If you keep Lev 15:22, how do you go about doing it?

[RedTent]

I'm really loving studying and thinking about this law... if you feel the law should be kept physically... what a benefit for the women in the community... to be able to say... here I am with my gal pals... we're all cycling together... not even a shade of embarrassment... no need to worry about what chair to sit on... and look! here's an eleven year old first timer... throw her a party, and pass the chocolate!

The book "The Red Tent" by Diamant is about what went on in the red tent where women in Jacob's time retreated together when they had their monthly cycle, and all the companionship and fun they had together. I loved the book so, and the idea of women supporting and caring for each other I took the name for my CC name. Dinah, as the only daughter of Jacob was allowed to retreat with them even as a child, and the story is told as if Dinah did the narrating.

I wish supporting and caring for each other in Christ could be true on CC!!!!

 

[chubbena]

So let's try again.

Does one see the problem?
Does one see that it's not every meaning of a word that will fit its use in a text?

You're grasping at straws. . .

Some just want it mean "put aside" in Matthew 5:17 by taking it out of context. If only one reads and understand Matthew 5:18-20 and the elaboration of the law thereafter.
But I'll let you have the last word.

 

[chubbena]

Okay. . .then could you explain to me

Heb 7:11-12 - setting aside of Aaronic priesthood, which was based on the law

Heb 7:18-19 - setting aside of the law because it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness

Heb 8:6-7, 13 - setting aside of the old covenant

Only when one pulls verses out of Hebrews 7 and adds his own interpretations to fit his opinion.
Hebrews 7:11-19 was about the reason of the change of priesthood. It is clear that the law regarding Leviticus priesthood has to change because the Word of God in the flesh was from the tribe of Judah cf Hebrews 7:14. The former regulation is set aside because former priesthood and animal sacrifices could never take away sin and are replaced by the Son and His sacrifice cf Hebrews 7:28. Hebrews chapter 8 continues on to explain that. Hebrews 8:10 clearly said He will put His law in His people's minds and write them on their hearts.
The reason is obvious why some choose to speak against His law.

 

[JaumeJ]

Again, according to Paul the law is established by faith. Anything that is established by God is not abolished.

I believe the problem for so many who are afraid of obedience is simple, they do not see how the law is to be observed.

Without cutting and pasting endless quotes from the Word, and because those who claim to believe Jesus Christ should have already read most of it, the approach is simple.

Learn from our Master, Jesus Christ. Emmunlate His conduct.Study the law enough to know the difference between which can not be observed and which should be observed. The curse of the law was nailed to the cross with our Lord, thus any laws calling for execution and/or punishment are no longer. No stoning to death, no eye for an eye and so on. Jesus Christ made all foods clean when He teaches nothing by entering the body defiles the body. Mercy is always the first option.for anyone who believes Jesus Christ.

The problem with most people who object to observing the remaining laws is they have never truly learned any of the above, and they, in their ignorance, are making themselves legalists or lawyers if you will. They neither cross the bridge nor allow other to cross it. These people are lawless in my humble esteem derived from much study of the Word with prayer and meditation. No one who claims to be saved by Jesus Christ should ever blindly discount the law, the law established by God through our faith. Obey God. Believe God, and study all of His Word.

 

[ThePottersClay]

Sanitary pads, tampons, regular baths 21st century stuff.... remember in those days, they had to go wash themselves in the river, I think if they bathed once a week it would be a lot.

 

[john832]

Sanitary pads, tampons, regular baths 21st century stuff.... remember in those days, they had to go wash themselves in the river, I think if they bathed once a week it would be a lot.

And that is an evolutionary viewpoint. Try reading the Pentateuch before commenting. Washings and cleansings were an integral part of their life. God instructed them on cleanliness.

Why do you think the mortality rate for Jews was astonishingly low during the Black Death Plague?

 

[Elin]

Hebrews 7:11-19 was about the reason of the change of priesthood.

Yes, it was necessary in order for God to fulfill his promise of Ps 110:4.

It is clear that
the law regarding Leviticus priesthood has to change because the Word of God in the flesh was from the tribe of Judah cf Hebrews 7:14. The former regulation is set aside because former priesthood and animal sacrifices could never take away sin

Except for that part where Paul states he is not under the law (1Co 9:20),
and he was not talking about the law regarding the priesthood.

Only when one pulls verses out of Hebrews 7
and adds his own interpretations to fit his opinion.

Okay then, let's examine the context--7:11-22.

1) vv. 11-12 - The Mosaic law was based on the priesthood, the priesthood was not based on the law:

". . .the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of (under) it the the law was given to the people."
(Heb 7:11)

So no Levitical priesthood meant no basis for the entire Mosaic law,
because the priesthood was necessary to administer the Mosaic law.

So vv. 11-12 are not talking about the law regarding the priesthood.

2) vv. 18-19 - ". . .(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope (new covenant of grace)
is introduced, by which we draw near to God." (Heb 7:19)

The law that was set aside is contrasted to the new covenant (better hope),
showing that the law under discussion is the one on which the old covenant
was based i.e., the whole Mosaic law.

The law of the priesthood does not fit the contrast,
in addition to Paul's clear statement that he is not under the law.

3) And the conclusion of the matter is:

v. 22 - "Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant."

Heb 7:11-22 is about the new covenant of the new eternal High Priest,
being a better hope than the old covenant of the Mosaic law.

and are replaced by the Son and His sacrifice cf Hebrews 7:28. Hebrews chapter 8 continues on to explain that. Hebrews 8:10 clearly said
He will put His law in His people's minds and write them on their hearts.

And that is the new covenant law of Christ (Mt 22:37-39; Gal 5:6),
which Paul is under (1Co 9:21) and
which replaces the old covenant law of Moses because
it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness (Heb 7:18-19).

Heb 7:11-22 is not about the law regarding the priesthood,
it's about the entire Mosaic law.

 

[Elin]

So let's try again.

Does one see the problem?
Does one see that it's not every meaning of a word that will fit its use in a text?

You're grasping at straws. . .

Some just want it mean "put aside" in Matthew 5:17 by taking it out of context. If only one reads and understand Matthew 5:18-20 and the elaboration of the law thereafter.

And some just don't like the definitions of the words in the text.

But I'll let you have the last word.

Thanks, and you won't be taking that back, will you?

 

[Elin]

Again, according to Paul the law is established by faith.

Yes, he established the law on its right basis, subordinate to the law of grace.

Anything that is established by God is not abolished.

I believe the problem for so many who are afraid of obedience is simple,
they do not see how the law is to be observed.

It is to be observed subordinate to the law of grace.

It is not to be used for what only grace can do.

 

[Elin]

And that is an evolutionary viewpoint. Try reading the Pentateuch before commenting. Washings and cleansings were an integral part of their life.
God instructed them on cleanliness.

Actually, God instructed them on cleansing and purification from ceremonial defilement,
to teach them the meaning of spiritual defilement (sin) and the necessity of its cleansing
to have right standing with God.

 

[JaumeJ]

Grace is not a law, it is a gift, however if you believe it to be a law, it seems you are being a legalist and a lawyer for all. What I share is free for all to embrace from the Word, not vain interpretation.

Repeatedly I invite people to study the law. Repeatedly I point out how Jesus Christ has taught all to observe the laws, and which to observe. When I do this, someone else comes along to attempt to make this freedom legalistic by their private interpretations. All I ask is that those who believe do as Jesus Christ teaches and what He did. This is being free to obey with no fear of death because of breaking the law.........

 

[Elin]

Grace is not a law,

Mt 22:37-39, Gal 5:6 are the law written on the heart in the new covenant of grace.

 

[chubbena]

Yes, it was necessary in order for God to fulfill his promise of Ps 110:4.


Except for that part where Paul states he is not under the law (1Co 9:20),
and he was not talking about the law regarding the priesthood.



Okay then, let's examine the context--7:11-22.

1) vv. 11-12 - The Mosaic law was based on the priesthood, the priesthood was not based on the law:

". . .the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of (under) it the the law was given to the people."
(Heb 7:11)

So no Levitical priesthood meant no basis for the entire Mosaic law,
because the priesthood was necessary to administer the Mosaic law.

So vv. 11-12 are not talking about the law regarding the priesthood.

2) vv. 18-19 - ". . .(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope (new covenant of grace)
is introduced, by which we draw near to God." (Heb 7:19)

The law that was set aside is contrasted to the new covenant (better hope),
showing that the law under discussion is the one on which the old covenant
was based i.e., the whole Mosaic law.

The law of the priesthood does not fit the contrast,
in addition to Paul's clear statement that he is not under the law.

3) And the conclusion of the matter is:

v. 22 - "Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant."

Heb 7:11-22 is about the new covenant of the new eternal High Priest,
being a better hope than the old covenant of the Mosaic law.


And that is the new covenant law of Christ (Mt 22:37-39; Gal 5:6),
which Paul is under (1Co 9:21) and
which replaces the old covenant law of Moses because
it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness (Heb 7:18-19).

Heb 7:11-22 is not about the law regarding the priesthood,
it's about the entire Mosaic law.

Context. If one ignores the context and simply cut and paste from all over one could come up with anything one wished. Again. I'd let you have the last words.

 

[Elin]

Yes, it was necessary in order for God to fulfill his promise of Ps 110:4.

Except for that part where Paul states he is not under the law (1Co 9:20),
and he was not talking about the law regarding the priesthood.

Okay then, let's examine the context--7:11-22.

Context. If one ignores the context and simply cut and paste from all over one could come up with anything one wished

So glad you agree. . .but non-responsive nevertheless.

Again. I'd let you have the last words.

Thanks, and can I count on you not to take that back?

1) vv. 11-12 - The Mosaic law was based on the priesthood, the priesthood was not based on the law:

". . .the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of (under) it the the law was given to the people."
(Heb 7:11)

So no Levitical priesthood meant no basis for the entire Mosaic law,
because the priesthood was necessary to administer the Mosaic law.

So vv. 11-12 are not talking about the law regarding the priesthood.

2) vv. 18-19 - ". . .(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope (new covenant of grace)
is introduced, by which we draw near to God." (Heb 7:19)

The law that was set aside is contrasted to the new covenant (better hope),
showing that the law under discussion is the one on which the old covenant
was based i.e., the whole Mosaic law.

The law of the priesthood does not fit the contrast,
in addition to Paul's clear statement that he is not under the law.

3) And the conclusion of the matter is:

v. 22 - "Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant."

Heb 7:11-22 is about the new covenant of the new eternal High Priest,
being a better hope than the old covenant of the Mosaic law.

And that is the new covenant law of Christ (Mt 22:37-39; Gal 5:6),
which Paul is under (1Co 9:21) and
which replaces the old covenant law of Moses because
it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness (Heb 7:18-19).

Heb 7:11-22 is not about the law regarding the priesthood,
it's about the entire Mosaic law.

 

[Dan_473]

I suppose you could look for or start a community that focuses on this, but I think it would spend too much time on this one principle and forgoe a fellowship of Believers. But the awesome thing about the Body of Messiah is that ultimately, Jesus is our cleansing, and makes us white as snow, so we don't have to get so caught up in this 1 principle at the expense of others. Ultimately, He cleanses us. But that still doesn't negate the wisdom and application of the command itself.

All in its proper balance.

I assume the group would keep this rule and all the similar ones physically... Would a vibrant Christian group like that be hard or impossible to find or start? To me, that would be an important piece of knowledge... So, what I'm hearing is that you believe God wants you to follow this rule, so you put minor effort into following it... If that's not what you're saying please help me straighten this out...

 

[Dan_473]

I don't know where to laugh at the thought of this,

or run.

I think the physical keeping of this law is part of God's plan for the Jewish community... And it contains amazing wisdom... Probably why the observant groups are so tight... Imagine the bonding potential... Hearts, minds, and bodies synced...

 

[Dan_473]

The book "The Red Tent" by Diamant is about what went on in the red tent where women in Jacob's time retreated together when they had their monthly cycle, and all the companionship and fun they had together. I loved the book so, and the idea of women supporting and caring for each other I took the name for my CC name. Dinah, as the only daughter of Jacob was allowed to retreat with them even as a child, and the story is told as if Dinah did the narrating.

I wish supporting and caring for each other in Christ could be true on CC!!!!

Amen to that! Let's work towards that as a goal!

 

[Dan_473]

Again, according to Paul the law is established by faith. Anything that is established by God is not abolished.

I believe the problem for so many who are afraid of obedience is simple, they do not see how the law is to be observed.

Without cutting and pasting endless quotes from the Word, and because those who claim to believe Jesus Christ should have already read most of it, the approach is simple.

Learn from our Master, Jesus Christ. Emmunlate His conduct.Study the law enough to know the difference between which can not be observed and which should be observed. The curse of the law was nailed to the cross with our Lord, thus any laws calling for execution and/or punishment are no longer. No stoning to death, no eye for an eye and so on. Jesus Christ made all foods clean when He teaches nothing by entering the body defiles the body. Mercy is always the first option.for anyone who believes Jesus Christ.

The problem with most people who object to observing the remaining laws is they have never truly learned any of the above, and they, in their ignorance, are making themselves legalists or lawyers if you will. They neither cross the bridge nor allow other to cross it. These people are lawless in my humble esteem derived from much study of the Word with prayer and meditation. No one who claims to be saved by Jesus Christ should ever blindly discount the law, the law established by God through our faith. Obey God. Believe God, and study all of His Word.

Do you feel this law should be kept physically? If so, I'm interested in his you go about it.

 

[RedTent]

Yes, it was necessary in order for God to fulfill his promise of Ps 110:4.


Except for that part where Paul states he is not under the law (1Co 9:20),
and he was not talking about the law regarding the priesthood.



Okay then, let's examine the context--7:11-22.

1) vv. 11-12 - The Mosaic law was based on the priesthood, the priesthood was not based on the law:

". . .the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of (under) it the the law was given to the people."
(Heb 7:11)

So no Levitical priesthood meant no basis for the entire Mosaic law,
because the priesthood was necessary to administer the Mosaic law.

So vv. 11-12 are not talking about the law regarding the priesthood.

2) vv. 18-19 - ". . .(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope (new covenant of grace)
is introduced, by which we draw near to God." (Heb 7:19)

The law that was set aside is contrasted to the new covenant (better hope),
showing that the law under discussion is the one on which the old covenant
was based i.e., the whole Mosaic law.

The law of the priesthood does not fit the contrast,
in addition to Paul's clear statement that he is not under the law.

3) And the conclusion of the matter is:

v. 22 - "Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant."

Heb 7:11-22 is about the new covenant of the new eternal High Priest,
being a better hope than the old covenant of the Mosaic law.


And that is the new covenant law of Christ (Mt 22:37-39; Gal 5:6),
which Paul is under (1Co 9:21) and
which replaces the old covenant law of Moses because
it was weak and useless to obtain righteousness (Heb 7:18-19).

Heb 7:11-22 is not about the law regarding the priesthood,
it's about the entire Mosaic law.

As you have often explained, you have so idea what the old covenant means, the difference between that and the new covenant. You even have no idea what the biblical meaning of covenant is, and when people explain it to you, your response is always that your idea of it is the only right understanding and is completely set.

 

[Dan_473]

Sanitary pads, tampons, regular baths 21st century stuff.... remember in those days, they had to go wash themselves in the river, I think if they bathed once a week it would be a lot.

I think some Inuit peoples don't babe all winter... My opinion, if there is a law Christians are supposed to follow, it should be something that could be done anywhere in the world...