Old Laws Still Valid?

This is a piece of theological wrangling. If this is the case why was Jesus such a poor communicator? Why didn't Jesus just communicate it as plainly as you just did? This position I am sure is buttressed with numerous NT quotes but it takes a lot of reading between the lines and some imagination.Conversely, however Exodus states in very plain and clear language: Two points to note:

First the Sabbath was so serious and important the the Death penalty was commanded for its violation. You would think that if this convent was overturned there might be some clearly worded statement indicating so.

​

Second is the use of the phase "throughout their generations" and the precise no quibbling statement "perpetual covenant".

​

Also, you would think that the text would have given a little foreshadowing of another later covenant, but no it states it clearly. Other translations have it as "eternal agreement" or "everlasting covenant".

​

I often wondered about Christians that frequently go out for brunch or breakfast after church on Sunday. Ah a time to relax and enjoy fellowship. However, by doing so they deny others, ie. restaurant employees and hospitality staff, from enjoying the same privilege.

Immaterial to the point and only true in our culture. Cryptic leads to confusion. The 1000 versions of christianity and sects are evidence of that.Nevertheless, ignore that, you missed the entire point!The point is maybe Jesus did not really say what the prior poster indicating he was saying. Many modern day Christians leaverage the cryptic parts to meet their own modern day requirements.Conversly the OT scriptures about the Sabbath are clear and straightforward. The one i quoted is one of many. You ignored this point.What part of "perpetual covenant" or "eternal agreement" or "everlasting covenant" is ambiguous. Either the new age interperation of the Sabbath is wrong or the OT statement of perpetual is wrong. Please explain.Yes Jesus demonstrated that it was OK to do good on Sabbath or in extreme measures violate some of the laws. But stopped there, contemporary progressive Christian's have grealy extrapolated beyond the point because it is difficult to follow and PTB's point of this topic. Very simple economics. Yes, they are slotted because you are using the services on the Sabbath. If you stayed at home they to could enjoy the Sabbath and rest as God commanded them. You are contributing to their delinquency. Extrabiblical extrapolations! The scripture you spouted do not support this.Here is one from Jesus. This means that Christ expected the Sabbath to be kept and it was not "every day".Or even your own Hebrews quote Is a strong statement of Sabbath - not some blurring of the concept.Your proverbs quote was a non-sequitur and does not relate.

This is in reference to: These are supposedly the words of God. This scripture is exceedingly clear and straight forward. How does keeping Sabbath get transformed in to Grace? Very plainly the text refers to the observance of the Sabbath as a covenant. You just did a two-step about we "We are under a Law of Grace." and the "Sabbath is every day" This is not talking about grace but the observance of the Sabbath. Is this not to be taken literally?Finally... Jesus thought Sabbath was important and did not equate sabbath with grace or just any ole day. Furthermore Jesus is taking about end-times which has not happened and he projected that Sabbath was important and not "every day". Not any wiggle room.Paul is clearly juxtapose to this.Either Paul is wrong; or God in Exodus is wrong and Jesus is mistaken.If nothing else you are demonstrating the internal inconsistency of the Bible. It is called shared responsibility.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

How so? In the case of the grenade there exists a system that has a series of cause-and-effect relationships that lead to disastrous consequences. That is, there are chemical reactions, material properties, dynamic reactions and biological effects.The person diving on the grenade is limited in their options. If he could defuse the grenade, or stop the chemical reaction, or shield the shrapnel, etc. they most certainly would. It is a last act of desperation of a human, being constrained by the physical laws and rules of their world.Now, by saying that Christ sacrifices compares to the grenade jumper, is saying that another external system exists beyond God of which God has no control.You are ultimately saying that God is limited in his set of responses and exists within a universe restricted by a set of external constraints.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Laws like not wearing clothing made with two types of fabric, not eating pork or shellfish, and laws stating that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations is HOLINESS from a bronze age perspective. How can anyone believe this and then also believe that godly commanded genocide and rape was somehow inside the law and in step with compassion, love and mercy, etc and is sacred is truly unimaginable.

Why not just reason for yourself.Paul was wrong about other things. For example, Paul believed he was living in the "last days" and was clear about this repeatably.Romans 7:12? As someone said below... more platitudes.The Law of Holiness....Instructions of the cutting of beards and mixing of cloth is about Holiness - how ridiculous.

The use of "we" and "these last days" above is hard to reconcile.The NT tells us that both Paul and Jesus, expected the end times to be within their generation. There many other quotes where it is written that Jesus taught of the end times within the current generation and that "there are some here who will not die until they have seen the Kingdom of God come". They believed that the end of the world was coming in the lifetime of their contemporaries.This explains why Paul would tell his followers "it is good for a man not to touch a women" but if you have to "it is better to marry than to burn". Telling people that it is weak to procreate is not a good way to propagate a religion ideology for generations to come, since most people settle into the religion of their fathers. The phrase "will come" certainly does not exclude the current generation. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

"Last days" and "recent days" is a very significant difference. Not one translation I am aware of use the meaning of 'recent days' or 'just lately'. It really does not fit with the chapter.Why would a godly inspired work be so unclear on a very important point?

Sounds awkward If someone I knew used this phase I would be alarmed at their possible mental state.Nevertheless Paul uses the term "last days" often to refer to the end times. I am trusting the translators got it right as there is no disagreement in any translation as to the meaning.Also there are other quotes of Paul referring to the end within his generation such as the quoted "then we which are alive".

Are you sure you know what "the law" is?

That is definitely *not* what the OT Laws were about.Another bible zealot that does not have a clue what the Law is.

Since you bring up Ezekiel 18I wanted to point out that from allegedly god's perspective, salvation included avoiding women during menstruation. Defiling and evil menstrual women - stay clear guys.Obviously salvation was a male only thing in the OT. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Jaywill look at the quote in complete context. Here it is again.... Now what does "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" mean to you?The whole quote was provided and you ignored that and went on some other discourse that does not pertain.

Maybe the RCC was right the scripture should not be in the hands of the unwashed masses. Since the literal reading of "we that are alive" explicitly and clearly refers to current generation and not some universal church. If it was to mean like you say it would be written as "then those that are alive". That is clear of who the subject is referring to.Why would godly inspired works be written so obtuse?

First, where are these stone tablets? I would like to look at them.If they are "inalterable" and so universal God would have preserved the physical manifestations.Also aren't there two versions of these inalterable commandments? Which one is inalterable?Secondly, they come with fine print.Consider thou shall not murder and steal. We know from reading the OT that those commandments have considerable latitude. God can command you to violate those at any time. The fictitious version of God described in the OT orders the extermination of entire cities (even the unborn) and the taking of their possessions (excluding of course virgin female children). Evidently the all-powerful god has to have people do his dirty work on occasions.Also whenever the spirit of lord came upon Samson he killed something and in one case he "slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil". Great examples to teach the children just how these universal laws work. Did you know "the word" or Logos is really a copied buzzword from the Greeks?Finally concerning "the Law". If i read your post I can see several different mushy fuzzy imprecise definitions of term "the law". Most are not even supported biblical text.