yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Who are you replying to ?Very strange way of thinking my friend.
Upvote
0
Who are you replying to ?Very strange way of thinking my friend.
Do you mean to imply that we are human beings should not be subject to "Do not murder".
What about "Do not commit adultery".
Are you trying to say that it is OK to lie, and steal because we are NOT JEWS and we can do those things??????
Are you trying to validate your need to bow down to a graven image which is forbidden in the 1 st Commandment because you are a Catholic?????????
Very strange way of thinking my friend.
In answer to YOUR questions: the law against murder was given to all mankind in the time of Noah, and reiterated quite fully for all mankind by Jesus. So very clearly we are prohibited from committing murder, by God, both before and after the Ten Commandments.
That does not mean that we are subject to the Ten Commandments. The law of the United States, and of the state in which you reside, prohibits murder. That's why you will be punished in this life if you commit murder.
The law of Russia also prohibits murder, just like American law. So, are you subject to the law of Russia?
No. If the law of America did not prohibit murder, you would not be subject to prosecution for murders in America. The Russian law does not apply to you: you're not Russian and you're not living in Russia.
But that's me speaking. I've asked two of you a very simple and direct question, in answer to your earlier assertion regarding "forced charity" (government welfare): Are you subject to the Ten Commandments, yes or no?
So then by your own words, WE ARE in fact subject to the Laws of God!
Now are we subject to the 10 Commandments in so far that we are judged innocent or guilty if we break them the answer is NO!
However, that does not mean we are to ignore them and do what ever we choose to do. That is absurd!
We are not living in the age of the Law but the age of Grace.
The Law did not save one single person. It was not intended to be a vehicle of salvation. Salvation has always been of FAITH not works and still is today.
The Law did not save one single person. It was not intended to be a vehicle of salvation. Salvation has always been of FAITH not works and still is today.
So then by your own words, WE ARE in fact subject to the Laws of God!
Now are we subject to the 10 Commandments in so far that we are judged innocent or guilty if we break them the answer is NO!
However, that does not mean we are to ignore them and do what ever we choose to do. That is absurd!
We are not living in the age of the Law but the age of Grace.
The Law did not save one single person. It was not intended to be a vehicle of salvation. Salvation has always been of FAITH not works and still is today.
The organic communal model to that degree is not taught as the standard continuing model, but is one I think Christian should seek to realize, and especially is applicable for new converts. The Latino culture is more conducive to this community living (and temperate climate helps), the European less so.I will grant that the post-resurrection Jerusalem Christian community, which lived communally, with community property, all as described in Acts, is an example of how well mankind can, and ought to, live. I will also notice that the non-compliance of Christians themselves with the model in the very early church resulted in two people, a husband and wife, being directly killed by God in the church, at the feet of Peter demonstrating a great many things, and standing as a (largely unheeded) warning.
Correct!....
I think you're posting to someone I can't see. A few months or years ago, the only way to have peace and joy continually was to stop a lot of posts from showing up that brought dissension and confusion, so that must be it.
Continue well, in Scripture, and SHALOM !
Oh, not at all - no apology was expected at all, nothing wrong with your posts ... it looks like you will find as I did that for peace and joy continuing, some things in life (for all of us in Christ) must be avoided is all. That was a long time difficult lesson for me to learn, and once I started doing that, WONDERFUL PEACE ! (unexpectedly great peace actually, from doing 'less', doing such a small thing ...)My apologies my brother.
Which Law? The Law of Moses, or the Law of Jesus? When Paul spoke of "The Law", he was speaking of the Law of Moses, but that was not a law at all for Gentiles. Jesus' commandments ARE law for us, though not called "THE Law" in the Scriptures.
We do not have to keep the Law, no matter whose it is or how it is called in order to be saved.
Hmmmmm. Maybe we're saying the same thing in two different languages and not realizing it.Exactly what I have been saying to you!!!!!
Hmmmmm. Maybe we're saying the same thing in two different languages and not realizing it.
Let me ask you this - what do you think about this statement? : The Law of Moses, given in the Old Testament, is not binding on us today. Nevertheless, it was given by God and it reveals the mind of God, so it is important to read it to understand what God was teaching.
Fair statement?
This is close to my view. Jesus commented on most of the 10 commandments in Mat 5. It seems to me that he came pretty close to replacing them. "Moses said ... I say ..." His version focused on intent and effect, not rules. It's possible that he didn't intend to replace them, but rather to interpret them. But if he interpreted them, his interpretation still almost replace them. I'd paraphrase his interpretation as "let's not look at these so much as rules, but rather at the intent behind them."Hmmmmm. Maybe we're saying the same thing in two different languages and not realizing it.
Let me ask you this - what do you think about this statement? : The Law of Moses, given in the Old Testament, is not binding on us today. Nevertheless, it was given by God and it reveals the mind of God, so it is important to read it to understand what God was teaching.
Fair statement?
This is close to my view. Jesus commented on most of the 10 commandments in Mat 5. It seems to me that he came pretty close to replacing them. "Moses said ... I say ..." His version focused on intent and effect, not rules. It's possible that he didn't intend to replace them, but rather to interpret them. But if he interpreted them, his interpretation still almost replace them. I'd paraphrase his interpretation as "let's not look at these so much as rules, but rather at the intent behind them."
When you combine this with the fact that the 10 commandments were quite explicitly part of the covenant with the Jews, I'd say that technically speaking they don't apply to us. But Jesus' teachings certainly do apply to us, and he reiterated at least the intention of the 10 commandments. So even though the stone tablets aren't part of our law, for all practical purposes we're committed to the same principles.
I agree.And so come full circle back to the point that I was trying to make about our religious obligation to support social welfare when we act in the political sphere. The Law of Moses, the Law that God gave - that is not BINDING on us, but that DOES reflect the mind of God, was full of mandatory economic laws that were intended to help the poor, and there in no sense voluntary.
Me too. Excellent stuff, Vicomte.I agree.
Edited:These include the tithe itself, which - if one goes back and reads carefully - was not simply to provide a salary for the Levites, but which was provided so that the Levites would use it to provide for themselves AND the poor. The tithe was a redistributive social welfare tax. It was intended to feed one of the 12 tribes, whose assigned jobs was to be the local judges and poverty relief administrators all over Israel, and to provide them the means by which they were to support the poor.
I did not read this before I responded with the above. But before you condemn those who condemn redistributive social welfare taxes you need to objectively understand what manner of animal they are condemning. How would Moses fare in today's elections?The other provisions, such as the right to gleanings, the right to tresspass and eat, the right to a loan upon request, if the wealthy man requested had the money to loan, the right to loans without interest, and to be forgiven debt in the 7th year. This presented a comprehensive and quite redistributive law.
But "poor" needs to be defined. In the OT, a poor man is described as was one who needed his wages (not welfare check) daily, and his cloak (only having one). "Poor" is a relative term and today, "cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level. By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day."Now, the Hebrews, and later the Jews, did not obey these laws. They evaded them and avoided them. And God sent the Prophet Amos, and the Prophet Malachi both in particular to focus on those violations as angering God. The other prophets mentioned it as well. God consistently criticized the Israelites and their kings for not respecting his poor laws, in particular.
Because to believe in the Lord Jesus, with the faith which is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5) and not simply believe a promise abstract from who and what the One who made it is and says, effects characteristic obedience, and such negative disobedience as ignoring the needy (as well as fostering a indolence) is contrary to saving faith, which is to seek "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)It's true, we're not "under" that law. But as with the Ten Commandments, the Law that Jesus gave is parallel in intent, and Jesus made it clear that those who didn't feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc, were goats headed into the fire.
Again, what "poor" means and the conditions and means of providing help is the issue.In Jesus' day there was no vote. There were kings and emperors. Certainly the kings were under God's obligation to provide, through their governments, for the needs of the poor. That's abundanelt clear through the prophets.
So you think America's founders were renegades who made a mistake?We, by our own hand, removed the kings and put ourselves collectively in their place. Our votes are the fractionated crown.
You have yet to show that OT governmental power the OT describes is that which the conservatives you rail (nothing new here) against are opposing.The notion that we are not commanded by God to provide for the poor through THAT power, that governmental power which we have, and not simply through volutnary charity, is so screaminly obvious that I am morally outraged by the lies that are told by Christians who try to pretnd that there is no governmental obligation to provide for the poor, or that government programs for poverty relief are contrary to Scripture. Those are lies, and they are lies that disregard the mandatory nature of poverty relief under God's Law, and they are lies motivated by personal greed.
I missed this admonishment of you for pointing out God's law. Perhaps now you will include me in that list.But "Christians" have dared to admonish me for pointing out God's law! This is intolerable, and it is what has provoked the lengthy sidebar.
Again, where are the Levites mailing out checks and ebtd cards, and the other means I numbered, vs what i bulleted, and how does the latter correspond to what conservatives oppose? It seems you are reading an awful lot into that the 10% tithe meant. And if the gov. decided to only take 10% (though this was more than just money) with the welfare taken out of that, do you think conservatives would oppose it or celebrate?Social welfare, private AND PUBLIC is a commandment of God which is the obligation of all people until there is no more poverty. Christians have no right to be saying that God wants only private charity. That is not true. It was never true. The Mosaic law is chock full of mandatory, government-enforced redistribution.
Before you issue such a sentence, have you shown that they oppose is what the OT teaches in dialog with them?And for a Christian to say that public poverty reliefs programs is "theft" is an outrage, a damned lie told in direct defiance of God. I am demanding that they answer for themselves and that they stop misrepresenting God.
Or that since it can be Godly, that the form conservatives oppose it just that.We can disagree on efficiencies and modalities, but no Christian has the right to declare before God and man that welfare is theft and un-godly.
Who are these believers you speak of?Some HAVE made that claim, and I have gone through this long exercise to make it impossible for anybody to call himself a Christian and sustain that lie.