reply to post by tinfoilman
well you can try and spin it how ever you want.
but before i go any further,let me first let me say i understand being saved by grace, which i am, and i also understand that i am free from the
dietary laws,and maybe some of the punitive aspects i'm not 100% clear as to what applies. but the morals and ethics of the mosaic laws i'm not free
to pick and choose which ones i keep. we as Christians should strive to keep them just as Jesus did. if not in deed,at least in our hearts.
now see this from your own link:
Your Link From Earlier Post
The Noachide Laws comprise the six laws which were given to Adam in the Garden of Eden, according to the Talmud's interpretation of Gen 2:16,
and a seventh one, which was added after the Flood of Noah. Later, at the Revelation at Sinai, the Seven Laws of Noah were re-given to humanity and
embedded in the 613 Laws given to the Children of Israel along with the Ten Commandments, which are part of, and not separate from, the 613 mitzvot.
These laws are mentioned in the Torah. Acc
notice this sentence
. Later, at the Revelation at Sinai, the Seven Laws of Noah were re-given to humanity and embedded in the 613 Laws given to the Children of Israel
along with the Ten Commandments, which are part of, and not separate from, the 613 mitzvot.
now notice these key words:
were re-given to humanity
key word: humanity. re given to humanity, not just Israelites. now i know that your gonna try to say this is two different things , there are some
who will see it as the same thing.
which are part of, and not separate from, the 613 mitzvot
key words: not separate, i will not put the definition of separate up, i'm sure you know what it means.
this also from your link
Christianity has incorporated the Decalogue. The only Noahide law that is not part of the standard moral teaching of mainstream Christianity is
the prohibition against eating the flesh of an animal while it is still alive (number 6 above), about which Christianity is silent. Acts and the
Pauline epistles make clear that the Jewish dietary laws are not binding on Christians. The 18th-century Rabbi Jacob Emden proposed that Jesus, and
Paul after him, intended to convert the Gentiles to the Noahide laws while allowing the Jews to follow full Mosaic Law.
notice this word
here are two links
this one just for reference, showing the word is used for the ten commandments.
this link shows how the three abrahamic religions, scholars, denominations, and others view the commandants.
i think it plain to see that the predominant christian view is, that the ten commandments still hold for us. and that if we truly love the lord, and
if our spirit abides in him and we have his word on our hearts, his spirit abides in us, ie the holy spirit.
Jesus was the new covenant, ie the new contract, or the blood sacrifice for our sins. another way to put it, he was a mediator between God and man,
be he israelite or gentile. The law still holds true. and just as the priests used to sacrifice a lamb on the alter and offer the blood, so Jesus is
our lamb and his blood is our offering. God knew man could not keep his laws, so he sent Jesus to be the final blood offering.ie the sin offering. now
he was the sin offering that was for unintentional sins. there is intentional sin for which there is no forgiveness.
see this link for a description of intentional / unintentional sins. it's not the best i've seen but it will show you what i'm talking about.
Intentional / Unintentional Sins
so after reading this link, i pose this question, is it a sin to only keep the seven laws of noah in your heart, and disregard the other five
there is debate as to what Jesus and paul were teaching as far as the law. some believe that they were teaching
more about the dietary laws. others say that they also included mosaic law. i guess it depends on what side of the fence your standing on. a side
note, many believe that the dietary laws were given for a health standpoint, and not as for sins of the heart.
or as per your example of Jesus working on the sabbath, i don't recall Jesus working, maybe i missed that part, i do remember him writing in the dirt.
now if your were talking about teaching on the sabbath, Jesus was considered a rabbi among some, and others a high preist, so him teaching on the
sabbath would not have been work.he would have been teaching which is lawful, he would have been doing his priestly duties which is lawful, or at the
very least doing good works by teaching.
"wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days" matthew 12:12. work means things that are profitable, for your life, and your way of making a
also from your link
"Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy" (the version in Deuteronomy reads shamor, "observe") The seventh day of the week is
termed Shabbat and is holy, just as God ceased creative activity during Creation. The aspect of zachor is performed by declaring the greatness of the
day (kiddush), by having three festive meals, and by engaging in Torah study and pleasurable activities. The aspect of shamor is performed by
abstaining from productive activity (39 melachot) on the Shabbath.
did you notice this:
and by engaging in Torah study
now these questions, is teaching the torah/ law not helping people to study?, and
doing good deeds? so was Jesus working, or studying or both?
The aspect of shamor is performed by abstaining from productive activity
and here is one more link that is right on your example of the adulteress woman,this is one of the better commentaries that i have come across.
John 7 - IVP New Testament Commentaries
this from above link:
This situation is apparently just an attempt to entrap Jesus (v. 6). If he is lax toward the law, then he is condemned. But if he holds a strict
line, then he has allowed them to prevail in their ungodly treatment of this woman and has opened himself up to trouble from the Romans, for he will
be held responsible if the stoning proceeds. The leaders of Israel are putting God to the test in the person of his Son, repeating the Israelites'
historical pattern on more than one occasion in the wilderness at Meribah and Massah (Ex 17:2; Num 20:13; cf. Deut 6:16; Ps 95:8-9; 106:14).
you should read the whole thing, some good insight.
oh, and this from same link
Furthermore, his writing echoes an Old Testament passage, thereby turning it into a symbolic action (Jeremias 1972:228): "O Lord, the hope of
Israel, all who forsake you will be put to shame. Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the
spring of living water" (Jer 17:13). Here "written in the dust" probably means the opposite of being written in the book of life (Ex 32:32; Dan 12:1);
those who have turned away are consigned to death because they have rejected the one who is the source of the water of life. Thus it appears that
Jesus is associating his opponents with those whom God condemns for forsaking himself and whom he consigns to death. The judgment that they suggest
Jesus execute on this adulterous woman is in fact the judgment that he visits upon them for their rejection of him--the one who has offered them God's
living water (7:38-39). In rejecting Jesus, they are forsaking God, and thereby committing a most shameful act. Adultery is shameful, certainly, but
they themselves are acting in a shameful way worthy of death.
now Jesus did not condemn her.
Jesus grants pardon, not acquittal, since the call to leave off sinning shows he knew she was indeed guilty of the adultery.
did you see that, he pardoned her from execution, he did not acquit her of her sin. now don't say she was a israelite and not gentile, remember God
allowed gentiles that wanted to follow him to live among the israelites, so long as they followed his laws. also for those who would keep his laws in
now to the point about bacon, maybe you should have taken a look here:
Mark 7: 1-23
Matthew 15: 1-20
these verses have it all, this is where Jesus declared all food clean, and yes i can see that, he also addresses the state of mans heart and how sin
comes from it, and touches on some of the commandments
you know i think i'm gonna stop now, i could continue, but i think its time to show a little mercy there is one more link that i'm gonna make.
For Whom Was God Law Intended
When God promulgated His moral will through the Mosaic law, how much of mankind did He consider accountable to keep that law? From Paul's
standpoint the answer was obvious: "Now we know that whatever things the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be
stopped and all the world maybe brought under the judgment of God" (Romans 3:19), God declared His righteous standards to Israel, and through Israel
to all the world, thereby stopping every mouth and bringing all men, Jew and Gentile alike, under judgment. "Whatever things the law says," therefore,
it says to the whole of mankind. Precisely for this reason Paul could "lay to the charge both of Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.... There
is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (vv. 11,23).
One of the most conspicuous illustrations that Gentiles were condemned for breaking the law of Moses comes from a time long before Muses lived or
delivered God's law from atop Mount Sinai -- which only drives home the truth that the same moral code published by Moses is clearly known by all men,
whether they are exposed to the written books of Moses or not. Even the conduct of Gentiles who lived prior to Moses was condemned by God according to
the standards which He would later reiterate through Moses.
During the historical period when God specifically revealed His statutes through Moses, the Lord clearly declared that He would, at that very
time, bold the Gentile tribes of Palestine accountable to the same law Moses brought to the Israelites. That is, Gentiles would be condemned for not
keeping the law of Moses.
i think the every Christian should read this paper, lots of passages to back his stance and counter the guyson the other side of the fence and Dr.
Geisler's for who this paper was written to counter his claims
Along the way to reaching his conclusion that modern civil legislation should be neither secular nor specifically Christian, Dr. Geisler used the
following premise as a stepping stone: "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses." According to him, the
Mosaic law was intended only for Israel, and on that basis he categorically declares "God no more holds today's governments accountable to His Divine
Law to Israel than present residents of Massachusetts are bound by the Puritan laws at Plymouth." Such an idea finds popularity with many people today
for its usefulness in dismissing the obligation of modern civil magistrates to enforce specific scriptural commands which are not to our
Continuing in the spirit of the Bereans, we want to examine the scriptures of the New Testament as well, wondering whether it is safe to subscribe
to Dr. Geisler's published opinion that "Nowhere in the Bible are Gentiles ever condemned for not keeping the law of Moses." The preaching and
ministry of John the Baptist belie such an idea. For instance, in Mark 6:18 John explicitly condemned the Gentile, Herod, for his violation of the law
of Moses, in particular for transgressing the Mosaic law's restrictions on the degrees of acceptable marriage. Herod Antipas was a Gentile (an
Idumaean) who married the wife of his half-brother, Philip. John the Baptist openly confronted this sin by declaring "it is not lawful for you to have
your brother's wife" -- thus doing the very thing that Geisler says is never done in the Bible, namely condemning a Gentile for not following the law
of Moses. John's words are pointed that Herod's behavior is contrary to what is "lawful," despite the fact that he was a Gentile,
well i think that i have made my point, and like i said opinions vary about this, and it depends on which side of the fence your standing on.
for me i think it is a sin to pick and choose which commandments, you keep on your heart and mind.
and in doing so i believe it also show a from of arrogance, LOL
sorry just had to do that.
had to pull one of my links, it was one of those that like to predict a date as to when Jesus will return,and Jesus plainly states no man knows not
even the son. i don't know how i missed the first time.
edit on 23-7-2011 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)