The Law of Moses Has Not Been Abolished

[Richard_oti]

don't forget to keep your milk and your meat separated too

Why do you mock the Law of God?

ChristianG, would you be so kind as to show me from Torah, or even the entire TaNaKh, the "Law of God" that states to keep your milk and meat separated?

Don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk, doesn't count in response to this.

 

[Richard_oti]

1 Corinthians 11:9-15 <snip for brevity>

I posted the KJV since this is the one I usually stay with. It is confusing changing back-and-forth between translations.

I can understand.

I did, however, look up the original Hebrew of this verse to compare.

I am sure you intended to say Greek.

First, we must realize what this reveals which is Christ and His body. The topic is hair, imo. The hair (like with Samson) the sign of power. But pertaining to the verse you posted:

Neither was Christ created for the body; but the body for Christ. For this cause ought not the body have power on its head because of the Angels. Nevertheless neither is Christ without the body, neither the body without Christ.
For as the body is of Christ, even so is Christ also by the body; but all things of God.

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

And also Ephesians 5.

<snip>

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. The HEAD is Christ and He is the Power.

As I stated, I wasn't arguing with that which you presented. I even agree with you to a point. In that, not all are married.

<snip>

 

[Rev20]

There are no extra-biblical laws. All the laws and the prophets were derived from the two royal laws. They were simple basic concepts to begin to understand God by. So, tell me which of the 10 commandments / moral laws is not part of the two royal laws? Let's see how well you comprehend what Christ is telling mankind....

First I have to accept your premise that the two great commandments are the two royal laws. The second is the only "royal law" mentioned; but for now I will accept your premise.

Christ said; Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Is Christ saying that now we can perform adultery bodily just not in our minds? Or is he saying that not only is adultery still a sin but, now it is also a sin to even think about it?

If even thinking lustfully about a woman under the new covenant is a sin then tell me how is it that actually performing the act is not a part of the same covenant? And for that matter tell me which of the OC moral laws is not a part of the new covenant?

Christ is saying that if a man looks upon a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart. Now, where can we find that in the law of Moses?

Perhaps that is simply an extension of the Royal Law. Perhaps Christ is telling men that if they look upon a woman with lust, rather than love, they break the Royal Law, which is to love thy neighbor as thyself.

I'm not impressed with people that take away from the intent of Christ's message.

Likewise.

According to Christ's own words "MAN shall live by every word of God's mouth" do you deny this too?

Do you give extra credit on your quizzes?

Matt 4:4 But he (Christ) answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Low and behold this point Christ makes comes from where?
Deut 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Straight out of the old testament....

The law was given to the children of Israel. Who was Christ speaking to at that time?

It might be also a good idea to read all of Moses' words, since he also wrote this:

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." -- Acts 3:22-23 KJV [see also, Deut 18:18-19]

All the words of the law, including that prophecy, were written for the children of Israel.

Back to my question, who was Christ speaking to? Better, who was he sent to?

"But Jesus answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Mat 15:24 KJV

So if Christ is asserting that there are things from the old testament that apply under the new covenant then where do you draw the line?

It is not my line to draw. Until Christ's death, the children of Israel were still under the law of Moses, and were obliged to follow it.

God sent prophecy by Isaiah saying;
Isa 42:1Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

There is also this:

"I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house." -- Isa 42:6-7 KJV

As written in Romans 7:1-4, the children of Israel were released from the bondage of the law (of the second covenant) when Christ died. Paul explained the difference between those under the old covenant, and those under the new:

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." -- Gal 4:24-26 KJV

This is a crucial point:

"Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." -- Gal 4:30-31 KJV

The children of bondage -- the children who chose to remain under the old covenant -- could not be heirs to the kingdom.

21The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Is Isaiah saying this?

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." -- Heb 8:7-9 KJV

Is the Hebrews saying that the new covenant is not like the old, faulty one? Sounds like it.

Christ indeed MAGNIFIED the law when he showed us that sin was not simply the performance of it in the body rather, he showed us that IT IS A SIN even if you think about doing it. Christ magnified the law and now with the new covenant it has become honorable because no one can try and gain the kingdom simply by following God's laws with the body alone... now you have to do it from the heart.

That is your interpretation. My interpretation is, he magnified it by simplifying it:

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." -- 2Cor 11:3 KJV

The law served its purpose as the schoolmaster for the chosen people, until Christ:

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." -- Gal 3:23-25 KJV

So under the new covenant if you say you are a follower of Christ and yet knowingly persist in sin even within your mind then you would be a liar and he will certainly tell you that face to face.

No doubt. I also suspect that Judaizers will not be well received.

Proof of who has followed Christ's direction will be shown at the judgment where the only beings able to see what is in the heart of men will judge it and the rest will see which way they are taken away.

No doubt.

Rev

 

[101G]

I couldn't find the original post.

christiang said: ↑
Clearly you have not read the Law when God told Eve after they had sinned,

Your husband shall rule over you

Eve was submitted to her husband, which is why wives must submit to husbands. The sign that a woman has come under submission to a husband is the veil. I have a study on this here, The Tzniut, Wives and Head Coverings | Wisdom of God . The apostle Paul mandates it.
Click to expand...

Did Jesus mandate it?

@VJ, we would like to speak on this, "Your husband shall rule over you".
first lets point out, shall rule "OVER" is not the same as "RULE" in submission to a husband.
please take note,"rule over" is not based on a condition of submission, but of a work of leadership by permission. the scripture never said to "rule" her, but "shall rule OVER" her. ruling over is not the same as ruling. please check that. scripture, Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". see that word shall, it's subject to approval. Shall, expressing a strong assertion or intention. the assertion or intention is a work to LEAD, or the first to do. in short, take responsibility. this is in a marriage. "rule over" simply means, the first to serve. and as a wife, it is determined as stated, she is to be a HELPER. a helper helps one accomplish something, not do it for them. therefore, before a man and woman become ONE, the man get permission from the woman to take responsibility, or the work of leadership in service toward one another. this is crucial in understanding 1 Corinthians chapter 11. the very first verse set the stage of understanding. this work of responsibility (first to serve) is to first to provide, and the first to protect. see, shall rule over is by permission, not submission. this is why a man "ASK" a woman to marry him. the woman by giving her permission to become one with him, as his helper. she, by her permission, gives the rule over/leadership her to her husband, so that they may serve each other in spirit and in truth. this is crucial in understanding 1 Corinthians chapter 14, especially at verses 34 & 35. see, rulership is a two way street, to serve one another.

and here, too many christian make the error by taking a tradition of the home and trying to implement, or apply this institution as a standard of the church in submission instead of a service to one another. 1 Corinthians chapter 11 & 14 can be cleared up if one JUST understand "rule OVER" INSTEAD OF "RULE".

Absolutely Jesus(The LORD in the flesh) mandated it.

marriage is not for everyone, read all of Mathews chapter 19 1-12

 

[VictoryinJesus]

@VJ, we would like to speak on this, "Your husband shall rule over you".
first lets point out, shall rule "OVER" is not the same as "RULE" in submission to a husband.
please take note,"rule over" is not based on a condition of submission, but of a work of leadership by permission. the scripture never said to "rule" her, but "shall rule OVER" her. ruling over is not the same as ruling. please check that. scripture, Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". see that word shall, it's subject to approval. Shall, expressing a strong assertion or intention. the assertion or intention is a work to LEAD, or the first to do. in short, take responsibility. this is in a marriage. "rule over" simply means, the first to serve. and as a wife, it is determined as stated, she is to be a HELPER. a helper helps one accomplish something, not do it for them. therefore, before a man and woman become ONE, the man get permission from the woman to take responsibility, or the work of leadership in service toward one another. this is crucial in understanding 1 Corinthians chapter 11. the very first verse set the stage of understanding. this work of responsibility (first to serve) is to first to provide, and the first to protect. see, shall rule over is by permission, not submission. this is why a man "ASK" a woman to marry him. the woman by giving her permission to become one with him, as his helper. she, by her permission, gives the rule over/leadership her to her husband, so that they may serve each other in spirit and in truth. this is crucial in understanding 1 Corinthians chapter 14, especially at verses 34 & 35. see, rulership is a two way street, to serve one another.

and here, too many christian make the error by taking a tradition of the home and trying to implement, or apply this institution as a standard of the church in submission instead of a service to one another. 1 Corinthians chapter 11 & 14 can be cleared up if one JUST understand "rule OVER" INSTEAD OF "RULE".


marriage is not for everyone, read all of Mathews chapter 19 1-12

I will be away a couple of days and will give a closer look later. Thank you. I will ask why the Lord said the same to Cain.

Genesis 4:7 KJV
[7] If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Genesis 27:40 KJV
[40] And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

When I return...

 

[101G]

Genesis 4:7 KJV
[7] If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Genesis 27:40 KJV
[40] And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck

easy answer, FIRSTBORN, first to serve....... one another.

 

[christiang]

ChristianG, would you be so kind as to show me from Torah, or even the entire TaNaKh, the "Law of God" that states to keep your milk and meat separated?

Don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk, doesn't count in response to this.

That's the command that forbids combining milk with meat, which is in the Torah, which is the Law of God.

 

[Richard_oti]

That's the command that forbids combining milk with meat, which is in the Torah, which is the Law of God.

IOW: You are saying there is no specific such command.

It is only that you are not allowed to boil a kid in it's mother's milk. Anything beyond that, is to add unto the command. That which is written in both Shemot and Devarim. Of which, Devarim specifically states, not once but twice, that you (collective) shall not add to it, nor diminish from it.

Thus, @bbyrd009 was not mocking, for there is nothing in the law that specifically states such a thing.

 

[christiang]

IOW: You are saying there is no specific such command.

It is only that you are not allowed to boil a kid in it's mother's milk. Anything beyond that, is to add unto the command. That which is written in both Shemot and Devarim. Of which, Devarim specifically states, not once but twice, that you (collective) shall not add to it, nor diminish from it.

Thus, @bbyrd009 was not mocking, for there is nothing in the law that specifically states such a thing.

Applying commands of the Law into scenarios that relate to the original command is not adding to the Law, for even when you read, "a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman", do we not conclude that women sleeping with women are also included in the scope of that command, even though not specifically mentioned? This is where discernment of good and evil comes in, for when the command is issued, you must come to discern how to apply it with anything that comes within the scope of the command. Take for example another passage in the Law, concerning Onan wasting his seed. This mere passage outlaws all forms of contraception and masturbation, even though there is no specific command that says, "thou shall not use condoms". As such, if boiling meat in milk is sin, therefore eating meat with milk is also sin, for they are related actions in combining milk, which is meant to nourish the flesh, with the dead flesh of animal. I'm sure you'll survive not adding cheese to your burger.

 

[Richard_oti]

Applying commands of the Law into scenarios that relate to the original command is not adding to the Law, for even when you read, "a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman", do we not conclude that women sleeping with women are also included in the scope of that command, even though not specifically mentioned? This is where discernment of good and evil comes in, for when the command is issued, you must come to discern how to apply it with anything that comes within the scope of the command. Take for example another passage in the Law, concerning Onan wasting his seed. This mere passage outlaws all forms of contraception and masturbation, even though there is no specific command that says, "thou shall not use condoms". As such, if boiling meat in milk is sin, therefore eating meat with milk is also sin, for they are related actions in combining milk, which is meant to nourish the flesh, with the dead flesh of animal. I'm sure you'll survive not adding cheese to your burger.

<chuckle> Like I said, there is no specific such command to store meat and milk separate.

No one said anything about boiling meat in milk. It is do not boil a kid in it's mothers milk.

I shall add cheese to my burger, and drink a glass of milk with it. <cheers>

You were offended in the "flesh" by what bbyrd009 stated. For in haRuakh haQodesh, there is no offense.

 

[christiang]

<chuckle> Like I said, there is no specific such command to store meat and milk separate.

No one said anything about boiling meat in milk. It is do not boil a kid in it's mothers milk.

I shall add cheese to my burger, and drink a glass of milk with it. <cheers>

You were offended in the "flesh" by what bbyrd009 stated. For in haRuakh haQodesh, there is no offense.

All I can do is offer my knowledge, if you want to refuse the understanding of this command that I am trying to convey to you because of your apetite, then by all means, carry on with what you're doing, for your sin will be on your own head, not mine, even in matters as least as these. If you err in these lesser matters, I cannot imagine what greater matters you also err in.

 

[Richard_oti]

All I can do is offer my knowledge, if you want to refuse the understanding of this command that I am trying to convey to you because of your apetite, then by all means, carry on with what you're doing, for your sin will be on your own head, not mine, even in matters as least as these. If you err in these lesser matters, I cannot imagine what greater matters you also err in.

<chuckle> Drinking a glass of milk with a burger is not boiling a kid in it's mother's milk, no matter how you attempt to stretch it.

 

[KBCid]

First I have to accept your premise that the two great commandments are the two royal laws. The second is the only "royal law" mentioned; but for now I will accept your premise.
Christ is saying that if a man looks upon a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart. Now, where can we find that in the law of Moses?
Perhaps that is simply an extension of the Royal Law. Perhaps Christ is telling men that if they look upon a woman with lust, rather than love, they break the Royal Law, which is to love thy neighbor as thyself.

You apparently don't accept anything at all which is expected since you didn't answer whether adultery was under the new covenant or not nor whether
even lusting in the heart is.
If you want to be part of the new covenant (since there is only one covenant) then you are included in the entirety of what Christ said to the Jews since a Jew is not one outwardly according to Christ. If you deny the new covenant laws as inclusive and expanded by the two royal commands then you are choosing not to accept the new covenant and having those laws written in your heart.

Rom 2:6Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11For there is no respect of persons with God.

Christ will indeed judge the natural Jews first and then its the gentiles turn to be judged by the exact same scale as the Jew was judged by.
If you do evil by SINNING in either mind or body knowingly you too will pay a visit to the recycle bin.

 

[christiang]

<chuckle> Drinking a glass of milk with a burger is not boiling a kid in it's mother's milk, no matter how you attempt to stretch it.

While you concern yourself with your milk and your burger, I will concern myself with an expanded interpretation of the Law because I fear God and want to obey him in absolutely everything that I do.

 

[mjrhealth]

@christiang still you have not answered teh question, do you still sin?? If you do not cant be difficult one to answer.

 

[mjrhealth]

While you concern yourself with your milk and your burger, I will concern myself with an expanded interpretation of the Law because I fear God and want to obey him in absolutely everything that I do.

Thats why we have faith, without it the rest is pointless.

 

[KBCid]

@christiang still you have not answered teh question, do you still sin?? If you do not cant be difficult one to answer.

This is not a question that holds any relevancy to whether or not one it is ok to be willfully sinning in the first place?
The only possible rationale for such a question would be to assert that if you haven't reached a sinless state yet that it can't in fact be done which ultimately is teaching others that Christ was not our example to follow solely on the basis of the accomplishment of another man.

Faith should be that Christ has paid for all our sins that we did prior to coming to him and any that we may stumble at as we learn how to be like him. Continuing to knowingly sin is not covered by having faith that he existed.

 

[tabletalk]

That's the command that forbids combining milk with meat, which is in the Torah, which is the Law of God.

The Torah is not the "Law of God". Believers are under the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus".
Romans 8: 2. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."
Romans 7: 10. "And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death."

 

[mjrhealth]

This is not a question that holds any relevancy to whether or not one it is ok to be willfully sinning in the first place?
The only possible rationale for such a question would be to assert that if you haven't reached a sinless state yet that it can't in fact be done which ultimately is teaching others that Christ was not our example to follow solely on the basis of the accomplishment of another man.

Faith should be that Christ has paid for all our sins that we did prior to coming to him and any that we may stumble at as we learn how to be like him. Continuing to knowingly sin is not covered by having faith that he existed.

Like this

Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

if one demands we do as they say, than they should be doing as they say, it is very relevant So many who come and demand teh law, can never admit to sin, just avoid teh question. Christ never dies so we would not sin, but that sin would no longer condemn us, for if we stopped sinning we would become proud and arrogant and worse than what we where before.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

easy answer, FIRSTBORN, first to serve....... one another.

I was able to find a few moments after all. Thank you for clarification.