The Ever Changing World of Biblically Based Church Dogmas

It’s been said: The Bible said it! I believe it! That settles it!

This is now understood as: The Bible said it! But, based on reality and society, we now reject it!

Let’s consider some major Biblically based dogmas and how church dogmatics has had to reject these same doctrines to keep up with reality and society.

A. The Bible teaches a geocentric universe and the Catholic Church believed it!

In 1992 John Paul II said this view was wrong!

B. Based on the Bible’s view of slavery in 1845 the Southern Baptist Convention was formed believing it!

In 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution renouncing it!

C. Likewise, fundamentalist Bob Jones University was created for whites only based on the Biblical view that races are to be separated!

In 2008 the University issued a statement renouncing this Biblical teaching!

D. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Lutherans, Presbyterians and followed later by the Methodists Biblically refused the ordination of women to the ministry.

Beginning in the mid ‘70’s they rejected the Biblical view of women as subordinate to men and all now fully ordain them!

E. In the same Bible believing confession, Joseph Smith instituted plural marriages / polygamy in the 1830’s.

In 1890 the LDS Mormon Church issued a Manifesto renouncing this Biblical teaching!

F. Based on the same racist ideas derived from the Bible, the leadership of the LDS Mormon said all blacks were not God’s chosen people and were cursed!

In 1978 the LDS leadership renounced this Biblical based background and now lets all dark skin people hold the priesthood.

What’s next to go?!

36 comments:

david said...

Harry,

1. How do you know they didn't accept and reject things based on society? The Bible just happened to be the excuse for accepting it...just a hypothetical question.

2. Where does the Bible teach that the earth is the center of the Universe, or maybe even the solar system? ;)

Harry McCall said...

1. David, my post on Bob Jones University and race is an example of how a doctrine was directly changed by a changing society.

I can not speak for Bob Jones Biblical under Biblical standing. Today I sent 5 fundamental independent Bible Baptist churches that support BJU an email asking them which interpretation of the Bible is correct: Bob Jones 1960 interpretation or the 2008 BJU board’s view. I’ll let you know if anybody responses.

2. Again, the Catholic Church enforced this view doing the inquisition.

This from Wikipedia:
“Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."

Justin said...

Hey John, I listened to your latest interview with "The Infidel Guy" and I was pretty dissapointed. I'm what you call exactly what you would call a "bible thumper". I like to listen to broadcasts like this so I can reafirm my faith but this time I really didn't find anything to fight against. You presented literally no real argument against Christianity and throughout all that talking you offered a lot of opinions and no real evidence.

I'm sure that you've heard this before but you are he seed that fell on rocky soil, you sprang up quickly for christ but becasue you had no roots in the faith that faith quickly died.

Ok so lets look at some of your arguments. First of all you seem to think that just becasue God doesnt make his presence painfully obvious he doesn't want us all to believe. There is a difference between Gods WILL and his PLAN. All things are in accourdance with Gods plan but not his WILL becasue we have free will. God would love for all of us 2 choose him but doesnt count on it. I'd love 2 explain all the details but for times sake I'll leave it at that, e-mail me for clarification.

John said...

Justin,

What evidence do you expect John to produce? It is normally the one who is making the claim who has to provide the evidence. All John is saying is that he does not (any longer) believe Christian claims. So where is your evidence?

You say, “God would love for all of us 2 choose him but doesnt count on it.”. Fair enough, but that is not what the bible teaches. In fact, Christians cannot even agree amongst themselves what the bible does teach on the subject to the extent that many of you declare that vast numbers of other self-proclaimed Christians are no such thing.

Perhaps, for the benefit of those of us who are confused by the issues, you might explain “all the details” by setting out in a few bullet points the exact minimum requirements of God which would enable us in due season to acquire eternal life such that even an illiterate, uneducated 13th century English ploughman, a 16th century Spanish soldier fighting in South America or a 20th century American Southern Baptist racist bigot could understand it. Or even Ted Haggart. Or the Pope

david said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
david said...

John,

If someone claims that Christianity is debunk, then they must argue for it (as John Loftus does).

It is not enough simply to declare something false because an argument to the contrary has not convinced you. This is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. However, one can withold belief in something when evidence has not warranted such belief.

Harry McCall said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harry McCall said...

David, one of the main problems with God is the Bible. If the Bible was jettison as an Albatross around the Christian’s neck, more people would become Christians or remain Christians.

I left Christianity, not because of the spirituality of this faith (I still love Gospel music as do many other former atheist I know), but the Bible is its and Christianities own worst enemy.

A. The Bible must be totally believed; which defeats Christianity. Christianity is dynamic and not static; it is doctrinally ever changing just a the Hebrews became the Israelites became Talmudic Judaism. The Bible is stuck in time.

B. The Bible must be selectively and subjectively rejected in parts or in whole or allegorically reinterpreted (as Philo and the Alexandrian School did).

C. One must leave denominational Christianity as most of us atheist have done because we could not longer play make believe and claim the Bible as totally true. Plus, the fact that Bible Christians like yourself must continually account for out dated Biblical claims by arguing that non-Bible believers REALLY DO NOT understand the text or atheist just flat out hate the Bible and want to attack it. From me, atheists or more interested in truth than Christians defending out dated Biblical claims.

D. The fact that 20 – 40 thousands sects and cults of Bible base Christianity all claim they either have some or all the Biblical truth, plus the fact that heresy is considered worst than atheistism, proves the fact that any Bible base religions is dawn form a flawed base…the Bible.

F. I can not count the number of Television, Radio, and church signs using the word “Truth”. If one surly thought the Bible was synonymous with truth, then a sect could simply claim they are “Bible Based”, but since all Christianity claims the Bible while at the same time attacking one another, the term “TRUTH” is more relevant than the term “BIBLE”.

To solve this problem, the Bible must be degraded to a position of a book of ideas and suggestions. Neither the Bible (as there only the LXX and letters) nor Jesus brought people in to the Church, but koinonia (fellowship).

My post proves what happens when the Bible is demanded to be totally believed and Christian must defend it. Churches get caught with their theological pants down and then must apologize which brings into question the whole Biblical claims of Christian truth!

Heather said...

Maybe those particular religions recanted their standings on such topics because they realized that those standings may not be Biblically correct.

The downfall of Christianity has been the doctrine that man has created. The Bible has been translated. The original meanings of some of the scripture may never be interpreted as it was intended. For example, the scripture that speaks to women having no authority over men, I just read about someone researching the original word that has been translated to "authority", they found that it also may have a sexual conotation. What if that scripture meant "a woman should not use her sexuality to control a man." Interesting, eh?? That would make sense...but all these years that sentence has been used to keep woman from so much in the church.

Also, there is so much that the Bible does not speak to, and man tends to want an answer to every question, every challenge...man tends to twist the words of the Bible to create those answers, those rules.

I imagine that I may not be so different than many atheists. I try to live my life with high moral standards, many atheists claim they do the same. I think the only difference is that I believe there is a living God, I do read His word and use it as a guide for my life, I have given my heart to Jesus. An atheist believes that is just a bedtime story. I suppose that it will all come out in the wash...but I think I will win either way! :)

david said...

A. The Bible must be totally believed; which defeats Christianity. Christianity is dynamic and not static; it is doctrinally ever changing just a the Hebrews became the Israelites became Talmudic Judaism. The Bible is stuck in time.

Before the Bible can be totally believed it must be totally understood with regards to what it actually teaches.

B. The Bible must be selectively and subjectively rejected in parts or in whole or allegorically reinterpreted (as Philo and the Alexandrian School did).

Well since B contradicts A, I'm assuming this one is actually your position. Ok, so you're arguing that since Christians have misunderstood the Bible and changed their mind later, then it follows that.....what?

D. The fact that 20 – 40 thousands sects and cults of Bible base Christianity all claim they either have some or all the Biblical truth and the fact that heresy is considered worst than atheistism, proves the fact that any Bible base religions is dawn form a flawed base…the Bible.

1. I reject the implied premise: if something can be misunderstood it is a "flawed base."
2. Heresy does not just mean that you think what another Christian believes is wrong. Heresy is denying core belief.

Check out this article http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/08/calling-some-a-heretic-thoughtfully/

To solve this problem, the Bible must be degraded to a position of a book of ideas and suggestions. Neither the Bible (as there only the LXX and letters) nor Jesus brought people in to the Church, but koinonia (fellowship).

I still don't think you've established that there is a problem, but you've certainly asserted it. I think the most a Christian should say is they believe the whole Bible to the best of their ability.

My post proves what happens when the Bible is demanded to be totally believed and Christian must defend it. Churches get caught with their theological pants down and then must apologize which brings into question the whole Biblical claims of Christian truth!

Your post proves what happens when the Bible is not interpreted properly, and when major beliefs/doctrines are built on obscure passages. By the way, none of the passages you quotes teaches geocentricity. What it does show is that the authors of the Bible had a human perspective. Wow, big suprise.

PhilipK said...

David,

Why would God inspire the writers of the Bible to write, if he was only going to have them write from their own perspective?

Where does God cone into play, then?

david said...

PhillipK,

Why would God inspire the writers of the Bible to write, if he was only going to have them write from their own perspective?

Where does God cone into play, then?


I see no reason why an inspired text cannot use phenomenological language. Do you?

If you told me the sun came up this morning at 6am, I wouldn't accuse you of believing in geocentric principles. Nor would I say that your statement was false. Its just the way it looks from where you're standing.

PhilipK said...

David,

How do you then tell the difference between an inspired and an uninspired text? What would make the Bible special?

Harry McCall said...

@ David: “I see no reason why an inspired text cannot use phenomenological language. Do you?

If you told me the sun came up this morning at 6am, I wouldn't accuse you of believing in geocentric principles. Nor would I say that your statement was false. Its just the way it looks from where you're standing.”

Right David. The resurrection, miracle healings, virgin birth are all phenomenological language.

Since Christians are no longer competing with other miracle claims of other religions, these phenomenological terms are now strange and meaningless and totally outdated.

Anthony said...

David,

I want to throw in my 2 cents worth here.

I see no reason why an inspired text cannot use phenomenological language. Do you?

The problem is how do you know when phenomenological language is being used? Keep in mind that the concept of a flat earth covered by a hard dome with the sun and stars inside that dome was the general cosmology of the time. No reason to believe that the Hebrews thought any different.

If you told me the sun came up this morning at 6am, I wouldn't accuse you of believing in geocentric principles. Nor would I say that your statement was false. Its just the way it looks from where you're standing.

The difference is that you and I have hind sight in the light of modern science and technology. We know when we are using phenomenological language.

John W. Loftus said...

Harry asked, "What's next to go?"

How about homosexuality?

And what are the odds that some Christians will take credit for instigating our changing attitudes toward it like they did with slavery?

Harry McCall said...

John, homosexuality is on course to be accepted just as women in ministry.

Harvard has a gay chaplain and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. has a gay bishop.

If we were to remove all the gay Catholic priest, the Roman Catholic Church could not function.

The question is still out on the sexual orientation of both Jesus and Paul.

Heather said...

Harry - Accepted by whom? Just because certain "Christian" groups have become lenient with what is and isn't acceptable, doesn't mean that was God's plan. Watering down the gospel only makes it more palatable for the society of today.

There are plenty of instances in the Bible in which it is made clear that the practice of same sex relationships was unacceptable. We aren't just looking at one sentence that discourages the practice. The fact that the practice is becoming accepted shows that society rules the roost.

As a Christian, you are warned about living of this world...and by clery allowing such practices doesn't mean that it is acceptable to God, only that the clergy is swayed by this world. (and sorry to say, swayed by the empty pews)

Harry McCall said...

David “Before the Bible can be totally believed it must be totally understood with regards to what it actually teaches.”

Re: You must be of the belief that if you put all the Biblical authors in one room, you would have one beg Christian “Agape fellowship”, but based on Peter and Paul, I find a fist fight more in line!

David “Well since B contradicts A, I'm assuming this one is actually your position. Ok, so you're arguing that since Christians have misunderstood the Bible and changed their mind later, then it follows that.....what?”

Re: Example “A” is factual: Fundamental Baptist and Holiness Snake handlers.

Example “B” is correct since Philo and the Alexandrian School both represent Hellenistic Judaism and the Alexandrian School (represented by Christians such as Origen).
So, if you see a contradiction, you don’t know church history.

David: “1. I reject the implied premise: if something can be misunderstood it is a "flawed base."
2. Heresy does not just mean that you think what another Christian believes is wrong. Heresy is denying core belief.”

Re: As to objection 1: The Bible is understood as an ancient document with now very dated ideas.

As to objection 2: Your critic is one in the same. Your website is a modern approach trying to harmonize Christians. His statement “Simply because one is a historic heretic who departs from a non-essential belief does not mean that it is not serious or that they don’t deserve the title.” How can he know or define “who departs from a non-essential belief” for all denominations?

David: “Your post proves what happens when the Bible is not interpreted properly, and when major beliefs/doctrines are built on obscure passages. By the way, none of the passages you quotes teaches egocentricity. What it does show is that the authors of the Bible had a human perspective. Wow, big suprise.”

Re: Evidently you process some type of Gnostic knowledge where you can tell you is orthodox and who is not.

Major modern scholars would disagree with you since the Bible parrots the same “earth centered view” as other ancient Near Eastern texts do.

Harry McCall said...

Heather, did you read my earlier post about the Bible and race and Bob Jones University? The Bible does support slavery and women a property of men and neither Jesus nor Paul disagreed with that fact.

Please tell me how Bob Jones, Sr. was wrong since both he and the Klu-Klux -Klan base their doctrines on the Bible.

Greg said...

Mr McCall,
Why didnt you include the bible verses associated with your examples? There are people out there that blow up clinics, and thank God for IED's, David Karesch thought he was Jesus. Alot of evil has come from taking the bible out of context, misinterpretation, and down right ignorance and reading what you want to read. Talk to David Duke, he has ben interviewd and ranbled off bible versus that he thought supported his prnicious view.

Come on..the Inquisition? Why not list the crusades. Again, these were political wars hyped as religion. The Pope used to have an army and started wars. Im sorry sir but your understanding of scripture is rudimentary and severly lacking. Your arguments are circular and dont stand up to scrutiny. An example; Peter said all new gentile Christians need to be circumcised, Paul said they did not. Paul taught that it was ok to eat pork, the Jew christians didnt. Jesus himself "broke" the sabbath. Denominational differances are not scriptural based, they are procedural. Some call for robes on the pastor, some dont, some say there are 3 sacraments, catholics have more than that. Some differances are whether children can be baptised, or if you need to be an adult. So no..no Sir, dif denominations prove nothing, save the versatilty and wide range application of scripture.
To understand the bible you must understand the way the bible writers eatern heritage affected the way they taught. Western thought is very logical and regimented, with an emphasis on time management and verbatim recital. Not so with the eastern culture. The main idea is what is important, not the minutae. Thats why in might describes the same event differant than John and dif than luke, dif than mathew. The Bible is just as relevant now, and the standard is the same..we are the ones who changed. The Pope is just a man, leaders of the church are just people, they do lame terrible things that are blatantly counter to Christsteaching

Heather said...

Harry - The NT addresses slavery because it was prevailent in the times of Jesus. I don't believe that it is ever "okay'd" or "promoted" by the teachings of the NT.

In the NT, no where are woman called the property of men. Wives are called to be submissive to their husbands, to respect them. Husbands are called to love their wives. Husbands and wives are called to honor one another.

All mankind were made from Adam. We all came from one blood, one man. How can one state that racism can come from the fact that we are all connected by one blood, one man?

I would surely agree that Mr. Jones is wrong. It is clear that he was wrong due to the fact that their stand on those issues have been recanted. If doctrine was truly supported by scripture, there would be no need to recant the doctrine.

david said...

Anthony,

I have no problem granting that. But that still doesn't excuse later cultures from misinterpreting the Bible, often conflating descriptions with prescriptions.

david said...

The Bible must be totally believed; which defeats Christianity. Christianity is dynamic and not static; it is doctrinally ever changing just a the Hebrews became the Israelites became Talmudic Judaism. The Bible is stuck in time.

Re: Example “A” is factual: Fundamental Baptist and Holiness Snake handlers.


We've already discussed the long ending of Mark. Isn't part of the text. Even if it was it wouldn't prescribe nake handling in the church.




Example “B” is correct since Philo and the Alexandrian School both represent Hellenistic Judaism and the Alexandrian School (represented by Christians such as Origen).
So, if you see a contradiction, you don’t know church history.

David: “1. I reject the implied premise: if something can be misunderstood it is a "flawed base."
2. Heresy does not just mean that you think what another Christian believes is wrong. Heresy is denying core belief.”

Re: As to objection 1: The Bible is understood as an ancient document with now very dated ideas.

As to objection 2: Your critic is one in the same. Your website is a modern approach trying to harmonize Christians. His statement “Simply because one is a historic heretic who departs from a non-essential belief does not mean that it is not serious or that they don’t deserve the title.” How can he know or define “who departs from a non-essential belief” for all denominations?

Oh sorry should have clarifed that. Thats not my website, thats my friend Michael Patton. He's a Dallas Theological Sem grad.


As to what defines an essential belief, here is what he said about that:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/how-do-you-know-if-a-doctrine-is-essential-three-criteria/



David: “Your post proves what happens when the Bible is not interpreted properly, and when major beliefs/doctrines are built on obscure passages. By the way, none of the passages you quotes teaches egocentricity. What it does show is that the authors of the Bible had a human perspective. Wow, big suprise.”

Re: Evidently you process some type of Gnostic knowledge where you can tell you is orthodox and who is not.

Haha nice job changing it to egocentricity. :-)


Major modern scholars would disagree with you since the Bible parrots the same “earth centered view” as other ancient Near Eastern texts do.

Anything but the major modern ones. EVeryone knows that truth is determine by the obscure ancient scholars' opinions. :-)

Harry McCall said...

Greg: “Im sorry sir but your understanding of scripture is rudimentary and severly lacking. Your arguments are circular and dont stand up to scrutiny.”
And again:
“The Bible is just as relevant now, and the standard is the same..we are the ones who changed.”

Greg, the fact that Jesus could not eat pork and Paul could means it has changed.
The fact that Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian means it has changed. The fact that Jesus believed ALL the law was still valid means it has changed: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

So why aren’t all Christians circumcised? Jesus was!

The very fact that Jesus was hated by righteous Jews means that things had changed.

Greg, even the quotes in your comment defeats your argument!

Heather said...

Harry - Jesus did many things that did not follow the "laws", He healed on the Sabbath, He harvested grain on the Sabbath, He did not fast...the many things Jesus did that were not of the law is what caused Him to be hated by the Pharises, led to His death! He came to fulfill the prophesy and destroy the old temple and become the new! Jesus was hated because the "rightous jews" were holding on to legalism instead of holding on to Faith. They would rather hold to the laws, and fail, then to experience the grace of God.

Were you ever a Christian Harry??

PhilipK said...

Heather,

You're looking at it from an after-the-fact perspective.

What you call "legalism" they called "Judaism." Jesus did not follow the Law, so he was not considered a righteous Jew. That's all. They didnt disregard faith in God, their faith was just different from yours.

Do you consider Mormons to be good, right-thinking Christians? No, because they just think differently than you. So don't call the faith of the Pharisees into question just because you disagree with them about their interpretation of the Old Testament.

As the old Roman phrase goes, "Everyone is a barbarian to someone else." Well the same thing goes for religion: everyone's faith is false to someone else. So what makes you think you're more correct than the Pharisees?

Think about it: what if the Pharisees were right? You could be in big trouble with God if you're wrong.

Harry McCall said...

Heather, back in 1986 I was a guest speaker at Temple Beth Israel at the Jewish youth conference.

Have you ever been to a conservative Jewish Synagogue where the Torah is remove from the Tabernacle in front of the building and it is carried around while the Jewish people sing and dance behind it praising God for his divine directives?

The use of “nomos” for Law in the LXX is a very poor Greek Translation for “Torah” in Hebrew. The LXX is what Paul used as his Bible.

The Torah in the Hebrew Bible is what made (and still does make) the Jewish people special. They had a Covenant form God based on his written code of guiding love just as a father gives rules to his children; not to be a burden, not because he hates them, but because he loves them.

Heather, please up the Hebrew word “Hesid” (Loving Kindness) and see how it and the Torah show God’s love towards Israel.

Heather said...

Philip - I have reread my post and reread it...is there something I am missing? Nowhere did I write that I am right and the Pharisees were wrong. Take a look at Matthew 23. It simply was what it was. I have faith that Jesus is the Messiah. I have Faith that the one way to God is by Jesus. I have Faith that it is true, and I have no qualms about that...I try very hard to pass no judgement on any other religion.

Harry - I have prayed for the people of Israel. Our church prays for the people of Israel, many others I know pray for Israel. The Jewish people are the chosen people of God! I know this! And I pray for their salvation. I know that the laws were created to keep us from harm...yet it wasn't enough. Only with Jesus in our hearts can we even attempt to achieve the level of rightousness that all Christians should try to attain. Try, and keep on trying, because until we are in the Kingdom of the Lord, it will be impossible...so, thank the Lord that we have the grace of God.

(did you spell the word correctly? I wasn't able to locate it)

Harry McCall said...

Sorry Heather, it's "Hesed". My mistake.

PhilipK said...

Heather,

You are [deliberately?] ignoring the points in Harry's post and in mine, and do not seem to be interested in carrying on a theological debate, only in finding excuses to write about how much you believe Christianity is true.

I said it was unfair of you to accuse the Pharisees of legalism and of not focusing on their "Faith", and you simply say that you didnt read that.

Harry challenges your interpretation of the Law of Moses, and you simply reply with how much you've prayed for Israel.

Now I know for a fact that you've said in the past how you come here only interested in writing to satisfy yourself, that you're not interested in having convincing arguments ... and it really shows. You embarrass yourself, and you insult those you debate with (if preaching can be considered debating).

Heather said...

Philip - I try very hard to answer the questions as they are posed to me. I suppose I don't understand how calling something unfair is grounds for a debate. I am calling it a fact that the Pharisees concentrated on Legalism, not on Faith, not on the Grace of God. Do you disagree about that? I did not see a challenge from Harry, I saw a statement. The statement seemed to me to say, don't you know that the Jewish are Gods chosen people, and yep, I do. I suppose that posting here would have to satisfy myself in some way or another, or why would a person continue. I enjoy posting here because I have my own beliefs, as do you, and I enjoy sharing them and reading others. I don't have a need to convince anyone, just want to make them think. I am happy to say I don't feel embarrassed by anything I have written.

Greg said...

Harry,
I re-read my first posting, and I owe you an apology for being so aggressive.
Matt 15, talks about what makes a man unclean. Many of the unclean prohibitions came into being after the babylonian exile. They were written by Rabbis from interpretations of mosiac law. Whether or not Jesus ate Pork, I dont know, but Romans 15:15 makes me lean towards no.
Galatians 3:26-29, talks about how all believers becoming Abrahams seed, thus the same. Jesus was a Jew, because in Christ there is no differance between believers. To take it one step further, the Disciples were first called Christians in Acts 11:26
The law is not abolished through Jesus, you are correct. The law was the way through which righteouness could be attained. With Jesus on the scene, the law was no longer sufficient, so says Peter to cornelius centurion, who was a god fearing man. (Acts 10...especially vs 37-42)

Paul talks about why all christians arent circumcised in Romans2:25-29
The most "righteous" of the Jewish people hating Jesus and wanting him dead and silenced is more of the same. Most of the prophets in the OT were killed by the Jews, John the baptist was killed by the Jews.
Its not accurate to characterise the NT as a change to fit the times. Christ is foretold and his way prepared by the prophets. As you yourself said, Christ didnt break or abolish the law he fulfilled it, so no change there. In fact a terrible warning is added to those who would add or take away from the book of revelation Rev 22:18 (the warning is just for rev. but goes to prove the point)
Sadly, we are the instruments of change. We like to pick and choose what we want to believe and write off what we dont as outdated or out of sync with the modern world. As the opening vs of John says, the word is eternal (paraphrase).
Respectfully,
Greg

Greg said...

Phillip,
The tradition of the elders was all about legalism. It was created after the babylonian exile by Jewish rabbis, and remained in the oral tradition until 200AD.

Many Jews of the time saw adherance to the law as the primary objective...not faith. It kind of makes sense, because why would you subject yourself to the law, if you didnt believe it made you righteous?
The idea is because of your faith you adhere, not faithful adherance.

Paul talks alot about how the law brings judgement, and of how faith brings salvation.
Greg

Philip R Kreyche said...

- The reason they follow[ed] the Law is because Jews have /had faith that it sums up God's commands. They're not following the Torah just for fun. So faith and obedience to the Law are not mutually exclusive.

- "Salvation" is a Christian concept, so of course that was Paul's interpretation. And to me Paul's opinions arent well founded, so it doesn't matter to me what he thought.

You just have an opinion on Jewish theology that's been informed by 2,000 years of criticism from a Christian perspective. What makes you think that the Christian perspective on Jewish theology is more correct than the Pharisaic?

Heather said...

Philip - The messiah, Jesus Christ. That is why.