Ot Vs. Nt Law

[Seeking]

There is the Old Testament law, with its countless little details (rules for food, clothing, etc). Every sin required some sort of offering to appease God.

 

And then there is the New Testament, which says all sins, all transgressions of the law are covered by Jesus, who fulfilled the law perfectly for us. In other words, Christians can now eat pork, and they can willfully wear cotton/polyester blend clothing without having to pray for forgiveness. Right?

 

Why doesn't that attitude apply to the other OT sins as well, such as homosexuality? Was that not covered by Jesus? Does it not fall under the "fulfilled by Jesus" banner? Or do special rules apply to it since it's also mentioned in the NT (thereby making it doubly sinful )?

 

Isn't all sin effectively the same - falling short of God's ideal? If so, aren't Christians who eat pork or wear mixed-fiber clothing or menstruate without presenting a sin offering (Lev. 15:29-30) intentionally living in sin, just as an active homosexual is said to be? Why are some sinners excused, but others are not?

[Guest Davka]

There is the Old Testament law, with its countless little details (rules for food, clothing, etc). Every sin required some sort of offering to appease God.

 

And then there is the New Testament, which says all sins, all transgressions of the law are covered by Jesus, who fulfilled the law perfectly for us. In other words, Christians can now eat pork, and they can willfully wear cotton/polyester blend clothing without having to pray for forgiveness. Right?

 

Why doesn't that attitude apply to the other OT sins as well, such as homosexuality? Was that not covered by Jesus?

 

The whole religion builds up from the concept of men fertilizing the land with their seed through union of the ideal penis with the ideal vagina. Sex is too central to the whole religion to be excused.

 

My theory.

 

P

 

Wow - I never saw it that way. Adam and Eve, the first porn stars!

[oddbird1963]

Paul did the most in implementing the idea of setting aside the law, represented by circumcision, dietary restrictions and temple sacrifice.

 

In this way, the gospel could be made to appeal to larger, more Hellenized segments of the various cultures throughout the Roman empire.

 

Your questions about homosexuality come from wanting to be logically consistent. Even with Paul, nothing is absolute - you can have uncircumcised, pork eating believers, but he could not conceive of homosexuals ever being permitted in the church.

 

We are all one in christ, but for some convoluted reason, we cannot permit a woman to speak or to have authority over a man.

 

There are no logical inconsistencies or unrealistic expectations in your way of thinking. But this is religion we are talking about. And religion is rarely logical or consistent.

[Neon Genesis]

The argument goes that the sins that are only condemned in the OT are not sins if they're not mentioned in the NT because Jesus' death supersedes the old law. Only those sins that are also condemned in the NT are also to be condemned even though Jesus says the old law still applies until the end of the world in Matthew chapter 5. One thing I don't get is that if commandments from God only apply to those commandments made after Jesus' death, does that mean we can ignore all the teachings of Jesus that happen in the gospels before his resurrection? Like since the Sermon On The Mount occurred before the resurrection, then why do Christians consider that to be a required commandment?

[hereticzero]

The whole religion builds up from the concept of men fertilizing the land with their seed through union of the ideal penis with the ideal vagina. Sex is too central to the whole religion to be excused.

 

My theory.

 

P

Actually, when you consider the teachings of Gnosticism concerning male and female and yin and yang, you are absolutely correct. There are underlying contexts towards penis worship in the Christian religion, and neither is tolerant of homosexuals. It is bizarre stuff.

[centauri]

There is the Old Testament law, with its countless little details (rules for food, clothing, etc). Every sin required some sort of offering to appease God.

 

And then there is the New Testament, which says all sins, all transgressions of the law are covered by Jesus, who fulfilled the law perfectly for us. In other words, Christians can now eat pork, and they can willfully wear cotton/polyester blend clothing without having to pray for forgiveness. Right?

 

Why doesn't that attitude apply to the other OT sins as well, such as homosexuality? Was that not covered by Jesus? Does it not fall under the "fulfilled by Jesus" banner? Or do special rules apply to it since it's also mentioned in the NT (thereby making it doubly sinful )?

 

Isn't all sin effectively the same - falling short of God's ideal? If so, aren't Christians who eat pork or wear mixed-fiber clothing or menstruate without presenting a sin offering (Lev. 15:29-30) intentionally living in sin, just as an active homosexual is said to be? Why are some sinners excused, but others are not?

It's amazing how "God's moral absolutes" can get tweaked and disposed of when Christianity deems it proper, under the excuse that God changed his plan.

As Oddbird pointed out, Paul in particular viewed the law as competition for converts and vilified it while paying superficial lip service to it.

The Hebrew scriptures don't support Christian tweaking of the law.

God repeatedly warns his people not to add or subtract from the law.

The new covenant as defined in Jer 31 says nothing about the law being replaced by a new system revolving around faith in a sacrificed "messiah".

An expected king messiah was to lead the people into great compliance with the law, which is the opposite of what Christianity has promoted.

If a preacher likes a certain law, he'll promote it as Godly, and if he doesn't he'll cite Paul as "proof" it doesn't apply anymore.

[OpheliaGinger]

They are just cherry picking what is most convenient.

[Abiyoyo]

There is the Old Testament law, with its countless little details (rules for food, clothing, etc). Every sin required some sort of offering to appease God.

 

And then there is the New Testament, which says all sins, all transgressions of the law are covered by Jesus, who fulfilled the law perfectly for us. In other words, Christians can now eat pork, and they can willfully wear cotton/polyester blend clothing without having to pray for forgiveness. Right?

 

Why doesn't that attitude apply to the other OT sins as well, such as homosexuality? Was that not covered by Jesus? Does it not fall under the "fulfilled by Jesus" banner? Or do special rules apply to it since it's also mentioned in the NT (thereby making it doubly sinful )?

 

Isn't all sin effectively the same - falling short of God's ideal? If so, aren't Christians who eat pork or wear mixed-fiber clothing or menstruate without presenting a sin offering (Lev. 15:29-30) intentionally living in sin, just as an active homosexual is said to be? Why are some sinners excused, but others are not?

 

Homosexual activity is mentioned as being apart of the 'new law' if I'm not mistaken, and Biblically, falls under sexual immorality with the Jerusalem decree, which is probably why most Christians still adhere to it and all.

[OpheliaGinger]

But no where in the NT does it mention just merely sleeping in the same bed as a menstruating woman to be a sin.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Homosexual activity is mentioned as being apart of the 'new law' if I'm not mistaken, and Biblically, falls under sexual immorality with the Jerusalem decree, which is probably why most Christians still adhere to it and all.

The NT never condemns polyamory either, so why don't more Christians support polyamory if we're cherry picking by what is or isn't condemned in the NT?

[Abiyoyo]

The NT never condemns polyamory either, so why don't more Christians support polyamory if we're cherry picking by what is or isn't condemned in the NT?

 

Your correct as it doesn't condemn it, but Paul seems to change the path. I believe in America, people probably don't support polygamy because it is illegal.

 

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

[Abiyoyo]

But no where in the NT does it mention just merely sleeping in the same bed as a menstruating woman to be a sin.

 

Should it have been apart of the 'new law'? Why, in your opinion?

[hereticzero]

The OT was invented after the Hebrew returned from Babylon as Jews. There were no Jews until the return from Babylon. The Jews needed a national identity and it was expressed through their new religion. The new religion needed legitimacy because religious laws were imposed upon the returning Jews. Abracadabra, the OT appears and now they have stories why such laws are imposed upon them. Jump forward a few hundred years and hocus pocus, the NT appears to legitimize the Christian religion. Boom, pow, jump forward another several hundred years and now the Koran appears. All these inspired works of god and none of them are believable. All are written after the fact which makes them works of religious fiction. The laws against homosexuality is false. There were no laws handed down from god and Moses never existed.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Your correct as it doesn't condemn it, but Paul seems to change the path. I believe in America, people probably don't support polygamy because it is illegal.

 

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1)Paul did not write 1 Timothy. It was a later forgery that was written long after Paul's death. If you've been here as long as you have, you should know this stuff. 2)This is only being directed to bishops at this church, it says nothing about the members as a whole. 3)1 Timothy also says women are to keep silent and have no authority over men. Should we go back to the dark ages then when women had no rights? 4)If Paul didn't condemn it, then it's not wrong and there's no reason to believe it is for Christians. 5)We're talking about polyamory here, not polygamy. 6)Divorce is legal yet divorce is condemned in the NT and Christians have higher divorce rates than everyone else. Are you saying Christians are cherry picking the rules now based on what's legal and illegal? If so, homosexuality is legal in the U.S, so if homosexuality is legal and you're deciding the rules by what the government says is legal, why don't you believe in homosexuality? You seem to be cherry picking as an excuse to condemn homosexuality for no reason at all while you cherry pick the rest of the bible.