-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does the OT apply to Christians?
- Thread starter Wolfborne
- Start date
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Are christians followers of Moses or Messiah?
Shermana
Heretic
Was the Messiah not a follower of the Law of Moses?
What did he say again about those who teach to break the Least of the Commandments?
How does the story of the Rich man and Lazarus end again?
"If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets...."
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the righteousness of the mosaic law is one thing, its requirements are another.
The mosiac law is said to lead people to the Messiah...once he was here, there was a different requirement.
Shermana
Heretic
I don't understand what "Righteousness of the Mosaic Law" is, the Law is not righteous. The requirements are what cause one to be righteous when followed. The very meaning of righteousness as King David and others use the term is the standard guage of how one is perceived by God due to their obedience to His Law which was given to Moses. When he says one's righteousness must exceed the Scribes and the Pharisees, he is saying one must obey the Law better than they did, who had invented their own artificial HAlakah and weren't obeying it correctly.
The only other requirement is the "in-betweens" and explanations of the Law that Messiah gives besides accepting him as the Messiah and the Guilt Offering Isaiah 53:10 (And thus, the King of Israel), Messiah teaches that anyone who teaches to break the Least of the commandments shall be called the Least in the Kingdom. What Jesus taught was the Spirit of the Law to COMPLEMENT the written Law, not replace it.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
no one but jesus has ever fulfilled the laws requirements... that means that if you fail in just some small way to live by the requirments of the law, you are a sinner. To sin is an act of unrighteousness. So we are all unrighteous where the mosaic law is concerned because we all fail to abide by it.
the prophecy of Jeremiah indicates otherwise:
Jeremiah 31:31 Look! There are days coming, is the utterance of Jehovah, and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them, is the utterance of Jehovah.
The new covenant, like the old covenant, is a set of requirements. If God wants to give a new set of requirements, then abiding by that new set of requirements is more important then abiding by the old set of requirements.
Not all of Gods servants of the past were required to abide by the mosaic law were they? Job was not an isrealite living under mosiac law, yet God called him 'righteous'
Abraham did not live by the requirements of the mosaic law...he had no requirement to do so. his only requirement at that time was to move away to a foreign land and dwell in tents...he did that and he was counted as righteous for his obedience to God.
So a new requirement - faith in the Messiah and obedience to his direction - is what God now requires to be viewed as righteous.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Both. I don't think you can have the NT without the OT, it wouldn't really make sense. the NT is a new religion, but it's in context to previous teachings.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the OP is about mosaic law...not the OT as a whole.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Ah, didn't catch that. Then the answer is obviously no.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
i agree.
Whenever I bring up the fact that Christianity is heretical to Judaism it is always met with argument. It seems obvious to me that even if Jesus didn't teach the abandonment of all the laws, (I suspect that He did), what Christianity has become is still heretical in nature to Judaism.
Heretical isn't necessarily "bad" IMO.
Shermana
Heretic
Obviously no? So when Jesus said that those who teach to break the Least of the commandments will be called the least in the kingdom, that had nothing to do with saying "Don't teach to break even the least of the commandments"?
Shermana
Heretic
Where does it say this? He said "I have not come for the righteous but for sinners", was he just being rhetorical? When he says that heaven rejoices more over the one lost sheep that is found than the 99 sheep that didn't go astray, why even mention the 99 sheep that didn't go astray?
And the idea is that we are judged according to how well we live up to the Law. In the Old Testament, one of the Kings is judged with mercy because he wasn't totally bad. When Jesus says your righteousness must exceed the scribes and pharisees, obviously that's saying there is a level of righteousness we all have. This concept is hinted at all throughout the Tanakh and in the Rabbinical writings. The idea is that we have a sort of "Karma", we are judged and weighed for a reason. What's the point of judging and weighing if there's not a rubric to measure by? Our obedience to the Law is measured, it's not an all or nothing sort of deal as you're implying. Everyone is unrighteous in the sense that we aren't totally perfect, but some are more unrighteous than others, just as some are more righteous than others. Plenty of people in the OT are called "righteous" so that proves my logic and disproves yours.
Uh no, it indicates exactly what I said.
When it says "Not like" it's referring to how the Law will be written on their hearts and not have to be taught, it will be ingrained in the true believers. We've been over this. Why don't you quote the next two verses.
It's the same requirements but written on the hearts of the believers. Are you saying that the Jews were not expected to understand that "My Law" meant "Some other Law than the Law you've been told is my Law" all this time?
Except that it says nothing about abiding by a new set of requirements. You're reading into it something that's not there. All it says that it won't be like the old covenant in that the new one will be written on the hearts of the believers. It says they won't have to be even taught about God.
We don't know what Job went by. We know that Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean. We know that Abraham abided by God's "Statutes, judgments, and ordinances". We can only imagine if they did or not, we can't say for sure one way or another.
Such presumptions. If only we actually knew what they went by. If only we knew what exactly those "Statutes, judgments, and ordinances" that Abraham went by were, since it doesn't list them.
Except that the text says nothing about that, it simply says the Same Law will be written on the hearts of the believers. It does not say anything about a "New Law" in the "New Covenant". It's just a different format for the Same Law.
Your entire argument revolves around speculation and presumption as if its' matter of fact, and twisting the plain words of the text into something that defines your own Theology. There's no reason at all to assume that the Jews were expected to know that the New Covenant would not involve that same Law of God being written on their hearts but another one. Likewise, there's no reason one can conclude that the "Statutes, ordinances, and Judgments" that Abraham lived by were any different than the ones listed by Moses.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Even supposing that you are right, and Yoheshua didn't teach to not follow thw laws, Christianity developed in gentile nations who incorporated their own customs into the religion.
Judaism changed from Abraham to Moses etc., correct? The 613 commandments, and the Rabbinical teachings which not every Jewish group adhered to anyway, ...how are you figuring what is proper to be Torah True and what is not necessary?
If you are specifically referring to Nazarene customs then why would non-Nazarenes adhere to those laws?
Shermana
Heretic
Okay...
(Edited: I misread this first sentence).
It developed LATER in gentile nations. It developed initially in the Jerusalem and Antioch Churches under Peter and James. Why would later deviations from the original church have anything to do with what was originally taught? Are you implying that anyone can decide what's true even if it contradicts with the original?
No, "Judaism" ORIGINATED with Moses, before then, we only know that Abraham followed God's "Statutes, judgments, and ordinances", we don't know if those were the exact same as the Mosaic Law or not. They may have been very, very close. Now what's the etcetera for, who else is in the equation?
The 613 number is a Rabbinical concept and may not reflect what the text actually says. The way we determine what's applicable is by what's possible. If there's no Temple and organized priesthood, you can't really have sacrifices or official ceremonies in Jerusalem. Same problem the Babylonian and Assyrian exiles had.
If they're non-Nazarenes then they'd probably be among the groups that the epistles warn are not true believers.
Last edited:
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
It applies to everyone a varying degree - Jews usually to a greater degree, due to traditions after the tailoring of laws to the understanding back in Moses day. Certain prophets were given certain things to say for certain times. And the Jews have their differing degrees of application to the Mosaic. I personally use Christian law for myself and the time that I'm in.
Shermana
Heretic
In Acts 21, James seems to interrogate Paul as to a charge if he's teaching the Jews to abandon the Law of Moses. The end where he says gentiles are not to uphold it may be a later interpolation along with the episode in Acts 15.
But regardless, would this imply that Jewish Christians are still to fully obey the Law of Moses? What would this entail?
But regardless, would this imply that Jewish Christians are still to fully obey the Law of Moses? What would this entail?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
yes thats true. The mainstream never accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
But there is really nothing unorthodox about Jesus teachings...they are more in line with the hebrew scriptures then what Judaism is.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
O.k. for the sake of argument I'll give an opinion...suppose we say that idwally it would be OT laws in congruence with the laws of the persons community, and only to the extent of practicality,,,I mean, keep in mind, many people simply would find being Torah True basically impossible, especially people living on small incomes, or communally with other people (sharing food etc.).....I'm not against your reasoning, I just think it needs to be more liberal and not an 'all or nothing' deal.
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
God is Almighty. The laws that fall away, were given the time to fall away. Discern for yourself using Love/the Spirit of the Son, what laws are meant to be for what times and spaces. Moses was a judge, and so are we over ourselves. Greater than Moses we are to be, even; who was a lesser prophet than John. Luke 7:28.