Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Jesus wasn't around in the Old Testament. And no, it has nothing to do with that. Point is that there was a 'new' covenant created between man and God. And it is centered around Jesus Christ. That is why Christianity is based around the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and not around the Old Testament.
Actually, it only 'required' that of the Jews. But, I get what you're saying, although it really has nothing to do with any of this.
If you want to call it that. Its obvious that you're not going to change your mind either.
I thought you said you didn't read the article?
Yeah, I realized I should read it before completing my post because I was originally going to talk about a different part of the Matthew passage that was discussed in the article you linked to. I then forgot to delete that line after posting it. I did read the article but that was my bad.
Which you edited out.
In fact, I have no idea how you even came to your conclusion. The passage I quoted from the article was referring to the original translation, and how easy it was to misinterpret what it really means when you read it in English.
But go ahead, take it literally if you want. Since its obvious you want to do exactly that.
|
Actually I get your point, and largely agree that Christianity, indeed even the Roman Catholic version places far more emphasis on the teachings of Jesus than it does on the Laws of the Old Testament. However, I think you are wrong to reject the assertions made by both Thor and Devil's Advocate that Phelps' reading of the New Testament and specifically Jesus apparent admonition to keep to the Mosaic Law quoted in the passages from Matthew above is logically sound. The fact is that Phelps interpretation is just as logically available as is your more moderate interpretation, hence the argument that God is allowing fallibility or error to creep into the Bible by not directing the minds of these translators to be abundantly clear as to the meaning. If Jesus in fact said "I am the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, and from now on you should be following only my teachings" and that is now the word of God, by allowing these errant translations God is allowing His Word to be muddled and misinterpreted.
One can certainly, and logically, read the currently popular translations of the Bible as Phelps does, or one can read them as you do and both can support your positions with logic. By Phelps interpretation, Leviticus and Deuteronomy not only form part of the Christian dogma, but are inerrant in their language as well.
The problem with trying to apply logic to religion is the same as trying to apply the scientific method to religious claims, the process is doomed to failure because the basic supposition that God must act and write logically is not necessarily true. Just like God's methods may not be available for scrutiny by the scientific method.
You asked people to show you where in the New Testament it referred to Christians following the Old Testament. That was done, and then you brought up a bunch of people's 'arguments' about why that doesn't make the Old Testament a central document for Christians. The fact is that it is open to argument though and that is the point I believe that all three of us were making. Having that kind of ambiguity present in the accepted translations challenges the validity of the translated Bible. Does that mean that only the Greeks are doing it right? (And then only the Greeks that understand the nuance of the language as it existed 2000 years ago)
Having said all that, I do agree that Phelps clearly violates the recorded teachings of Jesus as regards turning the other cheek, loving thy neighbour, judging not lest ye be judged... etc etc. I further agree with you that Christians 'should' be referencing the New Testament rather than the Old. However, I still think you way overstated the case as regards the logical argument regarding the relevance of the Old Testament to Christians. The logical argument has big holes.