To be honest, I'm going to let a Catholic answer that one, Jamie. Catholics' view toward law is subtle enough that I don't want to screw it up. I just wanted to

(a) link the parts of the CoRCC that seemed relevant, since invictus and gavrilop had not; and

(b) dissent from an interpretation that I know for sure is not the correct interpretation of Roman Catholic belief. Whatever they officially believe, it is not that that sabbath-breakers should be killed (and in particular, the support you had offered for the contrary was flawed).

So that is why I got involved. I will now get out of the Catholic sub-discussion.

Well, except I'll give my *impression* of what they think (which you should take as the impression of a protestant outsider). There is a law of God given to all people; the ten commandments (the content, not the punishments) are an expression of some key parts of that law; and the rest of the OT law basically was fulfilled and no longer applies. The ten commandments thus don't apply because they're the ten commandments, so much, as that they are reflections of an even earlier law that every person knows.

Or something. I should just shut up.

I'm sorry if I overreacted. Your earlier point seemed very unreasonable by any standard, and I feared that you were going to cling to it, and the thread turn out to be a troll. Perhaps these things are not as clear to somebody who has not spent his life around Christian theology, though. Indeed, that's doubtless the case.

Jamie is trolling. He isn't honestly seeking as one who is seeking truth will pray to God to find those answers. If he truly wished to understand Christianity, he would pray for some guidance amd not be so intentionally obtuse.

Draugnar, I won't pray to God because I have no reason to think that God exists. I was attempting to understand what God's followers believe his written instructions to them are. As this thread clearly establishes, it's painfully unclear.

A lot has happened since I last checked this thread, but regarding Jamie's last statement ("it's painfully unclear") it's important to remember what FlemGem said above: the Bible is a story. I take issue with Christians who talk about how the Bible makes life really easy, or it's an instruction book with all life's answers in there; it is about a relationship. Those are complicated enough with two human beings over a short term, much less a tale of an omnipotent creator and the entire human race over all history.

But in another sense, as I hope I explain below, it's both simpler and much harder.

Also Jamie in reference to this statement you make, referring to my discussion: "the New Testament "replaces" the Old Testament" I suppose I should be clearer, differentiating the collection of texts which comprise the new and old testaments with the larger conception of a testament or covenant with God. Christ fulfills the old law, overcomes death and sin, and gives us a new way to live and love God.

Here are a few examples of how this is discussed in the New Testament. At the Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15, the council described how Christians did not have to become Jews first (specifically the question involved circumcision) and gave a set of rules that people still disagree about (my own inclination is that they prohibit only partaking in the most improper, degrading, and cruel aspects of idolatrous pagan behavior at the time) but which are certainly separate from Jewish law.

Part of this decision is based on the vision God gave to Simon Peter, which is earlier in Acts: God commands him to eat unclean foods, but Peter protests that he has been kosher all his life; Peter understands that this means that what God has cleansed no one should call unclear. So while the old Laws may have been necessary to maintain ritual or moral purity, we no longer need those things. Christ has made clean all things.

To continue a tour of my favorite passages of the New Testament, Paul takes this concept to its highest point in I Corinthians: he tells us that there's all sorts of awesome stuff God gives us, the "more excellent way" is love, superior to all things as the truest expression of God. 1 Corinthians 13 tends to be the one people know as "the wedding Bible verses" (it was said at my wedding so I am not casting stones) but it's much larger than that. Prophecy, tongues, wisdom, all fail, but love is forever. Paul compares this to a maturing human being: the toys of a child are useless to the full grown adult. Elsewhere Paul compares the Law to a tutor, but now that we heirs of God have grown up we have no more need of it.

So just as you would still use some of the things you learned while young, so too would you use some of the Law. But it's all judged in the context of love. This is actually way harder than even the most complicated and byzantine legal rules, because ultimately any of us truly loving one another is beyond human ability; fortunately, we are not alone in this. God loves us and he teaches us to love.

A side note: I would be really interested if we had any practicing Jews of any flavor or tradition weigh in on this. I often wonder if Christian theology is among other things, for lack of a better word, insulting, this idea that the Law is now fulfilled and obsolete. The impression I get is more that it's just mistaken but I am curious.

@ ckroberts:

Thanks for your further contribution. You have a very nice way of looking at things. Unfortunately quite a few of the Christians I've spoken to about this sort of things are Baptists, and judging by their attitude, which is very different to yours, the Baptist church (in the UK at least) seems to take the view that the Bible *is* an "instruction manual" and should be used as such.

I think, having read your comments, that you would agree that attempting to use the Bible in such a way is likely to lead to much head-scratching.

A side note: I would also be interested in a Jewish view. Since the Jewish faith doesn't have the New Testament, presumably orthodox Jews *do* think that Sabbath workers should be killed?

I think (and I am not 100% sure this applies to any Jews, much less all of them) that most Jews believe that destruction of the Temple, the exiles, etc etc, led to a fundamental change in the rules. I think some traditions see this an official rules change while for others it's a matter of practicality. Any legal system has loopholes and workarounds for even (especially?) the most stringent adherents.

To be fair to Protestants (among which I would number myself, I suppose), there are strong historical reasons for the solo scriptura approach and the Bible as an instruction book mindset.

"I don't think this can be compared to your relationship with your wife. Did you ever tell your wife that if she disobeyed you in any way, you'd kill her?"

The Bible does, in fact, frequently use the marriage relationship as an analogy for the relationship between God and his people. It is an analogy, though, and if pressed too far they always break down. I think that what the Bible is getting at is that God desires a relationship marked by passion, intimacy, life-long commitment, and exclusivity - idol worship is frequently compared to adultery.

As to whether or not I ever threatened to kill my wife if she disobeyed me - of course not. But then, unlike God, I'm not the creator and sustainer of life, so for her to severe her relationship with me would not lead to death. Since I don't have every attribute of God the marriage analogy breaks down at this point. The point does remain that people who violate their marriage vows experience a variety of consequences, and it stands to reason that those who violate their relationship with God experience consequences as well.

Hi Jamie,

The link you provided, about punishment for working on the Sabbath, says nothing of the sort. Your argument let’s everything hinge on citing Exodus 31:15.. Yes, that verse is among the many that were cited. Interestingly enough they omit the part about the earthly punishment, instead focusing on the keeping the Sabbath holy. As far as any official RCC policy, it seems obvious that they place importance on the Sabbath Day, but not the death penalty for working on it.
The catechism, that you cited actually, says the opposite. It goes on to mention Jesus breaking the Sabbath Law and his importance superseding it. It quite clearly says:

“2173 The Gospel reports many incidents when Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath law. But Jesus never fails to respect the holiness of this day.98 He gives this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."99 With compassion, Christ declares the Sabbath for doing good rather than harm, for saving life rather than killing.100 The Sabbath is the day of the Lord of mercies and a day to honor God.101 "The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath."102”

It seems pretty obvious to me that the official Catholic response is quite the opposite of what you suggest. You have your answer about what is and isn’t important on this issue. Christ said “the sabbath for doing good rather than harm, for saving life rather than killing.” He healed the blind, cast out evil spirits, had his disciples pick grain, healed paralytic limbs, and point blank challenged the Pharisees over the issue. He went to extraordinary lengths to say “You guys got this Sabbath thing all wrong”. How much more clearly could he state it than “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”?

Mk 1:21
Jn 9:16
Mk 2:27
Mk 3:4
Mt 12:5
Jn 7:23
Mk 2:2

um, i'm a baptist in the UK and i would never say the Bible ' *is* a ""instruction manual"" ' I would tell them they're stupid and that calling the Bible a manual is insulting

Ecclesiastes 3:18-22

I'd say it is very important to read Ecclesiastes 3:9-13 along with the above citation.

It places it in the context of God being eternal in spite of man's inability to perceive beyond his own lifespan. It also points out that man is here to rejoice in and perform good works which are a gift from God.

Dueling Biblical quotes :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes#Structure

"Most, though not all, modern commentators regard the epilogue (12:9-14) as an addition by a later scribe, and some have identified certain other statements as further additions intended to make the book more religiously orthodox (e.g., the affirmations of God's justice and the need for piety)"

Source: G. A. Barton, "Ecclesiastes."

Your passage is one of those that is doubted as original to the author.

"Your passage is one of those that is doubted as original to the author."

So, three things, Thucy.

First of all, the article you linked doesn't say that. You'll need an actual source. See above discussion of footnotes.

Second, even if it did, note that the very discussion you linked says "some" scholars so say. I trust we have not reached the point on webdip where citing "some scholars" (but not all or even clearly a majority) counts as a successful argument.

And finally, even if both of the above were nonissues, and it was 100% clear that it was, in fact, a later addition, it is the entire book in its current form that is part of the Christian canon; so it would remain illegitimate for you to suggest that the passage CA cited was less legitimate in a discussion of Christian beliefs about what the OT says.

What does Ecc 12:9-14 have to do with Ecc 3: 9-13?

Thanks semck and Draug,

Those were going to be my questions.


Thucy,

If you could give me a page number and link to Rev. Barton's book, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

I want to give my 2 cents here to add what ckroberts has already stated.

Ultimately, all law can be summarized on these 2 laws:
1. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind
2. You shall love your neighbor as yourself

All laws must see this as ultimate law, because these provide the spirit of other laws.

Many laws in Old Testament are concerning about ritual on how to appease God and those shows about God's characters as Holy, Perfectionist, and Vengeful.

For someone truly trying to understand how the New and Old Testaments interact, I would suggest some New Testament reading on the subject. Matthew chapters 5-9 come readily to mind, as does the book of Galatians. Any other suggestions?

its not online; pretty old. (1908).

the point is that ecclesiastes was doctored to make it less nihilist

You've got me at a disadvantage, without having at least an excerpt from the book to read and figure out what Rev. Barton was saying. We have no way of approaching the argument at all. All I can say is that it seems unlikely that an Episcopal priest of the time would publish a work espousing the nihilism present in Scripture. It certainly is possible and I make no claim as to the contents of a book I haven't read. I'm merely withholding judgment until I get get some material to judge.

What you quoted though doesn't weaken the actual verses that I originally cited, as it seemed to be centered on the epilogue, nine chapters later, not the verses preceding your quote.

Again, Thucy, even if Ecclesiastes was doctored to make it less nihilist (of which, as CA says, we have no accessible evidence at present), that happened an extremely long time ago; and it is the "doctored" version that is part of the Christian canon. The editing no less than the original product can be the product of inspiration, and if there was an earlier, nihilist SoS, then, well, it presumably was *not* an inerrant, divinely given guide to truth until it was augmented.

So, once again, when it comes to discussing what Christians believe about the OT and its relationship to their faith, what you say is simply irrelevant (in addition to being unsupported).

(Note that, notwithstanding this point, I do not grant your suggestion anyway. As CA points out, we have no reason, given everything you've said so far, to believe that the original author was not in fact inspired in writing the entirety of the modern form of Ecclesiastes*).

*I mistakenly said SoS before.

I believe that the Old Testament is still relevant as a history book, but as a Christian I think that the church should stick to the New Testament (and Christ's teachings specifically). We're not Jews and the Old Testament is not a law book.

Jamie, did this thread answer your questions, before it become a discussion of a 105 year old book about Ecclesiastes?

Yes, ckroberts, more or less. Thank you for your contributions in particular.