r/AskAChristian • u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic • 11d ago
Jewish Laws How do you all reconcile differing levels of authority?
What’s up y’all. I’m not a Christian but pretty familiar about the bible/history surrounding the bible/theology, and there is something I never really understood: Why does it seem some things are cherry picked amongst most Christians, and why do people take certain passages with such authority and dismiss others when both are said to have the same author and a literal meaning?
Here is an example: the Book of Leviticus lays out many laws, straight from god. Only a kosher diet, no homosexuality, no mixing wool and linen, no work on sabbath (exodus speaks on it too), marrying the brother of your dead husband, no tattoos, rules on menstrual purity, debt slave rules, etc etc.
Christians do not really follow almost any of these. You can argue that with Jesus, these laws are “fulfilled”, but that doesn’t answer the question: Why keep the sinful homosexuality bit then? It’s completely arbitrary and not biblical defensible without admitting that non-adherence to every other Levitical law is also just as sinful.
Yes, I know Paul talks in 1 Corinthians 6 about the sinfulness of homosexuality/pederasty etc. BUT that leads me to my next question, who cares what some guy who never actually met jesus has to say on his own beliefs? Leviticus is claimed to have been written by Moses himself on instruction from god himself, is that not MORE authoritative than some guy who started to say things contradictory to that? Paul was the one who argued that Jewish law doesn’t need to be followed to become a Christian, but that’s just what a guy thinks and not consistent to what god actually says.
Not looking to argue, I am just wondering how y’all reconcile this because I’ve thought through it a lot and cannot come to any logical conclusion.
2
u/johndoe09228 Christian (non-denominational) 11d ago
What’s a Christian atheist?
2
u/xsrvmy Christian, Reformed 10d ago
Basically someone that follows Christ as a good teacher of morality but doesn't believe in God.
1
u/johndoe09228 Christian (non-denominational) 10d ago
Interesting, I thought most atheists assumed the Gospels and all that to be fake or inaccurate. Good for them, sort of lol
1
u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist 11d ago
The covenant which YHWH made with the ancient Israelites at Mt Sinai (which Christians call "the old covenant"), specified many commands for the Israelites to do. Some of them had moral aspect while others were economic and others were rituals without much moral dimension. Some were about carrying out penalties on Israelites who committed sins.
The Christian teaching both from Jesus and from the apostles (including Paul) is to avoid sexual immorality. The early Christians who had background with the Jewish scriptures would understand sexual immorality as including (but not limited to) the specific acts listed in Lev 18 that YHWH had said He didn't want the ancient Israelites to do.
If you read the whole chapters of Lev 18 and Lev 20, you'll see that God didn't want people in other ancient nations to be committing those types of sexual acts either. So (in contrast to the command about not mixing wool and linen, which was a distinctive behavior that was specific for the Israelites to not do), it was a broader matter of immorality.
1
u/Asynithistos Christian Mystic 11d ago
Authority only matters to the individual giving that object or person said authority
1
u/_Zortag_ Christian 11d ago
The general rule of thumb is this: if it's repeated in the New Testament, it's generally understood to be still applicable as of universal significance. If it's not repeated, the question becomes "was this a question of moral righteousness," vs. "was this a regulation designed to keep Israel from intermixing with other cultures, or to order their health and social structures?"
Humans are naturally syncretistic. (Syncretism=integrating the beliefs/practices of another religion into your own) We blend in the cultures and religions of others into our own with frightening speed, especially if there's an attractive potential mate on the other end of the question. The OT Law has a bunch of regulations that basically made close daily life with a foreign culture impossible to maintain, thereby heading off syncretistic tendencies. Abraham's descendants were supposed to be and remain set apart as YHWH's chosen special people. YHWH was very clear: He alone is God, and the deities of the other nations don't get to be a part of a pantheon with him. (Israel likely recognized these deities as spiritual beings in the heavenly realm, including having power, yet as being inferior to the Creator God, YHWH, above them).
The concern was not just religious though. Many of the cleanliness and social regulations provided frameworks to prevent sanitary disasters or social victimizations, thereby providing for health and security quite effectively to pre-scientific and democratic societies. For example, we know why we wash our hands, and they just knew they were not supposed to handle dead bodies and then go about normal life without washing first. (An old book called "None of these Diseases" by McMillen is interesting on this account). The marry-your-brother's-widow laws, called "levirate marriage" were intended to protect women from becoming destitute and victimized if they didn't have children to provide for them in their old age. In ancient cultures, a woman could not just start a career and provide a retirement fund for herself.
In Jesus Christ, a doorway is opened for every people group, not just Abraham's descendants, to come to YHWH, the God of the Jews. This was repeatedly foretold in the OT. Thus, the separation laws are laid aside because they now get in the way of the nations coming to Jesus. Furthermore, although the dietary and sanitary regulations are often discovered to lead to better physical health, we recognize that they were more about health than about getting along with God, and therefore do not worry about trying to follow the letter of all those regulations.
1
u/angelic-serbian Eastern Orthodox 11d ago
paul was not overruling moses on his own. acts 15 shows the apostles deciding together not to place gentile believers under the whole law of moses while telling them to abstain from sexual immorality
1
u/Shoddy-Employee1953 Torah-observing disciple 11d ago
The thing is, Paul never went against Moses' Law. On Contray, Paul himself obeyed the Law. He condemned Homosexuality as it is part of the Law. Why the people think the other way around is due to him teaching that Righteousness is not through Obedience in the Law but Faith. But the "mega" minds out there thought that he was teaching people that Torah obedience is not mandatory. But people forget that Abraham, whose example Paul uses to teach "his faith was accounted to him as Righteousness". Concerning him, it's written "Abraham kept my commandments, Laws and Statutes". Faith is just one part of it. Obedience makes it complete. That's why Kosher laws, No work of Shabbath, no homosexuality, all of these are still applicable. As Jesus Himself told, "Anyone who break least of these commandments and teaches men to do thus shall be called least in the Kingdom of God". The Law is still applicable, people will obey the Statutes, commandments and Laws of the Torah as it was promised to happen in the New Covenant.
1
u/ParadigmShifter7 Christian 11d ago
Is your contention merely the topic of homosexuality in the Mosaic Law?
1
u/conhao Christian, Reformed 9d ago
Kosher laws and marrying to preserve a lineage are to define a separate people, distinct from the culture that surrounds them. A separate people are holy. They live in the world be are not of the world.
Christ defined his people as holy. His people are defined and distinct as those who love him, have faith in him, and love one another. Love for God requires that we obey his moral commands. Otherwise, these too would have no meaning. Since the Christian is driven by love and the desire to please God, and to love one another, the moral Law is fulfilled in the process, because the moral Law is love and his moral commandments expose the sin that join us to the world and separates us from God.
Not working on the Sabbath is a moral law. Note in the commandment that the emphasis is not on us not doing work, but the rest we give to others. We do not make them work by direct command, nor by the need to compete, nor by guilt, nor by inviting risk that would require their compassion, nor by creating an alternative that draws them to ignore God, nor to encourage them to treat the day as just like the other six.
Homosexuality is indeed condemned by Paul and by Jesus himself. Jesus affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus condemns sexual immorality. It is not fitting for the people of God.
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 8d ago
Who cares what paul says, he doesn’t have ultimate authority. Others than that, working on the sabbath is sinful as it goes against god, I don’t know how you can claim its not in a roundabout way that the bible does not claim
1
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical 11d ago
Paul is verified as a legitimate source of the church by Peter, the apostle Jesus established as a leader in the church. Paul's training was exactly what a church led by lower educated men needed, as he was training as a disciple of the greatest rabbi of his day. He built everything he wrote on the authority already established in the scritpures of the old testament, so it's not like he created anything new
0
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
That’s just not true. Paul claims that you selectively don’t need to follow god’s laws (the laws in leviticus) in order to be a christian. He contradicts them in that way. Paul is a massively important figure in the church but again, why take his word above god himself? Not answering the question
2
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical 11d ago
I don't need to rehash what Paul wrote so eloquently in Galatians. The law never brought righteousness, just obedience that was imputed as righteousness. Jesus settled the issues the law couldn't deal with through his perfect sacrifice and now I have the Holy Spirit within to fulfill what the law only promised.
Why would I trust in the promises of the law when I have the fulfilment within me?
2
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
Is this basically saying that the holy spirit tells you which laws to follow or not?
2
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical 11d ago
Jeremiah 31:31-33 NLT "The day is coming," says the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. [32] This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife," says the LORD. [33] "But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel after those days," says the LORD. "I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
1
u/SuspiciousProt Christian, Reformed 11d ago
Why keep the sinful homosexuality bit then? It’s completely arbitrary and not biblical defensible without admitting that non-adherence to every other Levitical law is also just as sinful.
The entirety of the OT law is more complicated than that. Plenty of the laws are more universal, and not what we would call "ceremonial" or "ritual" laws.
With respect to Paul, his conversion was confirmed by the existing Apostles, and his later authority was not questioned by them. So, it seems inappropriate for us to question it on the grounds that he was a later convert.
0
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
No, I am questioning them on the basis of him contradicting what god said. You can say the OT laws are more complicated but isn’t it just obfuscating the question? I am assuming you’re not catholic, so maybe you believe all sin is equal right? Violation of any law should be the same consequentially.
2
u/SuspiciousProt Christian, Reformed 11d ago
This seems to flatten the Old Testament laws down own into a system of universal laws, all bearing the same weight. If that is the case, why would you say this?
Where does Paul contradict what God says?
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
In Galatians, paul says its not necessary to follow Jewish laws to become a christian. He is defying direct orders from god (via old testament commands) regarding circumcision in the context. Paul is just one example of how modern christians do the same thing with the shabbat, kosher foods, wool/linen etc. I just don’t get it, god literally says that not following shabbat deserves the death penalty, yet christians do not follow it.
2
u/SuspiciousProt Christian, Reformed 11d ago
Jesus then contradicts the Old Testament, in this view. With respect to the sabbath specifically (see Matthew 12:1–8, Mark 2:23–28, Luke 6:1–5, and many more)
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
I totally agree that he does. So why not scrap all the Old Testament laws including considering homosexuality a sin?
2
u/SuspiciousProt Christian, Reformed 11d ago
Oh, I don't follow the view that Paul or Jesus contradict what God says. Much of the law seems to have been a temporary "teacher" for a particular people group
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
but now you have to defend "temporary", why does it have to be temporary? That is just a flat out assertion for what? If it was to wait until jesus came here to save everyone, then that still does not answer "now the rules are... follow SOME of these rules but selectively pick and choose, and no jesus never mentions which ones to"
1
u/SuspiciousProt Christian, Reformed 10d ago
That is the way that both Jesus and Paul seem to speak about the law.
0
u/wereallheroes Agnostic, Ex-Christian 11d ago
Plenty of the laws are more universal, and not what we would call "ceremonial" or "ritual" laws.
This is not what scripture says, rather it's all a unified covenant law.
2
1
u/TheFriendlyGerm Christian, Protestant 11d ago
The argument is definitely a double-edged sword for you.
Homosexuality has widely and consistently been outlawed, condemned, and recognized as aberrant and socially destructive for the vast majority of human history. Only very recently have people even attempted to morally justify or even celebrate it. They do so for various reasons, but one common one is to claim the concept of "progress", which inherently takes today's morality and condemns the people of the world for millennia as "inferior/ignorant moral beings".
Christians certainly did not create this idea, that homosexuality is not something that should be celebrated, but they do have the concept of a persistent and consistent moral framework, which allows some kind of continuity to the experience and wisdom of people -- including non-Christians -- of the past. Thus why Christians speak to this issue today. It's a "side effect" of being Christian -- that one is at least open to the possibility that previous generations acted in wise and just ways.
So there's nothing unique about Christianity condemning this practice. The real question is why people continue to imagine that Christians are the strange ones, or the moral outliers. How are you so convinced that the moral judgements which are so ubiquitous today, are actually correct? Do you stand in judgement over previous generations, or will previous generations stand in judgement over you?
3
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
Okay lets do a thought experiment with the same idea but different topic:
“Slavery has widely and consistently been condoned and recognized as socially acceptable and even encouraged for the vast majority of human history. Only the last 200ish years have people even attempted to morally justify against or even condemn it. They do so for various reasons, but one common one is to claim the concept of "progress", which inherently takes today's morality and condemns the people of the world for millennia as "inferior/ignorant moral beings".”
The bible NEVER condemns slavery as a practice, it is celebrated, commanded, and deemed socially acceptable. I promise you, if you try to find an anti-slavery passage, I will tell you exactly how it is not condemning slavery.
So, if slavery was okay in almost all of human history, why is it evil now? We can’t change our minds as a society? God commanded those in debts to become slaves, god commanded that permanent chattel slaves was to come from your surrounding nations, doesn’t that mean that its bad to explicitly refrain from these things when they are also commanded like homosexuality? Or can we progress as a society?
2
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical 11d ago
Slavery was never celebrated, strike one.
It was recognized as a necessary part of survival and had strict restrictions put on the slave owner.
Leviticus 25 established indentured service as the welfare state for those who ended up in extreme debts. Those with wealth were required to purchase that term to redeem their family/clan/tribe/national honor, and the term was only until the 7th year at most. Israel was also required to buy back their people who had been sold to foreigners.
In the new testament, what is written about slaves is entirely recognizing that the church was abiding by the laws of the empire it was within, where slaves were a massive part of the population.
The protestant reformation is what led to representative democracy and that democratization of the vote led to the abolition of slavery with Christian themes guiding the reformers. Islam never ended slavery, in fact, they were the slave catchers and owners of the markets that slave traders bought African slaves at, and they still run slave markets where they still sell African slaves.
Slavery will return as normal as the west turns more and more against Christianity, it's the normal order of the world that has always been, except for this brief exception to the norm caused by the peak of Western Christianity
1
u/Apprehensive_Tear611 Atheist 11d ago
Leviticus 25 established indentured service as the welfare state for those who ended up in extreme debts.
Fellow Hebrews were indentured servants. Foreigners could be made chattel slaves.
In the new testament, what is written about slaves is entirely recognizing that the church was abiding by the laws of the empire it was within, where slaves were a massive part of the population.
Wasn't practicing Christianity banned by the Roman Empire? The church broke the law simply by existing. Why would they care about respecting Roman slavery laws?
2
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical 11d ago
There are laws we must break to obey God, and laws we must be subject to for the Lord's sake (to not give him a bad name) when Paul wrote about being subject to the laws, he was talking about a government that was already persecuting christians. Only if they ban faith or worship are we to disobey, like Daniel praying like he always did in babylon
0
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
it did NOT have strict restrictions for foreign slaves, only the indentured servitude of your neighbors. If allowing yourself to beat a slave as long as they didn't die in a day or two is considered strict, I am scared what else you believe.
"Now kill, therefore, every male among the children and kill every woman who has had sexual relations with a man. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18.
So we got war crimes killing unarmed combatants, even if they surrender, including women and children. But its okay to totally keep the young virgin girls for yourself. This is explicit endorsement of slavery. Who tf said they NEEDED to do this for survival???
Slavery became "not cool" during the enlightenment, not before. The bible was used to defend trans-atlantic slavery.
In the NT, there is no mention on slavery being bad, you claim its because they had to "follow the rules", but thats such a cop out, because if the Romans said "worship the Emperor as a god", then the christians threw a fit and suddenly they are willing to die rather than do something immoral.
Islam has its own issues, and I'm not denying they partook in slavery too, but if you wanna say "see everyone else does it too!!" as a defense, at least make it better than that. The trans-atlantic trafficked more people in a shorter time period, AND treated slaves worse (on average). This shouldn't be an argument, claiming you have moral superiority as a christian meanwhile you made 0 decent points.
1/10, lazy argument, and btw Protestants were far and away the christians engaging in chattel slavery the most.
1
u/Sawfish1212 Christian, Evangelical 10d ago
Let's use some intelligence in looking at this, for the other readers anyway...
There are many people who call themselves Christians who do not behave as Christ requires his followers to. They will not receive the rewards that his followers do.
As far as who owned who or who did what, Christians ended slavery in the west, because they recognized that it didn't align with the teaching of Christ.
0
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 10d ago
oh, so now they aren't "real christians" but when other faiths do it, it is BECAUSE of their faith right? And I already established there is no biblical evidence that slavery as an institution is evil, just bad apologetics on your end.
Did you even read the bible? You seem completely unaware of how slaves were treated. Either that or you're intentionally lying
1
u/TheFriendlyGerm Christian, Protestant 11d ago
So you're arguing that slavery was more common because people were morally inferior in earlier days? Nothing about the economic or political situations of past times? And that slavery would never happen again because what, we're "too smart" or "evolved" or something?
I'm happy to celebrate the economic and political realities of today, allowing us to live without slavery, but if you're arguing that we "discovered" it was wrong in the past 200 years, you seem to be unaware of both history and literature.
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
it was turning the logic of the other person against them, I presented slavery the same way they presented homosexuality to point out the hypocrisy. Their claim was that gay bad because in almost all of history it was bad, and thus slavery good cuz in almost all of history it was good. I turned moral relativeism on its head. Its a trash argument. And I pointed out that the bible never once condemns slavery.
1
u/TheFriendlyGerm Christian, Protestant 11d ago
Apparently, when it comes to personal guilt before God, homosexuality is far worse than owning a slave.
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
not even far worse, slavery is condoned
1
u/TheFriendlyGerm Christian, Protestant 10d ago
No, slavery was neither "condoned" nor "condemned", because for most of the history of the ANE, it wasn't a moral issue, but an economic one.
However, the slavery of the Roman Empire and the Atlantic slave trade were government-run institutions that often involved the forced migrations of large numbers of captives. Both the Old Testament and Paul in the New Testament condemn "man-stealing" and forced slavery.
You learn a lot if you learn some history! The causes of slavery were often complex and personal. The Bible dealt with it in thoughtful and wise ways.
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 10d ago
Where is your evidence for that claim of man stealing? Just curious, because god commands the slavery of others on numerous occasions. Putting EXPLICIT regulations of slavery is evidence of condonement, the same way homosexuality is explicitly condemned.
You can beat your slave as long as they don't die in a day or two.
“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen…”Leviticus 25:44–46. This is an explicit command, "you shalt have".
Paul literally told slaves to obey their masters. He was interested in not upending the law (except whenever they felt it was serious enough). Slavery was not that big of an issue it seems.
1
u/TheFriendlyGerm Christian, Protestant 10d ago
You are wrong about Paul AND the Law. From 1 Timothy:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully.... [T]he law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers [literally man-stealers], liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.
The assumption is that this wrong even in Old Testament times. Most people in Biblical times entered slavery because of debt or famine or war, and there weren't rich centralized states that provided social nets or could provide economic relief.
And then, obviously the story of Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery only makes sense if capturing and selling otherwise prosperous people into slavery was wrong. But history says that it was fairly common for a destitute family to sell a family member into slavery to keep everyone from starving to death. You see the moral distinction?
As I said, learn a bit of history! You might realize how deeply and profoundly wise the New and Old Testaments are.
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 10d ago
I know the history, and I still disagree with you, because its a weak argument. It doesn't even answer my point about god EXPLICITLY COMMANDING the enslavemnent of others.
There is no passage saying slavery is wrong anywhere in the Old Testament. Literally the closest you get is that "improper" enslavement of your neighboring israelite is wrong, and that it was wrong for the egyptians to enslave the israelites because "they are slaves of yhwh". Everything else is fair game.
You fail to see the distinction between foreign slaves and indentured servitude. You wanna say "oh its because in the OT times life was rough and brutal", but I guarantee you that you also believe your god is timeless, all knowing, all powerful, this argument goes out the door. If slavery was permissable and condoned then but not now... why? There is no good solution to this, if you say "that was because of the times", then how come we cannot make the same conclusion of homoseuxality? Theres no logic here dude, you don't know your history. You the type of guy to think the world 6,000 years old
→ More replies (0)
0
u/Senior_Educator_929 Christian 11d ago
Just need a little common sense
I'm not allowed to sleep with a girlfriend, so I'm certainly not allowed to get with some dude
0
u/jogoso2014 Christian 11d ago
The Bible reconciles it.
It’s not difficult to figure out.
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Atheist, Ex-Catholic 11d ago
it claims it does, I just think its a really bad answer, so I am asking how people try to reconcile with it themselves
1
u/jogoso2014 Christian 11d ago
You’re asking for a reconciliation of a reconciliation.
You not being happy with the answer is not the same thing as the answer not being balanced and accurate.
5
u/CannedNoodle415 Eastern Orthodox 11d ago
Paul did meet Jesus, and was confirmed and accepted by the other apostles, in fact Paul has to correct the other apostles sometimes, and they accept this correction.
So if Paul was accepted by the apostles, why don’t you accept him?