• 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!

Should Christians follow the Law?

roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
12jtartar said:
If you desire life you will listen to the Bible and not to what someone has taught you.
Click to expand...
I’ll bite, how does a person achieve this? Are you advocating not being taught by the clergy? The Bible should be understood only by individual interpretation? It’s no wonder why Christianity has tens of thousands of flavors, LOL.
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
sandy whitelinger said:
Why do you think Jewish scripture will tell you about Christian doctrine?
Click to expand...
Logic would dictate if there is a “New Covenant” there must have been an “Old Covenant”. To understand what makes the “New Covenant” new an understanding of the “Old Covenant” is a prerequisite. To take the “Old Covenant” and mold it into something to fit within the theology of the “New Covenant” is absurd, It must work the other way around.
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
roger1440 said:
Logic would dictate if there is a “New Covenant” there must have been an “Old Covenant”. To understand what makes the “New Covenant” new an understanding of the “Old Covenant” is a prerequisite. To take the “Old Covenant” and mold it into something to fit within the theology of the “New Covenant” is absurd, It must work the other way around.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose that knowledge of the Old Covenant is a good basis yet you aren't going to find anything about the workings of the new covenant in the old.
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
sandy whitelinger said:
Well, I suppose that knowledge of the Old Covenant is a good basis yet you aren't going to find anything about the workings of the new covenant in the old.
Click to expand...
The very term “New Covenant” is a Jewish theological concept. Therefore Judaism must be the starting point. If Judaism is taken out of the equation then the result is nonsense.
 
roger1440

roger1440

I do stuff
sandy whitelinger said:
Ok, where in the Old Testament are the directions to the New Covenant?
Click to expand...
"31 See, a time is coming-declares the LoRD-when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they broke, though I espoused b them-declares the LoRD. 33 But such is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after these days-declares the LORD: I will put My Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, "Heed the LoRD"; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed Me-declares the LoRD." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
roger1440 said:
"31 See, a time is coming-declares the LoRD-when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they broke, though I espoused b them-declares the LoRD. 33 But such is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after these days-declares the LORD: I will put My Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, "Heed the LoRD"; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed Me-declares the LoRD." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Click to expand...
That's what I thought. Now where else might you find out in the Old Testament how this new covenant works?
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Just a reminder that there are a fair number of "new covenants" mentioned in the Tanakh, nor do at least most of us Jews claim that God can't have other covenants with other peoples.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
sandy whitelinger said:
Well, I suppose we were talking about a new covenant.
Click to expand...

It's semantics; the previous Covenant was not being practiced correctly anyways. Asking for ''justification'' for different practice, ie what you are calling ''New Covenant'', From an incorrect practice, doesn't make sense, in the first place.
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
q konn said:
It's semantics; the previous Covenant was not being practiced correctly anyways. Asking for ''justification'' for different practice, ie what you are calling ''New Covenant'', From an incorrect practice, doesn't make sense, in the first place.
Click to expand...
Now I'm confused. A Christian not following the Mosaic Law but instead a "new covenant" is a matter of semantics? Please explain.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
sandy whitelinger said:
Now I'm confused. A Christian not following the Mosaic Law but instead a "new covenant" is a matter of semantics? Please explain.
Click to expand...

The ''new Covenant'' /what you are calling New Covenant, //it's semantics//, is simply, the Covenant, /(Old Covenant, being practiced correctly. It isn't ''replacing'', a Covenant that was being followed correctly; hence your reference to Romans, as well.

Roger is asking for a justification, from a faulty source/practice. That's the point,
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
q konn said:
The ''new Covenant'' /what you are calling New Covenant, //it's semantics//, is simply, the Covenant, /(Old Covenant, being practiced correctly. It isn't ''replacing'', a Covenant that was being followed correctly; hence your reference to Romans, as well.

Roger is asking for a justification, from a faulty source/practice. That's the point,
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you just said. I have a feeling though that my answer will be, "Not really, what Christians follow is another set of laws."
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
'Judaism', doesn't mean the Old Testament. For Jesu adherents, Jesu is in the Old Testament. In judaism, Jesu, is not in the Old Testament. For Jesu adherents,,/Praise Him!/, these questions/answers, regarding Covenant, are within the teachings...they are not, however, in Judaism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top