute what the New Testament removed. It's a doctrine of legalistic bondage.
You can reply if you like but I do not think you will say anything substantially new, so I am not going to revisit this discussion.
I wish you well.
Erick,
You have made a lot of assertions as to what I have said and believe that are simply untrue. I am sorry that you feel that you cannot have a conversation about these things. But whether you read this or not, I want to be clear about what I am saying as you have dramatically mischaracterized my position.
I am in no way suggesting that anyone return to the Mosaic covenant. As you pointed out, the Mosaic covenant is done, it's over. There is a new covenant. I think we all agree on that.
However, Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 declare that the new covenant was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. As Paul says in Romans 9:4, the covenants belong to them. Praise God that He also opened the door for Gentiles to participate in the new covenant, as Gentiles. Paul's concern in Galatians is that Gentiles were being compelled to be circumcised and therefore become Jews. That had been the practice under the Mosaic covenant and the only way a Gentile could fully participate in the covenant.
Through faith in Jesus, Gentiles were given access into the new covenant, but it was access to join the covenant made with Israel, i.e be grafted into the cultivated olive tree. The Galatians passage you cite says,
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 NASB)
Are there still not men and women? If Paul meant that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles vanished then why does he constantly refer to Gentile believers as Gentiles throughout his letters?
I have met many people who share a fear that you seem to have as well, i.e., that anyone interested in Torah is trying to convert non-Jews to Jews. That is not the case at all. The NT is clear that Jews are to remain Jews and Gentiles are to remain Gentiles. If you read Romans 11:30-32 you will see that Paul explains how God wants each group to reach the other, and therefore the distinctions are not only still present, they are necessary to fulfill God's plan. Where there is no distinction is in the admission process. There is no privileged class. All of faith are welcome.
BTW, I've written a book on this called The Ruth-Like Church: Discovering the Role of Christians in Israel's Redemption Within the Book of Ruth, and will offer to send anyone reading this a copy of it.
Now here is the part many people struggle with: Gentiles of faith were welcome into the new covenant, but once in, they were expected to follow the Torah that God wrote on their hearts and minds just as the believing Jews followed Torah.
Okay, so you hear that and freak out, but that is because you hear "follow Torah" and don't know what that means biblically, but instead read into that what people like many of the "Church fathers" read into it, which was "bondage under the Mosaic covenant."
But that is not what the Bible says at all. The Bible speaks over and over of the Torah being a blessing (just read Psalm 119) and a means to know God. Why would we throw that away? Why would Jesus and Paul say that the Torah is fulfilled by love if the Torah was not still important? Most Christians have been taught that the Torah is a curse because people don’t understand what Paul means when he says,
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13 NASB)
But this is why one must know the context, not just of Galatians but of Israel's history and culture. The word "Law" is nomos in Greek and it is the only word ever used to translate the Hebrew word Torah.
But "torah" can refer to the instructions, commandments, the first five books of Moses, the whole Scriptures and even the Mosaic covenant. So which one of these is Paul referring to? Most people jump straight to "the commandments." But then you have a big problem because Paul also says "the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." (Romans 7:12 NASB). And he even says "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God." (1 Corinthians 7:19 NASB)
So is he contradicting himself? No. In Galatians 3:13, Paul does not use nomos to mean "commandments," he uses it in reference to the Mosaic covenant, which is a curse to anyone who tries to go back to it. That's what the writer of Hebrews stresses as well. The covenant and the instructions in the covenant are not one and the same. That is a common misunderstanding that many people have.
Let me give you an example that can make this easy to see.
A person gets a cell phone and makes a contract (covenant) with the cell phone company for services. That covenant contains many details, including payment schedules and service provisions and restrictions and even penalties should certain statutes of the contract be violated.
In the next month the person uses the phone and racks up an enormous bill. They go to the cell phone company and insist on cancelling the contract. The salesperson talks them into a less expensive plan. So they cancel the old contract and make a new one. Now some things change, but most of the same stipulations are found in the new contract as in the old.
That is essentially the new covenant (NC). The Mosaic covenant (MC) had a high priest, so does the NC. The MC had a priesthood, so does the NC. Of course, the sacrificial system has been done away with, but that's like the expensive phone plan being replaced with a free plan. But just because the price is free doesn't mean that there are no longer rules that govern how the plan operates. Because the new contract is with the same company, a whole lot of the stipulations in the new contract will be the same as found in the old contract.
There is one more issue that I wish to clarify. We only need to keep the Torah to the extent that Jesus did. Now He kept it perfectly, and yes, He was the exception. But what I mean is that Jesus did not perform every commandment. He couldn’t. He was not a priest, or a woman, or a leper, or a land owner, or a murderer or a sinner etc. So He never had to "do" all of the commandments dedicated to those people. He only had to follow the commandments which applied to Him and not violate any commandments.
That is all we need to do. This eliminates a lot of the commandments. But many still remain that we can do, and the apostles followed them and regularly encouraged their disciples to follow them as well. In fact, as you no doubt know, much of the early church beyond the apostles still kept the feasts and the Sabbath and the dietary laws.
The problem with following the Torah is that the Torah is not explicit on exactly how to keep many of the commandments. For example, what does work on the Sabbath mean? What defines work? How did Moses, the elders of Israel, Joshua and the prophets answer these questions? Rabbinical Judaism says it was through the oral tradition handed down to Moses which they later called the Oral Law.
But the Bible says it was by the Spirit of God which He had given them (e.g. Num. 11). That is exactly how we are to know as well. That is exactly what Jesus was explaining in all the passages in which you think He was abolishing the Torah. He was not abolishing it, He was explaining how to interpret it—there is a huge difference. What He showed was that the Torah was meant to be understood by the Spirit. Hence the Torah is spiritual!
Finally, you failed to address the most serious issue which is that if you believe that Jesus was the sinless Lamb of God, then by definition He could not have violated any part of the Torah. This includes the prohibition against changing the Torah found in Deut. 4:2 and 12:32.
So when you say that Jesus "overturned commandments" in the Torah, what you are actually saying is that Jesus was a sinner and is not the Messiah He claimed to be. I am sorry, but such a position clearly disqualifies anyone from rightfully declaring themselves a Christian, a.k.a. follower of Messiah. I hope you reconsider.
You have made a lot of assertions as to what I have said and believe that are simply untrue. I am sorry that you feel that you cannot have a conversation about these things. But whether you read this or not, I want to be clear about what I am saying as you have dramatically mischaracterized my position.
I am in no way suggesting that anyone return to the Mosaic covenant. As you pointed out, the Mosaic covenant is done, it's over. There is a new covenant. I think we all agree on that.
However, Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 declare that the new covenant was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. As Paul says in Romans 9:4, the covenants belong to them. Praise God that He also opened the door for Gentiles to participate in the new covenant, as Gentiles. Paul's concern in Galatians is that Gentiles were being compelled to be circumcised and therefore become Jews. That had been the practice under the Mosaic covenant and the only way a Gentile could fully participate in the covenant.
Through faith in Jesus, Gentiles were given access into the new covenant, but it was access to join the covenant made with Israel, i.e be grafted into the cultivated olive tree. The Galatians passage you cite says,
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 NASB)
Are there still not men and women? If Paul meant that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles vanished then why does he constantly refer to Gentile believers as Gentiles throughout his letters?
I have met many people who share a fear that you seem to have as well, i.e., that anyone interested in Torah is trying to convert non-Jews to Jews. That is not the case at all. The NT is clear that Jews are to remain Jews and Gentiles are to remain Gentiles. If you read Romans 11:30-32 you will see that Paul explains how God wants each group to reach the other, and therefore the distinctions are not only still present, they are necessary to fulfill God's plan. Where there is no distinction is in the admission process. There is no privileged class. All of faith are welcome.
BTW, I've written a book on this called The Ruth-Like Church: Discovering the Role of Christians in Israel's Redemption Within the Book of Ruth, and will offer to send anyone reading this a copy of it.
Now here is the part many people struggle with: Gentiles of faith were welcome into the new covenant, but once in, they were expected to follow the Torah that God wrote on their hearts and minds just as the believing Jews followed Torah.
Okay, so you hear that and freak out, but that is because you hear "follow Torah" and don't know what that means biblically, but instead read into that what people like many of the "Church fathers" read into it, which was "bondage under the Mosaic covenant."
But that is not what the Bible says at all. The Bible speaks over and over of the Torah being a blessing (just read Psalm 119) and a means to know God. Why would we throw that away? Why would Jesus and Paul say that the Torah is fulfilled by love if the Torah was not still important? Most Christians have been taught that the Torah is a curse because people don’t understand what Paul means when he says,
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13 NASB)
But this is why one must know the context, not just of Galatians but of Israel's history and culture. The word "Law" is nomos in Greek and it is the only word ever used to translate the Hebrew word Torah.
But "torah" can refer to the instructions, commandments, the first five books of Moses, the whole Scriptures and even the Mosaic covenant. So which one of these is Paul referring to? Most people jump straight to "the commandments." But then you have a big problem because Paul also says "the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." (Romans 7:12 NASB). And he even says "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God." (1 Corinthians 7:19 NASB)
So is he contradicting himself? No. In Galatians 3:13, Paul does not use nomos to mean "commandments," he uses it in reference to the Mosaic covenant, which is a curse to anyone who tries to go back to it. That's what the writer of Hebrews stresses as well. The covenant and the instructions in the covenant are not one and the same. That is a common misunderstanding that many people have.
Let me give you an example that can make this easy to see.
A person gets a cell phone and makes a contract (covenant) with the cell phone company for services. That covenant contains many details, including payment schedules and service provisions and restrictions and even penalties should certain statutes of the contract be violated.
In the next month the person uses the phone and racks up an enormous bill. They go to the cell phone company and insist on cancelling the contract. The salesperson talks them into a less expensive plan. So they cancel the old contract and make a new one. Now some things change, but most of the same stipulations are found in the new contract as in the old.
That is essentially the new covenant (NC). The Mosaic covenant (MC) had a high priest, so does the NC. The MC had a priesthood, so does the NC. Of course, the sacrificial system has been done away with, but that's like the expensive phone plan being replaced with a free plan. But just because the price is free doesn't mean that there are no longer rules that govern how the plan operates. Because the new contract is with the same company, a whole lot of the stipulations in the new contract will be the same as found in the old contract.
There is one more issue that I wish to clarify. We only need to keep the Torah to the extent that Jesus did. Now He kept it perfectly, and yes, He was the exception. But what I mean is that Jesus did not perform every commandment. He couldn’t. He was not a priest, or a woman, or a leper, or a land owner, or a murderer or a sinner etc. So He never had to "do" all of the commandments dedicated to those people. He only had to follow the commandments which applied to Him and not violate any commandments.
That is all we need to do. This eliminates a lot of the commandments. But many still remain that we can do, and the apostles followed them and regularly encouraged their disciples to follow them as well. In fact, as you no doubt know, much of the early church beyond the apostles still kept the feasts and the Sabbath and the dietary laws.
The problem with following the Torah is that the Torah is not explicit on exactly how to keep many of the commandments. For example, what does work on the Sabbath mean? What defines work? How did Moses, the elders of Israel, Joshua and the prophets answer these questions? Rabbinical Judaism says it was through the oral tradition handed down to Moses which they later called the Oral Law.
But the Bible says it was by the Spirit of God which He had given them (e.g. Num. 11). That is exactly how we are to know as well. That is exactly what Jesus was explaining in all the passages in which you think He was abolishing the Torah. He was not abolishing it, He was explaining how to interpret it—there is a huge difference. What He showed was that the Torah was meant to be understood by the Spirit. Hence the Torah is spiritual!
Finally, you failed to address the most serious issue which is that if you believe that Jesus was the sinless Lamb of God, then by definition He could not have violated any part of the Torah. This includes the prohibition against changing the Torah found in Deut. 4:2 and 12:32.
So when you say that Jesus "overturned commandments" in the Torah, what you are actually saying is that Jesus was a sinner and is not the Messiah He claimed to be. I am sorry, but such a position clearly disqualifies anyone from rightfully declaring themselves a Christian, a.k.a. follower of Messiah. I hope you reconsider.
I meet a lot of religious spiritual folk, or those who only embrace a very small portion of a secular humanistic Jesus, or those who embrace the legalistic aspects of church law --- yet SIMPLY DON'T KNOW JESUS.
...or, how do you know you ARE a Christian?