During a discussion about the horrible violence in the old testament, someone cited this:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Supposedly, this disqualifies all of the violent laws in the old testament. Is there a discrepancy in the new testament that supports all of the biblical laws in the old testament?
If a debt has been paid, it doesn’t mean the debt wasn’t real. This verse is not saying the OT laws were disqualified, but rather that the note of debt that we owe for breaking those laws has been redeemed. Much of Christian theology is described in terms of accounting, with the debt being sin and redemption being the cross.
There is no “discrepancy” in the NT that supports the OT laws, rather it is a fundamental principle that the validity the law is not in question (e.g. Matthew 5:19 and Luke 16:17) The idea is the law is not something we can live up to, so we cannot depend on ourselves to keep or earn righteousness under the law. Rather the law teaches about the holiness of God and what it means to sin. For example, if you break the least part of the law, you break all of it. (James 2:10). Such is the economy of God as taught by the Bible. If you want to get legalistic, God always wins. Yet also it teaches that the law may be kept by loving God and loving others, and righteousness under the law may be imparted to those who have faith in the one who demonstrated the greatest love.
Much of Christian theology is described in terms of accounting,
If we wnted to get rid of religion, we would cut off its funding. Without that, there wouldn’t be a single priest on the planet.
This is true for everything. The difference for religion, at least in the US, is tax-free status. My only problem with taxing churches is the money would then go to the government….. Of course, churches are not the only organizations to enjoy tax-free status or worse, government subsidies and pork barrel spending, corporate corruption, tax loop-holes, and political campaign financing. All these speak to the human tendency to manipulate power to personal advantage.
It has always struck me as ironic that Jesus, who spoke against religion to the point of being killed for it, has been taken by many as the object of yet another religion. (Religion here being the idea that man can earn his way into heaven.)
For an excellent overview of how the history of christianity has been influenced by “radical fringe” elements, that weren’t very well funded, in opposition to the power of the “Church”, check out “The Torch of the Testimony”, by John W. Kennedy of India.