Christian Laws

quote:

---

theocratic means 'God Rule'

​

its seems that you are putting man on the same level as God as if mans authority is one equal par with Gods.

---

But you can put Paul on par with God. Good to know.The point in Message 75:
The Mosaic Law was presented as a legal system for a theocratic government. Every civilization needs laws and their civilization wasn't any different. Our civilization today is also no different. Laws are needed.Rules within a church are needed. Rules within a classroom are needed. Christians still need behavioral rules, but are they laws?You are avoiding the issue (or I've missed the post) of what makes these things you provide, laws for Christians today?

quote:

---

How do you come to that conclusion?
The King James tell christians tobe likeminded according to christ

​

the Douay says to be of one mind one..according to Christ

​

and the Young's says to have the same mind...according to Christ

---

I come to that conclusion by not leaving out the words and replacing them with dots.What is the point concerning whether that statement by Paul is a law?
What was Paul's point to his audience?Edited by purpledawn, : Msg #

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I think I read somewhere in the Psalms something to the effect of, if you aren't aware that you are sinning, then you aren't sinning. I think the point being that sin is willful and deliberate disobedience to God. There is that verse too about how the conscience bears testimony to the guilty thing. So from what I understand is that one can only sin so long as they are aware that it is sinful to begin with. I guess that means that if God didn't specifically instruct Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit it wouldn't have been a sin. There is some ambiguity in the bible concerning eternal damnation. And it may not be accidental that it's vague. Perhaps there is a limit that God does not want us knowing about, because knowledge of that line would likely result in people pushing it to the limit without actually crossing it. Or maybe the whole kit and caboodle is a bunch superstitious hokum.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

This pretty much sums up the problem.

quote:

---

This didnt mean that Gods standard had changed, it just meant that no longer did the punishments of the mosaic law have to be administered to wrongdoers. For the jews to get forgiveness, they needed to offer a blood sacrifice...if they were caught committing a grave sin, then they could be killed for their wrongdoing.
Whereas the christian church had the Savior Jesus Christ as an approach to God and as the basis for forgiveness of their sins.

​

However, the christians still had to abide by all that Jesus taught...it did not make them a law unto themselves. They still needed to try to live by Gods standards.

---

Back to the double talk.So God's standards haven't changed. But according to what you just said we are only required to follow what Jesus taught, but we still need to try to live by God's standards.If God's standards are those given to Moses, then Christians aren't even remotely trying to live by God's standards.I've also shown you that some of what is presented in the NT are from the Oral Torah or Jewish Laws. That manmade stuff you don't like.So Paul is out as far as an authority. He's not God, or Jesus and he wasn't taught by Jesus or the Disciples.So all we have is the little bit that shows up in the gospels from writers who are unkonwn and probably didn't know Jesus either.Of course since there are no consequences, they really aren't laws. They are standards of behavior for members of a specific religion.There are no Christian laws and for Christians there is no Judgment Day since there are no penalties for failing to hit the mark.Why don't you just say that?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

So, atheists will make into Heaven easier than Christians because the Christians know every time they sin, and if they forget to ask forgiveness for one of their sins, they have a problem. Whereas atheists, not thinking there's a god, never know they're sinning and are thus free to do anything and make it in. That makes me feel a lot better as an atheist. Edited by Perdition, : homophones, homophones, homophones.

Thank you for the exchange.
Hope things are well. Is there anyone participating within this thread in disagreement with this?If so, what is the reasoning? What did Yeshua teach, if not HaToRaH interpreted through aGaPe?It appears as though HaMashiach, fashioned in a similar light as the Prophets before him, taught that ToRaH had become maliciously corrupted, and so, such texts may offer limited blessings in their existing state. Under the weight of their corrupted laws and traditions, the theocratic nationstate of Yuhdea continued to steadily fold in around itself, as is the destiny of all that which is lead on by forgery and corruption. Anyway, I'm sure it is easy to imagine that this would have likely been a difficult indoctrination for those who embraced their, oh so priceless, ToRaH version as their only golden calf.Difficult, perhaps, yet not impossible.The anxiety derived from the onslaught of indoctrination that followed was likely a challenge for those sitting on the fence questioning whether, or not, Yeshua's seemingly unverifiable authority superceded that of the powerful and proud ruling sects of Yuhdaism now responsible for defiling the tradition, as well as their nations. One may come to understand that, in time, many innocent practitioners undergo a birth into corrupt traditions which freely demand that it is wiser to place a higher value upon documented and potential forgeries, rather than to simply accept them at face value and address this issue.There is also a sense that any 'authorative' rewritten form of ToRaH would have soon become destined to attain a value comparable, or equivalent, to the existent corrupted texts, that is to say worthy of causing destruction. Such a gamble would have most certainly taken to corruption, once again, through the 'short hands' of all the various vipers throughout the lands and within a short period of time at that. As we contemplate, it should come as lil' surprise, if this is what takes form through the Levitical Catholics within five short centuries of the event. lol - them lil' rascals ...There is truly little reason to expect that the Father would have pissed away His valuable time and energy on such a task, considering His efficiency and all. Long and short, Yeshua seems to have encouraged the critique of dubious ToRaH passages in order to restore the authenticity, which had been removed by imposters who dared to corrupt the holy Levitical priesthood; He then shares such fine treasure with anyone who would receive and abide by it.Imho, that is, perhaps, a Law to live by. However, living it can be accomplished without learning to read. It seems as they are not, nor would it seem as Rome's tOrAh/bible foots the bill. Do you suppose the Father will not convince us what is right? Perhaps, questionable at least and considerable at best? I may agree Paul's depiction is equal in authority to any other Pharasidical teachings. Your so mean sometimes - lol ... though I, too, am a little perplexed that so many traditions would expect the Father to color their Judgement.It continues to amaze me.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : grammar

If you don't feel conflicted of conscience, then I suppose you're right. Or the bible is just a bunch of superstitions and don't worry about it anyway!

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

how is that a reciprocal law?he says 'what is hateful to you, DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS'How can that be reciprocal? It cant. Jesus law to 'DO UNTO OTHERS' is reciprocal because it requires ACTION. Whereas Hillel's law requires 'INACTION'its the difference between defense and attack in a sports game. Complete opposites.

Your comment was on the Jewish system of worship, my reply was in response to that so I assumed you would recognize the 'They' as the subject suggests...the Jews....not the christians. And please remember that the jewish followers did NOT remain a part of Judaism. You talk about 'Pauls Followers' as if they are of a different religion when they are not.We are talking about Jewish people who became followers of Christ and left Judaism, and we are talking about Gentiles who became Christian and left their pagan religions.Christianity was one religion for ALL people, for jews and gentiles under one banner 'christianity' and they all followed Christ. No, he did not say to follow them as in being their 'followers' Look at the context. Jesus was condemning the leaders for 'seating themselves in the seat of Moses'they were supposed to be teaching the law of Moses, not seating themselves in the position of Moses as a law maker.And Jesus is not talking about 'Oral Laws' he is clearly talking about the Law of Moses. Two very different things. Oral laws were things like'a husband should never walk side by side with his wife in public'
'you must not perform healing on a sabbath because its a form of work'
'dont only wash your hands before a meal as moses said, but wash right up to your elbows'these and many more like them are laws the jews made up in addition to the mosaic law. Jesus condemned these sorts of additions because they were not from God but from man. Thats why the 'Oral Traditions' are not written in the OT, because they were never a part of the laws given by Moses...they were additions.
Jesus was even accused of breaking the law when he healed a man on the sabbath. But jesus knew that the Mosaic law did condemn healing on a sabbath. Can you please show me where and how the jewish christians followed Judaisms Oral laws?Im sure you know that Judaism and Jew are two very different things...can you explain what you mean by each of these terms just so i know we are on the same page.

What you are really asking here is :What does God require of us?This thread will be finishing soon, I will start a new thread on this question and it will be based on the 'application' of christian laws based on the writings of the NT.

the difference being that Paul was commissioned by God, and Paul promoted Gods lawsJust as Moses did, just as the rest of the apostles did, just as Jesus didGod cannot come to you personally to tell you what he expects from us, but he saw good to choose certain men to do this for him. i dont think i stated that it was a lawIn msg 54 i said
________
Jesus knew Gods laws perfectly and he gave us a living example of how to worship God acceptably. So for us to be acceptable to God, we should strive to live as christ lived.
...Paul took it a step further and said we should have the same mindset as Jesus
________this isnt a law, but lets put it this way, Can someone be a follower/imitator of Christ WITHOUT having the same attitude that christ had?Jesus way of life and worship was acceptable to God because Jesus had the right attitude. His attitude stemmed from love and a desire to please God.If we do not have that motivation and attitude, how can we ever be approved by God?

and Jesus lived and taught Gods standards and his followers were taught to imitate him...this does not mean that he taught anything contrary to the law of moses because that law was Gods standards.But that Mosaic law required punishment and sacrifice for sins. The mosaic law was a Package. If you were following it, you had to also apply its judicial prescriptions for sin. Many of which were death.So this meant that if you committed a grave sin, you were to be put to death, there were no second chances under that law.Under the Law of Christ, forgiveness could take place and a person could have mulitple opportunities to repent and be forgiven for their sins. It was the same high standard of morality handed down from God, but in a different package. because there are christian laws and there are consequences for christians who do not abide by them. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Is there anyone participating within this thread in disagreement with this?

---

To agree or disagree that God's standards haven't changed, one would have to know what God's standards actually are.

quote:

---

What did Yeshua teach, if not HaToRaH interpreted through aGaPe?

---

He also taught Oral Torah. The author of Matthew presents Jesus as someone who is upset with the hypocrisy of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees as opposed to the Written or Oral Laws themselves. (Matthew 23:1-3) He taught mercy also, which would be the agape approach.

quote:

---

It seems as they are not, nor would it seem as Rome's tOrAh/bible foots the bill. Do you suppose the Father will not convince us what is right?

---

He probably could if we stop getting stuck in laws over 1500 years old from a defunct nation/government.

quote:

---

Perhaps, questionable at least and considerable at best? I may agree Paul's depiction is equal in authority to any other Pharasidical teachings.

---

By Peg's standard Paul is out, not mine. Paul was a Pharisee supposedly. He also taught the Torah and Oral Law, IMO. Like I've said several times before, Paul's writing does not lend itself to one-liners. He builds to a point with twists and turns along the way.Take care.
PD

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

hi purpledawn, Just so i undestand where you are coming from, could you stipulate what some of the jewish 'oral laws' are that you are referring too and where in the scriptures Jesus is teaching them?

Since we are discussing the Bible and therefore Judaism and Christianity, when I say Jewish I am speaking of those of the Jewish religion. We aren't discussing physiology.

quote:

---

And please remember that the jewish followers did NOT remain a part of Judaism. You talk about 'Pauls Followers' as if they are of a different religion when they are not.

---

Stop and think before you write. The Way was a sect of Judaism, even according to Paul by the author of Acts (8-130ce). I suggest you research the history of Christianity.Paul clearly identifies himself as the apostle to the Gentiles. Gentiles are those who are not Jewish (religion). Hence the stipulation by James for them to at least abstain from... If they had converted completely to Judaism, they would have needed to follow all laws and specifications of the religion.

quote:

---

We are talking about Jewish people who became followers of Christ and left Judaism, and we are talking about Gentiles who became Christian and left their pagan religions.

---

Wrong. The Jewish followers of Jesus did not leave Judaism. James, the brother of Jesus or James the Just, was allowed into the Holy of Holies. Again you present your own mythology.

quote:

---

No, he did not say to follow them as in being their 'followers' Look at the context. Jesus was condemning the leaders for 'seating themselves in the seat of Moses'

​

they were supposed to be teaching the law of Moses, not seating themselves in the position of Moses as a law maker.

​

And Jesus is not talking about 'Oral Laws' he is clearly talking about the Law of Moses. Two very different things. Oral laws were things like

​

'a husband should never walk side by side with his wife in public'
'you must not perform healing on a sabbath because its a form of work'
'dont only wash your hands before a meal as moses said, but wash right up to your elbows'

---

Sorry dear, the text is very clear. I agree Jesus had issue with their hypocrisy but Jesus did tell the people to follow what they are told. The text disagrees with you. Simple reading.As for the Oral Law, you have no idea what that entails. I suggest you do some research to actually understand the Oral law.

quote:

---

these and many more like them are laws the jews made up in addition to the mosaic law. Jesus condemned these sorts of additions because they were not from God but from man. Thats why the 'Oral Traditions' are not written in the OT, because they were never a part of the laws given by Moses...they were additions.
Jesus was even accused of breaking the law when he healed a man on the sabbath. But jesus knew that the Mosaic law did condemn healing on a sabbath.

---

Again you show your ignorance of reality. Do some research. The Oral Torah also came from God to Moses. You should appreciate that. The Talmud is not anymore made up than any other set of laws.

quote:

---

Can you please show me where and how the jewish christians followed Judaisms Oral laws?

---

Already did that in Message 89 that you're responding to. Do you look at the links provided! Here's a link to the Babylonian Talmud, knock yourself out.Edited by purpledawn, : Msg #

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

What you are really asking here is :

​

What does God require of us?

​

This thread will be finishing soon, I will start a new thread on this question and it will be based on the 'application' of christian laws based on the writings of the NT.

---

No I've been asking you to provide a list of Christian Laws which should encompass what God requires. Unfortunately you've already shown that Christian Laws don't really exist because there are no consequences for not following them. So no laws, just principles or standards of behavior.Personally, I don't think you have any idea what God requires. If you think you do, then go ahead in this thread, there is plenty of room and it falls under the heading as much as anything else you've thrown out, unless of course this is more of your own mythology.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz