Re: Gimme that old time religion
Matthew 15.
And that is your entire defence against Jesus saying that he hadn't come to change Mosaic law? That not one jot or tittle of Mosaic law would be dropped until the end times came? That's it? That's your whole justification for dropping 603 of the 613 OT commandments? Even if your argument were valid (it isn't), it wouldn't explain why the 10 commandments get an exemption.
So let's examine your (entirely predictable, BTW, I was expecting it) argument. It is possible (but not, I think, justifiable) to stretch Matthew 15 well beyond its elastic limit to negate all the dietary restrictions of Mosaic law. That in no way affects the rest of Mosaic law. Nothing about no longer having to chop off foreskins. Nothing about mixed fabrics being acceptable. Nothing about not stoning to death people who work on the Sabbath. Nothing about slavery suddenly being a bad thing. Nothing about having to marry women you rape. Etc.
And, yes, your interpretation stretches Matthew 15 well beyond reasonable limits. Jesus was comparing one thing prohibited by Mosaic law with a novel injunction of his own. I do not see any way of reasonably interpreting that as negating the dietary restrictions, let alone 603 of the 613 OT commandments.
Consider this reasoning: "Accidentally killing somebody while driving your car without due care and attention is bad, but murdering somebody by deliberately running them over is worse." Do you take that to mean that because vehicular murder is worse, negligently killing somebody is OK? Of course you do not. How about this: "Slightly exceeding the speed limit is bad, but murdering somebody by deliberately running them over is worse." Do you think that is a sensible comparison to make? Yet you insist that when Jesus compares a bad thing with a worse thing that the bad thing suddenly becomes a good thing. Not just that, but a whole slew of unrelated bad things suddenly become good things.
When Paul decided his mission was to take Judaism to the gentiles, he came up with doctrines that could be called "Judaism for Gentiles - Lite." Those gentiles were reluctant to change their diets, so Matthew 15 was trotted out to justify the eating of pork and shellfish. They were reluctant to hack their foreskins off, so that had to go, but I have yet to see any Biblical justification. There was nothing about dropping most of the rest of Mosaic law.
At most your argument would justify abandoning the dietary restrictions (although I do not agree that it does in fact justify that), not for abandoning 603 of the OT commandments. And nowhere does your argument justify retaining the 10 commandments even if I accept (and I do not) that all the rest of Mosaic law no longer applies.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
