I find it odd that a Mormon in 2009 is labeling writers of the New Testament as anti-semites. To be fair, I should have used anti-Jewish, not anti-semitic. But, it’s because it IS 2009 that one can identify hints anti-Jewishness in SOME of the writings. If this were 1909, it would be odd.

a wise-guy once said “you are too biased to be a good judge of what is historical and what is not.” Guilty as charged.

I also find it mildly amusing that within a deep discussion of texts and history of the law of Moses, some commenters have totally missed the point of the post. See #22.

The irony is that is just what Jews do when they obey Torah. My point is that she shouldn’t use Jews and the Law of Moses in contradistinction to her point, rather it is parallel to her point.

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=10979

You may not like the fact that the children of Israel did in fact go astray or that their religious leaders led the march (take a gander at Matt. 23 sometime “Woe!”), but they did, they were the only nation wicked enough to crucify Christ, and the weight of scripture, ancient and modern, is piled up against your position.

Did all of Israel worship the law only? Did they all myopically focus on jots and tiddles? Certainly not. We have Mary and Joseph, and Zacharias and Elizabeth, and the many, many others that recognized Christ. They recognized the meaning of the sabbath and Christ’s perogative to heal on His day. But, most of Israel did not. And if not most, a significant and influential number did not – why? because they were focused on the letter of the law.

I think that Rebecca’s “average understanding” is rather an accurate understanding of the Israelites and the law at the time of Christ. At the very least, I think it’s a good example to use for the spirit of her message.

PS – I also find it mildly amusing that within a deep discussion of texts and history of the law of Moses, some commenters have totally missed the point of the post.

It’s not dangerous. First and foremost the NT is not a monolith. It displays a wide variety of attitudes towards a wide variety of Jewish beliefs of the time. You find those 27 books bound in one cover so you assume that they are speaking with one voice, but they are not. And yes, some of the authors had better attitudes and thoughts about Jews than did other books. You also see a development of Christian thinking about Jews, and it tended to get more negative over time.

I also fail to see how I have crossed into a self righteous moral high ground. Did I somehow assert that I am better than others on this? Also, I am not just labeling here, there are good reasons for saying what I am saying, see my reply to Rebecca.

For a better conception of the law of Moses I would recommend reading Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders. Just a warning, this is a very difficult book to read. The main gist of the book is that modern conceptions of ancient Judaism, and I put Mormons here too, are completely wrong. He does a massive survey of the primary sources for the time period to make his case. This book was an absolute revolution in Pauline studies, it inaugurated what has come to be called “The New Perspective on Paul.”

Your citations from the Book of Mormon are problematic for a couple of reasons. First, the Book of Mormon is referring to a “law of Moses” that would have existed in 600 BC, which would have been very different from the “law of Moses” at the time of Christ when people were struggling with what to do with it. I use scare quotes not to be a jerk, but to emphasize that these are two things, though I am using the same label to identify them. Second, we don’t even really know what the Book of Mormon is referring to when it says the law of Moses since it doesn’t bother to explain what it is. Judaism has never been a monolith so if you aren’t specific, living a particular law can mean different things.

As for the gospel writers getting it wrong, I would suggest reading more about the gospels. However, put it this way, Mormons are always complaining that other religions never do justice to what Mormons believe. Yet, would this not apply to the gospel writers themselves, they are describing a different religion at that point.

I also think that you have to be a little careful not to dilute the meaning of the word (anti-semitic…or similar ones like racist, sexist, etc) by throwing it out too often or in circumstances where they are not exactly applicable. It’s a convenient argument to throw out from a moral highground, but it usually does not foster discussion because you have crossed into self-righteousness.

But we do things and it’s easy for us to stop thinking about why we actually do them. This is the parallel. It seems to me that the ancient Saints performed the “law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day” so day to day that there ceased to be meaning in the law for many of them. Just like there ceases to be meaning in home teaching when we do it just to get it done–or month to month, as it were.

I don’t belittle that it would have been difficult to change your way of thinking/way of life. One reading of Galatians 2 is that Peter is being sensitive to the feelings of the Jews when he stops eating with the Gentiles. But the difficulty of something isn’t a defense for it. Paul gets after Peter for his actions, rightly stating that “if I build again the things I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” (vs. 18)

I wasn’t saying that the activities and meetings we go to are “silly.” I think there is a purpose in all of it. As imperfect as it all comes out (as long as the meetings run, etc.) the purpose is, like the Law of Moses, to center our worship in Christ. If we fail to do so, then we’re like the misunderstanding children of Israel that Abinadi is speaking about. That’s what makes the “law” or the “activities” dead to us.

Finally, I’m not on board with the assertion that the gospel writers had an incorrect view of the Pharisees. What is your source for the Pharisees being different than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John portray them?