ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Christians and the Law

The responsibility of Christians to obey the Law of Moses is a subject that comes up from time to time, which always surprises me because the Bible is perfectly clear on the matter.  While it is understandable, though not excusable, that atheists regularly confuse Christianity with Judaism when attempting to criticize the former, it is absolutely bizarre that some Christians are still under the impression that they have an obligation to abide by Jewish Law.

Christians are not Jews.  Christians are not obligated to follow Mosaic Law.  Ask any Jew, he should be able to confirm it.  As will the Bible, in Acts 15:

The Council at Jerusalem

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”  This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.  When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” 
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
That the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
Says the Lord, who does these things,
Things known from long ago.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
The fact that Jesus Christ did not abolish the Law says nothing about its continued inapplicability to those who are not Jews.  In fact, to claim it now applies to non-Jews when it did not before on the basis of Matthew 5:17-20 is clearly self-contradictory, for the obvious reason that making it applicable to people to whom it did not previously apply would be changing the letter of it.  Note particularly how Jesus states even those who "sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly" will still nevertheless be part of the kingdom of heaven.

Labels: ,

346 Comments:

1 – 200 of 346 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Book of Hebrews September 24, 2012 1:08 PM  

Plus there's that whole crazy thing called...The Book of Hebrews.


"When Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?"-Hebrews 9:11-14

Anonymous The One September 24, 2012 1:17 PM  

It's almost as if those attacking Christians are setting up straw men, oh wait...

Anonymous bw September 24, 2012 1:19 PM  

It's about time to have this gauntlet thrown down around here, brother. It took long enough.

I always wonder why the Churchians/Zionists don't follow ALL of the laws, but rather just a selected few (benefitting a selected few).

believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Anonymous Hoots September 24, 2012 1:25 PM  

It's too bad that we have to keep repeating the doctrine of salvation through faith to each other, but that's how it's always been. We're weak and need constant reminders. I think a big contributor to this particular error (Christians bound by Mosaic law) is the idea of the church as the "new Israel" in anything but a purely spiritual sense. Paul goes to great lengths to draw bright lines between the Jewish nation and the gentiles, and it's very foolish to try and blur them.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 1:30 PM  

Vox, you really need to study this out. You are wrong.

I consulted with

A) Karaite Jews
B) Samaritan Jews

Yes, the real Samaritans mentioned in the New Testament.

Both groups agree, the Torah is applicable to all mankind. And they base their opinion on the text of the Bible itself. Unlike Pharisee/Rabbinic Jews, they don't have a large body of Oral Law to add into it. They are Sola Scriptura Jews.

Anonymous hygate September 24, 2012 1:35 PM  

and Peter living with a tanner, and the whole vision thing "take and eat", and being sent to the Centurion's house.

Anonymous hygate September 24, 2012 1:36 PM  

but even Peter had to be reminded

Blogger Vox September 24, 2012 1:39 PM  

Vox, you really need to study this out. You are wrong.

Your opinion is not credible on this, Tiger. You were already shown to be wrong at Alpha Game. Why don't you be quiet and let the actual Jews tell us what is the official Jewish position... to the extent that one can be said to exist.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 1:44 PM  

Vox, you are pitting scripture against scripture. You haven't read the articles I linked yesterday, concerning Acts 15. The Word can seem very clear... until you put it together with other Words of God. When there are apparent conflicts, your out-of-context "clarity" is nothing of the sort. And the few verses in the New Testament that SEEM to do away with the Law, all have good answers that show them harmonizing with the 99% of the Bible (including the New Testament) that upholds and affirms the Law of Moses as a standard of behavior for all those who love God.

When Pharisees speak of the Law of Moses, they include their large body of Oral Law. This is called the Talmud today. It takes up a whole book shelf. The Greek word "nomos" is translated as "law", it also has various meanings in the New Testament.

When Paul said "We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” Was Paul saying the Law wasn't necessary for Jews either? If so, why did Paul go to the temple with the other Christian brothers and sacrifice sheep at the Temple? (Acts 21:24)

Don't pit scripture against scripture. Look at this with an open and honest mind.

I suspect that, although Vox calls himself Sigma, even he quails at the social implications of walking as Jesus walked; observing the Law of Moses.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 1:45 PM  

Noone showed me to be wrong at Alpha Game. An echo chamber of uninformed people just kept repeating their opinions and not reading the links or examing the scriptures I presented. That reflects poorly on them, not me.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 1:48 PM  

A link does not an argument make.

Where does the Bible contradict Acts 15?

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 24, 2012 1:49 PM  

I'm reminded of the old joke about the missionary preaching to the eskimo.

"So let me get this straight," say the Eskimo, "if I believe in God then I go to heaven, but if I refuse to believe in God, then I go to hell?"
"That's right," says the missionary.
"But what if I didn't know about God, as my fathers before me? Would God send me to hell, if I didn't know?"
"No," says the missionary. "Not if you didn't know."
"Then," says the Eskimo, "WHY DID YOU TELL ME?!"

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 1:50 PM  

http://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/jcouncil.htm

http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/commentaries/understanding-acts-1523-29/

http://loveandtruth.net/

Also see these books:

Institutes of Biblical Law, by John Rousas Rushdoony
Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, by Bivin and Blizzard
New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, by David Bivin

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 1:53 PM  

This is not new, Tiger.

I have asked this question to Ted Walthers before:

Do you stone adulterers, murderers and blasphemers to death in accordance to Mosaic Law? Yes or No?

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 1:53 PM  

Josh: start at the beginning, and read the Bible. The whole thing keeps shouting "keep the law! keep the law!" It shows one law for Jew and Gentile, and it shows them keeping it at a future time, worshipping together. The New Covenant that Jesus ushered in (Jeremiah 41) includes keeping the law!

To take a handful of verses that seem to go against law keeping, and pit them against the entirety of the Bible, would be astonishing. It is not astonishing, because this is the tradition that has been handed down in Christianity ever since the Bar Kokhba revolt. But it is a tradition that contradicts the Word. Either the Bible is not the word of God, or the Law of Moses is the standard of behavior for all people.

Just because something is tradition, doesn't make it right. Didn't Jesus himself condemn those who follow the "traditions of men" rather than the Law of God?

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 1:54 PM  

I have read those links before. They are all wrong.

The old covenant was made obsolete(Hebrews 8) since there was a necessity to change it (Hebrews 7).

Blogger Shimshon September 24, 2012 1:56 PM  

Judaism says that the 613 mitvahs are binding only on Jews. In an amusing twist on obligation to observe the law, Jewish law actually says it is forbidden for non-Jews to observe the Sabbath in the same manner as Jews.

Judaism does have something to say regarding gentiles however. All mankind are considered obligated on the "sheva mitvos b'nai noach" (check Wikipedia's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws) This is six proscribed activities and the requirement to institutes courts of law. Really, the six proscriptions are broad categories, and largely, but not entirely, overlap the same laws that apply to Jews (eg the large number of sexual prohibitions, different types of theft, etc). There is no requirement to worship or practice any particular ritual.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 1:57 PM  

Toby Temple, first tell me if you cuddle murderers, and hold hands with adulterers. Then tell me under what circumstances does the Law of Moses say one should stone a murderer and adulterer?

Blogger Shimshon September 24, 2012 1:58 PM  

Tiger, there are no Karaite or Samaritan Jews. They are Karaites and Samaritans, period.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 1:58 PM  

Shimshon: mainstream Judaism is different from Karaite and Samaritan Judaism. The Karaites and Samaritans are "Sola Scriptura", without the Talmud.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic September 24, 2012 1:58 PM  

Protestants - put down that King James Version, and move away slowly!

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:00 PM  

Toby Temple: you pit scripture against scripture; there is no need to respond to you. You should rename yourself as "Marcion".

Anonymous Northern Observer September 24, 2012 2:01 PM  

Tiger: "why did Paul go to the temple with the other Christian brothers and sacrifice sheep at the Temple?"

Why? That easy: 1 Corinthians 9:20

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. "

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 2:01 PM  

And here we go...Tiger, the recipient of secret knowledge and branches of Jewry that we didn't know about, has deigned to enlighten us.

Tiger, have you ever heard of a mystical creature that I like to call..the RABSTERCKEN???

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 2:02 PM  

Tiger:

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

How is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

Anonymous Zenobite September 24, 2012 2:02 PM  

OT - What's up with your Twitter pic, Vox?

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 2:03 PM  

Didn't Jesus himself condemn those who follow the "traditions of men" rather than the Law of God?

So, by your own logic, you condemn yourself, because you insist on applying extra biblical traditions of men to Christians, when the word of God, in acts 15, clearly defines what aspects of the law of Moses Christians are to keep.

Fantastic way of blowing yourself up, dear chap.

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 2:06 PM  

Talmud, eh?

Gal 5:2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.

I have a vague picture of seeing that circumcision once or twice in the Torah, too.

Could be wrong.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 2:07 PM  

The Karaites and Samaritans are "Sola Scriptura", without the Talmud.

There are no such things as "sola scriptura" Jews. It's not a Jewish concept, it's a reformed one. And it's an unbiblical one as well.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:08 PM  

Tiger,

Toby Temple, first tell me if you cuddle murderers, and hold hands with adulterers.

I only cuddle my girlfriend and my baby nephew. I did brought a murderer into our congregation before to repent and receive Christ, and also a prostitute. Your point?

Then tell me under what circumstances does the Law of Moses say one should stone a murderer and adulterer?

Leviticus 26:16 (Stoning blasphemers to death)
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (adulterers stone to death)
Numbers 35:16-18 (murderer put to death)

So tell me, do you still do these things?

Anonymous Stilicho September 24, 2012 2:09 PM  

Vox, when you quote scripture in blog entries, what version of the bible do you use? Why?

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:10 PM  

You didn't answer the question. Under what circumstances does the Law of Moses say a person should stone a murderer or adulterer? What are the pre-requisites?

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 2:10 PM  

Toby Temple, first tell me if you cuddle murderers, and hold hands with adulterers. Then tell me under what circumstances does the Law of Moses say one should stone a murderer and adulterer?

It don't work like that, hoss. He asked first.

But to answer your question, since Jesus expounded what God considers murder and adultery, I have. And so did Jesus.

Would you condemn Jesus?

Anonymous Freddy September 24, 2012 2:11 PM  


Ceremonial laws ultimately abrogated when the Temple was destroyed in AD70.

Dietary laws abrogated by Christ himself telling Peter don't "call what I have called clean, unclean."

Judicial laws are not enforced currently given this secular system that governs us. Do consider that if one thinks it is barbaric to call for the execution of a violator of said law then what does it say about the giver of that law?

The moral law is still binding on all mankind....until heaven and earth pass away. Paul us so much in the Romans 1 and 2.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:11 PM  

You didn't answer the question. Under what circumstances does the Law of Moses say a person should stone a murderer or adulterer? What are the pre-requisites?

Breaking the law? Afterall, that should be quite clear on the statement "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY".

~facepalm~

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:12 PM  

And Tiger, you did not answer my question:

Do you stone adulterers, murderers and blasphemers to death in accordance to Mosaic Law? Yes or No?

By the rules of the blog, you must answer.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:13 PM  

Hint: http://www.loveandtruth.net/dr-laura-answers.html

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:13 PM  

Answer my question, Tiger.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 2:13 PM  

Also, Paul himself says that he is not under the law.

So, are you more wise than Paul?

Is Paul condemned?

Anonymous bw September 24, 2012 2:14 PM  

Didn't Jesus himself condemn those who follow the "traditions of men" rather than the Law of God?

Indeed. And they were the religious leaders of Israel.

Anonymous Freddy September 24, 2012 2:14 PM  

Paul tells us in Romans that the Gentiles who have no law do by nature what law empells them to do so they are a law unto themselves.

Blogger Chelm Wiseman September 24, 2012 2:15 PM  

Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood

Does this men that Christians are prohibited from eating blood? I am guessing not because I don't know any Christians who abstain from eating blood... except 7th day adventists and Jehovah's witnesses.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:16 PM  

Toby Temple: you are quick to reject and condemn that Law of Moses. So quick, you don't even know what you are rejecting.

Until a proper trial in front of judge (elected official) and jury (the community), with a conviction, and until the accuser steps forward and initiates the proceedings, I have no obligation to stone anyone. All scripture references are in the link above.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 2:18 PM  

Judas Priest is appropriate right now in at least three ways, chief of which is:

Breakin' the law! Breakin' the law!

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:18 PM  

So Tiger, you have never known anyone who was convicted by court of law as a murderer or adulterer? Yes or No?

If yes, did you stone them to death?

Anonymous Azimus September 24, 2012 2:18 PM  

Boy there's a lot of hyperventilating going on in the comment thread today...

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 2:19 PM  

Does this men that Christians are prohibited from eating blood?

The safe option is to take it at face value, so that eating blood is unequivocally a sin. Most people, however, take the view that blood is no longer consumed for the same reason that it was back then - to somehow mystically receive the life force of the animal.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:19 PM  

Chelm Wiseman: in its Jewish context, "blood" referred to murder, etc. Idolatry, adultery, murder, and the "things strangled" was an idiom for treyf, or all unclean foods. (Acts 15:20) Unclean foods already included blood; there was no need to repeat it.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 2:19 PM  

Here I was completely wasted

Out of work and Down!

Anonymous No_Limit_Bubba™ September 24, 2012 2:20 PM  

I'm reminded of the old joke about the missionary preaching to the eskimo.

That's funny. Has a Mel Brooks quality to it.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 2:21 PM  

It is also impossible to remove all blood from your food. Microscopic traces will remain.

Tiger, do you eat your steaks well done, to remove all the blood? Sorry, still some left in there.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 2:21 PM  

Until a proper trial in front of judge (elected official) and jury (the community), with a conviction, and until the accuser steps forward and initiates the proceedings, I have no obligation to stone anyone. All scripture references are in the link above.

Really? You have no convicted murderers in your community? You must live in Chicago or Detroit or one of those other places with plummeting crime rates.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:22 PM  

Toby Temple: what are you really asking? Are you saying I'm a hypocrite if I haven't stoned someone to death? I have followed the law of Moses in regard to the matter of stoning. And as per the law of Moses, I haven't stoned anyone, to death, or otherwise. That might shock you, but remember, the Law of Moses came from God himself, and it was called the perfect Law of Love.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:23 PM  

Toby Temple: you are quick to reject and condemn that Law of Moses. So quick, you don't even know what you are rejecting.

False. You are the one who is quick to judge that Christians are under the Laws of Moses despite the words of Christ.

So, again, are you saying that you have not known anyone who is a murderer, blasphemer and adulterer? Yes or No?

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 2:24 PM  

and the "things strangled" was an idiom for treyf, or all unclean foods.

Nope. pniktos, Thayer's Lexicon:

"An animal deprived of life without shedding its blood"

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:24 PM  

Daniel: every element must be present. Stoning must be done in the presence of the community, by the community. And the accuser must cast the first stone. I haven't accused anyone of murder or adultery in a court.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:24 PM  

what are you really asking? Are you saying I'm a hypocrite if I haven't stoned someone to death?

Yes. A 100% certified hypocrite of the same level as the Pharisees.

Anonymous Monkey Boy September 24, 2012 2:26 PM  

"That's funny. Has a Mel Brooks quality to it."

Except it's funny.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:27 PM  

Markku: a dictionary definition isn't the same as an idiom. I recommend spending some time comparing the Septuagint (Greek) with the Hebrew. Or you can take a short cut by reading the books of Bivin and Blizzard. Lamsa on Aramaic idioms is good too.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 2:27 PM  

Tiger, you are making a huge mistake in assuming that those who are not under the law are incapable of appreciating the law for what it is, not a jot or tittle added or removed. The law is undeniably clear about who is under it and why, and that it will, in fact pass away. Therefore, as important and elegant and effective as it may be, it is, by God's own testament, something temporary.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:28 PM  

It is not an idiom, Tiger. Statement of Laws do not contain idioms.

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 2:29 PM  

Markku: a dictionary definition isn't the same as an idiom. I recommend spending some time comparing the Septuagint (Greek) with the Hebrew.

It would appear that you don't even know what Thayer's lexicon is.

Anonymous Tallen September 24, 2012 2:29 PM  

Does this men that Christians are prohibited from eating blood?

This is quibbling. I don't know any Christians who go out of their way to "eat blood" as a standalone drink or meal. it's a fact of living and breathing that you will ingest some minute particles of blood. Likewise you'll inherently ingest some blood if you have rare/medium-rare steak but that's not the intent behind the meal. One might as well insist that anyone who breathes eats blood. An atheist might say with equal validity (read: none at all) there is a contradiction between the command not to eat blood but to partake of the Blood of Christ.

Blogger Chelm Wiseman September 24, 2012 2:30 PM  

Chelm Wiseman: in its Jewish context, "blood" referred to murder, etc. Idolatry, adultery, murder, and the "things strangled" was an idiom for treyf, or all unclean foods. (Acts 15:20) Unclean foods already included blood; there was no need to repeat it.


No, in its Jewish context blood is equal to soul or life force. Drinking blood, which was a big part of pagan ritual was (is) prohibited in Judaism. In Kosher slaughter Jews drain all of the blood... and then soak the meat in salt to get rid of all the blood.

When I say Jewish I am referring to most modern Jews which are descended from the pharisaical Jews of the bible.

Marku - Most people, however, take the view that blood is no longer consumed for the same reason that it was back then - to somehow mystically receive the life force of the animal.

This makes sense to me. Thanks for the answer.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:30 PM  

Josh: Paul said he was indeed under the Law. 1 Corinthians 9:21

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Blogger wrf3 September 24, 2012 2:31 PM  

This is just as ridiculous as the discussion about time dilation with "Outlaw X" in Blind faith in science. Some people are just unable to understand how things work, no matter how much evidence is presented to them.

Einstein's theory of relativity rests on two principles:
1. The equivalence of intertial frames of reference, and
2. The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference.

That's it.

The relationship of Christians to the Law likewise rests on two principles:
1. Death ends the jurisdiction of the Law.
2. A Christian was crucified with Christ and thereby died with Him.

The conclusion is obvious. Such explanations such as "the ceremonial law ended in 70 AD" and so on are neither true nor necessary.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:32 PM  

Daniel, if it is temporary, then WHEN did it pass away?

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 2:33 PM  

Tiger
Daniel: every element must be present. Stoning must be done in the presence of the community, by the community. And the accuser must cast the first stone. I haven't accused anyone of murder or adultery in a court.

How convenient. So you have taken up, against the Law, with a gentile community that does not abide by the Law, and can therefore declare yourself holy unto it, as what, an otherwise pious victim of geography? It is against the Law to associate with Gentile society in such a way. Are you in prison?

If not, I guess your next step is repentance and reconciliation with a community that does live under the Law.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 2:34 PM  

I love how tiger isn't capable of explaining things to us, because he keeps saying we need to buy this book and read that book.

It's almost like he's just here to drive book sales.

And, being an acolyte of RJ Rushdoony, does this place him on the side of Team Calvin?

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:34 PM  

Hebrews 7:12
12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

Hebrews 8:13
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

It has not yet disappeared, BUT IT IS OBSOLETE & OUTDATED.

Anonymous stevev September 24, 2012 2:36 PM  

and then there's the atheist's/homosexualist's assertion that because proscription of homosexuality is declared in the Law, and the Law is done away with, why do Christians continue to proscribe it?
Since we don't require people to abjure mixing wool and linen, or boiling a kid in its mother's milk, why do we then require them to recognize homosexuality as sin and renounce it?
Oh, that pesky bit in Romans? Well, it's well known that Paul was homophobic and misogynistic.
Ha! Argument refuted!
See? That wasy easy...

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:37 PM  

Where does the Law say it is only for Jews. I ask this as one who has read the Bible, asking himself that very same question. And the answer I found is: It says nothing of the sort. The Law is eternal, and universal. The Law reveals sin. How was it that Cain sinned, if there was no Law to judge him by? Noah knew the clean and unclean animals. How can this be? Are we not all descended from Noah?

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 2:37 PM  

Daniel, if it is temporary, then WHEN did it pass away?

You know very well when it passes away. Once its purpose is achieved.

Anonymous Northern Observer September 24, 2012 2:37 PM  

I think many here would agree that any 'rules' that Christians need to follow are based on Christ's two 'greatest commandments'. i.e. "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"

Vox, is it fair to say that a few months ago you said that a person's neighbor is anyone who helps them (or shows mercy to them first) first? i.e. that Jesus called the 'Good Samaritan' the neighbor (whom we should love) and not the injured jew.

Is that correct? That Jesus' second 'great commandment' only requires us to love those who help us (or those show mercy to us), and not everyone as most Christians believe?

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 2:37 PM  

Take note that the statement is in present tense(relative to the time it was written ~ Hebrews 8). So saying that it will still be made obsolete cannot be justified.

The old covenant is obsolete.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:39 PM  

Daniel: Was there not a Daniel in Babylon? And a Joseph in Egypt? You know not the Law. There is no Law of Moses saying not to associate or be among Gentiles. The rule against eating with Gentiles was a Pharisee tradition, not a Law of Moses. Who else had such a prohibition? The Israelites? No, it was the Egyptians in the time of Joseph who refused to eat with foreigners.

Anonymous VD September 24, 2012 2:40 PM  

Judaism says that the 613 mitvahs are binding only on Jews.

There you go, Tiger. Wrong again. At this point, it is abundantly clear to everyone that you don't know what you're talking about.

Chelm Wiseman: in its Jewish context, "blood" referred to murder, etc. Idolatry, adultery, murder, and the "things strangled" was an idiom for treyf, or all unclean foods. (Acts 15:20) Unclean foods already included blood; there was no need to repeat it.

And now you're telling Jews about the proper Jewish context. Fascinating.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera September 24, 2012 2:40 PM  

2. A Christian was crucified with Christ and thereby died with Him.

Perhaps quibbling, but I'd say this is not obvious. Rather, it is strange and abstract.

I agree that Tiger is adamantly opposed to understanding. Fortunately, he's taking his unbiblical last stand on a hill of little relative importance.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:41 PM  

Daniel: The New Testament says the purpose of the Law is to reveal sin. This lets us lead Holy Sanctified lives, but eliminating sin, cleaning as we go. Until the Law is written on our hearts, it is still needed. And, since Christians are NOT keeping the Law, it is obvious that it hasn't been written there. Therefore, the New Covenant has not yet come, even though it has been promised and assured.

Anonymous VD September 24, 2012 2:42 PM  

Some people are just unable to understand how things work, no matter how much evidence is presented to them.

A cogent observation. Of course, Aristotle beat you to it by a few thousand years....

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 2:42 PM  

Where does the Law say it is only for Jews. I ask this as one who has read the Bible, asking himself that very same question. And the answer I found is: It says nothing of the sort. The Law is eternal, and universal. The Law reveals sin. How was it that Cain sinned, if there was no Law to judge him by? Noah knew the clean and unclean animals. How can this be? Are we not all descended from Noah?

You are changing definitions, either deceptively or out of your own confusion. The topic is Mosaic Law: its 3 major aspects and 600+ individual commands.

Blogger Chris September 24, 2012 2:42 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 2:43 PM  

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

My lord, you are fantastically stupid.

From the previous verse (esv)

20 kTo the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 2:45 PM  

Josh,

Tiger is merely the feline RABSTERCKEN.

Adjust accordingly.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:45 PM  

Vox: Judaism has evolved over the centuries, just as Christianity has. Jewish context of the New Testament is 2000 years ago. There is a definite family resemblance, but there are differences that modern day Jews aren't familiar with.

Vox, you say "The Law of Moses is for Jews, not Christians". Of course a modern Jew agrees with you. But so what. Why ask a Jew his opinion, rather than looking at what Scripture says?

The Law of Moses is life to those that keep it; death to those that break it. If you claim to follow Jesus, then the Law of Moses is a must; for he kept the Law of Moses.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 2:47 PM  

Josh: your insults do you no credit. Paul was indeed not "under the law" of the Pharisees!

Are you people so unfamiliar with the vast difference between the Law of Moses, found in the Bible, and the Law of Moses, the Oral Law of the Pharisees, which is found in the Talmud? The Talmud being a series of books as big as an encyclopedia set?

Anonymous Stickwick September 24, 2012 2:48 PM  

Two questions for y'all:

1) How should Christians regard the ten commandments? (Not rhetorical; I really want to know.)

2) As a relatively new convert, one thing that's also confused me is how to answer people who ask why Christians include the Old Testament in the Christian Bible. I've encountered Jews who didn't know that we include the Torah in the Christian Bible and study it in church. They were curious about this practice, but I wasn't sure I had the correct explanation for them. Is it to establish the context for the New Testament?

Anonymous Mr. B.A.D. September 24, 2012 2:48 PM  

Jesus' entire ministry on earth was centered around clarifying the law, and in many places he criticizes those who live by the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. an example is the "good samaritan parable". The laws were given to the Jews in order to keep the ceremoniously clean, and set aside for God. So when Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, his blood sacrifice has fulfilled the spirit of the law by making us clean before God and setting us aside for him. I believe as much is stated in John 1:1-14.

I do not believe that Acts 15 is suggesting that Christians can lie, steal, etc etc because such things were not included in the letter. Rather I believe that as Jesus said, the sum of the laws and the prophets, the spirit of them, is to love the Lord you God will all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 2:49 PM  

Until the Law is written on our hearts, it is still needed. And, since Christians are NOT keeping the Law, it is obvious that it hasn't been written there. Therefore, the New Covenant has not yet come, even though it has been promised and assured.

The new covenant has come, you blithering idiot!

That's entire fucking point of Jesus's life ministry, death, and resurrection!

He brought the new covenant. He tore the veil in the temple. He saved us from sin and death. He rescued us.

Anonymous Anonymous September 24, 2012 2:49 PM  

Love this quote:

Here the law of Moses has its place. It is no longer binding on us because it was given only to the people of Israel. And Israel accepted this law for itself and its descendants, while the Gentiles were excluded. To be sure, the Gentiles have certain laws in common with the Jews, such as these: there is one God, no one is to do wrong to another, no one is to commit adultery or murder or steal, and others like them. This is written by nature into their hearts; they did not hear it straight from heaven as the Jews did. This is why this entire text does not pertain to the Gentiles. I say this on account of the enthusiasts. (2) For you see and hear how they read Moses, extol him, and bring up the way he ruled the people with commandments. They try to be clever, and think they know something more than is presented in the gospel; so they minimize faith, contrive something new, and boastfully claim that it comes from the Old Testament. They desire to govern people according to the letter of the law of Moses, as if no one had ever read it before.

Anonymous Northern Observer September 24, 2012 2:50 PM  

Tiger: "If you claim to follow Jesus, then the Law of Moses is a must; for he kept the Law of Moses"

How's that? Just because Jesus followed those Laws, how does that mean that we need to?

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 2:53 PM  

The Law of Moses is life to those that keep it; death to those that break it. If you claim to follow Jesus, then the Law of Moses is a must; for he kept the Law of Moses.

No one except Jesus can keep the law. That's the point.

We have all broken the law, we are all lawbreakers, rebels against God.

We are all sinners.

Which is why we need a savior.

Trying to keep the law is an eternal death sentence, for it is rejecting the sacrifice of Jesus.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 2:56 PM  

Jesus followed the law perfectly, to a jot and to a tiddle, because we couldn't. We couldn't justify ourselves before the law because we are inherently sinful and incapable of keeping the law. He did it for us. Why is this so hard to understand?

Anonymous Anonymous September 24, 2012 2:57 PM  

How should Christians regard the ten commandments? (Matthew 19:16-22 is a good read)

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 2:57 PM  

Josh: your insults do you no credit. Paul was indeed not "under the law" of the Pharisees!

Just a few verses back it says this:

8 Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law [nomos] say the same?

9 For it is written in the law [nomos] of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned?

So, since it explicitly names the nomos as the Moseos nomou, then what is our contextual reason to suddenly suppose that it means a different thing in verse 21?

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 2:59 PM  

1) How should Christians regard the ten commandments? (Not rhetorical; I really want to know.)

I think you are free to ignore all commandments that you aren't already obligated to follow based on the dual commandment of love. In other words, one of them: Keeping the Sabbath.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 3:00 PM  

The very use of the word "nomos" defies the universal and eternal explanation. "Nomos" is a local law. "Phusis" (The origin of the word physics) is universal.

Anonymous VD September 24, 2012 3:01 PM  

Vox, you say "The Law of Moses is for Jews, not Christians". Of course a modern Jew agrees with you. But so what. Why ask a Jew his opinion, rather than looking at what Scripture says?

Because we already showed that Scripture proves that you are wrong in Acts 15. The Jew states that you are wrong. I mean, you even claimed that a Samaritan was a Jew, in direct contradiction to what Jesus himself said about them.

You observably have no idea what you are talking about.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 3:02 PM  

Josh keeps confusing the Law of Moses with the Oral Law of the Pharisees. Deuteronomy 30:11-16.

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 3:02 PM  

Vox,

Tiger is the newest version of the Rabstercken/Corona Rabbit.

They pop up like toadstools.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 3:03 PM  

Vox: Acts 15 doesn't contradict the rest of scriptures. When you think it does, you need to look deeper. Look deeper Vox. I presented several links already that examine Acts 15 in depth. Acts 15 does not do away with the law by any means, nor does it limit it to Jews.

Anonymous Rantor September 24, 2012 3:03 PM  

Sunday's sermon complemented this well. Saved by Grace. Grace overcomes all, even our violations of the law. And then the evening sermon, from Romans 8. If you are saved, it is by the blood of Christ, sent by God to save you. God no longer sees your sin, Christ's sacrifice washed it away. Love God, love your neighbor. Finished.

There isn't that much more to say. It is why my conservative, Missouri Synod Pastor friend will let his wife go to the grocery on a Sunday afternoon. The Sabbath law, among others, no longer applies, the law no longer condemns.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 3:03 PM  

I love how Tiger keeps quoting the Old Testament as proof that New Testament Spiritual Israel/Christians should follow it.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 3:06 PM  

Vox: many Protestants say that Catholics are not Christians. Catholics vehemently deny this. Quibbling about usage patterns like "Samaritan" vs. "Samaritan Jew" is really petty. Various people have their preferences. It has nothing to do with the key issue; Jesus didn't do away with the Law, Heaven and Earth hasn't passed away, and the entire Law and Prophets arise organically from the practice of Loving God and Loving your Neighbor.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 3:06 PM  

Tiger
Daniel: The New Testament says the purpose of the Law is to reveal sin. This lets us lead Holy Sanctified lives, but eliminating sin, cleaning as we go. Until the Law is written on our hearts, it is still needed. And, since Christians are NOT keeping the Law, it is obvious that it hasn't been written there. Therefore, the New Covenant has not yet come, even though it has been promised and assured.

For the moment, I'll disregard the failures in logic in the above, and simply demonstrate how they violate what is evident from scripture:

The New Testament says the purpose of the Law is to reveal sin.

Not quite right. It says the purpose of the Law is to prove a man guilty. (Romans 3:19-20)

This lets us lead Holy Sanctified lives, but eliminating sin, cleaning as we go.

No - no - no. You've gone way off the rails here, both according to Deuteronomy and St. Paul. Moses (in Deut) makes it very clear that the key is to keep every law to avoid sin, because once you broke off, only God in his mercy could cover it. A righteous man can no more cleanse himself of sin, than a hunter can unkill a deer. The law was provided so that a man might live, but its path was impossible to keep. Don't forget that Abraham was saved (righteousness was credited to him) before the Law.

There's no "cleaning as you go."

Until the Law is written on our hearts, it is still needed.

Again, you are confusing scripture here. The Law passes away when its purpose (above) is fulfilled. Once a man is convicted of violating even the least commandment, it has achieved its purpose for him. This is why Jesus doesn't change the law (add to it or subtract from it) - it needs to be the same for as long as man is on this earth: it is the yardstick by which all men fail.

Once an individual has failed it, he stands convicted. Jesus then fulfills the law by taking the punishment for sin.

Stop going through the motions of Law-keeping. It makes you a zombie slave to what Jesus Christ paid dearly to rescue you from, and denies His promise to complete the work in you.

Anonymous Anonymous September 24, 2012 3:07 PM  

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. (James 2:10)

Good luck trying to become righteous before God through the law...I wish you the best.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 3:08 PM  

The Judaizers...they never give up. Even two thousand year later, still at it.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 3:09 PM  

Tiger,

I have said this before. Jesus did not do away the law. He changed it(or God changed it through him).

Hebrews 7:12
12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

Hebrews 8:13
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 3:12 PM  

I hope you people realize what kind of a personal investment keeping what little he can of the Mosaic Law must have been to this fellow. And now we're going to tell him it didn't even give him extra bragging rights? No, that kind of a change won't happen overnight.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 3:14 PM  

What is there to brag about?

Anonymous LES September 24, 2012 3:15 PM  

Tigger has had enough time in the batter's box.

Anonymous VD September 24, 2012 3:15 PM  

Quibbling about usage patterns like "Samaritan" vs. "Samaritan Jew" is really petty.

Take it up with John and Jesus:

Now he had to go through Samaria. So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour. When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)

It's not petty, Tiger. It's just one of the many proofs that you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 3:16 PM  

Stickwick

Two questions for y'all:

1) How should Christians regard the ten commandments? (Not rhetorical; I really want to know.)

Practically? As useful, and as reminders of how all have fallen short of God's standards. There is no one who has ever kept them perfectly, especially as Jesus clarifies them (as in adultery of the eye and murder in the heart).

Scripturally, the Christian is not bound to them, as Christ is in him, and the Two Greatest Commandments (Love God/Love Your Neighbor) are plenty to keep most normal followers plenty occupied.

2) As a relatively new convert, one thing that's also confused me is how to answer people who ask why Christians include the Old Testament in the Christian Bible. I've encountered Jews who didn't know that we include the Torah in the Christian Bible and study it in church. They were curious about this practice, but I wasn't sure I had the correct explanation for them. Is it to establish the context for the New Testament?

The two testaments are critical to one another, as Christians view the new testament as a fulfillment of the many promises of the Old Testament. If we didn't study the Old Testament, we could not possibly appreciate how perfectly Jesus fulfills very ancient promises from God, as passed on through the descendants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and so on.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 3:17 PM  

So, tiger, have you perfectly followed the law?

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 3:17 PM  

Amen, Daniel. As Paul said in Galatians 5, the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 3:21 PM  

VD: that argument isn't worthy of you. Jew in the King James come from the Greek word better translated as "Judean" (cf Judaios)

In modern usage "Jew" is any of the Old Testament believers. Even among modern Jews, the term is slippery, sometimes referring to members of a faith group, and sometimes to those practicing Judaism.

In the Christian circles in general, "Jew" is not the precise word you expect it to be here. I used it according to the usage patterns were I live; it doesn't make me ignorant.

So far it is you who have been posting things without depth of study. You claim to follow Jesus? The Law needs to be on your agenda. Quoting Acts 15 doesn't cut it. Torah keeping Christians have addressed that one over and over for years.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 3:25 PM  

Tiger. We are talking about Jew in the biblical sense. So a Samaritan is and will never be a Jew.

This has been the case since the start of the discussion regarding the law of Moses.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 3:25 PM  

TigerSo far it is you who have been posting things without depth of study. You claim to follow Jesus? The Law needs to be on your agenda. Quoting Acts 15 doesn't cut it. Torah keeping Christians have addressed that one over and over for years.

And yet...you haven't.

Not only that, but you have already admitted or exhibited a violation of the Law in numerous ways, and I doubt very much have begun to make the requisite animal sacrifices necessary to atone for them.

Anonymous hygate September 24, 2012 3:29 PM  

Just who is this Tiger individual anyway? Is he a troll?

Blogger Bob Wallace September 24, 2012 3:33 PM  

If men were meant to be circumcised, we'd be born circumcised. It's a revolting, primitive habit, almost as bad as female circumcision, and it should be illegal.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 3:37 PM  

Daniel: show me what violations of the Law I have committed, and I will indeed make any necessary animal sacrifices required.

Blogger Chris September 24, 2012 3:38 PM  

Sincere question: Does anyone here agree with the teaching of the threefold use of the Law? If not, why not. One page very brief summary here: http://tinyurl.com/9bbf3nt

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 3:38 PM  

If men were meant to be circumcised, we'd be born circumcised. It's a revolting, primitive habit, almost as bad as female circumcision, and it should be illegal.

So sure you are in the right place, Bob?

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 3:40 PM  

Daniel: show me what violations of the Law I have committed, and I will indeed make any necessary animal sacrifices required.

Tiger. proclaim now and before the Almighty that you have not committed any sin.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 3:41 PM  

Daniel: show me what violations of the Law I have committed, and I will indeed make any necessary animal sacrifices required.

We're not under the Law, so there's no need for me to do so, although, if you were as observant of the Law as you claim, the violations should be more obvious to you than they are to this gentile, and I certainly won't aid and abet a brother who insists on soiling his own relationship with Jesus in an unfruitful adherence to a fulfilled Law.

Anonymous johnc September 24, 2012 3:47 PM  

So much easier being Catholic.

Anonymous Northern Observer September 24, 2012 3:47 PM  

Bob Wallace: "If men were meant to be circumcised, we'd be born circumcised. It's a revolting, primitive habit, almost as bad as female circumcision, and it should be illegal."

So, when God instructed the Jews to do it He was being revolting and primitive?

Also, it has proven health advantages, and I would think, is just plain cleaner.

Are there any other of God's commandments to the Jews that you want to outlaw? Observing the Sabbath since it's just laziness? Honouring one's parents since it's condescending?

Or just 'unnatural' body modifications? Like haircuts and nail trimming?



Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 3:49 PM  

According to Acts 15:19-20, "those of the Gentiles who are turning to God in repentance" were commanded to abstain from:

1. "pollutions of idols"
2. "sexual immorality"
3. "things strangled"
4. "blood"

With slight variations the list of prohibitions is repeated in Acts 15:29 and 21:25. Manuscripts of the Books of Acts are split between a list of three prohibitions (omitting either "strangled" or "immorality") and a list of four. This situation seems to indicate that there was uncertainty among ancient editors and copyists about the original reading.

Because of the uncertainty in the texts, two opinions have formed among scholars regarding the original intent of the list. One scholar suggests t
hat the original prohibitions were ritual - focusing on practices used in idolatrous worship. Others have argued that the original prohibitions we
re basic moral laws that may have been misunderstood by copyists who didn't recognize the Jewish idioms usedin the list of prohibitions.

Evidence from early Jewish and Christian sources seems to support this second conclusion. The three great sins of "idolatry, immorality, and murder," occur frequently in rabbinic sources. This triplet also can be found in early Christian sources. They represent the essentials of the biblical commandments, God's most basic demands of humankind. In Jewish thought of Jesus' time, not only were idolatry, murder and immorality the classic characteristics of Gentiles, but Israel's sages sometimes accused the nation of these same central sins. Failure to keep the three, it was said, resulted in the exile.

The Hebrew terms for these three great prohibitions are: avodah zarah (idolatry; literally, "foreign worship"); gilui arayot (forbidden marriages [including adultery] and sexual relationships; literally, "uncovering of nakedness"); and shefichut damim (murder; literally, "shedding of bloods.") Each of these prohibitions encompasses a number of biblical commands: avoda zarah includes the prohibitions found in Exodus 20:4-5; 23:13; Levi
ticus 19:4 and Deuteronomy 16:21-22; gilui arayot includes the sexual relationships enumerated in Leviticus 18:6-18; shefichut damim includes the
prhoibitions recorded in Exocus 20:13; Leviticus 19:16; Numbers 35:12,28,31,32; and Deuteronomy 5:17; 19:2; 21:4.

The term, shefichut damim (shedding of bloods), containing an idiomatic reference to "bloods," could have caused "blood" to enter the list of proh
ibitions. Later Greek editors and copyists may have wrongly assumed that the text referred to the Biblical prhoibition against eating meat from wh
ich the blood had not been properly drained. In turn, the reference to "blood" may have drawn "things strangled" into the list, essentially, the s
ame prohibitions against eating the meat of animals that had not been correctly slaughtered, in this case, an animal that had been put to death by
strangulation rather than by the slitting of the throat. Once "blood" and "things strangled" were attached to the list, then "(the polutions of)
idolatry" was misunderstood to mean "[meat] sacrificed to idols." In this fashion, three central moral prohibitions became misunderstood as food l
aws.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 3:50 PM  

Did you just write all this yourself, or did you quote it from somewhere?

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 3:53 PM  

I think he's cutting and pasting

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 3:54 PM  

Daniel: if you think I've demonstrated some violations of the Law of Moses, then you aren't familiar enough with the Law of Moses to make such a statement.

Anonymous Northern Observer September 24, 2012 3:54 PM  

definitely quoting

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 3:55 PM  

My thoughts exactly, which is why I would like to know where he is getting it from. Otherwise, he is committing the sin of plagiarism. He will need to sacrifice two doves, a ferret and some breakfast cereal to atone.

Oh and of course, coffee and chocolate fingers.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 3:55 PM  

stg58: quote from David Bivin's book, "New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus"

And once I find it, the quote from the Church Fathers where one of them reads "blood" as meaning "murder"

Anonymous Anonymous September 24, 2012 3:56 PM  

Are Christians allowed to worship other gods? The Trinity aside, as long as you're not using an idol, is worshipping other gods banned in the New Testament?

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 3:57 PM  

Tiger, are your ears itching to hear some new thing? Or in your case, "New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus"?

Blogger tz September 24, 2012 3:58 PM  

We are not under law but under grace and love - which Paul says there is no law. Jesus condemned the best obeyers - the Pharisees. He called them a brood of vipers. Love is to obey, but obedience, playing by rules torack up a high score is not love. Love is patient, love is kind... They will know us because we love on another. And have the Holy Spirit.

If someone looks at a perfectly observant Jew, and a Christian, it should be obvious the Christian is better worth emulating. I could add a muslim, hindu, or buddhist.

If we have light it should shine. If we instead act like black holes of darkness, we aren't Christians. Can one know, much less have Christ without being affected as to conform to Christ?

Blogger Laramie Hirsch September 24, 2012 3:58 PM  

Christians are Judaized, just as they were during the Protestant Revolts. Only, we call them Zionists today.

Anonymous Paul S September 24, 2012 3:59 PM  

I think the issue is and probably always will be the "big 10".
Very few Christians argue whether gentiles (non-jews) are under the priestly laws or the ceremonial laws or the dietary laws BUT some will argue about the Sabbath for example.
Even though Paul makes it clear that it is a matter of personal conscience (special days and sabbath observance), a know of some that still believe we are under the Sabbath Law.

Anonymous Salt September 24, 2012 4:00 PM  

Torah keeping Christians have addressed that one over and over for years.

Christians have also performed with deadly snakes. Is that what Christians are to do?

Anonymous Wendy September 24, 2012 4:02 PM  

Are Christians allowed to worship other gods? The Trinity aside, as long as you're not using an idol, is worshipping other gods banned in the New Testament?

No one can serve two masters.

Blogger Giraffe September 24, 2012 4:05 PM  

If men were meant to be circumcised, we'd be born circumcised. It's a revolting, primitive habit, almost as bad as female circumcision, and it should be illegal.

Somebody lop off too much, Bob?

Anonymous Stickwick September 24, 2012 4:05 PM  

Thanks, Markku and Daniel, for responding to my questions.

Anonymous Outlaw X September 24, 2012 4:11 PM  

Tiger: "If you claim to follow Jesus, then the Law of Moses is a must; for he kept the Law of Moses"

NO" "How's that? Just because Jesus followed those Laws, how does that mean that we need to?"

What really got to the pharisees was when Jesus was gathering grain on the Sabbath. When they complained he said "Was man made for the Sabath or was the Sabath made for man?" That really upset Jewish tradition at the time because their culture revolved around it.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 4:15 PM  

Outlaw X, the Sabbath was a commemoration of Israel's freedom from Egypt. It was indeed made for man. Plucking some ears of grain doesn't violate the Law of Moses. It did violate the "fence around the law" that the Pharisees erected. This is known today as the "Oral Law".

Anonymous Anonymous September 24, 2012 4:15 PM  

No one can serve two masters.

Good advice. Is it banned?

Some VD'ers believe that the Trinity is wrong, and that Jesus is not God, but is a god. God's Son, yes. Exalted by God, sure. And even a god to be worshipped, as long as it's not 'before' God. But not God.

So is it okay to worship other gods?

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 4:18 PM  

as long as it's not 'before' God.

Do you realize that KJV's "before me" is Victorian English for "in my presence"?

Anonymous Mach Seven September 24, 2012 4:18 PM  

"Tithes and offerings" - I think Churches tend to capitalize on the confusion about how to apply the law especially when it comes to giving. No church or parachurch that I have been part of has bothered to clarify that there should be no guilt if you do not contribute 10% of your income. By using a phrase like "tithe" in the context of church teaching, you imply an obligation to contribute 10% of your income. By my understanding, that obligation no longer applies under the new covenant.

For clarity - I know there is plenty of New testament teaching on the blessings of generosity, e.g. the widow's mite, Paul's instruction on the collection, etc.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 4:21 PM  

Outlaw X, the Sabbath was a commemoration of Israel's freedom from Egypt. It was indeed made for man. Plucking some ears of grain doesn't violate the Law of Moses. It did violate the "fence around the law" that the Pharisees erected. This is known today as the "Oral Law".

So it has nothing to with the fact that God rested on the seventh day after he created the heavens and the earth?

Anonymous Outlaw X September 24, 2012 4:22 PM  

"Outlaw X, the Sabbath was a commemoration of Israel's freedom from Egypt."

I thought that was Passover, but I am not Jewish. God rested on the 7th day thought that is what it was about.

Anonymous Paul S September 24, 2012 4:24 PM  

God is still working, as Christ is still working...
John 5:17

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 4:26 PM  

Outlaw X, the Ten Commandments are listed twice, in Exodus 20, and Deuteronomy 5. In Exodus, the Sabbath commemorates God resting on the 7th day. In Deuteronomy, it commemorates the freedom from Egypt. (Deuteronomy 5:15)

Anonymous Anonymous September 24, 2012 4:26 PM  

"Do you realize that KJV's "before me" is Victorian English for "in my presence"?"

Okay.

To be fair, my question is really for non-trinitarians.

Do non-trinitarians worship Jesus? Do they avoid doing it in God's presence or do they believe that the prohibition of worshipping other gods is a part of the Law that can be ignored now?

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 4:32 PM  

Markku
Do you realize that KJV's "before me" is Victorian English for "in my presence"?

That's Early-Elizabethan English, you naughty linguist.

Anonymous Anonymous September 24, 2012 4:32 PM  

" part of the Law that can be ignored now"

I should have typed "part of the law that does not apply to Christians"

Blogger comreich September 24, 2012 4:38 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler September 24, 2012 4:40 PM  

Vox is right, Tiger. Here are further proofs:

(a) The parable of the Wine Skins. You can't pour New Wine (i.e. the Gospel) into old wine skins. The old Wine Skin is Judaism. This is why "Judaizing", which you are doing Tiger, is anathemitized. Christianity is not Jewish nor is a Jewish religion.

(b) Jesus either before or after this said, "The Faith will be TAKEN AWAY from you and given to another race...".

(c) The term "New Covenant" presupposes New ways of doing things. Christianity is the New Covenant. That means all things are New or rejuvenated.

Protestantism, Tiger, is Judaized Christianity. Roman Catholicism is rightly attacked as "pagan" because it is. Catholicism is the New Wine Skin that hold the New Wine of Jesus Christ. That is why it has "pagan" holidays. It is supposed to be that way!

Anonymous TLM September 24, 2012 4:48 PM  

Tigger is a prototypical false-teaching heretic cultist. In his case it's Doonesbury and these other fags he keeps bringing up. These types are all the same, constantly redirecting, failing to give succinct & direct answers, and the all-time favorite of playing word-game/historical semantics. You're nothing special and this kind of stupid s@it has been going on since the early church came about. And make no mistake, these freaks love the attention they get in comment threads to espouse their twisted beliefs.

Blogger JohnG September 24, 2012 4:52 PM  

It’s an interesting discussion; it popped up in a couple other places I was reading a couple weeks ago, one involving my brother who proudly exclaimed that homosexuality and other forms of depravity were just fine “because we’re not Jews”.

I think the assertion that we don’t have to follow the law is a little over broad or at least deserves caveats. Christians have been following a number of the tenets of the law for a long time. Maybe it’s just a semantic difference where Christians are not literally bound because they’re not Jews, but they better toe the line in other regards (10 commandments, abstaining from homosexuality, etc). What absolutely is not true is that the resurrection saved everybody so they can engage in any and every form of depravity and bad behavior forever and ever, amen, “because we’re not Jews”.

In a debate on authority, I would tend to side with what Jesus said over Paul. I blame a lot of this on the fallibility of men and the varieties of interpretation. Having interacted with a number of Arab Christians (Assyrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian), they don’t eat pork and think all of that is interpreted wrong (as an example).

Anonymous George September 24, 2012 4:53 PM  

This all begs the question:

Are Christians no longer obligated to espouse the scientific nincompoopery that emanates from the Old Testament?

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 4:54 PM  

Tiger mentioned that the early Church fathers are on his side. So, I did a search on "Mosaic" in Justin Martyr's, the very first father's from whom we have access to a large amount of writings, texts. Lived AD 100–ca.165 . I found these little gems:

----

and we know that the ordinances imposed by reason of the hardness of your people's hearts, contribute nothing to the performance of righteousness and of piety."

----

And Trypho again inquired, "But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he be saved?"

I said, "In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men, --I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so. This you did yourself at the commencement of the discourse, when you declared that I would not be saved unless I observe these institutions."

----

Feel free to see from the context that they are talking about Moses

So, if you happen to personally like the Mosaic law, knock yourself out. If you try to persuade others, you just may end up in Hell.

Anonymous Stickwick September 24, 2012 4:55 PM  

This all begs the question:

Are Christians no longer obligated to espouse the scientific nincompoopery that emanates from the Old Testament?


No, it does not beg the question. This is a stupid question, even for you.

Anonymous Toby Temple September 24, 2012 4:57 PM  


This all begs the question:

Are Christians no longer obligated to espouse the scientific nincompoopery that emanates from the Old Testament?


No, it doesn't. The discussion is on whether Christians should follow the law of Moses.

Christians follow the law of Christ.

Galatians 6:2
2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 4:58 PM  

Now I really want a Wheeler Tiger debate.

Vox, can you create a post for that, so they can fling rhetorical feces at each other for eternity?

Blogger JohnG September 24, 2012 4:59 PM  

*not Assyrian, Chaldean...

Anonymous George September 24, 2012 5:03 PM  

Stick wrote:

"This all begs the question:

Are Christians no longer obligated to espouse the scientific nincompoopery that emanates from the Old Testament?

No, it does not beg the question. This is a stupid question, even for you. "

Sure it does. After all, what and how exactly did the New Testament change about the what is to be believed.


Anonymous Anonymous September 24, 2012 5:03 PM  

Tiger's quest is nothing new. In Galatians a couple of (perhaps well-minded) Jewish-Christians were trying to perfect the simple gospel equation: Christ justifies us by grace through faith. They did it by simple addition. Faith wasn't enough - it needed a little boost of law to perfect it - (in this case circumcision and other aspects of the ceremonial law). Paul's response?

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8).

Adding law to Gospel is legalism, taking away the freedom we have in Christ making us prisoners to the law. Again Paul writes,

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Gal 5:1).

Put your Torah away Tiger. We don't need it. We have Christ.

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 5:06 PM  

After all, what and how exactly did the New Testament change about the what is to be believed.

Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament ever claimed that non-Jews should follow the Mosaic law. Nothing has changed. A new covenant has merely appeared alongside the old. In simple terms, a new contract that promises salvation, if you sign it. You can choose either one. But it would be very unwise to choose the old one.

The New Testament doesn't change any of the Old Testament's truth-claims.

Anonymous Stickwick September 24, 2012 5:11 PM  

Sure it does. After all, what and how exactly did the New Testament change about the what is to be believed.

It's a spectacularly stupid question, George. You should be able to tell from the context of the discussion -- if you've bothered to read through it -- that Christ didn't come along and say that the information in the OT was false, only that the old RULES no longer apply and was God instituting a new covenant. Or do you really think Christ was effectively saying, "Hey, guys, that stuff in the Torah about the creation of the universe? Yeah, I'm here to tell you it's all baloney. God and Moses just told that to the Hebrews for kicks." ?

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 5:11 PM  

That's Early-Elizabethan English, you naughty linguist.

The expressions belong to many eras, but I have the impression that Victorian Era was the last era to contain many (perhaps most) of them, and therefore the charge against KJV that anyone from Post-Victorian era will misunderstand much of it.

I cannot guarantee that this is correct, as I don't remember where I heard it.

Anonymous Stickwick September 24, 2012 5:12 PM  

... and God WAS instituting ...

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 5:12 PM  

Markku, the old covenant is gone. There is only the new covenant now, in God's eyes. The old covenant was put away like an old garment.

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 5:17 PM  

Markku, the old covenant is gone. There is only the new covenant now, in God's eyes. The old covenant was put away like an old garment.

Nope.

Hbr 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Becoming obsolete had already happened, but vanishing was still in the future. In practice, however, there is nobody who is going to be saved anymore according to the Old Covenant, as the sacrificial system is no longer there. So, you have to do it 100% perfectly.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 5:20 PM  

TLM
And make no mistake, these freaks love the attention they get in comment threads to espouse their twisted beliefs.

Alas, TLM, Christians are under world-contrary orders to gently, respectfully and in good conscience, feed the trolls. 1 Peter 3:15-16.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 5:22 PM  

Markku
Becoming obsolete had already happened, but vanishing was still in the future. In practice, however, there is nobody who is going to be saved anymore according to the Old Covenant, as the sacrificial system is no longer there. So, you have to do it 100% perfectly.

Unless I'm misreading, here's an error. Even back in the old days, you were never going to be saved by the Law, with or without sacrifices.

Anonymous Outlaw X September 24, 2012 5:23 PM  

A priest gave a homily years ago that I vaguely remember. When Jesus died on the cross there was a curtian of some kind that the Jews used and it seems like it could only be entered by certian person(s) on a certian(s) day. The significance being now all could enter into the new covenant.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 5:23 PM  

Sure it does. After all, what and how exactly did the New Testament change about the what is to be believed.

Here's what you're doing, George.

You watch an NFL game, and see a player's knee hit the ground without being touched by a defender. Someone tells you that, in college football, if a player's knee hits the ground, the play stops regardless of a defender making contact. The rules are different.

You then ask, "well, if a player's knee can touch the ground in the NFL, why are you saying the field is still 120 yds long?"

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 5:23 PM  

Alas, TLM, Christians are under world-contrary orders to gently, respectfully and in good conscience, feed the trolls. 1 Peter 3:15-16.

Besides, this is not some exotic heresy that we're never likely to encounter again. AS it has been pointed out, Judaizers have been around for 2000 years. This is informative for many people who maybe haven't encountered them yet.

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 5:25 PM  

Even back in the old days, you were never going to be saved by the Law, with or without sacrifices.

I think they were saved because they had faith in the coming Messiah, and the sacrifices were symbols of his death. Now that the actual reality has arrived, it does no good to reject the reality but persist with its symbol. And that is what obsoletes the sacrifices.

But if you DID manage to be 100% sinless, then what could God condemn you of? The theoretical possibility is still there.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 24, 2012 5:31 PM  

Josh: Now I really want a Wheeler Tiger debate.

"Laaaaaadies and gentlemennnnn, in the white corner, hailing from Sparta--the Amazing Grecophile! And fighting out of the brown corner, the fast and furious Pharisee--the Judaizer!"

You could get a sweet take on pay-per-view, my friend.

Anonymous stg58 September 24, 2012 5:35 PM  

The Sultan of The Sabbath! The Master of The Matzah! The Ayatollah of Holy Rollah!

TIGERRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 24, 2012 5:43 PM  

The Terror of Thermopylae! The 301st Spartan! The Pagan Sensation!

W! LINDSAY! WHEEEEEEEL-ERRRRRRRRR!

Anonymous Sam Scott September 24, 2012 5:47 PM  

Vox,

Your opinion is not credible on this, Tiger. You were already shown to be wrong at Alpha Game. Why don't you be quiet and let the actual Jews tell us what is the official Jewish position... to the extent that one can be said to exist.

I'm wicked busy because tomorrow night is Yom Kippur, but either tonight or tomorrow I will review all the comments and give an objective, concise overview on how Jews have viewed the Torah (and how it relates to non-Jews) through its sects from the Second Temple period through today. I just want to give the facts -- people can interpret them as they wish.

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 5:48 PM  

My money is on Epic Beard

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim September 24, 2012 5:58 PM  

My money is on Epic Beard

(Heaven and Earth, Septimius Severus lives!)

What, you don't think Tiger has a Beard of Power as well?

Blogger The Aardvark September 24, 2012 6:00 PM  

Hbr 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Becoming obsolete had already happened, but vanishing was still in the future.--Markku


But then, in 70AD, it vanished away. The Temple, the Altar, the Holy Place, the Most Holy Place, the priesthood, the Levites, all gone with the destruction of Jerusalem. The Temple burned, and every stone was moved so Roman soldiers could dig bits of molten gold from between 'em.

No sacrifices, no washings...all gone.

Blogger Ted Walther September 24, 2012 6:03 PM  

The daily sacrifice continued after 70AD; they rebuilt the altar. Anyhow, the covenant was not the altar or the daily offering. The covenant was an eternal one with Israel, from generation to generation. When did that covenant go away?

Blogger Ted Walther September 24, 2012 6:09 PM  

Sam Scott, I'm sure your post will be interesting and informative, but Vox has tried a misdirect in this discussion; what matters is what Tanakh says. The prophecies in Isaiah 66, Ezekiel 44, and so forth, confirm Deuteronomy 4. Unless he wishes with a straight face, to say that wisdom and understanding is reserved to Israel only, and the Gentiles are left with the capacity to recognize wisdom and understanding when they see it... then not be allowed or even desired to practice that which they see.

Yom Kippur starts in a couple hours; may it be a time of renewal and blessing for us both.

Anonymous TLM September 24, 2012 6:13 PM  

That scripture doesnt apply in this instance Daniel. I dealt with. That dude over at AG. His goal is sow dissent and put people in bondage. That is false teaching and deserves noothing but scorn and ridicule.

Blogger The Aardvark September 24, 2012 6:14 PM  

Read Jesus' statements is Matthew 24 for starters. Jesus warns of the national consequences of rejecting him as Messiah. He is speaking TO the Jews at the time. Aside from the (relatively)few Jewish followers of Jesus, they rejected him as Messiah, and as the wicked sharecroppers in the parable, they were rejected, and the vineyard given to those who would produce fruit.

That they chose to continue the daily sacrifice is irrelevant. God's judgment was clear: the Temple was gone.

Anonymous Josh September 24, 2012 6:15 PM  

Wait, I thought that tiger and ted were the same person...

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 6:18 PM  

Outlaw X
A priest gave a homily years ago that I vaguely remember. When Jesus died on the cross there was a curtian of some kind that the Jews used and it seems like it could only be entered by certian person(s) on a certian(s) day. The significance being now all could enter into the new covenant.

I'd only amplify that. The veil that ripped was several (5? 7? I don't remember: it's a really big curtain) stories tall and separated the "Holy of Holies" (where God made his presence on earth - an area that could only be approached once per year by a single, ritually cleansed high priest - it was where the Ark of the Covenant was kept) from the rest of the world.

Basically, His death coincided with the presence of God leaving the temple and Christ becoming a new way (new covenant) by which to enter into relationship with God. This is what Paul talks about in Hebrews 10 when he says:

Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.

The veil ripped - the Presence of God was no longer separated by the Law (this is also what allows for the 1st Indiana Jones movie - if there had been no Jesus, it is unlikely that the Ark containing the Old Covenant would have been lost to history). Jesus is now the High Priest who intercedes: We don’t have to go through a cleansed person once a year, here on earth, to reach God anymore.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 6:18 PM  

Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Numbers 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

One Law. For Jew and Gentile.

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 6:23 PM  

Daniel, you are confusing the veil of the sanctuary with the Law. The ripping of one didn't mean the abolishment of the other. You were right at first when you read Hebrews; the sacrificial system NEVER existed for salvation. So all the discussion about salvation vs. the law is a red herring and irrelevant. The Law served other functions, which it continues to serve. Law and Covenant are different entities as well. For many years in Exile, the temple didn't exist. In the wilderness there was only a tabernacle. Before that there was no tabernacle or temple. Yet the Law existed since the time of Adam.

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 6:24 PM  

Gentile

It seems like you forgot a qualifier. It's right there in your quote...

Anonymous Tiger September 24, 2012 6:26 PM  

Markku. Jesus was a Jew. When you join his body/ecclessia, you are sojourning with Him. His Laws, his Rules, apply.

Blogger Markku September 24, 2012 6:27 PM  

Let's see what this sojourner is, shall we? Ooh, this is so exciting!

Exd 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Anonymous Kyle In Japan September 24, 2012 6:29 PM  

The reason for confusion regarding the law is due to misunderstanding morality and ritual purity. Much of the OT law concerns ritual purity.

Christians are no long under the laws concerning purity and temple worship - namely, because the system of worship is fulfilled and changed under Christ. We no longer go to the temple to make sacrifices; rather, we ARE the temple of the Holy Spirit, and make spiritual sacrifices as an act of worship.

On the other hand, the parts of the law concerning morality are just as applicable as ever, and what God considers to be right and wrong - about murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc. - has not changed. (Or, if anything, it's more strict - see the sermon on the mount, Jesus on divorce, etc.) Fortunately, as Christians our salvation is not dependent on our morality since (as the aforementioned sermon makes clear), God's standard is so high that nobody but Jesus can actually keep it, anyway.

Anonymous George September 24, 2012 6:36 PM  

Stick said:

"Or do you really think Christ was effectively saying, "Hey, guys, that stuff in the Torah about the creation of the universe? Yeah, I'm here to tell you it's all baloney. God and Moses just told that to the Hebrews for kicks."?"

It's about as reliable and believable explanation as much else in the new testament, and a heck of a lot more plausible than the much of the science in the Old Testament.

Anonymous Daniel September 24, 2012 6:39 PM  

Tiger, stop mixing Mosaic Law with your version of pre-Adamic law. Those simply can't be treated so carelessly.

1 – 200 of 346 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts