Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

[oldbadger]

Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

It most certainly did!
Would anybody like to challenge that ?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Leviticus 14:8 the pig is also unclean.......... You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcases.

I think that law is still valid, in Christians point of view, people should not eat unclean things. The problem with that is, it can be so that a pig is cleaned so that it is not anymore unclean and therefore not prohibited. Many Christians think it is not unclean anymore, after it has been cleaned, and therefore it is not wrong and against the law to eat it. Can you say they are wrong?

The problem here is that it is still unclean for practical reasons now (ask any Muslim apologist) and, worse, it was unclean by any methods we have developed recently, back in Jesus' day.

The fact is it was declared clean for no good reason. Other than with Jesus the old laws went out the window. Why? The gospels try to make various arguments based on practical empathy. But that is irrelevant where God's Law is involved. You do not mow your neighbour's lawn when you should be at church. So you don't break sabbath law to do a bit of healing, let alone to take a stroll and nibble some grain.

It is clear- the NT set out to break Judaism for no valid reason, and we know (or we should) that it because Paul wanted to break it, as the reasons Jesus supposedly gives are not good reasons. Especially 'Something Greater than the Temple is here'.

[oldbadger]

Thanks. Maybe my answer should have been clearer, because it is not related to time really. The same has always been, if something is clean, it is not a problem.

Why do you think world is too full? I don't think that is true. All of world people would still fit on the ice of biggest lake in Finland. I think we have lot of room. The problem is more likely that there are few people who want it all to themselves.

But, I don't think people must get kids. And I don't think Bible tells people must marry to get kids.

And same-sex marriages are not forbidden in the Bible. That doesn't mean it is good to have them. I think it is irrational and also basically evil mocking of God. Yet, i don't think those weakens the nation. What weakens a nation is the matter that influences behind all the wrong, bad, or stupid actions. If people are stupid and evil, it leads to bad situations.

Thanks for your post.
Back 'then' if two males married, that would have meant that two men didn't marry women and they didn't have children, so the people were weaker later on as a result of that, and grandchildren and.....etc.
And any sin would lead to sickness, and in that instance the sickness would be a loss in strength. A growing nation was a secure one.

Indeed, back then the eating of bottom scavenging scaleless fish could lead to many deaths = weakness. Today we can eat an eel (etc) if we want to.

Many of the old laws could be reviewed, as indeed several churches are now doing.

[1213]

....
Back 'then' if two males married, that would have meant that two men didn't marry women and they didn't have children, so the people were weaker later on as a result of that...

I think the reason for not having same sex marriages is that it is just not reasonable. But, because the Bible doesn't say anything about same sex marriage, I understand if there are all kind of guesses why they didn't have them.

[1213]

...The fact is it was declared clean for no good reason. Other than with Jesus the old laws went out the window. Why? The gospels try to make various arguments based on practical empathy. But that is irrelevant where God's Law is involved. You do not mow your neighbour's lawn when you should be at church. So you don't break sabbath law to do a bit of healing, let alone to take a stroll and nibble some grain.

It is clear- the NT set out to break Judaism for no valid reason, and we know (or we should) that it because Paul wanted to break it, as the reasons Jesus supposedly gives are not good reasons. Especially 'Something Greater than the Temple is here'.

I don't think that is true. They didn't want to break it. Especially Jesus was only showing what the law meant in the first place, which would be obvious to anyone who reads the OT honestly.

[1213]

... Jesus taught that the Temple and sabbath was not important.

Please explain why do you think so?

Yes, yes, but 'clean' in terms of hygiene is one thing, 'clean' because of a religious ruling is not a good reason.

What if the religious ruling is because of actual health reasons, like hygiene?

Because of Jesus healing on the sabbath. The pretext is that it is ok to break the Sabbath law (no work) if it is to do good. This is NOT an excuse to break God's law. The point is made most clear in David and the Shewbread where David (who was a sinner anyway) was permitted by the priest after answering a few questions to make sure it was ok. And David was not perfect anyway.
...

It is not ok to break the shabbat and work that day. Helping others is not the same as working, doing ones job for wage. And I think it was clear also before Jesus, why else were guards and priests allowed to do things for others?

this is the burnt offering of every Sabbath, besides the continual burnt-offering, and the drink-offering of it.
Num. 28:10
He commanded them, saying, This is the thing that you shall do: a third part of you, who come in on the Sabbath, shall be keepers of the watch of the king's house; The captains over hundreds did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded; and they took every man his men, those who were to come in on the Sabbath, with those who were to go out on the Sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest.
2 Kings 11:5, 9

[TRANSPONDER]

...The fact is it was declared clean for no good reason. Other than with Jesus the old laws went out the window. Why? The gospels try to make various arguments based on practical empathy. But that is irrelevant where God's Law is involved. You do not mow your neighbour's lawn when you should be at church. So you don't break sabbath law to do a bit of healing, let alone to take a stroll and nibble some grain.

It is clear- the NT set out to break Judaism for no valid reason, and we know (or we should) that it because Paul wanted to break it, as the reasons Jesus supposedly gives are not good reasons. Especially 'Something Greater than the Temple is here'.

I don't think that is true. They didn't want to break it. Especially Jesus was only showing what the law meant in the first place, which would be obvious to anyone who reads the OT honestly.

Rubbish. Shall I post the whole thing? It is utterly clear that Jesus and did s disciples were ignoring the Sabbath by b not doing worship, and technically 'working' by husking grain. A minor infraction of the Law so as to make the teachers of the Law look petty, but I hear it is the custom now to tear your toilet paper on the Friday so as not to do Work on the Sabbath. Jesus (had he actually done this - it is a made up story by Christians to further their polemic against Judaism and its' laws) would have been well aware.

[TRANSPONDER]

... Jesus taught that the Temple and sabbath was not important.

Please explain why do you think so?

Yes, yes, but 'clean' in terms of hygiene is one thing, 'clean' because of a religious ruling is not a good reason.

What if the religious ruling is because of actual health reasons, like hygiene?

Because of Jesus healing on the sabbath. The pretext is that it is ok to break the Sabbath law (no work) if it is to do good. This is NOT an excuse to break God's law. The point is made most clear in David and the Shewbread where David (who was a sinner anyway) was permitted by the priest after answering a few questions to make sure it was ok. And David was not perfect anyway.
...

It is not ok to break the shabbat and work that day. Helping others is not the same as working, doing ones job for wage. And I think it was clear also before Jesus, why else were guards and priests allowed to do things for others?

this is the burnt offering of every Sabbath, besides the continual burnt-offering, and the drink-offering of it.
Num. 28:10
He commanded them, saying, This is the thing that you shall do: a third part of you, who come in on the Sabbath, shall be keepers of the watch of the king's house; The captains over hundreds did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded; and they took every man his men, those who were to come in on the Sabbath, with those who were to go out on the Sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest.
2 Kings 11:5, 9

of course, religious persons are obliged to do their 'work' on religious days. It is non religious persons who were not allowed to do any kind of work, whether helping others or not. There was a provision for doing work if to save life on the sabbath, but not otherwise. and, in David and the Shewbread, Jesus was having his disciples cut Sabbath worship because it didn't matter. This is the (Paulinist) message of the Gospels - the old Jewish laws don't matter.

Your excuses and evasions will help you, no more than your irrelevant quotations.

[TRANSPONDER]

...The fact is it was declared clean for no good reason. Other than with Jesus the old laws went out the window. Why? The gospels try to make various arguments based on practical empathy. But that is irrelevant where God's Law is involved. You do not mow your neighbour's lawn when you should be at church. So you don't break sabbath law to do a bit of healing, let alone to take a stroll and nibble some grain.

It is clear- the NT set out to break Judaism for no valid reason, and we know (or we should) that it because Paul wanted to break it, as the reasons Jesus supposedly gives are not good reasons. Especially 'Something Greater than the Temple is here'.

I don't think that is true. They didn't want to break it. Especially Jesus was only showing what the law meant in the first place, which would be obvious to anyone who reads the OT honestly.

Rubbish. Shall I post the whole thing? It is utterly clear that Jesus and did s disciples were ignoring the Sabbath by b not doing worship, and technically 'working' by husking grain. A minor infraction of the Law so as to make the teachers of the Law look petty, but I hear it is the custom now to tear your toilet paper on the Friday so as not to do Work on the Sabbath. Jesus (had he actually done this - it is a made up story by Christians to further their polemic against Judaism and its' laws) would have been well aware.

Mark 2. 23 (1) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

That is the message. Because of Jesus, the Mosaic law is gone. Jesus' argument is nonsense to anyone but Christians. Even if the preiests permission to David to have the bread, that does not excuse Jews from binning the law. Any teacher of the law would argue that, but this is Christian propaganda, so they never get to make any response. It is all Greek Paulinist Christian propaganda intended to make Jews, Judaism and their law look bad, so as to push Christianity.

"I don't think that is true" is merely denial of an inconvenient fact, like slavery, wrong order of creation, failure of the prophecy of Tyre, proof of speciation and the terminal contradictions in the resurrections.

If you say it is Not ok to break the sabbath, you are disregarding what Jesus supposedly said. But never mind, Christian teaching and authorities ever since have been disregarding that, just as the disregard everything inconvenient in the Bible.

(1) see also Luke 6 and Matthew 12.

[oldbadger]

....
Back 'then' if two males married, that would have meant that two men didn't marry women and they didn't have children, so the people were weaker later on as a result of that...

I think the reason for not having same sex marriages is that it is just not reasonable. But, because the Bible doesn't say anything about same sex marriage, I understand if there are all kind of guesses why they didn't have them.

The bible does include same sex marriage because Mosaic Law banned males from laying with males. But the was a reason for every and any law and the laws provided for good health. strength, cohesion, security and provision for all the people.

But today communities do not need increase in population for security, indeed most communities are strongly against such increases. And so closed male partnership and marriage poses no problem.

[1213]

... Jesus was having his disciples cut Sabbath worship because it didn't matter. ...

What do you mean with "Sabbath worship"?