This subject came up in a /co/ thread and it was thought better

Jesus kept the old testament laws, why shouldn't Christians who aspire to be like Christ do likewise?

>>579757
Would be better to rephrase that in terms of historical development.

>>579783
In Acts, the Apostles decreed that Gentiles didn't have to follow the old laws.

>But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written our decision that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from strangled things, and from sexual immorality.

>>579757
>is homosexuality still considered a sin within the new covenant of Jesus Christ?

Homosexuality isn't exclusively an OT doctrine.

Paul reaffirms that homosexuality is forbidden, and as an apostle, has the authority of the holy spirit to proclaim doctrine.

Thus, yes, christianity still prohibits homosexuality.

>>579757
Acts are sinful, orientation isn't

>>579800
Do all the old laws apply as well then? Like no eating shellfish or women can't wear pants. I'm not trying to be cheeky, I'm just trying to understand this better and understand the history of the church more.

>>579813
No. Honestly, the OT serves mostly as context to Christ rather than strict religious dogma. The NT essentially took the old laws and "trimmed the fat" so to speak, as well as focusing more heavily on practices of love and mercy rather than strict adherence to ritual as the source of one's connection and servitude to God.

>>579798
>sexual immorality
>hey guys, don't fuck other guys in the butt

>>579757
No, the laws of the old testament are non-binding and you only need to follow what Jesus has laid out in the gospels.

>inb4 Paul
Right, I'm sure Paul knows better than God himself.

>>579836
What was kept when the fat was trimmed away? Is it true then that the main laws of the new covenant are to love others, love god, and believe in Jesus?

File: 51drGjlQRyL._SY355_.jpg (28KB, 274x355px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 274x355px

>>579757
The general idea is that the Old Testament contained elements of God's Law (labelled as the moral elements of the law) but much was made for the people simply at the time to prepare them for the coming of God's Law in full (the Old Covenant's civil and ceremonial elements).

The coming of God's Law in full is realized in the New Covenant (Christianity) and so the ceremonial and civil element not actually part of God's Law are left out. Jesus explaining why Moses allowed divorce is a good example of it being explained that parts of the Old Covenant are simply made for the people at the time.


This should explain why certain parts of the OT are still relevant and certain parts are not the case.

Any other questions, OP?

File: Bartolomeo_Montagna_-_Saint_Paul_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (47KB, 220x487px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 220x487px

If you want a more realistic explanation, the historical Jesus literally fucking said that the old (testament) laws still applied to the letter, including all the Jewish obligations like cutting off the tip of your dick and not putting your dick in delicious fuckbois. The leader of the Jesus movement after Jesus' death, James, literally Jesus' own flesh and blood brother, reaffirmed this.

Along comes some cunt named Saul (later changed to Paul) who decided to convert to Christianity but to break-away from James for reasons, likely a powergrab. Paul wanted to bring non-Jews into the faith as well so he invented the idea that the old testament didn't actually apply for reasons he didn't really explain, so if you converted you didn't have to get circumsized an so forth (but he taught that fucking people of the same sex was still prohibited, because he was that kind of guy). There really wasn't any grounds for much of this (Paul never even met Jesus) but Paul was a gosh darn Roman citizen, and that meant he had a lot of privileges and was able to travel and preach freely.

Eventually Paul won the fight and his version of Christianity is what we have today. He's literally a more important figure to the faith than Jesus and much of Christian teaching is actually Paul's ideas rather than Jesus'.

Christcucks do mental gymnastics to deny this.

File: Christ-Chan realizes the heretics just keep posting anyway.png (147KB, 745x814px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 745x814px

>>579873
>people will believe this

>>579757
It would be good to know where you're coming from on this, affiliation etc.

>>579854
Its a bit reductionist, but yes, those are the central points, Most other laws are simply extensions or elaborations of those points. As far as religious ideals go, they were novel enough for their time and place to warrant 4 gospels essentially restating (mostly) the same stories and parables to better explain it to different audiences. Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles also elaborate on things further, though a few small details were added through those as well that are in the spirit of Christ's teachings.

>>579867
I'm curious. What are the laws of Christianity then?

>>579873
>>579876
>>people will believe this
What's wrong in his post? I'm not taking his side, I'm only wondering why it could be wrong.

>>579854
Matthew 15
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

File: 1434186527156.jpg (12KB, 400x387px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x387px

>>579880
It's not so much about homosexuality since that's linked with the bigger question. I'm wondering about the history of the old and new testament when it comes to the new covenant and if the New Testament and nulls the old testament laws.

I'm sorry if I don't make it clear.

>>579884
Most Christian laws were created by the Patriarchs and the Popes as well the Saints and other influential thinkers (generally called Apologists). Mainly, the idea of the new covenant comes from Christ's blood and his dying on the cross. Homosexuality being immoral is immoral because it is fortification as well as sodomy.

Brotherly love is encouraged by contrast in Christianity.

>>579897
Generally, Catholic priests are very educated in Christian thought and would happily talk to you about it if you asked.

>>579897
I mean your religious affilation if any

Here's the Catholic POV for what it's worth

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

>>579884
>I'm only wondering why it could be wrong
Jesus was literally crucified for challenging the purpose of the old laws. This is despite the fact that it's possible that Jesus himself was a Pharisee, or at the very least associated with other Pharisees. The constant fighting was over how strictly they would adhere to Jewish law, despite many of the traditional interpretations being at odds with the spirit of the more important virtues. For a time, it was mostly cordial debate.

Eventually, between the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus rustled enough feathers and people started rioting thanks to goading by those Jewish leaders. Things get brought to the Romans to deal with the upheaval, and... well you know the rest.

>>579914
Sorry! I was raised Catholic. I don't really follow the church much and consider myself a Christian more since I don't agree with a Pope being the head.

>>579916
It also should be noted that modern Judaism was mostly born after the destruction of the second temple. Their main beliefs coming more so from the Talmud than the Torah.

Sorry for slight off topic, but how plausible or crackpot is "King Jesus" by Robert Graves?

>>579916
That's really interesting. Do you know any sites or books that go into detail about this? Outside of the Bible of course.

>>579914
Thank you! Reading it now.

>>579916
He challenged the Jews' failure to adhere to the spirit of the law, even though they adhered to the letter of the law.

>‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!

And he was cool with the letter of the law too.

>"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. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

File: Cute Christ-Chan Starter Pack.jpg (30KB, 353x313px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 353x313px

>>579884

Christianity is fairly less legalistic than Judaic thought.

For general beliefs, there is the basic creed agreed upon by early Christianity at the Council of Nicaea

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/

Thats the very basics for the belief itself. Everything else tends to be response from the awareness of those beliefs, but there are many cases of teachings written down in a legalistic format in scripture. The simplest way to still sum up the teaching would be the two commandments according to Jesus, however:

>Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind

>Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself

Granted the meaning of such a thing is lost nowadays. To love God is not simply thinking God's pretty fucking kickass but rather telling of you in nature. Nature is an expression of God's will and so to live by its purposes and accept nature as it is while working for the good of all things in nature for the love of the good is synonymous with saying is it for the love of God.


The end goal (at least in apostolic faiths) is the virtuous life - that is to say, a life dedicated towards the good of all things (a life of love). That is what the Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic would say is the fulfillment of the person spiritually.

>What's wrong in his post?

The argument that Jesus' argument still applies to the letter extends from the biblical quote Matthew 5:18, ignoring how the end of the line directly says there is an end to the law. As Jesus says, he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. He is fulfilling the purpose of the Old Covenant and thus making way for the New Covenant.

James was a big figure in Christianity but was not the leader at all - nor was Paul. The apostles and their successors were in authority. Paul's letters only are confirmed to be authoritative as they are accepted by apostolic authority. The overall point is a fringe anti-pauline conspiracy theory.

File: 1437110283046.jpg (285KB, 889x1126px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 889x1126px

>>579963
All that said, still here if you need further explanation or need other questions answered.

>>579914
This is confusing. The whole Natural Law thing. But it was a good read nonetheless. I just don't understand

>Old Testament law contains elements of natural law—e.g., the condemnation of homosexual activity—to which Christians are bound for that reason, not because of their inclusion in the Old Testament. Christians do not have liberty on these issues.

>Also, Christians are not and have never been bound by Old Testament law for its own sake, and those elements of Old Testament law which are not part of the natural law—e.g., the obligation to worship on Saturday —were only ever binding on the Jews. Christians do have liberty on those issues.

>>579974
It's the difference between the moral elements (literally the moral teaching said to be "written on our hearts" when spoken about God's law in the Bible) and the ceremonial and civil elements as I mentioned previously.

of course it is. the point is though that no one is sinless anyway except christ. any who are true believers of christ and are mature in his spirit wouldn't end up being attracted to or engaging in intercourse with anyone, let alone members of the same sex. note that paul was celibate. the laws aren't words to be 'followed' because reliance on yourself as one born in sin to police your own actions will only result in a failure, such sinfulness is weakness. this is why jesus was necessary at all, otherwise the israelites would have just followed the law and been fine. but jesus is the spirit that fulfilled the law, adding grace to the law -- the words -- and attacked the pharisees for only seeing the words. they were hypocrites who did not understand the nature of god

>>579963
>>Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind
>>Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself
and in the end that's all that matters when it comes to Christianity?

Thanks for the replies!

>>580005
Yes, but that must be understood in a proper context as I begin to mention in >>579963

Anything else?

>>579854
and to be baptised

I'm the guy you were talking to in /co/.
Ok, here's my argument as to why homosexuality was never considered a sin, even during the old covenant with god. I'll be using KJV(King James Version) of the bible, since it was the traditional bible and most used bible for the longest time.

The two lines in the bible in the Old Testament that are used to say that god hates gays are Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination", and Deuteronomy 22:5, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God".

Lets start with Leviticus. Leviticus is God's directions on how people should behave when around the holy tent housing the Ark of the Covenant the Israelites built near the end of Exodus. And like 90% of the laws contained in there, it's to prevent injury/illness. They didn't bathe often, and lived in a desert. Shellfish would have been nasty as fuck, if you suffer an injury from anal sex you are pretty much dead, and incest would come with a higher chance of birth defects. So apparently God didn't want these people doing anything that might kill themselves while near the holy tent. Are you near the holy tent housing the Ark of the Covenant? No? Then it doesn't apply to you. If it might kill you, it's EVIL, because that's how you prevent primitive desert dwellers from killing themselves.

Deuteronomy, or at least the line quoted, is part of the Deuteronomic code, which is instructions on how the Israelites are to behave while in Canaan. Are you part of the Israelites and are currently in Canaan? No? Doesn't apply to you either. Canaanites apparently were into cross-dressing, and a good portion of the Deuteronomic code is about destroying Canaanite society and places of worship, so that's why it's there.

Cont.

>>579974
Natural Law was a concept introduced by Greek philosophers and was adopted by a famous thinker in the the Roman Catholic church called Thomas Aquinas, who argued that it was compatible with Christian teaching. It still forms the basic theology of the Roman Catholic church today.

According to Aquinas, some things that are 'illegal' in Natural Law are democracy (because monarchs are appointed by god), any sex before marriage, masturbation, homosexuality, lending money at interest (i.e. banking), etc.

However, according to him, some things that are 'legal' in Natural Law, are slavery, torturing and killing heretics, torturing and killing apostates, and torturing and killing witches.

>>580029
>However, according to him, some things that are 'legal' in Natural Law, are slavery, torturing and killing heretics, torturing and killing apostates, and torturing and killing witches.
Damn. That's rough. I have a feeling most Catholics wouldn't follow those ideas if they knew about them, so does that mean these Catholics are wrong?

>>580029
>democracy
u wot

Democracy was disagreed upon by Natural Law theorists because it had the potential to uphold laws contrary to Natural Law. This doesn't mean democracy itself is bad, but simply that it can be easily misused.

>>580051
In any case, monarchy was fine.

>>580029
>However, according to him, some things that are 'legal' in Natural Law, are slavery, torturing and killing heretics, torturing and killing apostates, and torturing and killing witches.


These are, again, more complex an issue than you realize and depend much on our capabilities as a society. Take heretics for example. Aquinas does indeed argument for the execution of heretics that simply will not repent as heresy can influence society and cause grave issue. However, we're in a state now where we can work beyond that due to our advanced knowledge and capabilities.

>>580064
Of course they accepted monarchy but it had zero to do with Natural Law. You're just talking shit.

>>580074
>as heresy can influence society and cause grave issue
just like sorcery and buttfucking

>>580081
But in this day and age would Homosexuality really be considered wrong in Natural Law?

>>580028
So lets get to the only part of the bible that really carries much weight with(or should) Christians, the New Testament. People like to cite Matthew's part of the Sermon on the Mount about how the law is still in effect, but Luke's account of the Sermon has NO mention of law at all. On top of which, as I previously explained, neither of those laws applied to Christians in the first place. So lets go ahead and skip that one.

The next one people like to bring up is Romans 1:26-27. This is the opinion of Paul. Christians are supposed to follow the word of God and Christ ONLY. Not Paul, not Peter, not King fucking Solomon. The only people who think Jesus's apostles have any sort of authority on matters of god are the Catholics, and they don't follow the bible accurately anyways.

File: Dear Diary.jpg (35KB, 254x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 254x300px

>>580081
Of course. All actions people do reflect in their character in slight ways which influences other people. "Sorcery" and buttfucking are more complex issues than that though.

>>580105
To add, issue of social influence vary depending on the action. Some times they do talk about social influences, sometimes not. Depends on what we're talking about. Social influences are the end nor the beginning of the discussion.

>>580085
yes

>>580105
you should be asking if using heretic philosophy to justify things is really a christian thing to do

>>580114
...what?
You should probably look up the definition of heresy.

>>579757

>Does the laws of the Old Testament apply to those who follow Jesus Christ

Depends on who you ask. The author of the gospel of Matthew probably would say yes. At one point, Peter would have said yes. Paul says no. Modern Christians say no.

>is homosexuality still considered a sin within the new covenant of Jesus Christ

Homosexuality isn't mentioned directly within the gospels, but the author of Matthew probably would say yes, since in his gospel Jesus still holds the old testament laws to effect. Paul also says yes, and (from what I understand) invents a new word in Koine Greek to make his point clear. Most modern Christians follow Paul.

>>580085
It's always wrong.