How the Torture of Witches Revealed the Sexual Repression of Inquisitors
Austin Cline has a pretty disturbing set of images with a good discussion of the torture of witches. We've discussed it here before, but why did a loving God say, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?" Why? Why not instead say, "thou shalt not torture or kill people who have different ideas than you," and say it as often as needed?
76 comments:
I don't see the connection between the two quotes. God said, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" but I'm not sure why you're bring torture into the equation.
Jason, read up on the witch trials. The witch hunters had to find a way to determine whether or not these people were truly witches. That's where torture came into play. Sure, you, me, and all decent civilized people reject torture as a means to extract confessions, but surely God could also have said "thou shalt not use torture to extract confessions" too. These witches were hanged or burned to death.
Get the book listed down the page on the sidebar. Read it, and come back to comment.
Rather disturbing indeed. The flip side of this repressed sexuality in Catholicism is the ecstasy some saints experienced. One look at Bernini's St. Teresa tells you what she's feeling.
The best story, however, is that of St. Agnes Blannbekin, who died in Vienna in 1315. Her "Revelations", as collected by her spiritual advisor, were published by the Benedictine B. Pez in 1731, and included the following tidbit (sorry, just in German: the following is my translation), from chapter XXXVII, "The Lord's Prepuce":
"This person had the habit, starting almost in childhood, to weep profoundly at the Feast of the Circumcision, touched to the heart by the blood spent by Christ, who deigned to suffer so early.... Thus she started to wonder, where the prepuce might be. And lo and behold! Soon she felt a little skin on her tongue, like the skin of an egg, full of great sweetness, and she gulped it down. Hardly had she swallowed it, when she felt the little skin again, and so she swallowed it once more. And she did so a good hundred times.... And it was revealed to her, that on the Day of Resurrection the prepuce was also resurrected. So great was the sweetness when she swallowed this little skin, that in all her limbs and in all the muscles of her limbs she felt a sweet transformation..."
St. Agnes' confessor added after this chapter the note:
"I was greatly comforted, that the Lord would reveal himself to people this way, and burned to hear more."
The 'kill with witches' commandment was given to the OT Israelites and it ended with Christ and the new law. If someone is still using the old law to justify their actions, that's their mistake.
Didn't He kinda cover that with the love thy neighbor thing?
Did you expect him to cover any possible form of sin or wrongdoing?
Jason, David, what we had in the Middle Ages were Christian nations. As such they appealed to the OT law for how to run them, or at least they tried. It was a fairly obvious connection for them to make, since Jesus was not telling people how to govern a nation but how to live their personal lives, or so it was thought.
You would not have been able to think the way you presently do had you lived in that era. Thus, I ask again, why didn't a loving God state the things I have suggested to eliminate any confusion from the people who desired to follow him?
I don't always agree with Jason, but i think he is right on here. Christ replaced the civil and ceremonial law of the OT. We live by the moral law.
Many have twisted the Bible to justify their agenda, there is nothing additionally profound about this case.
"Sure, you, me, and all decent civilized people reject torture as a means to extract confessions,"
And I suppose no one saw Frontline a couple nights ago about what our govenment documents consider reasonable? And I suppose you think that the suspected terrorists we send to detention in other nations are not being tortured? Torture is alive and well. If we know it does not work, why? Maybe it does trigger the same or nearby places in the brain as sexual pleasure, even today as men torture other men.
"The 'kill with witches' commandment was given to the OT Israelites and it ended with Christ and the new law. If someone is still using the old law to justify their actions, that's their mistake."
Then why do they still use Leviticus to justify being anti-gay?
goprairie, I used my words carefully. I was describing "decent civilized people."
gopraire,
Good question. Why do they?
David said...Many have twisted the Bible to justify their agenda, there is nothing additionally profound about this case.
So, you truly think these things should've been obvious to them, eh?
You make me laugh (sorry). Would you please try to explain why professing Christian people (the only kind we ever see) believed this for three centuries, if it was so obvious. That's three hundred years. Please do not insult their intelligence or their devotion to God. Doing so is the easy way out, the blind faith way out. You either must claim these Christian people did not care to do God's will at all, or that they were ignorant with an I.Q. of, say 30. Neither claim can be justified.
John,
Christians in the Middle-Ages using the OT as their rule book in terms of living, governing, etc. is still wrong. Christ replaced the old law with the new so there is no justification whatsoever for anyone to be following laws given to the OT Israelites.
The letter to the Galatians deals with this exact issue (specifically 3:10 and 5:3).
Jason and David, I really do not think you could escape the logic of their arguments had you lived in their day. Just think about how Aquinas justified it and you will see what I mean.
Even today I wonder if you can effectively argue against what he said. But if you can, you still would not be able to in their day. Why? Because God didn't explicitly tell them what they were to do. And why is that? Because God either did not care, or he just doesn't exist.
Their "arguments" are irrelevant. Christ was the author of the new law and covenant. Without either, Christianity wouldn't exist so again, there's no Scriptural justification for following the old law. I'll point you back again to Galatians. I'm sure these people had good arguments as well but it really didn't matter - believers are under the new law, not the old.
Jason, I agree with your interpretation of those texts. But the question I'm raising is an important one that you cannot dismiss so lightly. Your present interpretation of these texts came from the process of the history of interpretation. Christian scholars had to work out these conclusions, and it took time to do so. You stand within that history and you accept the conclusions of that history. Bravo for you! The point is that if you were to step back into that history before such issues were decided it would not be as clear cut as you now imagine it to be.
But God could've cleared this mess up from the beginning as I suggested. Why didn't he? Answer the question, please.
Christians in the 1st century church had this same issue (old law vs new law) and the issue was dealt with by Paul. The way he handled the problem was recorded so that future generations of Christians, when similar issues arose, would be able to refer to Scripture for answers. So the 'interpretation' of the matter was settled almost 2000 years ago when God made it quite clear that the old law wasn't to be followed any more by Christians. There is no conclusion to 'work out'. It's been this way for a long time now, long before people were torturing witches.
Looking at this in terms of the currently dominant doctrine of dividing things into new and old covenants is still missing some of the broader socio-historical trends that were going on at the time.
The witch burnings came at the end of the cultural shift from something closer to the Roman gender model to one that granted women many more rights, which became the general norm in many nations after the black death swept Europe. At the same time as the witch burnings, laws were being passed to limit women's rights and misogynist art was all the rave. The relatively sexually liberal atmosphere from the medieval period was also dwindling and being replaced by the doctrine that lust and most other sins originated with women.
John's questions are on the right line, but I think with this conext in mind, we can be much more specific: why should God have allowed cultural changes to impact Christian practices? Why were lesbianism and extra-marital sex considered ok by so many Christians until 14th century? Shouldn't He have stepped in earlier to make His revelation clearer? Why should the church's doctrine have changed to emphasize Eve's role in original sin at the same time that men were trying to force women out the economic sphere? Why did the church change its position from "witchcraft is false" (that is, pure superstition) to "witchcraft is evil" (real)?
I think the answer we'd find is unsurprising: Christian doctrine has been as influenced by contemporary culture as any other beliefs regularly are (supernatural, political, economic), and this includes that "absolute morality" we hear so much about.
The issue is being missed. The Bible has been the Bible for a long time now. It's been accessible by Christians since day one. God laid out the laws Christians were to follow on day one as well. Regardless of cultural shifts, it's still the responsibility of the believer to follow God's commandments even when it contradicts popular opinion.
This is one of those times when I have to argue with John. (Hey, John, it's been at least a couple of months...)
I agree 100% with the main idea in John's post, that a God that existed would have condemned torture -- much as I agree that he would have condemned slavery. Even more so with torture because it not only 'shocks the conscience' but it is flat-out stupid. It doesn't get 'the truth' it just gets the victim willing to say whatever the torturer wants.
Unfortunately, John, the historical argument you use -- specifically in your post of 10:33 -- is also wrong.
First, and minor, in your use of the 'Middle Ages.' The phrase usually refers to the period between the Fall of Rome and the beginning of the Renaissance in the 15th Century. But the Inquisition you refer to, and the period of 'witch-burning' took place after that. There was an earlier Inquisition -- aimed at the Cathari and Albigensians -- and it did use torture, but it didn't burn witches. That came only in the very late 15th Century and later.
More importantly -- if we are discussing fact and not theory, your statement:
"What we had in the Middle Ages were Christian nations. As such they appealed to the OT law for how to run them, or at least they tried."
is simply wrong. They were 'Christian nations,' yes, but they were specifically Catholic and Catholicism didn't and doesn't use the Old Testament in the way Protestantism does.
The law the Church preached was a mixture of Canon Law and Roman precedents, not an attempt to impose Levitican strictures on the population. That only came later with John Calvin.
More importantly, despite the attempts of the Chruch to impose itself on the 'Temporal Realm' they were never successful in this. The rulers of the various nations may have called themselves Christians, but they ruled as secular leaders, and applied their own laws, based perhaps on Canon Law, with nominal obesiance to the Pope, but whenever the Pope attempted to intervene, he failed. (And during the 10th Century, the Papacy had enough trouble keeping itself out of the clutches of the Roman nobility who, for a period, passed the position around between the various noble families.)
I have no specific reference for this -- and would appreciate any that anyone has -- but even in the Papal States, the area where the Pope was a temporal ruler, the code was not based on the Old Testament.
(In fact, the continual battle between the 'spiritual' and 'temporal' realms is responsible for the beginning of our modern liberties, because there was a constant attempt of the temporal to play off the lesser clergy against the Pope, and simultaneously the Pope and Curia attempted to play the aristocracy off against the King. The concessions that each side was forced to give to win support in these battles led to such things as the Magna Carta.)
Again, none of this disagrees with your main point, that the use of torture and the killing of heretics was wrong.
Prup, are you referring to this?: Jason, David, what we had in the Middle Ages were Christian nations. As such they appealed to the OT law for how to run them, or at least they tried. It was a fairly obvious connection for them to make, since Jesus was not telling people how to govern a nation but how to live their personal lives, or so it was thought.
And what I wrote demanded your outburst? Interesting. In this thread I began talking about witches, and I also used examples from the Inquisition and slavery itself all lumped together to force home the main point of why God didn’t communicate his will better. So in my mind I was no longer just talking about the witch trials, but the lack of God’s communication over the span of church history. I did not think it necessary to be precise or technically correct here, since the main point of my argument didn’t demand it. Technical precision while writing on the fly, is still expected eh? Very interesting, and very nitpicky.
That the Catholic Church appealed to natural law did not exclude the revealed law in the Scriptures. Just look at Aquinas. Any attempt to follow a natural law that was in contradiction or opposition to the revealed law would never have been accepted by him. Catholics actually had three sources of authority, including church pronouncements themselves, but it is a rather complicated topic, and these sources of authority vied for dominance with one above another throughout their history, certainly nothing I need to address in those three sentences. I understand the fights they had back and forth between the Popes and the secular authorities, but the secular authorities justified their secular right to rule by virtue of ”the divine right of kings” --this time the Christian Catholic God. Do you think I never had a church history class? I had two such classes which were broken up into 4 semesters.
You said, More importantly, despite the attempts of the Church to impose itself on the 'Temporal Realm' they were never successful in this. The rulers of the various nations may have called themselves Christians, but they ruled as secular leaders, and applied their own laws, based perhaps on Canon Law, with nominal obesiance to the Pope, but whenever the Pope attempted to intervene, he failed.
Absolutely false. One king was forced to kiss “the papal toe,” for instance. But to argue that they governed by Canon Law and Roman precepts doesn’t exclude that they also believed the OT and tried to follow it and gain principles for governance to rule over the people. In fact the church derived the Canon Law from principles in the Bible.
It’s as if you look for disagreements. There are politer ways to handle them than you do. I have more important things to use my time than in getting into nitpicky fights with you based upon three sentences written on the fly. This response took up my time. I am no expert on church history, that I’ll admit, but neither are you.
Forgive me, but I don't understand why the NT is used to try and get around the heinous stuff in the OT. So the perfect god needs multiple attempts to get it right? How many more contradictory testaments might there be to come?
Both the NT and OT support slavery. One of the more useless commandments could have been replaced with: "Thou shalt not take ownership of another human being regardless of their differences to you." But of course, the bible does not do this.
The Bible says it, you believe it, you have to deal with it. All of it.
The issue is being missed. The Bible has been the Bible for a long time now. It's been accessible by Christians since day one. God laid out the laws Christians were to follow on day one as well. Regardless of cultural shifts, it's still the responsibility of the believer to follow God's commandments even when it contradicts popular opinion.
The Bible hasn't always been The Bible though. And Christians have not always had access to the quality translations and historical understanding we have today. The argument your given is (if my understanding is correct) an argument that's only a few hundred years old.
billf,
Hebrews goes into great detail explaining why a new law was put into place and Galatians 3 touches on the consequences of choosing to follow selective parts of the old law.
bh,
The Bible was canonized in the 4th century while people like Justin Martyr, hundreds of years prior, were writing and talking about the "new law" of Christ. Mistranslations and historical understandings are of no consequence; A Christian can't follow Christ and follow the old law at the same time - Christianity is worthless if the old law is still in place. This is precisely the issue the writer spent so much time explaining in the letter to the Hebrews.
It really drives me crazy when theists state things like "The Bible is the Bible; it's not God's fault if people choose to disregard its clear teachings." I am a non-theist, and I am offended on behalf of theists. If the teachings of the Bible are so dirt-simple, what does that say about Christians who can't agree on much of anything other than that Jesus was special to God in some way?
"Christianity is worthless if the old law is still in place."
So god screwed up on the first set of laws. Thats understandable though, except for a god.
billf,
Read Hebrews 8-10 to understand the purpose of the old law.
Jason, not everyone has had access to The Bible though, and even today, not everyone who is illiterate is being taught about Christianity by people who agree with your interpretation. You can say "regardless of cultural shifts," but for so many people past and present, that's the only sort of Christianity that they had access to.
Access to the Bible isn't the question. The question is whether or not God, via Scripture, instructs Christians to kill witches, which He doesn't. And He never has, irrespective of translations and history. This isn't "my" interpretation. It's right there in the Bible, clear as day.
This isn't "my" interpretation. It's right there in the Bible, clear as day.
Jews would reply that the necessary prophecies regarding the Messiah are in the Torah "clear as day", and yet Christians choose to ignore their clear dictates and worship Jesus anyway.
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks:nation shall not life up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (KJV, Isaiah 2:4)
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. (KJV, Isaiah 11:6)
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. (KJV, Isaiah 11:9)
I think it is dangerous to claim that determination of theology from Biblical texts is "clear as day."
Thanks, shygetz. I don't think I could have said that with as many specific references.
I'm surprised that no one has interjected the Germanic roots of the witch hunts.
The Church was surely influenced by the surrounding culture as evidenced by the behavior of the Popes during the period. Prup make a good point.
Shy,
Your references, while admirable, don't have much to do with the topic, I'm afraid. The 'interpration' claim by bh was regarding whether or not God ever instructs Christians to kill witches, which He doesn't, because Christians aren't under the old law.
To reiterate, a 'Christian' acknowledges they're under the new law. Since the 'kill witches' commandment was under the old law, any Christian who goes ahead and strings one up today isn't doing it on commandment from God. How and why is this even being debated?
My references bear directly upon the topic; that is, does the Bible point in a straightforward manner to any theological conclusion? My quoted verses show "clear as day" that Jesus was not the Messiah, yet I imagine that you would disagree with this conclusion. The fact that so many presumably equally sincere and intelligent people come up with so many different and inconsistent interpretations is strong evidence that your claim of "clear as day" is terribly overstated.
Unless you claim that only Christadelphians are sincere and/or sufficiently intelligent. Is that your assertion?
Jason: (and anyone else who argues that "Christians aren't under the old law")
By your assumptions, Jesus knew what was going to happen to him, that he would be crucified and resurrected within a year of when he started preaching. Why then did he spend so much of this limited time insisting on the importance of the Old Law? Why didn't he start telling people that there was going to be a new law, instead of saying things like the following:
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law"
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
The entire Sermon on the Mount is a reinterpretation -- as I've said repeatedly, one within the standard practice of Judaism -- of the law, a making it stricter, but NOT an abolition of it.
And the first part of Luke 6, and its discussion of the Sabbath, Jesus speaks of the importance of it, but explains that 'doing good' on the Sabbath is allowed. He doesn't say, 'Don't worry about the Sabbath, a year from now none of this will matter.'
Can you point to any public words of Jesus, any reported preaching he did -- not conversations with his disiples or supposed conversations after his resurrection -- whee he says anything about 'you will no longer be under the Old Law'?
Your references, while admirable, don't have much to do with the topic, I'm afraid. The 'interpration' claim by bh was regarding whether or not God ever instructs Christians to kill witches, which He doesn't, because Christians aren't under the old law.
I think I should be able to say what my claim is: and Shygetz has hit the nail on the head. (I can't speak for John's intention in the OP though.)
Hi Prup - You asked if there is any place in scripture where Jesus says "You will no longer be under the old law"? I don't believe He ever did say anything like that. I believe He approached the issue differently.
When Y'shua spoke of Mses's law allowing divorce, He indicated that Moses, in doing so, had conformed to the influence of members of His community who had hardened hearts. Divorce happens, but I believe Y'shua's words were spoken to indicate the nature of divine love - God's love for us - that He doesn't divorce us. There is grace for people to divorce one another, but God doesn't divorce us.
I think by nature, we fall into compulsion and legalism whether it is by the Torah or some other political/legal system, and that there is another Way that Y'shua demonstrated.
So, to me, it isn't so much that we are no longer under the law, but we incite legalism when we mistreat one another. Yshua demonstrated and invited people to turn from the law and practice a different Way, founded on a trust of God's gracious love.
That is my understanding (and of course, there is grace for varying perspectives and understandings).
So the discussion is now about whether or not there's even a new law? Come on people, stay on topic. If a Christian, any Christian, recognizes Christ as their saviour and that forgiveness of sins is possible through him and that salvation is being offered to them as well, then they acknowledge they're under the new law. This isn't even a point of discussion. God does not command Christians to kill witches. It's that simple.
Luke 22:20 "Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."
Compare with Exodus 24:8, 2 Cor 3:14, Hebrews 8,9,12 and 13.
This is a futile argument originally stemming from an incorrect claim that God commands Christians to kill witches.
I don't think the question is whether God commanded Christians to kill witches, but why so many Christians believed he did. If The Bible is so clear, why was that clear message ignored for so long and by so many? Some Christians say that Bible alone is their guide, but history shows that this can't be entirely true (or if it's true now, then it's the first time it's ever been true).
Some Christians say that Bible alone is their guide, but history shows that this can't be entirely true (or if it's true now, then it's the first time it's ever been true).
These Christians are mistaken. All Christians rely upon Church tradition, whether they know it or not.
If a Christian, any Christian, recognizes Christ as their saviour and that forgiveness of sins is possible through him and that salvation is being offered to them as well, then they acknowledge they're under the new law.
But they may or may not agree that the old law is completely null and void.
You never answered my question, jason; do you think the Christadelphians are the only intelligent and/or sincere Christians? If not, then how do you explain the many diverse and contradictory doctrines of the huge number of Christian sects, given that the Bible is as "clear as day" as you assert?
Shy,
As the letter to the Galatians patiently explains, people can't pick and choose which part of the law they want to follow. If someone is going to follow portions of the old law, they're obligated to follow it all. Christians who do pick and choose are doing it for personal gain or personal justification, not for glory to God.
Galatians 5:3-4 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
And I'm afraid your question isn't worth answering. You're only looking for an argument and I'm really not interested.
And I'm afraid your question isn't worth answering. You're only looking for an argument and I'm really not interested.
Surely you don't comment on DC in order to have your opinions unquestioningly accepted! All I'm looking for is honesty. You claim that the Bible is "clear as day" in endorsing your view of theology in the face of multitudes of denominations that clearly believe differently. I want to know how you square your claim that the Bible is "clear as day" in regards to its teachings on theology with the fact that many Christians today and in history have disagreed strongly with you, using pretty much the same Bible you do.
I'm not trying to be unjustly antagonistic with you, I'm really not. But you can't expect to go unchallenged here, anymore than I can.
You claim that the Bible is "clear as day" in endorsing your view of theology in the face of multitudes of denominations that clearly believe differently.
Which multitide of Christian denominations today believe 1) God commands believers to kill witches, 2) Christ didn't bring in a new law, and 3) Christians are under the same law as the OT Israelites?
I want to know how you square your claim that the Bible is "clear as day" in regards to its teachings on theology with the fact that many Christians today and in history have disagreed strongly with you, using pretty much the same Bible you do.
My 'claim', if you've followed the discussion, was that God clearly doesn't command Christians to kill witches under the new law; this was an OT commandment given to the Israelites. If you want to talk about theological teachings outside of this, do it elsewhere.
Jason, my understanding of the Old Testament law was that what Jesus did away with is no longer in effect (despite Matt 5:17f). The ceremonial law is abolished, the sacrificial law was fulfilled, but the moral law is still in effect.
When it comes to the civil law in the OT on how to run a country though, where specifically does the NT abolish those laws? I'll tell you where. No where. That's the problem. What should Christians do when they now run a country? That was the problem. God did in fact say "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. The church had to know how to deal with that.
YOU would've agreed with how they interpreted it, since the evidence from 300 years is that the whole church thought the same thing about what to do with witches. That's pretty strong evidence.
There's more. Christians have had a great deal of trouble beginning with their early days in deciding which OT laws were which. It looks like the OT law is one set of laws with nothing to distinguish them into separate groupings like moral, ceremonial, sacrificial, moral and civil. The fact is that no where in the OT do we have any such separation of these laws. Christians themselves learned to separate them into separate groupings, and this took centuries to do. Why wasn't God clear on THIS?
------------
Jason, you are naive, a simpleton. You'll grow in your understanding where you will see this as a problem, for until you see the problem you cannot answer it.
Jason:
Ironically, I know of no examples of Jews, in fact, killing witches. On the other hand, there are many examples of Christians doing so, and claiming justification from the Bible. Admittedly, this was before the founding of the Christadelphians, which happened less than 200 years ago.
Let me also ask you, if the Christadelphian interpretation is so clear and correct, why are there only 50,000 Christadelphians -- note that I am not using this figure to argue against the 'correctness of your faith, just pointing out there are about 42,000 Christians who are not Christadelphians to every ONE that is. If the Bible, and your interpretation of it, is so "obvious' why do so few people claiming to be Christians disagree?
As for your "Old Law"/"New Law" dichotomy -- and ignoring the statements by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount that claimed the Old Law was still in effect -- the Ten Commandments, the prohibitions against incest, the commands against idols, etc, are all in the Old Law. Can you show me where these were explicitly reannounced in the NT since the "Old Law" had been abolished?
You might also consider that James, Jesus' brother was the foremost proponent of keeping the Old Law, and it was Paul, who never met Jesus or heard him preach, who was so insistent that the Old Law was abolished.
John,
Firstly I don’t appreciate your insults. Enough already.
Secondly, the basic fact is that God does not command Christians to kill witches. You can make all the excuses you want for Christians running countries, etc. etc. etc. but that doesn’t change the fact there is no ‘kill witches’ commandment in the new law. This law was given to the Israelites under the old law.
Why is your nose so out of joint? There's no good reason why you or any atheist should disagree with this. Every major Christian denominaton, Catholic included, agree that Christ instituted a new law. It's hardly earth-shattering.
Prup,
Ironically, I know of no examples of Jews, in fact, killing witches. On the other hand, there are many examples of Christians doing so, and claiming justification from the Bible.
The “kill witches” commandment was given to the Israelites 4000 years ago. Are you saying that because there’s no historical evidence an Israelite ever killed a witch that the commandment wasn’t meant for them?
“Admittedly, this was before the founding of the Christadelphians, which happened less than 200 years ago...
Let me get this straight, you're saying that Christadelphians are the only denomination since Christ to claim believers should be following the new law instituted by Christ instead of the one given to Moses. Paul and Justin Martyr, among many, many others, weren't Christadelphians yet they still preached Christ’s new law. What do you suppose they were going on about?
As for your "Old Law"/"New Law" dichotomy -- and ignoring the statements by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount that claimed the Old Law was still in effect...
The old law was still in effect during the life of Christ. If you would read the references I’ve been providing, specifically the ones in Hebrews, you’d see why.
You might also consider that James, Jesus' brother was the foremost proponent of keeping the Old Law, and it was Paul, who never met Jesus or heard him preach, who was so insistent that the Old Law was abolished.
And you might consider the words of Christ in Luke 22:20 "Likewise he also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." What’s so confusing about this statement?
And as an atheist, you've given up the right to make the rules about who needs to say what before it becomes truth. You won't find a Christian out there who regularly ignores Paul's words simply because he never met Jesus. Paul was inspired, the words he wrote about the old law are just as valid as Christ's.
Gal 3:24-25 "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
Here’s what I get such a kick out of with this kind of discussion. If you’re right, if Christadelphians are the only denomination to claim there’s a new law, please explain the following:
1. Why haven't Christians ever sacrificed animals as a means to have forgiveness for their sins? (Since Jesus’ sacrifice obviously didn’t accomplish anything as human sacrifice under the old law was meaningless)
2. How could Jesus be a “high priest” if he wasn’t from the tribe of Levi?
3. Why don’t Christians demand mandatory circumcision?
4. How can Christians expect salvation if under the old law one had to be a Jew in order to receive the promises?
5. The concept of baptism was foreign in the old law. Why do Christians do it today?
All in all, what you’re suggesting is absolutely preposterous. If there is no new law, then Christianity is meaningless because Christ achieved nothing since the only way to have forgiveness of sins is via animal sacrifices carried out by a Jewish high priest from the tribe of Levi.
The question is not whether the doctrine of new law makes sense. The question is why so many Christians past and present do not hold to it. Why would your god allow something so important and clear to be subject to continuous interpretation and cultural influence over the centuries?
By your assumptions, Jesus knew what was going to happen to him, that he would be crucified and resurrected within a year of when he started preaching. Why then did he spend so much of this limited time insisting on the importance of the Old Law? Why didn't he start telling people that there was going to be a new law, instead of saying things like the following:
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law"
Jesus preached to the Jews; the Jews were bound to the Law. For Jesus to preach about abolishing the Law would convince Jews that He was a rebel against God.
Those of us who are Gentiles are bound by the the Laws of the Sons of Noah .
Bh,
Which major Christian denominations don’t hold to the new law?
Jason, if by "don't hold to the new law" you mean think that following the OT law is required, I refer you to the Messianic Jews.
"Messianics, with few exceptions, consider the written Torah (Pentateuch), the five books of Moses, to remain fully in force and a holy covenant, to be observed both morally and ritually, by those profess faith in God. They believe that Yeshua taught and re-affirmed the Torah, rather than did away with it. "
I'll refer you back to the question: Which major Christian denominations don’t hold to the new law?
Jason, the Seventh Day Adventists still believe in portions of the Old Law. A vocal branch of the Reformed Presbyterian church believes that there is a continuity of covenants and that the old civil and moral law is still in force (with the ceremonial law fulfilled in Jesus). That answer your question?
Jason will not listen to us. He'll have to ask another Christian thinker whom he trusts to help him see this problem. Until he sees this problem he cannot begin to deal with it.
John: What's got your knickers in such a twist? There are no major Christian denominations which follow the old law today. This is basic, proveable fact which for some bizarre reason you continue to disagree with.
Show me proof that the majority of Christians still sacrifice animals today for forgiveness of their sins. Or circumcise baby boys when they turn eight. Or has a Levitical high priest who enters the Most Holy place in the tabernacle to commune with God. Or refuses to eat pork.
Either I'm making it all up and Christianity still follows the Mosaic law given to the Israelites in the Old testament or they follow the law instituted by Christ in the New Testament.
This is your big chance.
Joseph: Seventh-day Adventists believe in keeping the Sabbath. That's as far as they go in "following the old law". SDAs also practice full-immersion baptism (new law), believe in salvation for non-Jews (new law), the atonement (new law) and Christ's second coming (new law).
I appreciate the effort but let's be honest, there is no Christian denomination which completely follows the old law. No Christian, ever, who has killed a witch has done so by Scriptural commandment.
Jason, I think John is frustrated with you like I was a few weeks ago, because you aren't open to new data. You ask for it, it is provided, and then you go on as though no one had said anything to you. Not a great way to make friends...or win debates.
You said: "No Christian, ever, who has killed a witch has done so by Scriptural commandment." The Puritains took the Old Testament moral and civil law as being valid for today. Just because that's not the current Christian vogue, doesn't mean that Christian denominations haven't been swayed in this direction throughout history. Do some more reading on the Seventh Day Adventists and the Reformed Presbyterian Church, ok? They don't sacrifice animals, but sacrificing animals wasn't the issue in question, was it? And yes, the observe more than the Sabbath.
Gah. Sorry to have left this hanging on a question asked directly of me.
Is there a modern-day Christian denomination who follows the Old Law to the letter? Obviously not. (Are there even any modern day Jewish groups who do?)
But as has been pointed out, various denominations or individual churches/persons stress the importance of bits and pieces of the Old Law. I've never quite understood how people felt they could pick and choose, but yet they do.
Joseph, there has been no new data offered on this topic. A claim was put forward regarding witches but through Biblical references and a brief look at the history of Christianity, the claim can be deemed incorrect. Christians are not under the old law.
I absolutely agree that Christianity has at points been swayed by history but being swayed by history doesn't change the validity of the new law. Christ's words "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" is as unchanged today as it was when it was first given.
My point about sacrificing animals is that it's a requirement under the old law. If Christian denominations haven't done this then they obviously don't feel compelled to follow the old law in its entirety. This is what Paul touches on in Galatians 3 & 5.
Re: the SDA, read their 28 Fundamental Beliefs. Specifically #19 - "The great principles of God’s law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ" There's no mention of following any law in the OT other then the 10 Commandments (of the which nine Christ reaffirmed in the NT). Go through their beliefs and you'll find none are based on the old law (even the Sabbath, which they believe is "symbol of redemption in Christ")
(And as a further aside, within the context of the Tanakh, did even the Biblical Hebrews follow the "Old Law" to the letter? I mean, if they had, there wouldn't have been a need for the prophets or the revised edition that is the Talmud.)
bh,
I agree 110%. It's incredibly sad and disturbing that Christians pick and choose laws which 'justify' their actions (e.g. killing witches). There's no excuse whatsoever for this kind of behvaiour and it does nothing but damage the face of Christianity.
The problem though, for hundreds and hundreds of years now, is that many religions have found a financial benefit in promoting old laws, specifically tithing (ironically though the modern definition of tithing doesn't come close to resembling the OT practice). There are few, if any (that I'm aware of) other Old Testament laws that are as alive and well today as tithing, and, arguably, keeping the Sabbath. Everything else is based on the new law.
Your last point is a good one as well. You can actually see the process of the Israelites moving further and further away from the letter of the law simply by reading through the OT (David's non-punishment for killing Uriah is a great example). The old law was designed to be imperfect though, as Hebrews 8-10 points out.
Jason, once again, your argumentation skills leave something to be desired. I have not argued for or against Christians keeping the old law (as a believer, I recommended against it). This doesn't change the fact that there has always been a raging debate in the church over it's importance and practical purpose. Hence, you've had significant portions of Christendom taking Biblical injunctions against witchcraft as warrant for the death penalty. Your argument is not with me or with John, its with history.
Jason said: "It's incredibly sad and disturbing that Christians pick and choose laws which 'justify' their actions (e.g. killing witches)."
Sadder to me is that there is even a law in the Bible that directs witches to be put to death (along with rebellious children, blasphemers, etc). By the way, no less a theological giant than John Calvin implemented the Mosaic penal code in Geneva. Many of the New World colonies followed suit. And we won't even address the Catholic side of the house. These were hardly radical, fringe movements in their day.
The larger problem is that the Bible does not include a definitive guide for its own interpretation. This leaves it wide open to a wide range of possible applications. The Catholic church at least recognized this problem and said that the Pope and centuries of canonical law was to be the standard.
The reason we have so many Christian Protestant denominations today is because the Bible is so open to interpretation. Again, the sad thing to me is that Christians let the Scriptures (in any combination) trump reason.
Joseph,
You have my apologies then. I thought people were suggesting Christians are still under the old law and, as such, were being commanded to kill witches. As you're stating this isn't what's being said, I don't have any argument against anyone :)
Sounds good to me, Jason!
Peace
I'll refer you back to the question: Which major Christian denominations don’t hold to the new law?
The Messianic Jews are Christian. Educate yourself before you speak.
Show me proof that the majority of Christians still sacrifice animals today for forgiveness of their sins.
Holy shit, I coulda sworn those goalposts were here a second ago! I thought you were only asking for a major denomination...Messianic Jews (350,000) have sizable congregations worldwide.
My point about sacrificing animals is that it's a requirement under the old law.
Not now, it isn't. Go to a synagogue sometime; it looks like you would be quite surprised. The Temple period is over, my friend; there is no animal sacrifice required under the law.
You have my apologies then. I thought people were suggesting Christians are still under the old law and, as such, were being commanded to kill witches.
I don't think you can contribute this dampening of anti-witch fervor to Christianity; rather, to the civilization of society as a whole. Even the Jews, who still find themselves under the old law, do not kill witches because society (including Israeli society) will not allow them to do so.
Shy,
Messianic Jews aren't labelled a major Christian denomination any more then they're labelled Jewish.
"Many Messianic Jews call themselves "completed" or "fulfilled" Jews...The existence of Messianic Jews makes both Jews and mainline Protestants uneasy, if not angry."
"If there is anything about which all four branches of Judaism in the U.S. (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist) agree, it is that one cannot be both Jewish and Christian at the same time. One who converts is often still considered to retain a Jewish status, but is disqualified from the responsibilities and benefits of Jewish life, such as participation in a prayer quorum or burial in a Jewish cemetery." (Christian Century, May 3, 2005 by Jason Byassee)
And I would suggest you educate yourself further, my friend, Messianic Jews don't offer animal sacrifices. :) No Jewish or Christian group does.
The Temple period is over, my friend; there is no animal sacrifice required under the law."
Just as there's no witch killing required under the new law.
Messianic Jews aren't labelled a major Christian denomination any more then they're labelled Jewish.
That's funny; when I look at Christian denominations in Wikipedia, Messianic Judaism has its own section. Perhaps I should let YOU decide what is a "major denomination"; I'm certain you would be impartial in your choices. Nah, who am I kidding; I'm not certain about that at all. And Messianic Jews certainly consider themselves Jews; who are you to argue? How important can a Jew think Jesus was and still be considered a Jew by you? What about the followers of Shabbetai Zvi; did they cease being Jews to you? The world is dying to know.
And I would suggest you educate yourself further, my friend, Messianic Jews don't offer animal sacrifices. :) No Jewish or Christian group does...Just as there's no witch killing required under the new law.
As I stated in the text that you obviously read, considering you quoted it, the reason that no Jews (who are certainly under the old law) perform animal sacrifice is because the Temple period is over. The Temple is destroyed, and animal sacrifices are only allowed in the Temple. Therefore, the laws that relate to animal sacrifices no longer apply until the Temple is rebuilt; the other laws still do, and are followed by Messianic Jews (who you mistakenly said were not Christian) and "traditional" Jews. Educate yourself and seek understanding, not points. You embarass yourself.
Like I quoted, "Many Messianic Jews call themselves "completed" or "fulfilled" Jews..."
"Messianics sometimes challenge Christians..." (Wikipedia) Note the separation of names.
Anyhow, at the end of the day, Shabbetai Zvi and all, Christians aren't under the old law, as history and the Bible show, so it's a mistake for someone to say God expects Christians to kill witches. Good? Good.
But it's not a mistake to observe that many Christians throughout history have, with seemingly a desire to carry out God's will, killed witches.
jason, many atheists consider themselves Jews as well. I hope you realize that, by your argument, the apostles were not Christians; they still considered themselves Jews, but Jews who had witnessed the Messiah. "Jewish" doesn't just refer to a belief system, but to an ethnic system. Messianic Jews are ethnic (and they would argue religious) Jews who worship Jesus as a Messiah while keeping the Torah. They have scriptural reasons for keeping the Torah even as followers of Jesus.
"Various passages such as Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 28:19-20, 1 John 3:4 and Romans 3:3, as well as various examples of Torah observance in the New Testament, are cited by Messianics in suggesting that the Torah was not and could not have been abolished."
History also does not support your argument, as the original post indicates. It wasn't Jews (Messianic or otherwise) who tortured the witches in Middle Ages Europe--it was Gentile Christians. You say scripture proves that Jesus abolished the Torah for Christians; Messianics say scripture proves that Jesus could not have changed one word of the law.
You know what I think about the whole brouhaha. But I do admit it as self-evident that the argument is alive and well among Christ's followers (Seventh Day Adventists at least believe that the Ten Commandments are binding--"The great principles of God's law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ...These precepts are the basis of God's covenant with His people and the standard in God's judgment. "--SDA Fundamental Belief 19: The Law of God). You may think it is a mistake, but others read the same book as you and still disagree. Can you not allow that they are as intelligent and honest as you, and that the disagreement is an honest one?
But it's not a mistake to observe that many Christians throughout history have, with seemingly a desire to carry out God's will, killed witches.
Agreed.
Shy,
It doesn't matter who tortured witches. It was whether or not God ultimately commanded Christians to do so, which He didn't. History proves this. Christians, for two thousand years, have been following the new law, not the old.
I have the support of the clear majority of Christians and I have the clear support of Scripture. You have neither. :)
History proves this. Christians, for two thousand years, have been following the new law, not the old.
How can you claim this on a thread where Chritians follow the old law? History proves no such thing; Christians have done both, and there is scriptural support for both (Matthew 5:18-19; Luke 16:17; Acts 10:14; Acts 21:17–26; Exodus 12:14,17,24; Leviticus 23:14,21,31; Deuteronomy 7:9; 1 Chronicles 16:15; Psalm 119:151-2). It has depended on what the theology has emphasized.
I have the support of the clear majority of Christians and I have the clear support of Scripture. You have neither. :)
Sorry, no. The Catholic Church, which is still the largest Christian Church, holds as doctrine that the moral OT laws are still in force as summed in the ten commandments, and only the ceremonial and judicial laws have passed. I refer you to the Catholic catechism. The Reformed view (Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Reformed Baptist) is essentially the same, as is the view of Christian Reconstructionists. Torah-submissives go even further, considering all of the Torah to be valid post-Christ (Messianic Judaism,
Seventh-day Adventist Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Worldwide Church of God,
United Church of God,
Living Church of God,
Philadelphia Church of God,
Church of God International (USA)).
You should read about the varieties of Christian views on Torah before declaring victory.
Post a Comment