Christians Who Deny the Veracity of the Old Testament

[Koyaanisqatsi]

For someone who claims to be Christian, you show no indication that you have ever actually read your Bible. Do you just make up what you think it should say then assume and declare that it does?

17 “*Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

~ A statement by Jesus according to Matthew 5:17-20 English Standard Version (ESV)

Perhaps you would like to link to where in the Bible Jesus said not to follow the laws of Moses. The above quote certainly shows that he said we should.

The link is there *, if you read it - and who says to do away with them? If one can follow them, then thats just fine (who can actually follow them?) Fortunately God knew this would be difficult imo so to speak,.. so by following Jesus's "two greatest commandments", you would more or less follow the previous laws anyway, perhaps even without realising.

Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 *All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Wow. That's some mighty fine tap dancing, son. Or should I say "in line" skating? The only problem with it is that you just earned the least spot in heaven. But, I guess, you'd still be in heaven, so you get a get out of hell free card for that utter nonsense, so good on ya

 

[Sarpedon]

The thing is... we (humankind) have failed previous laws "already" e.g. as according to the theology, several covenants "broken" henceforth, God must "keep" HIS word ... His part of the covenant .. no retractions or breaking HIS word or agreement. Failure to keep the commandments is death! However, there is "salvation" (because we can't keep to the covenants) i.e. through Jesus Christ. That is all it is really, to understand.

That seems to be a quite different arrangement than what you described: Following NT is equivalent to following OT. This seems to be a rather sophisticated bit of sophistry. You don't want to follow the OT. You claim that previous generations already 'failed,' so a new deal was offered. You then claim that the old one is invalidated by previous generation's failure. (how does that absolve you?) But the very person who offered the new deal said the old remains in force! (And, need I point out, that he uses the word 'Law,' which would seem to be contrary to your claim that its essentially a renegotiated deal)

Tell me, why should we heed the dire threats that you make towards unbelievers, when it is clearly evident that you are trying to wriggle out of following the rules of the religion you claim to believe in?

 

[ideologyhunter]

How does the Matthew 22 quote explicitly allow Jesus' hearers to abandon the 600+ laws of the Torah? If he meant that, why didn't he say that? (Not that one should be sure that any Jesus quote is accurately reported in the Bible.) The gospels seem to show us that followers of Jesus should embrace Judaism -- he was celebrating a Jewish high holy day the night before he was executed, wasn't he? What Christians do that? He (allegedly) had a ministry that had a commission to his disciples to preach only to Jews -- he apparently wore Jewish holy garb -- was interested in reinstituting the 12 tribes of Israel (what Christian cares about that?) -- but, oh yeah, at the very end, his followers have a vision of him going up to heaven and hollering down a commandment to preach the word to all people. Fake news.

 

[Politesse]

How does the Matthew 22 quote explicitly allow Jesus' hearers to abandon the 600+ laws of the Torah? If he meant that, why didn't he say that? (Not that one should be sure that any Jesus quote is accurately reported in the Bible.) The gospels seem to show us that followers of Jesus should embrace Judaism -- he was celebrating a Jewish high holy day the night before he was executed, wasn't he? What Christians do that? He (allegedly) had a ministry that had a commission to his disciples to preach only to Jews -- he apparently wore Jewish holy garb -- was interested in reinstituting the 12 tribes of Israel (what Christian cares about that?) -- but, oh yeah, at the very end, his followers have a vision of him going up to heaven and hollering down a commandment to preach the word to all people. Fake news.

Jesus does not seem to have had the same idea about the true nature of the Torah as does a modern literalist; much of the non-sermon material of the gospels consists of he and his disciples ought not to by the literal word of the Hebrew Scriptures. The latter half of every gospel text is him openly arguing with and ultimately being executed by the very powers that the written Scriptures appoint as his divinely endorsed judges and sovereigns. If we're trying to establish intent, for whatever reason, I think it is hard to make the case that Jesus ever intended to reinforce the system of the temple priests. His ministry seemed squarely aimed at undermining them and their approach to public morality.

The question you should be asking is, what is "the Law"? To whom does it really belong, and who enforces it? Is it a self-appointed priest? Is it a book written by a self-appointed priest? Is it a pastor who farts out his own personal opinions and then uses that book as divine justification for greed and bigotry? Or is the true Law that governs the universe perhaps a higher principle? Perhaps a higher principle than could ever be captured in a book of rules written and promoted by powerful men?

When Jesus says that a "jot or tittle" cannot be removed from the true Law, what is it you even think he means? Jots and tittles can obviously be removed from books, it happens routinely, whether by accident or intention. Censorship, copying errors, disputed canons, translation. Whatever may be said of books, it is certainly possible to edit them. But Jesus says that Torah cannot (not should not, or ought not) be edited by the hand of man. Whence comes your case, then, that he is talking about a book when he talks about Torah?

 

[Sarpedon]

Whence comes your case, then, that he is talking about a book when he talks about Torah?

The FACT that the written word is and always has been revered as semi-divine in monotheistic tradition? Even though the 'Torah' as we know it had not yet been compiled, there is no reason to think that the reverence for written word is a new development. (if you would like to make that case, I'd be very interested to hear it!)

C'mon, you can't argue that scripture is the word of god one minute and then argue that the written word has no significance the next. This is yet another example of religious people saying whatever suits their needs at a particular moment, rather than consistently defending a concrete and meaningful worldview.

 

[Politesse]

Whence comes your case, then, that he is talking about a book when he talks about Torah?

The FACT that the written word is and always has been revered as semi-divine in monotheistic tradition? Even though the 'Torah' as we know it had not yet been compiled, there is no reason to think that the reverence for written word is a new development. (if you would like to make that case, I'd be very interested to hear it!)

C'mon, you can't argue that scripture is the word of god one minute and then argue that the written word has no significance the next. This is yet another example of religious people saying whatever suits their needs at a particular moment, rather than consistently defending a concrete and meaningful worldview.

I didn't say that there weren't any written Scriptures, only that Jesus' teachings are not aimed at elevating them. Jesus was obviously aware that many revered the written word. Most of his teachings are about how this idolatrous tendency results in hypocrisy and vanity.

I have never claimed that the "Scripture is the word of god", and am not answerable for those who do. Frankly, I don't think they spend much time actually reading the books they worship. John 1 is clear about the identity of the Logos, and it isn't a book.

 

[Sarpedon]

I understand that christians who come here to argue often believe novel heresies. You have to understand that I don't waste my time arguing against one-man sects, I argue against the mental structure that religion rests upon, whether or not a particular person happens to believe in a particular pillar or not. What can't be denied is that the written word IS revered. And there are consequences to knocking down that particular pillar: namely, that once it is gone your entire worldview rests on you alone. You can claim that you have Jesus too, but unless you claim that he speaks to you, (a problematic claim) it is an empty claim. The written word is how religion is transmitted. If it isn't holy, then how can you be sure your religion is genuine?

Your denial of the sanctity of scripture would be considered blasphemous by most monotheists. While frankly, I agree with you in that bibliotry is like idolatry, having the same opinion as an atheist would do you little good in an ecclesiastical court.

And anyway, the fact that you willy-nilly discard this pillar of your religion (and it would be folly to say that the sacredness of scripture is not absolutely central to Christianity as most christians understand it) as it suits you does nothing to invalidate my argument that religious people make and discard arguments as it suits them.

 

[Learner]

Wow. That's some mighty fine tap dancing, son. Or should I say "in line" skating? The only problem with it is that you just earned the least spot in heaven. But, I guess, you'd still be in heaven, so you get a get out of hell free card for that utter nonsense, so good on ya

Hmmm so you don't take to my response, I see from the "little" quote above . No probs, each to his own.

 

[Politesse]

I understand that christians who come here to argue often believe novel heresies. You have to understand that I don't waste my time arguing against one-man sects, I argue against the mental structure that religion rests upon, whether or not a particular person happens to believe in a particular pillar or not. What can't be denied is that the written word IS revered. And there are consequences to knocking down that particular pillar: namely, that once it is gone your entire worldview rests on you alone. You can claim that you have Jesus too, but unless you claim that he speaks to you, (a problematic claim) it is an empty claim. The written word is how religion is transmitted. If it isn't holy, then how can you be sure your religion is genuine?

Every person's religion, or non-religion, is to some extent their own invention. I'm just aware of that fact. It it genuine in that it is based on real and true things, uncertain in that not just myself but all human minds are too limited to really comprehend the infinite except through models, painted in cultural outlines and metaphorical hues.

Your denial of the sanctity of scripture would be considered blasphemous by most monotheists.

OH NO! Not blasphemy! My position on ecclesiastical courts should be clear enough given my above stated position on people propping up their political power with a claim of divine endorsement. I don't decide what to believe on the basis of what powerful men can do to me if they disagree, and neither do you.

I note that data doesn't exactly back up your specific point though. I mean, are we still talking about the Hebrew Scriptures here? Because much of the Western Christian church has liberalized, and the Muslim world considers the HS inspired but adulterated by later forces, hence the need for the Holy Qur'an. Literalism was never a "pillar" of my tradition as I learned it, even as a child, but if it were, I would have discarded it. Thoughtless faith is meaningless faith in my opinion.

While frankly, I agree with you in that bibliotry is like idolatry, having the same opinion as an atheist would do you little good in an ecclesiastical court.

Having the same opinions as atheists has seldom done me any harm. If they do manage to take over, I'll happily take my stand with y'all.

 

[Learner]

The thing is... we (humankind) have failed previous laws "already" e.g. as according to the theology, several covenants "broken" henceforth, God must "keep" HIS word ... His part of the covenant .. no retractions or breaking HIS word or agreement. Failure to keep the commandments is death! However, there is "salvation" (because we can't keep to the covenants) i.e. through Jesus Christ. That is all it is really, to understand.

That seems to be a quite different arrangement than what you described: Following NT is equivalent to following OT. This seems to be a rather sophisticated bit of sophistry. You don't want to follow the OT. You claim that previous generations already 'failed,' so a new deal was offered. You then claim that the old one is invalidated by previous generation's failure. (how does that absolve you?) But the very person who offered the new deal said the old remains in force! (And, need I point out, that he uses the word 'Law,' which would seem to be contrary to your claim that its essentially a renegotiated deal)

Tell me, why should we heed the dire threats that you make towards unbelievers, when it is clearly evident that you are trying to wriggle out of following the rules of the religion you claim to believe in?

Not wriggling:

Post # 40 to scepticalbip should have been the response to your early post as well. e.g. The bit about Jesus did not come to abolish the law etc..

The laws remain ... to be Judged By! We have failed quite a few,you know like sex before marriage in your early teens and lusts in mens hearts etc.etc.. So therefore, and as often phrased: Jesus is the only way ..(who would declare you before God on your behalf on judgement - after accepting Jesus and repenting , sort of thing)

 

[Learner]

How does the Matthew 22 quote explicitly allow Jesus' hearers to abandon the 600+ laws of the Torah? If he meant that, why didn't he say that? (Not that one should be sure that any Jesus quote is accurately reported in the Bible.) The gospels seem to show us that followers of Jesus should embrace Judaism -- he was celebrating a Jewish high holy day the night before he was executed, wasn't he? What Christians do that? He (allegedly) had a ministry that had a commission to his disciples to preach only to Jews -- he apparently wore Jewish holy garb -- was interested in reinstituting the 12 tribes of Israel (what Christian cares about that?) -- but, oh yeah, at the very end, his followers have a vision of him going up to heaven and hollering down a commandment to preach the word to all people. Fake news.

There are Gods laws and covenants and then there are local governing laws. Surely you wouldn't include the US constitution or similar laws as a believer. (or would you? by the looks of your quote)

 

[Sarpedon]

I note that data doesn't exactly back up your specific point though. I mean, are we still talking about the Hebrew Scriptures here? Because much of the Western Christian church has liberalized, and the Muslim world considers the HS inspired but adulterated by later forces, hence the need for the Holy Qur'an. Literalism was never a "pillar" of my tradition as I learned it, even as a child, but if it were, I would have discarded it. Thoughtless faith is meaningless faith in my opinion.

I meant the written word of scripture in general, whichever happens to be your scripture. For Christianity, that includes the Hebrew Scriptures. For Islam, it does not. And I accept that belief that scripture is divine does not necessarily equal that it must be literal. To unmoor faith from scripture seems to be a catastrophic break for religion as an institution. Tell me, while you may have rejected it in your life, can't you at least acknowledge the importance of the belief among the general population? And speculate on what might happen to religion if EVERYONE were to do as you have done?

 

[Politesse]

Tell me, while you may have rejected it in your life, can't you at least acknowledge the importance of the belief among the general population?

You're the one pretending I am unaware of this, not me.... And that seems like a change of subject to me anyhow. The OP is explicitly about the Hebrew Scriptures and the awkward relationship Christians have with it.

And speculate on what might happen to religion if EVERYONE were to do as you have done?

The world would be a much, much better place. More peaceful, certainly. You have a very self-contradicting position, both for and against the virtue of independent thought.

 

[repoman]

Is any of this related to the Christian Identity cultish movement?

 

[Sarpedon]

You are imposing the worldview of your imagining on me. I am very much in favor of independent thought. I am not arguing in favor of religious institutions in any way. I agree that the world would be a better place if everyone did as you did...BUT I think that in that world, Christianity wouldn't exist.

You see, you are far from the first christian with these non conforming views to come on this site, and I have to say that I have become accustomed to their modes of thought, as I have been here and talking to them for 17 years. What I see is that there is an institution called Christianity (more properly, a bunch of related institutions) which is in a continual state of producing and shedding members, like a big, shaggy dog. (or perhaps a spider plant would be a better analogy, as occasionally, the shed members take root and grow) Just as you can find hairs when the dog is nowhere around, that doesn't mean that the hairs exist independently of the dog.

I think that if every christian did as you did, then the institution of Christianity would collapse in short order. Even though you and people like you would try to raise up children to still be christians, without the social pressures created by the institution, numbers would quickly dwindle and the religion would become extinct, within a few generations. You recognize that the institution is wrong and oppressive, yet you fail to discard the beliefs it imposed upon you even after rejecting it. In short, the difference between you and me is that you think that faith is independent of a religious institution, while I think that religious institutions produce faith through acculturation. If you are right, Christianity can indeed survive after the institutions are gone. If I am right, in a world without religious institutions, the concept of 'faith' will seem primitive and harmful, and over the course of a few generations will die out or become marginalized. I believe that what is happening in the world now supports my view more than yours.

So, you see that I am NOT changing the subject. I am addressing the subject from my point of view, different from yours. You don't see the rejection of scripture as problematic, as you have done so and are still faithful. I see it as problematic for Christianity in a broader sense, as widespread rejection of scripture will damage the institution, on a macro scale. As an atheist on a personal level, of course, I don't see this as a negative outcome.

 

[Politesse]

You are imposing the worldview of your imagining on me. I am very much in favor of independent thought. I am not arguing in favor of religious institutions in any way. I agree that the world would be a better place if everyone did as you did...BUT I think that in that world, Christianity wouldn't exist.

You see, you are far from the first christian with these non conforming views to come on this site, and I have to say that I have become accustomed to their modes of thought, as I have been here and talking to them for 17 years. What I see is that there is an institution called Christianity (more properly, a bunch of related institutions) which is in a continual state of producing and shedding members, like a big, shaggy dog. (or perhaps a spider plant would be a better analogy, as occasionally, the shed members take root and grow) Just as you can find hairs when the dog is nowhere around, that doesn't mean that the hairs exist independently of the dog.

I think that if every christian did as you did, then the institution of Christianity would collapse in short order. Even though you and people like you would try to raise up children to still be christians, without the social pressures created by the institution, numbers would quickly dwindle and the religion would become extinct, within a few generations. You recognize that the institution is wrong and oppressive, yet you fail to discard the beliefs it imposed upon you even after rejecting it. In short, the difference between you and me is that you think that faith is independent of a religious institution, while I think that religious institutions produce faith through acculturation. If you are right, Christianity can indeed survive after the institutions are gone. If I am right, in a world without religious institutions, the concept of 'faith' will seem primitive and harmful, and over the course of a few generations will die out or become marginalized. I believe that what is happening in the world now supports my view more than yours.

So, you see that I am NOT changing the subject. I am addressing the subject from my point of view, different from yours. You don't see the rejection of scripture as problematic, as you have done so and are still faithful. I see it as problematic for Christianity in a broader sense, as widespread rejection of scripture will damage the institution, on a macro scale. As an atheist on a personal level, of course, I don't see this as a negative outcome.

If a rise of informed, independent thought would crush Christianity, then it obviously deserves to be crushed.

I don't have any children, but if I did, I hope I would raise them to keep their own counsel on things as well.

Your railing against faith is a bit ironic considering the utter... conviction? you have in your own views. Obviously, faith does not require a religious institution to exist. Society requires institutions, but I disagree that they must be oppressive in character.

I don't see how your description of Christianity as continually losing and gaining members distinguishes it in any way from any other institution, religious or secular, that has ever existed.

I don't "reject" Scripture, I just don't fetishize it either. Even after more than a decade participating in secularist fora, it is still humorous to me when I hear Baptist dogma word-for-word from atheist lips.

 

[Sarpedon]

And I am eternally amused at the parade of theists who come in here, all the same, who cherry pick which beliefs that suit them, and pretend that what we atheists believe is somehow the same as their self serving grab bag of religious beliefs. You discard the bits that are inconvenient and pretend this makes you a freethinker, rather than taking it to the logical conclusion.

I desperately wanted to keep believing, and played every trick on myself that I could think of to do so. Only when I changed my point of view, which is now my go-to strategy to understand something that doesn't seem to make sense, could I cut through my own lies to see the truth that I so wanted not to see.

The primary difference between your beliefs and mine are that you pick what you believe to suit yourself. I had to reinvent myself to fit what I came, against my will, to believe. I was a christian, because I was made a christian. That is all. And yet it was sincere on my part. I really believed. Again, your point of view is different. You don't think the only reason you are a christian was because you were raised as such. What makes you feel uncomfortable is that I understand your point of view, because mine was once very similar, but you don't understand mine, which is why you misinterpret my emphasis on the importance of scripture to monotheism as it exists as me being somehow as closeminded as a Baptist. My position is that an institutional adherence to scripture produces a robust and consistent culture that aids in perpetuating the religion over time. That non-conforming christians would not exist if there weren't an institution made up of conforming christians to produce them. That is all. But you want to make it into something else, because you so desperately need to dismiss my point of view as you have already done so with the Baptists.

And why can't I agree with the Baptists on this point? I'm a freethinker after all. No one is wrong all the time, not even them. In this case, both I and the Baptists have the evidence on our side; Religious institutions are collapsing, and non-religion is rising. Correlation does not equal causation, but if I'm right about the mechanisms, it is a cause and effect relationship. If I'm wrong about the mechanisms, please explain how.

And of course, I didn't mean to say that Christianity was different from any other institution...but, of course, isn't it YOU who are a christian, who should be saying that Christianity is different from other, false religions? You have Jesus, don't you? Shouldn't Christianity be different? It is the very similarity of Christianity to other systems that caused me to start doubting it in the first place!

If you want me to say something I have faith in, here it is: The world makes sense. If you can't see how, change your point of view!

 

[Politesse]

And I am eternally amused at the parade of theists who come in here, all the same, who cherry pick which beliefs that suit them, and pretend that what we atheists believe is somehow the same as their self serving grab bag of religious beliefs.

Whom else should I serve? There are principles that I would happily serve, but never for a man. I was not born to that kind of life, and was quite lucky to have been born in such a time and place that men like me are allowed to persist. And yes, that attitude is also a product of my time and culture, and unlikely to arise in another.

You discard the bits that are inconvenient and pretend this makes you a freethinker, rather than taking it to the logical conclusion.

I discard things that I see as wrong, foolish, or immoral. And yes, that does make me a freethinker by any reasonable definition.

The primary difference between your beliefs and mine are that you pick what you believe to suit yourself. I had to reinvent myself to fit what I came, against my will, to believe. I was a christian, because I was made a christian. That is all. And yet it was sincere on my part. I really believed. Again, your point of view is different. You don't think the only reason you are a christian was because you were raised as such.

No, it stands to reason that my faith would resemble that of my parents to some degree. Christian faith is no more or less an accident of history than any other philosophical position. I think you are projecting your younger self onto me, as nothing you are writing here is a position I hold.

And of course, I didn't mean to say that Christianity was different from any other institution...but, of course, isn't it YOU who are a christian, who should be saying that Christianity is different from other, false religions?

I never said anything of the sort, nor believe it. Again with the projection. I do not think our youths were in many ways similar, if you did believe such things at one time. You're the only one in this conversation who insists that rational consideration must lead to your own viewpoint.

If you want me to say something I have faith in, here it is: The world makes sense. If you can't see how, change your point of view!

Ah! And to what institution do you owe this faith? I cannot say I agree, personally. The world is under no compulsion to make sense to anyone, and it strikes me as rather arrogant to imagine that reality itself will bend its knee to make itself more easily comprehensible to a tiny subset of the living beings that inhabit it. If I awoke one morning with an over-riding feeling that "everything makes sense now", my second assumption (once I had calmed down a bit) would be that I am probably missing something and have experienced a false epiphany, and try to remember whether I had consumed any LSD the previous night.

 

[Sarpedon]

I think that since we are both doing little but accusing each other of misinterpreting and projecting, we had better do a little cooling off before continuing.

 

[DBT]

For my two bob contribution today I'll say the word "faith" is often conflated with justified belief or trust, which unlike faith, are based on evidence.