Godly Wrath

[igotbegot]

It says men sleeping with men as with women.

Not in the New Testament, which is what you and I were talking about. You're alluding to the O.T verse(s) about it, which if you are to be believed, are part of a nullified law that no longer applies.

I'm going to dedicate a new post to discussing this topic, or maybe a new thread.

Actually, it's one of those rare things that falls under both laws.

It's still valid, even under a new covenant. Which was my point.

I don't know what NT you're reading, but ours says it very clearly.

Very clearly, no. Like I said, you may interpret that from scripture, but it does not say that in any "clear" way.

I do. I observe Christ as Sabbath, just like all Christians.

He and his disciples observed it as the jews did. As the judiac practiced it, as a day of the week, not as a concept. So if you are not observing it that way, you are NOT observing it like Jesus or his disciples did.

Please read my posts before you respond to them. I just pointed out that they're two different things.

Well, if the sabbath was not nullified by the removal of the ceremonial laws, then you can't use that as an excuse to disobey it.

There are several similar NT verses that tell believers not to judge other believers because they observe a different day or no day at all.

In other words, it tells them not to give those believers who don't observe the Jewsish Sabbath a hard time because it isn't their Sabbath.

There is no N.T. directive to ignore the sabbath day commandment. The 39 old covenant laws may have been nullified, but not the commandment itself because it wasn't part of the ceremonial law. Same goes for the other 9 commandments.

The practice of Sunday being the sabbath was only popular in the churches of Rome and Alexandria[1], even up to the fifth century. The rest of the churches practiced the sabbath every Saturday, as Jesus and his disciples did.

It was the Roman churche that had more influence on what today is the established orthodoxy. So today it is seen as the universal Christian truth, even though it wasn't for centuries. It certainly wasn't by Jesus or his disciples, or the Christian world outside of Rome and Alexandria. [2]


[1]. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chap. 22, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) Second Series, Vol. II, p. 132.

[2] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

 

[WarEagle]

Not in the New Testament, which is what you and I were talking about. You're alluding to the O.T verse(s) about it, which if you are to be believed, are part of a nullified law that no longer applies.

You're joking, right? You mean you really believe that the book of Romans is in the OT?

It's still valid, even under a new covenant. Which was my point.

The Bible says that it's no longer a day of the week, but Christ.

Very clearly, no.

No, it is taught very clearly that the Sabbath day was only a shadow of Christ and that now that Christ has come, He is our Sabbath, not a day of the week.

Like I said, you may interpret that from scripture, but it does not say that in any "clear" way.

He and his disciples observed it as the jews did. As the judiac practiced it, as a day of the week, not as a concept. So if you are not observing it that way, you are NOT observing it like Jesus or his disciples did.

We're not Jews.

Jesus kept all of the law. He had to.

Well, if the sabbath was not nullified by the removal of the ceremonial laws, then you can't use that as an excuse to disobey it.

Why do we need the shadow of Christ when we have Christ?

There is no N.T. directive to ignore the sabbath day commandment.

You're right. I never said that there is.

What I said is that the NT tells those of us who don't observe a day of the week as Sabbath to show liberty to those who do, and those who do, to show liberty to those of us who don't.

The practice of Sunday being the sabbath was only popular in the churches of Rome and Alexandria[1], even up to the fifth century. The rest of the churches practiced the sabbath every Saturday, as Jesus and his disciples did.

Actually, the Bible tells us that the disciples met on Sunday, not Saturday but, so what? If the Bible tells me not to esteem one day over another, I'm not going to get worked up about it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

I see. So then, you're going to sources that don't know what Christianity teaches to find out what Christianity teaches? Good thinking!

That's probably why you didn't know that the book of Romans is in the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

 

[igotbegot]

It says men sleeping with men as with women.

I looked up Romans 1:26-27 in 20 different translations and not a one of them use the language that you did. However, Leviticus does.

Leviticus 20:13, NIV

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman...

So clearly, you were referencing Leviticus, not Romans. Do you still disagree with me that it was an O.T reference?

The Bible says that it's no longer a day of the week, but Christ.

Not directly.

Actually, the Bible tells us that the disciples met on Sunday, not Saturday but, so what?

No it doesn't. So what? If you loved God you would keep his 10 commandments.

I see. So then, you're going to sources that don't know what Christianity teaches to find out what Christianity teaches? Good thinking!

That's probably why you didn't know that the book of Romans is in the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

I think they know more about the Christian history than you do. A lot more in fact. And no, I don't think Romans is O.T. I think you, the self proclaimed biblically educated, were quoting the wrong book.

 

[jayem]

What I said is that the NT tells those of us who don't observe a day of the week as Sabbath to show liberty to those who do, and those who do, to show liberty to those of us who don't.

Well, that's what Paul says. But it contradicts what Jesus himself says:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all that must happen has happened. Therefore whoever disregards even the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great..."

Matt 5:17-20 (REB)


So what did Jesus mean when he said not the least of the law should be ignored? Wouldn't that cover both moral and ceremonial commands? So, for example, why would Paul later say that circumcision isn't necessary to become a member of the covenant? The OT law is quite clear that any alien must be circumcized to become one of God's people. Given how much of the first 5 books of the OT dwells on the importance of obeying God's laws, why would Paul teach that much of the law is no longer in force? Especially, when Jesus himself said it must be observed "until heaven and earth shall pass away."

 

[Renton405]

In the O.T. there were many instances and prescriptions to kill people for various things, such as violating the sabbath, mocking god and his laws, worshiping false gods, being very ungodly, etc...

In modern times people don't do this much, and the ones that do are usually mocked and called criminals by the rest of the Christian community.

So why do Christians find obeying certain O.T. rules and regs (like condemning homosexuality) and not follow the other more important ones, like killing people that violate the sabbath (numbers 15, 32-35)?

After all, obeying the sabbath is one of God's top 10 commandments, yet no one follows the commands and precepts laid down in the bible regarding it, but the feel righteous indignation regarding homosexuals and whatnot...

Oh sure, murder, adultery, and worshiping idols are all sinful because of the ten commandments, but that stuff about the sabbath was nullified by the N.T. ya, right.

So what's the deal Christians? You're told to love God before you love others, so why don't you kill violators of the sabbath?

For the record, I'm not religious.

The Moral laws in the OT are still binding.. Jesus did away with the traditions such as food and other "outer" traditions..The Law was created to show us our sins, a mirror for us to look at.. a sin such as homosexuality which is mentioned both in the OT and the NT shows that its definatly something we need to avoid..

 

[igotbegot]

The Moral laws in the OT are still binding.. Jesus did away with the traditions such as food and other "outer" traditions..The Law was created to show us our sins, a mirror for us to look at.. a sin such as homosexuality which is mentioned both in the OT and the NT shows that its definatly something we need to avoid..

Sins, like eating shellfish?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

In the O.T. there were many instances and prescriptions to kill people for various things, such as violating the sabbath, mocking god and his laws, worshiping false gods, being very ungodly, etc...

In modern times people don't do this much, and the ones that do are usually mocked and called criminals by the rest of the Christian community.

So why do Christians find obeying certain O.T. rules and regs (like condemning homosexuality) and not follow the other more important ones, like killing people that violate the sabbath (numbers 15, 32-35)?

After all, obeying the sabbath is one of God's top 10 commandments, yet no one follows the commands and precepts laid down in the bible regarding it, but the feel righteous indignation regarding homosexuals and whatnot...

Oh sure, murder, adultery, and worshiping idols are all sinful because of the ten commandments, but that stuff about the sabbath was nullified by the N.T. ya, right.

So what's the deal Christians? You're told to love God before you love others, so why don't you kill violators of the sabbath?

For the record, I'm not religious.

Do you find the same confusion when considering a parent telling a child to not leave the yard, cross the street, etc. and then jump to another timeline and set of conditions where the parent gives more responsibilities and freedoms?

IMO, contemplating an answer for that might trigger a realization of where the real problem was.

 

[igotbegot]

Do you find the same confusion when considering a parent telling a child to not leave the yard, cross the street, etc. and then jump to another timeline and set of conditions where the parent gives more responsibilities and freedoms?

IMO, contemplating an answer for that might trigger a realization of where the real problem was.

I don't see how it's even remotely reasonable to compare the two.

 

[tapero]

The Moral laws in the OT are still binding.. Jesus did away with the traditions such as food and other "outer" traditions..The Law was created to show us our sins, a mirror for us to look at.. a sin such as homosexuality which is mentioned both in the OT and the NT shows that its definatly something we need to avoid..

Hi, just want to say here, that we are not under the 10 commandments, but under as you say the moral laws, which are sins which never ever change.. sin never becomes not sin. (and sins is listed in 10 commandments) we are not under the sabbath in the least, was given to israel only, and scripture clearly says given to israel.

and while Messianics (some or all) practice the sabbath, keep the sabbath, they are a different matter, and do so as they may also keep levitical laws as well, and again is a separate issue.

meanwhile for those of us not messianic (who aren't required, but may believe they are, believe they are, know they are, whatever, for them it's different..)

but why i wrote you is for this reason.

you said, in ot and nt is homosexuality and definitely something we need avoid. that is true, but reason am posting is just to clarify, as perhaps you didn't mean to single that sin out for a reason, all sin is to be avoided, and homosexuality is just one sin, is not any worse than any other sin, as pertains to how God looks at sin.

Tho certain sins do have effects some seen some unseen and some which may never apparently seem to have any impact on others or self.

stealing may lose someone their business due to the many who steal their products or a job may be loss, or many lost, many implications can occur.

lying may do many things, again unseen, but can result in serious harm depending on what the lie is.

and on and on.

sexual immorality is far reaching for the reason that it's now down to kids level, as to being taught that anything goes and is cool and okay. and other ways is far reaching, but I believe major situation is that it's at kids level, meaning being taught in schools, on tax dollars, implied or outright thru sex ed teaching ..

many sins are far reaching

as pertains to adults, is their business.. as a Chrisitian, if I were gay, would be abstinate. and i'm single and am abstinate, but have not had any temptations for straight sex and if did have such, i hope i would run far and fast because, is very easy to give in to for anybody..if in situation..which is why i said would run far and fast, actually would never i pray allow myself be in situation of temptation, tho who knows.. can occur.

but there are Christians who are gay and are not abstinate..either they dont think is sin, or do, and do so anyway, and is no different than Christians who do other sins.

i just dont' like to see homosexuality singled out, and you may not have meant to..as is no different than any other sin.

 

[WarEagle]

I looked up Romans 1:26-27 in 20 different translations and not a one of them use the language that you did.

Try the KJV. It says that they left their women and started having sex with one another and God punished them for it.

However, Leviticus does.

So clearly, you were referencing Leviticus, not Romans.

No, I know exactly which passage I was referencing and it was from Romans 1, not from Leviticus.

Do you still disagree with me that it was an O.T reference?

Yes, I still disagree with your statement that Romans is in the OT.

Not directly.

Directly or indirectly, it's still what the Bible says.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. See Acts 20:7.

So what? If you loved God you would keep his 10 commandments.

If I could keep th ten commandments, I wouldn't need a savior. However, I do try to keep them inasmuch as I'm able.

I think they know more about the Christian history than you do.

So far, everything you've quoted them as saying has been wrong.

And no, I don't think Romans is O.T.

Actually, you did refer to it as being in the OT, not the NT. Maybe it was just a mistake on your part, but for somebody who can only copy and paste from an atheist website and believes that is greater that somebody who's actually studied the scriptures for twenty years, it's a pretty glaring one.

I think you, the self proclaimed biblically educated, were quoting the wrong book.

No, I was quoting Romans. I know exactly which book I was quoting.

 

[WarEagle]

we are not under the 10 commandments

We're not? Then why are nine of the ten commandments repeated in the NT?

Does this mean that we're free to lie, steal, covet, murder, etc?

but there are Christians who are gay and are not abstinate

1 John 3:4-10 says they're not Christians, then.

 

[tcampen]

Since no one will provide a biblical answer to either:

1. where is it stated Jesus only did away with the ceremonial laws, and and not the moral laws; OR

2. where the bible makes the distiction between "moral" and "ceremonial" laws,

...then we are forced to conclude this is all just arbitrary, ad hoc theology. One concludes the prohibition on eating swine was only ceremonial because they like their bacon in the morning - I get it. Convenience is often the determiner of morality.

 

[tapero]

We're not? Then why are nine of the ten commandments repeated in the NT?

Does this mean that we're free to lie, steal, covet, murder, etc?



1 John 3:4-10 says they're not Christians, then.

not sure how you missed what i said.

i said sin is sin no matter what, and in teh 10 commandments there are lists of sins and sins never stop being sins. We are not under the 10 commandments and we know such as due to the sabbath, so if you keep the 10 commandments and think you are under them, then you need to do the very detailed things of the sabbath, which more than likely you do not do.

the 10 commandments was not to us, was to israel.

the sins in the 10 commandments are still sins, and that never changes.

Sin is also not exhuastively listed inthe bible, there are many sins not in the bible that are sins.

But we know in the 10 commandments are sins, and we know in the nt we are not to sin.

as you said same sins are listed in nt, or nine of em, they are sin no matter even if they were not printed.

we are not to sin, no matter where its written or not written, but the 10 commandments were given to israel.

so you mistook what i said, as sin is sin, no matter where it's printed no matter if it's not in the bible sin is sin,

you quoted this scripture, or gave reference to:

4Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

So you believe you dont sin anymore?

 

[tapero]

Since no one will provide a biblical answer to either:

1. where is it stated Jesus only did away with the ceremonial laws, and and not the moral laws; OR

2. where the bible makes the distiction between "moral" and "ceremonial" laws,

...then we are forced to conclude this is all just arbitrary, ad hoc theology. One concludes the prohibition on eating swine was only ceremonial because they like their bacon in the morning - I get it. Convenience is often the determiner of morality.

I've never heard of ceremonial laws, can you tell me what you mean by that?

and what do you mean by moral laws do you mean sin?

if you mean by moral laws sin in the ot please let me know that as well.

thanks

 

[quatona]

I've never heard of ceremonial laws, can you tell me what you mean by that?

and what do you mean by moral laws do you mean sin?

if you mean by moral laws sin in the ot please let me know that as well.

thanks

You would have to ask WarEagle. He´s the one operating with these terms and concepts, claiming they are biblical.
All tcampen (and a lot of other posters) is doing:is trying to find out where he pulled these categories.

 

[tapero]

You would have to ask WarEagle. He´s the one operating with these terms and concepts, claiming they are biblical.
All tcampen (and a lot of other posters) is doing:is trying to find out where he pulled these categories.

ah, well, then, i wouldnt' put anyting to it then, since no clue to those terms at all. (can assume what is meant, but won't assume, need to know exactly what is meant)

 

[tcampen]

ah, well, then, i wouldnt' put anyting to it then, since no clue to those terms at all. (can assume what is meant, but won't assume, need to know exactly what is meant)

Among the other laws proscribed by God in the OT, are things like not eating pork or shellfish, or not having "relations" with a woman during or soon after her period. Many christians, among WarEagle, I believe, make a distinction between these laws as being "ceremonial" and therefore no longer necessary to follow since Jesus arrived 2,000 years ago. But other laws, such as those in the 10 Commandments, or not having "relations" between same sex couples, are "moral" laws - and are still in effect.

The difficulty is finding anywhere in the bible where such distinctions are objectively made.

WarEagle seems to rely on a "it was repeated in the NT" methodology for why some OT laws survived Jesus, but not others. But that is dubious in its own right, and raises many more questions in itself.

 

[tapero]

Not this again.

For the thousandth time, there is a difference between sinning as a matter of a momentary moral lapse, for which we repent, and living a lifestyle of willful disobedience.

Rather than asking me to answer the same questions ad infinitem, maybe your time would be better spent going back to starting threads asking people to spite report me.

I've never asked you this question before.

I don't even think I've ever replied to any post of yours.

and if you drive and you speed you sin willfully all the time.

and if you think you don't sin willfully, then would be a lie according to

1 john

as you sure dont sin unwillingly

as to your last other comment... get a bridge and get over whatever your problem is

 

[WarEagle]

I've never asked you this question before.

I don't even think I've ever replied to any post of yours.

and if you drive and you speed you sin willfully all the time.

and if you think you don't sin willfully, then you are lying.

1 john says so.

Like I said, the Bible tells us that there's a difference between sinning in a momentary moral lapse, for which we repent immediately, and living a lifestyle of willful, unrepentant sin.

as to your last other comment... get a bridge and get over whatever your problem is

I'm over it just fine thank you.

 

[igotbegot]

Try the KJV.

Romans 1:27 (King James Version)

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.

Wow, that sounds even less like the diction you used.

I'm sorry but the only place where the diction you used is found, is in Leviticus.

No, I know exactly which passage I was referencing and it was from Romans 1, not from Leviticus.

Not with the diction "as a man lies with a...". You may have been thinking Romans, but you were poorly quoting Leviticus.

Directly or indirectly, it's still what the Bible says.

That's open to interpretation. Because if it doesn't say it directly, it might not be saying it at all. After all, since when was God ever indirect anywhere else in the Bible?

If I could keep th ten commandments, I wouldn't need a savior. However, I do try to keep them inasmuch as I'm able.

If you loved God you would try to keep the 4th commandment instead of willfully disregarding it.

So far, everything you've quoted them as saying has been wrong.

Can you prove that, or are you just blowing smoke?

Actually, you did refer to it as being in the OT, not the NT. Maybe it was just a mistake on your part, but for somebody who can only copy and paste from an atheist website and believes that is greater that somebody who's actually studied the scriptures for twenty years, it's a pretty glaring one.

No, I said that the diction you used was from Leviticus, not Romans, and I was correct. I would have thought someone who studied the scriptures as much as you claim to would understand the importance of diction.

No, I was quoting Romans. I know exactly which book I was quoting.

No, the diction you used does not appear in Romans, in any translation. It simply doesn't. Like I said, you may have been thinking Romans, but you were quoting Leviticus.