Christians! Now which Mosaic Laws are still in force for you?

[oldbadger]

It's a tricky subject. You do things Moses' way or Jesus' way and they both have the same end in mind, but Jesus' way is more about the spirit of the law and Moses' way is more about the letter of the law.

You can do Moses' laws. There's just no requirement except for the ten commandments. Whatever works, but a Christian should remember the atonement of Jesus Christ as motivation.

Hello again...... so you can do things two ways, Moses' way or Jesus's way, but only the 10 Commandments from the OT, sort of?

OK. So how do you feel about the death penalty for some crimes?

 

[oldbadger]

Correct.

What is the best gospel for that guidance from Jesus, please? Those two 'first' instructions?

 

[oldbadger]

Could you give one example?

There are many, but one example would be:-
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear (Ephesians 6:5)

I don't think that Jesus would have supported slavery at all!

I don’t think I can testify for myself, because:

If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid.
John 5:31

But, if I follow the law, it is not because I try to gain salvation by doing so. Correct reason to do it is that one thinks it is good and right and one loves God.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

Maybe I don’t follow it, but at the moment I don’t remember any Mosaic Law that I don’t follow. Do you have in mind some Mosaic law that would be difficult or not good to follow?

There are 507 (non-sacrificial/non-ceremonial) laws and so if I grab one at random:-

24.To recite grace after meals (Deut. 8:10)

So do you follow this law to the letter?

 

[oldbadger]

Aren't the ten commandments a part of the Mosaic law?

OK..... so you would keep these, I guess.

Are there any other Mosaic laws which you keep?

Do you laws come from Jesus, or Mosaic Law, or Paul, or Peter....?

Who is your authority for law (as a Christian)?

 

[Iymus]

So in your case, you read a law in the bible and then you adjust it with sentences beginning in words like 'Seems'. .... 'Perhaps'.... 'Maybe' ..... as above?

Nobody gave me the title of priest nor do I see myself worthy of being a bishop. My perceived confidence will come off as arrogance. Also there is a saying of being wise as serpents but harmless as doves. And this is also practice for me.

Do you follow any Mosaic Laws, and if so, which ones, please?

Off the top of my head I am aware of one of the basics and foundation

Deu 6:4 KJV Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

with percieved insight of NT.

Mar 12:29 KJV And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Because

Heb 11:6 KJV But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[PearlSeeker]

OK..... so you would keep these, I guess.

Are there any other Mosaic laws which you keep?

Do you laws come from Jesus, or Mosaic Law, or Paul, or Peter....?

Who is your authority for law (as a Christian)?

All laws (also the decalogue) can be derived from what Jesus declared as the greatest commandment ("Love..."), which itself was also a part of the Mosaic law. The difference is that Jesus set this as the core and base.

He also set the standards higher. It became more important to follow the dynamic spirit of the law, also in thoughts and intentions, not just the stiff letter of the law.

 

[oldbadger]

Nobody gave me the title of priest nor do I see myself worthy of being a bishop. My perceived confidence will come off as arrogance. Also there is a saying of being wise as serpents but harmless as doves. And this is also practice for me.



Off the top of my head I am aware of one of the basics and foundation

Deu 6:4 KJV Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

with percieved insight of NT.

Mar 12:29 KJV And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Because

Heb 11:6 KJV But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Fair enough.
Changing subject, how do you feel about ordained women?
How do you feel about same sex marriages?

 

[shmogie]

Aren't the ten commandments a part of the Mosaic law?

9 of the 10 are "reissued" in the NT as part of the law of Christ. Some are modified some are not.

They apply to Christians not because they were given to the Jews as part of the first covenant, but rather because they are of the new covenant as part of the law of Christ.

 

[metis]

What is the best gospel for that guidance from Jesus, please? Those two 'first' instructions?

Those two Commandments cover it all, thus the other verses involving instruction are either elaborations and/or applications. In Judaism, the School of Hillel pretty much felt the same way but not to the point of ignoring the other 611 Commandments.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Hello again...... so you can do things two ways, Moses' way or Jesus's way, but only the 10 Commandments from the OT, sort of?

OK. So how do you feel about the death penalty for some crimes?

The Christian world is split on the death penalty. However I feel that if we forgive someone, there's no reason for us to want it applied. Nevertheless, they may have prison for life if we want to be safe.

 

[Iymus]

feel about ordained women

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. "using this verse in the context of civilization and ministry: men serving the women and children thru civilization and ministry"

Same way I feel about women fighting on the front lines boots on ground. Preferably not, but if there is a significant loss of man power or a need to ensure the overall mission success then perhaps they can be expendable at that point. I see the overall role of a woman as an assistant rather than a leader and foot soldier which is of the man and greater because of the greater responsibilities and accountability.

At the same time me being a cultural feminist in upbringing: In general if women push for positions that men traditionally held let them build the infrastructure and bear the brunt of it the same way a man would. If they can bear the responsibility and accountability on the same level of a man then sure.

How do you feel about same sex marriages?

In regards to feelings I am not attracted to such marriages. I believe the primary function of marriage is to build a legacy and amass wealth and pass it along thru offspring. Not saying pleasure is unacceptable but I am looking at the primary first and foremost through our biology and life: A Foundation. As a man I do not believe or feel that another man brings me the value of what a woman does. Is about diversifying my portfolio. Might as well I remain single because the value that a man brings I bring to myself.

Very interesting that same sex marriages are legal but polygamous marriages are still considered illegal.

I also feel that my feelings is irrelevant because what it comes down to is agreed upon gender roles and responsibilities. What creates strong families, communities, nations, etc.

I believe the Divinity of the Creator is in the gender roles so we have no excuse but we want to thinks for ourselves and worship flesh.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Despite the verses I used I am not telling anyone to do what they do not want to do, this is just my views or perception on it.

 

[halbhh]

Hello, and thanks for your post.

So the Christian message is Love, direct from the lips of Jesus..... yes?

How do you feel about same-sex marriages, or ordaining women?

Having read carefully through the bible more than one time, and then later even searching out all of the passages about these, there isn't any instruction about them, that is, if you read fully past the passages some try to isolate -- full reading instead of partial. Partial reading would mistakenly for example mistake the instruction to slaves to remain slaves (in more than one epistle) as permanent, because the person read partially, instead of fully. One crucial central chapter of Paul's to unlock what's happening in the instructions (which get reversed) about slaves, and also about women in the church, is 1 Cor chapter 8 (and for good measure, also Romans chapter 14), which for someone that really believes and listens, they can get that this wasn't a principle that was temporary at all -- to sacrifice some of your own freedom for the sake of the "weak", that those who are "weak" not be destroyed. Since women had just had a revolution of a kind where they now had new freedom in Christ and were worshiping together with the men for the first time (not the old way in the Jewish temple), the message is don't try to continue to press for social change inside of the church, disrupting services, because you will destroy some of the weak men who cannot yet adjust to this new overwhelming change. This only makes sense though if you really believe in God for real -- so that all the chapters are not just....entertainment.

If you really get it that you yourself, here and now, are under the requirement that you yourself have to give up freedoms that are perfectly ok when someone "weak" around you will be destroyed by your perfectly ok exercise of that freedom -- that you have to sacrifice as needed. Personal sacrifice. If you get that, from faith -- that the words are true -- then you see how women at that time needed to sacrifice. You get it how slaves were to remain slaves at first (in the epistles) and then later were to seek their freedom, and why the radical epistle Philemon was inevitable.

That's very straightforward really, and it means that today in some churches woman may still have to sacrifice their perfectly ok freedom to participate in services even though already in the first century, already, there was a prominent female deacon, and no doubt more than one over the centuries since. It's about where you are at, and who is "weak" around you, and in what way.

Ok, to avoid a post that is 2,000 words long, let me leave that at that, and for the other issue, of course, just the very basic observation that of course an inborn temperament isn't a sin, but sins are wrong actions and/or lusts in the heart. Again, temperament isn't sin. Sin is wrongful action. So, when we learn that intercourse sodomy (lev 18:22) is wrongful, that doesn't mean that temperaments are themselves sin. Of course, a person can have any number of intimate close relationships with people of both genders without sinning, obviously, and then we end up in a situation where people are demanding an end to wrongful prejudices, and it can get pretty political, etc. I'm not going to convince someone that is prideful or lacks faith, but perhaps some that do have faith can read with a more listening attitude in scripture, instead of only trying to merely use scripture like planks of wood to build their own building they prefer to build. I accept that only some will hear scriptures that put requirements on themselves, instead of on other people. We can only pray for others, we cannot force them to see anything.

 

[halbhh]

Hello, and thanks for your post.

So the Christian message is Love, direct from the lips of Jesus..... yes?

How do you feel about same-sex marriages, or ordaining women?

I want to add an illustration about the 2nd question.

Even though we see in Romans chapter 16 how prominent women were in the early 1rst century church, from the beginning basically, with a female deacon and more, as you probably know even today --

Even today the Catholic church cannot even allow female deacons (!)....

Let that sink in for a minute. Women have done this since the beginning of the church, and it's right there in Romans even (!), yet 1950 years later and this very large church just has too many weak in it to allow this basic freedom in Christ already present in the 1rst century.

Get what I'm saying: the Catholic church is doing the right thing -- they have to help the weak in their church.

It's the direct instruction from 1 Cor chapter 8 -- it's unambiguous.

They have it correct: no female deacons for now.

And perhaps here we see one of the very, very few benefits from having denominations (splits) -- in that a local church that has no one tripped up by women being equal, hasn't that particular weakness, can have them, just as already from the beginning. I've always tended to see denominations are just people being too insistent on their own way: instead of living with those that see things differently about something, they left (that is, those that did originally leave, the children not being the ones that chose, nor the subsequent generations). But here, for once, is an actual benefit of a denomination: that people that aren't weak in this way could have a church where women don't have to sacrifice in this way.

 

[oldbadger]

Thank you...you know I love to get my teeth into some meat......
Why condemn Paul on only a small misinterpreted part of what he said. Paul does not deserve this flack IMO.

Paul was a disloyal contract busting official who had a blinding idea on the way to Damascus where he was supposed to be sorting out Jews who didn't pay their head tax etc. I don't need to give him too much attention, really.
It's not really surprising that Paul (and the 2nd century apostle John) gets quoted more often Jesus. True.
Just read about it. It's all there!

A head covering was a sign of respect for God's headship arrangement. No women presided over spiritual matters in the congregations. They were created, as Genesis states, as a compliment of their men. It was to be a support role, equally important, much like the navigator who sits beside the rally driver, having mapped out the route, helping him get to their destination in good time, but safely.
Again, very easy to explain....these were all things pertaining to the Law of Moses.

Is this about female priests?
Excuse me. All I have heard from Christians on this thread that the Mosaic Laws are not for Christians. I'm waiting for the words of Jesus about Ordination of Women, if that;'s what you were angling towards.

So no one was to judge another by the fact that they were, or were not, observing the things of the Law. For Christians it no longer mattered. They were not under the Law of Moses but under the Law of the Christ as partakers of the New Covenant. If Jews wanted to observe the things in the Law, that was up to them, but it was no longer binding on Christ's disciples and no one was to judge another over it.

And so the Scottish and English Churches that support same-gender love and marriage should not be criticised, I;'m guessing.

Women were not educated in the Jewish religious system because all matters pertaining to worship were assigned to men. For a woman to interrupt a Christian meeting with questions or distractions, would have been detrimental to all in attendance. Better to wait and ask Hubby when they got home. Humility would have been exercised and her husband would have been proud of her decorum and obedience.

And today women hold theological degrees and are ordained. We even have a female Lord Bishops in the UK. So times move on. It's different now.

In Eden, Adam was the one who educated his wife and together, they would educate their children. She was given to him as a helper, not as competition.
I am sure that a little more research and a little less bias may disarm this vendetta against Paul.

I have been researching the life and true mission of Jesus for a few years now, and I have found that Jesus's mission was nothing, absolutely nothing like Paul's Christianity.
So it's no surprise to any here that I'm not a Christian.

But the Jesus (and the Baptist) that I perceive from my studies was one wonderful person. I have the greates respect for what I think that they both did. It's just different from what Paul spun later on.

 

[oldbadger]

Those two Commandments cover it all, thus the other verses involving instruction are either elaborations and/or applications. In Judaism, the School of Hillel pretty much felt the same way but not to the point of ignoring the other 611 Commandments.

Fair enough.
Thank you.

 

[Milton Platt]

9 of the 10 are "reissued" in the NT as part of the law of Christ. Some are modified some are not.

They apply to Christians not because they were given to the Jews as part of the first covenant, but rather because they are of the new covenant as part of the law of Christ.

Depends upon who I am talking to, it seems. Which of the 10 do you now reject? And here does it say that the rest of the Old Testament is null and void?

 

[oldbadger]

The Christian world is split on the death penalty. However I feel that if we forgive someone, there's no reason for us to want it applied. Nevertheless, they may have prison for life if we want to be safe.

That does seem to be the Christian view in most of Europe.

 

[oldbadger]

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. "using this verse in the context of civilization and ministry: men serving the women and children thru civilization and ministry"

Same way I feel about women fighting on the front lines boots on ground. Preferably not, but if there is a significant loss of man power or a need to ensure the overall mission success then perhaps they can be expendable at that point. I see the overall role of a woman as an assistant rather than a leader and foot soldier which is of the man and greater because of the greater responsibilities and accountability.

At the same time me being a cultural feminist in upbringing: In general if women push for positions that men traditionally held let them build the infrastructure and bear the brunt of it the same way a man would. If they can bear the responsibility and accountability on the same level of a man then sure.



In regards to feelings I am not attracted to such marriages. I believe the primary function of marriage is to build a legacy and amass wealth and pass it along thru offspring. Not saying pleasure is unacceptable but I am looking at the primary first and foremost through our biology and life: A Foundation. As a man I do not believe or feel that another man brings me the value of what a woman does. Is about diversifying my portfolio. Might as well I remain single because the value that a man brings I bring to myself.

Very interesting that same sex marriages are legal but polygamous marriages are still considered illegal.

I also feel that my feelings is irrelevant because what it comes down to is agreed upon gender roles and responsibilities. What creates strong families, communities, nations, etc.

I believe the Divinity of the Creator is in the gender roles so we have no excuse but we want to thinks for ourselves and worship flesh.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Despite the verses I used I am not telling anyone to do what they do not want to do, this is just my views or perception on it.

Thankyou for your viewpoints.
I note that you quoted Paul. Did Jesus say anything to support his words?

 

[oldbadger]

I want to add an illustration about the 2nd question.

Even though we see in Romans chapter 16 how prominent women were in the early 1rst century church, from the beginning basically, with a female deacon and more, as you probably know even today --

Even today the Catholic church cannot even allow female deacons (!)....

Let that sink in for a minute. Women have done this since the beginning of the church, and it's right there in Romans even (!), yet 1950 years later and this very large church just has too many weak in it to allow this basic freedom in Christ already present in the 1rst century.

Get what I'm saying: the Catholic church is doing the right thing -- they have to help the weak in their church.

It's the direct instruction from 1 Cor chapter 8 -- it's unambiguous.

They have it correct: no female deacons for now.

And perhaps here we see one of the very, very few benefits from having denominations (splits) -- in that a local church that has no one tripped up by women being equal, hasn't that particular weakness, can have them, just as already from the beginning. I've always tended to see denominations are just people being too insistent on their own way: instead of living with those that see things differently about something, they left (that is, those that did originally leave, the children not being the ones that chose, nor the subsequent generations). But here, for once, is an actual benefit of a denomination: that people that aren't weak in this way could have a church where women don't have to sacrifice in this way.

Thanks for your post.

It seems as if your post is based upon Church rules and sentiments rather than anything that Jesus said or did. Fair enough.,

 

[blü 2]

One Christian might mention a law and quote from the Mosaic books, another could dismiss the same law but feel strong about other ones. Some of the more extreme Christians seem to want a Theistic Monarchy leading a Police State (oh yes!) whilst others focus upon love and understanding as the main message of Jesus. The range of tenets that fall under the title of Christianity are legion, I think.

Anyone wishing to understand the question should start by reading >Why Can't I Own a Canadian?<

For a small sample:

"When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord — Leviticus 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her"​