The Law of Moses Has Not Been Abolished

[christiang]

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

Faith is not a license to sin. There are believers whose faith dictates that their homosexual acts are not sin, does this faith make their transgression not sin?

 

[christiang]

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."

The Torah is indeed the Law of God,

For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, (Romans 7:22 [ESV])

And it is also called the Law of the Lord,

(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) (Luke 2:23 [ESV])

And the Book of the Law of the Lord,

While they were bringing out the money that had been brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD given through Moses. (2 Chronicles 34:14 [ESV])

And the Book of Moses,

And they set aside the burnt offerings that they might distribute them according to the groupings of the fathers’ houses of the lay people, to offer to the LORD, as it is written in the Book of Moses. And so they did with the bulls. (2 Chronicles 35:12 [ESV])

And the Law of Moses,

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44 [ESV])

 

[bbyrd009]

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.

but wadr i am not sure how well you might survive completely missing the point of boiling a kid in its mother's milk, if the reference is meant to indicate a spiritual principle rather than just a literal one. The literal one is pursued because the spiritual one is an admonishment of something that ppl enjoy doing, from a hardened heart, even though the symbology makes the spiritual one obvious; the same reason given for why a Jew cannot eat pork--a hardened heart.

Iow actually eating pork is not a sin, and never was; ignoring the spiritual implications--which we might hopefully agree is what Scripture is all about--of "don't eat pork" is. As soon as the hardened heart is "softened," pork is no longer a sin. Not that i would go literally boiling a kid in its mother's milk, just because i now get the spiritual principle; but neither would i be offended if i was served it as a guest, at least as long as the servers demonstrated that they did not torture their new seekers with the milk of the Scripture, as is currently being done in Christianity...well, in all three monotheistic religions, i guess.

So while i wouldn't condemn keeping cheese off of a hamburger, the literal observance indicates the lack of spiritual sight, which i would never mention IRL of course, and don't mean for you to take personally, either. I observe this law when around Jews, and i don't go sneaking the cottage cheese onto the meat shelf when no one is looking or whatever, just because i now get the spiritual principle behind "don't boil a kid in its mother's milk."

 

[bbyrd009]

do we not conclude that women sleeping with women are also included in the scope of that command, even though not specifically mentioned?

so then, do you not become a hypocrite when you include women in this law, for their shame, but you do not include them when it would be to their glory, now taking another Scripture literally, as it suits you?

 

[bbyrd009]

If you err in these lesser matters, I cannot imagine what greater matters you also err in.

this ends up being the justification from our end too though, see. If you cannot even get the implications of these rather obvious spiritual lessons, but instead use them as an occasion to make another law to burden others with, then what will you do with, essentially, Grace? Won't it be abhorrent to you?

 

[bbyrd009]

<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.

it becomes a parody of the spiritual truth, and while i guess we are not to belittle or mock those with that understanding, we can use it as an indicator of where that person is at spiritually


(and might now apply speaking in tongues correctly, at least once it is also understood spiritually. Of course boiling a kid in its mother's milk is alive and well in Christendom, and the current understanding of tongues...well, indicates the current state of the Christian churches, as it only can do of course)

 

[bbyrd009]

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.

why to the Jew first then, someone will ask.

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.

gee Yogi, i thought there was no Jew or Gentile in the kingdom lol

 

[KBCid]

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.

Finally...
It is your opinion that it is ok with the Father and Christ that believers can continue to knowingly sin because Christ already paid the ticket for every sin they will ever commit?

If you don't think that sums up what your saying then make clarifications where applicable

 

[bbyrd009]

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.

see how that ends up being disingenuous though, as it was you that made the No Cheese on a Burger Law, in a manner of speaking at least, i understand that you did not literally make the law ok, please do not wait there for the present lol

we expand the law because we (hardly just you ok, me too) do not want to face the spiritual implications of it, and thus fulfill the law.

 

[KBCid]

why to the Jew first then, someone will ask.
gee Yogi, i thought there was no Jew or Gentile in the kingdom lol

and yet the NT definitely delineates that it is natural Jew first so, since scripture cannot contradict itself you have a conundrum on your hands.

of course knowing the scripture that states that the word came to the Jew first might lend some understanding on this point since God is a God of order.

 

[christiang]

so then, do you not become a hypocrite when you include women in this law, for their shame, but you do not include them when it would be to their glory, now taking another Scripture literally, as it suits you?

Huh? This command outlaws homosexuality, men with men, women with women.

 

[bbyrd009]

Faith is not a license to sin. There are believers whose faith dictates that their homosexual acts are not sin, does this faith make their transgression not sin?

yes, and there are believers who keep milk and meat literally separate, yet torture new seekers with the milk of the Word, too; does this faith make their transgression not sin? Which is more important, iow

 

[christiang]

this ends up being the justification from our end too though, see. If you cannot even get the implications of these rather obvious spiritual lessons, but instead use them as an occasion to make another law to burden others with, then what will you do with, essentially, Grace? Won't it be abhorrent to you?

Favor, which is what grace is, is not an opportunity to be disobedient, it is an opportunity to be obedient.

 

[bbyrd009]

Huh? This command outlaws homosexuality, men with men, women with women.

yesyes, and prophets should not go to whores either, certainly.

 

[bbyrd009]

Favor, which is what grace is, is not an opportunity to be disobedient, it is an opportunity to be obedient.

i am not disagreeing, but that is not the end of that story either, as grace is also an opportunity for forgiveness. I do not exclude you or look down on you, even if i feel that you are mired in the law right now (having been boiled in your mother's milk, iow), and in fact i would even refrain from putting cheese on my burger at your house, ok.

 

[bbyrd009]

don't boil a kid in its mother's milk


honey, we're killing the kids

 

[christiang]

i am not disagreeing, but that is not the end of that story either, as grace is also an opportunity for forgiveness. I do not exclude you or look down on you, even if i feel that you are mired in the law right now (having been boiled in your mother's milk, iow), and in fact i would even refrain from putting cheese on my burger at your house, ok.

You have not sufficiently explained why this command should not be obeyed literally. Other commands, such not observing festivals, can be sufficiently explained as shadow commands which are now fulfilled differently, and even refraining from certain meats can be sufficiently explained with "all moving things shall be food for you" when God spoke to Noah, which automatically discards abstaining from any meats. But, why should this specific command of not boiling meat in milk be changed?

 

[KBCid]

i am not disagreeing, but that is not the end of that story either, as grace is also an opportunity for forgiveness. I do not exclude you or look down on you, even if i feel that you are mired in the law right now (having been boiled in your mother's milk, iow), and in fact i would even refrain from putting cheese on my burger at your house, ok.

What?
Are you promoting that one should sin so that grace may abound?

 

[KBCid]

You have not sufficiently explained why this command should not be obeyed literally. Other commands, such not observing festivals, can be sufficiently explained as shadow commands which are now fulfilled differently, and even refraining from certain meats can be sufficiently explained with "all moving things shall be food for you" when God spoke to Noah, which automatically discards abstaining from any meats. But, why should this specific command of not boiling meat in milk be changed?

A really great question here is why did God command that action? It obviously has no bearing on the love your neighbor side of the laws that are to be written in the heart which leaves this one on the Love God side of the coin....

 

[christiang]

A really great question here is why did God command that action? It obviously has no bearing on the love your neighbor side of the laws that are to be written in the heart which leaves this one on the Love God side of the coin....

I do not know. As such, because I do not know, I am obligated by my own conscience to obey it literally as given, as opposed to other commands where I have knowledge that permit not to observe them literally, such as festivals and abstinence from certain meats.