You all convinced me, I'm now an Atheist!!!

[Davka]

There is disagreement between Jesus and Paul on this point in the NT writings. But the real break comes early in the Book of Acts, where Peter has a vision of a big-assed picnic-blanked covered with "unclean" (non-Kosher) food coming down from Heaven, and a Voice telling him to eat it. I think he was channeling Weird Al.

Wait, so some Christians think Paul seeing some tasty bacon = the entire OT is not required now?

Pretty much.

That and Paul's whole rant on the subject, in which he says that the Torah (law) was a baby-sitter for the Jews until Jesus came along. Paul pretty much ignores everything Jesus said on the subject in the Gospels, leading to the conclusion that Paul never actually read the Gospels.

[Drich]

Where exactly does the idea that the OT doesn't apply to us anymore come from? And, is this just another issue of "this sect interprets it this way, and this sect interprets it another way"?

There is disagreement between Jesus and Paul on this point in the NT writings. But the real break comes early in the Book of Acts, where Peter has a vision of a big-assed picnic-blanked covered with "unclean" (non-Kosher) food coming down from Heaven, and a Voice telling him to eat it. I think he was channeling Weird Al.

Book chapter and verse (no paraphrasing)

---

Oh, wonderful, now we get a paraphrased interpretation that calls itself 'teh wholly babble'!

It just keeps getting better.

project much?

---

Wait, so some Christians think Paul seeing some tasty bacon = the entire OT is not required now?

Pretty much.

That and Paul's whole rant on the subject, in which he says that the Torah (law) was a baby-sitter for the Jews until Jesus came along. Paul pretty much ignores everything Jesus said on the subject in the Gospels, leading to the conclusion that Paul never actually read the Gospels.

again BCV

[FatAndFaithless]

Wait, so some Christians think Paul seeing some tasty bacon = the entire OT is not required now?

Pretty much.

That and Paul's whole rant on the subject, in which he says that the Torah (law) was a baby-sitter for the Jews until Jesus came along. Paul pretty much ignores everything Jesus said on the subject in the Gospels, leading to the conclusion that Paul never actually read the Gospels.

So those who claim to "follow the canonical teachings of Jesus", would reject the idea that the Old Testament is no longer required. And conversely, those who follow Paul's idea that Jesus fulfilled the law and now we don't have to pay attention to it would say... what? That they just find Paul's ideas more appealing? I would've thought that Jesus would have the final say on this kind of thing seeing as he is God.

[Davka]

Pretty much.

That and Paul's whole rant on the subject, in which he says that the Torah (law) was a baby-sitter for the Jews until Jesus came along. Paul pretty much ignores everything Jesus said on the subject in the Gospels, leading to the conclusion that Paul never actually read the Gospels.

So those who claim to "follow the canonical teachings of Jesus", would reject the idea that the Old Testament is no longer required. And conversely, those who follow Paul's idea that Jesus fulfilled the law and now we don't have to pay attention to it would say... what? That they just find Paul's ideas more appealing? I would've thought that Jesus would have the final say on this kind of thing seeing as he is God.

This is one of the many contradictions that occur when you slap together an anthology of writings from various sources across a thousand-plus years and call them "inspired scripture." Then you're forced to reconcile all those contradictions via hand-waving and pretzel logic.

The NT has a whole bunch of arguments regarding the Law. Jesus says that not even the tiniest Hebrew letter ('jot,' or yod) or diacritic ('tittle') will pass away, and that he came to fulfill the Law (torah). Since the Early Church only began to grow when they stopped trying to convert the Jews and went instead to the Gentiles, they had to deal with this problem somehow.

Gentiles didn't want to keep the Torah. It's a pain in the ass, and you can't eat bacon. Paul actually calls out Peter on the issue at one point, because Peter was hanging out with Gentiles and eating lots of yummy pork when he thought nobody was looking, but would suddenly get all pious and Orthodox Jewish when Paul (or the other Jewish disciples) came around.

So when the time came to decide which books were inspired and which weren't (hint: the ones that gave centralized power to Rome were inspired), the Church Fathers had to try to reconcile the Law that YHWH said was forever and ever with the actual practices of Gentile Christians. the result is an entertaining clusterfuck.

[FatAndFaithless]

So those who claim to "follow the canonical teachings of Jesus", would reject the idea that the Old Testament is no longer required. And conversely, those who follow Paul's idea that Jesus fulfilled the law and now we don't have to pay attention to it would say... what? That they just find Paul's ideas more appealing? I would've thought that Jesus would have the final say on this kind of thing seeing as he is God.

This is one of the many contradictions that occur when you slap together an anthology of writings from various sources across a thousand-plus years and call them "inspired scripture." Then you're forced to reconcile all those contradictions via hand-waving and pretzel logic.

The NT has a whole bunch of arguments regarding the Law. Jesus says that not even the tiniest Hebrew letter ('jot,' or yod) or diacritic ('tittle') will pass away, and that he came to fulfill the Law (torah). Since the Early Church only began to grow when they stopped trying to convert the Jews and went instead to the Gentiles, they had to deal with this problem somehow.

Gentiles didn't want to keep the Torah. It's a pain in the ass, and you can't eat bacon. Paul actually calls out Peter on the issue at one point, because Peter was hanging out with Gentiles and eating lots of yummy pork when he thought nobody was looking, but would suddenly get all pious and Orthodox Jewish when Paul (or the other Jewish disciples) came around.

So when the time came to decide which books were inspired and which weren't (hint: the ones that gave centralized power to Rome were inspired), the Church Fathers had to try to reconcile the Law that YHWH said was forever and ever with the actual practices of Gentile Christians. the result is an entertaining clusterfuck.

Yeesh. That sounds like it would be a perfect opportunity for people to extract what meaning they wanted the most, and then prop that up as the correct meaning while reaping the benefits of being the head of their own sect--- oh...right.

[Davka]

This is one of the many contradictions that occur when you slap together an anthology of writings from various sources across a thousand-plus years and call them "inspired scripture." Then you're forced to reconcile all those contradictions via hand-waving and pretzel logic.

The NT has a whole bunch of arguments regarding the Law. Jesus says that not even the tiniest Hebrew letter ('jot,' or yod) or diacritic ('tittle') will pass away, and that he came to fulfill the Law (torah). Since the Early Church only began to grow when they stopped trying to convert the Jews and went instead to the Gentiles, they had to deal with this problem somehow.

Gentiles didn't want to keep the Torah. It's a pain in the ass, and you can't eat bacon. Paul actually calls out Peter on the issue at one point, because Peter was hanging out with Gentiles and eating lots of yummy pork when he thought nobody was looking, but would suddenly get all pious and Orthodox Jewish when Paul (or the other Jewish disciples) came around.

So when the time came to decide which books were inspired and which weren't (hint: the ones that gave centralized power to Rome were inspired), the Church Fathers had to try to reconcile the Law that YHWH said was forever and ever with the actual practices of Gentile Christians. the result is an entertaining clusterfuck.

Yeesh. That sounds like it would be a perfect opportunity for people to extract what meaning they wanted the most, and then prop that up as the correct meaning while reaping the benefits of being the head of their own sect--- oh...right.

[Drich]

Pretty much.

That and Paul's whole rant on the subject, in which he says that the Torah (law) was a baby-sitter for the Jews until Jesus came along. Paul pretty much ignores everything Jesus said on the subject in the Gospels, leading to the conclusion that Paul never actually read the Gospels.

So those who claim to "follow the canonical teachings of Jesus", would reject the idea that the Old Testament is no longer required. And conversely, those who follow Paul's idea that Jesus fulfilled the law and now we don't have to pay attention to it would say... what? That they just find Paul's ideas more appealing? I would've thought that Jesus would have the final say on this kind of thing seeing as he is God.

what is so hard to understand here? I will break it all down in easy one or two sentence explainations. ask a question on the parts that confuse you.

The OT IS REQUIRED!!!

The OT didn't contain just the rules/a list of thou shalts and thou shalt nots...

The OT Also contained the Requirements for attoning of sin, as well as the consenquence for sin.

The OT shows us that the price of all Sin is Death.

In the OT for small sin the death of an animal would be good enough to keep the sinner for being stoned to death.

Meaning once the animal died the sinner was not longer responsible for that sin. The animal took the punishment for the sinner.

For large sin the blood of an animal was not enough to attone for those sins. This meant the sinner was to be put to death.

Again if one sins, someone/Something had to die as the penality for all sin is Death.

When Jesus completed the Law, He provided a sin sacrifice good enough for all sin past present and future till the end of Man's time on Earth.

Once Christ did this, the measure of 'righteousness' was moved from following the law to what was in your heart. (Because as the story of the rich young ruler shows us. It is possible for one to follow the whole law, and still not have a heart for God.)

God what's your heart, not your lip service.

Now with the law still in place but completely attoned for (for believers only) the measure of righteousness then becomes about what is in one's heart.

If you heart is about God then you will do what you can to follow God's rules. (The Moral Law)

However following the rules (by itself) is not the path to righteousness any more. Why? Because when Jesus completed the Law He made it impossible to follow the rules as a means to righteousness. Meaning if we commit just one sin our whole life, our just punishment is death.

[Esquilax]

It means:
to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

What where those promises?
Prophesy concerning atonement. If you like I have a few sites that can step you through all of these prophesies.

"To cause god's will to be obeyed as it should be"? You mean, the god's will that was laid down in the old testament, for whom the only previous expressions of will that Jesus could be referring to would be in the old testament?

Again, the issue isn't the words, so much as your interpretation of them; your assertion that causing god's will to be obeyed means discarding the previous record of that will is bizarre, and not supported even in the translation you've given here.

[Drich]

It means:
to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

What where those promises?
Prophesy concerning atonement. If you like I have a few sites that can step you through all of these prophesies.

"To cause god's will to be obeyed as it should be"? You mean, the god's will that was laid down in the old testament, for whom the only previous expressions of will that Jesus could be referring to would be in the old testament?

Again, the issue isn't the words, so much as your interpretation of them; your assertion that causing god's will to be obeyed means discarding the previous record of that will is bizarre, and not supported even in the translation you've given here.

No we do not discard anything.

I think the problem you guys are having is that you see the law as a list of requirements to get to heaven. The old catholic idea of a good old fashion Check list theology. where one has to follow the list to obtain the goal.

This is not what is in the bible. Paul shows us how to keep/fullfill the whole law and still have attonement be the means to our salvation and not the check list theology be the means in which we are saved. But for this we you must be willing to read through the book of romans from beginning to end.

The short answer lies in the understanding that the 'law' was more than just a list of do's and dont's. The law also made room for attonement. You guys only see the do's and dont's. If you live by the whole law then attonement is apart of said living. If one has the perfect attonement, then the law ceases to be the measure of righteousness, because ALL SINS Are Forgiven. So what then is judged? The Heart.

Again the rich young ruler showed it is possible to live by the law and not give God your Heart. God doesn't want anything to do with that type of person per Paul again in the book of Romans.

[FatAndFaithless]

So your actions on earth, however moral or otherwise, are meaningless unless you give God your heart?