Christian Laws

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.

---

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

it may seem like that, but think about this...if God had of allowed A&E to die childless, or perhaps created a new perfect pair, then the laws of genetics would imply that neither you nor I would have been born.I view it as a mercy that he allowed A&E to bring forth children in their imperfect condition.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. Of course we do. all that was written about him in the gospels is as much as we need to know. 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.the literal greek verse reads:
the but God of the endurance and of the comfort may he give to you the very thing to be minding in one another according to Christ Jesus
________________________________________________________Now as a way of comparison, Paul uses a very similar expression at Philipians 2:5"Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who although he was existing in Gods form gave no consideration to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God , but humbled himself"The literal greek verse reads:
'This be you minding in you which also in Christ Jesus who in form of God existing not snatching he considered the to be equal to God but himself he emptied form of slave'
__________________________________________________Notice how the context is describing the way Jesus thought of himself. He did not think too highly of himself but took a slaves form. This was an attitude of humility which is why the translation i use reads 'mental attitude' Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

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.thats why Jesus said at Matt 15:7"YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, 8'This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. 9It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.'"Jesus never quoted oral Jewish traditions, he always quoted from the inspired scriptures.
Later Peter mentions Jewish traditions at 1Pe 1:18 For YOU know that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that YOU were delivered from YOUR fruitless form of conduct received by tradition from YOUR forefathers. 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. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

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

lol. what have the laws of man got to do with the laws of God? We know it was acceptable to God because it is stipulated, not only in the mosaic law, but in the laws given to patriarchs. The slaughtered animal was to have its blood drained, and the blood symbolically given back to God because he owns all life. As long as people appreciated the sacredness of life, and showed it by draining the blood, God was happy. This did not change after Christs appearance nor has it changed today. You are not separating the purpose of the mosaic law as opposed to the purpose of the christian law. You are also forgetting Gods own purpose to remove the mosaic law once it had served its purpose.It could be the way im explaining it or perhaps you just dont get it. The mosaic law embodied Gods standards but more then that it prescribed punishment for failing to live by those standards. The purpose of it was to show mankind its need for a savior. When that savior came, the purpose of the mosaic law was realized hence the new arrangement for approach to God could be thru that savior.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. Gods laws do not change.
Again you are putting mans laws above Gods laws. this is exactly what the Jews did with their 'oral traditions'
And what did Jesus tell them? Did he approve of their traditions??We need to come to a decision about who is the ultimate authority. Is it man and his laws, or is it God and his?
If you want to follow mans laws above Gods then you are free to do so.Im not sure why or if you actually believe in the judgment to come, or if you are just using it as a talking point. But if you believe that God will judge us, then who's laws do you think he will judge us by? His own, or mans??

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. How do you come to that conclusion?
The King James tell christians tobe likeminded according to christthe Douay says to be of one mind one..according to Christand the Young's says to have the same mind...according to ChristAs the context is relating to the humility Jesus displayed, it can rightly be called his mental/mind attitude. You'll need to explain it to me further if you cant see that.

That doesn't bother me. How is that merciful, especially when watching children die horrifically?Don't you ever ask yourself, what's the point? One of the biggest questions the bible never goes over is why God allegedly created anything in the first place? It goes over what, it goes over how, it goes over when, but it never goes over why.

---

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

Yes, but you overlook that no one would want to be forced to do something against their will. So, forcing them to do things against their would not be doing unto others as you would have them do unto to you. It's a common sense instruction. That works too. And, you know, Hillel came up with the law of reciprocity before Jesus did. Don't think too many Christians are aware of that fact, or if they are, they're ambivalent to it. No doubt. Well, I certainly don't agree with Peg on everything. But right now we're not judging the bible's veracity, right? Right now we're simply debating interpretations. From best I can tell, I agree with Peg that per the bible it is a law. Think of it this way: If you don't follow the commands, then you risk perdition. If that's not a law, then what are you breaking in order to face damnation? Exactly. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

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

Yes, I agree that the RCC is a very traditional form of Christianity that is pretty much at odds with the Pauline doctrine. But I really don't see why there is any confusion when Hebrews and Romans (the books, I mean) are explicit in levitical law not applying any longer. Which was fulfilled during the crucifixion, no? "It is finished," said Jesus on the cross, meaning, "I am the ultimate sacrifice. My work is done here! Go about your merry may... and for Christ's sake (My sake), stop slaughtering animals!"

---

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

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