Why do they keep some commandments and not others?

[Haphazard]

There are certain things that Christian law has kept from the original 613 Jewish commandments, and certain ones that they want.

There are many commandments that explicitly concern moral rectitude, but also many that do not:

#167. Not to eat blood

#164 Not to eat flesh with milk

#313 Not to make any figures for ornament, even if they are not worshipped

#347 Not to cut oneself or make incisions in one's flesh in grief, like the idolaters

#348 Not to tattoo the body like the idolaters

#360 Not to eat the fruit of a tree for three years from the time it was planted

#367 Not to wear garments made of wool and linen mixed together

#185 That the hired laborer shall be permitted to eat of the produce he is reaping

#106 Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl

#101 Not to have intercourse with a woman, in her menstrual period

#82 Not to indulge in familiarities with relatives, such as kissing, embracing, winking, skipping, which may lead to incest

#72 That a bridegroom shall be exempt for a whole year from taking part in any public labor, such as military service, guarding the wall and similar duties(after being married)

#176 Not to take in (business) pledge utensils used in preparing food

(source: Judaism 101)

Christians have broken many of these commandments.

Did Jesus take the time to revoke all these rules specifically? Can someone explain why some rules that don't have distinct moral value still be considered so important while so many aren't?

 

[Athenian200]

Did Jesus take the time to revoke all these rules specifically? Can someone explain why some rules that don't have distinct moral value still be considered so important while so many aren't?

Most likely, tradition and the worldviews of the people who set up the church. Sad, but true.

They took the Biblical laws that fit their worldview and said, "God said this" to add an element of wrongness to whatever it was, and threw out the ones that didn't fit by pointing out examples in the New Testament where Jesus showed it was okay.

Alternatively, they might have just assumed that any laws Jesus didn't specifically show to no longer apply (he did repeal the meat/dietary ones), still apply.

In fact, most "Christian" celebrations are modified pagan holidays created so that Pagans would convert more easily. If they had to give up their festivals, they probably wouldn't have. Our current idea of Christianity was tailored to appeal to the common mindset of people back when it was first created.

 

[lane777]

#167. Not to eat blood

#164 Not to eat flesh with milk

#313 Not to make any figures for ornament, even if they are not worshipped

#347 Not to cut oneself or make incisions in one's flesh in grief, like the idolaters

#348 Not to tattoo the body like the idolaters

#360 Not to eat the fruit of a tree for three years from the time it was planted

#367 Not to wear garments made of wool and linen mixed together

#185 That the hired laborer shall be permitted to eat of the produce he is reaping

#106 Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl

#101 Not to have intercourse with a woman, in her menstrual period

#82 Not to indulge in familiarities with relatives, such as kissing, embracing, winking, skipping, which may lead to incest

#72 That a bridegroom shall be exempt for a whole year from taking part in any public labor, such as military service, guarding the wall and similar duties(after being married)

#176 Not to take in (business) pledge utensils used in preparing food

(source: Judaism 101)

This was God's law, not his commandments. The Ten Commandments God gave Moses replaces the law (Jesus Christ's death on the cross fulfills the law). The Ten Commandments are what Christians are called to keep.

Jesus said...

Matthew 19:17 ...If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

Paul said...

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin...

 

[Thalassa]

There are only ten commandments. Those are cultural Jewish law. Read the new testament, it will give you some enlightenment in that department.

Jesus renames the ten commandments and then says the greatest law is love. There is some business about how it's what comes out of a man's mouth - not what he puts into it - that makes a person a sinner.

 

[Haphazard]

This was God's law, not his commandments. The Ten Commandments God gave Moses replaces the old law since Jesus Christ fulfilled the law by dying on the cross. The Ten Commandments are what Christians are called to keep.

Jesus said...

Matthew 19:17 ...If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

Paul said...

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin...

Okay, I had a semantics error. They're mitzvah, I know, I don't really know the translation.

If it's only the 10 commandments that a Christian needs to keep, why even bother with any of the 603 others?

 

[lane777]

Okay, I had a semantics error. They're mitzvah, I know, I don't really know the translation.

If it's only the 10 commandments that a Christian needs to keep, why even bother with any of the 603 others?

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin...

 

[Haphazard]

Romans 7:7

Please explain this to me?

I have very very little understanding of Christianity beyond the commercial holidays.

 

[lane777]

Please explain this to me?

I have very very little understanding of Christianity beyond the commercial holidays.

Hah, you're too quick. I just edited my previous post. Do you still need further explanation?

 

[Haphazard]

Hah, you're too quick. I just edited my previous post. Do you still need further explanation?

Yes please. I'm kind of slow.

 

[Thalassa]

Okay, I had a semantics error. They're mitzvah, I know, I don't really know the translation.

If it's only the 10 commandments that a Christian needs to keep, why even bother with any of the 603 others?

Hmmm...because there are some nut-case sects who like to pick and choose different Jewish laws - like the ones about tattoos and homosexuals - and randomly enforce them.

Beats the hell out of me why they do it. I'm honestly bewildered my damn self.

 

[lane777]

Yes please. I'm kind of slow.

I'm not too clear on what exactly you're asking, but I'll take a stab Most of secular society, holds the view that morals are inborn. Morals however, originate from God (or from within religion, as some might put it) - which is the meaning of Romans 7:7 (Atheists chose to adopt some of these practices simply because of their practical application; many Biblical proverbs/precepts contribute to happiness.)

 

[Haphazard]

I'm not too clear on what exactly you're asking, but I'll take a stab Most of secular society, holds the view that morals are inborn. Morals however, originate from God (or from within religion, as some might put it) - which is the meaning of Romans 7:7 (Atheists chose to adopt some of these practices simply because of their practical application; many Biblical proverbs/precepts contribute to happiness.)

So the idea is that Romans (or whoever said this) says doing the mitzvah is not essential to be a virtuous person but he gained a greater understanding of sin by studying them?

Okay, that makes sense -- but it still doesn't really answer my question. Despite this, some Jewish law is still considered a part of being a good Christian while others are not. I realize which ones these are vary by Christian sects, but how do they choose?

 

[Thalassa]

So the idea is that Romans (or whoever said this) says doing the mitzvah is not essential to be a virtuous person but he gained a greater understanding of sin by studying them?

Okay, that makes sense -- but it still doesn't really answer my question. Despite this, some Jewish law is still considered a part of being a good Christian while others are not. I realize which ones these are vary by Christian sects, but how do they choose?

cultural prejudice

that's why you'll have a completely different experience in a Roman Catholic vs. a conservative Free Will Baptist vs. a liberal Methodist church.

 

[Usehername]

Some of the laws were purely pragmatic (ex. before we understood about bacteria, not eating hooved animals was a survival and health win) so some of them are outgrow-able (from the Christian's perspective, not the Jew's perspective).

And like they said, moral laws are not the same as the other laws.

 

[lane777]

So the idea is that Romans (or whoever said this) says doing the mitzvah is not essential to be a virtuous person but he gained a greater understanding of sin by studying them?

Okay, that makes sense -- but it still doesn't really answer my question. Despite this, some Jewish law is still considered a part of being a good Christian while others are not. I realize which ones these are vary by Christian sects, but how do they choose?

We do not choose. We're following the instruction of the New Testament. What Jewish law do we follow that you're referring to?

 

[Thalassa]

We do not choose. We're following the instruction of the New Testament. What Jewish law do we follow that you're referring to?

Apparently Haphazard is aware of the old Christian men walking around the grocery store telling you that if you don't have that tattoo removed that you'll be going to hell, and the like.

It's obvious that certain Christian churches pick and choose.

That's partly why some are rabidly homophobic and claim it's an intrinsic part of the Christian faith others are more accepting.

 

[Haphazard]

We do not choose. We're following the instruction of the New Testament. What Jewish law do we follow that you're referring to?

To be fruitful and multiply

Not to commit sodomy with a male

Not to have intercourse with a beast

That the violator (of an unbetrothed virgin) shall marry her (this used to be law in some places, is generally not considered in modern Western societies)

Not to practice nachesh (doing things based on signs and portents; using charms and incantations)

Not to consult ovoth (ghosts)



Not all Christians follow all of these rules but some choose to, and I don't get how that decision was made, by picking these ones and forgoing the others.

 

[lane777]

Apparently Haphazard is aware of the old Christian men walking around the grocery store telling you that if you don't have that tattoo removed that you'll be going to hell, and the like.

It's obvious that certain Christian churches pick and choose.

That's partly why some are rabidly homophobic and claim it's an intrinsic part of the Christian faith others are more accepting.

I was referring to the true Christian. This (the bolded) is not applicable for today's Christian according to the New Testament.

 

[Usehername]

Apparently Haphazard is aware of the old Christian men walking around the grocery store telling you that if you don't have that tattoo removed that you'll be going to hell, and the like.

It's obvious that certain Christian churches pick and choose.

That's partly why some are rabidly homophobic and claim it's an intrinsic part of the Christian faith others are more accepting.

It's not picking and choosing so much as (a) taking the Bible literally (a decision I respect but do not subscribe to) or (b) trying to read the meaning, which of course, is impossible to do "correctly."

A good example of why I don't advocate taking the Bible literally, but rather contextually (which does not mean not seriously): "Turn the other cheek" has a completely unexpected meaning:

At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[2] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[3] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.

By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:

Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.

The succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions.[4] In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.[5] As a side effect this may also have afforded the early followers a longer time to missionary to the soldier and or cause the soldier not to seek followers of Jesus to carry his equipment in the future so as not to be bothered with their proselytizing.
-Wikipedia

But IME being raised in a church which loudly proclaimed "we welcome all persons who seek to live in faith, regardless of age, race, gender or sexual orientation," the liberal churches are often a group of people who like the idea of the faith but don't want to learn anything about it, of if they do, they bend the Bible to their preconceived beliefs. I learned about the turn the other cheek thing in a conservative church, because I found that there's a lack of intellectual integrity in a lot of liberal churches (not all).

I've yet to see an intellectually grounded (religious) reason for seeing homosexual marriage as a moral option (though I will heartily defend their marriage rights in the public arena, because I don't believe imposing Christian morals upon individuals in a democratic society, I stick with secular humanist ethics for my political choices). And of course the only Christian evaluation of homosexuality is that the act is a sin, not the individual who is inclined to be attracted that way--just like nonmarried heterosexual individuals would be sinful to act in a sexual manner.

 

[Usehername]

also, pretty sure there's no verse about tattoos, it was just people interpreting "body as a temple" in legalistic ways.