How do Christians choose which rules from the Old Testament they follow and which not?
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
How do Christians choose which rules from the Old Testament they follow and which not?
Talk religion
Talk religion
How do Christians choose which rules from the Old Testament they follow and which not?
|
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Pederasts being an abomination is not reliant on the OT
>Pederasts being an abomination is not reliant on the OT
The only reason why Peter versed about them was because the old testament.
Also notice how condemning pederasts says nothing about consensual adults loving each other
Pederasts being an abomination is not reliant on the NT either.
something like the ten commandments can and should still be followed, but the rules of sacrificing animals for your sins are not to be followed anymore because Jesus died for your sins
Christ taught us that it doesn't matter what you do outwardly, it's what you think and feel inwardly which counts.
Actually quite the opposite
Matthew 25:35-46
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca ,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
You're both right, and wrong. It's not either or; it's both: we're to be innerly inspired by God to sin as little as possible (even though we'll sin for the rest of our lives), yet our faith, if true, should be fruitful when it comes to the external works it produces.
>1. Who was the command issued to?
>2. If old covenant, has it been specifically abrogated in the new covenant?
P simple
So did the NT allow eating pork?
no
Then why do Christians eat pork
Because not eating unclean meat, comingling oil and unleavened bread, etc. were Mosaic laws.
And why do they not apply to Christians?
Paul says in 1 Corinthians to "eat all meat in the market without conflict of conscience".
Didn't the Jerusalem Council's edict in Acts 15 still put a couple of restrictions on Gentiles, including abstaining from consuming meat sacrificed to idols, strangled animals, and blood?
Still wondering about
Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 deals with the subject of meat sacrificed to idols and offending the weak conscience of another person. See below:
"4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."
So you see here that while not an absolute prohibition, eating meat offered to idols should not be done if doing so would cause someone else to stumble, as it says in this passage. This is one of those things where you don't want to put a stumbling block in front of someone else.
The passage in Acts 15 documents a case where some churches got together and agreed on a certain standard. As we see from 1 Corinthians 8, the particular standard they chose doesn't apply to everyone.
Also, Acts 15 is a good example of a case where you see an example of differences of administration. We see that the decision made by those who were at Jerusalem was a binding one for those particular churches. But its still true that the dietary prohibitions were part of the ceremonial law, but since they could still be a stumbling block to others you can see how they might want to make such a decision to restrict certain foods.
"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all."
- 1 Corinthians 12:4-6
Also, the specific part about prohibiting "fornication" in Acts 15 actually does apply to everyone, so I should be sure to add that. See 1 Corinthians 5 + 6.
"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
- 1 Corinthians 6
>fornication
Does it really talk about fornication? Most translations translate it just as "sexual immorality" which can be anything
Geneva Bible 1599: Flee fornication:
Bishop's Bible 1568: Flee fornication.
Tyndale's NT 1534: Fle fornicacion.
Wycliffe Bible 1382: Fle ye fornycacioun;
Also the Wessex translation of the Gospels earlier than this gives the same Greek word as "forleigre" in the year 990 AD. This is a word which the Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary gives as, "a fornicator."
None of these say "sexual immorality." This is a more biased reinterpretation of the word that is clearly motivated to make things less clear. Also, the context of Matthew 5:32 makes it clear as well. A woman who had fornicated before marriage would be guilty of fraud for lying about it until after a marriage, and this is the "cause of fornication" mentioned in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
>Flee lewdness.
Webster Bible
https://www.biblestudytools.com/wbt/1-corinthians/6.html
You can literally see the Webster definition right in the above post there, anon. He says fornication according to his definition is the same thing as lewdness.
No, his definition says fornication is a certain kind of lewdness, and he thought it necessary to change the word "fornication" into "lewdness" based on his understanding of the Greek term
It's not often I have to do this and bring in a second witness, but since you want to call my source into doubt, here have a look at Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1755.
I won't get into the criticisms of the 1833 Webster Bible now, but there are many that could be raised.
I'm not calling your source into doubt at all, it doesn't claim the term must be rendered fornication. I'm appealing to webster's judgment that lewdness is a superior translation. I think lewdness is a relatively archaic form of "sexual immorality"
The 1833 Webster Bible also used the terms "lewdness" in place of "prostitutedom" and "impurity" in the place of "fornication". In this version the phrase "went a whoring" is also replaced with the term "went astray." In general, the translation you are referring to was just a carbon copy of the King James as it existed in 1833 with some selected word changes, and not a complete translation in itself. It's not deserving of consideration as a translation as such. It is also guilty of several mistakes and oversights: for instance, the 1833 version would never use the word "ghost" resulting in this version saying simply "expired" in place of "gave up the ghost." It changed the word "beasts" to "living things" in Revelation 4, even though this is the same word that is used for "beasts" in Hebrews 13:11, 2 Peter 2:12 and Jude v. 11. Quite remarkably, the 1833 version messed up the translation of Matthew 26:73, where it should say "bewrayeth" but this word is uncharacteristically changed to "betrayeth." Webster should have known the difference between these two words, considering they are both in the 1828 dictionary with his name on it.
All in all, this version is not worth considering as a complete translation project in the first place, but simply a slightly modified King James.
I know what it is
What's does any of this have to do with the translation of porneia? You think Webster is illegitimate as an authority because he departs from the opinion of the 1611 translators in 1833?
>You think Webster is illegitimate as an authority because he departs from the opinion of the 1611 translators in 1833?
The dictionary with his name on it is a good starting point for getting English definitions because it is well-sourced with Biblical passages, and it also uses American standard spellings. Samuel Johnson's dictionary is a similarly qualified landmark for English, but with British spellings. But just because Noah Webster made a good dictionary, that doesn't mean I think his translation ability is infallible.
Also, if you look here
you see it's not just the 1611 translators (all 47 of them) but what I am pointing to is more any one group's opinion. It goes back to older translations as well. Nobody contested that's what it means, and that's how it was always translated in English and how it was defined to be translated from the Greek New Testament for all time.
So what you're proposing is either, 1) to change the English language by inserting the phrase "sexual immorality" and defining it to be the same, which I see no point in doing, or 2) you're agreeing with the word definition of "fornication" in English, but simply saying that everyone until you misunderstood and had the translation completely wrong. Webster's version - where there is a third, completely different term (not "sexual immorality") - notwithstanding, as that was just a version of the 1611 translation with certain disfavored words removed and replaced by what they considered to be equivalent words (although I disagree that they were in every case equivalent - see
), and for that reason it was not an actual to goodness translation from the Greek New Testament at all, much less an authoritative one that could ever be used to make any kind of point about translation.
>I think lewdness is a relatively archaic form of "sexual immorality"
What you think has no bearing on the correct translation. You're just trying to slither and worm your way into it.
I'm proposing that lewdness and sexual immorality are at least licit alternative translations of porneia because I don't presuppose the divine inspiration of the KJV
So which is it, are you trying to change the English language by saying they mean the same thing or are you saying they are different and the authorized translation was incorrect although it was used until approximately the 20th century mixed-text translations came around? Or are you ambiguously moving around, trying to criticize others, without telling us which of these opinions you hold?
It's neither because the options you listed aren't exhaustive
English has changed in the last 400 years. Even given the idea that fornication remains an appropriate translation and the best translation in 1611, it is not the best rendering of porneia today, nor was it even 200 years ago. I'm telling you to see that there is at least one permissible alternative translation in modern english, because the only way to say otherwise is to presuppose the unique inspiration of the KJV. If you make such a presupposition you lose the right to argue based on any kind of study of biblical Greek or modern English.
>because the only way to say otherwise is to presuppose the unique inspiration of the KJV.
Ridiculous. What about all the translations I mentioned earlier that came before it in this case. Case closed.
I'm sorry, do you think use of a term by a translator implies that translator believes it's the only possible rendering?
And do you notice all those translations are early modern and late middle?
>I think lewdness is a relatively archaic form of "sexual immorality
>Flee from sexual immorality
ESV
>Flee sexual immorality
NASB (2020)
>Flee immorality
NASB (1977)
>Flee sexual immorality!
CSB
And this is the case for all "fornication." Some translations don't use that word once.
Granted that none of them say that, but those aren't valid translations.
Based on what do you conclude that kjv is more valid than the others?
>removed verses
Most of them should've been removed because they aren't found in the earliest manuscripts. Why do you think the kjv is untouchable and perfect?
just to add an extra contribution because your list seemed awful protestant:
the Douay-Rheims also uses the word 'fornication' in this case.
Muh baconerino!
The new testemant specifically states you don't have to follow the old testemant law on not eating pork (or any other of the 'unclean' animals that everyone forgets about)
Peter's vision was to tell him that being with Gentiles is fine
Yes, illustrated by way of abrogating all religious dietary restrictions
do you take parables literally?
I've taken hermeneutics 1 so I know how to identify a parable
Of course. The phrase 'dumber than dirk' didn't come from nothing, you know.
Why did they change God's law to accommodate people who wouldn't give up baconerino?
I don't know whether it's THEY that changed God's law. Paul certainly seems sure that he is free to eat any meat, and only concedes that one should not eat pork/idol offerings around those who are not so certain (so as to not present a stumbling-block to their brother which would cause them to sin [by way of convincing them to act against their conscious]).
Now, Paul's explanation doesn't quite make sense to me, as it almost seems to say that the law is as you interpret it, and if your brother interprets it as forbidding pork, don't eat pork around him, which is...weird.
Yes in acts 11
Nowhere does it allow pork. Are you in a competition of who can be the most moronic tripgay in the history of Oyish?
Let me put it in terms you can understand
>Teacher: you may not use blue, green, or red crayons.
>Time passes
>Teacher: you may now use all colors of crayons
Can you now use the blue crayon, even if your teacher didn't say "blue"?
Why did God's mind change though. Doesn't make much sense to me.
So not the objection you just made, gotcha
It doesn't matter what you think, but the reason is to signify the opening of the new covenant. Again read acts 11. It's directly interpreted.
The old Coventant was to separate the hebrews from other people, to teach them there's only one God and to expect the Messiah.
As the Messiah came and he redeems all nations, He has fulfilled the old covenant and created a new one.
Since God is eternal, so is good and evil therefore we must still obey the ten commandments (moral law) but not the ceremonial law of the israelites.
>each them there's only one God and to expect the Messiah.
but they largely rejected jesus
what gives?
>>2. If old covenant, has it been specifically abrogated in the new covenant?
Google "not one jot", heretic c**t.
They put a funny hat on the least fun person among them and then take seriously his jokes about understanding what the Bible says.
Nobody is perfect, all men sin daily. Nobody ever answers like this in these bait threads, but it's as simple as that
what are you trying to imply here? that it is okay to sin since nobody is perfect? sounds like prosperity gospel to me
Not that it's okay, it's unavoidable
It's completely avoidable to not eat pork or shellfish or whatever
Forbidden because they were unsafe to eat pre-refrigeration.
>Is the rule really annoying and hard to follow?
old covenant + only directed at one person + bible is about doing your best + actually it was just a metaphor
>Is the rule something I probably wasn't going go to anyways?
God's divine commandment. Enjoy your trillion years of getting raped by a red goatman if you don't follow it.
Simple as.
Social convention and convenience. All other answers are cope
Christians should view sin as something that one should work against and not something that people should be persecuted and killed for, as that doesn't stop sin, it just causes people to hate christianity. You're supposed to love people and show them a good example, and even then, it's their choice if they want to stop sinning or not.
That's what Christians are doing though. Or is stoning of sodomites and adulteres still allowed in Christian countries?
In general if it's repeated in the NT, it is incumbent upon us to follow it. If not, we may or may not choose to follow it.
This is a stupidly simple question to answer.
The laws that were affirmed by Jesus In the Gospels, and by Paul et al in the Letters, are kept. Those that aren't, aren't.
Not even a Christian and I was able to answer that one
This contradicts with what
said. He says it needs to be explicitly abrogated, you say it needs to be affirmed.
Jesus Christ affirmed the entire Law, while also teaching that it is impossible for a man to fulfill the law, but that with God all things are possible (Matth. 19:26).
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10)
Now in the New Testament, we not only have a re-affirmation of everything that was taught, we also have a strengthening of it by Christ in passages like the Sermon on the Mount. Even thinking about committing adultery amounts to committing it in your heart. Even hating a brother is likened to being a murderer. (Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15).
People have tried to come up with ways of explaining this away, but the simply most straightforward fact is that this re-affirmation is true, in its entirety. How then is one supposed to keep these things? It is clear by this point, when Jesus in no uncertain terms says it is impossible for men in Matthew 19:26, that we cannot fulfill it by our own acts or righteousness, but we need God. We also learn that even the Old Testament saints knew this, and had faith in their redemption by the promised seed (see Hebrews 11), ever since the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 they were looking forward to Him.
All that is to say that the fulfillment of the Law, specifically the part about ritual purity and temple sacrifices, calendars and sabbaths, is fulfilled now by Christ in a more complete and God-pleasing way than it ever was under the levitical system (see Hebrews 7-9). It's one sacrifice that is made for all. That is, Jesus Christ on the cross.
However, that still doesn't lift us from our obligations to our Lord to resist sin and temptation, as the apostles including Paul in Romans constantly affirm. But it means that we have an Advocate with the Father for our failings. But the standard nevertheless deserves to be followed, and with Christ's help, this is all possible.
So in other words, no part of the Law is actually abrogated, but the ceremonial part of the law is fulfilled in a better way through Christ today (see below). The ceremonial (or ritual) law is the part of the Old Testament that deals with the sacrifices that had to be made at the tabernacle/temple on a certain timetable. It is taught that this was all designed by God in a particular way in order to foreshadow the new order under Jesus Christ, where these commands are now fulfilled by the Son of God Himself.
"6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." - Hebrews 8:6-7
So we wouldn't call these laws "abrogated", but they are being sufficiently fulfilled through the Lord Jesus Christ.
The rest of the law is incumbent to be followed to this day. All of the commandments like the Ten Commandments, the various prohibitions that do not relate to ritual cleanliness, and the other teachings found in the Old Testament are things that we should indeed follow. In particular the Civil Laws, which involve various assigned penalties for crimes, are commandments that can only be observed at the government level, not at the individual level, but they are all good ideas. So laws against adultery, sodomy, and so forth, are all Biblical. We should and I advocate that we put those criminals away, & keep them out of our civilization. The Moral Law (which are the third part, aside from Civil and Ceremonial) are incumbent on all of us.
Some moral laws have a civil component, such as the Seventh Commandment, which says do not commit adultery (moral law) and the penalty for committing adultery is death (civil law). Both of these things are always right, and the New Testament does nothing to change that (in fact it affirms it).
Hopefully that makes sense.
Specific "laws" if we can call them that, like dietary restrictions, are abrogated due to the fulfillment of the "law" broadly
Some parts of the Mosaic Law were specific religious rituals for ancient Israel; those are obsolete. Other parts like not fricking your own sister are just basic common sense.
The Law as found in the Pentateuch was given to the Israelites in a very specific time for a very specific purpose. Traditionally Christians have divided the Law into separate categories: The moral law, so this would include things the Ten Commandments that include divine laws derived from natural law, this is the part of the Law that applied to everybody, israelite and Gentile alike, though that doesn't mean all parts of it are required to be interpreted literally; the civil law, this would include all the very mundane legal stuff like laws surrounding agriculture and retributive justice and such, this was given specifically to the Israelites so that they could be a functioning society; and lastly we have the ceremonial law, this includes the kosher laws, ritual purity, etc. On the surface, this part of the Law was given as a way to keep to ensure holiness among the Israelites, but on a deeper level these laws served as a foreshadow to Christ, not in ways that are always obvious like the kosher laws, but some which are, like ritual immersion foreshadows baptism and the passion. I suggest you read the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas (1st century A.D.). Now, since Christ has come, the Law is not abolished, rather it is fulfilled in Christ. The moral law finds its way to the gentiles through Christ, ecclesiastical law becomes the fulfilment to the civil law, and the ceremonial law is of course fulfilled in the life and resurrection of Christ.
Quija boards. I AM ZoZo.
They don't have to, it doesn't matter. They will die without it though.
The Shower is regarded as the most important part of the American day, important for living in a first world, using arm pit deodorant, shampoo (and conditioner optionally), and body wash optional. But, the Sun bathing for the skin is actually more important than the shower.
As Jesus said to the disciples do not wear more than one coat. That is why they generally wear one robe as a Heavenly garment.
The Sun would be an Old Testament law to follow, only if you follow Jesus as a Disciple would that count as keeping the law with Jesus. However, as the Disciples themselves found they could not follow Jesus all the way into the tomb with him. Only Jesus was truly God's Only Son and there was no other to be buried with him. Not even those crucified with him were of the same kind of sacrifice as he. He alone is the Savior of our sins.
Which is to say that if your body is not strong and kept in its youthful state no matter how many hundreds of years go by, then it will grow old. Which you could say that is why we call it the Old testament and that is why it puts all those to the death, as all man is appointed their death.
We have America so that we can decide for ourselves with religious freedom what the interpretation of the laws of God is for ourselves. Whatever force that is not from men artificially causing it themselves that we can't keep under control that causes us to stumble, can be taken as "the law." But any man-caused artificial subversion of the freedoms of mankind, like gun control, ownership of property by the government instead of by the people, government ownership of all rights to speech, freedom of will of the people to pursue their own destiny, these are things which subvert mankind's ability to scan the liberty of the law, and therefore blinds men to the light of God.
But any darkness that obeys the light of God, is a useful authority.
>what rules should I modify to expand my sect among the pagans?
moron
Christianity is a corrupted religion, it ought to be obvious at this point