Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Under The Law Or Not?


zuker12

Recommended Posts

So, are christians under the law or are they not? How do they then define sin? I mean, some take only the ten commandments, some take the abstaining from meat polluted by idols etc. and some focus on some "central" sin like homosexuality or occultism which is bound to bring "AMURRICA UNDER DOOM HURR" while not examining their own actions. The whole law is pretty opressive at points according to these same dudes so I guess they'd want to be saved and not any responsibility to sin? Unless someone happens to absolutely detest a certain kind of sin, like aforementioned homosexuality or paganism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

There are 40,000 (so far) Christian interpretations of the Bible. If someone simply identifies himself as a Christian, that tells me little about what he actually believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic was definitely the main reason I began to question christianity and it ultimately lead to my deconversion. I couldn't reconcile the whole "Jesus says the law stays, Paul says the law no longer applies" I have read many articles and the like trying to figure out how this works and I have yet to find anything that somehow reconciles the two. This fact would tear christianity apart for one simple thing: If the law no longer applies, many churches would simply die because no one would tithe. Tithing is the single most important thing to keeping the church alive. Without it, the church would not survive. I think people would still believe, but most churches would crumble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

The law remained for Jesus' actual disciples.  This likely limited their converts, as it required circumcision.  Paul made it easy to convert to his religion.  Of course, many disparate cults have resided under the Christian umbrella since the beginning.  Some of them still follow some or most of the Torah.  Most do not.  Yet most still seem to like The Ten Commandments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister-in-law was posting something about their pastor mocking atheists who bring up the Mosaic dietary law as still binding on Christians, and I had to point out to her that the Apostles told the Gentile believers that they had to abstain from food given to idols, from sexual immorality, from strangled animals, and from blood. And what reason did these men, filled with the Holy Spirit, give for these restrictions? "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a weird take on this topic, so feel free to grab popcorn while reading my convoluted reply.

 

I thought that the Exo. 20 commandments were the first copy of the "all important law." 

However, Moses caught the Israelites partying like it's 1999 B.C. and so he smashes the Exo. 20 tablets on the ground.

 

After killing the party goers with his gestapo, the Levites, Moses goes back up to Mt. Sinai again as god commanded.

There, god and Moses cobble together a new set of commandments, the Exo. 34 ones.

 

  1. cut down altars of other gods
  2. no molten idols
  3. keep the feast of unleavened bread
  4. all that "opens the matrix" are mine (sorry Neo)
  5. rest of the sabbath
  6. observe the feast of weeks, wheat harvest, and ingathering (official parties you must attend, under penalty of death)
  7. all men must appear before god 3 times a year
  8. don't offer sacrifices with yeast
  9. first harvest belongs to god
  10. stop cooking goats in their mom's milk (ew)

It was those 2nd set of tablets that were put inside the ark of the covenant, which was the most sacred of holies for the ancient Israelites.  Those were the laws enshrined. 

 

I say that modern Christians should be placed under the law, it would be quite amusing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are christians under the law or are they not? How do they then define sin? I mean, some take only the ten commandments, some take the abstaining from meat polluted by idols etc. and some focus on some "central" sin like homosexuality or occultism which is bound to bring "AMURRICA UNDER DOOM HURR" while not examining their own actions. The whole law is pretty opressive at points according to these same dudes so I guess they'd want to be saved and not any responsibility to sin? Unless someone happens to absolutely detest a certain kind of sin, like aforementioned homosexuality or paganism.

Christians dive in and out of the law like a dolphin in the wake of a ship.

If a certain law appeals to them, they'll say it still counts.

If they don't care much for it, they'll toss it out like an old shoe.

So much for moral absolutes.

In the Old Testament the law is not to be tampered with or edited (Deut 4:2).

Christians ignore this and thumb their nose at Yahweh, and instead most of them embrance Paul (the apostate).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, has anyone got any references on Paul? Mainly the possible heresy side of him. It is an aspect I'm interested in looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a weird take on this topic, so feel free to grab popcorn while reading my convoluted reply.

 

I thought that the Exo. 20 commandments were the first copy of the "all important law." 

However, Moses caught the Israelites partying like it's 1999 B.C. and so he smashes the Exo. 20 tablets on the ground.

 

After killing the party goers with his gestapo, the Levites, Moses goes back up to Mt. Sinai again as god commanded.

There, god and Moses cobble together a new set of commandments, the Exo. 34 ones.

 

  1. cut down altars of other gods
  2. no molten idols
  3. keep the feast of unleavened bread
  4. all that "opens the matrix" are mine (sorry Neo)
  5. rest of the sabbath
  6. observe the feast of weeks, wheat harvest, and ingathering (official parties you must attend, under penalty of death)
  7. all men must appear before god 3 times a year
  8. don't offer sacrifices with yeast
  9. first harvest belongs to god
  10. stop cooking goats in their mom's milk (ew)

It was those 2nd set of tablets that were put inside the ark of the covenant, which was the most sacred of holies for the ancient Israelites.  Those were the laws enshrined. 

 

I say that modern Christians should be placed under the law, it would be quite amusing.

I didn't know this second set of ten commandments existed until I joined this site.  It's an eye opener, to say the least!

 

If I had known this existed when I still believed, I think it would have immediately de-converted me.

 

There's a neighborhood in my city where people have put up sign boards of the ten commandments on their lawn.  I'd love to print this second bunch up and put them in lawns!  People would get so mad, but it's from their own stinking bible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of which, has anyone got any references on Paul? Mainly the possible heresy side of him. It is an aspect I'm interested in looking at.

You might find this interesting:

 

False Teachers...I Did Not Send Them!

http://agnosticreview.com/false.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

In my experience, "the law" has nothing to do with christianity.  Now, if you want to talk about legalism, that's a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a core understanding and difference with Messianic Judaism. I think they take it so that they are not saved by the law, but they have to try to do their best to keep the law. Meaning they are a sort of cultural jews, I guess? Their sin portion and sacrifices are covered by Jesus.

 

This then makes me think, how much law-keeping is or is not enough then? If Jesus covers everything, then what is the point?

 

PS. Good link on Paul. Paul was originally the reason I was thinking about the consistency between saving grace and law-keeping. One thing I was pondering is if the main message with Jesus was with who believed the message he brought instead of believing in His saving power directly. I think this is the Armstrongist stance on the issue, I'm not sure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are christians under the law or are they not? How do they then define sin? I mean, some take only the ten commandments, some take the abstaining from meat polluted by idols etc. and some focus on some "central" sin like homosexuality or occultism which is bound to bring "AMURRICA UNDER DOOM HURR" while not examining their own actions. The whole law is pretty opressive at points according to these same dudes so I guess they'd want to be saved and not any responsibility to sin? Unless someone happens to absolutely detest a certain kind of sin, like aforementioned homosexuality or paganism.

The moral, ethical and legal rules of Middle Eastern civilization, including all of its sub-groups and tribes, are set forth in the OT and other writings from that time.  Are you surprised that the moral, ethical and legal rules of modern civilization, including most of its sub-groups and tribes, have changed in many respects but are unchanged in other respects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This then makes me think, how much law-keeping is or is not enough then? If Jesus covers everything, then what is the point?

 

Of note is that in Acts 21:20-26, Paul is disciplined by the Jerusalem council and ordered to take part in the Nazirite vow (Num 6).

The Nazirite vow involves sin sacrifices and other burnt offerings.

These Christians were still practicing sacrifices, including sin sacrifices, after Jesus had ascended.

Despite all of Paul's bravado in Galatians about not being under the law and not giving in to the demands from those who tried to pervert the gospel, Paul caves and agrees to their demands.

I know Christians that practically worship Paul, and run to him constantly for quotes.

Their hero is deeply flawed and a hypocrite as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ninurta

The law was quite amusingly iron age for some divine text. If you read it, you can just picture them living in postexilic times, writing down about their way of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, are christians under the law or are they not? How do they then define sin? I mean, some take only the ten commandments, some take the abstaining from meat polluted by idols etc. and some focus on some "central" sin like homosexuality or occultism which is bound to bring "AMURRICA UNDER DOOM HURR" while not examining their own actions. The whole law is pretty opressive at points according to these same dudes so I guess they'd want to be saved and not any responsibility to sin? Unless someone happens to absolutely detest a certain kind of sin, like aforementioned homosexuality or paganism.

The simplest and best answer so far: they are flexible

They can be under the law or not under the law depends on each topics

As long as it's fit their views they will say anyhing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Law"

 

If these laws were part of the unchanging god's essence, and he does indeed desire that these laws be obeyed so that humanity can prosper according to his grand design...

 

The very act of permitting his 'one true religion' to have 40k+ interpretations pretty much means he's either sadistic, inept, or both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homosexuality is amusing in this respect.  On one hand, Calvinists say that our works cannot save us, but then they love to point to I Cor 6:9 to let everyone know that gay sex will send you to hell.  Of course, that implies that abstention from gay sex (a human work) will allow one to get to heaven - along with their beloved faith, or course. So which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homosexuality is amusing in this respect.  On one hand, Calvinists say that our works cannot save us, but then they love to point to I Cor 6:9 to let everyone know that gay sex will send you to hell.  Of course, that implies that abstention from gay sex (a human work) will allow one to get to heaven - along with their beloved faith, or course. So which is it?

Calvinists are full of shit, as well as full of themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest afireinside

 

 

Homosexuality is amusing in this respect. On one hand, Calvinists say that our works cannot save us, but then they love to point to I Cor 6:9 to let everyone know that gay sex will send you to hell. Of course, that implies that abstention from gay sex (a human work) will allow one to get to heaven - along with their beloved faith, or course. So which is it?

Calvinists are full of shit, as well as full of themselves.

I testify to that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we hold that legalism isnt valid am I supposed to work on basis of my conscience alone if I am led by the Holy Spirit? I just thought how the lletter kills and some think the way to understand the law is to understand it with the Spirit guiding one within the pages. How do I know what is right or wrong, were it not for the Law? How do I know the Spirit is the correct one? Why are pparts of the Law abolished, or is it all abolished in favour of conscience led by the Spirit?

 

Can I be spiritually married? If I bang someone, do I pay 50 spiritual shekels to the girls father? What if the father wants nothing to be paid and is just ok with no marriage/a quick marriage? Will the Spirit discern judgement? Is this love, the Law "written in the fleshy tables in our hearts"? Odd question, I know, but I dont know what parts and why I should keep the Law. Paul seems to only bring confusion in this matter. Am I not going to know on the basis of love annd Spirit anyway ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a core understanding and difference with Messianic Judaism. I think they take it so that they are not saved by the law, but they have to try to do their best to keep the law. Meaning they are a sort of cultural jews, I guess? Their sin portion and sacrifices are covered by Jesus.

 

This then makes me think, how much law-keeping is or is not enough then? If Jesus covers everything, then what is the point?

 

 

Here is what I know about Messianic Judaism. My former church is of this persuasion, although not entirely.

 

Are MJs saved by the Law? -- No.

 

Do they have to do their best to keep the Law? -- Not really. Only the easy ones, like avoiding pork and observance of Sabbath.

 

Are they cultural Jews? --  Not the ones I've encountered. Messianics are usually the nominally Jewish by birth OR they are Christians who want a deeper meaning for their faith. Those who have Jewish blood are technically Messianics; those without are considered Gentiles. Both are under the Law, but since they believe in Yeshua, the Law functions as a sign of his divinity. They don't keep the Law to save themselves; they keep portions of the Law to show gratitude for having been saved through the bloody death of Yeshua.

 

In fact, the whole of Judaism points to Yeshua according Messianic claims. So why does any of it matter?

 

How much law-keeping is or is not enough then? -- There are varying degrees of Judaism. Ultra-orthodox Jews keep all of the Law. Mainline Jews are a bit more relaxed. Secular Jews/Cultural Jews are still God's people, but don't observe the Law like some other Jews. Messianics are heretics who believe that Yeshua fulfilled the Law and that they should only keep parts of it as a token of gratitude. Gentiles don't have to keep any of the Law, but it sure helps them on their quest to be unique individuals. I mean, how would we know about their special relationship with Gawd if they didn't lecture us on eating bacon or point to their elaborate Hebrew tattoos every so often?

 

If Jesus covers everything, then what is the point? -- There is no point. The story doesn't add up. Especially when many of the Messianic groups claim that Jesus (Yeshua) originally came to save the Jews. It was Paul (Saul) who went to the Gentiles with the "good news".

 

 

 

If we hold that legalism isnt valid am I supposed to work on basis of my conscience alone if I am led by the Holy Spirit? I just thought how the lletter kills and some think the way to understand the law is to understand it with the Spirit guiding one within the pages. How do I know what is right or wrong, were it not for the Law? How do I know the Spirit is the correct one? Why are pparts of the Law abolished, or is it all abolished in favour of conscience led by the Spirit?

 

Can I be spiritually married? If I bang someone, do I pay 50 spiritual shekels to the girls father? What if the father wants nothing to be paid and is just ok with no marriage/a quick marriage? Will the Spirit discern judgement? Is this love, the Law "written in the fleshy tables in our hearts"? Odd question, I know, but I dont know what parts and why I should keep the Law. Paul seems to only bring confusion in this matter. Am I not going to know on the basis of love annd Spirit anyway ?

 

Why are parts of the Law abolished, or is it all abolished in favour of conscience led by the Spirit? -- Some parts of the Law are very difficult for modern people to keep, especially those who were not raised in the Jewish culture. Others violate the liberal principles of some believers (such as the parts of the Law that talk about marriage and sex or those that talk about women). So these parts of the Law are ignored or slapped with the label of "no longer applies".

 

The conscience led by the Spirit is a holdover from the infancy of many of the modern Protestant movements. What this actually means is that people are supposed to rely upon the consensus of the community to enforce their morality. Simply put, those in charge tell you what to do and you are to blindly do it without questioning. Sure, there are some elements of relationship, of a loving God, all of that, but it is mostly about going along with the crowd. How often does the Spirit tell you to do something radically different? Even if you are led to a specific conclusion, if this conclusion does not align with Scripture or with the wishes of God's authorities in your life (parents, pastor, boss, etc), then you are told it is "not of God". You are supposed to resist the Spirit in that case.

 

How do I know the Spirit is the correct one? -- Through testing. The test is simple. Does the Spirit agree with the authorities? Does the Spirit like Scripture? If the answer to both questions is yes, then congratulations, it is the Spirit of Truth! If not, it is Satan. All Satan is (imo), is the manifestation of self. Satan is your inner desires, your flesh. The Spirit of Truth (God) will usually be in contradiction of what you want or need. That's why it is very hard to follow God, be a good Christian, etc. You are constantly denying yourself and there are times when you just cannot do those things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard Christian answer: we are under the law of the spirit, whatever THAT means

 

What Christians usually mean when they give that answer is, "We are only required to follow the rules that we want to follow."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if we look back at the NT, Jesus was careful to say that he came to ''fulfill the law, not abolish it.'' During my Christian days, even now, I take that to mean that the law wasn't meant to be an anchor around people's heads weighing them down, and causing them to judge others. It was more that one should follow the law, in love and service to others. (Jesus' teachings about loving one's neighbor, and enemy, etc...)

 

That's how I interpret it, anyway. The crux of Christianity is Jesus. The OT is a foreshadowing of Jesus' coming. Christians though cling to a lot of fluff that have nothing to do with either, sometimes. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.