Originally posted by BigDoggProblemMatter, in this sense, was referring to importance. In the sense of what matters, the Bible is the final authority. However, there is indirect teaching relative to all of the non-essentials, found in I Cor. 10:31,
"all matters" = "all potential subjects of discussion". In that context, the word 'matter' does not speak to the relevance of the subject, which is why the claim, "the Bible is the final authority on [b]all matters" sounds absurd.[/b]
"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe issue isn't whether you can construct some argument based on the New Testament as to why these laws no longer apply. The issue is what kind of a God would impose such a completely idiotic law upon human beings in the first place?
That may be true in a lot (maybe even most) cases. I was taught quite early on that the first six or seven books in the Bible weren't meant to be taken literally and also that the Levitical laws had been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.
EDIT: Does the laws superceded include the Ten Commandments? They are presented as part and parcel of the Levitical laws (God speaking directly with no breaks between).
Originally posted by no1marauderAh, the oracle speaks. Here the New Yawk bona fide attorney of the 20th/21st teaches us on ancient cultures. Do tell.
The issue isn't whether you can construct some argument based on the New Testament as to why these laws no longer apply. The issue is what kind of a God would impose such a completely idiotic law upon human beings in the first place?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy answer something you won't understand? In your mind, the Codices were complete lunacy. The only way you will ever see them differently requires study of the times in which they were written. You will need to gain an understanding of the sociological underpinings of the regions surrounding the Jews, history, so on and so forth.
You know about your God soooooooooooooooooo much; try answering the question.
EDIT: And the Ten Commandment one as well.
That type of study cannot be undertaken in this type of forum.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou're equivocating.
Matter, in this sense, was referring to importance. In the sense of what matters, the Bible is the final authority. However, there is indirect teaching relative to all of the non-essentials, found in I Cor. 10:31,
"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI fail to see what relevance the "sociological underpinnings" are to my specific question, TO WIT:
Why answer something you won't understand? In your mind, the Codices were complete lunacy. The only way you will ever see them differently requires study of the times in which they were written. You will need to gain an understanding of the sociological underpinings of the regions surrounding the Jews, history, so on and so forth.
That type of study cannot be undertaken in this type of forum.
The issue is what kind of a God would impose such a completely idiotic law upon human beings in the first place?
And you could answer the Ten Commandment one, too. You can cut the "Secret Decoder Ring" BS at any point.
Originally posted by no1marauderTo be clear, are you referencing the question regarding the Ten Commandments?
I fail to see what relevance the "sociological underpinnings" are to my specific question, TO WIT:
The issue is what kind of a God would impose such a completely idiotic law upon human beings in the first place?
And you could answer the Ten Commandment one, too. You can cut the "Secret Decoder Ring" BS at any point.
The first question is presented in my post directly above.
The Ten Commandmant question was addressed to those who said the OT laws had been"superceded" by the "New Covenant":
Do the laws superceded include the Ten Commandments? They are presented as part and parcel of the Levitical laws (God speaking directly with no breaks between).
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou've asked both these questions before, and I can do little more than provide pretty much the same answers as before. It's unlikely you're going to find them satisfactory this time around, but anyhow:
The issue isn't whether you can construct some argument based on the New Testament as to why these laws no longer apply. The issue is what kind of a God would impose such a completely idiotic law upon human beings in the first place?
EDIT: Does the laws superceded include the Ten Commandments? They are presented as part and parcel of the Levitical laws (God speaking directly with no breaks between).
1. I think the Levitical laws were meant to be a "bridge" between the old pre-Israel laws the Israelites were used to (in Mesopotamia and Egypt) and the Christian view of morality.
The analogy I use here is that of a father attempting to rehabilitate a son who's a drug addict. Stopping cold would cause more harm than good, so a gradual program of "weaning" and substitutes has to be followed.
2. Actually, both in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 6, there is a clear division between the Decalogue and the other ordinances (i.e. the Levitical laws) that follow. In fact, Deuteronomy explicitly says that only the Decalogue was written on the stone tablets. In both accounts, God first gives the Decalogue of his own accord and only gives the other ordinances when the people send back Moses for more instructions.
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. The law I mentioned is sooooooooo stupid, I can't imagine it "bridging" from an even stupider one.
You've asked both these questions before, and I can do little more than provide pretty much the same answers as before. It's unlikely you're going to find them satisfactory this time around, but anyhow:
1. I think the Levitical laws were meant to be a "bridge" between the old pre-Israel laws the Israelites were used to (in Mesopotamia and Egypt) an ...[text shortened]... d only gives the other ordinances when the people send back Moses for more instructions.
2. Where is Deutronomy 6 does it say any such thing? Here's the first couple of lines:
1 Now this is the commandment, the statutes, and the ordinances, which Jehovah your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it;
2 that thou mightest fear Jehovah thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.
Where is this supposed differential?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe entire Mosaic Law is given in the Pentateuch, with an addendum to the Law in Deuteronomy 29. The Law is broken into Codices, as follows:
The first question is presented in my post directly above.
The Ten Commandmant question was addressed to those who said the OT laws had been"superceded" by the "New Covenant":
Do the laws superceded include the Ten Commandments? They are presented as part and parcel of the Levitical laws (God speaking directly with no breaks between).
Codex 1: The moral code, consisting of 120+ commandments, including the Decalogue. This establishes the divine institutions and divine laws of establishment.
Codex 2: The spiritual code, or the ordinances. This is the shadow Christology and Soteriology. Included are the Tabernacle, Holy Days, Levitical Offerings, dress and modus operandi of the Levitical priesthood and the believer's worship in the Age of the Jews.
Codex 3: The Social Code, or the judgements. Presents the divine laws of establishment designed to provide freedom and privacy. Delineates the perfect standard for the function of a national entity was well as dietary laws, laws of sanitation, quarantine, soil conservation, taxation, military service, marriage, divorce, etc. Punishments for non-observance are also stated.
The Jews were the only recipients of the Law. Christians are not under the Law, as Christ fulfilled the Law. He fulfilled Codex 1 by living a perfect life on earth (impeccability). He fulfilled Codex 2 by His death, burial, resurrection, ascension and session. He fulfilled Codex 3 by His patriotism and observance of the laws of establishment for nations.
Christ is the end of the Law for believers in the Church Age. Since the Church is specifically not under the Law, the Law is not the Christian way of life. Believers in the Church Age are under a higher law: the law of spirituality.
The Law was unable to:
justify
impart eternal life
provide the Holy Spirit
produce miracles
resolve the problem of the indwelling old sin nature
The Law has a present purpose. Codex 1 is to convince by divine standard that man is a sinner requiring a Savior. Codex 2 is to communicate God's grace in both salvation and rebound. Codex 3 is to provide the basis for national function, freedom, prosperity and preservation of national entity. As such, the Law functions not as a means of salvation, but as a means of perpetuating human freedom.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky: As such, the Law functions not as a means of salvation, but as a means of perpetuating human freedom.
The entire Mosaic Law is given in the Pentateuch, with an addendum to the Law in Deuteronomy 29. The Law is broken into Codices, as follows:
Codex 1: The moral code, consisting of 120+ commandments, including the Decalogue. This establishes the divine institutions and divine laws of establishment.
Codex 2: The spiritual code, or the ordinances. This ...[text shortened]... , the Law functions not as a means of salvation, but as a means of perpetuating human freedom.
A law saying A) you can have a slave and B) you can beat that slave to death with impunity IF he crawls away and dies a few days later (otherwise you pay a fine) because he is "your money" perpetuates human freedom?
Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough you are clearly driving at something which will be eventually revealed to hold no water, let me divert the inevitable long enough to throw one your way.
Freaky: As such, the Law functions not as a means of salvation, but as a means of perpetuating human freedom.
A law saying A) you can have a slave and B) you can beat that slave to death with impunity IF he crawls away and dies a few days later (otherwise you pay a fine) because he is "your money" perpetuates human freedom?
Do you believe slavery to be wrong?