The Torah

I don't understand why Christians began to say that the laws given by God through Moses stopped applying to Christians (covered through the Torah/Old Testament).

I am aware that in the New Testament, Jesus was supposed to have set a new covenant between God and followers. Where that is, I'm not sure and what about that passage negates Mosaic Law?

Also, I thought the law of God was forever and always. Again, I'm not sure if that is in the Torah, just me thinking out loud.

It's their way of being able to ignore some of the contradictions and general nastiness of God in the Old Testament....at least that's how I see it. Because you're right, I don't recall a specific passage.

The conflicting testimonies are the result of an editing process between the followers of Paul and those of James.

Let me give an example of what I mean (and yes, I used this in other post but this is to just bring it back to light because it is relevant):

*This is a group of excerpts from the Bible I put together about eating things unclean to you (God said do not ever touch them) that obviously conflict between the Old And New Testament

Old Testament:

Leviticus 11:1-8

"The the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "give the following instructions to the Isarelites: The animals you may use for food include those that have completely divided hooves and chew the cud. You may not, however, eat the animals named here because they either have split hooves or chew the cud, but not both. The camel may not be eaten, for though it chews the cud it does not have split hooves. The same is true of the rock badger. and the hare, so they also may never be eaten. And the pig may not be eaten for though it has split hooves, it does not chew the cud. You may not eat the meat of these animals or touch their dead bodies. They are ceremonially unclean for you."

Isiah 66:17

"Those who 'purify' themselves in a sacred garden, feasting on pork and rats and other forbidden meats, will come to a terrible end," says the Lord.

------------------------------------------------

New Testament

Act 10:9-16

"The next day as Cornelius' messengers were nearing the city, Peter went to the flat roof to pray. It was about noon, and he was hungry. But while lunch was being prepared, he felt into a trance. He saw the sky open and something like a large sheet was let down by its four corners. In the sheet were all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds. Then a voice said to him, "Get up, Peter,; kill and eat them."

"Never, Lord," Peter declared. "I have never in all my life eaten anything forbidden by our Jewish laws."

The voice spoke again, "If God says something is acceptable, don't say it isn't." The same vision repeated itself three times. Then the sheet was pulled up again to heaven."

Romans 14:20-23

"Don't tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, there is nothing wrong with these things in themselves. But what it is wrong to eat anything if it makes another person stumble. Don't eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble. You may have faith to believe that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by doing something they know is all right."

Mark 7:14-23

"Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen." he said, " and try to understand. You are not defiled by what you eat; you are defiled by what you say and do. Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had made.

"Don't you understand either? he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you? Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again.

And then he added, " It is the thought-life that defiles you. For from within out of a person's heart comes evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now this is just on what and what not to eat. How it goes from "a terrible end" for eating unclean foods to "you are not defiled by what you eat" is unclear to me. There are plenty of examples of this on various topics and Paul is an ass but anyway....

I'm just wondering is there a passage about the new covenant that I overlooked. Even the disciples questioned Jesus in the verse I put up from Mark so obviously something was off.

First, Gentiles are not and never were bound to the Old Covenant.

Second:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
- Jeremiah 31:31-34

The new covenant created by the single atonement of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, not repeated animal sacrifice was prophecied. Jesus claimed to fulfill the prophecies written about Him in the Torah and the prophets including this one.

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
— Luke 17:20-21

Originally posted by Nellinator
First, Gentiles are not and never were bound to the Old Covenant.

Not that I am saying this is wrong, but what is the point of having it in the Bible then?

Why would anyone even bring up the Old Covenant?

This is not being a smart ass; it's an actual question because I don't get it.

Originally posted by Nellinator

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
- Jeremiah 31:31-34

The new covenant created by the single atonement of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, not repeated animal sacrifice was prophecied. Jesus claimed to fulfill the prophecies written about Him in the Torah and the prophets including this one.

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
— Luke 17:20-21

If the Gentiles were never bound to the Old Covenant then how can you have a "new" covenant?

Wouldn't it just then say "here is the covenant to follow" and not "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel."

Unless you are suggesting that everyone else ignored God but Christians.

With that said, I know that Judaism and Islam reject Jesus as the son of God so they certainly would not go for it, but I am not seeing the "new" covenant. If you are correct on your first statement, it should simply be "the" covenant.

This probably comes off incredibly ignorant but I am just making sure I understand completely this understanding of the New Covenant.

Well, the Old Covenant was very applicable in its time and it was important then. However, it is important because it created the way for Jesus to come. The old covenant demanded sacrifice -> Jesus as the once and for all sacrifice, etc. This raises the question of why there was ever an old covenant in the first place, which is tricky question. Personally, I believe that the old covenant was an effective way of caring for His people (ie. the Jews) and anyone else that wanted to be apart of it (Isaiah 56:6) as it really creates a healthy lifestyle physically and morally if you follow it. For example, pork was actually a dangerous meat in those days as pigs are rife with parasites and other diseases. Nowadays that isn't as applicable and therefore it's not that important. Another explanation for not eating pork was that pigs were used in Canaanite fertility rites and God was trying to create a nation set apart from all others (can't find verse right now... but it exists). Now the old covenant was not perfect and that is admitted in the Bible, so the pattern was established for the coming of Jesus for when the old covenant would be inferior to the old.

It is important to see the old covenant so that we better understand God, but it is not so important that we need to dwell on it as much because we now have a better covenant.

I'm hoping that helps. Keep asking if it doesn't...

Now for the second question... Note that it is called a new covenant for the House of Israel (ie. the Jews). So it is a new covenant for them, but the new covenant is also extended freely to the Gentiles as well whereas before they had to bind themselves to it. Before the new covenant Gentiles could still be saved by faith in God and His promised Messiah without binding themselves to the old covenant.

And it's not ignorant, it is quite honestly one of the most debatable and hardest concepts in the Bible. In fact, in case you were wondering, the Bible itself calls the argument over whether the old covenant still applies debatable.

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.
- Romans 14:1, 13-15

Really it doesn't matter what anyone believes on the matter so long as they follow that belief.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, the Old Covenant was very applicable in its time and it was important then. However, it is important because it created the way for Jesus to come. The old covenant demanded sacrifice -> Jesus as the once and for all sacrifice, etc. This raises the question of why there was ever an old covenant in the first place, which is tricky question. Personally, I believe that the old covenant was an effective way of caring for His people (ie. the Jews) and anyone else that wanted to be apart of it (Isaiah 56:6) as it really creates a healthy lifestyle physically and morally if you follow it. For example, pork was actually a dangerous meat in those days as pigs are rife with parasites and other diseases. Nowadays that isn't as applicable and therefore it's not that important. Another explanation for not eating pork was that pigs were used in Canaanite fertility rites and God was trying to create a nation set apart from all others (can't find verse right now... but it exists). Now the old covenant was not perfect and that is admitted in the Bible, so the pattern was established for the coming of Jesus for when the old covenant would be inferior to the old.

It is important to see the old covenant so that we better understand God, but it is not so important that we need to dwell on it as much because we now have a better covenant.

I'm hoping that helps. Keep asking if it doesn't...

Now for the second question... Note that it is called a new covenant for the House of Israel (ie. the Jews). So it is a new covenant for them, but the new covenant is also extended freely to the Gentiles as well whereas before they had to bind themselves to it. Before the new covenant Gentiles could still be saved by faith in God and His promised Messiah without binding themselves to the old covenant.

And it's not ignorant, it is quite honestly one of the most debatable and hardest concepts in the Bible. In fact, in case you were wondering, the Bible itself calls the argument over whether the old covenant still applies debatable.

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.
- Romans 14:1, 13-15

Really it doesn't matter what anyone believes on the matter so long as they follow that belief.

Cool points 👆

Ok, got that. Oh and appreciate all this by the way.

One more question: What was the way to salvation BEFORE the New Covenant?

This particular question I've never been sure how to answer at all.

Originally posted by chithappens
Ok, got that. Oh and appreciate all this by the way.

One more question: What was the way to salvation BEFORE the New Covenant?

This particular question I've never been sure how to answer at all.

Jews and Muslims believe in heaven and hell also right? Or do they have something else detailing heaven and hell?

I'm not entirely sure about Muslims, but Jews believe in Sheol after death which can either be peaceful or painful.

muslims believe in a very similar concept to hell as christians. a lake of fire, etc. however, it is far more trancendant than the confined christian model.

and well, jesus said himself "i came not to destroy{the techings of old}"
so if anything contradicting the old testament/torah/10 commandments is attributed to him than he was lying or the attributed thing isnt true.

in reality, the old and new testament ARE severely contraedicting. wonder what thats says aboutr jesus and christinity as a whole.

Destroy =/= fulfill. Jesus fulfilled the OT and created the promised new covenant. It's pretty clear and dry. Furthermore, Jesus did not change anything to do with worship, or morals, or anything of the sort.

first off what is the connection ur making with destroy and fulfill????

he clearly means to not destroy OLD TEACHINGS. please do not misinterpret it to try and reconcile it with the new testament. it isnt clear or dry at all.

and are you sure there arent any chages???? changing the sabbath? changing the law about not eating pigs/swine?????? there are NUMEROUS more significant changes. not to mention he changed the very CRITERIA of entering heaven{actually not him but paul}. but if you believe in the bible then u have to think about how suddenly accepting jesus's crucification became the new and ONLY criteria for entering heaven. its a definite change from the torah etc.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
first off what is the connection ur making with destroy and fulfill????

he clearly means to not destroy OLD TEACHINGS. please do not misinterpret it to try and reconcile it with the new testament. it isnt clear or dry at all.

and are you sure there arent any chages???? changing the sabbath? changing the law about not eating pigs/swine?????? there are NUMEROUS more significant changes. not to mention he changed the very CRITERIA of entering heaven{actually not him but paul}. but if you believe in the bible then u have to think about how suddenly accepting jesus's crucification became the new and ONLY criteria for entering heaven. its a definite change from the torah etc.

Did Christ actually change the requirements for entering Heaven? Or did he clarify the requirements?

There is no single requirement for getting into Heaven. Christ himself stated it was easier for a camel to enter through the eye of the needle (a small gate in the wall) than it was for a rich man to get into Heaven (it is impossible for a Camel to enter through this gate). He stated many requirements for entering Heaven, there are merely groups of people that pick and choose which verse they believe is/are the "only" requirements rather than following all of the requirements Christ stated. Christ stated that if a person loved and accepted him, that person would get into Heaven. He also stated that if a person loved and accepted him, he'd keep all the commandments. When Christ stated this what commandments were in place? So to accept or love Christ, all the Commandments must be kept.

Originally posted by chithappens
I don't understand why Christians began to say that the laws given by God through Moses stopped applying to Christians (covered through the Torah/Old Testament).

I am aware that in the New Testament, Jesus was supposed to have set a new covenant between God and followers. Where that is, I'm not sure and what about that passage negates Mosaic Law?

Also, I thought the law of God was forever and always. Again, I'm not sure if that is in the Torah, just me thinking out loud.

Bro im pretty bloody sure that Jesus said in the New Testament that Jesus said "I didnt come to get rid of the old law but confirm it." I used to debate with Christians alot so I cant remember the reference. Then again I guess there stuff that contradicts that.

It's important to keep in mind that nearly the entire history of Christianity (and its interpretation of the Bible) is marked by the MGIBTYG mindset of Christians determined to "prove"--at any cost--that their faith was superior to Judaism (indeed, superior to every faith). This is why Christianity way well hold the distinction of being history's bloodiest religion (with Islam apparently a close second).

It is also important to keep in mind that Jesus himself was a devout Jew who had no intention of starting a new faith. Basically, he rallied against the ossification of his religion, just like many rally against calcified, organized religion today. For him, the Torah was the Law, period, and fulfillment meant living fully by that Law, setting himself as the example, not the replacement.

Paul founded Christianity, mainly for Gentile consumption, after being rejected by the Jews who did not agree Jesus was the Messiah. In part to make salvation easier, Gentiles did not have to study Torah, just accept Jesus as savior, an easier proposition, especially in a time when illiteracy was much higher than it is today.

Just thought you all should see this from the other side of the fence.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's important to keep in mind that nearly the entire history of Christianity (and its interpretation of the Bible) is marked by the MGIBTYG mindset of Christians determined to "prove"--at any cost--that their faith was superior to Judaism (indeed, superior to every faith). This is why Christianity way well hold the distinction of being history's bloodiest religion (with Islam apparently a close second).

It is also important to keep in mind that Jesus himself was a devout Jew who had no intention of starting a new faith. Basically, he rallied against the ossification of his religion, just like many rally against calcified, organized religion today. For him, the Torah was the Law, period, and fulfillment meant living fully by that Law, setting himself as the example, not the replacement.

Paul founded Christianity, mainly for Gentile consumption, after being rejected by the Jews who did not agree Jesus was the Messiah. In part to make salvation easier, Gentiles did not have to study Torah, just accept Jesus as savior, an easier proposition, especially in a time when illiteracy was much higher than it is today.

Just thought you all should see this from the other side of the fence.

Totally agree.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's important to keep in mind that nearly the entire history of Christianity (and its interpretation of the Bible) is marked by the MGIBTYG mindset of Christians determined to "prove"--at any cost--that their faith was superior to Judaism (indeed, superior to every faith). This is why Christianity way well hold the distinction of being history's bloodiest religion (with Islam apparently a close second).

It is also important to keep in mind that Jesus himself was a devout Jew who had no intention of starting a new faith. Basically, he rallied against the ossification of his religion, just like many rally against calcified, organized religion today. For him, the Torah was the Law, period, and fulfillment meant living fully by that Law, setting himself as the example, not the replacement.

Paul founded Christianity, mainly for Gentile consumption, after being rejected by the Jews who did not agree Jesus was the Messiah. In part to make salvation easier, Gentiles did not have to study Torah, just accept Jesus as savior, an easier proposition, especially in a time when illiteracy was much higher than it is today.

Just thought you all should see this from the other side of the fence.

Cool point. ✅

I see at you are saying. Basically Christianity wouldn't be necessary as an extension of Judaism, if the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah.

But unfortunately for the Jewish nation, many of them didn't and so IMO, Christianity is a necessity.