Levitucus - all or none?

[ahab]

The following was suggested when I made a refercence from Leviticus.

(Excluding Lev unless you keep to every other law in Lev.)

So who says we are to love our neighbour as ourselves, Lev 19:18 and a man must not lie with a another man as with a woman? Lev 18:22, 20;13
And who says who says a man can lie with another man Lev 18:22, 20:13 and we dont have to love our neighbour as ourselves? Lev 19:18

Personally I look to Jesus as the fulfillment of the law, but that isnt the point that was made to me.

what do people think?

 

[artybloke]

So who says we are to love our neighbour as ourselves,

Jesus. Didn't say anything about the rest. Who do I listen to? Moses or Jesus?

 

[ahab]

Hi artybloke,

Jesus Didn't say anything about the rest. Who do I listen to? Moses or Jesus?

Sorry you said all of Leviticus or none. Which, and how come?

Peace

 

[invisible trousers]

how about we ignore nearly all of it except for quoting select verses and using them against people we don't like?

example:

leviticus 20:18 - If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

so obviously married couples can't have sex when the wife is on her period. those heathens

leviticus 19:27 - 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

we can use this to condemn people who have haircuts which offend us.

 

[D.W.]

The following was suggested when I made a refercence from Leviticus.


So who says we are to love our neighbour as ourselves, Lev 19:18 and a man must not lie with a another man as with a woman? Lev 18:22, 20;13
And who says who says a man can lie with another man Lev 18:22, 20:13 and we dont have to love our neighbour as ourselves? Lev 19:18

Personally I look to Jesus as the fulfillment of the law, but that isnt the point that was made to me.

what do people think?

Shalom ahab,

The levitical laws are to be kept if they aply to you. For instance the ones that apply to the Levites would not apply to you. Jesus has not yet fulfilled the law unless you could clue us less fortunate as to when heaven and earth
passed whithout us knowing. Her said we are to keep the Law untill that has happened, moreover he said that to be great in the kingdom of heaven we are to keep the laws and teach them also.

G-d Bless,
Dan

 

[peepnklown]

the levitical laws are to be kept if the apply to you.

This is all conjecture unless you have scripture that says this.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

If you're not a Levite then Levitical laws don't apply to you.
Sheesh.

 

[D.W.]

This is all conjecture unless you have scripture that says this.

Shalom,

It's always nice to meet an atheist that knows scripture.

Deu 18:1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
Deu 18:3 And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.
Only the preist was allowed this part of the sacrifice unless you know of a place where G-d said that the people could eat it too.

Lev 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
How many men do you know that give birth?

Theirs many more such as what the farmer must do in the Sabbath years for the land.

G-d Bless,
Dan

 

[rnmomof7]

Mot hat on

All claims of fact relevant to the topic of homosexuality must be backed by evidence complete with citations. Standard citations are acceptable but links are prefered.
Justice Scalia Foo v. Bar 1992 is an acceptable citation but a link to the decision would be prefered if available.
Freud said blah blah blah is not an acceptable citation.
I missed your last post sorry for not responding. is an example of a statement of fact that does not require a citation.
Depression is an example of something that may be genetic that proves even if homosexuality is genetic that it is not necessarily good. is an example of something that needs a citation. In this case a citation for depression being genetic would be required.
Personal testimony and opinion are allowed, must be clearly stated as such, and posts cannot consist entirely of opinion or testimony they must have some factual claim that is relevant to the opinion or testimony stated.
God delivered me from the sin of homosexuality. would require some factual statement. In this case homosexuality being sinful would suffice and the relvant part of Romans 1 would serve as a citation.
Violation of these rules can and will result in any action allowable under protocol including Official Warnings and Forum Specific Bans.



PLEASE Post according to the rules so that the thread can stay open and no warnings issued.
Thanks

Mot hat off

 

[ahab]

Hi DW,

Thanks for your post.

Shalom
Ahab

 

[ahab]

Hi invisible trousers,

we can use this to condemn people who have haircuts which offend us.

I dont think you have understood the question. Let me repeat, I was told by two posters all of levitical laws to be obeyed or none. I disagree and used two examples, one about same-sex sex and one about loving ones neighbour, yet you are talking about condemning people

Peace

 

[invisible trousers]

It was a sarcastic example of what many fundamentalist christians do--ignore nearly part of leviticus except for trotting out verses against gay people.

That appears to be precisely what you did. In fact, you didn't address his argument at all. From what I see, there appears to be 3 options:

1. Follow every single law because you feel like it or are a levite.
2. Ignore most laws but apply some, often against people you don't like
3. Ignore the laws because you aren't a levite

I'll go with #3. Last time I checked I wasn't a levite so I'm pretty sure they don't apply to me

 

[peepnklown]

DW

It wasn’t about taking part in a sacrifice, the thread is about following the laws in LEV (I was asking you to provide a scripture that says which rules from LEV people should follow).

LEV 12:2 has nothing to do with men having a child.

 

[Im_A]

you break one commandment, you break them all.

Christians should stop even talking about the Old Law, because we don't adhere strictly to Old Law, so those Christians that say the Old Law is important but don't follow ALL of the Old Law, is just playing the game to me. no offense intended. you either do it, or you don't. there is no if ands or buts in this matter.

i don't follow the old Levitical Law. i believe the Old Law was something good though. i believe it was a law for a culture that was seeking God, and that was their Enlightenment, their place with God, at that time. that has to be respected and honored, for these are the Old Jews. i believe it has great meanings. but i do not believe however, that the Old Levitical Law is meant for today, so i don't adhere to it.

i get tired of hearing Christians saying, "Jesus fulfilled the law!" but go and quote verses from Paul that talk abou the Old Law to try to bridge some gap to comfort them in this issue. those that believe in Jesus fail to remember that Jesus was talking to Jews, not Gentiles. how can a Gentiles understand the Old Judaic Law, without converting over to Judaism? it's impossible. so why would Jesus tell Gentiles to follow the Old Law? you can't be both, it's either one way or the other. we can have all the understanding, and have all the ideas in our heads to help us clear out the difference, but we shouldn't be trying to be jumping to one side of the fence or the other, to play it safe. either you follow all the Old Law, you don't. if you fail in one area, you fail the whole thing. no exscuses, or theological excuses.

 

[D.W.]

DW

It wasn’t about taking part in a sacrifice, the thread is about following the laws in LEV (I was asking you to provide a scripture that says which rules from LEV people should follow).

LEV 12:2 has nothing to do with men having a child.

Shalom Peepnklown,
You are correct, it has nothing to do with a man having a child, it has to do with a woman’s responsibility during Nidah. There are laws governing this, and as I said in my post there are laws that are not for you but are there for someone else, to which you replied was conjecture. So you are wrong it is not conjecture, but as I said scripture, unless you can show me where this law applies to man or anyone else besides a woman.

G-d Bless,
Dan

 

[k9catts]

I love the Bible.

It is possible to be confused all the time if you try to follow it to the letter.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

how about we ignore nearly all of it except for quoting select verses and using them against people we don't like?

example:

leviticus 20:18 - If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

so obviously married couples can't have sex when the wife is on her period. those heathens

leviticus 19:27 - 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

we can use this to condemn people who have haircuts which offend us.

 

[PastorJason]

I've been watching this go back and forth for awhile and would like to throw my two cents in. In answer to the OP, I think I'd reject the parameters of the question - all or nothing. I think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That being said, I agree with those who point to Jesus summarizing the Law as loving God and loving the neighbor as we love ourselves. The Law is as much about hygiene, health protection, and social contract as it is about the community relationship to God, and there are some sections that no longer make sense in a modern world. For example, the ancient people could opt to stone a disobedient child or an adulterer. We just don't do that anymore.

Watching this thread unfold (quite a mixed metaphor, but stick with me), I'm seeing Jesus' point about making the Law into an impossibly heavy yoke, and being hypocritical by applying specific passages where we want them, and ignoring others completely (examples he used were plentiful). I think Jesus spoke more about following the Spirit of the Law (loving), rather than legalizing the letter of it which tends to be the way humans deal with it. There's plenty of proof of that on the boards here, on both sides of the ideological debate.

 

[k9catts]

Yep!

I've been watching this go back and forth for awhile and would like to throw my two cents in. In answer to the OP, I think I'd reject the parameters of the question - all or nothing. I think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That being said, I agree with those who point to Jesus summarizing the Law as loving God and loving the neighbor as we love ourselves. The Law is as much about hygiene, health protection, and social contract as it is about the community relationship to God, and there are some sections that no longer make sense in a modern world. For example, the ancient people could opt to stone a disobedient child or an adulterer. We just don't do that anymore.

Watching this thread unfold (quite a mixed metaphor, but stick with me), I'm seeing Jesus' point about making the Law into an impossibly heavy yoke, and being hypocritical by applying specific passages where we want them, and ignoring others completely (examples he used were plentiful). I think Jesus spoke more about following the Spirit of the Law (loving), rather than legalizing the letter of it which tends to be the way humans deal with it. There's plenty of proof of that on the boards here, on both sides of the ideological debate.

 

[ahab]

Hi invisible trousers,

It was a sarcastic example of what many fundamentalist christians do--ignore nearly part of leviticus except for trotting out verses against gay people.

Now I know you havent understood the question. This is not about gay or love, they are just two examples form Leviticus. There could be several examples, thes etwo are just topical. Let me repeat again, I was told by two posters all of levitical laws to be obeyed or none.

That appears to be precisely what you did. In fact, you didn't address his argument at all. From what I see, there appears to be 3 options:
1. Follow every single law because you feel like it or are a levite.
2. Ignore most laws but apply some, often against people you don't like
3. Ignore the laws because you aren't a levite

No as you see in the OP there are 2 options, the question being how would people who propose re Leviticus - all or none, choose.

Peace

 

[ahab]

Hi PastorJason,

In answer to the OP, I think I'd reject the parameters of the question - all or nothing. I think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Well I agree, but the question is the point I rejected and was then given again so I thought another thead would be good to see if anyone would go for it. So far the no-one has gone for it and some dont understand the question

Watching this thread unfold

I cant see that it has.

But yes, as I keep saying we as Christians are to live according to the Spirit and not the law, the law is written on our hearts.

Peace