Christian Laws

apologies for taking it off topic,now back to it. You seem to be of the opinion that we only need to obey the laws of the land in order to be approved by God. The point about Patriarchal societies was that they were governed, not by laws of the land, but by Gods laws. Before human societies were organized with self appointed rulers, they were governed by the family head under Gods laws.
Adam was the first Patriarch who had an understanding of Gods laws that he passed onto his children. This is why Cain was fearful after he murdered his brother because he understood that a murderer was to be executed for instance.
After the flood, Noah was the only Patriarch and he passed the laws of God onto his sons. This is why, when Noah was found naked in his tent, his sons covered him over with their backs to him in order to not look upon his nakedness.What this shows is that it is obedience to Gods laws that make one acceptable to God. The laws of man originally came from God. Sadly man has not maintained laws that meet the standards that God set which is why you cannot rely on them alone for Gods approval.The nations carry on wars where killing is required. God does not approve of this.
The nations have made abortion illegal, this is clearly in violation of Gods law for according to the bible, life begins at conception which is why the mosaic law required life for life in the case of someone injuring a pregnant woman and her suffering a miscarriage.

quote:

---

some xamples of patriarchal laws: after the Flood, God issued the first authorization to man to execute the penalty for murder. Ge 9:3-6

​

God also authorized the eating of meat with instructions on how the blood was to be treated. Gen 9:3-6

​

Abraham was given the command to circumcise all the males of his household as a sign of God’s covenant with him. Ge 17:11-12

---

This is why the mosaic laws are still relevant, although not a requirement for christians. They show us clearly what Gods standards are. Just because there is nowhere in the NT that says you must not have an abortion, we know that God does not approve of it due to the mosaic law as mentioned above. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Of course they are general references because Paul spoke in terms of 'principles'. This is because not everbody had the same practices, and there are some practices from ancient times that are not around today, so for Gods word to apply to all mankind, it could not be too specific.Principles are general so they can be applied to any time, any culture, any gender.eg, back in the first century people drank blood. Paul listed blood as something that a christian should abstain from. He didnt specify what sort of blood, or purposes in drinking it or how to abstain...he simply said to Abstain from it.
Acts 15:19-21 "to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."Now comes the part for how a christain should apply that principle.
Could they drink it to sustain themselves? Abstain from blood
Could they use it in cooking? Abstain from blood
Could they use it as a lubricant? Abstain from blood
Could they use it to paint the walls? Abstain from bloodwhat about today?
Could they use it in their cooking? Abstain from blood
Could they use it in their medicines? Abstain from blood
Could they inject it into their veins? Abstain from bloodSo this is why christian laws are much broader then a mere 'do this dont do that'. The christian must live by conscience, showing Gods laws to be on his heart rather then live by a set of do's and dont's. Remember the Isrealites had that list and it was a dismal failure becuase a law is only good if its applied. If people dont apply them then what good are they?Christian laws are broad and its up to christians to apply them in all facets of their lives.

what did i say in the first sentence of my OP?"Unlike the Mosaic Law, the Christian laws are not given as one continuous list of laws. They are found throughout the writings of the NT in discussions and discourses given by the Apostles"If you want to learn those laws you need to read the NT and accept that the writings of the apostles are in fact the writings of the apostles and are also inspired of God.If you dont believe the writings of the NT to hold any authority, then its understandable why you are still asking the question.Do you trust the writings of the NT enough to believe that the principles and laws stated therein are what Christians need to abide by?

PD, have you collated your own list of laws from the NT?

of course they obeyed the laws of the land, but how do you explain this...

quote:

---

"27So they brought them and stood them in the San'he.drin hall. And the high priest questioned them 28and said: "We positively ordered YOU not to keep teaching upon the basis of this name, and yet, look! YOU have filled Jerusalem with YOUR teaching, and YOU are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us." 29In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

---

so here they are before the highest law court in the land, they've been given an order to stop preaching, Yet they refuse to obeyDo you really believe they viewed mans law (law of the land) above Gods law? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

are you saying that when a court produces an order, ie a 'court order', the recipient is not required by law to comply with the order?

it was more then just a story...its an historical record of the events that surrounded the apostles.They were called before the court, they were ordered to stop preaching by the high court of the land and the apostles refused to obey. Later the romans made christianity 'illegal' and outlawed the religion in throughout the whole roman empire...they were burning people alive for being christian because it was a capital offense.do you think that the christians obeyed that law of the land?'we must obey God as ruler rather then man' is what they said.

but these Sadducees, who were in charge and were the lawmakers, made the order for the apostles to stop preaching about jesus. This is why Paul spent over 3 years in jail.He was on trial for doing what he was ordered to stop doing. He was breaking the law of the land. Not that it was a law prior to this, but the Sanhedrin got together and outlawed christianity.So now there was a law that the Apostles were breaking. You keep saying that christians were only required to follow the laws of the land....as I said before, the laws of the land are to be followed ONLY when they do not contradict Gods laws.therefore Christians must have had their own laws...otherwise why is Paul disobeying the law of the land? there is no difficulty for me...im quite aware of what the laws are. I've even stated many of them which you've doubted to be laws.There are 3 reasons why you do not see what christian laws are and i've posted them here from your' comments: So firstly, you dont trust the authority of the bible writers. So why would you accept anything they say...perhaps this is why you dont accept the scriptures as a basis for christian laws?secondly, you've said that principles and standards are not laws in themsleves. However, i've stated that Jesus taught the principles behind the mosaic laws. This means that when he expounded the meanings of the mosaic laws, and made principles out of them, those principles have laws as their foundation. Therefore the principle is a law because it is derived from Gods laws.and thirdly, Yes, we are told to obey the laws of the land, but not if they contradict Gods laws. The laws of the land are not the standard for a christian to gain Gods favor. Nor will be be judged by our obedience to the laws of the land.
We will be judged by our obedience to Gods laws.The only place you'll find them is in the scriptures, so if you dont accept the scriptures as authoritative enough, then I cant tell you any more because all of my posts are based on the scriptures which you do not accept as authoritative. you separate the two because you dont accept that the writers were inspired, right?perhaps this thread should end here and a new one started to discuss how we know that the writers were inspired and given authority to teach Gods laws??

they are good questions because the writers of both the hebrew and greek scriptures claimed to be inspired by God, so its certainly worthy of examinationespecially for people with doubts about the trustworthiness of the writers themselves...or weather the writings themselves are authentic.

i already provided several of them in msg 1 what is the purpose of the christian writings, in your opinion? Yes christians do have to obey their human leaders, thats another christian law. Yet some government laws are contrary to Gods. Some governments have forbid the reading of the bible for instance, some demand all subjects to enroll in the armies for a certain time, some have legalized abortion etcObviously not all government laws are acceptable by Gods standards, how is it christians know which ones are not acceptable if there are no christian laws? that wasnt the case in Jesus day. He followed a 2,000 year old mosaic law code and taught his disciples to do so more fully. The laws he taught are now 2,000 years old yet they can still be applied to day in our modern culture. Paul and Silas broke a Roman law concerning customs and they were put in jail for it. This shows that they were not concerned with obeying the laws of the land, as much as they were with obeying Gods laws...specifically the command/law to preach and teach.

quote:

---

Acts 16:19
Well, when her masters saw that their hope of gain had left, they laid hold of Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the rulers, 20and, leading them up to the civil magistrates, they said: These men are disturbing our city very much, they being Jews, 21and they are publishing customs that it is not lawful for us to take up or practice, seeing we are Romans. 22And the crowd rose up together against them; and the civil magistrates, after tearing the outer garments off them, gave the command to beat them with rods. 23After they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them securely. 24Because he got such an order, he threw them into the inner prison and made their feet fast in the stocks.

---

I know you believe the mosaic law code was a legal system of God...what made it such? from an educated persons standpoint, many of the Bible writers were not exceptional men. mostly they were very ordinary so its only right to question what makes their writings authoritive. I think its an important question because if they really did write from God, then what they wrote must be true. I will start a new thread for that topic. yes i see what you are saying about the 'details' not being apparent, but thats what principles are. If you look at the mosaic law, they were very specific laws for specific situations. Take a look at the 10 commandments though that God gave to Moses, they are all principles.
Eg 'Honor your father and your mother' This is a principle without any details.now look at the details of one of the the mosaic law pertaining to honoring mother and father, Exodus 21:15And one who strikes his father and his mother is to be put to death without fail.in this law, its clear that we should not hit our parents.
However the principle to 'honor them' covers ALL possible acts. We have to use our imaginations with principles, we have to use our intellect, our understanding and our reasoning abilities. What constitutes 'honor' and what constitutes 'dishonor'This is how the law becomes written on our hearts...its by our application of the principles, without the need for details. God has said that he will write his laws on our hearts and this can only be done through principles because they cover every possible scenario and when we apply a principle, we are doing it of our own accord because our own conscience tells us to. IOW we've made our own decision to act, nobody told us to do it, and no detailed law told us to do it...we did it ourselves because the law is written within. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

I agree he followed the Jewish laws, but I would like you to show me how he followed the 'oral' law. they are not one in the same.The 'oral' laws were traditions added to the mosaic laws...eg the mosaic law required the washing of hands before eating a meal, however the oral law stated that a person should wash right up to the elbows.The mosaic law said that no work was to be carried out on the sabbath, but the oral law stated what 'constituted' work. EG, It said that because doctors prescribed vinegar to patients who had a toothache, no one could use vinegar on the sabbath to heal his toothache becauase it constituted 'work'.this is what the oral law was. It was additions to the mosaic law. So you'll need to provide me with some evidence to show that Jesus prescribed to the oral laws because my understanding is that the bible shows he only followed the mosaic law. the command was given by Jesus to his 12 disciples at Matthew 10:5-7 & Math 28:19-20. The command to preach was carried out by the apostles and non apostles as can be seen by the missionary tours of Paul and the disciples who went along with them.Paul and Silas certainly wasnt held accountable for disobeying the authorities, rather they were miraculously released and the jailer who witnessed the event became a baptized believer. So God was still using them and blessing them in their evangelizing work. this is precicely why every christian needs to take responsibility for the way they apply the principles in their own lives. but to apply them, we must understand them. "Each of us will render an account for himself to God." said Paul at Romans 14:12. There is no room for sitting back in church and being told what we can and cant do. We need to know the bible, we need to know how Jesus lived, we need to know what the directions were from the Apostles with regard to our worship because all of it constitutes what God legally requires from us.And ultimately he is the one who will be judging us so we need to try to get it right.

I just want to point out that the 'oral law' had nothing to do with Moses. It was a concept that only developed a few centuries before our common era. The belief was that God gave two Laws to Moses, one written and one oral. The Pharisees promoted the idea and the Sadducees and the Essenes opposed it.When Rome destroyed jerusalems temple in 70CE, the Pharisees were the only sect that survived. There was no longer a Sadduceean priesthood so the Pharisees had control and chose tradition and interpretation, aka 'the oral law' to superceed the written Mosaic Law. This is what led to the Mishnah and Talmud being written and used in Judaism.Purpledawn, the point is that the Talmud and Mishnah did not exist in Jesus day. How can you claim that Jesus followed something that did not exist. He read and followed the Mosaic law (hebrew scriptures) The Mishna and Talmud were not part of the Hebrew scriptures in the first century.You know what they mean when they say the 'oral law was given to moses by tradition'....it was a belief by some and nothing more. Most jews of the time rejected the idea outright. the command to preach was first given to the apostles, but it was extended to the disciples as the gospel records that a group of 70 disciples went preaching two by two's. That group were sent out by Jesus to preach. (Luke 10:1) Just before that passage at the end of Luke 9, there is one man who says' to Jesus 'permit me first to go and bury my father then I will become your disciple' and Jesus reply was "Let the dead bury their dead, but you go into the city and declare abroad the kingdom of God"So the command was clear, and it wasnt just for the 12 apostles to do the preaching, it was for all the disciples and all future christians.

i can prove that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures knew nothing of the oral law...im pretty sure they didnt make one single mention of it and The priestly sect of the Saducees did not accept it at all.Why do you think the Priestly class, the ones who were entrusted with relaying the law, refused to accept the oral law?if it really came from God, they would have written it down the way the Pharisees wrote it down after the destruction of the temple in 70ce. we dont need 'tradition' to know who the writer of the law was...he identifies himself in the books he wrote. Thats the difference. lol our discussions do go around in circles at times i'll admit. The problem is that you take you 'reality' from modern jewish sources and I take my reality from the bible.They cant both be right.The information you linked there about Ezra is quite inaccurate.Its correct in that Ezra did write the law of moses...but wrong in that Ezra was the author, He didnt create a new book, he was a skilled copyist of the law.Actually if you read the bible you would see that in 642BCE, an original copy of the 'law of Moses' was discovered in the temple at Jerusalem. It had been preserved for 871 years in . Ezra made reference to the same incident of the book being found at 2Chronicles 34:14-18. This proves that the original 'Law of Moses' was still around in Ezra's time 500's BCE...he didnt need to create a new law. sure, it may not seem that way on face value...however the outcome of the preaching work was that it would be preached in ALL the earth in the time of the end. That 'time of the end' was a future time...its still a future time today and the kingdom message continues to spread right around the earth. There is not a nation on earth today who do not have access to a bible. This shows that the good news is being preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations...Matthew 24:14,19"This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come... Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them"and when the preaching work is complete, then the end will come Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

I am keeping on track but i think you've missed the point i've been trying to make.Jesus did not follow the oral law or oral tradition. I've shown you that he condemned the pharisees for putting their oral laws ahead of the mosaic law. He did not agree as his words against their oral tradition shows:

quote:

---

Further, he went on to say to them: "Adroitly YOU set aside the commandment of God in order to retain YOUR tradition. For example, Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.' But YOU men say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother: "Whatever I have by which you may get benefit from me is corban, (that is, a gift dedicated to God,)"’” YOU men no longer let him do a single thing for his father or his mother,and thus YOU make the word of God invalid by YOUR tradition which YOU handed down. And many things similar to this YOU do." Mark 7

---

it makes no sense to me that God would tell moses to write down the law, but also that he was not to write down some of it. Do you really believe that??? Most of the Jews never believed it, Jesus certainly did not believe it and he was 'The Word' of God. So if anyone knew what Gods word was, it was jesus. That verse you quote does not come from the bible book of Ezra. You are reading from an apocryphal book. There is a reason why the jews did not accept apocryphal writings as inspired ...they contradicted the inspired writings because they were NOT from God. think about it this way. If the apostles were given the command to preach and that command was only relevant to them alone. After they died, no one would hear the kingdom message ever again.Jesus words would have been futile. Christianity would not have continued to this day had it not been for the fact that the christians carried on the work of preaching the kingdom message.I dont mind if you're not convinced of that, but if you think about it logically you'd have to agree that the only way for the kingdom to be preached in all the earth, is for the word to continue to spread. And the only way for that to happen is if christians continued to spread it.

thats a pertinent point to this discussiona person who loves God, will do his will without being forced to. Under the mosaic law, the Jews were born into a relationship by default and had no choice but to live by the laws.this is precisely why God spoke about removing the Mosaic law and giving the people a new law that would be written on their hearts. Only those who truly loved God would allow that law to be written there. Obviously, there must still be laws though, otherwise why does God say he will write it on their heart?