How do Christians decide which Old Testament laws to follow, and which ones Jesus abrogated?
How do Christians decide which Old Testament laws to follow, and which ones Jesus abrogated?
How do Christians decide which Old Testament laws to follow, and which ones Jesus abrogated?
Ritual laws like animal sacrifice or not eating shellfish obviously would be abolished. Leviticus 18:22 still applies though.
I understand the animal sacrifice but why is not eating shellfish abolished?
Eating shellfish, made you unable to participate with the ritual sacrifice.
It was said to make you unclean and defiled. Why can you be defiled through eating shellfish and participate in the sacrifice of Christ, but not in animal sacrifices?
There wasn't refrigeration in NT times either. Also, not refrigerating will make any meat go bad, not just non-kosher meats.
Christ was our sacrifice, so cleanliness is simply not relevant anymore.
>so cleanliness is simply not relevant anymore.
Why doesn't this also apply to homosexuality, since it's said to make a person unclean just like eating pork is?
Forget the Law. The Law is BAD, the Law is israeli SLAVERY. Homosexuality is still bad because Paul condemns it in Romans, not because of the Law. All these bullshit copes about ceremonial vs moral Law are nonsense.
>Homosexuality is still bad because Paul condemns it in Romans, not because of the Law
nta but why does paul condemn it? is there an actual reason, or is it just him going "eww butt sex gross and icky eww"
back in OT times there was no refrigeration so some foods could be dangerous to eat. pork was a vector for trichinosis.
The laws that were introduced as specific laws for the Hebrews to follow aren't part of our deal with God. Leviticus for example was specifically made to teach the Israelites on how to make offerings and behave at the tabernacle, so it doesn't really apply to us. We're not priests in the desert.
The content of Leviticus 18:22 still applies because it's mentioned in other parts, not because of Leviticus, even if can be understood as a clear opinion on the subject. I believe a lot of the LGBT pushing in the Church is made out of a confusion that we're cherrypicking the same chapter, "why do you follow Leviticus 18:22 but not 19:19?", ignoring passages like Romans 1:27, which make it clear it's a moral matter, not a legal one, like it is presented in Leviticus.
Can you give me a quick rundown on all these? I don't want to have to look them all up individually.
Pick and choose to fit their agenda
Technically the only Old Testament laws a Christian needs to follow are the 10 commandments, and one of those - remembering the sabbath and keeping the sabbath holy - is fulfilled just by believing in Jesus, since God the Son IS the Sabbath.
>Technically the only Old Testament laws a Christian needs to follow are the 10 commandments
Where is this said, and why?
Not all of the laws are about sacrifices and the tabernacle. As for your example with Leviticus 19:19, why don't Christians still follow "you shall not sow your fields with two kinds of seed", since it doesn't have to do with sacrifices?
How do you determine what's a moral law, and whats one of the "various practices" that can go?
The Ten Commandments amount to the Noahide laws, and they're the only natural laws that all humans need to follow regardless of religion. Therefore, Christians need to follow them, but pagans are just as morally obligated to do so even if they refuse to accept them.
Aside from that, everything a Christian needs to know about how to behave can be construed from Jesus' teachings. There is nothing wrong with following the old Law, but Jesus is the new Law, and he is a much greater Law. Like Paul said, it's more important to be circumcised in the heart than in the flesh, but that doesn't mean a Christian can't or shouldn't get circumcised if he thinks that's the correct thing to do. But circumcision doesn't achieve the Law the way following Christ does.
>and they're the only natural laws that all humans need to follow regardless of religion.
According to whom?
Rabbinic scholars. The Noahide Laws are the religion that israelites are supposed to force upon gentiles. Modern Rabbinic Judaism considers Christianity and Islam to be tools to achieve this.
>Modern Rabbinic Judaism considers Christianity and Islam to be tools to achieve this.
Rabbinic Judaism considers Christian to be idol worshipers, which is in violation of the first Noahide law.
Really? But Christians say that they worship the one true God of Israel! And they follow the Ten Commandments! And they believe that everything good in the world came from israelites, and they disgusting gentile Paganism and gentile culture! Surely there has to be some kind of misunderstanding here. Maybe more interfaith dialogue is necessary, things can be made to work out.
Moral laws stay. Laws regarding to various practices go. Those were there simply as a sign of things to come. They were fulfilled in Christ, so they go.
No need to sacrifice goats when you have the G.O.A.T.
Well the ones Jesus personally abrogated are few, he has to explicitly do so in scripture (eg dietary restrictions)
Only reformed (Calvinist) theology has a consistent system for everything else, you look back at the various laws and determine whether they're moral, civil or ceremonial.
I don't think you would even say the civil laws are abrogated, they're just non applicable to anyone not living in an extinct ancient nation state. The ceremonial laws likewise mostly can't apply without a temple.
>and determine whether they're moral, civil or ceremonial.
How do you determine which is which, particularly which is moral?
>The Ten Commandments amount to the Noahide laws
No they aren't. Also, to my knowledge, the Noahide laws are a Talmudic invention not found in scripture.
>but that doesn't mean a Christian can't or shouldn't get circumcised if he thinks that's the correct thing to do
"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."
>how do you determine?
Ceremonial means pertaining to old testament worship
Civil means pertaining to the court system in ancient Israel
Moral means neither of these, being objective binding precepts
It's kind of obvious when you're reading them
Not wearing mixed fabrics and not sowing your field with two types of seed isn't a ceremonial or civil law, so why don't you still follow it as it's a moral law?
How is that not a ceremonial law?
>Ceremonial means pertaining to old testament worship
What does sowing your field with only one type of seed have to do with worshiping God?
That's a ritualistic holiness thing like fasting codes or circumcision. Holiness means set apart, so the people themselves segregate from other nations, and even the things they wear or how their crops are planted represent holiness.
Moral laws are way more basic, like "do not lie". The act itself violates a moral principle, not a ritual representation of another concept.
>That's a ritualistic holiness thing
Sure, following God's decrees is being holy, but that also applies to moral laws as well. It doesn't directly pertain to worshiping God (for example, how a sacrifice should be made) so I don't see how it's a ceremonial law.
>Holiness means set apart, so the people themselves segregate from other nations, and even the things they wear or how their crops are planted represent holiness.
All laws set apart the people who follow them from the ones who don't, so I don't understand what your point is.
>laws concerning purity or keeping kosher no longer apply or are changed.
The reason given in Leviticus 18 for the prohibition against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality is that it defiles the person, which is the same reason given for not eating non-kosher food (it defiles the person), so why aren't those prohibitions abrogated?
This is from the wiki
>the Noahide Laws or the Noachian Laws are a set of universal moral laws which, according to the Talmud, were given by God as a covenant with Noah and with the "sons of Noah"—that is, all of humanity.
Your counterpoint needs to redefine what's being set apart from what else, so my point still stands. Moral laws are universals in the bible. They're irrespective of national origin and predate the giving of the law.
>Your counterpoint needs to redefine what's being set apart from what else
I already said, the people who follow the law are set apart from the people who don't, whether it's what you consider a ceremonial or moral law. The original definition was that ceremonial laws pertain to worship, so if you say setting apart is also worship, then moral laws are ceremonial as well.
Worship doesn't start and end at the temple
Of course, there's plenty of ceremonial laws that don't specifically pertain to the temple, I just don't see how planting your field is one of them (again, unless you want to say that all setting apart is worship).
Ok. If they're not ceremonial they're civil, so the point is moot. This section of Leviticus 19 starts and ends by identifying these as "statutes."
>Civil means pertaining to the court system in ancient Israel
How do agricultural practices pertain to the court system?
>This section of Leviticus 19 starts and ends by identifying these as "statutes."
Leviticus 18 also identifies all the prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality as statutes.
Chapter 18 says judgments AND statutes, unless you want to argue that this is synonymy. Towards the end it says statutes, ordinances, abominations.
I'll concede that tying it specifically to the court is an oversimplification. Take civil to mean any punitive action of the magistrate.
>Chapter 18 says judgments AND statutes
Again, chapter 19 does as well. (Verse 37)
>Take civil to mean any punitive action of the magistrate.
How is planting your field with one type of seed a punitive action of the magistrate?
Noahide laws were included in the Talmud, they were not invented by the Talmud you dumbass
"Righteous gentiles" and the 7 moral laws of Noah far antedates the talmud - by nearly 2000 years
What was Jesus's stance on fudge packing?
It's amazing to me how infidels continually trip up over the simplest, most straightforward things in Scripture. Mosaic Law is fulfilled, it served its purpose. Where is the confusion arising from here?
>For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
If you're interested in the new law, simply acquaint yourself with Church doctrine.
It’s quite simple. Divide the law into moral law and kosher law. Morals laws are kept, laws concerning purity or keeping kosher no longer apply or are changed.
If it is something I personally am comfortable with then it is still the Bible law. If it’s something outdated and ancient, clearly made for ancient times like sleeping with your brothers wife then it is fine to disregard it.
Just pick and choose the stuff you feel comfortable with.
They just made shit up, like that israelite who wrote Acts. In reality Marcion was right, Jesus came to destroy the Law as a whole.
the liar who wrote Acts was the same one who wrote Luke, and he was a Roman not a israelite.
Interestingly Marcion's Gospel was a version of... Luke, and likely accepted Acts as well (although perhaps not admitting it into the New Testament).
Luke didn't write Acts. It was written by one of Peter's israelites to retcon his bullshit sect with Paul.
european Christians used old testament especially book of Joshua and its conquest narrative to justify their own conquests and colonization
>abrogated
OP is a muslim