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 ?

[1213]

...Case/point, the 'golden rule' is utterly incompatible with the expressed allowances for lifetime chattel slavery practices. ...

You offer no intelligent reason to believe that.

[JehovahsWitness]

• To choose only the best or most suitable from a group of people or things - Cambridge Dictionary

• [To] choose the best ones from a group of them, often in a way that other people consider unfair. - Collins English Dictionary

• Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. - Wikipedia

DID CHRISTIANITY CHERRY PICK THE MOSAIC LAW ?

No, not in in the negative sense of being "unfair" , negatively bias against the truth or ignoring contradictory information.

MATTHEW 22:36

After the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in one group. 35 And one of them, versed in the Law, tested him by asking: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"+ 37 He said to him: "You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.+ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: You must love your neighbor as yourself.+ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Christianity is based o the teachings of Christ, the main one being a de facto acknowledgement of the 613 laws in the Mosaic code (thus it does not ignore them) but also an acknowledgement that all law is not equal. When asked to pick the "greatest" Jesus did so. By doing so he was not implying any of the Mosaic laws were "bad" but that they were less beneficial or suitable for the law's purpose than the one picked. Thus in its positive sense, Christianity does "Cherry pick". It is arguably based on the "greatest" natural law which was incorporated into the written law of the ancient nation of Israel.


JEHOVAHS WITNESS

To read more please go to other posts related to ...

THE MOSAIC LAW, SABBATH OBSERVANCE and ...ABOLITION

[TRANSPONDER]

...Case/point, the 'golden rule' is utterly incompatible with the expressed allowances for lifetime chattel slavery practices. ...

You offer no intelligent reason to believe that.

You should be able to work it out for your self.

i do not want to be enslaved (chattel slavery - I assume you don't; The Bible in fact makes it clear that slavery is not desired by anyone, so the Golden rule, which we get in the Bible, too, is incompatible with the idea of chattel slavery being endorsed by the bible, which it is.

This should be obvious to a smart fellow like you, so i can only assume that you have reverted to fingers in the ear denialism (a very familiar last resort of Bible - apologists when they are left without any other alternative to admitting that Bible morality is not as good as human.

[POI]

...Case/point, the 'golden rule' is utterly incompatible with the expressed allowances for lifetime chattel slavery practices. ...

You offer no intelligent reason to believe that.

You offer another nuh-uh response. Readers can see my rationale. I'm not going to keep repeating my point(s), just for you to continue hand-waiving them away. The fact of the matter is, that you have no comeback, which is why you offer none.

[POI]

When asked to pick the "greatest" Jesus did so. By doing so he was not implying any of the Mosaic laws were "bad" but that they were less beneficial or suitable for the law's purpose than the one picked.

Just curious, how does the given allowances for (chattel slavery) fit in as anything but 'bad' within Jesus's rationale? Jesus's #2 was the "golden rule".

Remember, humans later completely abolished such practices. Why didn't Jesus? As it stands, Jesus seems to be a-okay with humans owning other humans as lifetime property. Otherwise, a simple one-liner from Jesus would solve the matter. (i.e.) - "A human is to no longer own any other human as a slave for life."

[1213]

...The Bible in fact makes it clear that slavery is not desired by anyone,...

Please explain how does Bible make it clear?

Bible tells for example:

And if the slave truly says, I love my master, my wife and my children; I do not desire to go out free,
Ex. 21:5

[armchairscholar]

Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws

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

It is true that the early Christian community, guided by the apostles and the teachings of Jesus Christ, did not feel bound to observe every precept of the Mosaic law. But this was not a matter of arbitrary selection or rejection.

Rather, it was a process of discernment, guided by the conviction that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. The early Christians saw themselves as the inheritors of a rich spiritual tradition, one that was rooted in the covenant between God and the people of Israel. As they navigated the complexities of their own identity and relationship with Judaism, they sought to distill the essence of the law, focusing on the principles of love, compassion, and justice that lay at its heart.

This was not a rejection of the Mosaic law, but rather a reinterpretation of it in light of the new covenant established through Christ. The apostle Paul, in his letters to the Galatians and Romans, grappled with the nuances of this relationship, recognizing that the law, while imperfect, was a necessary step in the journey towards redemption.

In this sense, the Christian tradition did not so much "cherry-pick" from the Mosaic laws as it sought to understand and live out the deeper principles that undergirded them. This process of discernment and reinterpretation continues to this day, as Christians strive to apply the teachings of Christ to the complexities of modern life.

[oldbadger]

It is true that the early Christian community, guided by the apostles and the teachings of Jesus Christ, did not feel bound to observe every precept of the Mosaic law. But this was not a matter of arbitrary selection or rejection.

Rather, it was a process of discernment, guided by the conviction that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. The early Christians saw themselves as the inheritors of a rich spiritual tradition, one that was rooted in the covenant between God and the people of Israel. As they navigated the complexities of their own identity and relationship with Judaism, they sought to distill the essence of the law, focusing on the principles of love, compassion, and justice that lay at its heart.

This was not a rejection of the Mosaic law, but rather a reinterpretation of it in light of the new covenant established through Christ. The apostle Paul, in his letters to the Galatians and Romans, grappled with the nuances of this relationship, recognizing that the law, while imperfect, was a necessary step in the journey towards redemption.

In this sense, the Christian tradition did not so much "cherry-pick" from the Mosaic laws as it sought to understand and live out the deeper principles that undergirded them. This process of discernment and reinterpretation continues to this day, as Christians strive to apply the teachings of Christ to the complexities of modern life.

An interesting proposal, but I don't think that Christianity has built up a particularly good record in connection with the actions and words of Jesus, in fact it has ignored almost all.
The early church built up it's own traditions, beliefs and dogma to a point where it could do mostly anything it liked, such as indulging in wealth whilst ignoring extreme poverty, horrific wars and violence, slavery and so many other wickednesses.
And Christiany's self righteousness has trawled it's favourite Mosaic laws whilst ignoring hundreds of others.

But that's just how I perceive it all.

[bjs1]

The early church built up it's own traditions, beliefs and dogma to a point where it could do mostly anything it liked, such as indulging in wealth whilst ignoring extreme poverty, horrific wars and violence, slavery and so many other wickednesses.
And Christiany's self righteousness has trawled it's favourite Mosaic laws whilst ignoring hundreds of others.

But that's just how I perceive it all.

This is an interesting claim. It goes against most accepted history, so it is revisionist to say the least. What historical sources led you to the conclusion?

[Hawkins]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]

It's rather a misunderstanding of the big picture. There is a difference between Law (which is applicable to angels) and covenants (only applicable to humans) and Mosaic Law (embedded inside a covenant but resembles Law however only applicable to humans, the Jews to be more specific).

Law, the set applicable to angels and humans as well, will follow by an objective judgment (known as Final Judgment of Law) based on one's past and one's behavior. The judgment requires a Judge (who is Jesus), a jury (made of chosen saints and angels, Paul said we judge even angels), an accuser who is Satan and the case by case eyewitnesses. As long as a sin (of the past and in terms of behavior) is spotted with valid witnessing, the sinner is setenced accordingly. Jesus as the Judge will remain fairly/justly objective.

Covenants are earned by the blood of Christ and will be followed by a subjective Judgment by Christ. While Law is about an objective Judgment, covenants are about an subjective judgment from a fair and just God (who is Jesus Christ God the Son). The judgment itself is not limited to one's past and one's behavior but one's heart and even one's future to a certain extent (it's out of human comprehension though, that's why the judgment is deemed subjective). One's heart and Faith itself can only be judged by such a fair and just God. Still under most possible circumstances, cases are well witnessed through the sinner's behavior (even behavior reflects faith, faith without work is dead). However God would make the final decision subjectively as humans and angels can only witness behavior but only God can judge hearts and actual faith. Humans can only have rough estimation on one's faith by watching his behavior. The nature of faith however is something internal and can only be precisely judged by a God.

That being said. 613 laws belong to the Mosaic Covenant and are subject to the covenantal subjective Judgment. Jesus can thus define more precisely on how the 613 laws shall be used on the Judgment Day, with the scope applied to the Pharisees. What is said to the Pharisees is an estimation on what has been reflected by their heart, Jesus judges hearts. It's not about cherry picking, it's all about the revelation that humans' Final Judgment is a subjective one carried out subjectively by Jesus Christ, though He will be fair and just, but the judgment itself with be on hearts and on faith which humans and angels cannot precisely speculate.

With the Judgment of Covenant, Jesus is the Judge who will perform a subjective judgment, though under possible circumstances with past and behavior involved will still rely on valid witnesses. Jesus however can judge heart and faith more precisely which is beyond the capability of humans to witness. Just as said, even without human and angel witnesses God's Trinity will be the final and valid witnessing, especially to something concerning heart and faith. The Judgment of Covenant is for humans only, as it's earned by Jesus' crucifixion. Or else humans shall face the same Judgment of Law applicable to the angels, under Law all humans shall die.