Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Thou Shalt Find It Impossible to Live Like the Bible Tells You to

By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet. Posted November 17, 2007.


Author A.J. Jacobs spent a year trying to follow the 600+ laws he found proscribed in the Bible, and concluded he's doomed to live in sin.
41zf6urajkl.ss500
sdfsdf
Advertisement

He didn't want to stone adulterers. But that was part of the deal. That's what A.J. Jacobs was being paid for.

"The Hebrew scriptures prescribe a tremendous amount of capital punishment," Jacobs writes in The Year of Living Biblically (Simon & Schuster, 2007), his account of an experiment in which the lifelong agnostic spent 12 months obeying the Old Testament as literally as possible -- while living in an Upper West Side apartment and working for Esquire.

"Think Saudi Arabia, multiply by Texas, then triple that. It wasn't just for murder. You could also be executed for adultery, blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, perjury, incest, bestiality, and witchcraft, among others. A rebellious son could be sentenced to death. As could a son who is a persistent drunkard and glutton.

"The most commonly mentioned punishment method in the Hebrew Bible is stoning. So I figure, at the very least, I should try to stone. But how?"

At the time, Jacobs was in month two of his venture, still throbbing with a neophyte's enthusiasm: "I want to smash idols," he surprised himself by musing. Gathering a pocketful of tiny white pebbles in Central Park, he strolled until he met an irascible old man who mocked Jacobs' walking stick. When this man -- having been asked -- declared himself an adulterer, Jacobs lobbed a pebble at his chest. It bounced off.

He had grown up in a resolutely secular Jewish home -- sans bar mitzvah, sans Sabbath candles; he was even named after his still-living father, such an Ashkenazic rarity that an El Al security officer, eyeing the "Jr." on his passport six months into the experiment, doubted that Jacobs was even Jewish at all. "I'm Jewish," he writes, "in the same way that Olive Garden is an Italian restaurant."

All through school, even at a university "where you were more likely to study the semiotics of Wicca rituals than the Judeo-Christian tradition" and where the Bible was viewed "as a fusty, ancient book with the same truth quotient as The Faerie Queene," he'd been taught that the Bible inspired "many of humankind's greatest achievements: the civil rights movement, charitable giving, the abolition of slavery." And also, of course, that "it's been used to justify our worst: war, genocide and the subjugation of others."

By his late 30s, he'd long since decided "that religion, for all the good it does, seemed too risky for our modern world. The potential for abuse too high."

Then he became a father. And he couldn't reconcile raising a child without religion without learning more about religion. Firsthand.

As an Esquire reporter, Jacobs was into total-immersion journalism. His previous book, The Know-It-All (Simon & Schuster, 2004), detailed a year spent reading the Encyclopedia Brittanica from A through Z. Now, eyeing his small son, he mused: "If my lack of religion is a flaw, I don't want to pass it on to him."

And lo.

After poring over various versions of the Old and New Testaments and consulting with numerous clergy and academics over myriad interpretations, it began: a year in which he prayed several times daily (although, at first, merely saying the word "God" made him break out in sweats). He blew a ram's horn monthly. He stopped saying the word "Thursday" because its name derives from that of a pagan god, Thor. He refrained from turning doorknobs on Saturdays and from touching his wife for seven days after her periods. He visited Samaritans in Israel and snake handlers in Tennessee. He grew a chest-length beard that had strangers calling him ZZ Top and Gandalf; and he limited his fruit consumption to cherries -- you know, because Leviticus 19:23-25 forbids eating fruit from trees less than five years old. Peach trees start bearing at only two: "Too dangerous," Jacobs notes. "Pear trees in four. Again, too risky. But cherry trees, those are slowpokes. They take at lease five to seven from planting to produce."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bible, a.j. jacobs, year of living biblically

Anneli Rufus is the author of several books, including Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Huh?
Posted by: koavf on Nov 17, 2007 12:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is this posted on this site? I thought this was about politics. How did you decide to post this under "Rights & Liberties?"

-JAK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» religion is all politics Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: religion is all politics Posted by: Richard House
» "The Mix is the Message" Posted by: Beck
» "44% of high school graduates... Posted by: eddie torres
Duh, Walked Right Into That One
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 17, 2007 12:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many Bible teachers hold to the belief that the very very purpose of the onerous and burdensome law and code was to show that no person could be perfect. If theologians have long espoused this, is anyone surprised it's virtually impossible.

The core of the Christian faith is actually very simple. Jesus Christ, when asked what was the most important commandment, said that loving God an treating your neighbor (others) as you would wish to be treated. He went on to say that in those two rules were ALL of the law and prophets.

Sorry for the Sunday School lesson, but the author was asking for it. Tomorrow, an expose on how staring at the sun can blind you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Duh, Walked Right Into That One Posted by: Non-Attachment
How 'bout a little less...
Posted by: matti on Nov 17, 2007 2:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...book promotion and a little more discussion of "progressive" issues?

I realize it can be hard to fill the site but this combined with the Jensen AD MARK III is getting a little sad.


-matti

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is why Jesus broke it down for us
Posted by: foolme1ns on Nov 17, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Love God with all your heart and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all of the laws.

"Rabbi, do you mean it is more important for me to love my neighbor than to follow all the laws" "I tell you truly, you are not far from the kingdom of heaven".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Dylan knew about stoning...
Posted by: war_on_tara on Nov 17, 2007 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Everybody must get stoned."

Before he became a born-again Christian, that is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

4.8
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 17, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny and interesting.

Being raised Catholic, I can identify with the mixed thoughts and emotions about the Bible and religion.

It seems the Bible is like any other classic book: There's some really profound words and thoughts buried in thousands of pages of warped, confusing, self-indulgent crap, spewing from some very disturbed minds...I mean, if we all took the existentialists as literally and deeply as some people take the Bible, we all would have jumped off a bridge a long time ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 4.8 Posted by: donl51
» RE: raised catholic Posted by: davidg
what
Posted by: dawnteach on Nov 17, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he who is without sin cast the first stone jesus said, people really need to learn and understand the bible before being jugemental,or discriminatory, if you knew your history, the new testement pretty much replaced the old testement. no we cannot live bible days in todays society, though our world would be a better place if we could. those were Gods ways of dealing with criminals and sinners. if we didn't have adultry our divorce rate wouldn't be over 50%, god had his reasons for those laws and of course those who want or chose to live in sin will of course never agree to having those kind of laws. and back in those days instead of the death penalty like we have today in our system,that was their way..if you really want to understand the bible maybe he should look to council in one our great churches..and also this has nothing to do with politics. and our rules are not to be discriminatory and i see alot of that on religion on this site..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: what Posted by: FedUp
» RE: what Posted by: Lector
» RE: what Posted by: MSTHOM
I loved this book!
Posted by: Camilla Cracchiolo on Nov 17, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, please, you who dislike Alternet talking about this, go get a life already. Haven't you noticed religion and politics are travelling hand in hand and eating up your rights?

Jacobs was really funny. And very moving, because he truly cares about the ethical issues under the Biblical laws. Which makes this book one of the best discussions of what constitutes true righteousness and the best way to live one's life that I've seen in quite a while.

He's also absolutely honest and self-revealing and there is neither preachiness nor disrespect of those who are religious and also struggling with issues of ethics.

At the end, he talks about how the year permanently changed him; not becoming a believer, but becoming a person who tries to implement some of the moral lessons he learned along the way.

Do yourself and favor and read it. Please.

Camilla...who loves books to death and reads incessantly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I loved this book! Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: I loved this book! Posted by: phatkhat
Why are you attempting to follow man decreed laws
Posted by: jezemeg8 on Nov 17, 2007 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not surprised to discover that the author found it impossible to follow 600+ laws that were found in the Bible...the ancient Israelites who decreed them found them impossible too... God gave man 10 laws (commandments), man decided that it was way too easy to follow only 10 so set about creating a plethora of laws that they thought would make us even more holy. Jesus's death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven wiped all the old man decreed laws and made the two most relevant laws to all mankind to be 'Love the Lord your God and worship Him with all your heart' and 'Love your enemies'. Why is that too hard for people to understand????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I can't be equal... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: I can't be equal... Posted by: papibear
» I cannot fight... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: I cannot fight... Posted by: papibear
there are only 2 sins
Posted by: wawa on Nov 17, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Being selfish
2. Being boring

100 years before Christ walked the earth

Rabbi Hillel knew that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema;

Holy Wisdom;

The Feminine Divinity

Was the same as the Greek understanding of

The Logos:

The Word.

It was the first Paul and John who first understood:

The Word was good and

The Word was

The Logos

The Word is The Christ.




It was John on Rubber Soul who intuitively knew:

"The Word is just The Way and The Word is Love"

Listen to me +

Use your imagination,

For as William Blake understood:

"IMAGINATION is EVIDENCE of The Divine"

Before Christ walked the earth a man,

He was already a SHE:

Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity

Now, isn't that Good News?

The God Head is One Pure Being;

as much male as female

as much mommy as daddy.

And we are all children of Her Universe;

And **He is the oldest personality because He is the origin of everything;

and everything is born of Him.

He is the supreme controller of the universe,

the maintainer and instructor of humanity.

He is smaller than the smallest.[**Bhagavad-Gita]

He indwells the heart of every atom and

She is beyond the Universe.

Wisdom is calling,

She is rattling your windows and shaking your walls

With some more good news of the

three witnesses,

and three always beats one

and not just that,

I've got a fourth.

Get out your Good Book sisters and brothers and chew on this;

Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10

are simpatico with gnostic Thomas saying 44:

'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."

Listen to me, God is within every sister, brother and all Creation,

Wake up to your own divinity and

Get a clue Christian:

His ways are not your ways and Her thoughts are not your thoughts

Dominion never meant to rape and plunder,

but to nurture, care and love

And if you have not love, you have nothing at all

And on that final day we all will stand naked before The Creator

And we have been warned that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth

by those who were so sure they were in, because they are the ones left out.

WAKE UP Christian!

Hear the wind begin to howl.

-copyright 2006, eileen fleming





*Wisdom has built her house and SHE calls to all; "Come, eat my food and drink my wine and you will live abundant life and walk in the ways of understanding." [*Proverbs 9: 4-6]

e
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: there are only 2 sins Posted by: Richard House
» Gnosticism Posted by: garry minor
» RE: Gnosticism Posted by: Richard House
» RE: there are only 2 sins Posted by: lotus23
» RE: there are only 2 sins Posted by: jroth420
atheists and agnostics are further down the spiritual road
Posted by: wawa on Nov 17, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the 1987 classic, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, Dr. Scott Peck defines the spiritual life as fluid and that one may pass back and forth repeatedly through any of the four-probably more-stages of the soul.

Stage one upon this journey -that begins from within-is essentially our infancy in the spiritual life. Like a wild child, a person in this stage reflects the inner chaotic and anti-social, unregenerate soul that is interested only in its own self-satisfaction and ego, much like the stereotypical spoiled child.


Stage one people may claim to love others, but their behavior reflects they love their own pleasure, money, power, prestige, and security above any other. For stage one people, it really is all about them.



The good news is that the vast majority of humanity responds to that inner tug which is God, for lack of a better word. Catherine of Sienna wrote that within us all is the divine diamond. But life and all our baggage dulls the flame of our divine brilliance.


Stage two souls seek to "let their light shine" and will live virtuous lives and do many good works. They also can be judgmental of others, self-righteous, rigid of thought, cold of heart, legalistic concrete literal thinkers and may even be guilty of a lukewarm faith.


They want to do right and they even may desire to love and please God, but have not yet fully opened up to the Inner Light, as Joan of Arc did when she challenged church and state and persisted that she had intuited God within -even while being fried.

Stage two souls have not yet been set fully free and prefer the security of a higher human authority than themselves for guidance.

They submit to institutions, scripture, dogma, ritual, ministers, or gurus. This is the most appropriate stage for older children and most adults who live busy lives just trying to keep bread on the table and a dry roof above.


The difference between a stage one and stage two soul, is that a one wouldn't even notice a neighbor in need, while the two has awoken to the fact that we are to be our neighbor's keepers and they will respond to a friend-and like the good Samaritan, even to a total stranger in need.

Most theologians would agree that the opposite of faith is not disbelief: the opposite of faith is fear.



Stage three souls have not just fearlessly awoken, they have evolved!


This evolution has led them to the realization and doing what Christ was really talking about in the Sermon of the Mount AKA:The Beatitudes.

TBC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

good lord
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Nov 17, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So you can't follow "laws" written in a book that is supposed to be the word of some mysterious character called god.

so what?

You'd do better to worry about following the tenets of this country as enumerated in the constitution, and about trying to change the illegitimate laws such as the Patriot Act (unconstitutional), and our inane drug laws (unconstitutional) which incarcerate half a million people, disproportionally people of color.

Why is "faith" in the unseen and unproven supposed to be a mark of good character? Seems more like a mark of insanity to me. And I'm tired of religion being a litmus test in politics when the Constitution, in Article VI, states that there shall be no religious test for public office.

But really, if not being able to follow the Bible (or any other religious text for that matter) is so troubling to you, then maybe it's time to realize that "religious" texts are tools for control, sexism, racism, and general subjugation.

Believers of the world, you have nothing to lose but your chains.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: good lord Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: good lord Posted by: davidg
» RE: good lord Posted by: donl51
Unfortunately, God doesn't edit well
Posted by: logansafi on Nov 17, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is simply that despite all his Greatness, God just doesn't edit his books well. And even if he did better now, no good Christian would read his re-edited Bible but would just keep on reading the old one.

Maybe one should stick to just trying to live with one set of God's laws, and not all of them at once? Begin with either the laws that guide diet, or the ones that guide sex, say? Dr. Dobson is trying to stick with only God's laws that deal only with sexual conduct, for example. And he is having a damn time of even that!

What God needs to do for his children, is give us a few more miracles anew. That would save more of us I believe. He could recreate the earth and then re-edit the Bible. That might help, but then again, who am I to suggest to God what he should do about the mess his children are making?

Thanks, alternet, for at last giving us some honest material for us Christians readers on this site. Spirituality is important. My first wife used to tell me that all the time. Thanks again, and may God be with you all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, OK, but ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
"Love the Lord your God and worship Him with all your heart"
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Nov 17, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why?! Is He that insecure that He needs to be worshiped? And why do I have to go to special places (Churches) to "worship" Him?

This behavior is the antithesis to a "Loving" god. If you were asked to do the same to any other person on this earth, he would be known as a dictator or worse. Definitely not known as "loving."

Would you like your kids, spouse, employee etc. to worship you? Did He not say do unto others as you would have done to you?

It is all insane, inane to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Silly experiment, interesting outcome
Posted by: SayBlade on Nov 17, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While this experiment is a rather silly one, I concede it did illustrate the ridiculousness of literalism.

It also illustrates the absurdity of designating this collection of Hebrew and Greek writings, called The Bible, as science or history.

The writings say much about the writer's ideas about living as a human being in the world and what lies beyond. The beyond includes how we ought to relate to nature, neighbour, friend and family which is why the social and economic justice movement embraces these writings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fear God...yeah...I now undersand why!
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Nov 17, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes.

The so called “God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included a few references to the Biblical passages below, so grab your Bible and follow along:

It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”.

For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).

He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6).

In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!

Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

I could go on...and will for any "good" Christian that requests it.

THE BIBLE IS THE MOST GENOCIDAL BOOK IN HISTORY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ummmm... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» As usual... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: Ummmm... Posted by: davidg
» RE: Capone couldn't be forgiven Posted by: UnEasyOne
If you can amend a constitution, can't you amend a Bible?
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 17, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One could look at American history and find laws that establish churches, that only allow rich white men to vote, etc.

The Pilgrims had a big to-do with the Mass Bay Puritans in 1630-something about dancing around a maypole. That opposition didn't last long--been in a strip bar lately?

The Old Testament represents a similar historical process. How about "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares"? We ought to give that a try sometime. Not likely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thekidde
Posted by: thekidde on Nov 17, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, "proscribe" means to ban. Other than that, this should not be news to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together regardless of their religious affiliation. Religions, all of them (and there have been a bunch over thousands of years), are by nature bigoted, prejudiced, based on supernatural (and very derivative) magical crap, and finally, very destructive of human intercourse. Take a look at fundamentalists as well as middle-of-the-road religious believers. To a person they believe in foolish claptrap, silly, self-serving and exclusionary bullshit. Why anyone would subscribe to this crap, aside from praying to win the lotto and "living" forever, is beyond me. Get a life - now - this is not a fucking dress rehearsal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something New?
Posted by: aberdeen on Nov 17, 2007 10:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the author of this book had bothered to read the New Testament very carefully, he could have saved himeself a lot of trouble and AlterNet, a lot of egg on their face.

According to the New Testament, God gave his law to prove that human beings can't obey God and thus, need forgiveness from God. I've never met or heard of anyone who can obey God's law. That is the entire point of the New Testament as to why Jesus died. If human beings are "good", then why did Jesus end up crucified? Somehow, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the rest of the modern atheist crowd fail to adequately explain that.

According to the Bible, God challenges all conservative Christian liars, moderates, liberals, progressives, agnostics, atheists and authors and readers of AlterNet, to prove him wrong. Try to love your neighbor as yourself all of the time and see how well you do.

Imagine that, even modern progressives and atheists somehow, seem to come up all little short in the obedience-ability department. Go figure...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gee, Thank you, God Posted by: Suz
» RE: Something New? Posted by: donl51
Jesus upheld all 613 commandments
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 17, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Christians think they are no longer under Mosaic Law, because Paul referred to his background as a former Pharisee and previous adherence to Mosaic Law as "so much garbage."

Nothing in the synoptic gospels suggests a break with Judaism. Jesus was called "Rabbi," meaning "Master" or "Teacher," 42 times in the gospels. Jesus' ministry was a rabbinic one. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).

Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven...unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus also upheld the Torah in Luke 16:17: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid."

Nor do these words refer merely to the Ten Commandments. Jesus meant the entire Torah: 613 commandments. When a man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments." He quoted not just the Ten Commandments, but a commandment from Leviticus 19:13 as well: "Do not defraud." (Mark 10:17-22)

Jesus' disciples were once accused by the scribes and Pharisees of violating rabbinical tradition (Matthew 15:1-2; Mark 7:5), but not biblical law. Jesus never says anywhere in the entire New Testament that the Law is abolished; this was Paul's theology.

Sometimes Christians cite Matthew 7:12, where Jesus says "Do unto others..." and this "covers" the Law and the prophets. But Jesus was merely repeating in the positive what Rabbi Hillel taught a generation earlier. No one took Hillel's words to mean the Law had been abolished--why should we assume this of Jesus?

If Jesus really did come to abolish the Law and the prophets, Simon (Peter) would not have resisted a divine command to kill and eat both "clean" and "unclean" animals (Acts 10), nor would there have been a debate in the early church as to what extent the gentiles were to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 15). When Paul visited the church at Jerusalem, James and the elders told him all its members were "zealous for the Law," and they were worried because they heard rumors Paul was preaching against Mosaic Law (Acts 21). None of these events would have happened had Jesus really come to abolish the Law and the prophets.

Paul says if anyone has confidence in the Law, "I am ahead of him."

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said he did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who said whoever sets aside even the least of the Law's demands shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19)?

Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus, who taught that following the commandments of God is the only way to eternal life (Mark 10:17-22)? Would that mean Paul places himself ahead of Jesus who said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest portion of the Law to become invalid (Luke 16:17)?

Paul may have regarded the Law as "so much garbage," but it should be obvious JESUS DIDN'T THINK THE LAW WAS "GARBAGE"!

Christians believe in Paul, not Jesus. Bertrand Russell called Paul the "inventor" of Christianity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only One Law is Necessary
Posted by: Libertine on Nov 17, 2007 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Treat others as you would wish to be treated", aka "the Golden Rule". All else is superfluous.

If this is all you take away from the Bible and ignore all else, you've gotten the main point and have done well.

It's interesting to note that this sentiment is expressed by nearly every religion and ethical tradition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul taught a different theology than Jesus
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 17, 2007 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), as did his disciples (see Acts 10, 15, and 21), whereas Paul taught that the Law was abolished, and he gave his own set of moral instructions to be followed instead.

Paul taught his followers to bless their persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), to care for their enemies by providing them with food and drink (12:20), and to pay their taxes and obey all earthly governments (13:1-7).

Paul mentioned giving all his belongings to feed the hungry (I Corinthians 13:3), and taught giving to the person in need (Ephesians 4:23). He told his followers it was wrong to take their conflicts before non-Christian courts rather than before the saints. (I Corinthians 6:1)

Paul taught that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," i.e., it is best to be celibate, but because of prevailing immoralities, marriage is allowed. Divorce is permissible only in the case of an unbeliever demanding separation. (I Corinthians 7)

Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality:

"This is God's will--your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity and honor, not in lustful passion like the gentiles who have no knowledge of God." (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)

Paul told his followers not to associate with sexually immoral people (I Corinthians 5:9-12, 6:15,18). He opposed homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27) and incest (I Corinthians 5:1). He taught that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Paul condemned wickedness, immorality, depravity, greed, murder, quarreling, deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, pride (Romans 1:29-30), drunkenness, carousing, debauchery, jealousy (Romans 13:13), sensuality, magic arts, animosities, bad temper, selfishness, dissensions, envy (Galatians 5:19-21; greediness (Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5), foul speech, anger, clamor, abusive language, malice (Ephesians 4:29-32), dishonesty (Colossians 3:13), materialism (I Timothy 6:6-11), conceit, avarice, boasting and treachery. (II Timothy 3:2-4)

Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12). He instructed them to ALWAYS pray constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:1