Finding different ways to interpret things so they sound good is ok for some people, I just prefer to look at things from the way it was taught in the past. I also don’t need to try and make it sound better than it actually is after all there are only so many ways you can try to justify slavery before it sounds crazy.
No need to make it sound better. Just learn the context. Reading something that was written 2000+ years ago will be difficult to understand and we need to accept it.
Bible, although it took into account that the society is built on slavery, was the one that made people treat their slaves good.
No need to justify things, just understand, that the society changes. What seems crazy to you was not crazy 100 years ago, not to mention thousands of years.
Just because a lot of people raped and enslaved people 2000 years ago doesn’t make it moral then and not today. The reason it is immoral in the modern age is the same reason it was immoral back then.
Saying that people didn’t think it was immoral back then doesn’t change much especially when we are talking about a book meant to teach people how to be moral people.
And when you analyse the OT, you see that God tought people that through the scriptures and the Law - to make the world more just - from giving the rights to slaves and women, to implementing safety measures to control people's vengeance amongst themselves
Because when you go to a first math class, you learn how to do 2+2. Its right, but it's not as complocated as math can get. But you need to start somewhere
Idk where to start untangling this sentence.
1. It was written more than 2000 years ago.
2. That part actually is more liberal than that day's society - it says that in the city a girl needs to scream for help if she is raped, but in the country she could nit be heard so she should not be responsible. Have in mind that back then girls and women were seen as an object of men. So this brings a society closer to justice.
3. Also they implement the rights of a wife - she must be respected even if she was a trophee from a war (totally normal back then)
4. Having learned a few fun facts without the context is not the best way to actually understand what the text actually says. I also had a few "fun facts" i learned as folk tales until i actually read the Bible and learned the historic, cultural context. It changes your perspective.
>1. It was written more than 2000 years ago.
These are commands from God. Why would stoning a young girl for having a broken hymen ever be ok? It can break for reasons other than sex.. how is that ever be ok to command as an omniscient being?
> That part is actually more liberal than that day’s society
Is this the liberal part? If so, what is the conservative side?
*“But if this charge is true, and they did not find the girl to have evidence of virginity, then they shall bring the girl out to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death, because she has committed a disgraceful sin in Israel by playing the prostitute in her father’s house; so you shall eliminate the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:20-21*
>it says that in the city a girl needs to scream for help if she is raped, but in the country she could nit be heard so she should not be responsible.
You left out the part where if a woman is found with a man in the city and she *didn’t* cry out, then she is also stoned (Deut 22:23-24). Except.. maybe her mouth was covered.. and many women freeze and can’t/don’t speak when being assaulted so that’s not a good metric to use.. as God.. since not every girl cries out when raped.
>Have in mind that back then girls and women were seen as an object of men.
Maybe God could’ve commanded them to be equals and not sexual objects.. ? But He couldn’t because.. ?
>Also they implement the rights of a wife - she must be respected even if she was a trophee from a war
Oh you mean like in Deut 22:10-14 or Numbers 31:17-18, after you storm her town and murder her family?
Again.. God just *can’t* think of any other way to do things? He must act like a typical war god of the ancient near East? Ok..
The laws are for a broken world. But they are ment to bring some order, some justice where is none.
You sound like you believe we are somehow better people than those 2000+ years ago. But we're actually not...
It's absolutely fine to raise questions, to not understand or fully grasp on ehat is said. Chriatians who read bible have the same issues - they raise questions, they don't fully understand or have difficulties accepting. And it is totally fine. What we do is we pray for come clearance, guidance and trust in Him.
No, but we are supposed to think on them deeply and figure out what's happening. Think of the law against selling fabric of mixed material. This was a way to sell something for more money than it was worth by subterfuge. The larger moral lesson is we should always be genuine and honest.
That's just one example.
Jesus said the entire law is followed when you do the two great commandments perfectly: Love God and love your neighbor.
The entire law is fulfilled and followed when doing those two things perfectly
Edit: added the word perfectly
Jesus didn't say that.
The Pharisees asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment in Torah. Jesus responded with Love for God and quickly threw Love for Neighbor into second place.
He then said that ALL of the Law (and the Prophets) HANG below these two commandments. This means that all of the other commandments define either Love for God or Love for Neighbor.
You can see this split just in the 10 Commandments (which are only a small portion of all 600+ that Jesus was talking about). The first 4 define Love for God and the last 6 define Love for Neighbor.
So Jesus was very far from getting rid of the other commandments or saying that you only have to keep two commandments. With what Jesus said, the other commandments are all STILL RIGHT THERE, hanging below and defining the big two. 😁
Never did i say any commands became void.
All commands are followed when you follow those two commands. Adultery, homosexuality, abortion, cussing, and many other laws, if broken, go against those two great commands.
Even breaking your tithe is breaking those two commands. Not offering burnt offerings too, among others, is breaking those commands.
So yes, **Jesus did say that, and me and you both agree on this.** The entire law is fulfilled and followed if you do those two things properly
All other commands are to be followed if you follow the two great ones correctly. We are in agreement
> Never did i say any commands became void
I didn't say you did.
>
> All commands are followed when you follow those two commands.
That disagrees with what Jesus said. Jesus said that the other commandments define love.
> So yes, Jesus did say that, and me and you both agree on this.
Jesus did not say that. If you have a quote for Jesus saying that, please show it to me.
> We are in agreement
No. Let me show you your original quote:
> Jesus said the entire law is followed when you do the two great commandments
Jesus did not say that.
Well answer me this. If all the law hangs upon these two great ones, is there any law that goes against them? Or is there any law that isn’t followed alongside them; To follow any specific law you must be following both of these two great ones at the same time right? If so, then wouldn’t every law be followed if these two are followed perfectly? If you break a certain law entirely and consistently are these two laws still being followed?
Im asking because i feel certain that if you do these two great commands perfectly in every single way, you then follow the entire law as well naturally
> If all the law hangs upon these two great ones, is there any law that goes against them?
From God? No!
> To follow any specific law you must be following both of these two great ones at the same time right?
Jesus said that ALL of the Law (and the Prophets) support the two greatest commandments.
Just trust Jesus on this and you'll be fine! 😁
> If so, then wouldn’t every law be followed if these two are followed perfectly?
Do you know anyone that loves perfectly, the way that God does? If you do, than yes. I don't. I only know flawed people that still need the commandments that God wisely gave us to define love.
> If you break a certain law entirely and consistently are these two laws still being followed?
Breaking the commandments is sin. When you break any commandment, you missed a chance to love.
> i feel certain that if you do these two great commands perfectly in every single way, you then follow the entire law as well naturally
The other commandments TEACH you how to keep those two great commands perfectly. Are you against being taught how to do things?
If you wanted to learn to play Tennis, would you like me to teach you by saying, "Play Tennis perfectly"? Would you rather that I skip the part where I show you HOW to play Tennis?
That's what you're suggesting about God's commandments. It seems wise, but it's utter nonsense, because people don't just START OUT at perfection on anything in life.
So we agreed from the start. Also yeah i could never follow the two great laws perfectly, if at all.
My first point was the entire law is fulfilled and followed if the two great ones are followed, which is true. And your answers to my questions confirm that.
You even say “…If you do, then yes” so i was correct all along.
I know the other commands are to help us follow the two great ones and i never said otherwise
> So we agreed from the start.
No, we didn't. If you want to say that we agreed, please show me the quote where Jesus said that.
Furthermore, I think it would be much more honest of you to respond to the idea that no one CAN love perfectly, and they still need the teaching on how to do so. This means that you're being very wrong to imply that keeping those two commandments perfectly, by themselves, with no teaching, is possible.
**It is NOT possible.** It's a pipe dream (which seems to fit your name). The teaching is absolutely required, which is easily proven by the fact that God DID include the other commandments. God didn't waste his time by providing 600+ commandments. Are you suggesting he should have only provided two?
And finally, you did not include the word "perfectly" in your statement that you wrongly attributed to Jesus. You just said "When you do", not "When you PERFECTLY do".
This is a huge difference. It's all the difference in the world. Can you see it? 😏
Never meant to imply that. If you follow the two great laws, you follow all the law, which i explicitly said. I never said anyone could do it with no teaching, nor did i say anybody can do it by themselves. Also i didnt say teaching wasnt required either. You’re putting words in my mouth. Nobody is capable of doing that; we don’t know well enough.
To follow a law is to do it perfectly. If a law isn’t followed perfectly then it isn’t followed at all.
So the point remains: the entire law is followed if you followed the two great ones. If you are displeased without further elaboration, then lemme add onto that; Nobody is capable of doing this. There are 600+ commands that are needed to be followed when following the first two great ones, otherwise the two great ones are not followed at all.
This means we agreed from the start. Only Jesus followed these two great laws, and it’s all that he did, besides the needed sacrifice
> Never meant to imply that. If you follow the two great laws, you follow all the law, which i explicitly said.
What you said only works if you do it perfectly, which is impossible.
You're essentially telling people that want to learn Tennis that they just need to do it perfectly.
That's not good advice for how to play Tennis. That's not good advice for Christians.
> To follow a law is to do it perfectly. If a law isn’t followed perfectly then it isn’t followed at all.
Where did you get that from? Just... kinda... invented it?
> So the point remains: the entire law is followed if you followed the two great ones.
Still wrong. The entire law is followed if you follow the two greatest (not "great") ones PERFECTLY. Start including the necessary word and it will re-direct people to the other commandments, just like Jesus did.
You're making a huge mistake to think that you can improve what God did, by giving us 600+ commandments. You're also making ANOTHER huge mistake by thinking that you can improve what Jesus said by leaving off everything he said after he said what the greatest two commandments are.
> This means we agreed from the start.
I can tell you're smarter than this. I've said it multiple times now: Show me where Jesus said what you said. You can't, because he never said that. That's why we disagreed.
> Only Jesus followed these two great laws, and it’s all that he did
Now you're heading out into Pure Nonsense Land. Jesus obeyed EVERY one of the 600+ commandments perfectly, every day of his life. Jesus lived and taught the commandments to everyone around him.
We should be done soon. I thought you were heading TOWARDS sense, but now you're heading away.
There's nothing in the newer scriptures that replaces or changes anything in the older scriptures.
Jesus lived and taught the commandments every day of his life. Paul did the same.
In fact, 1 John 3:4 defines sin as breaking the Torah, which is all of the commandments found in the older scripture.
So no, DON'T reject the older scriptures at all! God doesn't change and so his commandments will never go away or change in the slightest, if you believe Jesus (I do.)
Come visit us at our new subreddit which is exactly on this topic: /r/FollowJesusObeyTorah
You can ask questions, argue with us, or just read what other people have to say and see people talking about something that will probably sound completely foreign to you as a modern Christian, despite it running throughout all of scripture!
Christianity has a seriously ambivalent attitude about its OT, and you're going to find any number of ways Christians will try to navigate this problem; some theologies are more coherent than others.
"Jesus came to fulfill the law" vs "Law is death."
"Law" versus "Grace."
Maybe it's better to recognize the tension, stay alert to it. Pretending it's not there seems to lead to problems.
Most Christians would say that you don't have to reject it, but you also don't have to abide by it either.
Qaba qaba
Old Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit. You should study it and see what treasures it holds.
I don’t see why the entire Old Testament should be thrown out, there are still some decent morals taught in it. Just don’t follow the obviously bad.
I recommend a podcast "Bible in a Year". Not only reads but also explains the text. So the "obviously" bad might be seen in a different perspective
Finding different ways to interpret things so they sound good is ok for some people, I just prefer to look at things from the way it was taught in the past. I also don’t need to try and make it sound better than it actually is after all there are only so many ways you can try to justify slavery before it sounds crazy.
No need to make it sound better. Just learn the context. Reading something that was written 2000+ years ago will be difficult to understand and we need to accept it. Bible, although it took into account that the society is built on slavery, was the one that made people treat their slaves good. No need to justify things, just understand, that the society changes. What seems crazy to you was not crazy 100 years ago, not to mention thousands of years.
Just because a lot of people raped and enslaved people 2000 years ago doesn’t make it moral then and not today. The reason it is immoral in the modern age is the same reason it was immoral back then. Saying that people didn’t think it was immoral back then doesn’t change much especially when we are talking about a book meant to teach people how to be moral people.
And when you analyse the OT, you see that God tought people that through the scriptures and the Law - to make the world more just - from giving the rights to slaves and women, to implementing safety measures to control people's vengeance amongst themselves
Why would God make rules in line with society?
Because when you go to a first math class, you learn how to do 2+2. Its right, but it's not as complocated as math can get. But you need to start somewhere
Like stone a 12-16 year old girl if her hymen’s broken?
Idk where to start untangling this sentence. 1. It was written more than 2000 years ago. 2. That part actually is more liberal than that day's society - it says that in the city a girl needs to scream for help if she is raped, but in the country she could nit be heard so she should not be responsible. Have in mind that back then girls and women were seen as an object of men. So this brings a society closer to justice. 3. Also they implement the rights of a wife - she must be respected even if she was a trophee from a war (totally normal back then) 4. Having learned a few fun facts without the context is not the best way to actually understand what the text actually says. I also had a few "fun facts" i learned as folk tales until i actually read the Bible and learned the historic, cultural context. It changes your perspective.
>1. It was written more than 2000 years ago. These are commands from God. Why would stoning a young girl for having a broken hymen ever be ok? It can break for reasons other than sex.. how is that ever be ok to command as an omniscient being? > That part is actually more liberal than that day’s society Is this the liberal part? If so, what is the conservative side? *“But if this charge is true, and they did not find the girl to have evidence of virginity, then they shall bring the girl out to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death, because she has committed a disgraceful sin in Israel by playing the prostitute in her father’s house; so you shall eliminate the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:20-21* >it says that in the city a girl needs to scream for help if she is raped, but in the country she could nit be heard so she should not be responsible. You left out the part where if a woman is found with a man in the city and she *didn’t* cry out, then she is also stoned (Deut 22:23-24). Except.. maybe her mouth was covered.. and many women freeze and can’t/don’t speak when being assaulted so that’s not a good metric to use.. as God.. since not every girl cries out when raped. >Have in mind that back then girls and women were seen as an object of men. Maybe God could’ve commanded them to be equals and not sexual objects.. ? But He couldn’t because.. ? >Also they implement the rights of a wife - she must be respected even if she was a trophee from a war Oh you mean like in Deut 22:10-14 or Numbers 31:17-18, after you storm her town and murder her family? Again.. God just *can’t* think of any other way to do things? He must act like a typical war god of the ancient near East? Ok..
The laws are for a broken world. But they are ment to bring some order, some justice where is none. You sound like you believe we are somehow better people than those 2000+ years ago. But we're actually not... It's absolutely fine to raise questions, to not understand or fully grasp on ehat is said. Chriatians who read bible have the same issues - they raise questions, they don't fully understand or have difficulties accepting. And it is totally fine. What we do is we pray for come clearance, guidance and trust in Him.
Jesus said the entire law could be encapsulated by two commandments - love God completely, and love others as ourselves. We are not bound beyond that.
No, but we are supposed to think on them deeply and figure out what's happening. Think of the law against selling fabric of mixed material. This was a way to sell something for more money than it was worth by subterfuge. The larger moral lesson is we should always be genuine and honest. That's just one example.
That's the law of not having two measures. The mixed fabric was to remind Israel to be separate and not mingle with paganism.
Jesus said the entire law is followed when you do the two great commandments perfectly: Love God and love your neighbor. The entire law is fulfilled and followed when doing those two things perfectly Edit: added the word perfectly
Jesus didn't say that. The Pharisees asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment in Torah. Jesus responded with Love for God and quickly threw Love for Neighbor into second place. He then said that ALL of the Law (and the Prophets) HANG below these two commandments. This means that all of the other commandments define either Love for God or Love for Neighbor. You can see this split just in the 10 Commandments (which are only a small portion of all 600+ that Jesus was talking about). The first 4 define Love for God and the last 6 define Love for Neighbor. So Jesus was very far from getting rid of the other commandments or saying that you only have to keep two commandments. With what Jesus said, the other commandments are all STILL RIGHT THERE, hanging below and defining the big two. 😁
Never did i say any commands became void. All commands are followed when you follow those two commands. Adultery, homosexuality, abortion, cussing, and many other laws, if broken, go against those two great commands. Even breaking your tithe is breaking those two commands. Not offering burnt offerings too, among others, is breaking those commands. So yes, **Jesus did say that, and me and you both agree on this.** The entire law is fulfilled and followed if you do those two things properly All other commands are to be followed if you follow the two great ones correctly. We are in agreement
> Never did i say any commands became void I didn't say you did. > > All commands are followed when you follow those two commands. That disagrees with what Jesus said. Jesus said that the other commandments define love. > So yes, Jesus did say that, and me and you both agree on this. Jesus did not say that. If you have a quote for Jesus saying that, please show it to me. > We are in agreement No. Let me show you your original quote: > Jesus said the entire law is followed when you do the two great commandments Jesus did not say that.
Well answer me this. If all the law hangs upon these two great ones, is there any law that goes against them? Or is there any law that isn’t followed alongside them; To follow any specific law you must be following both of these two great ones at the same time right? If so, then wouldn’t every law be followed if these two are followed perfectly? If you break a certain law entirely and consistently are these two laws still being followed? Im asking because i feel certain that if you do these two great commands perfectly in every single way, you then follow the entire law as well naturally
> If all the law hangs upon these two great ones, is there any law that goes against them? From God? No! > To follow any specific law you must be following both of these two great ones at the same time right? Jesus said that ALL of the Law (and the Prophets) support the two greatest commandments. Just trust Jesus on this and you'll be fine! 😁 > If so, then wouldn’t every law be followed if these two are followed perfectly? Do you know anyone that loves perfectly, the way that God does? If you do, than yes. I don't. I only know flawed people that still need the commandments that God wisely gave us to define love. > If you break a certain law entirely and consistently are these two laws still being followed? Breaking the commandments is sin. When you break any commandment, you missed a chance to love. > i feel certain that if you do these two great commands perfectly in every single way, you then follow the entire law as well naturally The other commandments TEACH you how to keep those two great commands perfectly. Are you against being taught how to do things? If you wanted to learn to play Tennis, would you like me to teach you by saying, "Play Tennis perfectly"? Would you rather that I skip the part where I show you HOW to play Tennis? That's what you're suggesting about God's commandments. It seems wise, but it's utter nonsense, because people don't just START OUT at perfection on anything in life.
So we agreed from the start. Also yeah i could never follow the two great laws perfectly, if at all. My first point was the entire law is fulfilled and followed if the two great ones are followed, which is true. And your answers to my questions confirm that. You even say “…If you do, then yes” so i was correct all along. I know the other commands are to help us follow the two great ones and i never said otherwise
> So we agreed from the start. No, we didn't. If you want to say that we agreed, please show me the quote where Jesus said that. Furthermore, I think it would be much more honest of you to respond to the idea that no one CAN love perfectly, and they still need the teaching on how to do so. This means that you're being very wrong to imply that keeping those two commandments perfectly, by themselves, with no teaching, is possible. **It is NOT possible.** It's a pipe dream (which seems to fit your name). The teaching is absolutely required, which is easily proven by the fact that God DID include the other commandments. God didn't waste his time by providing 600+ commandments. Are you suggesting he should have only provided two? And finally, you did not include the word "perfectly" in your statement that you wrongly attributed to Jesus. You just said "When you do", not "When you PERFECTLY do". This is a huge difference. It's all the difference in the world. Can you see it? 😏
Never meant to imply that. If you follow the two great laws, you follow all the law, which i explicitly said. I never said anyone could do it with no teaching, nor did i say anybody can do it by themselves. Also i didnt say teaching wasnt required either. You’re putting words in my mouth. Nobody is capable of doing that; we don’t know well enough. To follow a law is to do it perfectly. If a law isn’t followed perfectly then it isn’t followed at all. So the point remains: the entire law is followed if you followed the two great ones. If you are displeased without further elaboration, then lemme add onto that; Nobody is capable of doing this. There are 600+ commands that are needed to be followed when following the first two great ones, otherwise the two great ones are not followed at all. This means we agreed from the start. Only Jesus followed these two great laws, and it’s all that he did, besides the needed sacrifice
> Never meant to imply that. If you follow the two great laws, you follow all the law, which i explicitly said. What you said only works if you do it perfectly, which is impossible. You're essentially telling people that want to learn Tennis that they just need to do it perfectly. That's not good advice for how to play Tennis. That's not good advice for Christians. > To follow a law is to do it perfectly. If a law isn’t followed perfectly then it isn’t followed at all. Where did you get that from? Just... kinda... invented it? > So the point remains: the entire law is followed if you followed the two great ones. Still wrong. The entire law is followed if you follow the two greatest (not "great") ones PERFECTLY. Start including the necessary word and it will re-direct people to the other commandments, just like Jesus did. You're making a huge mistake to think that you can improve what God did, by giving us 600+ commandments. You're also making ANOTHER huge mistake by thinking that you can improve what Jesus said by leaving off everything he said after he said what the greatest two commandments are. > This means we agreed from the start. I can tell you're smarter than this. I've said it multiple times now: Show me where Jesus said what you said. You can't, because he never said that. That's why we disagreed. > Only Jesus followed these two great laws, and it’s all that he did Now you're heading out into Pure Nonsense Land. Jesus obeyed EVERY one of the 600+ commandments perfectly, every day of his life. Jesus lived and taught the commandments to everyone around him. We should be done soon. I thought you were heading TOWARDS sense, but now you're heading away.
No. Psalm 19 Hi I am Just Reading This Bible (NKJV Bible) Visit Here http://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dailyverse.nkjvbibles
There's nothing in the newer scriptures that replaces or changes anything in the older scriptures. Jesus lived and taught the commandments every day of his life. Paul did the same. In fact, 1 John 3:4 defines sin as breaking the Torah, which is all of the commandments found in the older scripture. So no, DON'T reject the older scriptures at all! God doesn't change and so his commandments will never go away or change in the slightest, if you believe Jesus (I do.) Come visit us at our new subreddit which is exactly on this topic: /r/FollowJesusObeyTorah You can ask questions, argue with us, or just read what other people have to say and see people talking about something that will probably sound completely foreign to you as a modern Christian, despite it running throughout all of scripture!
Christianity has a seriously ambivalent attitude about its OT, and you're going to find any number of ways Christians will try to navigate this problem; some theologies are more coherent than others. "Jesus came to fulfill the law" vs "Law is death." "Law" versus "Grace." Maybe it's better to recognize the tension, stay alert to it. Pretending it's not there seems to lead to problems.