The 613 Biblical Commandments

[steve_bank]

The first believers were Jewish heretics. In the gospels JC was a knowledgeable rabbi.

From what I read in a history of Christianity over the first century with urbanization believers developed an identity separate from Jews, and coopted the OT as exclusively their own.

As I understand the reasoning, the Jews were the chosen people of god. When Jesus came along the Old Mosaic Cotenant with god, Torah or Old Testament , was replaced by a new covenant or testament that was open to all through Jesus. The gospels represented a new bargain with god that ended Mosaic Law.Jews missed the boat so to speak.

I heard a Christian say that the Leviticus dietary laws no longer applied because the old covenant no longer applied. Of course then why persecute gays. It is the Chinese menu approach in Christianity.

Though, that is a Reformation-era doctrine; Most Christians, being Roman Catholic, hold to a more Thomistic view which considers "moral law" binding and eternal but "ceremonial law" to be passing, and made irrelevant by ultimate fulfillment of ceremonial law in Christ's sacrifice. The New Testament is not considered a "new covenant" but rather a "new testament" to an already existing moral constant for which we are still responsible.

I grew up Catholic in the 50s/60s. The pope's word was god's word.

No meat on Friday back then.

Thomas Aquinas in his day was the pope's theological hit man. His Job was to go around debating those who did not toe the papal line. He also tried to reconcile the Greeks with Christianity. A good example of the bastardization of Christian, a jumbled mess of a thousand years of theology none biblical based.

In recent years American Catholic politicians have been threatened with loss of sacraments if they did not vote Vatican lines.

Same old power wielding RCC. It is called Roman for a reason, the RCC was modeled on the Roman hierarchical authoritarian power structure. Jesuits became and are the enforcers.

 

[steve_bank]

When I was a child my father said I had to (commanded me to) hold his hand while crossing the road. He also commanded me not to talk to strangers. And he forbade me from attempting joy rides in the family car. I was expressly forbidden from going near the fire place/matches or boiling water.

Yesterday I crossed the road without holding his or anyone else's hand, I freely spoke to strangers. I drove a car to and from my destination and when I got home I lit the fire and boiled a kettle of water.

Now. Did I break any of his numerous commandments?

Sorry? What's that you say? Some laws are just temporary?

http://absnospin.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/casuistic-law-vs-apodictic-law.html

So, can you tell us fallible human beings how we are to determine which of God's laws are relative, situational and temporary, and thus can safely be ignored without risking hellfire; and which ones are absolute and eternal, never to be broken without incurring God's wrath?

(Speaking from your own fallible humanity, and knowing about such things as literalists and Westboro Baptist Church, of course.)

One step at a time.
Firstly - have I or have I not demonstrated that there's a problem with the bible skeptic's counter-apologetic argument about 613 enduring bible laws which you unreasonably (and mistakenly) think are still in force?

Do you concede the theoretical point that God's chosen people may have been under those laws temporarily in just the same way as, for example, governments enact temporary water restriction laws during times of drought?

Then some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1 (NIV)

It was Paul who dispensed with circumcision and diet laws. There is no coherent morality anywhere in the bible.

 

[Lion IRC]

It was Paul who dispensed with circumcision and diet laws.

Paul doesn't make or rescind laws on God's behalf.
That would be Jesus you're thinking of.

There is no coherent morality anywhere in the bible.

Yes there is.

 

[steve_bank]

To the true believer the entire bible is the inspired word of god. In Christianity Paul is a major source of moral interpretation.

Paul said a Jew is not a Jew by circumcision, a Jew is a Jew by the heart.

If Paul had no authority, then by Leviticus you must obey the dietary rules. Do you see the conundrum those of us not religious see in all this? Paul released the requirement to keep kosher, Christians site this for not keeping kosher.

If the Old/New Testaments are not the word of god, how here on Earth do Christians know what god wants? 'God hates fads' an actual bumper sticker is derived from Leviticus. You posted some passages from which you say god does not want abortion.

Same old same old.

Post Reformation anyone can construct a Christianity of one.

All's a person has to do is say he or she accepts Jesus. There are no codes except for the `10 Commandments.

 

[Lion IRC]

Again, you talk as if Paul, or Moses or Cephas was the source of the law - rather than God.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Again, you talk as if Paul, or Moses or Cephas was the source of the law - rather than God.

So, it's God who said that if someone has sex with my dog, I have to kill my dog? Da fuck is wrong with God?

 

[Learner]

Same old same old.

Post Reformation anyone can construct a Christianity of one.

All's a person has to do is say he or she accepts Jesus. There are no codes except for the `10 Commandments.

Well thats just the point more or less if you look carefully.

Many of us if not all (especially today and for the future), are " beyond" the 10 commandments i.e. unable to keep them let alone attempt them (from an early age even). Remember the covenants - God and the agreement(s) made with man in which failing these would result in death ?

(God should destroy man or the Israelites "straight away" like those in Noahs day).

A promise is a promise to be kept ... no so instantly unless ... God "loved you" (mankind) and instead "delays" / "suspends" for a time period, the sentences. Selflessly and being "most fair" at the same time, sends someone on your behalf. A negotiater, if you will, for our sins... that is Christ!



The "same old" concept and the contexts makes sense to me.

 

[Jobar]

When I was a child my father said I had to (commanded me to) hold his hand while crossing the road. He also commanded me not to talk to strangers. And he forbade me from attempting joy rides in the family car. I was expressly forbidden from going near the fire place/matches or boiling water.

Yesterday I crossed the road without holding his or anyone else's hand, I freely spoke to strangers. I drove a car to and from my destination and when I got home I lit the fire and boiled a kettle of water.

Now. Did I break any of his numerous commandments?

Sorry? What's that you say? Some laws are just temporary?

http://absnospin.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/casuistic-law-vs-apodictic-law.html

So, can you tell us fallible human beings how we are to determine which of God's laws are relative, situational and temporary, and thus can safely be ignored without risking hellfire; and which ones are absolute and eternal, never to be broken without incurring God's wrath?

(Speaking from your own fallible humanity, and knowing about such things as literalists and Westboro Baptist Church, of course.)

One step at a time.
Firstly - have I or have I not demonstrated that there's a problem with the bible skeptic's counter-apologetic argument about 613 enduring bible laws which you unreasonably (and mistakenly) think are still in force?

Do you concede the theoretical point that God's chosen people may have been under those laws temporarily in just the same way as, for example, governments enact temporary water restriction laws during times of drought?

Then some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1 (NIV)

Hold up, hold up. It's not we skeptics who think those laws are still in force; I *did* mention literalists and such people as Fred Phelps' spawn, who by all appearances do definitely think the Levitical rules apply today, and for always.

I am willing to accept for the sake of argument that perhaps some of those 613 were situational, though. But again, how do you propose to tell the difference between the temporary ones, and the absolute ones?

 

[Politesse]

To the true believer the entire bible is the inspired word of god. In Christianity Paul is a major source of moral interpretation.

Paul said a Jew is not a Jew by circumcision, a Jew is a Jew by the heart.

If Paul had no authority, then by Leviticus you must obey the dietary rules. Do you see the conundrum those of us not religious see in all this? Paul released the requirement to keep kosher, Christians site this for not keeping kosher.

If the Old/New Testaments are not the word of god, how here on Earth do Christians know what god wants? 'God hates fads' an actual bumper sticker is derived from Leviticus. You posted some passages from which you say god does not want abortion.

Same old same old.

Post Reformation anyone can construct a Christianity of one.

All's a person has to do is say he or she accepts Jesus. There are no codes except for the `10 Commandments.

And who are you, exactly, to decide who a "true" Christian is, and what they are allowed to believe?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When I was a child my father said I had to (commanded me to) hold his hand while crossing the road. He also commanded me not to talk to strangers. And he forbade me from attempting joy rides in the family car. I was expressly forbidden from going near the fire place/matches or boiling water.

Yesterday I crossed the road without holding his or anyone else's hand, I freely spoke to strangers. I drove a car to and from my destination and when I got home I lit the fire and boiled a kettle of water.

Now. Did I break any of his numerous commandments?

Sorry? What's that you say? Some laws are just temporary?

http://absnospin.blogspot.com.au/2008/02/casuistic-law-vs-apodictic-law.html

So, can you tell us fallible human beings how we are to determine which of God's laws are relative, situational and temporary, and thus can safely be ignored without risking hellfire; and which ones are absolute and eternal, never to be broken without incurring God's wrath?

(Speaking from your own fallible humanity, and knowing about such things as literalists and Westboro Baptist Church, of course.)

One step at a time.
Firstly - have I or have I not demonstrated that there's a problem with the bible skeptic's counter-apologetic argument about 613 enduring bible laws which you unreasonably (and mistakenly) think are still in force?

Do you concede the theoretical point that God's chosen people may have been under those laws temporarily in just the same way as, for example, governments enact temporary water restriction laws during times of drought?

Then some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1 (NIV)

I love nothing more than a holy book with rules and laws of which the applicability of them being actively enforced or not can apparently be decided by the follower. The Bible is truly a Choose Your Own Religion tour de force.

 

[Juma]

To the true believer the entire bible is the inspired word of god. In Christianity Paul is a major source of moral interpretation.

Paul said a Jew is not a Jew by circumcision, a Jew is a Jew by the heart.

If Paul had no authority, then by Leviticus you must obey the dietary rules. Do you see the conundrum those of us not religious see in all this? Paul released the requirement to keep kosher, Christians site this for not keeping kosher.

If the Old/New Testaments are not the word of god, how here on Earth do Christians know what god wants? 'God hates fads' an actual bumper sticker is derived from Leviticus. You posted some passages from which you say god does not want abortion.

Same old same old.

Post Reformation anyone can construct a Christianity of one.

All's a person has to do is say he or she accepts Jesus. There are no codes except for the `10 Commandments.

And who are you, exactly, to decide who a "true" Christian is, and what they are allowed to believe?

He is in full right to define what he means by a true believer. Who are you to say that he cannot do that?

 

[Lion IRC]

One step at a time.
Firstly - have I or have I not demonstrated that there's a problem with the bible skeptic's counter-apologetic argument about 613 enduring bible laws which you unreasonably (and mistakenly) think are still in force?

Do you concede the theoretical point that God's chosen people may have been under those laws temporarily in just the same way as, for example, governments enact temporary water restriction laws during times of drought?

Then some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1 (NIV)

Hold up, hold up. It's not we skeptics who think those laws are still in force; I *did* mention literalists and such people as Fred Phelps' spawn, who by all appearances do definitely think the Levitical rules apply today, and for always.

Paging Fred Phelps.
Would Fred Phelps please come to reception.

Be patient Jobar. I'm sure someone from Westbro will be along shortly to defend their position.

 

[Politesse]

To the true believer the entire bible is the inspired word of god. In Christianity Paul is a major source of moral interpretation.

Paul said a Jew is not a Jew by circumcision, a Jew is a Jew by the heart.

If Paul had no authority, then by Leviticus you must obey the dietary rules. Do you see the conundrum those of us not religious see in all this? Paul released the requirement to keep kosher, Christians site this for not keeping kosher.

If the Old/New Testaments are not the word of god, how here on Earth do Christians know what god wants? 'God hates fads' an actual bumper sticker is derived from Leviticus. You posted some passages from which you say god does not want abortion.

Same old same old.

Post Reformation anyone can construct a Christianity of one.

All's a person has to do is say he or she accepts Jesus. There are no codes except for the `10 Commandments.

And who are you, exactly, to decide who a "true" Christian is, and what they are allowed to believe?

He is in full right to define what he means by a true believer. Who are you to say that he cannot do that?

He can say what the word means to him, of course. But if he expects anyone else to agree, that's another matter.

 

[Angry Floof]

Jesus H. Christ, ridiculously infantilizing and controlling, not to mention convoluted. That is a system designed to produce right wing authoritarian obedience machines.

Sometimes, less is more.

 

[Politesse]

One step at a time.
Firstly - have I or have I not demonstrated that there's a problem with the bible skeptic's counter-apologetic argument about 613 enduring bible laws which you unreasonably (and mistakenly) think are still in force?

Do you concede the theoretical point that God's chosen people may have been under those laws temporarily in just the same way as, for example, governments enact temporary water restriction laws during times of drought?

Then some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1 (NIV)

Hold up, hold up. It's not we skeptics who think those laws are still in force; I *did* mention literalists and such people as Fred Phelps' spawn, who by all appearances do definitely think the Levitical rules apply today, and for always.

Paging Fred Phelps.
Would Fred Phelps please come to reception.

Be patient Jobar. I'm sure someone from Westbro will be along shortly to defend their position.

You might have to be a bit patient; those 70 guys represent all Christians! It's a busy job.

 

[steve_bank]

Again, you talk as if Paul, or Moses or Cephas was the source of the law - rather than God.

Theology 101. The Christian bible is the inpired word of god. Jesus is the last in the line of prophets.

The Council Of Nicea codified the Christian bible. The Nicean Creed was essentially a pledge of alligance to the new combined Christian orthodoxy. I listened to a lot of TV and radio preachers and grew up in the RCC. Paul is most often quoted and interpreted on morality.

Modern Christianity is more aptly called Paulism.

Again, if not the bible, how do you know what god wants? Do you feel that god communicates with you?If Paul is not god's truth, then why belive the supernatural events in the gospels? The NT gospels were selected at Nicea over a number of documents, was that god's influence? Do you know the history of the bible?

You know not too many centuries back in Europe your rejection of Mosaic law as truth could get you executed.

 

[steve_bank]

To the true believer the entire bible is the inspired word of god. In Christianity Paul is a major source of moral interpretation.

Paul said a Jew is not a Jew by circumcision, a Jew is a Jew by the heart.

If Paul had no authority, then by Leviticus you must obey the dietary rules. Do you see the conundrum those of us not religious see in all this? Paul released the requirement to keep kosher, Christians site this for not keeping kosher.

If the Old/New Testaments are not the word of god, how here on Earth do Christians know what god wants? 'God hates fads' an actual bumper sticker is derived from Leviticus. You posted some passages from which you say god does not want abortion.

Same old same old.

Post Reformation anyone can construct a Christianity of one.

All's a person has to do is say he or she accepts Jesus. There are no codes except for the `10 Commandments.

And who are you, exactly, to decide who a "true" Christian is, and what they are allowed to believe?

Who am I? I am The Grand Poo Bah of the Curch Of The Holy FRock. We bekve god exists in a rock somwhere on Mt Ranier. We feel its presence....

I am not defining what a Christian is. I am saying that Christianity is anything anyone wants it to be. I don't have a problem with that except when people start acting out their interpretation of god's will on others. Like a govt worker who refuses to hand out marriage licenses to gays. Remember the iconic Pilgrims were fleeing other Christians not Muslims and atheists.

I have known Evagelicals who reject Mormons and Catholics as illigitimate Christians. Who are they to say what is and is not aChristian? Which is my point on all Christians.

The 613 commanments are my point. If not the OT dictates, then does god speak directly to you?

Without the OT there and gospels there would be no Christianity.

 

[Jobar]

Hold up, hold up. It's not we skeptics who think those laws are still in force; I *did* mention literalists and such people as Fred Phelps' spawn, who by all appearances do definitely think the Levitical rules apply today, and for always.

Paging Fred Phelps.
Would Fred Phelps please come to reception.

Be patient Jobar. I'm sure someone from Westbro will be along shortly to defend their position.

Heh. Be careful what you ask for; you might get it. (Though I rather doubt you'll hear from ol' Fred, him being dead and all.)

And I only use WBC as an example here. Do you doubt that there are plenty of literalists, who would assert that many of the Levitical laws are still in force? Consider how many Christian churches have worked hard against gay rights, due to those OT prohibitions.

 

[Politesse]

I am not defining what a Christian is. I am saying that Christianity is anything anyone wants it to be. I don't have a problem with that except when people start acting out their interpretation of god's will on others. Like a govt worker who refuses to hand out marriage licenses to gays. Remember the iconic Pilgrims were fleeing other Christians not Muslims and atheists.

Yet, those exact people are the ones you personally endorse as speaking for "true Christianity". You have a funny way of responding to a problem.

 

[steve_bank]

He is in full right to define what he means by a true believer. Who are you to say that he cannot do that?

He can say what the word means to him, of course. But if he expects anyone else to agree, that's another matter.

Exactly the message to the Christians obcessed with converting us non believers.