Don’t dis the Old Testament (Just Because You Don't Think The Levitical Laws Are Applicable Today)

Christian Post ^ | 01/24/2022 | Robin Schumacher

[Paperpusher]

I started to comment, but you did a better job than I could.
The only thing I can add is:

36”Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37Jesus said to him, “’You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Matt. 22:36-40

[lurk]

Which of the Ten Commandments is okay to violate today?

[BipolarBob]

Oh good grief, not this nonsense again. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And as far as what laws apply to who is pretty clear to me. The ceremonial laws and ordinances (that pointed forward to the coming Messiah) are obsolete, the others are applicable. And if you just don't want to follow some (such as Sabbath keeping), then you are not grafting onto the True Vine.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Which of the Ten Commandments is okay to violate today?

This article is NOT talking about the Ten Commandments.

But the answer to your question is NONE.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Just because something is recorded, doesn’t mean we should copy it or that God approves of it.

Yep.

Lots of things in both the Old and New that brought down judgement.

[metmom]

I know it’s not.

It has no basis other than opinion from what I can tell.

[Getready]

Cuz....the priests wore linen and wool in their vestments. Don’t impersonate a priest. That is the priest only uniform.
A modern day analogy might be.. don’t wear a blue uniform and a heavy small heraldic badge and a holster...unless you are a duly appointed police officer. Or go into a courtroom with a long black robe in the USA unless you be the official judge.
So many of the laws were written to cover conditions the modern world knows nothing about.

[StolarStorm]

.. and Abram and Jacob pimping out their wives.

[delchiante]

Quote
the priests wore linen and wool in their vestments. Don’t impersonate a priest. That is the priest only uniform.

Nicely stated
There’s a priestly color that the Woman is not wearing in the book of Revelation.

Blue.

A color He denoted in the Old Testament that was to remind Israel of His Commandments..
Blue..
Numbers 15:38

A Commandmentless, lawless, disobedient end time woman riding a Beast..

And the Patience of the Saints in the same book?
Those who keep the Commandments and the faith of Christ

One seemless garment from Old to New..From New to Old..

[daniel1212]

"Because its an apt association. Its a pagan thing to throw out what God himself inspired in scripture. If he gave us the OT it is just as important to clearly and contextually understand it. Which individuals just throw out for no apparent reason. "

Rather, what are you reading - or ignoring? You responded to the OP who was actually arguing contrary to just throwing out what God himself inspired in scripture vs. clearly and contextually understanding it. As he stated, "Too many believers reply by dismissing the Old Testament and saying we now only follow the New. Saying that won’t get you far for two reasons.... the New Testament is a continuation of what we find in the Old and therefore it remains a guide to salvation and godly life in general...universally binding moral laws would be given to Israel in Old Testament times that naturally carry forward to us today.

.....For example, Leviticus 18 supplies numerous moral law commands and then ends with statements such as: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.... you will search the Old Testament in vain for examples of God bringing judgment upon non-Israelites for not following the Jewish ceremonial, dietary, or other non-moral regulations. When God’s wrath came down on Gentile peoples (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah), it wasn’t for wearing a shirt made with two fabrics, but because the people were violating God’s moral laws.

One last Old Testament pattern/example: how often do you hear politically-left people say today that socialism is advocated in the Bible? A quick look at the governmental, hard-work-reward, welfare, and tax structures prescribed by God in the Old Testament to the only theocratic nation in history quickly puts that false claim to bed (see Lev. 27:30-33, Deut. 12:6-17, Deut. 14:22-29, Lev. 19).

Hardly throwing out what God himself inspired in scripture, and if you want to require literal observance of all the temple ordinances and ceremonial and laws then you throwing out how the new covenant is "not according to the covenant" God made beginning with Moses.

" BTW. You sure like to quote a ton of verses without offering at least an implied interpretation and argumentation from those verses. Its a wasted effort to merely cite scripture unless there is an interpretation which offers an argument towards a point or proposition. Its otherwise not useful to anyone. Even Jesus interpreted Scripture."

, what are you reading - or ignoring? I first posts over 160 words in explanation, and all the texts I next carefully posted where in systematic support of what I said.

Sorryto say but it seems that you are far too selective in what you read and or comprehend, both in Scripture and in responses.

[Cronos]

What is interesting about the OT is how we think of it as a rule book, and it goes as

1. God tells us in Exodus 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of anything[c] in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth and then in Exodus 25 we have 18 Make two cherubim[d] of beaten gold for the two ends of the cover; 19 make one cherub at one end, and the other at the other end, of one piece with the cover, at each end. 20 The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, sheltering the cover with them; they shall face each other, with their faces looking toward the cover.

2. We also have the command not to marry with the neighbouring tribes and yet we have Ruth, the Moabite woman who is in the genealogy of both David and Jesus. Ditto for Rahab, a Jericho woman and Bathsheba - note that "Bathsheba" isn't a name rather a description "daughter of Sheba" i.e. a Yemenite woman.

[Cronos]

well, to non-Israelites :)

the Samaritans have the written Torah and genetically they are Israelites.

[Cronos]

note though that the Apostles and Jesus rejected the ORAL Torah - this was the extrapolation of the Mosaic laws and were what the Pharisees preached.

The ORAL Torah was later codified and expounded upon in the Talmud.

[Cronos]

I dunno about you, but I’d rather not have more than one wife.

Life is hard enough as it is with ONE father-in-law!!

[Cronos]

The Old Testament is composed largely of three kinds of writing: The Torah; the subsequent history of the Israelites and their relationship to God; and the prophets. Confusing one for the other will lead the uninformed to all sorts of misconceptions. And we know that it was written over a period of about a thousand years, so it naturally speaks with many voices, some of which plainly include myth and allegory as well as actual history. Not to mention poetry and song.

Good point - also the history books are not quite Herodotus level history

[Bayard]

That’s a difficult contention, since clearly Jesus relied on that oral tradition contending with Sadducees over life after death. Ref. Luke 20:27-38.

Paul who is an apostle also numbered himself among pharasees phil 3, acts 22:2-5.

I would think rather that Jesus had his own interpretation of scripture which tended to coincide and agree with the prophets and their tradition. But which included critiques of their misapprehensions of God’s will.

Perhaps your claim about oral tradition entails something else apart from the prophetic books and the position the pharisees took.

[MHGinTN]

Thanks for posting that summary.

[Cronos]

Hi Bayard.

are you sure that Jesus' response in Luke 20:35-38 is from the Pharisee's Oral Torah or indeed from any Oral Torah? -- I have not read any of that in the Talmud, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Paul points out that he WAS a Pharisee - not that he was still. It was a sect within 2nd temple Judaism -- and the Jesus-movement was another sect until at least 132 AD

"I would rather think that Jesus had his on interpretation of scripture" -- that is what Luke 20 seems to show, not the Pharisee's point of view

To the point The ORAL Torah was later codified and expounded upon in the Talmud. - this is not my claim, but is in the Talmud itself. Rabbinical Judaism or as we call it today, simply 'Judaism' holds to the Oral Torah that was separate from the written and allowed for how to interpret the Mosaic Laws.

note though that the Apostles and Jesus rejected the ORAL Torah - this was the extrapolation of the Mosaic laws and were what the Pharisees preached. - this yes, is a claim, not specifically my own, but not Rabbinical Judaic. This claim was held by Sadducees and by Jesus movement Jews and the Essenes. It is held today by Christians and by Samaritans

[Bayard]

are you sure that Jesus' response in Luke 20:35-38 is from the Pharisee's Oral Torah or indeed from any Oral Torah? -- I have not read any of that in the Talmud, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

What is meant by oral tradition has not yet been fully defined here. I mean in the sense of pre-destruction of Jerusalem tradition, which was possibly (if not very likely) not the same after that destruction when the contention between Christians and Jews were at their greatest in history at that point. Many Jews in the diaspora were becoming Christians.

Regarding that, there was clearly a belief in oral tradition in the resurrection of the dead. This is clear from the question in (Matt 22:23-32) It is in this sense Jesus speaks on behalf of those who believe in a teaching about the resurrection. He demonstrates even that a different reading of the Torah (Which was notably astonishing to the crowds and to the Sadducees. (v33-34)

Heretofore the contention about the resurrection the Sadducees had was over the fact that it was only from sources after the Torah. Which is sensible, since the primary backing to the power of the priestly and ruling class was very grounded in the Torah.

Paul points out that he WAS a Pharisee - not that he was still. It was a sect within 2nd temple Judaism -- and the Jesus-movement was another sect until at least 132 AD

He also mentions his background among the Pharisees when it gained him allies amidst his final days in Jerusalem before being imprisoned to be eventually sent to Rome. (Acts 23:6-11) I agree that Christianity was not we'll distinguished apart from the Jewish religion at the time. Most Christians came from Jewish backgrounds as converts believing Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, thus the distinction would have been very cloudy indeed.

^{To the point The ORAL Torah was later codified and expounded upon in the Talmud. - this is not my claim, but is in the Talmud itself. Rabbinical Judaism or as we call it today, simply 'Judaism' holds to the Oral Torah that was separate from the written and allowed for how to interpret the Mosaic Laws.}

And would be greatly affected by the rebellions against Romans by the Jewish people, the ongoing conversions of Jews to Christianity and the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. The entire Jewish world was utterly ruined at the time the Talmud was written, it was terrible.

^{note though that the Apostles and Jesus rejected the ORAL Torah - this was the extrapolation of the Mosaic laws and were what the Pharisees preached. - this yes, is a claim, not specifically my own, but not Rabbinical Judaic. This claim was held by Sadducees and by Jesus movement Jews and the Essenes. It is held today by Christians and by Samaritans}

The Sadducees clearly did not believe in the Resurrection of the dead. I'm attempting to understand where the opposition to this claim comes from except out of a rejection of oral tradition which most scholars believe to be the reason.

[Cronos]

. I mean in the sense of pre-destruction of Jerusalem tradition, which was possibly (if not very likely) not the same after that destruction -- The Oral Torah was not quite "Tradition" - it was the elaboration on the Mosaic laws - for instance the details of how to keep the Sabbath holy were not delineated in the written Torah.

when the contention between Christians and Jews were at their greatest in history at that point. Many Jews in the diaspora were becoming Christians. -- I would point out

1. it is anachronistic to refer to "Jews" and "Christians" to refer to those people in the period between 33 AD and at least 132 AD. The term Christian was an exonym - as was the term Nazarene - or Nasrani, by which Christians are known to the east of Syria. They only took on the exonym as an endonym after the Kitos war when Rabbinical Jews committed genocide in Cyprus and Cyrene and the very term "Jew" was rendered odious to the gentiles due to these fanatical actions (kind of like the Islamic state)
   
   The more accurate term would be Jesus-movement Jews until 132 AD and Pharasaical and then Rabbinical Jews (until 70 AD and then after 70 AD respectively)
   
   
2. that the contention between the Jesus-movement Jews was highest before the destruction of the temple. This was what prompted John of Patmos to write about the great tribulation that Jesus followers faced in 64 to 67 AD when the Jesus movement was under pressure from Pharisees, the Sanhedrin AND Nero's secular authorities

"Matt 22:23-32" -- hmm... good point

I'm attempting to understand where the opposition to this claim comes from except out of a rejection of oral tradition which most scholars believe to be the reason. - all the indications seem to be that the scholars are correct. It could not be Hellenic influence unless it was Epicurean