OT Laws and consistency

[Zebra1552]

Can you consistently apply OT morals and, in some cases, laws, to today? That is, can you ethically divide the OT into three different categories and assert which are or are not still applicable using NT standards?

I assert that you can, and I assert that if you give me examples of laws from random parts of the OT, I can show you how.

 

[Belk]

Can you consistently apply OT morals and, in some cases, laws, to today? That is, can you ethically divide the OT into three different categories and assert which are or are not still applicable using NT standards?

I assert that you can, and I assert that if you give me examples of laws from random parts of the OT, I can show you how.

From your response in the other thread

Simple, like I said. Many of the laws in Leviticus 18- that go 'you shall not' and then give a statement saying what sin it is called. Sometimes it gives reasoning. Often times the moral laws state both, but most often it states the sin.

Other times, you see cultural rituals, like stoning and offerings. These are easy to notice because they involve something cultural, specific to that people group at that time and having to do with purity. Rape would be part of this.

Still other times you see things of ceremonial cleanliness. Those are even more obvious. Clean, unclean.

The rituals/offerings and cleanliness laws were made obsolete by Christ's death.

Can you show me where Christ's death made these obsolete?

 

[Zebra1552]

From your response in the other thread


Can you show me where Christ's death made these obsolete?

Christ's death atoned for sin, ushering in a New Covenant. This is why we call Matthew-Revelation the New Testament. Testament = covenant. This eliminated the death penalty and the need for further sacrifices, eliminating any ritual/sacrificial/cultural laws. Jesus WAS the sacrifice.

Later, Peter is given a vision about clean and unclean food. He is told not to consider unclean what God has dubbed clean, in reference to the man he is about to visit- Cornelius, a Gentile. This shows that the cleanliness laws are no longer in effect, however, the principle behind them remains the same: be set apart for Go: be holy. That looks differently in today's culture than it did in Moses' day.

 

[Zebra1552]

From original thread:

But that really is only convincing if you already believe it. For example, there are those Christians (supported by their own Biblical scholars) that claim any of the "abominations" are cultural laws -- after all, things like dietary violations and shepherds (to the Egyptians) are called abominations. In fact, the idea is so prevalent that most Hebrew Bible dictionaries will define toevah (one of the words used for abomination) as "taboo" -- a cultural restriction.

In fact, there is no clear consensus (nor is it ever stated in the Bible) that the law can be split into moral, ceremonial, and cultural laws (and you even have been claiming there are only two categories rather than three). The fact is that Christians as a whole, and particularly the various sects of Christians cannot agree on what laws are moral and which are cultural -- much less that those classifications even exist.

Then try me. Give me a list of random laws and see if I can consistently use specific and logical criteria to determine which laws are and are not still in effect. Just because a criteria isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it is non-existent. Also, just because people don't agree doesn't mean something cannot be true.

 

[b&wpac4]

Can you consistently apply OT morals and, in some cases, laws, to today? That is, can you ethically divide the OT into three different categories and assert which are or are not still applicable using NT standards?

I have no doubts that Christians do this. Due to board rules, I will not say why I think that they do.

 

[Belk]

Christ's death atoned for sin, ushering in a New Covenant. This is why we call Matthew-Revelation the New Testament. Testament = covenant. This eliminated the death penalty and the need for further sacrifices, eliminating any ritual/sacrificial/cultural laws. Jesus WAS the sacrifice.

Thanks, but I was looking more for the bible verses that detail how Jesus sacrifice eliminated two classes of the law, but left the third in place.

Later, Peter is given a vision about clean and unclean food. He is told not to consider unclean what God has dubbed clean, in reference to the man he is about to visit- Cornelius, a Gentile. This shows that the cleanliness laws are no longer in effect, however, the principle behind them remains the same: be set apart for Go: be holy. That looks differently in today's culture than it did in Moses' day.

All the cleanliness laws or just the one referenced?

 

[ragarth]

My understanding is that the OT rules people proclaim to be valid are in some way validated in the new testament, therefore they're not actually following OT rules, but rather reiterations or confirmations of OT rules in the new testament. Since I'm not a bible scholar, I cannot say the validity of such justifications.

 

[Zebra1552]

I have no doubts that Christians do this. Due to board rules, I will not say why I think that they do.

Then why bring it up?

 

[Zebra1552]

Thanks, but I was looking more for the bible verses that detail how Jesus sacrifice eliminated two classes of the law, but left the third in place.

Um... why do you need the Bible to tell you everything?

All the cleanliness laws or just the one referenced?

All of them. Are you familiar with the verses I referenced?

 

[Zebra1552]

My understanding is that the OT rules people proclaim to be valid are in some way validated in the new testament, therefore they're not actually following OT rules, but rather reiterations or confirmations of OT rules in the new testament. Since I'm not a bible scholar, I cannot say the validity of such justifications.

Not very consistent method, I'm afraid.

 

[b&wpac4]

Then why bring it up?

Because it's a message board and I felt like posting.

 

[quatona]

Um... why do you need the Bible to tell you everything?

This is a very good question.
Methodologically, I propose to first answer the question
"Why do you need the bible to tell you anything?" and - once it is answered - proceed from there.

 

[ArgentBear]

Can you consistently apply OT morals and, in some cases, laws, to today? That is, can you ethically divide the OT into three different categories and assert which are or are not still applicable using NT standards?

I assert that you can, and I assert that if you give me examples of laws from random parts of the OT, I can show you how.

And every time you assert this you are asked for specific verses from the bible as evidence that a the laws of the Old Testament are actually divided as you try to claim they are. And every time you are asked you refuse to answer

 

[ArgentBear]

Thanks, but I was looking more for the bible verses that detail how Jesus sacrifice eliminated two classes of the law, but left the third in place.

I’m still waiting for biblical evidence for these three classes … I think that should be established before anything else.

 

[Zebra1552]

And every time you assert this you are asked for specific verses from the bible as evidence that a the laws of the Old Testament are actually divided as you try to claim they are. And every time you are asked you refuse to answer

I ask you the same question I haven't gotten an answer to: why do you need the Bible to tell you every nuance of cultural context when the readers of each book did not need that information? Maybe you could answer the question instead of making accusations this time around.

 

[Zebra1552]

This is a very good question.
Methodologically, I propose to first answer the question
"Why do you need the bible to tell you anything?" and - once it is answered - proceed from there.

Not the topic of this thread, I'm afraid. Doesn't relate much to morality either. That's philosophy.

 

[Belk]

I’m still waiting for biblical evidence for these three classes … I think that should be established before anything else.

no, he has pointed out how the laws have a different format for the different types of laws. I am fully willing to stipulate that using that as a criteria they are able to break the laws down in to three separate classifications. I'm curious how they get from there to Jesus said that these two classifications are no longer in effect but this other one is.

 

[quatona]

Not the topic of this thread, I'm afraid. Doesn't relate much to morality either. That's philosophy.

 

[Zebra1552]

no, he has pointed out how the laws have a different format for the different types of laws. I am fully willing to stipulate that using that as a criteria they are able to break the laws down in to three separate classifications. I'm curious how they get from there to Jesus said that these two classifications are no longer in effect but this other one is.

I already explained how. You want the references?

Act 10:10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
Act 10:11 and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
Act 10:12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
Act 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Act 10:16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

I'm sure you don't really need verses that show Jesus died for sins... but just in case.

Joh 11:49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all,
Joh 11:50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish."
Joh 11:51 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
Joh 11:52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Joh 1:29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[visionary]

cooking the calf in the mother's milk