Does the OT apply to Christians?

[Desert Snake]

And again, there is no scriptural basis for the Noahide Laws, it's a purely Rabbinical concept and the basis of it is murky to begin with.

Where do you think the idea came from, then? Seems logical to me, they wouldn't expect converting pagans to follow the Mosaic law.

 

[Shermana]

Where do you think the idea came from, then? Seems logical to me, they wouldn't expect converting pagans to follow the Mosaic law.

Like many other unscriptural rulings, the idea came from Rabbinical authorities centuries after the 2nd Temple period, there is no real record of it being mentioned outside of the Talmud itself.

Noahide laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And actually, Judaism has always allowed and ENCOURAGED if not DEMANDED for "converting pagans" to adopt the Mosaic Law assuming they want to convert to Judaism.

However, the issue as to what all mankind is expected to obey and do is murky and up to interpretation.

 

[Desert Snake]

And actually, Judaism has always allowed and ENCOURAGED if not DEMANDED for "converting pagans" to adopt the Mosaic Law assuming they want to convert to Judaism.

However, the issue as to what all mankind is expected to obey and do is murky and up to interpretation.

Yes but we're talking about Christianity anyways.
Something else, considering that when Jews change religions from Judaism to Christianity, it's called like anything else a "conversion", doesn't that imply a difference of laws to you?

 

[Shermana]

Yes but we're talking about Christianity anyways.
Something else, considering that when Jews change religions from Judaism to Christianity, it's called like anything else a "conversion", doesn't that imply a difference of laws to you?

It would only imply a difference of law if you're converting to an orthodox, non-Nazarene strain of "Christianity".

The Biblical use of the word "Christian" applies to the Antioch Church under Peter (Which was most likely a branch of the very Nazarene Jerusalem Church).

If there is a difference of "Laws" its not about the Torah itself but in the Rabbinical customs.

Once again, the historical scholarly concensus seems to be that Christianity was ORIGINALLY just a Jewish sect, a Torah-obedient sect, that followed Jesus's teachings rather than the Rabbis but nonetheless followed Torah without deviation. The difference is the INTERPRETATION of the Law rather than dissolving its practice. I'd bring up Acts 21 again but that horse has been beaten already on this thread.

It's also important to note that what we now call "Judaism" is not necessarily the same same religion as even the Pharisees and Sadducees professed in Jesus's day, and "evolved" around the same time that "Orthodox" Christianity came about.

So if I came from Reform Judaism to "Nazarene"-ism, it's not really so much a conversion but in my belief, just like becoming "Orthodox", though other Jewish denominations may not recognize my form of "Judaism" as legitimate. And then that brings up another can of worms of "What exactly constitutes Judaism".

So no, there's really no need for a "Change of Laws" in this respect. Only if I was converting to a Pauline, orthodox version which I personally (and other self-claimed "Nazarenes") would consider heretical. It's more of a matter of "Change of interpretation of how to conduct myself according to the Torah" without actually abandoning or changing what the text itself says. Though I still leave room for scholarly doubt on the authenticity of the current whole of the Tanakh in regards to what I may think it originally was.

If anything you can call it more "Trying to go back to the roots" than "Changing it to something new".

 

[Desert Snake]

It would only imply a difference of law if you're converting to an orthodox, non-Nazarene strain of "Christianity".

The Biblical use of the word "Christian" applies to the Antioch Church under Peter (Which was most likely a branch of the Jerusalem Church).

If there is a difference of "Laws" its not about the Torah itself but in the Rabbinical customs.

Once again, the historical scholarly concensus seems to be that Christianity was ORIGINALLY just a Jewish sect, a Torah-obedient sect, that followed Jesus's teachings rather than the Rabbis but nonetheless followed Torah without deviation. The difference is the INTERPRETATION of the Law rather than dissolving its practice. I'd bring up Acts 21 again but that horse has been beaten already on this thread.

O.k., so were left with some questions, these among others.....
1. Mikvah or baptism...Why?
2. Sabbath day, Jewish or standard calendar? Why not Sunday? Does it matter?
3. Kosher. Later interpolation, why would it apply to Christians?

 

[Shermana]

Disciple:

1. Mikvah or baptism...Why?

The issue of the Baptism is a very difficult subject, and was instituted (according to the text) by John the Baptist, not Jesus, and was (according to the text) widely accepted by the Jewish population as a ritual based on a Jewish custom, which was likely the proto-Mikvah. The text does say to "purify" and "sanctify" yourselves, but I don't see why a simple bath wouldn't do and why a formal mikvah is necessary. With that said, the text DOES command seemingly to get baptized. But by who is the real question. This brings up an interesting issue of how exactly to interpret what the Law says.

2. Sabbath day, Jewish or standard calendar? Why not Sunday? Does it matter?

Jewish Calendar of course. Why not Sunday? Because THE Sabbath day is instituted as a specific day, and the Jewish calendar seems to be pretty reliable for the most part, but I need to research more about this. From my personal experiences, I've noticed minor calamity happens when me or family members broke the Friday-Saturday sunset to sunset in the past. A major question can be "What exactly is breaking the Sabbath", which may include even turning on a light switch (Which may very well be kindling a fire). However, I see no reason to believe that one can just choose any day they want. Or that the day can be officially changed by the emperor Constantine and upheld by the orthodox church as such.

3. Kosher. Later interpolation, why would it apply to Christians?

The only interpolation regarding Kosher laws is the way modern translations mangle and abuse key verses like Mark 7:14 (ultimately ignoring the actual context). Why would it apply to Christians? Well, because Jesus said to not abandon or teach to abandon any of the commandments for one thing. Another, if you have no restrictions on diet, you may as well include Cannibalism for starters.

 

[Desert Snake]

The only interpolation regarding Kosher laws is the way modern translations mangle and abuse key verses like Mark 7:14 (ultimately ignoring the actual context). Why would it apply to Christians? Well, because Jesus said to not abandon or teach to abandon any of the commandments for one thing. Another, if you have no restrictions on diet, you may as well include Cannibalism for starters.

Actually I meant keep the dietary laws but authorized Kosher would be optional.

 

[Shermana]

Actually I meant keep the dietary laws but authorized Kosher would be optional.

What's the difference? Why would "authorized Kosher" be optional?

 

[Shiranui117]

Why would it apply to Christians? Well, because Jesus said to not abandon or teach to abandon any of the commandments for one thing.

But we Gentiles were never under the Law to begin with. We can't abandon something we never followed. So why, if we became Christian, would we need to obey the Law?

 

[Desert Snake]

What's the difference? Why would "authorized Kosher" be optional?

Authorised Kosher is a later interpolation, isn't it? Why would Christians need to follow that specific guideline?

 

[Shermana]

But we Gentiles were never under the Law to begin with. We can't abandon something we never followed. So why, if we became Christian, would we need to obey the Law?

Who says you and they ever TRULY became Christian? You?

Does anyone who claims to be Christian become one?

Thus begins a discussion on what exactly a "Christian" is. Does anyone who claims to be Christian truly wear the title properly according to the Maker? Do they walk as Jesus walked?

The Biblical definition of Christian is one who was a member of the Torah obedient Antioch Church under Peter's authority.

What does 1 John say about those who claim to know Christ but don't do as he commands? What does it say about walking as Jesus walked? What does it say the Love of God is?


Jesus kind of was clear when he said many who call him Lord and even perform miracles in his name but reject the Law will be told to get lost. He says anyone who breaks and teaches to break the least of the commandments will be called the least in the Kingdom.

The text of what Christ says is much different than what the churches who claim to be Christian teach.

The issue at stake is whether the Council of Jerusalem episode in Acts 15 (and 21:25) are interpolations, which quite a few top scholars say is in fact a later addition as I've demonstrated.

With that said, if the episode is indeed an interpolation, it can be argued that the Christian church was NEVER intended to include those who don't accept the Law. At all. And even if it was authentic, there are many who say it was meant to simply introduce freshly pagan gentiles to the Law.

And that begins a whole discussion on whether Paul was a true apostle.

So with that said, the question of whether or not one can "become a Christian" while rejecting the Law is an entire topic of discussion, and the gospel text most definitely says a big fat NO. Maybe in Paul's epistles. But there's definitely a huge clash between Paul and Jesus (and James and Jude and John and Hebrews and even Paul contradicts himself seemingly), as has been pointed out in numerous threads.

 

[Shermana]

Authorised Kosher is a later interpolation, isn't it? Why would Christians need to follow that specific guideline?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Where is "Authorized kosher" a later interpolation? Are you talking about the Milk and meat thing? Yes, that's a later Rabbinical decree from a strange interpretation of not boiling a kid in its mother's milk. Can you present a link or source to show me what you're referring to? I don't think there's anything wrong with a Cheeseburger or a Lox and Cream Cheese or a Chicken Cheesesteak if that's what you're referring to. In fact, that's an example of the Pharisaical teachings that I believe Jesus was against.

 

[Desert Snake]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Where is "Authorized kosher" a later interpolation? Are you talking about the Milk and meat thing? Yes, that's a later Rabbinical decree from a strange interpretation of not boiling a kid in its mother's milk. Can you present a link or source to show me what you're referring to? I don't think there's anything wrong with a Cheeseburger or a Lox and Cream Cheese or a Chicken Cheesesteak if that's what you're referring to. In fact, that's an example of the Pharisaical teachings that I believe Jesus was against.

No, I think were on the same page.

 

[Wayfaring Stranger]

If you two are on the same page then it is the wrong page if you define milk and meat as described above. Milk is Scripture that is easy to understand, meat is a doctrine that takes several passages before it is fully explained.

Heb:5:12:
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers,
ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God;
and are become such as have need of milk,
and not of strong meat.

The church is all Gentiles whether you obey God or not. The 7 letters to the 7 Churches defines 14 possible relationships can developed and even the bad ones only means they are gathered at the GWT rather than at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign. You could argue that point but that would be promoting that the Jews in Matthew 23 never get gathered even though the words from Jesus says they will be gathered. Eze:37 promoted they will be.

There are two sets of laws, on set came on stone tablets, those laws never were put aside, they were renamed as being 'two laws'. The 600+ laws were abandoned for Jew and Gentile or do you promote observance with no punishment for failing to do that?

 

[YouOnlyScienceOnce]

OT does apply to anyone who believes in the new testament. matthew 5:18 and john 1:17.
Kind of sad to know that so many people apparantly think the awfull things in the bible are in some way moral.

 

[bnabernard]

There I a consideration in the fact that Noah and his family were considered righteous.
Now I reckon that to be considered in that light then one must be holding to some forms of principals.
So post flood there is a world populated by eight righteous people ( don't hold to any theory that there were other survivours at least not in the flesh)
Eight righteous people signify some kind of oeder and order exist's through guidelines, laws, rules. as rules are part and or rulership and Noah to be considered righteous 'obeyed a rulership'.

Now without covering every event, we arrive at Melechizedeck who has quite a high regard and tuaght Abram, so it's not untill Moses that we get any confirmation of stipulated rules, however to suggest they did not exist because some find it debateble ignores the common sense that can be drawn upon from the whole affair from Adam to the present day.

When we consider that the post flood ages appear to be a replica of pre flood ages, then there is something missing in the message that we are getting from the sources readily available and the tendency to work all assumptions from the time of Mosiac record leaves a lack.

bernard (hug)

 

[Desert Snake]

If you two are on the same page then it is the wrong page if you define milk and meat as described above. Milk is Scripture that is easy to understand, meat is a doctrine that takes several passages before it is fully explained.

Heb:5:12:
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers,
ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God;
and are become such as have need of milk,
and not of strong meat.

The church is all Gentiles whether you obey God or not. The 7 letters to the 7 Churches defines 14 possible relationships can developed and even the bad ones only means they are gathered at the GWT rather than at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign. You could argue that point but that would be promoting that the Jews in Matthew 23 never get gathered even though the words from Jesus says they will be gathered. Eze:37 promoted they will be.

There are two sets of laws, on set came on stone tablets, those laws never were put aside, they were renamed as being 'two laws'. The 600+ laws were abandoned for Jew and Gentile or do you promote observance with no punishment for failing to do that?

I don't promote that people should follow the OT laws, that's the individuals prerogative.... That being said I think there is something to be said for the OT laws, and no, I think meat and milk means exactly what it implies, it's a dietary law, not metaphorical, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
As to the 613 laws, that's not even what "m talking about, I don't follow Rabbinical laws, only people practicing Judaism might do that, many don't

 

[Shermana]

There I a consideration in the fact that Noah and his family were considered righteous.
Now I reckon that to be considered in that light then one must be holding to some forms of principals.
So post flood there is a world populated by eight righteous people ( don't hold to any theory that there were other survivours at least not in the flesh)
Eight righteous people signify some kind of oeder and order exist's through guidelines, laws, rules. as rules are part and or rulership and Noah to be considered righteous 'obeyed a rulership'.

Now without covering every event, we arrive at Melechizedeck who has quite a high regard and tuaght Abram, so it's not untill Moses that we get any confirmation of stipulated rules, however to suggest they did not exist because some find it debateble ignores the common sense that can be drawn upon from the whole affair from Adam to the present day.

When we consider that the post flood ages appear to be a replica of pre flood ages, then there is something missing in the message that we are getting from the sources readily available and the tendency to work all assumptions from the time of Mosiac record leaves a lack.

bernard (hug)

You're basically restating an old, oft-debated problem of "What did the original Patriarchs believe?"

Well we know that Abraham was favored by God because he obeyed his "Statutes, ordinances, and judgments". But what were those? We have no idea. We can get clues in some of the early Jewish writings, the Midrash, the extra canonical literature like Pseudo-Philo and perhaps even the "Book of Jasher" to get insights into what the early Hebrews thought about this.

We know that Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean without them being listed.

We know that Malchezdiek was apparently authorized to make sacrifices, and Abraham picked him over any other priest for some reason.

We cannot assume that the text gives us all the answers, but we can perhaps assume that the "Statutes, ordinances, and judgments" may very well have had parallels to the Law of Moses. As some have said, the Law of Moses may have just been a restoration of these "Statutes, ordinances, and judgments" for the most part.

 

[Desert Snake]

OT does apply to anyone who believes in the new testament. matthew 5:18 and john 1:17.
Kind of sad to know that so many people apparantly think the awfull things in the bible are in some way moral.

Yikes, that's some logic twisting there. And no, the laws don't apply to Christians according to the NT, have you read the relevant chapters? This, btw, is a good reason to include the entire NT in Christian teachings, otherwise peoples theories start to contradict themselves.

 

[Walkntune]

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.

:knight:

I believe all of the scripture points one to Christ and that of redemption.From the very fall in Genesis God says it is the seed of woman that would crush the head of the serpent.
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
I also learn a lot about the grace of God in the old testament. This is a little I wrote on the story of Josepth.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/christianity-dir/142854-benjamin-silver-cup.html