Old Testament to Christians

dantech said:

To me, the whole "weightier" argument doesn't make sense. It doesn't say which is worse, anywhere. I'll give you an example.
In the Torah, it says three times that we shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. It only talks about homosexual sex twice though. There's nothing immoral about homosexuality or eating a goat that was boiled in its mother's milk. So how do you decide which is "weightier"?

Click to expand...

Dude!!!!!!!!!! I hate iPads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I accidentally posted that incomplete post -then added much which addressed why things are weightier -and accidentally erased it all -I will post again when I'm on the PC -sorry.

nazz said:

Where does Paul tell Jews it is okay to break the Sabbath? Where does he tell Jews not to be circumcised?

Click to expand...

Jewish Christians. I'm not sure what Paul would think about the obligations for those Jews who were not members of the body of Christ, but I think it is pretty clear that he believes Jewish Christians were no longer under an obligation to observe the law. This might just be a function of the end being nigh, but quite apart from theology, I think that it represented a sociological imperative, and possibly an internal dispute following whatever consensus may have been reached at an earlier point. Seems most apparent in Romans.

As a practical matter, I'm not sure that it made much of a difference because I don't think Christianity and Judaism were quite separate at this point, although there was almost certainly (considerable) pressure being placed on the Jewish Christians to keep Gentiles in conformity with the legal requirements, including Sabbath observance (if not fasting, which was a distinctly Roman Judean practice I believe). That is to say, I think that the Jewish Christians were probably going to keep these practices, notwithstanding any liberalization trend. I suppose it is possible that Paul is suggesting fasting is the only disputable issue, but Corinthians would seem to suggest that Paul himself was somewhat flexible on observance (1 Corinthians 9:20-21). Is he being coy? I suppose it is possible. But it seems like he was far more focused on the messianic transformation that he anticipated was imminent.

I'm not suggesting Paul hated the law or believed that it served no purpose, I just don't have the impression that he believed it was necessary. If he believed that Christ signified something new and momentous, I don't see why he would believe Jewish Christians had to continue following the law, since, in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, etc.

nazz said:

Well in my original reply I said that most Christians believe in keeping the moral laws of the Bible. My last reply was an elaboration on that that bring to light the source of some of the things prohibited to both Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Noachide law prohibits sexual immorality. That includes anal sex between men. At least that is the understanding I derived in my study of it.

No one, to my knowledge, is saying all these laws do not come from the same source, the Torah. Some prohibitions, such as certain homosexual practices, are repeated in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

I think that is right. I still have my doubts about what the ancient understanding of the prohibition was, given that the idiom appears only twice (really once; one in the commandment addressing the presumably insertive partner,then repeated in the punishment section) and is very awkward and unusual in its pairings of the gendered subjects. It also appears to have been edited to add the penalty for the passive partner, per Saul Olyan (who did the best work on it so far that I've read).

The earliest rabbinic sources are, I think, around 300 CE, but both Philo and Josephus have a negative view of at least some forms of sex between men. It is very hard to reach into their minds, however, because they also seem to assume a parity of status, which is not all that different from the Roman view, if they also regard slaves as acceptable sexual outlets but penalized citizen submissives or those who took advantage of citizens. Still, compared to Paul Philo, at least, is clear.

gsaseeker said:

Jewish Christians. I'm not sure what Paul would think about the obligations for those Jews who were not members of the body of Christ, but I think it is pretty clear that he believes Jewish Christians were no longer under an obligation to observe the law. This might just be a function of the end being nigh, but quite apart from theology, I think that it represented a sociological imperative, and possibly an internal dispute following whatever consensus may have been reached at an earlier point. Seems most apparent in Romans.

As a practical matter, I'm not sure that it made much of a difference because I don't think Christianity and Judaism were quite separate at this point, although there was almost certainly (considerable) pressure being placed on the Jewish Christians to keep Gentiles in conformity with the legal requirements, including Sabbath observance (if not fasting, which was a distinctly Roman Judean practice I believe). That is to say, I think that the Jewish Christians were probably going to keep these practices, notwithstanding any liberalization trend. I suppose it is possible that Paul is suggesting fasting is the only disputable issue, but Corinthians would seem to suggest that Paul himself was somewhat flexible on observance (1 Corinthians 9:20-21). Is he being coy? I suppose it is possible. But it seems like he was far more focused on the messianic transformation that he anticipated was imminent.

I'm not suggesting Paul hated the law or believed that it served no purpose, I just don't have the impression that he believed it was necessary. If he believed that Christ signified something new and momentous, I don't see why he would believe Jewish Christians had to continue following the law, since, in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, etc.

Click to expand...

I was looking for some specific quotes from Paul on those issues. Did you have any?

nazz said:

I was looking for some specific quotes from Paul on those issues. Did you have any?

Click to expand...

Which ones? Romans 14 is the potential Sabbath reference, and there's 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, where he says "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. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law." But there's scholarship (see also here) that attacks the replacement covenant thesis. That this issue of replacement covenants is still being debated demonstrates the absurdity of anti-Jewish attitudes among certain conservative Christians today, since it seems like an easy one to resolve to me, but the part that might interest you is the support for the idea that he would not have let Jews off the hook for Torah observance. One argument is that he is using prosopopeia to make an argument.

Of course, my read on Paul is colored by Protestantism and some two thousand years. If the best the heathens could be expected to do was refrain from deviant sex and idolatry that might very well better explain Paul's softening of the legal requirements.

Phil Harland also has a number of podcasts available that go into this; I haven't listened to the associations series (his book is free though), but the few on Paul were pretty good.

dantech said:

-Exodus 35:3

Is kindling a fire forbidden on the Sabbath? Is eating pork forbidden to Christians?

Click to expand...

dantech said:

To me, the whole "weightier" argument doesn't make sense. It doesn't say which is worse, anywhere. I'll give you an example.
In the Torah, it says three times that we shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. It only talks about homosexual sex twice though. There's nothing immoral about homosexuality or eating a goat that was boiled in its mother's milk. So how do you decide which is "weightier"?

Click to expand...

Great question!

I remember something about not wearing clothing woven of two fabrics, too. I wondered If I still needed to do that -but focused on the weightier matters. Now I'm thinking about it again.

Immediately, I thought of this verse about tithing in Matthew....

hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone

Then I thought about the annual sabbaths. There is a verse in the NT which says of the Passover days of unleavened bread... which is still kept by some, but without the sacrifice...

Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I believe the dietary laws are still in effect -but are not a weightier matter. I also believe the sabbath and annual holy days to be extremely important as they impart knowledge and understanding of God's plan.

As for the sabbath, some disregard the commandment altogether -and on the other end of the spectrum, some try to avoid anything that could possibly be considered work by any definition.
Christ's apostles were accused of breaking the sabbath by gleaning corn -which could be considered an infraction of the letter of the law. Christ was more focused on the spirit of the law. He gave an example of pulling an ox out of a pit on the sabbath.

The point being that while it is good to prepare for the sabbath -to avoid servile work, enabling one to rest and focus on the things of God -if one happens to be in a position of unpreparedness (not having food with them as in the case of the apostles) due to this or that, or if life throws one a curve ball (ox in a ditch) -freaking out about the particulars can get in the way of the underlying point of the law.

Christ essentially overlooked the minor infraction of gleaning corn. He overlooked the matter. He had mercy -he showed good judgment and considered the overall situation.

Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

For example.... while it would be best for someone (if they were still a wood burner in this day and age) in a cold climate to prepare and light their fire for warmth before the sabbath, if they happened to not have prepared, it would not help them rest and focus on the things of God to go into hypothermia.

With ancient Israel -when God's spirit was not widely available, God was much more strict about the letter of the law to prepare that nation to focus their minds on keeping the letter of the law -whereas Christ turned the focus toward keeping the spirit of the law.

Exo 16:2 And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness:
Exo 16:3 And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.
Exo 16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.
Exo 16:5 And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily

It was a bit like having an employer give you all sorts of grunt work when first hired -seeing what sort of person you are -then later turning focus to the important business.
(There is no such thing as a board stretcher, by the way -though I once actually did have to sharpen a shovel)

During the time of Christ, the groundwork had already been laid for the next phase of the plan.

So -the commandment was still in effect. The sabbath was still to be kept -but they would now be able to keep it even better, as the focus was no longer on particulars, but on spiritual things. While some were so caught up with whether or not someone gleaned corn, others were focused on the awesome spiritual things being revealed. It was understandable that those people were focused on the particulars -as God had trained them to be (though some went way overboard and made up particulars of their own) -but it was now time to shift focus and build on that foundation.

As for homosexuality, you wrote... "There's nothing immoral about homosexuality"

One could argue that there is nothing immoral about working on the sabbath -but that one would not be focused on God as the one who defines morality -so one might then also throw out the first commandment.

The commandment concerning adultery -which includes not having sex before or outside of marriage -which, by the biblical definition, is a man and woman being in a committed relationship, becoming one flesh, and being monogamous while both are alive -is still in effect.
THAT IS THE MORAL -and anything else is IMMORAL.

The commandments have purpose. The one about adultery assures that children are raised in the best possible situation -which leads to a strong, healthy society.

Even if one sees no logical worldly reason why people of the same sex should not marry, obedience to God -universal order -is crucial to being able to live forever and create without conflict. That is the reason for the first commandment.

There are good reasons why homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage are "immoral" -not ideal -do not lead to the best possible outcome -the commandment is not arbitrary -but an individual has to look into the matter themselves with an open mind. A homosexual couple raising a child can be a better situation than another situation -and they can raise wonderful children -but respect for God and his law would not be taught by example or otherwise. That in itself is not ideal.

I'll have to look into the milk thing, specifically -but some of the laws of the old testament concerned health, disease prevention, quarantine, etc. -such as not eating an animal which has died of itself. Those are still good things -no reason to leave them undone.

As for what is weightier -the spirit of the law is weightier than the letter -and the commandments which do not change are weightier than the judgments which do.

It is good that one refrain from murder, but they may still have murder in their heart. The weightier matter is the hatred in a man which leads to murder.

When Christ called judgment, mercy, and faith weightier than tithing -he still said the other should not be left undone.

gsaseeker said:

Which ones? Romans 14 is the potential Sabbath reference

Click to expand...

Here is the passage:

Rom 14:5
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.

This is not counseling Jewish Christians to disregard the Sabbath. It's recognizing that in the mixed Roman congregation some observe it and some don't and that is fine according to Paul. Those who would be observing it would be Jews and perhaps some Gentiles.

nazz said:

Here is the passage:

Rom 14:5
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.

This is not counseling Jewish Christians to disregard the Sabbath. It's recognizing that in the mixed Roman congregation some observe it and some don't and that is fine according to Paul. Those who would be observing it would be Jews and perhaps some Gentiles.

Click to expand...

Well I think that is the key distinction. I really am parsing with Paul (I still suspect he's heretical from a Second Temple perspective but that's an unnecessary digression), but for good reason: As I said, I do not think he completely devalues the law. He has a political (or pastoral if one prefers) role to play when he counsels Christian communities, which at this point are composed of both Jews and Gentiles. He is keeping the peace. Nothing here (necessarily) suggests that he believes the observance of Torah is necessary for Jews versus Gentiles; you are quite right, I think that it would mostly be Jews observing; overwhelmingly in fact.

But I also think he is basically allowing Jews to disregard it. Not controversial from our perspective, but it is from a Jewish perspective at the time. Like Gentiles, they're in Christ and arguably under no obligation to observe the Sabbath. Is that strictly a necessary byproduct of opening the gates for Gentile Christians to disregard it? Dunno; there's even another possible reading that he is strictly referring to fasting practices and is only concerned with a controversial Judean practice largely restricted to Rome. I think he goes beyond that but others disagree.

nazz said:

Here is the passage:

Rom 14:5
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.

This is not counseling Jewish Christians to disregard the Sabbath. It's recognizing that in the mixed Roman congregation some observe it and some don't and that is fine according to Paul. Those who would be observing it would be Jews and perhaps some Gentiles.

Click to expand...

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.

Nowhere does it say that it is fine with Paul that some do not observe the sabbath -neither would Paul have had the authority to teach any to disregard a commandment -even gentiles. It is referring to the holy days -one holy day over another -not one day of the week over another.
Certainly not the customs of men over the law of God.

Only God's sabbath and holy days are HOLY.

nazz said:

Where does Paul tell Jews it is okay to break the Sabbath? Where does he tell Jews not to be circumcised?

Click to expand...

1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.…(Galatians 5:1-3)

dantech said:

To me, the whole "weightier" argument doesn't make sense. It doesn't say which is worse, anywhere. I'll give you an example.
In the Torah, it says three times that we shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. It only talks about homosexual sex twice though. There's nothing immoral about homosexuality or eating a goat that was boiled in its mother's milk. So how do you decide which is "weightier"?

Click to expand...

I made a distinction between wearing garments of two different sorts of fibers and weightier matters of the law.
I actually do try to buy clothing of one sort of fiber -but sometimes I end up wearing something else. Life moves rather fast these days.
Let's say I get a call from someone who is in desperate need of help... and it's freezing outside.... and I have to walk a few miles to help them so they don't freeze....
and all I have available is a coat made of different sorts of fibers.
Do I call them back and tell them "Sorry -only a coat of different fibers here -I can't wear it, and without it I would also freeze before I got there -so good luck"
Or... do I wear the coat and love my neighbor? Which is weightier?

Ecc 7:15 All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.
Ecc 7:16 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
Ecc 7:17 Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?

This can get a bit tricky -because there is a line to be drawn. There is a point at which one should refuse regardless of the potential consequences.

nazz said:

Where does Paul tell Jews it is okay to break the Sabbath? Where does he tell Jews not to be circumcised?

Click to expand...

…4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.…(Romans 14:4-6)

roger1440 said:

1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no ben efit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.…(Galatians 5:1-3)

Click to expand...

An angry rant against Christian Jewish opponents who infiltrated his beloved and decidedly Gentile congregation. I mean, we have to be clear about what he is actually opposing. You really think he is directing Jews not to circumcise?

gsaseeker said:

Well I think that is the key distinction. I really am parsing with Paul (I still suspect he's heretical from a Second Temple perspective but that's an unnecessary digression), but for good reason: As I said, I do not think he completely devalues the law. He has a political (or pastoral if one prefers) role to play when he counsels Christian communities, which at this point are composed of both Jews and Gentiles. He is keeping the peace. Nothing here (necessarily) suggests that he believes the observance of Torah is necessary for Jews versus Gentiles; you are quite right, I think that it would mostly be Jews observing; overwhelmingly in fact.

But I also think he is basically allowing Jews to disregard it. Not controversial from our perspective, but it is from a Jewish perspective at the time. Like Gentiles, they're in Christ and arguably under no obligation to observe the Sabbath. Is that strictly a necessary byproduct of opening the gates for Gentile Christians to disregard it? Dunno; there's even another possible reading that he is strictly referring to fasting practices and is only concerned with a controversial Judean practice largely restricted to Rome. I think he goes beyond that but others disagree.

Click to expand...

I don't know that Paul ever thought through fully the implications of what he was creating, a united community following two sets of rules. He lived in expectation that Jesus would be returning very soon so he may have not seen it as an issue.

roger1440 said:

1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.…(Galatians 5:1-3)

Click to expand...

You missed what I underlined--JEWS. Paul is talking to Gentiles in that letter. Elsewhere he says:

1Co 7:18
Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.

Paul also had Timothy circumcised because his mother was Jewish (Acts 16:3)

If they really believed the OT was obselete, they wouldnt preach from it.

For any who wish to read a comprehensive argument for how Paul abolished Sabbath:

Paul Abolished Sabbath

Simplelogic said:

For any who wish to read a comprehensive argument for how Paul abolished Sabbath:

Paul Abolished Sabbath

Click to expand...

Yashua Messiah abolished Sabbath KEEPING on the cross with ALL of The Law - not The ETERNAL Sabbath. Hebrews teaches that we SHOULD now enter Yashua Messiah's Sabbath REST if we BELIEVE.

Some cannot enter His Eternal Sabbath Rest, like the rebellious Israelites that could not enter the Promised Land because of unbelief.

Simplelogic said:

For any who wish to read a comprehensive argument for how Paul abolished Sabbath:

Paul Abolished Sabbath

Click to expand...

Pure rubbish. Even if Paul had attempted to do this the early church never got the memo:

Early Christian observance of both spiritual seventh-day sabbath and Lord's Day assembly is evidenced in Ignatius's letter to the Magnesians ca. 110.[6][7] The Pseudo-Ignatian additions amplified this point by combining weekly observance of spiritual seventh-day sabbath with the Lord's assembly.[8] If Pseudo-Ignatius dates as early as 140, its admonition must be considered important evidence on 2nd-century sabbath and Lord's Day observance.[9] According to classical sources, widespread seventh-day sabbath rest by gentile Christians was also the prevailing mode in the 3rd and 4th centuries.[1][2]

Click to expand...

source: Sabbath in seventh-day churches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See this post about the way scripture translations are distorting the words and usually 'unbelief' in an English translation of the Bible is really 'unfaithfulness' that has been posthumously mistranslated. So rather than condemning people with doubts Bible passages are meant to encourage integrity.