C
What Laws are still valid to christians
- Thread starter vic1980
- 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.
I understand that is the way you experience interpreting all of Scripture in the light of the NT,
where it is revealed that some things have changed since the death of Christ.
So now you're arguing about the argument, instead of making an argument.
That happens when one's argument can't be made.
Just as well, for there is much about the argument, in addition to the argument,
that you do not understand.
Foreknowledge is irrelevant to this issue.
Making changes in moving from the Sinaitic Covenant to the New Covenant does not
violate God's foreknowledge.
Those changes are the result of his foreknowledge, which in Scripture is
knowing in advance what is going to happen because he has decreed that it shall happen.
(Ac 4:28, 2:23)
He decreed those changes before the foundation of the world.
So you don't endorse all Scripture?
I endorse all Scripture.
That you think it sounds contradictory is due to your incomplete understanding of it,
which completeness is given in the revelation of Jesus (Heb 1:1-2), through the writers of the whole NT.
Yes, and you do not interpret them correctly, in the light of Jesus' revelation (Heb, 1:1-2) given
through the writers of the whole NT, and that makes them irrelevant to the topic.
Strawman. . .
Didn't you just deny that fact in the bolded blue of the second quote above?
That is human reasoning, and contrary to Biblical reasoning, because it is not understood in the light
of the God's completed revelation (Heb 1:1-2) of the whole NT.
What you consider limited understanding is the light of the whole NT.
I welcome any exegesis in the light of, and in agreement with, the whole NT
which shows my limited understanding.
So because God "changed his mind" about the sacrifices (Heb 10: 4, 10, 9:28) and
the Aaronic priesthood Heb 7:11), he is indecisive?
So "changing his mind" about the sacrifices and the Aaronic priesthood is a violation
of his foreknowledge?
I understand that is your human and unBiblical point of view.
But how can it be otherwise when one doesn't believe every word of the NT is God-breathed.
On that we agree, and all Scripture includes the whole NT.
where it is revealed that some things have changed since the death of Christ.
So now you're arguing about the argument, instead of making an argument.
That happens when one's argument can't be made.
Just as well, for there is much about the argument, in addition to the argument,
that you do not understand.
Foreknowledge is irrelevant to this issue.
Making changes in moving from the Sinaitic Covenant to the New Covenant does not
violate God's foreknowledge.
Those changes are the result of his foreknowledge, which in Scripture is
knowing in advance what is going to happen because he has decreed that it shall happen.
(Ac 4:28, 2:23)
He decreed those changes before the foundation of the world.
So you don't endorse all Scripture?
I endorse all Scripture.
That you think it sounds contradictory is due to your incomplete understanding of it,
which completeness is given in the revelation of Jesus (Heb 1:1-2), through the writers of the whole NT.
Yes, and you do not interpret them correctly, in the light of Jesus' revelation (Heb, 1:1-2) given
through the writers of the whole NT, and that makes them irrelevant to the topic.
Strawman. . .
Didn't you just deny that fact in the bolded blue of the second quote above?
That is human reasoning, and contrary to Biblical reasoning, because it is not understood in the light
of the God's completed revelation (Heb 1:1-2) of the whole NT.
What you consider limited understanding is the light of the whole NT.
I welcome any exegesis in the light of, and in agreement with, the whole NT
which shows my limited understanding.
So because God "changed his mind" about the sacrifices (Heb 10: 4, 10, 9:28) and
the Aaronic priesthood Heb 7:11), he is indecisive?
So "changing his mind" about the sacrifices and the Aaronic priesthood is a violation
of his foreknowledge?
I understand that is your human and unBiblical point of view.
But how can it be otherwise when one doesn't believe every word of the NT is God-breathed.
On that we agree, and all Scripture includes the whole NT.
Last edited:
All of Scripture is God-breathed (2Tim 3:16), so whatever Scripture says, God says.
And yes, the NT word of God states that because the covenant promised in Jer 31:31 is called "new," that means the former Sinaitic Covenant is "old". . .and obsolete (Heb 8:13).
Jesus said his blood was the blood of the "new" covenant (Lk 22:20), which is the New Testament ("covenant" and "testament" are the same thing, both being the same Greek word, diatheke).
We also find "Old Testament" in the word of God at 2Co 3:14.
And yes, the NT word of God states that because the covenant promised in Jer 31:31 is called "new," that means the former Sinaitic Covenant is "old". . .and obsolete (Heb 8:13).
Jesus said his blood was the blood of the "new" covenant (Lk 22:20), which is the New Testament ("covenant" and "testament" are the same thing, both being the same Greek word, diatheke).
We also find "Old Testament" in the word of God at 2Co 3:14.
I think you missed the point of my post. lol Because what you're saying within the context of my point is that God's laws found in the writings/recording of Moses are not valid as a holy standard of living. I don't believe God hands out laws arbitrarily. One might say that they know what all of the laws are for, and therefore they have no purpose. To each his own. But I disagree with that reasoning.
Last edited:
Contradiction is only in the eye of the beholder.
God has made some big changes since, and because of, the death of Christ.
He has set aside the animal sacrifices (Heb 10:4, 10, 9:28),
he has changed the priesthood from the order of Aaron to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:11),
he has set aside the Mosaic law as the means to righteousness and salvation (Heb 7:18-19),
he has replaced the Mosaic law with the law of Christ (1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2),
which is the law of love (Mt 22:37-39; Jn 13:34),
and which fulfills (accomplishes) the whole law (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8-10).
However, there are some who grievously err in calling these changes of God "contradictions."
They want to tell God what he can and cannot do.
It's all about them preserving their traditional theology by overrunning the NT Scriptures.
God has made some big changes since, and because of, the death of Christ.
He has set aside the animal sacrifices (Heb 10:4, 10, 9:28),
he has changed the priesthood from the order of Aaron to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:11),
he has set aside the Mosaic law as the means to righteousness and salvation (Heb 7:18-19),
he has replaced the Mosaic law with the law of Christ (1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2),
which is the law of love (Mt 22:37-39; Jn 13:34),
and which fulfills (accomplishes) the whole law (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:8-10).
However, there are some who grievously err in calling these changes of God "contradictions."
They want to tell God what he can and cannot do.
It's all about them preserving their traditional theology by overrunning the NT Scriptures.
You are just sowing confusion among the brethren. GOD have mercy on your soul. You imply that you are a person of integrity, but you cannot even forthrightly respond to a simple question with a direct, simple answer.
Paul makes it very clear that if you become circumcised, you are cut off from Christ.
The law of Moses says that every male must be circumcised, and that those not circumcised would be cut off from the covenant.
Here's the question again. Who do you obey: Moses or Paul? Please don't obfuscate and equivocate. Give a simple answer if you can. It's not a hard question.
Paul makes it very clear that if you become circumcised, you are cut off from Christ.
Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing! And again I testify to every man who becomes circumcised, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. You are estranged from Christ, you who are attempting to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:2-4
The law of Moses says that every male must be circumcised, and that those not circumcised would be cut off from the covenant.
In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Leviticus 12:3
The uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14
The uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14
Here's the question again. Who do you obey: Moses or Paul? Please don't obfuscate and equivocate. Give a simple answer if you can. It's not a hard question.
They completely invalidate the NT scriptures. They claim to uphold law, but by equating old covenant law with new covenant law, they invalidate the law of Christ and become lawless. Lawless doesn't necessarily mean without law; it can also mean being without the fear of GOD and trampling his revealed will.
Leviticus 23:34 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the Lord.
... fastforward to the Millennial Reign of Christ...
Zechariah 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
So at least the heathen are supposed to keep this law. And I would assume God's People still. Which may or may not include Gentile Christians, depending on your theology. But I think God's laws are an "until heaven and earth disappear" kind of deal (Matthew 5:18).
... fastforward to the Millennial Reign of Christ...
Zechariah 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
So at least the heathen are supposed to keep this law. And I would assume God's People still. Which may or may not include Gentile Christians, depending on your theology. But I think God's laws are an "until heaven and earth disappear" kind of deal (Matthew 5:18).
Yuppers. As well as the grain offerings. Studying God's laws has really helped me to understand the Bible. For example, there are Christians who believe that unbelievers can't please God with acts of charity because they first need to become God's children. Only then can they please him. However...
Acts 10:4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.
Leviticus 2:9 He shall take out the memorial portion from the grain offering and burn it on the altar as a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.
So what does it mean to come up as a memorial offering? It gets God's attention. It pleases him.
Acts 10:4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.
Leviticus 2:9 He shall take out the memorial portion from the grain offering and burn it on the altar as a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.
So what does it mean to come up as a memorial offering? It gets God's attention. It pleases him.
G
ALL of 'em ARE based on the two 'great' laws, as I call them, Love Him first, with ALL your heart, and, love others as you love yourself, and, this is not 'love,' but 'Love,' His Love that can only be how we are to Love others. We have NO love that is good, no bone in our body that is GOOD, Paul tells us in Romans 3, we FIND all our Love of humankind from Him . We can choose to trust Him in this 'Love,' or not, and, His laws will follow what is said in Scripture for the laws beyond the 10 commandments and the laws of 'Love' that God determines 'greatest' delineated from the 10 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. . .Jesus did not call the covenant ananeeo ("renewed"), he called it kainos, ("new,"
not existing before).
A "covenant" and a "testament" are the same thing, and are the same Greek word, daitheke.
So Jesus and Hizikyah are talking about the same thing; i.e., the covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34.
And of that covenant which both are talking about, Jesus said it is a new (kainos) covenant (Lk 22:10),
not a renewed (ananeeo) covenant.
Hizikyah is wrong.
And because they are the same Greek word, diatheke, they are also the same thing.
The covenant of Jer 31:31-34 is a new (kainos) covenant according to Jesus (Lk 22:20),
and not the "renewed" (ananeeo) covenant asserted by Hizikyah.
Hizikyah was not right.
not existing before).
A "covenant" and a "testament" are the same thing, and are the same Greek word, daitheke.
So Jesus and Hizikyah are talking about the same thing; i.e., the covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34.
And of that covenant which both are talking about, Jesus said it is a new (kainos) covenant (Lk 22:10),
not a renewed (ananeeo) covenant.
Hizikyah is wrong.
And because they are the same Greek word, diatheke, they are also the same thing.
The covenant of Jer 31:31-34 is a new (kainos) covenant according to Jesus (Lk 22:20),
and not the "renewed" (ananeeo) covenant asserted by Hizikyah.
Hizikyah was not right.
Last edited:
Meh. How should I know? To each their own. The usual explanation is that it somehow makes a mockery out of or nullifies Christ's blood. I heard of some believers in Christ, though, who sacrificed a lamb once. I didn't agree with it, though, because the way in which it was done wasn't in accordance with the Old Testament regulations (i.e. none of them were priests, and it wasn't on the Passover if I remember correctly - let alone a one year-old, blemishless first-born).
C
Paul referred to scriptures we called old testament in 2 Tim 3:16 (by the way, not "all of scripture"). So you are right that whatever God-breathed scripture says, God says. And Paul, like Jesus/Yeshua, endorsed the so-called old testament.
There are scripture in what we called old testament not considered God-breathed for a number of reasons. So what is the ground for believing in the whole 27 books in the so-called new testament?
I'm not saying I don't believe in the 27 books (new testament) but when any of these contradicts with the 39 books (old testament) should we use the 39 books as our foundation - or at least trusting the new does not contradict the old when we try to interpret the new?
I'm saying this because I believe all laws are valid to Christians if circumstances allow (yes of course there will be a lot to explain but am saying this now to state clearly my stand point).
There are scripture in what we called old testament not considered God-breathed for a number of reasons. So what is the ground for believing in the whole 27 books in the so-called new testament?
I'm not saying I don't believe in the 27 books (new testament) but when any of these contradicts with the 39 books (old testament) should we use the 39 books as our foundation - or at least trusting the new does not contradict the old when we try to interpret the new?
I'm saying this because I believe all laws are valid to Christians if circumstances allow (yes of course there will be a lot to explain but am saying this now to state clearly my stand point).