For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[Pegg]

Basically your argument boils down to "No one really needs the law to begin with".

You have no argument.

You must think James and the Jerusalem Church were a bunch of stubborn rebels.

You are a doer of lawlessness and you are preaching to break even the least of the commandments. Jesus was clear about people like you. As sure as God lives, you violate what Jesus actually taught.

ok, i'll take that on board

 

[captainbryce]

Your analogy and explanation makes no sense in this particular argument. It's not like you subscribe to the law but sometimes sin because of weakness... if so, then we're somewhat on the same page. However, from what I've read until now, you don't even feel that the law applies to you, as a Christian. So your analogy is flawed, or perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying...

I believe you may be confusing two different issues. I think I've made it abundantly clear at this point that Mosaic laws do not apply to Gentiles (nor have they ever applied to Gentiles). I'm talking about obeying the instructions and commands of Jesus Christ (which is what Shermana was talking about). Shermana is correct in that Christians have the responsibility of living in a way that pleases God, and we believe that Christ being a perfect reflection of God is the person we should try to emulate and that we should live in accordance with his teachings, and that of his apostles. So while we may not be slaves under the yoke of the law, as Paul says, we are still required to submit ourselves to God. And despite the fact that mosaic laws are nonbinding on Gentiles, there are many laws that were carried forward from the OT as teachings from Christ and the Apostles (ie: murder is still a sin). Now, with that in mind, that should make my previous statement make more sense to you.

 

[dantech]

I believe you may be confusing two different issues. I think I've made it abundantly clear at this point that Mosaic laws do not apply to Gentiles (nor have they ever applied to Gentiles). I'm talking about obeying the instructions and commands of Jesus Christ (which is what Shermana was talking about). Shermana is correct in that Christians have the responsibility of living in a way that pleases God, and we believe that Christ being a perfect reflection of God is the person we should try to emulate and that we should live in accordance with his teachings, and that of his apostles. So while we may not be slaves under the yoke of the law, as Paul says, we are still required to submit ourselves to God. And despite the fact that mosaic laws are nonbinding on Gentiles, there are many laws that were carried forward from the OT as teachings from Christ and the Apostles (ie: murder is still a sin). Now, with that in mind, that should make my previous statement make more sense to you.

You say a few laws carried over. How did they decide which laws are more important than the others?

 

[james2ko]

Please note the questions I ask here are not meant to be disrespectful, I am just trying to understand a few things that seem illogical to me. I have stumbled upon the following few verses, and they confuse me. But if that is true, how is it that Christians don't follow all the laws that the Jews do. How is it that they don't do the Sabbath, that they don't keep Kosher, or let the earth rest every 7 years?

Some Christians (a very small percentage) do keep these laws.

Also another thing I was thinking to myself. If we know the Messiah needs to be a descendant of King David, how could it be that Jesus was both a descendant of David, and the son of God.

This post may provide some insight:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3442436-post201.html

Basically, my question to you is this. After reading these verses, it is pretty clear that Jesus agrees that the Old Testament is the true word of God. He goes even further and says that we should fulfill these laws, and not ignore a single "iota" or "dot" from these laws.

I believe the New Covenant applies to Jacob's physical descendants from both houses (Judah and Israel-Jer 31:31-33; Heb 8:8-10) which entails keeping the aspects of the "law" that still apply literally or in principle. To make sense of the NT authors regarding the part of the law that still applies, it needs to be divided into three elements---moral (Ten Commandments) civil and sacrificial.

The sacrificial system, along with its rituals and ordinances, was the portion of the "law" that was "done away" or more accurately said, "temporarily suspended" until right before the Messiah returns (Dan 12:11). This is the main point of confusion with most Christians. They believe the whole Mosaic Law was "done away" when what was really "temporarily suspended"--due to Christ's sacrifice--were the elements of the Mosaic Law that involved atonement for sin (sacrifices, rituals, an associated temple ordinances) as well as the requirement for circumcision.

 

[captainbryce]

Yes it does.

Yet Jesus outlawed divorce except for the circumstance where one or the other commits adultery.

A man who divorces a faithful wife, and who marries another, is an adulterer.

I don't interpret that exactly the same way you do. First of all, I don't believe that Jesus actually "outlawed" anything. He gave specific commands and instructions to his followers, but Jesus didn't actually create any laws, nor did he abolish any laws. He merely interpreted God's law for the people and fulfilled their purpose.

Matthew 5:31-32
31 “You have heard the law that says, ‘A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a written notice of divorce.’ 32 But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.

Jesus says that a man who divorce his wife, "causes her to commit adultery". But this is not an absolute, nor is it a condemnation of the woman, it is a warning to the man that this becomes a possibility should either of them remarry. It is not fair to the woman for a man to divorce her for no reason, but then she would not be able to remarry without being considered an adulteress. Jesus also goes further in Matthew 19 when pressed on the issue by the Pharisees who were testing him.

Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

And Paul elaborates on Jesus' commandment in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

This passage reaffirms that it is not against the law for a woman to divorce (even outside of marital infidelity), although it is strongly recommended that she doesn't. There are provisions for divorce (even outside of marital infidelity) as illustrated in 1 Corinthians 7.

1 Corinthians 7:12-15
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Obviously, if a woman has married a man who is not following Christ, and doesn't want to be in a "Christian" marriage, she has no obligation to remain with that man. Divorcing itself doesn't make one an adulterer, but one cannot remarry after divorcing (as this would constitute adultery). Also seen in Luke 16:18. Widows however can remarry without being considered adulterers.

Romans 7:2-3
2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

 

[captainbryce]

You say a few laws carried over. How did they decide which laws are more important than the others?

Well I didn't say "few". For instance, nine of the ten commandments are repeated in some way in the New Testament. The logical conclusion would be that any laws dealing strictly with universal morality would still be taught by Christ and the Apostles. Anything not specifically related to the Jewish people, but something God would have expected from every righteous man, is something that would still apply. The only reason Mosaic laws and the covenant of Abraham would no longer be applicable is because the Old Covenant is replaced by the new one. So things like circumcision, or dietary restrictions, or animal sacrifice, or specific laws of judgement/punishment for lawbreakers wouldn't be applicable now because those were commands that were specific to the nation of Israel. Today, secular laws would obviously contradict stoning disobedient children to death, or executing homosexuals for being gay. And the purpose for why I call the "separation laws" (laws established specifically to save the Jewish race) has been fulfilled with the coming and death of the messiah. But clearly, murder and idolatry would be considered sins for every man that believes in God, irrespective of whether or not they are Jew or Gentile.

 

[dantech]

Well I didn't say "few". For instance, nine of the ten commandments are repeated in some way in the New Testament. The logical conclusion would be that any laws dealing strictly with universal morality would still be taught by Christ and the Apostles. Anything not specifically related to the Jewish people, but something God would have expected from every righteous man, is something that would still apply. The only reason Mosaic laws and the covenant of Abraham would no longer be applicable is because the Old Covenant is replaced by the new one. So things like circumcision, or dietary restrictions, or animal sacrifice, or specific laws of judgement/punishment for lawbreakers wouldn't be applicable now because those were commands that were specific to the nation of Israel. Today, secular laws would obviously contradict stoning disobedient children to death, or executing homosexuals for being gay. And the purpose for why I call the "separation laws" (laws established specifically to save the Jewish race) has been fulfilled with the coming and death of the messiah. But clearly, murder and idolatry would be considered sins for every man that believes in God, irrespective of whether or not they are Jew or Gentile.

Where did you learn that the NT replaces the "old one"?

 

[captainbryce]

Where did you learn that the NT replaces the "old one"?

The New Covenant, not the New Testament. The New Testament follows the Old Testament, not replaces it. But the laws of the OT that apply to Jews under the Old Covenant are no longer applicable to those who are part of the New Covenant.

 

[dantech]

The New Covenant, not the New Testament. The New Testament follows the Old Testament, not replaces it. But the laws of the OT that apply to Jews under the Old Covenant are no longer applicable to those who are part of the New Covenant.

Okay, Where do you learn that the New Covenant replaces the previous one?

When Moses made a covenant with God, the Israelites didn't stop circumcising, did they? What evidence do you have that shows that when a new covenant is made, that it replaces the previous one.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Okay, Where do you learn that the New Covenant replaces the previous one?

When Moses made a covenant with God, the Israelites didn't stop circumcising, did they? What evidence do you have that shows that when a new covenant is made, that it replaces the previous one.

Wasn't the Covenant three parts?

The Covenant with Noah was with all Living things (the Rainbow)

The Covenant of Abraham and his descendants (Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau)

And finally a Covenant with Israel (Worship me only).

God has those three covenants. The one with Gentiles would not at all replace the one with Israel.

 

[dantech]

Wasn't the Covenant three parts?

The Covenant with Noah was with all Living things (the Rainbow)

The Covenant of Abraham and his descendants (Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau)

And finally a Covenant with Israel (Worship me only).

God has those three covenants. The one with Gentiles would not at all replace the one with Israel.

But God didn't make that covenant with Gentiles. He made it with Jesus (a Jew), and most of his followers were Jews. Most non-converted Gentiles today probably have Jewish ancestors from 2000 years ago.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But God didn't make that covenant with Gentiles. He made it with Jesus (a Jew), and most of his followers were Jews. Most non-converted Gentiles today probably have Jewish ancestors from 2000 years ago.

That is true as well.

Though we don't know if Jesus was a Jew lol (j/k)

Though isn't the covenant with Noah with all living things including gentiles?

 

[dantech]

That is true as well.

Though we don't know if Jesus was a Jew lol (j/k)

Though isn't the covenant with Noah with all living things including gentiles?

Yes, according to Jewish Scripture.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes, according to Jewish Scripture.

And that Covenant at best is simply "not to destroy the world with water?"

 

[dantech]

And that Covenant at best is simply "not to destroy the world with water?"

That's God's side of the covenant.
but there is more... Read Genesis 9

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That's God's side of the covenant.
but there is more... Read Genesis 9

So that is the deal with all mankind?

 

[dantech]

So that is the deal with all mankind?

According to Jewish Scripture.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

According to Jewish Scripture.

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

That seems to be the explicit covenant, is there a Midrash that expounds on it?

 

[dantech]

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

That seems to be the explicit covenant, is there a Midrash that expounds on it?

There are many Midrashim on the subject. What exactly is it exactly that you are looking to understand?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There are many Midrashim on the subject. What exactly is it exactly that you are looking to understand?

Well in the Christian Bible the Covenant of God seems to be explicitly about "Killing with Water"

Is the entire chapter "noahs sacrifice with his sons" part of the entire covenant or just that one part?