Old Laws Still Valid?

I haven't the time tonight for a complete response to the OP. There are some good ones already posted. But here's one quick question/observation. I think Sean111 made a mistake in lumping the Sabbath in with all the other feast days. Personally I do not think the covenant was overturned in the same way as Passover, for example. I am wondering to you, and perhaps Sean111 and NJ, what makes you think the Sabbath is no longer law, if anything? More precisely, is there a particular denominational teaching which says that the Sabbath is abolished? In my religion (Byzantine Catholicism) and others, not keeping the Sabbath is still a punishable offense (by God, of course, not with death) and is regarded 100 percent as part of the 10 commandments that were not abolished.

Nemesis did a pretty good job of explaining why it is said that Jesus abolished 'the Law'. Jesus made much of the letter of the law symbolic while yet grasping the intentions.Christians, like Jews, do not believe in a harsh God. At least, I have never felt that way at all. Perhaps all the talk of 'sacrifice' is misleading. Jesus' death was the sacrifice which abolishes all need for sacrifice. Yet, though all christians hold this doctrine, they do not follow it in the same way as Catholics. Catholics believe in the perpetual sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist, a practice that was deplorable to Luther. During the Reformation, all mention of 'sacrifice' was removed from the liturgy, and the altar of sacrifice became a table for eating. Even the rites of ordination were changed to remove all mention of the priest 'sacrificing' anything. During the second vatican Council in 1962, ecumenically minded Catholics conceded to these changes and turned all altars toward the people, removing all mention of 'sacrifice' from the prayers. This has alienated many Catholics who feel that the Bible clearly does not allow for the breaking of the law to this degree.Other than this, sacrificing of animals or people is not required, although personal sacrifice as penance, and offerings to the church or 'temple' are also maintained as law. Nemesis used the word 'heaven' here. I undestand that Jews do not truly believe in heaven? But still, his meaning is clear enough. I am curious, though, when you say the Jews were guaranteed a place, do you mean a place in heaven? Or were you emphasizing the 'guarantee'? That all Jews were chosen just because they were Jewish, and in spite of the law? I am curious about this as well. What exactly is their promise from God? I am asking because with a christian background, I have heard that their promise was that they would be the only ones to keep the true faith, and would be rewarded for their faithfulness by receiving the Messiah into their nationality. It is because of this belief that christians feel the Jews have kept the promise and the law, ensuring the proper atmosphere for recognition of the messiah, and that now the law is more or less unnecessary since the goal has been accomplished.

I believe Jesus was more than a prophet; I still believe that all of the above is a very good discription of His mission as a man. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Old Law, but men had lost the sense of why they were following it.The more I think about it, the more I feel the Law has not been abolished. There are so many aspects at least of Catholicism that either directly or symbolically follow Judeaism. There is of course the commandments, the passover, the sabbath, the tabernacle, the vestments, etc.I am surprised you were once a fundamentalist. I would have thought you were Jewish hands-down. I want to talk this next part even if I am late; Yes God can love unconditionally, and He can forgive. Thing is, no one was looking for forgiveness or even acknowledging sin, just as now they are not in our time. Even the Jewish leaders were getting cocky about following the Law and feeling justified by that. It is like the 'faith versus works' debate now.truthlover, I think it was, was right about the grenade analogy. Jesus was not so much sacrificed to someone, as sacrificedfor us. His sacrifice may be viewed as the simple fact that instead of remaining in His divine nature and without suffering, He chose to become man and be subject to all of our frailty, including death.I do not feel there is any game about sending people to hell; it is a hard doctrine, but it still makes sense that if we chose to be outside of God's plan, we have created our own 'hell'. I believe there was a need to uphold the Law, as I said before, for without it Jesus would have come in vain and His message would not have been heard with the impact that it has been. God would have still forgiven us through His death; it would not have been valueless, but we men would not have known how to seek God any more clearly than we had.This post is surprising to me; you have revealed much of yourself. For all of your understanding of scripture, it has left you cold. I am not at all judging, but surprised. In a way it is easier to deal with a spiritual emptiness than a barage of historical facts about the Bible. This includes your previous 3 paragraphs.....I hear new christians constantly talking about how great it is to be forgiven and 'born again'. They rarely talk about second-generation members who have been born into Christ. Most of them have converted and are so happy about it that they take awhile to realize that their ideas do not answer all of the questions of the long-term. I am sure that my humble post can not change your mind, but on this one topic I wish that born-agains were not so gosh-darn adamant about their feelings toward confession and sacrifice of the catholic church. The Cath. church takes into consideration the human's need for repentance. We have an explicit and embaressing confession practice which calls for aknowledging sin in detail, and even to how many times it was commmitted. Penances tend to be light but can really be up to the priest. For instance, a person who steals can be asked to give the object back in spite of embaressment, or to give something of equal value to the poor or to the church. We are asked if at all possible to make physical restitution for sin, or this being impossible, to pray. The point is, it alleviates natural guilt, and causes us to be less likely to forget in the future. It is along the lines of 'if your right eye has sinned, gauge it out'.So, the covenant to the Jews was more of earthly prosperity? I see therefore the need to gain visible success as proof of this, but I see also why Jesus said 'my Kingdom is not of this world'. Most christians and Catholics are active in compassionate ministry, but rightly do not seek earthly prosperity. Jesus did do those things, but again, not in an earthly literal way. The Jews were not looking for that, it is true, and that is the whole point. What they have done was admirable and necessary, but it is now a dead Law which shall have no further fulfillment.

I don't think anyone is without moments of doubt, no matter what faith. Obviously you've been through things which I have not spiritually; I have my own problems though, like; no matter how I can find sense in religion, I still have no proof. Even realizing that proof would destroy faith, I think it never sunk in until I was older that I would not get any. I agree with truthlover that life without faith would pose way more questions and probably despair. I do not think that many christian religions nowadays even allow for this time of doubt. I personally have been told that to look at the bible as something that can be misinterpreted is devilish, and have been cut off in communication with these types of christians.

Do you mean 'just becoming man' was a sacrifice in itself..or 'becoming just a man' and not being God at all anymore, was a sacrifice?

This is an irony which I have mentioned elsewhere, one which if there is a devil probably really makes him laugh. I hope I do not! I admit I would despair without faith, but let's just say that all men would despair without hope of some kind, and what they are hoping for varies; from success, to world peace, to eternal life, to love, to gay marriage. I dont so much need religion to answer questions about the life-here-after, as to give joy to my present day. Maybe that is a crutch, but a crutch is an implement to achieve a goal, and my faith is the goal itself...I don't know.This is pretty off-topic, so if I reply to your other post I will try to gear back there.

Ok yes...this was what I meant to reply to; message 48 It can be hard, being stereotyped or identifying with something you aren't. I was raised in the Byzantine tradition, and I haven't an ounce of czech, slovak or ukraine in me. Byzantine churches are primarily first and second generation immigrants and have either a Ukrainian or a Czech bent (at least around here). This whole subject confuses me when it comes to apologetics. I don't think the two should be mutually exclusive, I don't think they can be mutually exclusive. The closest I come to getting the whole issue is that protestants view catholic rituals like Eucharist as part of the old law that is no longer required of men. I'm still thinking on how Luther's doctrine of 'justification by faith' works, but only because it is a recurring sticking point when I talk to other christians. I think there are a few answers to this floating around in other posts. The life of Jesus includes his death, He would not have been man if He had not died, and becoming man was the sacrifice IMO. The real impact of Jesus is not wrapped up by His life or His death, but by His resurrection. If Jesus was a minor prophet His life was effectual enough to tell us a message from God. If he were a martyr who died for a cause His death would add further emphasis to His message. If He rose from the dead, well, death would have a whole new meaning. It is only when looking at the resurrection that we can understand the sacrifice. I think the thread has focused on Jesus as a human a bit much, and therefore we wonder what His death did that His life did not. But...if Jesus is God, His death gives us hope; it becomes symbolic of sin and suffering, personal and world-wide, and the promise of delivery from it. A man's death doesn't do this.I know that is more like preaching, and nothing new to you. It is the fundemental though, of all christianity. Thinking of Jesus in terms of a prophet alone doesn't answer the question rightly. Well, the prophets didn't 'come' in the way Jesus did. They were born of men and used by God. They needed to die, yes, because all men do. Jesus as a man had to die also. It is only after the resurrection that His life and His death took on the symbolism they have to His followers. Again, there is nothing significant about a prophet dying. God, yes.I am not sure if you followed my point with the prophets and the law.
I said that if the prophets had not come and stirred up faith every now and again, it may have withered away so much so that no one would have expected or sought a messiah; the Jewish laws of passover and such were so vital in preserving the remembrance of God's promise. I believe that without the law and the prophets Jesus would have come in vain because none would understand any longer His purpose in the context of salvation. Here I guess we draw the line, because we differ on our beliefs about the messiah. Nemesis is much more qualified to discuss that...

Ok, good, I agree with all of that. But! (I know it's rough) in the Trinity, God is just a man, in all of the ways you mentioned, even in death. And He's still God. I know, I know. We are making the same point anyway about the sacrifice part, just with a different theology.

yes, I can not convince you that a doctrine is true just because it exists. I can convince you that it takes the issues into account and spits out an incomprehensible answer...but the closest we can get to comprehension is that the divinity part was latent in Jesus or, His humanity could not tap into it or utilize it.Still sounds like blasphemy so I'll back off that.

Christos Razdajetsja!I have not seen you around awhile, but nice to have you always.Since it is Christmas I will hold off writing. I just got a program with the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, so hopefully it will be interesting.

It's gotta be the trying. As you say, none of us is good. But trying to do the right thing is doing the right thing.

ignoreEdited by anastasia, : No reason given.

They are. But how do you know those are THE law?Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but those laws are abolished. How would you reconcile this, other than to say that Jesus is a liar? or that we were meant to retain these laws?Or maybe, with the words on the cross 'it is finished' He abolished the Law?

Honestly in the OP, PTB uses 'the laws' and 'the Law' a few times apiece.I think we agree on the essence of which laws are valid and why.But the original question of the OP is 'Did Jesus abolish the invalid laws, or did christians just mine the Bible to find an excuse not to follow them anymore?' (my paraphrase)With that in mind I was asking what exactly the Law which Jesus spoke of was? If He came to fulfill the Law, does that include somehow the shrimp eating and keeping of slaves? There are 3 or 4 uses of law in the OT; the Ceremonial Law, the Moral Law, and the Judicial Law. In reference to the OP did Jesus abolish any of these? Did He fulfill the Moral Law and abolish the Ceremonial?Oh...and is there any reason to stake a claim for christianity on the abolishment of the judicial laws regarding slavery et al?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

So Rob, I think I get the point that if Jesus was showing us by word and deed that absolute morality does not exist, He must have been showing us absolute morality? If I am incorrect please tell me.If this is true, I would like you and/or jar to show me examples of your position. What moral teachings did Jesus give that were absolute? Or, what moral teachings did He give that are not absolute? Or maybe it is not the morals that are absolute but His example of living them?