Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe one can just trade one law for another ie the teachings of Jesus but I obey neither; I obey Jesus.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you distinguish which parts of OT are not applicable to you as a Christian?
- Thread starter paradox
- Start date
I believe one can just trade one law for another ie the teachings of Jesus but I obey neither; I obey Jesus.
The big picture is that God wants humans to first know what His Law could mean before they can get to what His Grace is. Law ultimate means how entities, humans and angels alike, will be judged. Humans can't live by this set of Law, that's why humans' existence is completely meaningless and shall be fully destroyed in Noah's time (after lawful witness is made). Since Noah, humans are required to live by a covenant (signed with Jesus' self-sacrifice at some point in humanity). The effect of this set of Law can only be observed and witnessed by the angels but not humans (humans live by covenants). God thus made use of the Mosaic covenant to demonstrate what His Law could mean, such that now we can know how gracious the New Covenant is. The scope of the Mosaic covenant is for Jews only, it's not applicable to gentiles technically speaking.
However, some of the Jewish laws and commandments are mentioned and taught by Jesus. These laws and commandments thus formed Christ teaching in NT. While NT is all about believing in Jesus and following His teaching and commands.
It's apples and oranges.
However, some of the Jewish laws and commandments are mentioned and taught by Jesus. These laws and commandments thus formed Christ teaching in NT. While NT is all about believing in Jesus and following His teaching and commands.
It's apples and oranges.
Mark La Buda
Member
John 8:1-11 are deemed to have been added several centuries after John’s penned this inspired gospel. Consequently, they are suspect and not all version/translations of the Bible contain them.
Regardless, considering your concern, it is suspect to me that this account does not mention, imply, accuse, and condemn the woman’s partner. The account also does not mention any partner discovered and accused. Have you considered this? Was she married? Was the participating partner married? Was she single and therefore actually guilty of committing fornication? Under the Mosaic Law, fornicators were not subjected to the same discipline under fleshly adultery.
Just as verse 6 states: “…they were saying this to put him to the test….” There are other scriptures where the scribes and Pharisees tried to put Jesus to a test with the intention to make accusations against him. In verse 7, Jesus was making a point of showing mercy. It seems to me that he indicated/implied that the accusers were may themselves have been guilty of adultery/fornication. The difference was that their conducts were not uncovered. Is it not the same in modern times? For example, is not a woman’s sexual misconduct is viewed differently than a man’s?
Regardless, considering your concern, it is suspect to me that this account does not mention, imply, accuse, and condemn the woman’s partner. The account also does not mention any partner discovered and accused. Have you considered this? Was she married? Was the participating partner married? Was she single and therefore actually guilty of committing fornication? Under the Mosaic Law, fornicators were not subjected to the same discipline under fleshly adultery.
Just as verse 6 states: “…they were saying this to put him to the test….” There are other scriptures where the scribes and Pharisees tried to put Jesus to a test with the intention to make accusations against him. In verse 7, Jesus was making a point of showing mercy. It seems to me that he indicated/implied that the accusers were may themselves have been guilty of adultery/fornication. The difference was that their conducts were not uncovered. Is it not the same in modern times? For example, is not a woman’s sexual misconduct is viewed differently than a man’s?