revolutionist90 Posted April 6, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 460 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/26/1990 Author Share Posted April 6, 2013 The First Testament Of Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ "'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 18:22 (NIV) The Second Testament Of Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 1 Timothy 1:8-10 (NIV) The Timothy quote is really useful and it makes sense. If no one was murdering others then there would be no law but since there are then there must be a law. The problem is when the law is used improperly and to oppress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolutionist90 Posted April 6, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 460 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/26/1990 Author Share Posted April 6, 2013 Jesus did not sin. He did not violate any previous covenant. How does one accept the New Covenant? Accept Jesus and what He did for us. The New Covenant is only for those who have accepted Jesus, as it promises the forgiveness of sin, the Holy Spirit, adoption as Sons, being made a new creation, the law written on our hearts, and eternal salvation. It is available to all people but not all people have accepted this better covenant. Those who have not accepted Jesus do not benefit from the New Covenant. I understand your take on the importance of the new and old covenants. And it fleshes out the criteria for the New Covenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolutionist90 Posted April 6, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 460 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/26/1990 Author Share Posted April 6, 2013 I am noticing that every time a anti-gay marriage person says"I do not support marriage because it is biblically wrong", a pro-gay activists will say "oh well don't you eat shellfish and I see you are dressing in different color fabrics". I am noticing that bringing up old testament scriptures is a big thing with pro-gay activists and often times I am equally noticing that many Christians do not know how to respond (at least from what I see on television) so I'm trying to see if I got this right. The laws such as not mixing fabrics and not eating shellfish were 1) for Israel during its very infant stages and 2) though they seem bizarre to us they were probably in place to help with normal explaining to the Israelite the normal chores and activities like mixing two fabrics to make one garment (I don't think people realize that it was two fabrics into one garment not actually wearing two fabrics) could have been for purity but also because many fabrics shrink with normal washing since not all fabrics have the same washing properties (like wool vs. cotton). Shellfish normally eat the feces and gunk from the bottom of the river or ocean thus there would be a problem with purity (since they would be hard to clean) and also a problem with simply cooking them correctly (we don't know how they cooked back in the day). Eating swine can actually make you sick in the summer time (I personally have experienced this) and it is another purity issue. So all of these laws that God stated seem to be both for safety and practicality. Also didn't Jesus say that his death and his law meant that we are not suppose to be under the old law in the old testament? So with that these laws that were specifically for Israel (should still be heeded because like I said before pork is bad during the summer lol) they will not have a punishment of death for us or any other culture. Do I have that correct? I really believe Christians should have a solid argument against the pro-activists challenged with claiming the old testament laws so that there can be a better understanding of the bible since (as we see today) plenty of people do not actually read it. Homosexual sin is forbidden in the New Testament in multiple contexts. Here’s a good explanation of the NT passages regarding homosexuality. Matthew 19:1-8 — Did Jesus say anything about homosexuality? Of course, when asked about marriage, Jesus issued a sweeping condemnation of all sexual relationships outside of the male/female model established in Gen 1:27, which he specifically cited. Romans 1:18-32 —Though most of the passages deal with the male perspective, for the first time there is a specific mention of female homosexuality. And as the verdict comes in, we discover it too is a depraved condition brought on by a sinful nature. 1Cor 6:9-11—The only passage of scripture that clearly acknowledges former (ex) homosexuals in the church. They are listed along with other ex-sinners who have been changed by the power of Christ. It is certain that Pastor Paul knew there were former homosexuals in his local church and he celebrated their freedom in Christ Jesus. With a completely different tone in comparison to the volume of harsh, negative reaction to the unrepentant homosexuality, scripture here ends with the tremendous hope and goodness of God. Galatians 5:19 — Many areas that the apostle traveled to take the gospel indeed were very accepting of homosexual practices, yet he did not back away from communicating the sinfulness of such practice. Corinth, Ephesus and Rome as well as other major cities of the ancient world, were all too often cesspools of all forms of sexual immorality. Undeterred, Paul drew from sources familiar to him and forged them with New testament teachings of God’s grace to forgive and cleanse. In the letter to the Galatians, he teaches that the “works [not plurality] of the flesh are manifest. The flesh or sinful human nature is always considered and enemy to God. Ephesians 5:3-7— Paul repeats his warnings against “uncleaness” to the church at Ephesus. Colossians 3:5-7 — Paul issues his third warning against “uncleanness” to the church at Colossae. This time he adds instructions on overcoming/controlling the sin. Believers are to mortify or deaden themselves and exercise self control (a fruit of the Spirit) over such actions. Homosexuals claim that denying the free expression of homosexuality is "suppressing one's true self", but scripture clearly instructs that we are hold our bodies in check and refuse it participation in sexual immorality. This passage further emphasizes that no one should expect to escape the “wrath of God” except they repent. 1 Tim 1:10— the law was not made for the righteous, but for the “lawless and disobedient.” The law (of Moses) encompassed the ceremonial, judicial and moral components of human interaction. Christ neutralized the ceremonial aspects but upheld the judicial and moral aspects, tendered with grace and mercy. Hence, homosexuality remains a sin "worthy of death" but yet qualified for forgiveness through repentance. The phrase Paul uses “defiling themselves with mankind” is another link of homosexual behavior to disobedience and incompatible to sound or acceptable Christian doctrine. Titus 1:16 — This is an aggressive attack and exposure of the psychosis of those who are “defiled” and commit “abominations". Again, let us identify the source of the Apostle Paul’s strong condemnation. When one accepts what God has pronounced abominable (by God’s own definition) and rejects the created model which God has pronounced good, a process of hardening and mental perversion begins to take root in the mind. Such is the danger of justifying sin. Sin corrupts the mind and conscience (the seat of individual integrity and morality) rendering it incapable of making spiritually sound decisions. Jude 1:4,7,19— Jude forcefully revealed that like the Sodomites, certain men in the church had gone after “strange flesh.” I believed Jude was describing contemporary "gay Christians". His choice of phraseology is a combination of two words: heteros and sarx meaning “another flesh with the same quality.” His inclusion of the word flesh pointed to the homosexuality (not the inhospitality) of the Sodomites. Similar to the Apostle Paul, Jude selected strong language to convey the serious of the charge facing the church. Allowing unrepentant homosexuals into Christian fellowship without applying the same standards of admission applied to other sinners would be a spiritual death nell for the church. Repentance is the major action a sinner must take to be accepted into the family of God. Rev 21:27—The final book of the Bible, finalizing a complete picture stunning denouncements of all forms of homosexual conduct. From Genesis to Revelation, the Word of God firmly establishes once and for all the sinfulness of homosexuality, but also provides a wide opportunity for repentance and redemption through Jesus Christ. Homosexuality, as seen through the eyes of scripture is a spiritual aberration, a result of the fallen nature of man, a disease of the soul. It produces nothing life giving, in essence opposite of the nature of God who is life. Therefore it “worked” or produces abomination which is death. See: http://www.witnessfo...org/homont.html Thoughts on these passages? God bless, GE My thoughts on these passages is that the NT version is pretty straight forward and that those who chose to ignore these passages are aiming to look for an upper hand in an argument rather than actually reading the bible. I am noticing that every time a anti-gay marriage person says"I do not support marriage because it is biblically wrong", a pro-gay activists will say "oh well don't you eat shellfish and I see you are dressing in different color fabrics". I am noticing that bringing up old testament scriptures is a big thing with pro-gay activists and often times I am equally noticing that many Christians do not know how to respond (at least from what I see on television) so I'm trying to see if I got this right. <snip> I really believe Christians should have a solid argument against the pro-activists challenged with claiming the old testament laws so that there can be a better understanding of the bible since (as we see today) plenty of people do not actually read it. Regarding shelf-fish and dietary laws… Please look at this passage in Mark 7 and what Jesus said to His disciples regarding food with particular emphasis on verse 18. Mark 7:17-23 17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” So food is no longer unclean. The exception to this is in not offending a fellow Believers conscience regarding food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 10 (I’ll address this in a separate post) and not to offend Christian converts from Judaism in Romans 14. Yet Paul claimed that he was free to eat anything and so are other Christians. Paul warns of trying to re-instate Jewish dietary laws… Particular emphasis on verse 3. 1 Tim. 4:1-5 4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Dietary laws are a return to legalistic ways of the law. Food, drink, festivals, or even Sabbaths are not mandatory any longer for the Christian. Pay particular attention to verse 14. Phil 2:11-19 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[c] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Thoughts on these passages? God bless, GE So basically this is stating that the new Christians of today are allowed to wear different fabrics and eat whatever they want? I wonder why these passages are ignored by Christians and non-christians alike because I have heard the shellfish thing soooo many times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted April 6, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted April 6, 2013 A. My thoughts on these passages is that the NT version is pretty straight forward and that those who chose to ignore these passages are aiming to look for an upper hand in an argument rather than actually reading the bible. B. So basically this is stating that the new Christians of today are allowed to wear different fabrics and eat whatever they want? I wonder why these passages are ignored by Christians and non-christians alike because I have heard the shellfish thing soooo many times... A. Please clarify what do you mean by straight forward? B. Yes, the shellfish argument is quite ineffective. The different fabrics argument is in the same category as well. Those are weak arguments by people who don't know God's Word in my opinion. Now, this doesn't mean that this is a free license to eat whatever you want and be obese. Remember we who Believe are the new temples of God - the Holy Spirit lives in us. The issue of homosexuality is significant because it affects all areas of life. Comparing the issue of homosexuality to dietary laws is like comparing a F22 fighter plane to a toy remote plane IMO. God bless, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolutionist90 Posted April 7, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 460 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/26/1990 Author Share Posted April 7, 2013 A. My thoughts on these passages is that the NT version is pretty straight forward and that those who chose to ignore these passages are aiming to look for an upper hand in an argument rather than actually reading the bible. B. So basically this is stating that the new Christians of today are allowed to wear different fabrics and eat whatever they want? I wonder why these passages are ignored by Christians and non-christians alike because I have heard the shellfish thing soooo many times... A. Please clarify what do you mean by straight forward? B. Yes, the shellfish argument is quite ineffective. The different fabrics argument is in the same category as well. Those are weak arguments by people who don't know God's Word in my opinion. Now, this doesn't mean that this is a free license to eat whatever you want and be obese. Remember we who Believe are the new temples of God - the Holy Spirit lives in us. The issue of homosexuality is significant because it affects all areas of life. Comparing the issue of homosexuality to dietary laws is like comparing a F22 fighter plane to a toy remote plane IMO. God bless, GE Straight forward as in I believe it is a simple passage to understand concerning the passages you have provided about food and clothing along with the passages about homosexuality. They are clear for me to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted April 10, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.80 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted April 10, 2013 A. My thoughts on these passages is that the NT version is pretty straight forward and that those who chose to ignore these passages are aiming to look for an upper hand in an argument rather than actually reading the bible. B. So basically this is stating that the new Christians of today are allowed to wear different fabrics and eat whatever they want? I wonder why these passages are ignored by Christians and non-christians alike because I have heard the shellfish thing soooo many times... A. Please clarify what do you mean by straight forward? B. Yes, the shellfish argument is quite ineffective. The different fabrics argument is in the same category as well. Those are weak arguments by people who don't know God's Word in my opinion. Now, this doesn't mean that this is a free license to eat whatever you want and be obese. Remember we who Believe are the new temples of God - the Holy Spirit lives in us. The issue of homosexuality is significant because it affects all areas of life. Comparing the issue of homosexuality to dietary laws is like comparing a F22 fighter plane to a toy remote plane IMO. God bless, GE Straight forward as in I believe it is a simple passage to understand concerning the passages you have provided about food and clothing along with the passages about homosexuality. They are clear for me to understand. Excellent! This was my intent. God bless you! In Christ, GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted April 11, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Wasn't the question how to explain the difference between the MORAL law and the ceremonial law? Ceremonial laws set Israel apart from the Gentile nations around them; the moral law was for all men before Christ came. Now the moral law is for sinners; Believers know what is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolutionist90 Posted April 12, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 460 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/26/1990 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 Wasn't the question how to explain the difference between the MORAL law and the ceremonial law? Ceremonial laws set Israel apart from the Gentile nations around them; the moral law was for all men before Christ came. Now the moral law is for sinners; Believers know what is right. Please explain more about the Ceremonial laws and moral laws. I also have heard/read that the laws for the Israelite were suppose to be different and they were named differently and the laws for the Gentiles. What is a believer if they choose to do things contrary to the bible but still state they are a believer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Believer Posted April 12, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,931 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 126 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/22/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/13/1955 Share Posted April 12, 2013 You're referring to what are called Noachide laws. Rules of life given by God in Genesis 9 to Noah after the Flood. In these laws is contained the very first death penalty and permission to eat meat. Nothing much else is written concerning conduct. It isn't until the establishment of Israel as a nation and the ascent to Mt Sinai that the Ten Commandments are given. Then the Mosaic Law springs FROM the Commandments. A ceremonial law is one that portrayed Christ to the Israeli nation, or made them stand out as different amongst the other nations. The one you mentioned for example, the mixing of material in clothing, means not to mix into other godless cultures. No eating pork or shellfish were dietary laws, and pretty common-sense, since living in a desert there was no way proper way to refrigerate/process these items and therefore they were a harbor for trichinosis and other food-borne diseases. Moral laws governed conduct. Don't murder, Honor God, Honor your parents, and so forth. They were for Israel and any stranger who came amongst them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts