Christian Laws

quote:

---

what is the purpose of the christian writings, in your opinion?

---

Generally to promote their belief system. Specifically each writer had a purpose specific to their audience.

quote:

---

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 etc

​

Obviously 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?

---

Again, to know that government laws are contrary to God's laws, we need to know what God's laws are specifically.Then you should have no problem listing the Christian Laws.Basically Christian Clergy are picking and choosing from the OT, sprinkling in some NT principles and religious leaders decide what is acceptable for their group.

quote:

---

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.

---

Jesus also followed the Oral Law, whether you like it or not. The actual laws that Jesus taught were Jewish and I have shown you that already. He taught the Jewish law.

quote:

---

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.

---

Where is the law from God that all Christian must preach and teach?They may not have been concerned, but were they held accountable by God for disobeying the authorities? If not, why?

quote:

---

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'

---

Which goes along with what I've been saying: ...there are only Christian principles derived from the spirit of the ancient writings and the experiences of people who have gone before.

quote:

---

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.

---

IOW, Christians make up their own "laws". The problem with that is that it isn't consistent from Christian to Christian, from Protestant group to Protestant group, or from Catholic to Catholic.There's nothing to guarantee that you have it right or that any Christian group has it all right.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

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.

---

Did that in Message 89. Read the article entitled "The Oral Torah and the Messianic Jew".Jewish Law includes the oral and Mosaic Laws. Halakha

quote:

---

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.

---

Where does it say in the Mosaic Law that everyone is to wash their hands before eating a meal? I don't see that hand washing before each meal for the general populace is in the Mosaic Laws.As I said in Message 104, the Oral Torah also by tradition came from God to Moses. The Oral Torah is supposedly the interpretation of the written law. So what is your point concerning the topic?

quote:

---

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.

---

How is a command to a specific group of men a law for all people throughout time? As I said, a law may be a command, but a command is not automatically a law.

quote:

---

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.

---

The author of Acts apparently likes jailbreaks. This story like the earlier one in Acts (Chapter 5) concerning the apostles isn't really about breaking a law. The Apostles didn't break a local law and Paul and Silas didn't actually break a local law. Just as the Sadducees brought the apostles in because they were jealous according to the story, the owner of the slave girl turned in Paul and Silas because they ruined his means of income (Acts 16:19).I don't think either of these stories shows the followers broke local laws, but that the locals and local authorities were less than truthful about the actions of the followers.I don't feel these stories support the idea that the followers of Jesus did not abide by local laws or that God condones breaking local laws.

quote:

---

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.

---

So everyone interprets as they see fit. Only when we face God will we know if we got it right. Not really a good plan from a fair and just God.

quote:

---

There are really only two christian laws:

​

* Love God with all your heart, soul and with all your mind.
* Love one another.

---

What makes them actual laws, as opposed to just principles of behavior to better enable individuals to follow laws.

quote:

---

Jesus in fact removed himself from the Jewish Law. He hated the Jewish Law, it was those priests that sent him to his death.

---

Please show support for this statement.

quote:

---

Jesus can reveal himself in any number of ways. God guarantees that his Word will outlive the present world. What other prophecy has lasted for 6 thousand years and continuing?

---

Still doesn't show consistency or fairness. So what is the point concerning Christian laws?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

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

---

They didn't exist as written documents, but supposedly they did exist as an oral tradition. I can't refer to an ancient oral tradition, I can only refer to the written version and what is considered to have been in place at that time. ABE: Halakhah: Jewish LawYou also can't prove what was and wasn't included in the ancient oral tradition. You can only point to what has been written about the oral tradition.

quote:

---

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.

---

Tradition also says that Moses wrote the first five books. If you accept one, why not the other?You don't like it when I discuss the reality of the Bible writings, you want to stick with tradition; but when I try to go with the tradition you want to look at reality. Please be consistent within a discussion.Reality is that Ezra probably wrote the Laws of Moses. Ezra had authority given to him by man, but did he have authority given to him by God?

quote:

---

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.

---

The first incident you quoted was for the 12. The second you quoted was for the 70 people. The commands were for the specific individuals at the time. The verses do not support the idea that the command reaches into the future.Edited by purpledawn, : ABE: Halakhah: Jewish Law

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

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.

---

I didn't say the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures knew anything about the oral law. I agree the oral law came about after Ezra wrote the "laws of Moses" or when the rabbinic era started. I agree the Sadducees did not accept the oral law. We were talking about Jesus. The oral law was around at that time. Since it wasn't written down at that time, we can't know what was included at the time. All we have is what was written down concerning the oral law. Please keep on track.

quote:

---

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.

---

Not if they believe God told them not to, which is what they believed.

quote:

---

we dont need 'tradition' to know who the writer of the law was...he identifies himself in the books he wrote. Thats the difference.

---

Sure you do. I've already shown you that Moses didn't write the Mosaic Laws in Message 283. Ezra did. Laws of Moses. A story about Moses doesn't mean he wrote it. Exodus has about 4 different authors. If you follow Jewish tradition that Moses wrote the first five books, then you should follow the Jewish Tradition that the oral law was given to Moses.

quote:

---

Actually if you read the bible you would see that in 642 BCE, 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 2 Chronicles 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.

---

Please follow through. Yes the Book of the Law was found. Notice at the end of 2 Chronicles we have the fall of Jerusalem. Destruction, fire, theft, ... In 4 Ezra 14:21 the author notes that that law had been destroyed. In the book entitled "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, Johnson notes that intellectual Jewish Reformers, about 170 bce, understood that the Law they had was not very old and did not go back to the time of Moses. (Page 101)What is your point concerning the Christian Laws?

quote:

---

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

---

When you change the plain text reading, you are creating your own story and changing the command. What authority do you have to change God's commands.Quite frankly, if you can change the command(s) at your whim, it's not a law.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I would say the question is not what but how.

---

I don't understand what question you're asking in relation to this topic.You can find my position in Message 6.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

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:

---

The verse doesn't support your position that Jesus didn't follow the Oral Law or that the tradition in question was part of the Oral Law. Halakhah: Jewish Law

quote:

---

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.

---

Do you read any of the links I provide? Remember, I don't believe Moses wrote anything in the Christian OT. For the sake of this issue, I will go with Moses as the author. The issue isn't God left something out. The issue is explaining the law. Explanations can take up a lot of room. For instance, the verses below. How does one interpret or apply this law? The Sadducees who don't believe in the Oral Law, take it literally, which would mean if one causes a bruise they would inflict such a bruise on that person, etc. The Pharisees who do believe in the Oral Law, take it to imply monetary compensation. Just because Jesus followed some oral traditions, doesn't mean he followed all of them. You still seem to have the all or nothing attitude. Even Ezra had to explain:

quote:

---

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.

---

Actually it is Deuterocanon (Second Canon) and in the Catholic Bible, it is also part of Jewish tradition concerning Ezra and as I noted in Message 285: In the book entitled "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, Johnson notes that intellectual Jewish Reformers, about 170 bce, understood that the Law they had was not very old and did not go back to the time of Moses. (Page 101)Since it was written after the destruction of the temple, why do you care what the Jews thought? I doubt if they considered the NT writings inspired by God. The Book is part of a Christian canon and therefore, by your terms, inspired by God.

quote:

---

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.

---

What people continued to do of their own accord is irrelevant. What is deemed law is. You cannot make it a law or command from Jesus for everyone when it wasn't. People who want to imitate the disciples can do so, but it isn't a requirment for us today per that verse.

quote:

---

My question related to this topic was, 'How can someone keep the laws on God's list (or a Christian Law list)?' I imagine this forum on Christian Laws is based on a desire to keep the laws, not just to know them.

---

Then you would be incorrect and didn't understand what was said in Message 6.

quote:

---

The God with Whom our fellowship is restored (by justification) is the righteous, holy, loving God. He wants to conform man to His image. So, even though God justifies by faith, that does not imply that God will condone an unrighteous, unholy, unloving living.

---

See you've done the same thing that many Christians do. You've stated that ones behavior does not make one justified, righteous, or whatever catch phrase ones group prefers; but in the same breath say that God will not condone unrighteous, unholy, unloving behavior.That's how Peg's statement can be summarized, which I did in Message 6: My contention is that there are no Christian Laws.In Message 114 I stated: Your question of how can one keep (follow) the laws on God's list or a Christian list is irrelevant unless there is a list.There is currently no Christian legal system. If any Christian persists in presenting the same position as Peg, then they need to provide a list and justification that it is a legal binding law for people today:

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I still think the question is how can a fallen man live in a way that is pleasing to a holy, righteous, loving God. I think these verses give a clue as to the way.

---

And still you list nothing.What makes Paul an authority?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The resurrected Jesus revealed himself to Paul and commissioned him to be an attendant and a witness of the things he had seen and would yet see. As an evidence of the authority given to Paul, he was given visions and powerful words. The first vision given to Paul, was seeing the disciple Ananias come in and restore his sight. When the vision became reality, Paul was baptized & received holy spirit.

​

His authority came directly from Jesus and God.

---

And again, no verses to support your position. Have you learned nothing in all these discussions? Supporting evidence, common courtesy, anything?

Paul says he has authority and a later unknown writer says he has authority.Paul doesn't really have any more authority to make legal laws or speak for God than any other person today.

quote:

---

Obviously you reject Christ's pronouncement upon the Apostle Paul that he was a chosen vessel.

---

Passing on the good news is very different from making legal laws.

quote:

---

This is not a matter of having to verify the spiritual authority of an apostle. This is the matter of someone not wanting to receive that service.

---

Nope this is about Christian laws, stick with the topic. Paul did not have the authority to add or change legal laws. Show me otherwise.

quote:

---

If he is not an apostle of Christ to you, purpledawn, he certainly is an apostle to me. If you do not receive his pouring out of his labors for the Christians as a slave, I receive it.

---

I never said he wasn't an apostle. I would think by now you would know better than to try and shame me. I question dogma, not God. It isn't wrong to question dogma.Either show me that Paul had the authority to add or change legal laws or keep silent.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The original question that I addressed was:

​

"What makes Paul an authority?"

​

Those are your words to Rich. I discussed with you the apostolic authority of Paul. So are you shifting the goal post around or what?

---

To respond to that question you would need to know what I was referring to. Authority to what or for what? Read Message 300. I'm still talking about Christian laws or lack there of.

quote:

---

But nonetheless, Paul did change to the legal emphasis on circumcisism. His authority to do so stems from him being Christ's apostle.

---

Supposedly one of the original apostles said the Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised to follow the Way. By the same unknown author of Acts, chapter 15 I believe. Neither they nor Paul absolved natural Jews of circumcision as far as I know.As I understand it, there were two types of converts to Judaism. Paul didn't change a law.

quote:

---

One is not justified unto eternal life through works of the law.

---

Never said we were. We've been over this before.My issue is with Christians who make comments like Peg and Richh. We aren't discussing justification, we are discussing acceptable behavior. Even you said God cares about how we behave. Justification may be by faith, but right behavior is still expected. That's what Jesus taught and that's what Paul taught.As Richh provided in Message 301 and you've alluded to in this thread. Paul clearly states that those who practice the deeds he listed would not inherit the kingdom of God. So while there are no laws prohibiting us from practicing the fruit of the spirit, he implies that there are laws against the deeds of the flesh.So from Paul's statement in Galations, even though one may be justified by faith, one can still lose their spot due to wrong behavior, which is essentially what Peg said in the quote above and Richh implied in his post listed above.So if we can lose justification from wrong behavior, one needs to know what constitutes wrong behavior outside of our current legal system and where God deems it wrong.

quote:

---

Those exhortations to live righteously after being redeemed would included both exhortations of Jesus and of the letter writing apostles.

---

I haven't disagreed that right behavior is expected.

Again, you're not addressing the point of Message 311.Paul didn't have the authority to change any of the Jewish Laws and Paul didn't change any of the Jewish laws.Circumcision was part of the Abrahamic covenant.Paul was correct that circumcision is not a means to salvation. So one should not get circumcised for that reason.He did not have a problem with those circumcising for the sake of tradition or to make evangelizing easier as mentioned by the unknown author of Acts. What Paul was teaching against was the same thing you keep babbling about, but he didn't change any laws for the Jews (or the Greeks) and he didn't have the authority to do so.