Fiannan wrote:Mary wrote:Sigh...how much evidence do we need that Joseph was more interested in restoring Old Testament practices than he was in restoring a New Testament Church.
He wasn't a Biblical King like David or Solomon, but he seems to have thought he was one. Delusions of grandeur indeed.
Why oh why did I give this man my trust for 20 years of my developing life...
People have such a disconnect in regards to the Old Testament. This is why I say Muslims "get it" better than Pagan Christianity. the Old Testament is indeed a testament of God and his dealings with mankind. One can try to ignore it in the same way as one who is embarrassed by their parents might never speak of them to their husband or kids but what you are is in large part thanks to your parents. And to think of it, Jesus never distanced himself from the Old Testament like Christians attempt to do.
Just as a disclaimer, I wouldn't regard myself as a 'christian' in the usual sense of the word. I am in search of the historical Jesus, wherever that leads me.
When you state that 'Jesus never distanced himself from the Old Testament like Christians attempt to do' I'm not sure I can completely agree with you there. There were aspects of Old Testament Law that Jesus seems to have wanted to change radically.
We are told that Jesus said the following:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
That's a big departure from the Law as it then existed. It wouldn't have gone unnoticed. In fact the whole of the Sermon on the Mount seems to be a radical reinterpretation of Old Testament Law.
It should also be remembered in my opinion (particularly as outlined in Mark) that Jesus seems to have seen the Pharisees and Sadducees as representative of a type of Judaism that he wished to distance himself from. Strict obedience to the letter of the law, whilst overlooking the 'heart' of the law was not on his agenda. This may have been a theological motif employed by Mark and by Matthew, I don't know. But, I think that these examples certainly indicate that Jesus was no 'Jew' in the sense of contemporary Jewish thought.
I still maintain though, that the type of 'christianity' that Joseph was trying to re-instate was not in keeping with much of the New Testament theology as it is represented in the gospels in particular. Jesus' advice on divorce and marriage are conveniently overlooked by many church theologians. Joseph's stance on polygamy and concubinage certainly bear no resemblance to Paul's ideas either, nor to the later Jewish theologians who interpreted polygamy in such a way as to limit it only to the Kings. ie The Jews themselves had a hard time accepting Polygamy and concubinage as from God. What they would have thought of polyandry is obvious from the Old Testament commandment not to commit adultery and the example of David who lost everything because of his relationship with Bethsheba.
Just some thoughts.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov