Question about the "New Covenant"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2013, 01:10 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2013 01:15 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
I once spent a few months of my spare time trying to work out all this shit, and it is shit, about old covenants and new covenants. Here are some of my conclusions that may help clarify things a little...

Paul and Judaism
Devout Jews despised Paul and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was completely foreign to them. They refused to believe that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed a primordial, sinful nature of humankind. For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture wasn’t in heaven, but on earth. Their messiah wasn’t to be sold as a soul’s savior, but was to be a flesh and blood leader of the Jews. He was to herald in a glorious age in which Israel ruled and brought pagans under the glory of their god, Yahweh. He was to build the Temple (Ezek. 37:26–28), gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isa. 43:5–6), and bring an end to Roman rule. He was supposed to stop all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!
Paul claimed:

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2;16, KJV), and

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13, KJV), and

“Before faith came, we were allowed no freedom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:23–28, NJB).

Traditional Jews would have none of this. They wouldn’t be Jewish if they did. They believed - and still do - that the way to find favor with God was to obey “the Law” - that is, the Torah, as taught by Moses. There’s no mention in their scriptures of an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law as a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe Paul? They knew there was no such thing as a “new covenant,” other than in Paul’s overly active imagination.

Imagine a scientologist grabbing a microphone during mass at the Vatican and proclaiming that Ron Hubbard was more important than Jesus. Paul was a first century scientologist.

Paul had an ambivalent attitude to Jewish scripture, which varied with the audience he was writing to. At times he interpreted it to justify his own ideas, such as when writing to “Hellenized” Jews in the diaspora. Yet when writing to gentiles he claimed parts of scripture were redundant.

Yeshua had died over a decade before Paul appeared on the scene, and I think would’ve been offended by the idea that his death could somehow give Gentiles a ticket to heaven. He would’ve cursed Romans (who did, after all, nail him to a cross) with his dying breath, not imagine that his God—whom he would never have thought of as his temporal sire—would grant them a place in heaven!
Jesus said,

“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (Matt. 5:17–18 JB). Paul and Jesus contradicted each other! So much for Biblical infallibility!

Many people today insist that Jesus came to do away with the Jewish Law. They’re not considering Jesus’ words, but Paul’s (or Paul’s proponents like Luther or Calvin.)
Jews believed God dwelt in the temple, in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Paul made a cavalier dismissal of the importance of Israel by suggesting that the Temple wasn’t the only place god resided. He said all believers become a temple for God:

“And that is what we are—the temple of the living God" (2 Cor. 6:15, NJB) and

“Didn’t you realize that you were God’s Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16 JB).

He was trying to expand God’s influence into the whole world. Yet for most first century Jews this denied the geographical pivot of Judaism.

Jews thought they were Abraham’s descendants and, therefore, a nation of God’s special people. Yet Paul claimed:

"Those therefore who rely on faith receive the same blessing as Abraham, the man of faith." (Gal. 3:9, NJB), and

“Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs he was promised” (Gal. 3:29, NJB).

He was asserting that believing gentiles should consider themselves God’s chosen. He was trying to make gentiles feel that they too were special, and weaken the patriotic fervor of Jews by downplaying their exclusivity.

Throughout Paul’s travels, he was initially welcome in the synagogues because he masqueraded as a traditional Jew, but after Jews heard what he had to say, he was rejected, sometimes even beaten and pelted with rocks; a repetitive pattern portrayed in Acts. As Paul was probably a Jew, his fellow Jews must have imagined he was upsetting their God, and the whole Jewish community would suffer as a consequence. Is it any wonder they physically attacked him?

In the decades Paul was preaching, the Nazarenes were expanding into a significant force under the leadership of James in Jerusalem. They also enjoyed a significant membership among Jews throughout the empire. They definitely didn’t preach the divinity of Christ, nor intend to start a new religion. Paul, when he wasn’t pretending to be one of them, considered them competitors. He got very upset when he encountered rival missionaries, who were probably Nazarene, and complained bitterly about them hijacking “his” converts. He cursed them, using the undeniable truth of his own gospel as justification:

“I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some trouble makers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one that we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is condemned” (Gal. 1:6–9, NJB).

He sounds like an upset child whose best friend has gone off to play with someone else. It’s ironic that Paul was accusing his adversaries of the very thing he was guilty of - preaching a fabrication!

The two faced Paul probably tried to ingratiate himself with the Nazarenes when in their company, but they became implacably opposed to him, as verified by the verbal confrontation described in Galatians chapter two, and the adamantly anti-Pauline assertions in James’ letter.

Paul knew he wasn’t a popular figure amongst traditional Jews. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his nervousness that the Nazarenes in Jerusalem might reject him, which, if the story in Acts is true, is precisely what they did. James summoned Paul to Jerusalem when it became apparent Paul was preaching against the Torah, and sent him to the temple to be purified and prove he was still a true Jew (see Acts 21), which led to Paul’s so called arrest and eventual transportation to Rome. James, Jesus’ brother, effectively terminated Paul’s missionary career!

When Paul was forced to reveal that he was a Roman citizen, his cover was well and truly blown. A Roman citizen couldn’t be a Nazarene. According to Acts, the Romans had to dedicate considerable resources (500 soldiers) to protect him from angry Jews. They were looking after one of their own.

Paul wasn’t deterred. He kept writing letters from Rome, and to the best of our knowledge, never gave up.

Paul’s modern-day reputation as a teacher of truth, and the implication he taught Yeshua’s message, has no foundation, yet it’s become part of Christian tradition, largely because of Acts. Paul’s reputation lacked credibility, so the author had Jesus’ ghost appear to Paul on the road to Damascus, which was pure fiction, as was the story of Paul becoming good friends with Jesus’ disciples. The author even tried to shore up Paul’s status by having him perform a number of miracles. Yet Paul failed to mention them, an impossible omission. Paul revealed many personality traits in his letters, but genuine modesty definitely wasn’t one of them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
09-05-2013, 01:36 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2013 01:41 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
PJ...it's not clear at all. You're making stuff up.

Jeebus never says "if you're Jewish...." He simply tells everyone to obey the Law...the Torah....the JEWISH book of rules.

What's this "Law of Love" phrase? Where'd you get that from?

Your cult (Christianity) was made up by gentiles. Your Jeebus, however, was a Jew. He hated gentiles (as you would if they nailed you to a cross).

Paul, who never met Jeebus, invented (or was at least the key proponent) of the so-called "new covenant," but our Jeebus knew nothing of it.

Get it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 05:16 AM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
(08-05-2013 12:18 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Pretty clear, isn't it?

If you're Jewish, the Mosaic Law applies to your life. If you're a believing Gentile, you follow the Law of Love.

The HB says not to commit adultery but I am to treat my spouse far better.

The HB says not to murder but I am to love my neighbor as myself.

Why would the Mosaic Law still apply to you if you're Jewish? There's no standard in which this type of moral relativism makes sense... if it is "good" for them to commit a certain act but "bad" for us, then there's certainly no sense in which morals are objective. Are they still supposed to kill a woman if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night? Does that sound right to you?

It has been said here that the OT is cherry-picked, and there are plenty of examples. Murder, for example, if only a sin in the OT. Sure, Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, but he was also telling this to people that (according to you) should still be killing women that aren't virgins before marriage. Murder isn't loving but death penalties for victimless crimes is loving? Is slavery loving? Even in Philemon, the bible makes it clear that Christians are okay with slave owners.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
09-05-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
Mark Fulton, than you for the most complete verse that could negate all the various laws of the OT (Gal. 3:23-28). As all such verses essentially every thing that was forbidden before is now allowed. Something "good chrisians" frown upon. Reading through but not closely your post above as usual I get confused by some of the internal contradictions. Knowing the history of the cult of jesus certainly explains some things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
Quote:PleaseJesus, do you eat pork or crawfish. If so how do you reconcile those acts with the verse from matthew you quote.

I may be an atheist but I do know that many christians claim a new covenant on the basis of the NT.

I will keep returning to my quest to be a christian theist (not in my lifetime but in the beloved afterlife) if I can get a complete answer on why I can eat pork or crawfish.
Are you Jewish? Don't eat pork or shellfish.

Deuteronomy 6:25 - And it shall be our righteousness [the Israelites], if we observe to do all these commandments before YAHWEH our Elohim, as he hath commanded us [Israelites].

Most of the interpretative problems Christians have (not Atheists) is taking clear verses from both testaments that are speaking of Jewish people and misapplying them to all Christians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
Why are there two sets of rules for different people PJ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2013 05:37 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
(09-05-2013 02:48 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:PleaseJesus, do you eat pork or crawfish. If so how do you reconcile those acts with the verse from matthew you quote.

I may be an atheist but I do know that many christians claim a new covenant on the basis of the NT.

I will keep returning to my quest to be a christian theist (not in my lifetime but in the beloved afterlife) if I can get a complete answer on why I can eat pork or crawfish.
Are you Jewish? Don't eat pork or shellfish.

Deuteronomy 6:25 - And it shall be our righteousness [the Israelites], if we observe to do all these commandments before YAHWEH our Elohim, as he hath commanded us [Israelites].

Most of the interpretative problems Christians have (not Atheists) is taking clear verses from both testaments that are speaking of Jewish people and misapplying them to all Christians.

You're just repeating your own flawed argument. You haven't addressed what D8, JAH, Starcrash and I have said.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 05:18 PM
RE: Question about the "New Covenant"
(09-05-2013 02:40 PM)JAH Wrote:  Mark Fulton, than you for the most complete verse that could negate all the various laws of the OT (Gal. 3:23-28). As all such verses essentially every thing that was forbidden before is now allowed. Something "good chrisians" frown upon. Reading through but not closely your post above as usual I get confused by some of the internal contradictions. Knowing the history of the cult of jesus certainly explains some things.

Hi Jah....I hope what I've written makes sense. Believe it or not, I've got it straight in my own head and would be happy to explain it to you if there's bits you don't get.

Part of the reason for the confusion is that Paul was inconsistent and really was just very very odd. I don't think he was a mentally well man.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: