Does the OT apply to Christians?

[Shiranui117]

must according to ... ?

Shermana, apparently.

 

[Pegg]

OK..... so why does Paul 'bang on' about homosexuals? You accept Mosiac law, or you do not..........?

i accept the 'righteousness' of the mosaic law...Gods standards of right and wrong

homosexuality is wrong and completely out of harmony with Gods standards. So Paul is right to uphold this law.
Even before the mosaic law was introduced, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the homosexual practices going on there. So Gods standards in this regard did not begin with the mosaic law...they have always been.

But what has not always been are the regulations governing everyday life for the Isrealites and the regulations governing an Isrealites clothing, food consumption, festivals, priestly tithes etc etc etc.
These things are specifically for the culture to which they were given. They were not given to all the tribes and nations of earth which is why the early christian congregation did not expect the new gentile christians to adhere to the mosaic law.

they were told that they must uphold the standards of Gods moral laws....ie, the laws which forbade fornication, adultery, murder, lying, cheating, fighting, drunkedness, slander etc etc etc These laws are binding on all who want a relationship with God.

 

[Pegg]

However he doesn't specifically mention Beastialism. Or incest.
I guess that's allowed now then by their interpretation.
Looks like they can freely Marry their sisters! Or their goats!

the greek word for 'fornication' covers all forms of sexual practices outside of the sexual relations between a married man and woman.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, you're mis-reading Acts 21 or something.

As to your other comments...eh, that's not for me, preach to someone else.

Oh I see, your response is to merely say that I'm misreading Acts 21 and accuse me of preaching instead of offering any semblance of counter rebuttal.

Now I got where you're coming from!

I appreciate that you don't understand the difference between argument and preaching, but all that really is proof of your refusal to actually address the holes poked in your argument. Try to be slightly less dishonest. If you seriously don't understand how what I said proves what you said wrong, that's fine, I'll be happy to help. But as far as I'm concerned, you straight out dodged out once you got your balloon popped. Otherwise, tell me why you think what I said was "preaching" as opposed to "debating". I'll show you an example of preaching if you'd like. Surely since you don't agree with what I say about Acts 21 you'd like to substantiate with something more than just "You're misreading it", unless of course you're content to just demonstrate your utter lack of regard for debate. Perhaps you're looking for the DIRs.


If however the problem is that you're actually having trouble understanding what the argument is, I'll be happy to guide you through it. But if you're gonna just ignore what I say and accuse me of preaching when in fact I presented an actual rebuttal that shot down your claims, then thank you for demonstrating your utter dishonesty.

I'll give you a chance to try again though.

 

[Shermana]

the greek word for 'fornication' covers all forms of sexual practices outside of the sexual relations between a married man and woman.

By all means feel free to prove examples from other Greek manuscripts that demonstrate this that it applies to ALL other forms of sexual deviance, thanks.

Would it apply to Onanism as well?

Also, note what I said: "Marry their sisters". That's a man and a woman.

So is it now okay to marry their sisters?

On what grounds would "Fornication" involve a happily married brother and sister in your logic?

(And again, before you bring up Abraham and Sarah, she was his niece and thus Sister-in-law which is allowed in Judaism).

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, apparently.

Acts 21 apparently.

Maybe you'd like to try where "Disciple" epically failed and actually show me how I'm misreading Acts 21 instead of just accusing me of doing so and saying I'm preaching, I'll give you a frubal if you can effectively show where I'm incorrect there.

 

[Shermana]

Would the Mosaic Law apply to the Gentile Christians? My forefathers were all Gentile Pagans before converting to Christianity, and according to Judaism itself, we Gentiles need only to follow the Noahide Laws. Acts 15 gives us a few more requirements, but overall, the Apostles themselves, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, decided that the Law would not apply to the Gentiles coming to Christianity.

It's one thing to say that the Jewish Christians must keep the Law. But us Gentiles? You have a long row to hoe in showing that.

As I've brought up in numerous threads, there is some scholarly dispute on the authenticity of Acts 15's account of the Jerusalem Council,

^ "Paul's account of the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2 and the account of it recorded in Acts have been considered by some scholars as being in open contradiction.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
^ "There is a very strong case against the historicity of Luke's account of the Apostolic Council", Esler, "Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology", p. 97 (1989). Cambridge University Press.
^ "The historicity of Luke's account in Acts 15 has been questioned on a number of grounds.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
^ "However, numerous scholars have challenged the historicity of the Jerusalem Council as related by Acts, Paul's presence there in the manner that Luke describes, the issue of idol-food being thrust on Paul's Gentile mission, and the historical reliability of Acts in general.", Fotopolous, "Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: a socio-rhetorical reconsideration", pp. 181-182 (2003). Mohr Siebeck.
^ "Sahlin rejects the historicity of Acts completely (Der Messias und das Gottesvolk [1945]). Haenchen’s view is that the Apostolic Council “is an imaginary construction answering to no historical reality” (The Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1971], p. 463). Dibelius’ view (Studies in the Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1956], pp. 93–101) is that Luke’s treatment is literary-theological and can make no claim to historical worth.", Mounce, "Apostolic Council", in Bromiley (ed.) "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", volume 1, p. 200 (rev. ed. 2001). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_15

especially with the common scholarly dispute on whether it contradicts with Galatians 2 (even F.F. Bruce thinks its' talking about a "Later development" to get around this).

As for the "Noahide Laws", that in itself has no real scriptural basis, you might as well believe the rest of the Talmud.

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh I see, your response is to merely say that I'm misreading Acts 21 and accuse me of preaching instead of offering any semblance of counter rebuttal.
I read Acts 21c twice over.......what Bible are you using? I'm using the KJV.

Now I got where you're coming from!

Therefore? Yes, most people wouldn't feel compelled to become your version of "Nazarenes"......

quote]

 

[Shiranui117]

Acts 21 apparently.

Maybe you'd like to try where "Disciple" epically failed and actually show me how I'm misreading Acts 21 instead of just accusing me of doing so and saying I'm preaching, I'll give you a frubal if you can effectively show where I'm incorrect there.

Gladly.

I'm looking right at Acts 21:25:

25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing,[d] except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Now, the context:

15 And after those days we packed and went up to Jerusalem. 16 Also some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us and brought with them a certain Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we were to lodge.
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will[c] hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing,[d] except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Now, the Jews (including St. James the Apostle himself, BTW) who are ranting at Paul for telling the Jewish Christians to disregard the Law, are the very same Jews who are saying that we Gentile Christians are exempt from following all the mandates of the Law, and only have to follow the ones that were laid out in Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem.

EDIT: Would you like to dispute the historicity of Acts 21:25 as well?

 

[Shermana]

Context Fail.

The context is for gentiles, assuming the historicity is legitimate to begin with and the scholars opposing it are wrong (this would include 21:25 as an interpolation as well). With that said, I'm not sure I understand at all how your rebuttal works to begin with.

The subject was for JEWISH Christians to follow the Law. Did you forget already?

When Jay said "Must" he was referring to Jewish Christians. Perhaps you just misunderstood.

 

[Sleeppy]

Acts 21 apparently.

Maybe you'd like to try where "Disciple" epically failed and actually show me how I'm misreading Acts 21 instead of just accusing me of doing so and saying I'm preaching, I'll give you a frubal if you can effectively show where I'm incorrect there.

Saul and his brothers were becoming increasingly fearful of the Jews in Jerusalem. While Saul had said he would be bound and martyred, he eventually gave in to a plan devised by his fellows in Jerusalem, including James, to ease offenses taken. He went from accepting his fate to trying to resist it. From trying to provide the easier yoke, to being yoked up and having his head shaven. The important thing was the believing, which "myriads" of Jews there had. But being "zealous of the law," they were offended by his dismissing of certain Mosaic law. Some of these laws are no longer necessary. As outlined in Acts 21:25.

 

[Shiranui117]

Context Fail.

The context is for gentiles, assuming the historicity is legitimate to begin with and the scholars opposing it are wrong (this would include 21:25 as an interpolation as well). With that said, I'm not sure I understand at all how your rebuttal works to begin with.

The subject was for JEWISH Christians to follow the Law. Did you forget already?

When Jay said "Must" he was referring to Jewish Christians. Perhaps you just misunderstood.

Very likely.

TBH, I'm ambivalent about whether or not the Jewish Christians still kept the Jewish Law (which it seems many of them chose to, whether out of fear of other Jews or whether Christ indeed did command them to). That's their business, not mine.

 

[Desert Snake]

Very likely.

TBH, I'm ambivalent about whether or not the Jewish Christians still kept the Jewish Law (which it seems many of them chose to, whether out of fear of other Jews or whether Christ indeed did command them to). That's their business, not mine.

Jewish Christians would be under the same obligations as gentile Christians, no more, no less. That precludes the 613 laws that Shermana is referring. AFAIK his position is only from the Nazarene sect that he is adhering to.

 

[Shermana]

Saul and his brothers were becoming increasingly fearful of the Jews in Jerusalem. While Saul had said he would be bound and martyred, he eventually gave in to a plan devised by his fellows in Jerusalem, including James, to ease offenses taken. He went from accepting his fate to trying to resist it. From trying to provide the easier yoke, to being yoked up and having his head shaven. The important thing was the believing, which "myriads" of Jews there had. But being "zealous of the law," they were offended by his dismissing of certain Mosaic law. Some of these laws are no longer necessary. As outlined in Acts 21:25.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that James approached Paul about a Rumor that he was bringing JEWISH Christians to abandon the Law of Moses. The implication is that James is most clearly, most indisputably, defacto, necessarily, without any doubt whatsoever, implying that Jewish Christians are in fact, 100%, without question or pause, to obey the Law of Moses. Regardless if verse 25 is interpolated or not, which in any event would ONLY apply to GENTILES. NOT JEWISH Christians. And that is the can of worms I am discussing.

Why is everyone having such difficulty here regarding this simple concept? Are you saying that James, brother of Jesus, and the Jerusalem Church were wrong altogether? Are you saying that Paul was just paying lip service to the tyrannical whims of the misguided brother of Jesus?

 

[Sleeppy]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that James approached Paul about a Rumor that he was bringing JEWISH Christians to abandon the Law of Moses. The implication is that James is most clearly, most indisputably, defacto, necessarily, without any doubt whatsoever, implying that Jewish Christians are in fact, 100%, without question or pause, to obey the Law of Moses. Regardless if verse 25 is interpolated or not, which in any event would ONLY apply to GENTILES. NOT JEWISH Christians. And that is the can of worms I am discussing.

Why is everyone having such difficulty here regarding this simple concept? Are you saying that James, brother of Jesus, and the Jerusalem Church were wrong altogether? Are you saying that Paul was just paying lip service to the tyrannical whims of the misguided brother of Jesus?

I'm saying that Jesus came as a human man for a reason. Same reason James and the Jews were upholding those laws. It would've been a totally different story had Jesus come as a woman or a dog. Catch my drift?

 

[Desert Snake]

Jewish Christians are in fact, 100%, without question or pause, to obey the Law of Moses. Regardless if verse 25 is interpolated or not, which in any event would ONLY apply to GENTILES. NOT JEWISH Christians. And that is the can of worms I am discussing.

Didn't you state earlier that the Nazarene Christian sect were the only true Christians? What you're implying is the complete conversion from other Christian denominations to the Nazoretic sect, that means people would still be giving up Christian traditions, regardless of their backgrounds.

 

[Desert Snake]

Topic: does the Old Testament law(s) apply to Christians?

Please cite your sources when replying. Would be very interested to hear from the Judaism crowd on this one.

Why? I'm not aware of any Jewish group saying that Christians should adhere to all the OT laws. Many Christians follow some, however it's out of a preference, it's not commanded except perhaps in some small sects/denominations.

As far as "sources" just read the NT. It's pretty clear.

 

[Shermana]

I'm saying that Jesus came as a human man for a reason. Same reason James and the Jews were upholding those laws. It would've been a totally different story had Jesus come as a woman or a dog. Catch my drift?

I have no idea what you're trying to say in relation to what I said.

 

[Shermana]

Didn't you state earlier that the Nazarene Christian sect were the only true Christians? What you're implying is the complete conversion from other Christian denominations to the Nazoretic sect, that means people would still be giving up Christian traditions, regardless of their backgrounds.

Umm...And?

Like the above reply, I really have no idea how this is supposed to be a rebuttal to what I said.

 

[Sleeppy]

I have no idea what you're trying to say in relation to what I said.

In God's kingdom, peace will be given and maintained for all creation. Does this mean we will all favor or understand and do the same things? No. Some will do this and others that, but no one will bring conflict to the other for what they do.