So I’ve decided to bring the “Kathy” series to an end. However, we’ve had some fun in those threads when the conversation has gone off into interesting tangents, so I’d like to keep that part of it going for anyone who’s interested. These new threads will no longer focus on Kathy or the things we were discussing with her. So thanks for your time, Kathy! Take care.
There are no real rules for these threads. But to kick off the conversation, I’ll go back to the discussion on Paul that a few of us were having. Laurie views Deut 13 as a prophecy about Paul, so why don’t we take a quick look at it?
“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. 9 But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.
12 “If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to dwell there, 13 that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, 15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. 16 You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever. It shall not be built again. 17 None of the devoted things shall stick to your hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger and show you mercy and have compassion on you and multiply you, as he swore to your fathers, 18 if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, and doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God.
I can see how one could apply this to Paul. However, I can also see how Jews could have applied it to Jesus as well, especially if he was claiming divinity for himself. And I’m sure this could have applied to lots of people during Israel’s history. Why should we think it’s pointing to Paul specifically, and why wouldn’t it also apply to Jesus?
Finding Truth 
“But I really prefer NON-fiction –”
*chuckles*
Me, too, Arch. 😉
LikeLike
“You’d make arch the happiest guy in the world” – Don’t tell her that, Nate, it will only strengthen her resistance!
LikeLike
“(offer not valid in the following states: ME, MA, MT, NV, NH, ND, OR, RI, WA or WY.)” – Howie, you left out “Delusion” —
LikeLike
Whoa! That’s a lot of questions. I am super busy today, but will try to come back to those tonight!
Noseybook? I don’t know what this is? Can post a link?
Later guys!
LikeLike
“You guys are crazy 😉 almost as crazy as me” – I KNEW there was SOMEthing I liked about you!
LikeLike
Actually, Neuro, she’s not easy to offend, and believe me, I’ve tried!
LikeLike
Laurie, Noseybook – my word for Facebook (some people call it Crackbook) 🙂
and no pressure! I, too, am very interested in Judaism.
LikeLike
“Later guys!” – She has goats to milk.
LikeLike
@Laurie:
I agree with Nate’s criticism of the article by Kavanaugh, and I want to expand this. Kavanaugh sets before us the hypothesis: “While the Torah wasn’t forced on Gentiles all at once, it was understood that they would learn it gradually over time. . .” Keep in mind this is only a hypothesis, it will require defense. It will require reasoning and evidence.
“Christians generally ignore [Acts 15:21] because the ramifications are obvious: What has Torah being taught each week in synagogues have to do with Gentile believers?”
Whether or not God-fearers adopted some version of the law is not necessarily connected to the Jerusalem Council’s decision. Remember, early Christianity was a NEW religion (a cult). Why would they be addressing issues that had already been addressed in the diaspora? Those are OLD questions that had already been decided. So, the fact of God-fearers in the diaspora is completely irrelevant.
“It was understood by all the apostles that G-d’s Torah never changed or was replaced.”
As Nate mentioned, Kavanaugh conveniently leaves out Jesus saying, “I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. . . not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matt 5:18). What is meant by “fulfill” and when will all be “accomplished”? Was it Jesus’ sacrifice and when the veil of the Temple was torn?
I find it amusing that Kavanaugh cites Mark 7:9 while failing to mention that only 10 verses later Jesus declares all foods kosher.
I agree with Kavanaugh’s distinction between oral and written law. But, that does not necessarily equate “we should not trouble those Gentiles” with oral law. Kavanaugh tries to equate these by utilizing the concept that Torah is freedom with a few random prooftexts, but how is this relevant to showing that “we should not trouble those Gentiles” has to do with oral law? The connection is not made. This is ad hoc. It’s much simpler to assume that not troubling the Gentiles meant only giving them a few rules rather than the entire law.
Ultimately, Kavanaugh fails to support the hypothesis with adequate reasoning and evidence.
LikeLike
Laurie, I supposed I’m drawn back into this discussion with you. I want to challenge you to question your beliefs just as you do me. I’ll respond here to a few things you said:
“Paul was suspected of teaching against Torah in Acts, and that is why they had him do the Nazarite vow, so people would see that he kept the law.”
This is exactly the kind of assertions I have been talking about. It requires evidence to back it up. Please back up your claims with evidence. Look up 1 Cor 9:19-21 and you will have the real reason why Paul took the Nazarite vow (ultimately for the purpose of evangelism).
“I never could figure out how a God that changes not, could change so much from the old testament to the new. . . If you remove Paul, then nothing has changed.”
God never changed, civilization itself changed. As new ideas and technologies and political and social realities changed over time, Judaism had to accommodate these realities. For example, without the cultural belief that women who lost their virgins were less valuable, the law that rapists must marry their victims becomes irrelevant. We also see a Hellenistic Judaism develop that accommodated Greek philosophy and ethics that looks curiously like modern Reformed Judaism.
And, Reformed Judaism and your anti-Paul sect are practicing “Torah” with significant modifications to accommodate modern culture and knowledge. This is a change!
On the other hand, God never changed the universal moral laws (i.e., do not murder). These laws are as sure as the natural laws. What Christianity did was say that the additional customs (purity laws, dietary laws, circumcision, etc.) are unnecessary because Jesus’ resurrection inaugurated a new age. We are freed from these customs and bound to Christ, these customs are no longer a sign of an Israelite, rather our faith in Christ is the sign of an Israelite. Read Romans 9, we are the continuation of Israel, no longer united by customs and ethnicity, but by faith in Christ.
Things that don’t change: God, Israel, universal laws
Things that do change: laws specific to cultural circumstance, cultural customs
Now, it’s fine if you want to practice Torah if you like, but it’s not a matter of salvation. Peter says we are saved by grace (Acts 15:11). Notice that’s Peter. Peter may well have kept some Jewish customs, but he said that he will be saved by grace.
-B
LikeLike
@william:
“Laurie/Brandon, why and how are each of you so convinced that the bible and your positions on it are correct while all others are wrong?”
The easier one is my position. I am convinced because I think there is more evidence to support the position that Christians are not required to follow the law except for what addresses universal morality (i.e., do not murder). It’s all about evidence and reason.
The more difficult one to answer is “why the bible at all?” You mean as opposed to other religions like Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, etc.? I’m assuming that’s what you mean. Ultimately I have reasons to think that the bible is inspired by God. Not circular reasoning like “because it says so” but actual reasons. It’s a very long conversation from here!
LikeLike
“Peter says we are saved by grace (Acts 15:11). Notice that’s Peter. Peter may well have kept some Jewish customs, but he said that he will be saved by grace.”
Actually, an anonymous author, writing more than half a century after Peter’s death, SAID that Peter says we are saved by grace (Acts 15:11) – let’s stay accurate here.
LikeLike
I agree arch, but I think Brandon makes a good point. As far as I know, Laurie would agree with him that Acts was written by an individual (the same one who wrote Luke) that was, at least in some respect, divinely inspired. So from that perspective, I’d like to hear what she thinks of this.
If I understood her position correctly, she was saying that Acts was written to send a covert message against Paul, but I have a really hard time seeing that. If he couldn’t come right out and say that Paul was a fraud, wouldn’t it just be best to not write a letter at all? Because as it stands, Acts supports Paul quite a lot — and when you take out all the stuff about Paul, there’s very little left of value — certainly nothing that adds to what the gospels had already laid out, except maybe the second chapter.
LikeLike
“divinely inspired” = magic = nonsense.
LikeLike
Brandon, I don’t agree with you or Laurie, but I may be able to help clarify some things. I think you are mixing 2 concepts together which is confusing things: the “saved by grace” issue doesn’t matter really. You already concede that certain parts (what you call universal moral laws) of the laws do not change and are still required even though you don’t believe it is the act of following those laws that save you. So in the same vein, Laurie could believe that the Mosaic law is still required even though she doesn’t believe she is saved by the act of following them (in fact she could call them all universal moral laws if she wants to also).
Also, I don’t think what Reformed Jews have done really relates to what Laurie is trying to push forth, because there are ultra-orthodox Jews who try to keep every letter of the law except what they are forced by governments to not do. Laurie probably isn’t that ultra orthodox, but I don’t think she has made the changes that the Reformed have either.
LikeLike
Do you think you would be as morally or ethically informed, if it wasn’t for your biblical family upbringing?
Thanks everyone for sharing 🙂
LikeLike
No, I don’t. If it weren’t for my biblical family upbringing, I would never have known that it’s OK to rape virgins, as long as you offer to marry them afterward. I would never have known that I was obligated to stone men to death that pick up sticks on the Sabbath. My entire outlook on life would be different – for example, I might have become a very sarcastic person —
LikeLike
— instead of the warm, fuzzy, cuddly guy I am today.
LikeLike
@Ryan (Portal) – After you chuckle from Arch’s recent comments give this a read:
It’s related to your question about morality. Here’s a short excerpt from it:
LikeLike
We can always rely on arch for our morning chuckle! Mugs up, folks! 🙂
LikeLike
I believe that the great tribulation has passed, and a lot of this is historical.
So do you believe the great tribulation was when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.?
LikeLike
Thanks Howie 🙂
LikeLike
Fascinating article, Howie – I recommended it to others. It made me want to read the author’s book, “The Evolution of God.”
LikeLike
@carmen
I’ve read through the Bible a few times, you did not miss much. All of the nice parts are spoon-fed every Sunday at churches everywhere and all of the not-so-nice parts are swept under the communion table.
At my old church Bible reading was taken very seriously and everyone was expected to read and pray daily. At the new years eve service they would acknowledge everyone who read through the entire Bible that year by asking them to stand. If folks would only read it and ask themselves if it sounds man-made or not I think there would be more de-conversions.
@NeuroNotes
Thanks for sharing that passage from Revelation. It’s been a few years since I stopped studying the Bible and I forget just how many ludicrous things it says. The passage from Deuteronomy that Nate posted at the top is another bizarre passage.
@Brandon
How do you know what the standards are for something being divinely inspired? Where did you get these standards from?
LikeLike
laurie sez: “The together they will rebuild the temple and bring about world peace.”
ok, all you athiests out there, this is important.
we have to do everything in our power to make sure the jews do not rebuild their goddamn temple.
despite what they tell us,
they are not god’s “chosen people”.
the god of the jews is, as you all know, a jealous, murderous, hateful bitch.
rebuilding the temple will not bring about peace, as laurie suggests,
it’s going to be more of the samo samo.
stoning homos
and NO bacon.
nate, portal arch:
red dead redemption is one of the best games I’ve ever played,
at the general storein Armadillo, the proprietor said:
“none of our products is made by jews”
oh. lol. too funny.
LikeLike