• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How do you distinguish which parts of OT are not applicable to you as a Christian?

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
I'm sure most of you have read the OT literally, page by page until all was read out, at least that's how I familiarized my self with the OT, although several times over.

I always wondered what to do about verses and texts that are contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.

For example Sirach 12:4-5 or Wisdom 13:1 are clearly contradictory to what Jesus was teaching.
We can find many such examples.

My "key" to differentiate so far is what Thomas Aquinas said that OT should be split into 3 parts:

1. Morality (Moral part)
2. Ceremonial (Ritual part)
3. Judicial (Legal part)

Where "moral" part is eternal, that is it's unchangeable, it's weight is same in both the OT and NT.
And Ceremonial and Judicial parts are a thing of the past that is, their weight does not flow into NT.

An example of Moral part is: 10 commandments of God and 2 commandments of love.
An example of Ceremonial part is: the duties of the Levites
An example of Judicial part is: The law of Moses

It's not hard to categorize certain text from OT into these 3 groups, but there are exceptions as with 2 wisdom examples above.

What is your method? how do you categorize when suggestion from Thomas Aquinas does not apply or when it's not obvious into which part some text goes?

Are there any specific bible verses or texts you would like to share here which you consider incomprehensible for the sake of such categorization or applicability to modern day life or teachings of Jesus?
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I'm sure most of you have read the OT literally, page by page until all was read out, at least that's how I familiarized my self with the OT, although several times over.

I always wondered what to do about verses and texts that are contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.

For example Sirach 12:4-5 or Wisdom 13:1 are clearly contradictory to what Jesus was teaching.
We can find many such examples.

My "key" to differentiate so far is what Thomas Aquinas said that OT should be split into 3 parts:

1. Morality (Moral part)
2. Ceremonial (Ritual part)
3. Judicial (Legal part)

Where "moral" part is eternal, that is it's unchangeable, it's weight is same in both the OT and NT.
And Ceremonial and Judicial parts are a thing of the past that is, their weight does not flow into NT.

An example of Moral part is: 10 commandments of God and 2 commandments of love.
An example of Ceremonial part is: the duties of the Levites
An example of Judicial part is: The law of Moses

It's not hard to categorize certain text from OT into these 3 groups, but there are exceptions as with 2 wisdom examples above.

What is your method? how do you categorize when suggestion from Thomas Aquinas does not apply or when it's not obvious into which part some text goes?

Are there any specific bible verses or texts you would like to share here which you consider incomprehensible for the sake of such categorization or applicability to modern day life or teachings of Jesus?
i don't identify as exclusively christian. mysticism tends to transcend such

the only thing you need to remember is the idea of love. if it isn't loving to all then it's excluding. so there can't be loving/hating someone more/less. jesus gave you a new commandment, "to love one another as he loved". anything apart from that is sin, errant.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
jesus gave you a new commandment, "to love one another as he loved"
Thank you for comment, there is one issue with that.
Jesus did love everyone and even laid down his life which is the greatest love John 15:13

However Jesus was also very critical against Pharisees, and went so far as to cast out money-changers and others John 2:13-16
The point being that loving others doesn't mean tolerating everything or being indifferent toward wrong, that's not love.

Same way if love is taken literally to interpret OT ex. without criticism then we're back to square 1 or same question, which is, how do you distinguish?
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Thank you for comment, there is one issue with that.
Jesus did love everyone and even laid down his life which is the greatest love John 15:13

However Jesus was also very critical against Pharisees, and went so far as to cast out money-changers and others John 2:13-16
The point being that loving others doesn't mean tolerating everything or being indifferent toward wrong, that's not love.

Same way if love is taken literally to interpret OT ex. without criticism then we're back to square 1 or same question, which is, how do you distinguish?
to love someone you would correct them because of the error. again, i repeat, if ALL are not being loved, then the Law is not being applied correctly. This is why jesus was at odds with the Pharisees.

and to lay down one's life isn't to commit assisted suicide. to lay down one's life is to do god's will and not one's own will


luke 22:42


there are two types of people. sheeps or goats.

goats are service to self-type, or selfish

sheep are service to ALL as self type, or selfless. selfless in not making a distinction between one vs another.
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
My "key" to differentiate so far is what Thomas Aquinas said that OT should be split into 3 parts:

1. Morality (Moral part)
2. Ceremonial (Ritual part)
3. Judicial (Legal part)
Thomas Aquinas may make this distinction, but the Torah does not. IN the Torah, something is either commanded by God or it isn't.

The way I've seen this separation used, is that Christians very conveniently put into the category of ceremonial laws whatever they think is too tough to follow. For example, Catholics say they keep the sabbath (although that's debatable since they do not rest on the seventh day), but they say that the commandment to not kindle a flame on the sabbath is "ceremonial." God forbid that they not cook one day a week. Well, is the sabbath ceremonial or not? See what I'm saying? The distinctions are more for the convenience of the Christian than anything real.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
For example, Catholics say they keep the sabbath
Sorry, I'm not trying to follow you around :sweat:

Catholics don't claim to keep the Sabbath. This is only done by certain sects of Protestants. Catholics have Sunday as the Lord's Day, and this is not the same.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Sorry, I'm not trying to follow you around :sweat:

Catholics don't claim to keep the Sabbath. This is only done by certain sects of Protestants. Catholics have Sunday as the Lord's Day, and this is not the same.
It's complicated. Technically it is exactly as you say -- Catholics consider the Sabbath to be Saturday, and Sunday to be the Lords day. But it is more complicated than that. They teach that the Church had the authority to move the "Solemnity of the Sabbath" from the seventh day to the first day. They actually believe that by worshiping on Sunday that they are keeping the commandment.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
It's complicated. Technically it is exactly as you say -- Catholics consider the Sabbath to be Saturday, and Sunday to be the Lords day. But it is more complicated than that. They teach that the Church had the authority to move the "Solemnity of the Sabbath" from the seventh day to the first day. They actually believe that by worshiping on Sunday that they are keeping the commandment.
It's more a spiritual purpose:

Sunday Is Not the Sabbath | Catholic Answers

"St. Paul tells us that the ceremonial aspect of the old law—the Sabbath day itself—is no longer binding for the Christian faithful:

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in regard to food or drink or in respect to festival, or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ (Col. 2:16-17)."

[...]

"The context makes clear that the Jewish “seventh day” has been superseded, or, more properly, fulfilled, in “another day,” “a certain day,” that is a new “Sabbath rest for the people of God.” What day is this? In Hebrews, it is not so much a day at all as it is a person: Jesus Christ. In fact, the entire discussion of “the Sabbath rest” disappears into the discussion of our “great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God” (4:14ff). It is Jesus Christ himself who actualizes the “rest” that was merely foreshadowed by the Sabbath."
 
All scriptures are applicable. Consider the New Testament, because there are many scriptures that are quoted , paraphrased, or referenced from the Old Testament.-Acts 17:3; 2 Timothy 3:16.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
Thomas Aquinas may make this distinction, but the Torah does not. IN the Torah, something is either commanded by God or it isn't.

The way I've seen this separation used, is that Christians very conveniently put into the category of ceremonial laws whatever they think is too tough to follow.
Unless I'm wrong, not even today's Jews follow ceremony of the Torah, for example I haven't seen any burnt offerings of animals to please God in modern days.
I'm sure you have an explanation of why not but my point here is not to debate that, what I don't understand is why would you deny that Torah could be split into ceremonial, Judicial and moral part?
Isn't burnt offerings of animals strictly speaking ceremony?

Further, you can't say that 10 commandments of God are ceremony.

Then ie. isn't stoning of a sinner (if the law so commands) Judicial? I mean there is no ceremony in that, that's obviously the law rather than ceremony.

I'm not denying what you said, that something is either commanded by God or not, what I'm saying is that not all commandments of God belong to same category.
Categorization of commandments is not denial of God's commandments, but rather hermeneutics or just categorization.

All scriptures are applicable. Consider the New Testament, because there are many scriptures that are quoted , paraphrased, or referenced from the Old Testament.-Acts 17:3; 2 Timothy 3:16.
All scriptures are applicable for understanding, yes.
But not all commandments are applicable because of contradictions of what Jesus was teaching.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...


All scriptures are applicable for understanding, yes.
But not all commandments are applicable because of contradictions of what Jesus was teaching.

Like it. As a culture Christian, who pay my church tax, that is more or less in practice modern Danish Christianity.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Unless I'm wrong, not even today's Jews follow ceremony of the Torah, for example I haven't seen any burnt offerings of animals to please God in modern days.
I'm sure you have an explanation of why not but my point here is not to debate that, what I don't understand is why would you deny that Torah could be split into ceremonial, Judicial and moral part?
Because it is unlawful to offer sacrifice anywhere except the Temple in Jerusalem. Some day when the temple is built, sacrifices will resume.

Isn't burnt offerings of animals strictly speaking ceremony?
Further, you can't say that 10 commandments of God are ceremony.
Where is the boundary of what is ceremony? I've heard some Christians say that keeping the Sabbath is ceremony, and other Chrisitans who say it is not.


Then ie. isn't stoning of a sinner (if the law so commands) Judicial? I mean there is no ceremony in that, that's obviously the law rather than ceremony.[/quoting]This is another thing that Christians can't agree whether it is ceremony or not.

Just an FYI, the death penalty is simply the maximum penalty. Judges can and did meet out lesser punishments. In fact, a Jewish court that dealt out even a single death penalty in 70 years was called a bloody court. Remember that there is no Torah without Oral Torah -- you have to look at the Talmud in order to understand and keep the Torah.

quote]I'm not denying what you said, that something is either commanded by God or not, what I'm saying is that not all commandments of God belong to same category.
Categorization of commandments is not denial of God's commandments, but rather hermeneutics or just categorization.
And I'm telling you that your categories are your own Christian Oral Tradition, nothing more.
 
Unless I'm wrong, not even today's Jews follow ceremony of the Torah, for example I haven't seen any burnt offerings of animals to please God in modern days.
I'm sure you have an explanation of why not but my point here is not to debate that, what I don't understand is why would you deny that Torah could be split into ceremonial, Judicial and moral part?
Isn't burnt offerings of animals strictly speaking ceremony?

Further, you can't say that 10 commandments of God are ceremony.

Then ie. isn't stoning of a sinner (if the law so commands) Judicial? I mean there is no ceremony in that, that's obviously the law rather than ceremony.

I'm not denying what you said, that something is either commanded by God or not, what I'm saying is that not all commandments of God belong to same category.
Categorization of commandments is not denial of God's commandments, but rather hermeneutics or just categorization.


All scriptures are applicable for understanding, yes.
But not all commandments are applicable because of contradictions of what Jesus was teaching.

Would you provide examples of "contradictions" including the scriptural references.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
But not all commandments are applicable because of contradictions of what Jesus was teaching.
The Torah is a revelation from God. If there is a contradiction with the Torah, such as what Jesus or Paul taught, it is proof that the New
testament is full of false teachings and is not the word of God.
 

Bree

Active Member
I'm sure most of you have read the OT literally, page by page until all was read out, at least that's how I familiarized my self with the OT, although several times over.

I always wondered what to do about verses and texts that are contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.

For example Sirach 12:4-5 or Wisdom 13:1 are clearly contradictory to what Jesus was teaching.
We can find many such examples.

My "key" to differentiate so far is what Thomas Aquinas said that OT should be split into 3 parts:

1. Morality (Moral part)
2. Ceremonial (Ritual part)
3. Judicial (Legal part)

Where "moral" part is eternal, that is it's unchangeable, it's weight is same in both the OT and NT.
And Ceremonial and Judicial parts are a thing of the past that is, their weight does not flow into NT.

An example of Moral part is: 10 commandments of God and 2 commandments of love.
An example of Ceremonial part is: the duties of the Levites
An example of Judicial part is: The law of Moses

It's not hard to categorize certain text from OT into these 3 groups, but there are exceptions as with 2 wisdom examples above.

What is your method? how do you categorize when suggestion from Thomas Aquinas does not apply or when it's not obvious into which part some text goes?

Are there any specific bible verses or texts you would like to share here which you consider incomprehensible for the sake of such categorization or applicability to modern day life or teachings of Jesus?


apocryphal texts such as Sirach and Wisdom are not considered to be inspired of God because they DO contradict Gods Word the Hebrew and Greek scriptures and they clearly contradict Jesus teachings.

for that reason they should not be used because they do not come from God.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
The Torah is a revelation from God. If there is a contradiction with the Torah, such as what Jesus or Paul taught, it is proof that the New
testament is full of false teachings and is not the word of God.
Contradictions are not unique to NT vs OT, they can be found anywhere in the scriptures and each one can be scripturally solved.

Here is what scriptures say as an answer to your "NT is false teachings"
Jeremiah 31:31-34
See, days are coming—oracle of the Lord—when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. They broke my covenant, though I was their master—oracle of the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days—oracle of the Lord. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 They will no longer teach their friends and relatives, “Know the Lord!” Everyone, from least to greatest, shall know me—oracle of the Lord—for I will forgive their iniquity and no longer remember their sin.

Therefore the law of the new covenant is in heart rather than in scriptures.
And just before you say that this new covenant applies only to Israel here is a proof that it does not: Hoshea 2:25b

I will say to Not-My-People, “You are my people,” and he will say, “My God!”


apocryphal texts such as Sirach and Wisdom are not considered to be inspired of God because they DO contradict Gods Word the Hebrew and Greek scriptures and they clearly contradict Jesus teachings.

for that reason they should not be used because they do not come from God.
Oh please, how can a sect which claims that Jesus is not son of a God and is thus contradictory to scriptures say what is word of God and what is not?

John 10:36
because I said, I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

As for contradictions, all contradictions in all the scriptures can be scripturally solved.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
Would you provide examples of "contradictions" including the scriptural references.
Have you never heard of the prostitute who Jesus saved from stoning?
John 8:1-12

The law commands to stone the prostitute, but Jesus didn't condemn her and saved her life instead.
What do you think? should the prostitute be stoned because the law says so or be forgiven because Jesus says so?
Is that not a contradiction?
 
Top