Does the new covenant affirm or deny the OT?
- Thread starter Blik
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You continue to struggle with the difference between the Old and New Covenants. And since you do not give heed to anything anyone posts, you will continue to do so. However, as soon as you place yourself under the Law of Moses, you turn your back on the grace of God and the finished work of Christ. That is the message of the epistle to the Hebrews.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
i could tell you didn't write it 
Dino's right, tho - the Bible doesn't speak of the law as being separated into moral/civil/ceremonial categories at all. that's a modern human invention used to try & justify subjecting the believer to parts of the law while not under all of it. that presupposition is clear from the very first sentence of the website you copy-pasted, and Dino, knowing that's error, has good reasons not to bother reading the rest.
i did, tho - and it's worth pointing out one of the places where whoever wrote the website you pasted into this thread contradicts himself/herself.
the obvious question is asked when this weird view of splitting the law into chunks comes up: where in the world does the scripture ever categorize the law into 'must-obey' moral and 'must not obey' ceremonial and 'optional' civil fractures? what's typically given as evidence for this trope is some verse that says 'laws, statutes and ordinances' -- and then that is identified as 'moral/civil/ceremonial'
problem: the website you reposted has the major premise that Deutronomy 6:5 defines the decalogue as 'moral' on the basis that it is in proximity to the decalogue in chapter 5 and it says 'love the LORD your God'
well, in even closer proximity is Deuteronomy 6:1-2
so if Deuteronomy 6:5 is referring uniquely to the decalogue, it's calling it all 3 categories, not just moral.
if it's not uniquely referring to the 10 commandments, it's associating loving the LORD our God with keeping all three supposed 'categories' of law: including ceremonial & civil ones. so either case, the so-called 'proof' that whoever wrote that website gives, is disproven, and so also their charge of heresy.
more evidence here, in Deuteronomy 5:1 as the second reading of the decalogue is introduced:
statutes and judgements. after reciting how the law began to be given at Sinai, in ch5 v31 ((ooh! only 7 verses away from ch6 v5! 7<17 !!)) we read this:
the law of Moses is one law, unified, and breaking any of it - including whatever you want to arbitrarily call 'ceremonial' - makes you guilty of all of it. this is how scripture ubiquitously speaks about the law of Moses.
Dino's right, tho - the Bible doesn't speak of the law as being separated into moral/civil/ceremonial categories at all. that's a modern human invention used to try & justify subjecting the believer to parts of the law while not under all of it. that presupposition is clear from the very first sentence of the website you copy-pasted, and Dino, knowing that's error, has good reasons not to bother reading the rest.
i did, tho - and it's worth pointing out one of the places where whoever wrote the website you pasted into this thread contradicts himself/herself.
the obvious question is asked when this weird view of splitting the law into chunks comes up: where in the world does the scripture ever categorize the law into 'must-obey' moral and 'must not obey' ceremonial and 'optional' civil fractures? what's typically given as evidence for this trope is some verse that says 'laws, statutes and ordinances' -- and then that is identified as 'moral/civil/ceremonial'
problem: the website you reposted has the major premise that Deutronomy 6:5 defines the decalogue as 'moral' on the basis that it is in proximity to the decalogue in chapter 5 and it says 'love the LORD your God'
well, in even closer proximity is Deuteronomy 6:1-2
Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged.
ya got statutes, judgements, commandments. so if Deuteronomy 6:5 is referring uniquely to the decalogue, it's calling it all 3 categories, not just moral.
if it's not uniquely referring to the 10 commandments, it's associating loving the LORD our God with keeping all three supposed 'categories' of law: including ceremonial & civil ones. so either case, the so-called 'proof' that whoever wrote that website gives, is disproven, and so also their charge of heresy.
more evidence here, in Deuteronomy 5:1 as the second reading of the decalogue is introduced:
And Moses called all Israel, and said to them: Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them.
statutes and judgements. after reciting how the law began to be given at Sinai, in ch5 v31 ((ooh! only 7 verses away from ch6 v5! 7<17 !!)) we read this:
But as for you, stand here by Me, and I will speak to you all the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments which you shall teach them, that they may observe them in the land which I am giving them to possess.’
commandments, statutes, and judgements -- observe all of them. once again the premise of the author of the website you copy-pasted into this thread is blown to bits: either the decalogue contains all three 'types' of law: ceremonial, moral, and civic -- or Deuteronomy 6:5 is certainly talking about all the law not just about what is arbitrarily lifted out of the whole and called 'moral' -- as though what, the rest is immoral? the law of Moses is one law, unified, and breaking any of it - including whatever you want to arbitrarily call 'ceremonial' - makes you guilty of all of it. this is how scripture ubiquitously speaks about the law of Moses.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
When you say that my auto-translate turns that into "not able to answer"
Do y'all think my translator is working correctly..?
Do y'all think my translator is working correctly..?
-
1
- Show all
Does it hurt?
No mate, I'd rather you reply every time letting me know you're going to act just as if you are ignoring me.
In general I think 'ignore' is a terrible thing for anyone to do to themselves. It's willfully poking ones own eyes out, refusing to see what someone else has to show you.
You ignoring me would have absolutely zero effect on me, but potentially do great damage to yourself. My ignore list is empty and will remain empty for as long as this website exists.
Just seemed like a natural question to ask, if there has been a radical change in how God accepts people, then it's interesting to know exactly when that happened. No big deal to me if you don't know.
No mate, I'd rather you reply every time letting me know you're going to act just as if you are ignoring me.
In general I think 'ignore' is a terrible thing for anyone to do to themselves. It's willfully poking ones own eyes out, refusing to see what someone else has to show you.
You ignoring me would have absolutely zero effect on me, but potentially do great damage to yourself. My ignore list is empty and will remain empty for as long as this website exists.
Just seemed like a natural question to ask, if there has been a radical change in how God accepts people, then it's interesting to know exactly when that happened. No big deal to me if you don't know.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Does it hurt?
No mate, I'd rather you reply every time letting me know you're going to act just as if you are ignoring me.
In general I think 'ignore' is a terrible thing for anyone to do to themselves. It's willfully poking ones own eyes out, refusing to see what someone else has to show you.
You ignoring me would have absolutely zero effect on me, but potentially do great damage to yourself. My ignore list is empty and will remain empty for as long as this website exists.
Just seemed like a natural question to ask, if there has been a radical change in how God accepts people, then it's interesting to know exactly when that happened. No big deal to me if you don't know.
No mate, I'd rather you reply every time letting me know you're going to act just as if you are ignoring me.
In general I think 'ignore' is a terrible thing for anyone to do to themselves. It's willfully poking ones own eyes out, refusing to see what someone else has to show you.
You ignoring me would have absolutely zero effect on me, but potentially do great damage to yourself. My ignore list is empty and will remain empty for as long as this website exists.
Just seemed like a natural question to ask, if there has been a radical change in how God accepts people, then it's interesting to know exactly when that happened. No big deal to me if you don't know.
-
1
- Show all
There's a sort of legitimate use, if someone is really bothering a user and they don't have the self control to either not respond or not to respond without themselves sinning in what they say. I rather think we should all be mature enough to hold our tongues and/or just skip past posts we know will infuriate us.
But I also think it's abusive of this functionality to use it to block all dissenting opinions, block people who scrutinize your own posts, or people who ask uncomfortable questions. To me that sounds like fascism and intellectual dishonesty, a way to make yourself feel comfortable with saying things that hardly hold water by stifling every objection - without ever having to address or even consider them.
Just my opinion. It's a tool that exists in the forum and anyone can use it as they see fit. I personally don't want to ever use it; it doesn't do anything but close my own eyes if I do.
But I also think it's abusive of this functionality to use it to block all dissenting opinions, block people who scrutinize your own posts, or people who ask uncomfortable questions. To me that sounds like fascism and intellectual dishonesty, a way to make yourself feel comfortable with saying things that hardly hold water by stifling every objection - without ever having to address or even consider them.
Just my opinion. It's a tool that exists in the forum and anyone can use it as they see fit. I personally don't want to ever use it; it doesn't do anything but close my own eyes if I do.
-
2
- Show all
L
So I'm guessing all you law keepers make your children wear fringed clothes with a blue ribbon in the fringe.
14 Numbers 15:38 - On making Tzitzit with thread of blue, garments corners.
Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:
14 Numbers 15:38 - On making Tzitzit with thread of blue, garments corners.
Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:
L
Deuteronomy 7:2 - Not to show mercy to idolaters.
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
I bet this one goes over great when out knocking doors, evangelising. Or operating your daily business.
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
I bet this one goes over great when out knocking doors, evangelising. Or operating your daily business.