In any case, my criticism of this branch of the faith has been long standing, and remained unchanged whether I was an atheist or not.

You speak often of Protestantism but it often seems to me that all you mean by “Protestant” is a specific subset of Protestantism. At least I don’t hear much of the more mainstream Protestant perspective from you, and I see very little of it in your copious library of religious books, almost all of which seem to me are by Evangelicals/Fundamentalists, which are *not* synonymous with Protestantism but are rather a specific subset. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and other mainstream Protestant perspectives seem to be largely absent from your vocabulary, anyway.

I grew up in a household split between Fundamentalist/Evangelical and Mainline Protestant. There weren’t any Catholics there at all; I’m the only Catholic in my entire family, which is mostly Mormons and Fundamentalists although my own mom is now moving toward Catholicism. To me, it’s seems that fundamentalists are just louder and more vocal than their mainstream Protestant brethren. Most Protestants do not read the Bible the way fundamentalists do, or make statements like you do about it.

Most of us (Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic) neither ignore nor cherry-pick the Old Testament. You may want to, yourself, consider just how often you give offense to Catholics, to the Orthodox, and to your fellow Protestants when you make such statements. You might at least consider whether it’s really true. It seems to me you often make sweeping pronouncements like this about other faiths, or other branches of the Christian faith, but then show quick offense at anything even slightly negative about your own. Consider that at least worth considering.

None of this makes you or your coreligionists bad people. But I cannot in good faith simply ignore what I consider to be profound errors.

We don’t ignore the Old Testament. We don’t cherry-pick from it. This may describe some worship or study services you’ve attended in Fundamentalist circles, but it doesn’t describe either my local congregation or the wider world of Orthodox, Catholic, or Mainline Protestant Christianity.

I also just think anyone leaving behind a lifelong commitment to their faith, or their particular branch of it, ought to at least consult knowledgeable people of authority within it to ask them questions before making up their minds to go a new direction. Is that really bad advice?

God bless you and yours regardless, my friend.

Still, before you leave one branch of the faith behind for another, seek out someone knowledgeable from your own branch to see if they have answers first. Then, well, you make your choice.

I know what you mean but this does come across as slightly insulting. As if only had I consulted the right people I’d not be making the mistake that I am. I know that’s not what you mean, but it feels like that. I just didn’t talk to enough/the right people. Of course, the same could be said about you when you became an atheist. But, I’m willing to bet, that move wasn’t so much intellectual as emotional. And I’m also willing to bet your return was in the same manner.

I had something lengthy written up to respond to your comments about the verses I quoted but I deleted it. I deleted it because my move here wasn’t intellectual. It was a heart-burden that was put upon me by God then answered by God. I cannot expect anyone else to get here by that path either.

I spent most of my natural life within Protestantism. I know the arguments because I’ve used them. There isn’t an argument to be found because I’ve heard them all. A move toward God is a heart matter first. Once there do you find intellectual fulfillment.

When you were within the grasp of atheism you knew full well the intellectual arguments of the Church against your position. But you rejected them. Why? Not because they didn’t have merit, because you know now (and maybe even then) they did. No, you rejected them because your heart wasn’t in it.

I knew the arguments, I embraced them as my own, but even then God kept directing me back toward the Tanakh.  Back to the same question, "Why are you ignoring all this?"  Sure, the Church cherry picked what it needed from the Tanakh, but most of it they say no longer applies to the believer.  I believed that, recited the arguments when asked, but still my heart yearned when I looked at that mass of pages.

Intellectual fullfillemt comes after heart fullfillment.  If your heart isn’t in a thing your mind cannot be.

So, this is why I believe an intellectual convincing cannot be had.  A logical defense can be made but, untimately, it will not be convining unless and until the heart is willing to hear it.

God has a plan for all of us.  His plan for me isn’t the same as His plan for you.  And neither of us should feel prideful over the other because, in the end, we only are where we are because God placed us there.  We did nothing to get here on our own.  All the glory is to be given to God.

This gets to another argument between Evangelicals and most other Christians, which is our view that the Bible wasn’t supposed to be either the start or the end of written texts, just the most important. It still had clear design constraints and wasn’t supposed to be the starting point or the finishing point on any theological question. Not most of the time, anyway. It was just The Book, in the same way that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land but is in no way sufficient all by itself to cover everything.

That said, the New Testament even says that when judgment arrives, the Jews will face judgment first, then the Gentiles. I’d suggest that’s not just pride of place, but also because they’ll have standards the rest of us don’t have to live up to.

I don’t understand how verses which are clearly rules for how strangers who wish to celebrate Passover with the Israelites must comport themselves make your point for you. That is what most of those verses look like to me just reading them, or reading the verses immediately above and below them. I understand what you’re trying to say but it seems like a big stretch to me.

Leviticus 17 is particularly interesting to me though, because the whole section is easily confused; some of it, clearly, is temporary instructions while the Israelites were in that time and place, while others appear to be permanent, such as the proscription against spilling blood on the ground or eating blood (which is the basis for the Kosher rule against eating blood, which is one thing a lot of people who know about Kosher rules forget about; it’s not just pork and shellfish). 

I did read the linked article, and actually I’ve read quite a lot of material from your group. I find it all fascinating stuff, and at least commendable for its strong efforts to reconnect with the ancient part of the faith, to honor the Jews who are the taproot of the Christian faith, and to sincerely try to honor God. Still, I would encourage anyone interested in it to ask knowledgeable Christians–preferably, someone from the clergy–outside these circles about this stuff. If you still find their message convincing after that, then, well, as they declared in Vatican II, it would be a sin to try to stop someone from following the dictates of their own conscience. Still, before you leave one branch of the faith behind for another, seek out someone knowledgeable from your own branch to see if they have answers first. Then, well, you make your choice.

Didache (The Training of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles for the Gentiles). 

Even the book reviews are most interesting.

It begins by going directly to the chopping block with the directive that this is where it (religion)  starts.  Check out 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3.

If you like rummaging through a first century religious antique shop, then you may like the Didache.

"Doesn’t apply to you" does not mean "has been abolished."

Then you are saying that God has two standards: One for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Sorry, no there isn’t. There is one Law for all of God’s people. Exodus 12:49 makes this clear. So, whatever the Jews may feel Gentiles should or should not keep is irrelevant. Also see Numbers 9:14, Leviticus 17:8, and Deuteronomy 31:12.

As for what was going on in Acts 15, I suggest looking here.

But, even if you don’t, you and I both know we’re going to disagree on this matter.  And I know I’m not in line with a lot of "Christian Theology 101."  I sincerely doubt anything I post will change your mind and it goes the other way around as well.  That’s fine.  As you said, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

McKiernan,

Whatever floats your boat, brother.

I don’t see any comments of yours in the holding tank. FYI.

Your friend has yet to discern important nuances re: theology 101.

That’s okay as we are all on a learning curve.

How come the corrector thingie bypassed my prior comment ?

You’re on a roll.

I’m sitting here eating popcorn and applauding and the popcorn is all over the place.

Wouldn’t it be awful if only you and Kevin had a say.

Say Amen.