Christian Laws

quote:

---

It doesn't apply to gentiles and never has, even from the time it was passed in to Mosaic law. So isn't that irrelevant? Even Jews say that it is irrelevant and that Noachide law is all that Yahweh ever cared about as far as law and gentiles are concerned.

---

I agree that the Mosaic and Jewish laws didn't apply to Gentiles.
Please pay attention to who is arguing what. Read Message 1.Peg has said that these are part of Christian law, not me.Edited by purpledawn, : Msg #

---

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

quote:

---

lol you twisted that yourself...the text says no such thing.

​

Besides, the Jewish audience knew that a woman was forbidden under the mosaic law to divorce her husband, so Jesus did not need to mention it.

​

He did need to mention that Men should not be divorcing their wives, because only Men could legally do it under the mosaic law. Therefore the law of Christ in this case bought a balance back to the marriage arrangement and evened the scales.

---

Exactly! He was dealing with the laws and behaviors of the time and teaching the people a way to live within their time. The statement as written, is onesided for today's society. It wasn't written for us.In the United States, women are allowed to divorce their husband's. What I said stands. If this is a Christian law today, then women can divorce their husband's and remarry with no fear of committing adultery.

quote:

---

animals that are slaughtered, have their blood drained and this was perfectly acceptable to God in the mosaic. Jesus is carrying it forward to the christians because it was still Gods standard and requirement.
I have said that Gods standards of right and wrong have not changed. but that doesnt have to mean that we must abide by the requirements of the mosaic law.

---

How do you know this is perfectly acceptable to God? The NT doesn't give us any criteria. Every drop of blood is not drained from the animals. BTW, Jesus didn't bring this forward; his disciples supposedly did. James made the judgement call. He didn't specify that a small amount was OK. The implication is that they would need to follow the Jewish criteria for abstaining from blood. What was it at that time? The standard was written in the Oral Law.ABE: not to eat things sacrificed to idols (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:3), and not to eat things strangled (Mishnah Chullin 1:2) is from the Oral Law.So if it is still God's standard and requirement, how can you say the Mosaic laws ended? Remember, James is speaking about Paul's Gentiles, who never were under the Mosaic or Jewish law. So a law can't end for a group it never covered.If you said the Mosaic/Jewish laws didn't apply to Gentiles, I would agree.

quote:

---

It can be described as any form of sexual activity that is out of harmony with its purpose.

​

In the first century it was things like beastiality, homosexuality, lesbianism, masturbation, sex between unmarried people, adultery...anything that was contrary to nature or contrary to Gods original purpose for sex.

​

God made the provision for sex between married couples only. the purpose was for procreation and as an expression of love between the couple. Anything outside of this is contrary to Gods purpose.

---

Your mythology is showing again. The only purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. So by your standard, anyone having sex without the intent of procreation is sexually immoral, whether married or not.You said "in the first century", what is the standard today? Sex between unmarried people is not illegal in the US that I know of. Sex between people of the same gender is not illegal in the US that I know of.I agree that James was talking to the people of his time and they knew what the standards were at that time. Laws grow and change with the culture.

quote:

---

I view 'law' in a much more broader meaning then you do.

​

Its interesting to know what the christians meant when they said 'law'.
The word 'law' in the OT, is translated from the Hebrew word tohrah, meaning to direct, teach and instruct.
King James Version puts "law" where it reads mishpat which is the hebrew word for judicial decision, judgment and mitswah in hebrew is commandment and is also translated as 'law'.

​

In the Greek the word nomos, from the verb nemo means to deal out, distribute but is translated 'law'. So there is a much broader meaning of 'law' in the bible then the english word allows.

​

Thats why i said that law/standard/rule/principle are all related. Unfortunately our language does not always convey the broader meaning.

---

But our meaning of the word law, which is our English word, doesn't have that broad a meaning. I agree that we have to understand what the author's were telling their audience and I agree that they had variations on the use of the word or slang, just as we do at times.That's why I wanted to get away from the catch phrases that aren't really saying anything.Like I've said again and again, I have no problem if what you call Christian Laws are principles and standards by which club members abide so one can actually tell they are a member of that club.I do have a problem with idea that people will be judged by God on vague and archaic writings, where the authors are either unknown or don't have the authority to speak for God.I have a problem with Christians throwing out "laws" that are over 1,500 years old without understanding the intent of the law at the time and discerning whether it is valid today.Most of the actual laws that were valid have become part of the US legal system: Do not kill, do not steal, don't give false witness.So is God really going to hold us accountable concerning blood, strangled animals, or ancient views of sexual immorality?Personaly, I think the whole blood issue dealt with drinking blood as some cultures did when sealing a contract. Since we don't do that in the US today, it's not really an issue. Not sure about abroad.Edited by purpledawn, : Oral Torah statement & fix formatting

---

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

quote:

---

you used a word here that shows a HUGE difference between the laws of other civilizations and the Jews. but you say they are no differnt.

​

I think most people would agree that a 'theocratic' government is completely different to any other government.

---

In style yes, but a law is a law. Theocratic just means the law supposedly came from a god. Christianity isn't a governing nation either way. So what is your point?

quote:

---

Of course we do. all that was written about him in the gospels is as much as we need to know.

---

So we have all we need to know from people who didn't know him. Good to know.

quote:

---

I think you may be using a paraphrased bible. this is when a translator changes the verse slightly to include an explaination in the verse itself. If it is it should say so in the preface.

---

Looking a various versions in a Parallel Bible and your version still doesn't fly.A few examples.King James Bible
Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:Douay-Rheims Bible
Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind one towards another, according to Jesus Christ:Young's Literal Translation
And may the God of the endurance, and of the exhortation, give to you to have the same mind toward one another, according to Christ Jesus;How is this a law??????

---

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

quote:

---

Your right, they did have a form of worship, but it wasnt the same form that was set out in the mosaic law.
The Jewish religious leaders added to the written Word many verbal traditions that they viewed as indispensable to true worship.

---

Who are you calling they? The Jewish followers of Jesus remained Jewish and worship just as the Jews of the time did and as Jesus did. Paul's group wasn't Jewish, they were Greek. That's why Paul had to define some parameters for worship.

quote:

---

Jesus never quoted oral Jewish traditions, he always quoted from the inspired scriptures.

---

Never say never! The Oral Torah in the New Testament
According to the author of Matthew he told the crowd and his disciples to follow them. The Pharisees were proponents of the Oral Law. Jesus was more concerned that they didn't practice what they preached, not what they taught.Adultery can be committed with the eyes (Leviticus Rabba 23:12)

quote:

---

So you can be very sure that the christian congregation was certainly not founded on the jewish oral laws because they were manmade. But as i've said, Gods laws and standards had not changed and the jewish traditions were never considered a part of Gods law by Jesus or his disciples.

---

The Jewish followers of Jesus, "The Way", did follow the oral laws. They were Jewish and remained Jewish to their death.Paul's Gentiles weren't bound by Mosaic or Jewish law. The Jews were not in power. As you noted the Jerusalem Church, James, did require them to follow a few Jewish laws.These Gentiles are what Christianity grew out of. So if they weren't bound by Mosaic or Jewish laws then, why do you bring these laws forward and present them as laws for Christains today?

---

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

quote:

---

Think of it this way: If you don't follow the commands, then you risk perdition.

---

That is the point of this thread, which you seem to keep missing. What are we held accountable to on judgment day and why?If there is blood in my meat, will I get a negative judgment?
If I call someone a fool, will I get a negative judgment?
If I divorce my husband and remarry, will I get a negative judgment?
If two single people have sex, will they get a negative judgment?
If two people have sex without the intent to procreate, will I get a negative judgment?
If I don't have deep respect for my husband, will I get a negative judgment?
If I say an offensive word, will I get a negative judgment?
If I speed on the highway, will I get a negative judgment?
If I love God but not so much my brother, will I get a negative judgment?
If I get angry, will I get a negative judgment?For people to repent of their wrong doing, they have to know what is actually wrong behavior. If they are repenting of the wrong things and not the things they are truly accountable for, then on judgment day they will be up a creek without a paddle, to put it mildly.

quote:

---

If that's not a law, then what are you breaking in order to face damnation?

---

That is the question. What are we actually held accountable to on judgment day?Or is the reality of it that they don't really know?

---

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Round and round we go. So Christian should be following all of the Mosaic Laws because they are God's standards. Christians aren't following or trying to follow all of the Mosaic Laws.

quote:

---

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.

---

All laws of a society require some sort of consequence, otherwise it is useless as a law. If one lived in Israel, one had to follow the laws of the nation. Just as if one lives in the US, one has to follow the laws of the US. You are comparing national laws with personal behavior suggestions.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why would anyone give a second chance for a grave offense? Not many countries would give second chances for grave sins. I don't think death penalties were uncommon in those eras, so what is the issue? They were laws for that time. Jesus didn't undo the national laws, he didn't have the power.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, you comparing apples and oranges. People were still liable under the national laws and would still suffer the consequences or death if the action warranted it.Jesus taught people how to behave within the national laws and religious laws of his time. Where did Jesus, not Paul, show that when someone intentionally commits murder, that they have a second chance?

quote:

---

because there are christian laws and there are consequences for christians who do not abide by them.

---

No they don't. What are the laws and the consequences? That is the point of this thread. Put them out there already.

---

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

quote:

---

The Essene's were a sect of Judaism, as were the Pharasees and the Saducees...all of them remained a part of Judaism so they can rightly be called a sect.

​

But Christianity was not considered a sect by the Jewish religious leaders. In fact, Paul was on trial in that scripture you quote for teaching something 'contrary' to Judaism. Look at the context of the passage. Paul is giving a defense at one of his trials. Of what was he being accused? Of being a sect or of teaching something that contradicted the Jewish laws?

---

Exactly and he said he wasn't, so what is your point? The Way was a sect of Judaism until after the destruction of the Temple. As I said, research your Christian history if you don't believe Paul.

quote:

---

If Paul remained a part of Judaism, why did he write that all meats are acceptable for eating, and gentiles are also acceptable to God?

---

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. This thread isn't about explaining Paul. Read Paul's authentic letters as a whole and not as one-liners.

quote:

---

I dont mean to contradict you, but the Law of Moses was complete long before the Talmud was written down. Moses was told to WRITE down all the laws God gave him, which he did. The 'ORAL' law which was promoted by the sect of the Pharasees during the first century CE, was strongly opposed by the Sadducees and other Jews. It only became accepted after the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70CE.

---

Amazing that you accept Jewish tradition that Moses wrote the first five books, but you don't accept the Jewish tradition that says the Oral Torah was given to Moses by God at the same time. The Oral Torah is supposedly the explanation of the Written Torah. The Oral Torah was not to be written down. The Jews decided to write it down before the info got lost. If all the people who carried the info got killed, the information would be gone. The Talmud contains that information and more. So it was wise to write it down. Don't you understand how legal systems work?Now reality, according to a book by Paul Johnson, a Christian, entitled "A History of the Jews" the Oral Torah had its beginning around the end of the 2nd century bce. Whatever internal battles waged within the Jewish religion, the Oral Torah was there.

quote:

---

You claim that the christians followed the 'Oral law' I asked for evidence of them following the oral law and give me the babylonian talmud!

---

And I provided links in Message 89.Edited by purpledawn, : Msg #

---

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

quote:

---

I showed you many laws but you dont seem able to grasp them as laws in the broad sense that the greek word carries.

---

I didn't ask for a broad Greek sense. I asked for laws and gave a very specific meaning. What you presented does not fit into that form except for the Mosaic/Jewish Laws.

quote:

---

You dont believe there are consequences because cannot see that the laws are designed to bring one into an approved standing before God. When you loose that approved standing, you are no longer apart of the christian congregation and loose your relationship with God...thats tough love.

---

You said there weren't any consequences in Message 84. The purpose you presented for the Mosaic laws is not from Jesus. The purpose of the Mosaic/Jewish Laws are the same purpose as any other legal system for a nation, to maintain order within a society. No more, no less.The Jews could receive forgiveness without sacrifices. You've been shown this before.Like Hillel before him, Jesus brought a more humane and universal notion of Torah interpretation. The spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. If one gets the spirit right, the details will take care of themselves.We look at what the authors are trying to tell their audience and bring that spirit forward when obeying the laws of our own individual nations all the way down to our communities and families.There are no Christian laws, there are only Christian principles derived from the spirit of the ancient writings and the experiences of people who have gone before.Edited by purpledawn, : Word ChangeEdited by purpledawn, : Msg #

---

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

quote:

---

There are consequences for not being conformed to the image of Christ. The consequences are very wide in scope. They extend from being "hurt by the second death" to losing a reward.

---

So list the laws and the consequences.

---

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

Exactly! One must know the master's will. Consequences are given accordingly. So if one does not want stripes, one needs to know what the master's will is.A fair and just master makes sure his slave clearly understands his will.So list the Master's will and what is deserving of stripes.

---

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