Posted on 04/10/2009 10:32:45 AM PDT by DouglasKC
I don't know mountn man or his beliefs well enough to read his mind.
But my question and point remain. If, as mountn man insisted, the OT has the “absolute same authority as the New Testament”, then does that mean you believe in killing people for adultery and for being rape victims when raped in the city limits. Do you or don’t you?
In a society not governed or ruled by God? Of course not.
Also, if Jesus observed animal sacrifices - and we are to do what He did as you are implying (”1Jn 2:6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked”) then do you or do you not believe in sacrificing animals? Saying that Christ’s own sacrifice was sufficient doesn’t in itself mean that you are walking like Christ by NOT sacrificing animals.
These laws were added to the covenant until Christ came. Reference Galatians 3:19. This is a huge subject and it's study will take more time than I can take in posting.
You might want to start with this.
What is it you believe God is forbidding here? And remember, Jewish law and tradition is not the same as what scripture actually reads.
ASOLUTELY!
The ONLY thing that has changed is that today, Christians are covered by grace, and not the law. The law still lets us know whats right and wrong, but we are no longer under condemnation, but grace.
In other words, would you support the execution of adulterers? (Lev. 20:10) How about stoning rape victims - if the rape happens inside the city limits? Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Deuteronomy 22: 22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death.
There is a profound difference between 24 and 25. 24 describes a woman who is having sex with another mans wife, it doesn't mention RAPE, but the wording lets us know that she is in town, where other people are around to protect her or come to her aid. That if she doesn't scream out, she is basically consenting.
25 directly mentions rape.
Read the entire passage in context and it becomes apparent that the Bible is talking about rape vs adultery, in the city or country. But it is eliminating the accusation of rape in the city.
It depends on where you place English punctuation. Other translations read:
(MSG) [After rising from the dead, Jesus appeared early on Sunday morning to Mary Magdalene, whom he had delivered from seven demons. In this translation it doesn't say Jesus arose early on Sunday morning, but that he had already risen and APPEARED to Mary on Sunday morning. This is entirely consistent with a sabbath resurrection.
"Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.... These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." (Matt. 15:16-18,20)
Yes, the context was the washing of hands. But he's obviously not talking about hand-washing per se; he's talking about "defiled food" (which passes into the stomach and is expelled).
From a health perspective, eating "unclean foods" may well have been ill-advised -- there was a good chance of getting trichinosis from pork, and red tide could often poison shellfish, for example; but it is difficult to square such food safety issues with what Jesus actually said.
Jesus is pretty clear in saying that a person is not made unclean by what he eats; even pork or shellfish wouldn't defile him in God's eyes. It's what is already in a person's heart that defiles him.
One can also make a pretty good case that Peter's vision in Acts 10 is confirmation of this view; not to mention Paul's discussions of eating food sacrificed to idols.
You wrote:
“ASOLUTELY! The ONLY thing that has changed is that today, Christians are covered by grace, and not the law. The law still lets us know whats right and wrong, but we are no longer under condemnation, but grace.”
You’re contradicting yourself. If the OT had the SAME ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY - those were your words - then the punishments would be exactly the same today for anyone who believed the OT to be true. You know this as well. That’s exactly why you now make a distinction where you made none before. Cleary, if the age of grace has nullified the punishments of the law - we don’t believe women should be killed for being rape victims in city limits - then that means the OT does not any longer possess EXACTLY the SAME ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY. It’s authority is different in character or kind.
“There is a profound difference between 24 and 25. 24 describes a woman who is having sex with another mans wife, it doesn’t mention RAPE, but the wording lets us know that she is in town, where other people are around to protect her or come to her aid. That if she doesn’t scream out, she is basically consenting.”
No. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 makes it seem pretty clear that these are cases of forced sex.
I have a strong suspicion that the reason was much more practical than that: perhaps people were mixing expensive linen threads with cheap wool ones, and then selling "linen" garments to unsuspecting customers at vastly inflated prices.
Sort of like the Chinese spiking foods with melamine ....
You wrote:
“These laws were added to the covenant until Christ came.”
And until Christ came there was only one covenant and only one testament. When Christ came, however, there was a new covenant, and later a new testament, and still later new festivals. That’s the point.
The context is indeed ritual washing. And Jesus told his disciples and us what he meant:
Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
The issue was ritual washing of hands, a tradition that Jews invented, not something scripturally commanded. The food laws, on the other hand, were something that Christ himself commanded.
Your interpretation, though common, is a mistake in that it is done through a prism of tradition that disagrees with biblical precepts and practices.
You very well could be right.
You wrote:
“What is it you believe God is forbidding here?”
No, what do YOU think He is forbidding there?
“And remember, Jewish law and tradition is not the same as what scripture actually reads.”
So a law in the Bible isn’t actually what it says? You’re not making sense. I listed the verse.
The holy days of the Lord were not added. They predated the old covenant. They were not part of that covenant. They are the Lord's Holy days and he expects us to honor him by observing his days.
There's no contradiction, if your focus is on the spirit of the OT, and not just the written words in it. See John 5:39-40, wherein Jesus spells out the difference between the written words themselves, and the Message they convey.
Jesus taught that the contemporary Jewish take on the Old Testament was missing the point.
For example, look at what Jesus says 6 different times in in Matthew 5 -- "You have heard that it was said ... but I say to you..."
The spiritual authority of the Old Testament is unchanged by Jesus's New Testament message: it's still, "Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself."
The words of the Old Testament, however.... if you simply rely on them without seeking the spirit, you're sunk.
Proof, please?
You wrote:
“You might want to start with this.”
The United Church of God? That’s a sect started by the cult leader Armstrong. And you want me to believe they got their facts straight when they couldn’t even realize they were in a cult for more than 40 years?
It says to not wear clothes made out of certain blends of wool and linen. The reasons why and the specific blends are not given. It DOESN'T say you can't wear wool socks and a linen shirt.
That is incorrect. The old covenant was made between God and Abram, back in Genesis 15. God's specific references to Holy Days such as Passover and the Sabbath do not show up until the time of Moses, several hundred years later.
United Church of God was started 10 years after Herbert Armstrong died. It's a completely different entity legally and doctrinally.
From a brief history of United Church of God:
Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization.
Concerned with uneven administrative practices of the former assembly, more than 100 ordained ministers developed a new administrative structure that was more directly accountable to members and the ministry. A new 12-person Council of Elders, elected by a general assembly of all ordained ministers in United, was tasked with reviewing and independently documenting all core beliefs and doctrines of the Church, which above all must be true to the biblical record and not reliant on later divisive philosophical and theological traditions that were developed centuries after the original apostles. That task has been largely completed, and the Church's formal Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is published for all to see on its Web site: www.ucg.org/about/fundamentalbeliefs.htm.
Comparing United Church of God to Worldwide Church of God under Armstrong is in many ways like comparing Protestants to Catholics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.