So does Jesus' sacrifice and crucifixion negate the laws of the Old Testament?
>>912257
>inb4 "fulfilled" memery
Negate? No.
Fulfill? Yes.
>>912257
>His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image
And I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't fuck guys
>>912257
Yes, first century Palestine was a super progressive place. I am sure a wondering ascetic Jewish preacher would have been perfectly fine with homosexuality.
>>912276
So then do modern Christians have to obey the laws set out in Leviticus or not?
>>912282
No, they follow the the Law of Christ. "The Great Commandment" and all that.
Depending on who you ask, though, there may be some overlap.
>>912281
>assuming it has anything to do with "progressive"
Many primitive societies have little problem with homosexual relations, sometimes they can be ritualistic and some others consider hermaphrodites or transexuals as more fitting to be shamans.
Not saying semitic peoples in that region were acceptive of it, but the notion of progress doesn't really apply like that to culture, especially when making a comparison, and especially when that comparison is between cultures which are not contemporary to each other.
>>912282
There are different classes of law in the Pentateuch; ritual, dietary, etc. Those laws which were particular to the Jewish people are abrogated. The moral precepts remain permanent and effective.
>>912257
OP, that picture is honestly the most dumbfuck, I-know-just-enough-to-be-retarded bullshit theology I've ever read. Not just that I disagree with it, there are sophisticated arguments to make against my view (that of orthodox Catholicism), but that thin liberal drivel is not one of them.
>>912289
So, just believing in the divinity of Christ and living according to his teachings?
But isn't that what Protestants believe?
>>912257
This is a decent gloss of this issue for beginners:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law
>>912295
Sure; it's what all Christians believe.
It's the exact definitions of "The Divinity of Christ" (also toss the Holy Spirit and God the Father in there) and "Living in accordance to his teachings" that causes all the debate.
>>912293
Its called sarcasm. that post was clearly applying a modern lens to the issue, minimizing the realities of 1st century Palestine
>>912257
It does not negate anything, but it forms a new covenant between God and men, where redemption does not come through obedience, but through grace and works.
The Ancient God punished sin, the one spoken of by Christ forgives sin.
Mankind, although eternally sinful, is redeemed, save for the sin against the Holy Ghost, unto the age of ages.
>>912311
>The Ancient God punished sin, the one spoken of by Christ forgives sin.
Whether old testament God is more cruel than New Testament really depends what interpretation of Christianit you pick. IF you beleive that everyone goes to heaven than yes, New Testament is more kind.
However if you don't than I would say New Testament God is far more punishing and less loving. Let's compare them
-Old Testament
*No life after death, punishments are only earthly and can be finite
*Far more forgiving to non-Jews, only real requirment is that they show neighborly kindness
*Sin is not eternal, it may be forgiven by ritual or the passage of time
*Far easier to live in a sinnless life. Only actions are sin
*Humans are seen as neither good nor evil but having potential for both. Concept of "fallen" man is not as common in theology
-New Testament
*Infinite punishment in the form of hell
*Sin is eternal, forgiven only by the whim of God
*Living a sinless life is impossible, thought-crime like view of sin
*Humans are inherently evil in many interpretations, man is fallen
The Old Testament God and the New Testament father represent two different deities.
>>912331
If you believe everyone goes to Heaven then Old Testament God comes out even better, since everyone he 'unjustly' killed goes to paradise anyway.
>>912257
Jesus was an (essentially) Orthodox Jew... go from there. my 2 cents
>>912343
Logic like this is why I think the no-after-life old testament God is better.
The Old Testament God's rewards and punishments all take place on earth. If you sin than it may harm you, or your family, or your country. If you are pious it means life becomes a better place for everyone.
New Testament God differs everything to an after-life and make this life meaningless. Why not torture pagans to force them to convert? Why care about this world at all or what happens after you die? It's just a waiting room and if you are on good behavior you get to go to another world.
>>912257
No, Acts 15 does. If the OT law were negated there'd be no sin and thus no reason to be a Christian.
>>912331
>Hell
>Existing in any testament
>>912392
You're implying that Sheol and Gehenna are Hell.
They aren't. Sheol is basically Jew Hades. Everyone goes there. It's not a punishment like Hell.
Being crucified has nothing to do with it. But when he was alive, he did disregard a lot of the jewish dogma.
>>912257
hebrews 8-9
If you don't that jews at the time didn't question what the law was fulfilled meant, than you're retarded
The old testament was a time peroid where man was under the dominion of law and god apparently thought law failed so he gave humans a different way into heaven which is preached by Christianity to be found through faith.
This is slightly off topic but I don't want to make a thread for it but I want to know, from more religious minds, how do you reconcile Christianity with capitalism? Both general capitalism and Rand's idea of capitalism through Objectivism.
>>912294
>There are different classes of law in the Pentateuch; ritual, dietary, etc. Those laws which were particular to the Jewish people are abrogated. The moral precepts remain permanent and effective.
>"only the lines which I find convenient to myself and which appeal to my sense of aesthetics apply"
Christcucks in a nutshell.
>>912392
Actually, the concept of any kind of afterlife only emerges following the Babylonian captivity, in which some Jews are influenced by Eastern/proto-Zoroastrian notions. It is in this period that the concept of Sheol arises, which itself is more akin to the Greek Hades or the Mesoamerican Xibalba/Mictlan (it's a neutral - if somewhat gloomy - place where the spirits of the dead go to, neither good or bad, simply extant).
Then under the influence of Hellenic and Roman occupations, we get the development of the dual afterlifes: Abraham's Bosom and Gehenna.
How do you reconcile this with your 'Christian thought'? Do you believe your deity at first had no afterlife, but then decided to create one, and further down the line, decided once more to separate the afterlife into realms based on actions on Earth? But this brings up more theological problems than it answers, because then we have to account for the supposed immutability of God and whatever prompted him to make an afterlife and to make not one but two radical changes to the way it functioned.
It isn't just Leviticus, it is also in Romans
But it's all just bs
The bible is not a historical document, nor is the word of God
The fact anyone has died over such a shitty book is proof that humans will use anything to justify being shitty to each other
Ffs American Christians often claim the new pope is sacrilegious for claiming global warming is a thing
>>912257
Jesus doesn't say anything explicitly about homosexuality but he does say that a person should either:
1. Not engage in sexual activity at all
or
2. If this is too difficult for him he should take for himself a WIFE (or if it's a woman a HUSBAND) and only engage in sexual activity with that selfsame husband/wife. Fornication is a sin.
homosexuality btfo
>>914085
*tips fedora*
>>912257
Jesus only derogates the stuff contradicting him, everything else stays.
>>914085
>nor is the word of God
you are not a christian. your opinion is of no value.
>>912257
regarding ColBERT's little sketch:
Matthew 19 - "4He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?"
This is the only acceptable model for a coupling given by Jesus in the new testament.
t. Ami-Burger Protestant.
>>913935
Are you really so stupid that you can't tell the difference between temporal, particularist laws and laws which refer to morality as such? Like, how dumb do you have to be that you can't distinguish between "Don't eat shellfish" and "Don't murder." This isn't high level shit my man.
>>916629
>Matthew 19 - "4He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?"
>This is the only acceptable model for a coupling given by Jesus in the new testament.
Liberal Christians object by saying that he was saying this in the context of forbidding divorce, and wasn't speaking in general. I'm non-Christian, but what's the response to that?
>>913920
Well there are many ideas of "Capitalism". The Rand one is quite narrow, and dying in comparison to the Chicago and Austrian schools. Really, Christianity has had an interesting influence on capitalist ideology, with Adam Smith prospecting that the invisible hand phenomenon could be derived from God's grace.
>>916670
"Thou shalt not bugger" is not a commandment.
>>912279
Pretty sure he didn't bash gays either though.
Or post on 4chan for that matter.
>>913935
Circumcision and dietary laws were EXPLICITLY abolished in the New Testament. You should read it some time.
>>916847
By Paul, not Jesus.
By the way, "defilement" and "sin" are two different concepts in the OT, so be careful before you bring up the line about coming out and not going in.
>>916862
Nothing to with Paul, like at all.
>Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.
>What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.
t. Jesus
The dream Peter had about clean and unclean animals is in Acts, which were written by Luke. I don't see where Paul comes into the equation and it seems to me you never actually read the NT and just go HURR PAUL like the rest of the fedoras when there's a NT account that doesn't fit into your narrative.
