Why is it that many Christians

Status
Not open for further replies.

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Strawman ? ...... I didn't say it, this is your idea, your words > .....

QUOTE "aiki, post: 69768708, member: 178791"]but all of the believers I know regard murder, lying, theft, sodomy as sin. They don't get offended when someone brings up pork or shrimp or keeping the Sabbath, though. Mostly, they just shake their heads at those who want to live under the yoke of the law and think everyone else must, too./QUOTE
 
Upvote 0

1John2:4

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2016
1,204
361
47
New Braunfels, TX
✟32,608.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
There are a remarkable number of bad legalists around. If one treats the various covenants of the Bible as law, and reads them as law, one discovers that the legalism people argue about (shellfish, for instance), is faux legalism. The shellfish law does not apply to the New Covenant.

So, a good Christian legalist - one who actually understands the law - realizes that the Law of Moses, in its entirety (including the Ten Commandments as such) is not law for Gentile Christians at all. Whether or not it is law for a Jewish Christian is a separate, slightly more complicated matter, the answer to which is that yes, if the Jew wants to (forlornly) hope for his ancestral right, from God, to a farm in Israel, that he and his family and community must indeed follow the whole of the Law of Moses. He will then find that, thanks to the destruction of the Temple and the priesthood by the Romans in 69 AD, it is no longer possible to fully obey the Law of Moses, the major part of which was specified rites that can no longer be carried out.

But most Christians simply do not read law very well, or do not understand what they are reading. The Law of Moses, on its face, tells anybody who reads it to whom it applies. Jesus preached to Jews in a time when the Temple was still up, and referred to it in that context. He said that not a letter would pass from "the Law" (by which he meant the Law of Moses) until the end of the world. Given the subsequent destruction of the Temple, what Jesus was saying is, in effect, once the Temple and the priesthood are gone, the promise of this land is gone, because you cannot fulfill the law - not because it's too hard, but because it is literally impossible: the daily, ongoing rites of priests of a certain line at one specific altar was a fundamental requirement of the law, and God removed that line of priests from the world, and saw to the destruction of that altar. And so now the Law of Moses literally cannot be fulfilled, no matter how willing a person might be. God has rendered it physically impossible to do so.

Christians blind themselves through bad reading comprehension skills when they think they're supposed to obey the Law of Moses. Jesus did not tell the people of the New Covenant to do that. He didn't even do that when he spoke about certain of those laws. The problem is one of legal context. Jesus preached to Jews in Biblical Israel. He spoke in their legal context, but by doing so he did not extent the Sinai Covenant to us. Yes, the Law of Moses is still in effect, but no, it never did apply to us, only to Jews. And Jews cannot follow all of it even if they want to - which means that it is really useless for them to follow any of it, as the promised farm in Israel is only in return for following all of it.

This distinction was very hard for Jews to make, and everybody theologizing in the New Testament was a Jew except for Mark.

Paul understood this, which is why we see him apparently struggling with "the Law" and its goodness, and its superfluity, on the one hand, and Christian salvation without it, on the other. Because Paul was himself a legalist Pharisee, he saw the intricacy of the Law. Because he was writing to a heavily Jewish early Christianity the presence of this "old wineskin" was pervasive. All of the evangelists except Luke (who wasn't a Jew) struggled with it. We read the product of their struggles.

The problem is, we read it without very good comprehension. Their struggle with their old law is not the same thing is as our struggle with law itself. All law, even all law in the Bible, is not the Law of Moses. Jesus independently gives plenty of law of God to Christians. These laws are new laws for the New Covenant. Quite a few of those laws overlap somewhat the Law of Moses, so one can see the parallels and see what God was getting at. But most of those laws do not overlap. And although there is an overlap, that overlap does not mean that Christians are, somehow, under the Law of Sinai. We are not, not ever, not even the Ten Commandments.

Now, it happens that a good deal of the essence of the Ten Commandments are emphasized by Jesus in the New Covenant, but Jesus' formulation of them for Christians is different, and the purpose is entirely different: we're not Jews promised, as a trible, a farm in Israel for obedience, but individuals called individually to follow Christ, and by doing so, obtain a favorable outcome at the final judgment, after which we will go into the City of God to live happily with God the Father and with the regnant Son.

It's really quite different, and the Christian Law, the Law of Jesus, is also quite different.

In both testaments, when reading is done with care, it is clear that there is a hierarchy of laws - that some sins are worse than others. Now, the thing with the Jewish law, of Moses, is that it was communal. The promised reward was earthly: a farm in a secure Israel, for Hebrews of the bloodline. Because all of the Law of Moses was intended to instruct on some facet of life necessary to live securely in Israel, even the less important laws did need to be followed for there to not be suffering in Israel.

Consider shellfish. God gave that prohibition to Moses and the Hebrews as they were fleeing Egypt to settle in the Promised Land. The Israelites were only promised Canaan. They were never promised the world. God said that if the Hebrews ate as directed, they would not suffer the diseases they suffered in Egypt. THAT was the point of that Law, in that time, for those particular people, living in that place. In a pre-refrigeration, pre-running water, pre-soap, pre-germ theory age, a God who wanted a people he chose to not be ill from the incipient contagion all around in a sewer-free society, admonished them against eating certain foods that would make them sick there. Shellfish from the hot Mediterranean in the stagnant waters of the Eastern Med, polluted with all of the effluvient of the Egyptian Nile, the raw sewage of millions, swirling slowly up the coast.
Nobody today with any knowledge of hygiene would want to eat the oysters or clams out of Calcutta harbor. God always understood human hygiene, but the Bronze Age escaped slaves he was shepherding did not. Read the dietary, washing, excretion and cleanliness laws of the Torah again and realize what you are reading. A God-King leading a people who know nothing of germs, whose vocabulary is primitive, into a hot land that has been long settled (and is therefore covered with feces and illness). This God wants to protect his people, but they do not know germ theory. So he gives them a set of apparently arbitrary rules of what they can and can't eat, what they must wash, how they must prepare food, how and where they must defecate, what they must do about toxic molds and other illnesses. And he promises them that IF they obey all of these laws, they will not get sick like they did in Egypt.

If the balloon were to go up and we found ourselves in a post-apocalyptic world, without running water, without sewerage, without any medicine, without food standards, if we were living in a subtropical place where the stagnant ocean waters were filled with pollution, we would find that the dietary laws of Moses thread the needle to optimum health for that environment.
The Jews didn't figure that out. It was given to them. If the Promised Land had been Norway, God probably wouldn't have prohibited shellfish, because cold water oysters are not unclean and are very healthy. Eating oysters out of the sewage dump that was the ancient Eastern Mediterranean coast was a good way to die. God knew that, and he SAID so in the law of good: Do this, and you won't get the diseases you had in Egypt.

This was part of a covenant for a specific bloodline, in a specific place and time. It is not, on its written face, a law for all of humanity. So, Christians are not being HYPOCRITICAL when they don't follow the Law of Moses. They are actually being legalistic! That law does not apply to them ON ITS FACE. It SAYS who it applies to, and for what.

Where Christians fall down is in being hypocritical about the law of the New Testament, in pretending that because the Apostles and Jesus set aside various portions of "The Law" (of Moses) for them, that NO law applies to them. This choice is usually made out of ignorance. People read the Bible (if they read it at all - most people read parts of it and accept the interpretations of their traditions) see law, see "God said..." and don't read the law as law - to see to whom it applies. "God said not to eat pork..." Actually, God said pork and oysters are fine. He said that Noah after the Flood. God said specifically to Hebrews in Israel that they were not to eat such things there is they did not want to get sick. This was never, ever, a general law for mankind, and if one reads the Scripture verbatim, one sees that that is obvious. Who is subject to the Law of Moses, and why, is right there IN THE TEXT. Also in the text is the struggle of First Century JEWISH Christians, who had been raised under that law, to reconcile their new faith with the Old Law. Some did a better job than others. Some realized that Christians in general - Gentiles - are not under the Law of Moses at all (none quite realized that Gentiles NEVER WERE under the Law of Moses, but that is plain from the text itself).

But then we casually read today, see Old Testament Law, see Jews struggling with it in the New Testament, and then ASSUME, without any legal foundation, that this somehow must apply to us. That's faux legalism. It's like picking up a textbook of law and starting to apply it, without realizing that you are reading a translation of the political law of China. Doesn't apply to YOU (even if you're Chinese, if you're living in America), and NEVER DID to anybody else, living anywhere.

It's pretty obvious, when the Scriptures are read with a careful legal eye.

What is also obvious is that there is a NEW law in the New Testament. It has SOME of the features of SOME of the Jewish Commandments (the Ten, and others), but it is by no means a restatement of the Jewish Law. It's a fresh, new law, given by Jesus, for those who would follow HIM to the promised land, which is not Israel, but the City of God after final judgment.

This law is shorter. The deadly sins are detailed twice, by Jesus, on the last page of the Bible. The list only has one or two of the Ten Commandments, and includes other things that were not mentioned at all. It's not a restatement of the Law of Moses, but a different set of principles. There is some overlap, because God is the same God, but it comes from a different angle. This is not about a secure earthly farm in a promised land for selected people, but a room in God's city after death and resurrection.

The Law of Jesus is what we are under - he said "Follow me" many times, and he asked "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't do what I tell you to do?" If you want to know the Law of God for YOU, you have to set the Old Testament aside and read Jesus. Start with Revelation - it is best laid out there. The images of the end times are irrelevant here. It's what he says in the letters to the Seven Churches at the beginning, and his statement of the deadly sins at the end, that matter. Read the Gospels for a fleshing out of this message.

THAT is the law that people all over the world need to be following if they want to please God.

The notion that there is no law is absurd. The notion that God's law for the world is the Law of Moses is likewise, absurd. And that is all perfectly clear from the actual Scriptures, if they are read legalistically.

Dear Brother in Messiah, I see you have taken a lot of time to carefully proclaim your view on God's Instructions and I sincerely applaud your zeal for Christ. First question, what is your definition of a gentile Christian? If you are grafted in are you neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female? Galatians 3:28, Are we not grafted in to the family of Israel ? Romans 11. Another question I have is about 2 different sets of laws, scripturally where is that concept defined, can you provide scripture? As I understand it God does not change Malachi 3:6, what was an abomination in the Tanakh (the old testament) is still an abomination today. What was unclean then is still unclean now. Did he not create us and therefore knows what is best for us and why? Do we not have faith that His instructions are in our best interest, instead of trying to reason them away, according to our own understanding? "There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. "Proverbs 14:12 My last question is, why would you recommend the Word be read starting in Revelation? Is it not a book with a beginning (Gen) and an end (Rev)? Do you think if one reads it as not intended they may miss the foundation?
 
Upvote 0

Starcrystal

Sheep in Wolves clothing
Mar 2, 2004
5,067
1,705
62
In the woods... was In an old church - was On the
✟14,805.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mind you, it is mainly the government that enforces Sunday laws....
and originated in a political-religious ruling

"Constantine Made Sunday a Civil Rest Day

When Emperor Constantine I—a pagan sun-worshipper—came to power in A.D. 313, he legalized Christianity and made the first Sunday-keeping law. His infamous Sunday enforcement law of March 7, A.D. 321, reads as follows: “On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (Codex Justinianus 3.12.3, trans. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5th ed. (New York, 1902), 3:380, note 1.)

The Sunday law was officially confirmed by the Roman Papacy. The Council of Laodicea in A.D. 364 decreed, “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ” (Strand, op. cit., citing Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 2 [Edinburgh, 1876] 316)."
http://cgi.org/who-changed-the-sabbath-to-sunday/

I never go so far as to say if you don't keep Saturday as Sabbath you are marked and will go to hell..some people do go that far..I also do not say if you eat unclean foods you will go to hell...but I will say it is far less healthy than eating clean foods and natural organic non-GMO foods, and that this is also backed by scripture...
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,433
4,605
Hudson
✟283,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so He has always had such a conduct, and His law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) because it is based off of His holiness, righteousness, and goodness, and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. So the way to have such a conduct existed from the beginning and exists independently of any covenant. Even before God has made any covenants with man, there still existed a way to act in line with His character, which was later revealed to Moses. Because God's law is based off of who He is, it can not change unless God's character changes.

Through faith in Messiah, we are now fellow citizens of Israel (Ephesians 2:19), true Israel is made up of those who have faith in the promise (Romans 9:8-6), and Gentiles are now included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession (1 Peter 2:9-10), so what was once once said about Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6) now includes Gentiles, and all those who identify as a member of God's chosen people should follow the commands that God has given to His chosen people, Israel. The New Covenant was only made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel (Jeremiah 31:33), so it is only through being grafted into Israel that we are able to be part of it. However, even for those who are not grafted into Israel, God's instructions for how to act in line with His character are about how to identify with Him, not how to identify with Jews, so it doesn't matter who those instructions were given to or what covenant we are under, anyone who identifies as a follower of God and seeks to know how to do what is holy, righteous, and good can find out by reading the Mosaic law. Furthermore, this same law is incorporated into the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33) and as part of it we are still told to do what is holy, righteous, and good (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10). For example, 1 Peter 1:14-16 tells us to have a holy conduct because God is holy (not because the Jews are holy) and verse 16 references Leviticus 11:44-45, where God was giving His dietary laws as part of His instructions for how to have a holy conduct.

He will then find that, thanks to the destruction of the Temple and the priesthood by the Romans in 69 AD, it is no longer possible to fully obey the Law of Moses

Note that sacrifices did not stop with the death, resurrection, or ascension of Jesus, but continued up until the destruction of the temple. Paul continued to offer sacrifices as part of His vow (Acts 18:18, Numbers 6) and was on his way to pay for the expenses of others who had taken that same vow to show that he continued to live in obedience to the law (Acts 21:24). The Bible also prophecies of a period when a third temple will be built when sacrifices will resume. Also note that when Israel was in exile in Babylon the condition to return was for them to obey His law, which included obeying His Feasts while their wasn't a temple, so obeying what they could by faith counted as full obedience.

Jesus did not tell the people of the New Covenant to do that. He didn't even do that when he spoke about certain of those laws

Every prophet came with the message to repent from their sins and turn back to God's law, and Jesus was no different. The law is what reveals to us what sin is (Romans 3:20), without the law we wouldn't even know what sin is (Romans 7:7), and sin is defined as lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so simply telling us to repent from our sins, which is a central part of the Gospel message, is telling to turn away from lawlessness and turn back to obedience to God's law. Our salvation is from sin, so our salvation is from disobedience to the law for the purpose of coming into obedience to it. We are saved by grace through faith, not be doing good works, but rather we are made new creations in Messiah for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:8-10) and all OT Scripture (which primarily includes God's law) , is God breathed and profitable for equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16). Messiah redeemed from lawlessness (Titus 2:14) for the purpose of coming into obedience to to the law and our sanctification is about being made to be more like Messiah in his obedience to the law. Messiah died so that we might obey that law and thereby meet its righteous requirement (Romans 8:4).

1 John 2:4-6 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Jesus taught how to walk in obedience to God's law both by word and by sinless example and we are told to walk in the same way that he walked, to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) to imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1), and to be like Him (Philippians 2:5). Furthermore, these verses associate Jesus' commands with walking in the same way that he walked, so he didn't command anything other than obedience to the law of Moses. Indeed, he said His teachings were not his own, but that of the one who sent him (John 7:16), so Jesus did not teach anything that was not in accordance with the law that the Father had commanded to Moses. A central part of Christian theology is that Jesus was sinless, which means he obeyed the law perfectly, so while he didn't always obey man made traditions for how to obey God's law, he did always obey God's law.

And so now the Law of Moses literally cannot be fulfilled, no matter how willing a person might be.

According to Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor fulfills the entire law, so fulfilling the entire law is something everyone since Moses can do and does not refer only to perfect obedience or to something unique that Jesus did. Jesus summarized the law as being instructions about how to love God and how to love your neighbor, so love fulfills the law because that is showing a full understanding of what the law is essentially about. After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5:17, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to fully understand and obey it.

Paul understood this, which is why we see him apparently struggling with "the Law" and its goodness, and its superfluity, on the one hand, and Christian salvation without it, on the other.

Paul said that our faith upholds God's law (Romans 3:31) and that he delighted in obeying it as David did (Psalms 1:1-2) and that it was the good that he sought to do, which he contrasted with the law of sin and death (Romans 7:12-24), so his struggle was not between God's law and salvation, but between the law of sin and death and salvation. God's law has many purposes, but obedience to it through our own effort as the means to our salvation was never one of them.

which means that it is really useless for them to follow any of it, as the promised farm in Israel is only in return for following all of it.

Living by faith in obedience to God's law was about much, much more than farmland.

Jesus independently gives plenty of law of God to Christians. These laws are new laws for the New Covenant. Quite a few of those laws overlap somewhat the Law of Moses, so one can see the parallels and see what God was getting at. But most of those laws do not overlap.

Jesus did not teach anything that was brand new or anything not in accordance with God's instructions. When he was quoting Scripture, he said "it is written", but when he was quoting the teachers of the law of his day, he said "you have heard that it was said", so in Matthew 5, Jesus was not teaching anything brand new, but was correcting what the teachers of the law were saying. For example:

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While the law certainly does command us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not command us to hate our enemies - that is what the teachers of the law were wrongly teaching. If Jesus had been adding or subtracting from God's law, then he would have sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and been in just as much of a need of a Savior from his sin as the rest of us. If Jesus could change around which things were sin, then him being sinless would be of no importance, but rather he was sent because God upheld His law.

It's really quite different, and the Christian Law, the Law of Jesus, is also quite different.

Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father or the Spirit about what conduct we should have, so the law of Messiah is the same as the law of the Spirit, which is the same as the law of the Father, which was given to Moses. Jesus said he came only to do the Father's will (John 6:38) and his commands were the same as he walked out. God's law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to the law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), the spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 4:24), and God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142). The law is the way (Jeremiah 6:16-19), the truth, and the life (Deuteronomy 30:15), Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), the law is God's word, and Messiah is God's word made flesh.

Consider shellfish.

Tzara'at was a sign of an internal moral condition, not something acquired through eating contaminated food. While there are night and day parallels in the health factor between eating kosher and non-kosher food, we should be very careful before we say that that was the only purpose God had in commanding dietary laws, otherwise we might end up like the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 8-10, their knowledge puffed them up and erroneously led to to think that it was ok to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols because they through idols were nothing when they were really demons. For example, eating is one of the most common things that we do and when we pause before everything we eat to consider whether it is something that God would have us do, then it helps to train us in holiness and to train us to keep our focus on God throughout our other activities as well.

Where Christians fall down is in being hypocritical about the law of the New Testament, in pretending that because the Apostles and Jesus set aside various portions of "The Law" (of Moses) for them, that NO law applies to them.

At no point did either Jesus or the Apostles set aside any portion of the law of Moses. Doing that would have been sinning and according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, the way to tell that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for God, even if they performed signs and wonders, is if they tried to lead them away from obeying what God had commanded them, so if you think Jesus or the Apostles did that, then you should consider them to be false prophets and not inspired by God. Neither Paul nor the Jerusalem Council had any authority to countermand God or to tell Gentiles not to obey any of God's commands, so they never did that, but if you interpret them as trying to do that, then you should still obey God instead of them.

Actually, God said pork and oysters are fine. He said that Noah after the Flood

In Genesis 7, Noah was told to take seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals, but he was not told how to distinguish between the two, which implies that he had already been given prior instructions about the differences between the two, and knew that unclean animals were not to be eaten or offered as sacrifices (Genesis 8:20), which is in agreed with Leviticus 11:46-47. God's word does not change (Psalms 105:8 Psalms 119:89-92, Isaiah 40:8), Jesus is the word of God (John 1:14,Revelation 19:13), and Jesus has always been the same (Hebrews 13:8). So there is and has always been a difference between clean and unclean animals, and we have never been permitted to eat unclean animals.

In regard to Genesis 9:3, the word "reh'mes" refers to a specific category of animal, which Noah was given permission to eat.

"The noun (remes) and the associated verb (rms) each occur 17 times in the Old Testament, ten times each in Genesis 1-9. This word group is distinct from both the wild (predatory) beasts and domesticated flocks and herds. Neither verb nor noun is ever used to refer to larger wild animals or to domesticated animals. In no place is remes a catch-all category for all creatures. It is is one category of creature only. The division of Hebrew terms used up to this point in Genesis reflects the nature of the animal..."

"These animals were typically characterized as being the prey of hunters and wild beasts," - John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College)

This would mean that Noah could not eat all things, but only those that were remes, and this is in agreement with God's statement to Noah (Genesis 9:2). Not coincidentally, the animals considered remes are all fit the description of animals that are considered clean in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. So Noah was not given permission to eat unclean animals, he just needed permission to eat clean animals, which he didn't have while they were on the ark, otherwise they wouldn't be around today.

Genesis 6:20-21 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive. 21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them.”

The goal of bringing animals on the ark was to preserve them from extinction, so God temporarily restricted Noah from eating clean animals by commanding him to keep them alive and to eat the same food as they did.

"God here does not bestow on men more than he had previously given, but only restored what had been taken away, that they might again enter on the possession of those things from which they had been excluded." - John Calvin

Some realized that Christians in general - Gentiles - are not under the Law of Moses at all (none quite realized that Gentiles NEVER WERE under the Law of Moses, but that is plain from the text itself).

If Gentiles were never under the law of Moses, then they have no need of a savior. According to Romans 6:8-14, the law that we are not under is the one where sin and death no longer have dominion over us, so we are not under the law of sin and death, which is the opposite of the law of Moses.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Starcrystal
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Mind you, it is mainly the government that enforces Sunday laws....
Yes.
Some are still on the books, possibly, in places in the usa. (have not double-checked though)

They were enforced very gruesomely sometimes, I heard.... (decades ago, never thought so many people would still deny the truth at the time.... boy, was I WRONG ! (yes!) )
 
Upvote 0

JoeP222w

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2015
3,358
1,748
55
✟77,175.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why is it that many Christians only cry 'legalism' when their favorite
sin comes up? Murder, lying, theft, sodomy; very few have a problem
believing they are still sins. But bring up pork or shrimp, or keeping
the correct Sabbath day, and they are instantly offended.

Context matters.

God repealed the Dietary and Ceremonial laws. The Moral law remains.

Or are you saying that God does not have the freedom to categorize His Law?
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Or are you saying that God does not have the freedom to categorize His Law?
God can. People can't (not legitimately) .
That's why people when they say what God did, and He didn't ,
well, there's the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starcrystal
Upvote 0

Starcrystal

Sheep in Wolves clothing
Mar 2, 2004
5,067
1,705
62
In the woods... was In an old church - was On the
✟14,805.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes.
Some are still on the books, possibly, in places in the usa. (have not double-checked though)

They were enforced very gruesomely sometimes, I heard.... (decades ago, never thought so many people would still deny the truth at the time.... boy, was I WRONG ! (yes!) )

Many are liquor laws...some states do not allow any sale of alcohol on Sunday, while others require a "Sunday liquor license" to sell, which is just a money making scheme. And, even in states that can sell it on Sunday they must wait till a later time than any other day.. 1 PM in Florida, where any other day you could buy it at 6 - 8 am....
I know this is regulation of something that can be sin in any excess, but it goes to show the strictness of the laws.
Some liquor stores when i was younger would let you drive out back on Sunday in a state that forbid liquor sale on sunday, and secretly load your car, also asking for a higher price for the liquor...they said if they got caught it could mean heavy fines and possible loss of their entire liquor license..showing again how strict the govt was about Sunday and Sunday only...
and showing people had to pay to sell on Sunday

In my state Sunday liquor licenses are some of the most expensive of all liquor licenses, and also have to be on top of the regular license fee.

Friday night to Saturday night is now the day in the US that liquor stores are open latest and people get drunk the most, which my opinion totally desecrates the sabbath, not to mention many factories and other businesses work Saturday mandatory, but most give Sunday off unless a large store chain, restaurant, or gas station, everything else is closed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,433
4,605
Hudson
✟283,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Context matters.

God repealed the Dietary and Ceremonial laws. The Moral law remains.

Or are you saying that God does not have the freedom to categorize His Law?

Morality is in regard of what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws, including his dietary and ceremonial laws. In 1 Peter 1:14-16, we are told to have a holy conduct and the dietary and ceremonial laws are essentially God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct.
 
Upvote 0

DeepWater

Just The Truth
Aug 6, 2011
508
358
Israel (usually)
✟16,539.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
There are no more sins, if you are born again.
This is because the eternal Blood of Christ has been applied to you, and it continually cleanses and keeps you as if you never sinned.
This is why Paul calls what you call sins, .."works of the flesh".

Here is what you have not been taught, apparently...... > SIN, is known as SIN, when there is LAW that spotlights it.
But your bible says that your Savior has "become sin", who knew no sin".
You bible tells you that "where there is no LAW, there is no Transgression"..
See, when Paul tells you that Jesus "Gave himself for you", he is explaining that he has sacrificed himself on a Cross for your SINS.
And once this has been applied to you, then the Law is gone, the payment due for your sins has Killed Jesus, and so you are free from that punishment due, and this leaves you with "the gift of righteousness", ....in other words, the moment you are born again, you have BECOME as Righteous as Jesus has made you by His Sacrifice.
This means that you are "become righteous", because of what HE did.
So, out goes the law and in flows the Grace.
Thats what happens at the Cross.
At the Cross, God takes your sins and lays them on Christ, and he takes His Grace and the Righteousness of Christ and gives this to you, as a GIFT.
And this born again position, this state of being pardoned, this place of Sonship, this adoption into the family of God, ...this "in Christ" position whereby you are a JOINT HEIR with Christ, means, God never again holds you eternally accountable for what you call sins, and the reason is, Jesus has paid the price for them all with His Body and his Blood and His life..
And THIS, is "Salvation".
Its a Done Deal, once applied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan61861
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Dear Brother in Messiah, I see you have taken a lot of time to carefully proclaim your view on God's Instructions and I sincerely applaud your zeal for Christ. First question, what is your definition of a gentile Christian? If you are grafted in are you neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female? Galatians 3:28, Are we not grafted in to the family of Israel ? Romans 11. Another question I have is about 2 different sets of laws, scripturally where is that concept defined, can you provide scripture? As I understand it God does not change Malachi 3:6, what was an abomination in the Tanakh (the old testament) is still an abomination today. What was unclean then is still unclean now. Did he not create us and therefore knows what is best for us and why? Do we not have faith that His instructions are in our best interest, instead of trying to reason them away, according to our own understanding? "There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. "Proverbs 14:12 My last question is, why would you recommend the Word be read starting in Revelation? Is it not a book with a beginning (Gen) and an end (Rev)? Do you think if one reads it as not intended they may miss the foundation?

Dear Brother in Christ,
Jesus said "Follow Me!" So I do. I follow him. I always frame my discussions in terms of direct quotes from the mouth of Jesus or YHWH or the Elohiym. I do this, because this is the highest authority. Paul is rather contradictory. I am not persuaded by the rhetoric of Paul. Paul, to my eyes and ears, would sometimes lead me to a different place than Jesus does. Where they conflict, I stick with Jesus.

Now, as far as "reading as intended", the Bible is not a book. It's a collection of works. Certainly if one reads it in chronological order, one sees the successive covenants, for different peoples or individuals, in different times on different terms. And one learns more and more about God.

The key to Revelation is that it is the closest in time to us, and incorporates all of the revelation that came before. Also, it is one of the rare books of Scripture that is literally directly dictated by God, with a specific curse from God's own lips upon whoever would add or subtract from that particular book.

Also, in terms of the timeline, Jesus dictated Revelation from the throne room of Heaven, AFTER all of the other things had transpired. So, with Revelation, specifically, we have God's FINAL written word on the matter, not merely inspired but dictated, to an Apostle, in Heaven, with the admonishment of letter perfection - something that does not appear in the rest of Scripture. Revelation is, therefore, the most authoritative, most current and most final of all of the texts of Scripture. That's why, when discussing things at a mature level, I start there.

Obviously when learning the story one starts at Genesis. But when reading the law of God applicable NOW, Revelation is the only place where the divine Christ, speaking from heaven, explicitly lays out the terms for failing final judgment.

In the Old Testament, the Mosaic Law, there was never any promise of life after death, reward in the afterlife, or punishment, or judgment. The actions, rewards and punishments are in THIS world, and pertain to Hebrews in Israel. God never Promised the Hebrews life after death through Moses. It's not part of that Law. That Law, of Moses, does not speak of eternal rewards or punishments. It speaks of a land, farm and family HERE, on THIS side of death.

It's not useful, as Law, because it doesn't apply to us and never did. But even if it did, God never promises the Hebrews life after death in Paradise, or Gehenna, at Sinai. He never promises anything more than a farm in Israel, for obedience.

It is in the Gospels and Revelation where God reveals what a man must do to attain life in God's Kingdom after death, resurrection and final judgment.

That's why I start my discussion of Christianity there. That's why I completely disregard the Old Testament for those purposes, because God doesn't make a covenant for life eternal until Jesus. It's also why I focus on Jesus, and not the letters of Peter, Jude, John, James or Paul, in which they state their various, very Jewish, opinions on Jesus. Those opinions are interesting and informative - and conflicting and contradictory - and they are not God. God is God. Jesus is God's divine Son. He's the one I follow. So I look to HIS words, and focus on THEM, and follow THEM. And I disregard Paul, James, Peter, John or Jude where their opinions depart from what Jude said.

Now, in truth, their opinions don't so much depart, as they focus on specific things relevant to the audience of their letters, in that time, place and manner. That's interesting, and we can learn by analogy, but Divine Law comes from the mouth of God alone, so that's where I focus - on the words that come forth out of the mouth of God.

The Law of Moses and the Law of Jesus under the New Covenant conflict a lot, so I follow Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Also note that when Israel was in exile in Babylon the condition to return was for them to obey His law, which included obeying His Feasts while their wasn't a temple, so obeying what they could by faith counted as full obedience.

No. Instructions were given to rebuild the Temple, and it was rebuilt.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1 John 2:4-6 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.
Yes. HIS commandments. The HE is Jesus. Jesus, Son of God, gave commandments, and they are quite different from the commandments YHWH gave to Moses and the Hebrews at Sinai. We must indeed keep the words of Jesus. He asked "What good does it do you to say that you follow me if you do not keep my commandments?"
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Living by faith in obedience to God's law was about much, much more than farmland.
THat's true. It was also about the promise of fertile families, prosperity, freedom from want, security in Israel against enemies, and victory in battle when it came.

What it was never about was life after death and eternal life with God in the City. That was never revealed at Sinai or through Moses, it was never promised for obedience to the Mosaic Law. It was the New Wine that Jesus brought, that could not be put into the old bottles without bursting them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,941
1,034
New York/Int'l
✟14,624.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Correct. How can someone versed in Scripture not know thus?

The problem (besides people who want to be in God''s family being "grafted in,") is that very few people actually know if they are genetic Hebrews - and, therefore cannot use that argument.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jesus did not teach anything that was brand new or anything not in accordance with God's instructions.

The second part is true. The first part is not.

Open the Torah and show me God's revelation of life after death, Gehenna and Gan Eden, final judgment, the criteria for passing final judgment, and the City of God.

A key piece of the BRAND NEW that Jesus taught was this: if you don't drink my blood, there is no life in you. Now, of course, God forbade the eating of flesh with blood in it, to Noah. And he forbade it to the Hebrews in the Law of Moses.
The eating or drinking of blood was forbidden - an abomination.

But Jesus, Son of God, commanded that if you don't drink HIS blood, you have no life in you. And he passed around the cup of his blood, the blood of the New Covenant, at the Last Supper.

Yes, Jesus did teach things that were brand new, and they changed everything.
 
Upvote 0

Starcrystal

Sheep in Wolves clothing
Mar 2, 2004
5,067
1,705
62
In the woods... was In an old church - was On the
✟14,805.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are no more sins, if you are born again.
This is because the eternal Blood of Christ has been applied to you, and it continually cleanses and keeps you as if you never sinned.
This is why Paul calls what you call sins, .."works of the flesh".

.

Well,
1 John 1:8 - 10
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

2:1 - 4
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
we should be very careful before we say that that was the only purpose God had in commanding dietary laws
It was God's STATED purpose in the dietary laws. Go check the place in Exodus where he first gives them.
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
At no point did either Jesus or the Apostles set aside any portion of the law of Moses.
Completely false. Here we have come to a factual impasse. When Jesus held aloft the cup of his blood and commanded them to drink it, he was commanding the breaking one of the oldest food prohibition in Scripture, going all the way back to Noah.

Indeed, when he told the people that they would have to gnaw his flesh and drink his blood to follow him, that very thing is what caused the crowds to break from him and thin out.

There are so very many examples of Jesus taking the Jewish Law and proclaiming a new law for the New Covenant. You think it's old wine in a new bottle. But it's new wine that cannot be contained in the old bottle.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Starcrystal

Sheep in Wolves clothing
Mar 2, 2004
5,067
1,705
62
In the woods... was In an old church - was On the
✟14,805.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Completely false. Here we have come to a factual impasse. When Jesus held aloft the cup of his blood and commanded them to drink it, he was commanding the breaking one of the oldest food prohibition in Scripture, going all the way back to Noah.

Indeed, when he told the people that they would have to gnaw his flesh and drink his blood to follow him, that very thing is what caused the crowds to break from him and thin out.

There are so very many examples of Jesus taking the Jewish Law and proclaiming a new law for the New Covenant. You think it's old wine in a new bottle. But it's new wine that cannot be contained in the old bottle.

Symbolic...the 'blood' they actually drank was wine, and the 'flesh' was bread...so no one broke anything except breaking bread..people just like to twist words around..no one was drinking actual blood and eating actual flesh...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.