Therefore he broke the "yoke of slavery" holding us in the old ways.
Didn't he also say something like "I have not come to cancel the law, rather to uphold it" though? I feel like there's a direct contradiction for every bible passage, in the bible.
Lots of contradictions. A book thousands of years old, translated and retranslated, pages missing, certain books banned/not considered canonical (Gospel of Mary and Judas).
Yes, Paul says in Romans that their duty is to uphold the law and not overthrow it. I can only assume he meant the New Testament but who knows. I don't even believe in this stuff. I just read the book out of defense.
I have read somewhere that when he said I have to come to fulfill the law/prophets he literally means the old testament. But as you said, contradictory book, orally transmitted for hundreds of years before being written down, by a group of people that didn't know where the sun goes at night.
Welp, if he's specifically referencing the Old Testament someone had a change of heart.
At the same time the Bible spouses ignorance it also has some interestingly helpful bits too. I can only assume during a time when we didn't even understand germs things like declaring pork unclean was more of a sanitary stance than a religious one. Reading it from a non-religious perspective has been very interesting.
This is my take on a bunch of Leviticus. It contains basic farming principles, primitive pathogen defence, food safety, and plenty of whackado nonsense (jubilee). It's easily the most fascinating part of the Bible. It makes a ton of sense to embed this information in religious texts when it's essentially universal throughout a population, especially if it's like the only reference book available among the lower classes.
Yes yes and yes! Leviticus was the reason I started reading the Bible in the first place. When you remove religious context from the scripture it plays out almost like an early survival guide in a way.
Forbidding pork has more roots to it than cleanliness. Why did they only vaguely say it's unclean, but not what bad pork will do to you-i.e. vomit and shit your brains out and become gravely ill? There was likely economic and identity politics involved.
The focus on washing was definitely a winner generally though, and it's kinda funny and kinda sad that Christians ditched that while Muslims kept it.
Definitely not saying it was only cleanliness I'm almost positive there was some form of economical reasoning for it. As for not going into detail I've noticed that religion tends to just state something is bad without ever explaining why, and that the congregation must simply accept this truth. So I can definitely see them saying it's unclean without any detail or context and simply expect others to follow.
The video is an interesting watch, I'm about 6 and a half minutes in and I'm wondering if it might not have been racially motivated too because the guy is saying that the rest of the ancient world, for the most part, were enjoying pork. It could've been a mixture of things.
I wasn't trying to diss you or anything for citing cleanliness, I hope it didn't come across that way! The motivations behind religious and religious thought and how it evolves is fascinating to me and I like sharing the knowledge.
Considering Paul's epistles we're written before the gospels, and Paul never even claimed to have met Jesus...he wouldn't have been referring to some "new testament", he was just referring to the Jesus movement in general I think, and a lot of it had to do with whether or not new Christians (eg. Not Jews) we're supposed to follow Jewish rules like circumcision and stuff.
For all the time I've read the Bible I didn't know this bit. I thought Paul was one of the disciples. So he was just some fan cashing in on the Jesus craze?
The new Christian thing makes sense when you read Galatians because Galatians 5:2 immediately dives into circumcision. Apparently it wasn't considered good for New Christians.
Yeah Paul was completely separate from the so called disciples. Paul had his own ideas and said Jesus revealed himself to him in a more magical sense since he never met him while he was alive, and it shows in his writing and he was at odds with a lot of teachings also in the bible, most famously James. Paul and James disagree on a lot and the writings reflect that, in some cases being actual responses to criticisms/divergent teachings. Of course it's generally swept under the rug or ignored and mental gymnastics are performed to try to make the presuppositions of idiot modern day Christians work, but you can just read the stuff side by side still.
Jeeze this is some interesting shit. Maybe I should've dived a bit deeper into theology. Sometimes the Bible feels like multiple philosophers got together and slapped it about a bit. When you say things like Paul and James disagreed a lot and it reflects in their writings I'm picturing two grumpy professors arguing over the right way to teach the lecture hall. Sorry to digress, I'm sick and haven't slept.
Modern Day Christianity is a mess of mental gymnastics because people can't separate "I have faith in God" from "I must follow this manmade book."
Granted the church relies on people to not question. Ever. Because that's how they lose members. Pulling a part any aspect of Jesus' story outside of his documentation as some guy who claimed to be the son of god is easily picked apart when you look past the mysticism.
But hey, if it brings some people peace, and they ain't hurting me or others, I don't really mind. In fact I'm happy to be acquainted with them. People need to realize that book isn't the same as their faith as it exists today. Jesus has changed with the times.
What I'm talking about isn't theology. Theology is a bunch of people with beliefs trying to explain their beliefs into the books they are reading. What I'm talking about is called the historical critical method, where the Bible is examined without a theological conclusion in mind. It attempts to be as scientific as you can be when discussing and investigating history and such.
That actually sounds very interesting. I began with Leviticus when I first tried reading it because the rules seemed to play out like a survival guide than a holy religious thing.
Can you give some examples of historical critical method in the Bible? I'm always up for new info and learning new things.
So a simple example would be the common belief that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible. Someone reading those books with the historical critical method in mind would deduce that can't actually be true because Moses dies in one of them, so obviously he didn't write that part. That's just a super simple example but you get the idea. There are thousands of books on the subject, and even more using the method on specific questions about the Bible. Check out some of the popular scholars like Bart Ehrman on YouTube. He's not religious but he's pretty vanilla on his scholarly work and wouldn't be considered fringe like a lot of stuff you might find. Due to the subject matter there's a lot of so-called axe grinding going on out there with apologists and anti-theists going at it, so it's best to find actual scholars who publish actual papers and have actual credentials when you're first starting out. I can look for some good intro lectures and books when I'm at my PC and DM you if you want.
Thanks. I'll check the guy out on YouTube. I always wanted to know more about the Bible in this way. I'll also gladly accept any lectures/papers/whatnot you have to offer! I'm a sponge and I'm sick so I got nothing better to do. :)
Ya, that’s not Paul. That’s Matthew 5:18, from the Sermon On the Mount. It’s allegedly Jesus’ own words. And that dude was a Jewish Rabbis so he wasn’t probably referring to the New Testament. That wouldn’t come together for a little bit.
Here, I’ll even throw 17 and 19 out there for “context”.
“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 I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Oh I didn't know about that one. I was thinking Romans 3:13
Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
But the Matthew quote makes a lot more sense since Romans seems be talking about following the law through faith? It's been a hot minute since I've actually sat down and read this thing.
The bible makes a whole lot more sense when you realize each of its contributors was a person with their own thoughts, agendas, knowledge, and interpretations of the proceeding contributes. That and when groups get together and play madlibs, like the Council of Nicaea, you get just a bit of convulsion.
If there is a personal greater power, their reaction to the Bible could be close to its shortest verse. John 11:35.
Absolutely it does. A book orally translated for many years, written in multiple different formats and languages, and then argued on by multiple different people trying to discern the Will of God... I'd be shocked if it was less muddled.
47
u/toth42 Apr 27 '22
Didn't he also say something like "I have not come to cancel the law, rather to uphold it" though? I feel like there's a direct contradiction for every bible passage, in the bible.