Which Old Testament laws to be observed?

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message, which was the light to Gentiles (Matthew 4:15-23), and which Jesus prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14). Furthermore, Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey both by word and by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), and are not given any room to disregard anything he taught during his ministry (John 12:46-50). So the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as speaking against Gentiles following Christ, especially because they were not enemies of God and didn't have the authority to countermand Him. However, the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so even if they had been speaking against Gentiles following Christ, then we should be quicker to disregard everything that any man has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. All of the laws that God has commanded are examples of what it means to love God and our neighbor, which is why Jesus said that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other laws hang on them.

True that Jesus kept the Law, as the Law was still in force, the Temple and priesthood still being intact. However he constantly argued with the Jewish religious leaders about the application of the law, and their corruption of some of it. His cryptic statement regarding the destruction of the temple meant that "not one facet" of the Law would remain intact after it's destruction. He was to be the new 'temple', that would rise from destruction, while the Jewish/Herodian temple that represented the Law would not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The greatest two commandments have always been the greatest two, so Jesus was stating what has always been the case, not making any changes. If the greatest two commandments make the other commandments irrelevant,
You are again employing your straw man to overcome NT authoritative teaching (Romans 13:8-10) regarding the relationship of Jesus' two commandments to the Decalogue; i.e., that love fulfills/accomplishes the Decalogue, that in obeying Jesus two commandments one is thereby obeying the Decalogue.

In denying one's obedience to the Decalogue by one's obedience to Jesus' two NT commandments, you are seeking to Judaize the gospel by adding the Decalogue back to it, which the NT anathametizes (Galatians 1:6-9).
 
Upvote 0

Duvduv

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2018
593
83
67
New York State
✟30,890.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
If non-Jews did not need to convert to Judaism, there certainly there was nothing absolutely binding for the Ten Commandments either, since the Ten Commandments were given at Sinai to the Jews. I am not saying that non-Jews could murder or steal, God forbid, but that invoking the Ten Commandments (instead of man-made rational law) was and is redundant because they were not given to non-Jews.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: PloverWing
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If non-Jews did not need to convert to Judaism,
They did if they wanted the benefits of being in the covenant people; i.e., YHWH would be their God to them.
there certainly there was nothing absolutely binding for the Ten Commandments either, since the Ten Commandments were given at Sinai to the Jews. I am not saying that non-Jews could murder or steal, God forbid, but that invoking the Ten Commandments (instead of man-made rational law) was and is redundant because they were not given to non-Jews.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Of course, but our focus is not on abstaining from evil (keeping the Law), but upon doing good, as we through the indwelling Holy Spirit take on more of God's nature. When I was a young man I sinned all the time and did it without conscience. As an older Christian I don't even think about doing those things. As Paul said, "God forbid", meaning that such is now unthinkable. Those sins are now as far from my thinking "as east is from west".

We are to "fulfill" the final intent of the Law, which is actually antithetical to the written Law.

The Mosaic Law contains 248 positive commandments to do something and 365 commandments to not do something, so keeping the law is about abstaining from evil. Furthermore, the negative commandments should also be understood as commandments to do the reverse, such as the command against theft also being understood as being a command to be generous. In Deuteronomy 6:4-7, God wanted His people to love Him with all of our heart, soul, and might, for His commands to be on our heart, and to teach them diligently to their children, and talk of them when we sit in our house, and when we walk by the way, and when we life down, and when we rise, so teaching obedience to God's law is the way that we are to obey the command to love Him with all of our heart, soul, and might. Furthermore, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who...delight in the law of the Lord and who mediate on it day and night. At no point does the Bible speak against focusing on law keeping. Jesus fulfilled the written law by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended, which is in complete accordance with the written law, not antithetical to it.

True that Jesus kept the Law, as the Law was still in force, the Temple and priesthood still being intact. However he constantly argued with the Jewish religious leaders about the application of the law, and their corruption of some of it. His cryptic statement regarding the destruction of the temple meant that "not one facet" of the Law would remain intact after it's destruction. He was to be the new 'temple', that would rise from destruction, while the Jewish/Herodian temple that represented the Law would not.

Laws for how to testify about God's eternal nature are straightforwardly based on God's nature, not on the existence of the Temple or on any particular covenant, so they will always be in force as long as God's nature remains eternal. Laws in regard to temple practice that weren't followed after the destruction of the 1st Temple were once again followed after the 2nd Temple had been built, so those laws did not cease to be a way to testify about God's eternal nature. There is nothing that the Bible states about not one facet of the law remaining in tact after the destruction of the 2nd temple, but rather that is entirely your own doctrine. If the way to testify about God's nature were to change after the destruction of the 2nd Temple, then God's nature would not be eternal. It was sinful to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, long before the first Temple was built and the Mosaic Covenant was made, it remained sinful to do during the first and 2nd Temple and the Mosaic Covenant, and it remains sinful after the 2nd Temple has been destroyed and the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, so there is nothing about any number of temples being built or destroyed or covenants being made or becoming obsolete that changes whether or not it is against God's eternal nature to commit adultery, and the same goes for God's other laws.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
If non-Jews did not need to convert to Judaism, there certainly there was nothing absolutely binding for the Ten Commandments either, since the Ten Commandments were given at Sinai to the Jews. I am not saying that non-Jews could murder or steal, God forbid, but that invoking the Ten Commandments (instead of man-made rational law) was and is redundant because they were not given to non-Jews.

Jesus did not come to start his own religion, but rather he came as the Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He practiced Judaism by living in sinless obedience to the Torah and spent is ministry teaching his followers how to practice Judaism by word and by example. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousand of Jews were coming to faith who were all zealous for the Torah, so all Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10, so Christianity is the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as it prophesied Messiah, which means that all non-Jewish Christians are practicing Judaism. Gentiles are look at the religion that Jesus taught by word and by example and decide whether or not to become his follower, but Gentiles can't follow him while refusing to practice Judaism. Acts 15 should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles following what Christ taught.

While it is good to correctly understood to whom a law was given, it is not good to focus on that so much that we lose sight about what that law teaches us about the ways of the God that it was given by. In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he might teach his children and those of his household to walk in God's ways by doing righteousness and justice so that the Lord may bring to Abraham all that He has promised him, namely that through his offspring all of the nations of the earth would be blessed. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by making known to him His ways that he might know Him, and Israel too, and there are many verses that Describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others. The Mosaic Law is how the Jews knew how to be blessed (Psalms 119:1-3), so the purpose of giving the Mosaic Law to the Jews was to equip them to be the fulfillment of the promise that God made to Abraham is by teaching the nations to turn from their wicked ways and how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His law, which has its ultimate fulfillment in Christ, who was sent to bless the nations by turning us from our wicked ways (Acts 3:25-26).
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus did not come to start his own religion, but rather he came as the Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He practiced Judaism by living in sinless obedience to the Torah and spent is ministry teaching his followers how to practice Judaism by word and by example. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousand of Jews were coming to faith who were all zealous for the Torah, so all Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10, so Christianity is the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as it prophesied Messiah, which means that all non-Jewish Christians are practicing Judaism. Gentiles are look at the religion that Jesus taught by word and by example and decide whether or not to become his follower, but Gentiles can't follow him while refusing to practice Judaism. Acts 15 should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles following what Christ taught.

While it is good to correctly understood to whom a law was given, it is not good to focus on that so much that we lose sight about what that law teaches us about the ways of the God that it was given by. In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he might teach his children and those of his household to walk in God's ways by doing righteousness and justice so that the Lord may bring to Abraham all that He has promised him, namely that through his offspring all of the nations of the earth would be blessed. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by making known to him His ways that he might know Him, and Israel too, and there are many verses that Describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others. The Mosaic Law is how the Jews knew how to be blessed (Psalms 119:1-3), so the purpose of giving the Mosaic Law to the Jews was to equip them to be the fulfillment of the promise that God made to Abraham is by teaching the nations to turn from their wicked way
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might justified by faith.

Now that faith has come we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

--Galatians 3:23-25

Christ is the goal of the law in that he was to lead us to justifiction by faith, removing us from under the law--to put an end to the law's supervision of us, not to establish us in it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: OldWiseGuy
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
You are again employing your straw man to overcome NT authoritative teaching (Romans 13:8-10) regarding the relationship of Jesus' two commandments to the Decalogue; i.e., that love fulfills/accomplishes the Decalogue, that in obeying Jesus two commandments one is thereby obeying the Decalogue.

In denying one's obedience to the Decalogue by one's obedience to Jesus' two NT commandments, you are seeking to Judaize the gospel by adding the Decalogue back to it, which the NT anathametizes (Galatians 1:6-9).

I'm not speaking against the teaching in the NT, just your blatant mishandling of it. To fulfills a law is to correctly do what it requires, such as if someone stops as a stoplight, then they are fulfilling that traffic law. So love fulfills the Mosaic Law it is correctly doing what it requires. For example, helping the poor is part of what it means to love our neighbor, so we are fulfilling the command to love our neighbor by obeying the command to help the poor. If someone says that they just need to love our neighbor, so they don't need to obey the command to help the poor, then they would not be treating the command to love as fulfilling the command to help the poor. What God was instructing the Israelites to do when He gave the greatest two commandments to them should not be interpreted as meaning something different than what Jesus was instructing us to do when he quoted those commandments. Obeying the greatest two commandments is obeying God's other commandments only insofar as the other commandments are understood as part of what it means to correctly obey the greatest two. The position of the Judaizers was that Gentiles needed to become circumcised in order to become saved, which is not a position that I have ever supported.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might justified by faith.

Now that faith has come we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

--Galatians 3:23-25

Christ is the goal of the law in that he was to lead us to justifiction by faith, removing us from under the law--to put an end to the law's supervision of us, not to establish us in it.

Jesus spent his ministry teaching His followers how to obey the Torah by word and by example, so Galatians 3:23-25 should not be misinterpreted as speaking against Galatians following Jesus. Christ is the goal of the law because everything in it teaches us how to have a relationship with him. For example, when we testify about his righteousness by obeying the Mosaic Law, we are growing in a relationship with Jesus by gaining experiential knowledge of him.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not speaking against the teaching in the NT, just your blatant mishandling of it.
There can be no mishandling of it when one follows the teachings of the NT, where obedience to Jesus' two commandments fulfills the Decalogue (Romans 13:8-10). You ignore NT revelation. . .deal with it.
To fulfills a law is to correctly do what it requires,
Did Jesus get your memo on this?
Because in Romans 13:8-10, his apostle Paul tells us what he learned from Jesus Christ personally regarding what is required by Jesus here.

For the sake of your theology, you keep trying to set Jesus' two commandments against the Decalogue when Jesus says they are the same.
When you obey Jesus' two commands you are thereby obeying the Decalogue (Romans 13:8-10). Deal with it, stop trying to rewrite it for the sake of your own theology.

It's not rocket science, it's not complicated. . .yet you insist on setting one against the other, when Jesus' two commandments are more extensive (love my neighbor) and have a higher standard of performance (as myself) than does the Decalogue.

Why do you keep trying to improve grace and the NT by adding law to them.
Why do you want to hold us prisoners, keeping us locked up in law keeping?

It is not me who is blatantly mishandling Galatians 3:23-25:
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

So the law was put in charge to
lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Now that faith has come we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

--Galatians 3:23-25

Christ is the goal of the law in that he was to lead us to justifiction by faith, removing us from under the law--to put an end to the law's supervision of us, not to establish us in 1200 regulations!

Enough already. . .
 
Last edited:
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

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
If non-Jews did not need to convert to Judaism, there certainly there was nothing absolutely binding for the Ten Commandments either, since the Ten Commandments were given at Sinai to the Jews. I am not saying that non-Jews could murder or steal, God forbid, but that invoking the Ten Commandments (instead of man-made rational law) was and is redundant because they were not given to non-Jews.

This is exactly how I understand it, yes.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
There can be no mishandling of it when one follows the teachings of the NT, where obedience to Jesus' two commandments fulfills the Decalogue (Romans 13:8-10). You ignore NT revelation. . .deal with it.
Did Jesus get your memo on this?
Because in Romans 13:8-10, his apostle Paul tells us what he learned from Jesus Christ personally regarding what is required by Jesus here.

For the sake of your theology, you keep trying to set Jesus' two commandments against the Decalogue when Jesus says they are the same.
When you obey Jesus' two commands you are thereby obeying the Decalogue (Romans 13:8-10). Deal with it, stop trying to rewrite it for the sake of your own theology.

It's not rocket science, it's not complicated. . .yet you insist on setting one against the other, when Jesus' two commandments are more extensive (love my neighbor) and have a higher standard of performance (as myself) than does the Decalogue.

Why do you keep trying to improve grace and the NT by adding law to them.
Why do you want to hold us prisoners, keeping us locked up in law keeping?

It is not me who is blatantly mishandling Galatians 3:23-25:
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

So the law was put in charge to
lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Now that faith has come we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

--Galatians 3:23-25

Christ is the goal of the law in that he was to lead us to justifiction by faith, removing us from under the law--to put an end to the law's supervision of us, not to establish us in 1200 regulations!

Enough already. . .

You keep talking about the Decalogue when I keep speaking about all of God's 600+ commandments, not just then of them. I agree with Romans 13:8-10 and that the greatest two commandments fulfill all of the 600+ Mosaic Laws, but do not agree with you blatant mishandling of those verses. The greatest two commandments are the same as all of the 600+ Mosaic Laws, which is why all of they all hang on them. Unlike you, I have said nothing to pit the greatest two commandments against God's 600+ laws, including the Decalogue. If what someone is doing is not inclusive of God's 600+ laws, then they are not correctly obeying the greatest two commandments. If someone is not doing anything to help the poor, then they are not counted as helping the poor by doing something to live their neighbor, but rather that is blatant misreading of the passage, and is not treating the greatest two commandments as being more extensive than helping the poor. The greatest two commandments are the greatest two out of God's 600+ laws, so they are inclusive of them, which means that the greatest two commandments can not be more extensive than God's 600+ laws. The things contained in a set can't be more extensive than the set itself. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His 600+ laws, so that is how God is gracious to us, not me trying to improve grace or adding to the NT, but rather you are trying to remove God's grace.

In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of God's law that puts us into bondage while it is the truth that sets us free, so I am showing you the freedom that we have in Christ, while you thinking obedience to God is bondage is expressing an extremely negative view of God and distrust of Christ. The fact that Jesus did not go around telling people that the law had ended and that they need to stop repenting, but called for people to repent and obey it completely undermines what your mishandling of Galatians 3:23-25. Those verses should not be interpreted as undermining Christ's entire ministry. Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor. Now that faith has come we are under under a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His law in accordance with what Jesus spent his ministry teaching by word and by example. In Romans 3:27-31, Paul did not want us to conclude from the fact that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law that our faith abolishes our need to obey God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you are seeking to abolish everything but the greatest two commandments instead of upholding it by faith. In Romans 2:13, Paul said that only doers of the law will be justified, so the same faith by which we are justified is also expressed as obedience to God's law.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You keep talking about the Decalogue when I keep speaking about all of God's 600+ commandments, not just then of them. I agree with Romans 13:8-10 and that the greatest two commandments fulfill all of the 600+ Mosaic Laws, but do not agree with you blatant mishandling of those verses. The greatest two commandments are the same as all of the 600+ Mosaic Laws, which is why all of they all hang on them. Unlike you, I have said nothing to pit the greatest two commandments against God's 600+ laws, including the Decalogue. If what someone is doing is not inclusive of God's 600+ laws, then they are not correctly obeying the greatest two commandments. If someone is not doing anything to help the poor, then they are not counted as helping the poor by doing something to live their neighbor, but rather that is blatant misreading of the passage, and is not treating the greatest two commandments as being more extensive than helping the poor. The greatest two commandments are the greatest two out of God's 600+ laws, so they are inclusive of them, which means that the greatest two commandments can not be more extensive than God's 600+ laws. The things contained in a set can't be more extensive than the set itself. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His 600+ laws, so that is how God is gracious to us, not me trying to improve grace or adding to the NT, but rather you are trying to remove God's grace.

In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of God's law that puts us into bondage while it is the truth that sets us free, so I am showing you the freedom that we have in Christ, while you thinking obedience to God is bondage is expressing an extremely negative view of God and distrust of Christ. The fact that Jesus did not go around telling people that the law had ended and that they need to stop repenting, but called for people to repent and obey it completely undermines what your mishandling of Galatians 3:23-25. Those verses should not be interpreted as undermining Christ's entire ministry. Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor. Now that faith has come we are under under a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His law in accordance with what Jesus spent his ministry teaching by word and by example.
In Romans 3:27-31, Paul did not want us to conclude from the fact that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law that our faith abolishes our need to obey God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you are seeking to abolish everything but the greatest two commandments instead of upholding it by faith.
Jesus said his two commandments covered all of it.
In Romans 2:13, Paul said that only doers of the law will be justified, so the same faith by which we are justified is also expressed as obedience to God's law.
And Paul's point there--in showing that the Jews were unrigheousness, just as the Gentiles were unrighteous, and that only God is righteous and all righteusness comes from God (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21)--is to show that only those who obey the law as required will be righteous, which no one can do and, therefore, "all who rely on observing the law (to be righteous) are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10)

So much for the "doers" of the law and their justification. . .they got cursed instead.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Jesus said his two commandments covered all of it.

Jesus summarized the law as being about how to love God and our neighbor because that is what all of the laws are examples of how to do, and the sum is the total of all, not something else instead of its parts. It is contradictory to want to just follow God's command to love while wanting nothing to do with following God's commands for how He wants us to love, as if you don't think that God can be trusted to teach us how to love through His laws.

And Paul's point there--in showing that the Jews were unrigheousness, just as the Gentiles were unrighteous, and that only God is righteous and all righteusness comes from God (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21)--is to show that only those who obey the law as required will be righteous, which no one can do and, therefore, "all who rely on observing the law (to be righteous) are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10)

So much for the "doers" of the law and their justification. . .they got cursed instead.

All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Jesus began his ministry with that message, so saying that all the people who did that are under a curse is saying that God essentially gave the law with the goal of misleading and cursing His children, which is expressing an extremely poor opinion of God. To rely on the Mosaic Law is to rely on the Lawgiver, so you are essentially saying that those who rely on God are under a curse while speaking against relying on the Mosaic Law is denying the faithfulness of God. Do you honestly think that God doesn't want to be obeyed and that the way to avoid being under a curse is by living in complete disobedience to God and refusing to repent? In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that obedience to God's law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and curse, so there are countless people who have obeyed the law and the Bible consistently says that obedience leads to a blessing and disobedience leads to a curse, and never the other way around. Jesus expressed His righteousness through his actions and what that looked like was a life lived in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is what the righteousness that comes from God looks like. Your blatantly mishandling Galatians 3:10 to make it speaking against obeying God when in reality it is speaking about works of the law, not about the Mosaic Law.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus summarized the law as being about how to love God and our neighbor because that is what all of the laws are examples of how to do, and the sum is the total of all, not something else instead of its parts. It is contradictory to want to just follow God's command to love while wanting nothing to do with following God's commands for how He wants us to love, as if you don't think that God can be trusted to teach us how to love through His laws.



All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Jesus began his ministry with that message, so saying that all the people who did that are under a curse is saying that God essentially gave the law with the goal of misleading and cursing His children, which is expressing an extremely poor opinion of God. To rely on the Mosaic Law is to rely on the Lawgiver, so you are essentially saying that those who rely on God are under a curse while speaking against relying on the Mosaic Law is denying the faithfulness of God. Do you honestly think that God doesn't want to be obeyed and that the way to avoid being under a curse is by living in complete disobedience to God and refusing to repent? In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that obedience to God's law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and curse, so there are countless people who have obeyed the law and the Bible consistently says that obedience leads to a blessing and disobedience leads to a curse, and never the other way around. Jesus expressed His righteousness through his actions and what that looked like was a life lived in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is what the righteousness that comes from God looks like. Your blatantly mishandling Galatians 3:10 to make it speaking against obeying God when in reality it is speaking about works of the law, not about the Mosaic Law.
Your point?

Less cut-and-paste please?
 
Last edited:
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

Duvduv

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2018
593
83
67
New York State
✟30,890.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Unfortunately my opening posting has been diverted into side issues not related to what I asked about in the beginning. I find this very unfortunate. I simply wanted to point out that if Christians adopt into their religion only what they consider to be "moral laws" from the Old Testament, they are stuck about the associated civil laws used for the implementation of the commandments they approve of.
 
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
People have claimed that Christianity only requires observance of moral laws of the Old Testament, but ritual and civil laws are not relevant. But how can a person observe the Ten Commandments without the laws related to their performance and violation in civil law? For example, what penalties according to Hebrew law apply for murder and under which circumstance? What about theft and idolatry? The old testament specifies some laws, and Jewish law has others. So it's impossible to say that one accepts the moral law of the Ten Commandments or other moral laws without associated civil laws. Why should all ritual laws be abandoned when many don't depend on the sacrificial system for their observance? For example, taking the four species during the festival of Sukkoth, or refraining from leavened bread during Passover. These apply regardless of the sacrificial system.
As I read it, Jesus established a new covenant. The council in Acts 15 decided that I don't have to obey the Law of Moses. But that doesn't mean I'm to live lawlessly. There were standards of right and wrong prior to Moses and the New Testament lays down new ones subsequent to Moses.

For Christians the new standards of right and wrong are established by Jesus himself and also by the apostolic letters to the churches. Some of the Mosaic laws have been abolished, such as the dietary rules. Others have become even more strict, such the ones Jesus changed in Matthew 5:
  • We can go to hell not just for murder, but for calling our brother a fool.
  • We can be guilty of adultery not only by deed, but even by thought.
  • We are not permitted to divorce our spouses unless they've been unfaithful.
  • We are not permitted to swear oaths.
  • We are not permitted to retaliate for wrongs done against us.
  • We are to love not only our neighbors, but even our enemies.
It's not that we have no rules; we simply have a different set of them.

I've been speaking of personal right and wrong. Civil right and wrong is a different subject. But the New Testament doesn't attempt to establish a civil government. And that's a huge difference between the two covenants. We're told little more than to obey existing governments, be good neighbors, and pay our taxes.

When Christianity actually becomes the government, as it did in the 4th and 5th centuries, then things become more complicated. Then you have philosophers like Augustine developing concepts such as "just war". You might want to look into Augustine...what a Christian government should look like was a big issue in his day.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My point is that your interpretation is absurd and contradictory.
Then you must Biblically demonstrate your assertions--not just make them, showing how they refute my point.
I did not cut and paste anything.
You keep posting the same thing, word for word.
 
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

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To suggest that some of the 600+ laws in the OT are moral while others are not. . .
which of those categories each of God's 600+ laws belong to. . .
categorize God's 600+ laws based on. . .
The view of which of the 600+ laws fits into which
The Mosaic Law contains 248 positive commandments to do something and 365 commandments to not do something,
the greatest two commandments fulfill all of the 600+ Mosaic Laws. . .
The greatest two commandments are
the same as all of the 600+ Mosaic Laws. . .
I keep speaking about all of God's 600+ commandments. . .
The greatest two commandments are the greatest two out of God's 600+ laws. . .
the greatest two commandments can not be more extensive than God's 600+ laws. . .
If what someone is doing is not inclusive of God's 600+ laws, then they are not correctly obeying the greatest two commandments. . .
David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His 600+ laws. . .
All of which were abolished on the cross (Ephesians 2:15).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0