Different denominations working together for community service...

[junobet]

1 hour ago, Gargamel Bojangles said:

I'm pretty sure the New Testament says one husband to one wife

 

Well, actually it says just one wife for deacons, but doesn’t tell us about others. But yes, by the time the NT was written, cultural habits had changed and people did usually just have one wife. Quite opposite to Solomon, who had hundreds of wives + concubines on top. Todays Christians fool themselves if they think the “family values” they deem sacred are actually biblical rather than just a product of social convention.

Mind you, I’m all for family values myself, but if you want to argue for them biblically, you’ll have to get rather abstract, and you’ll have to ignore all bits in the Bible that are obviously against them.

There’s a rather interesting Open Course Yale lecture on the topic, that you can find on youtube. In the section of New Testament studies, titled Paul and Thekla  or something.

Edited February 16, 2016 by junobet

[junobet]

1 hour ago, ayin jade said:

By personal comfort choice, not because of the old testament law, I wear only cotton. It isnt always easy but its not that hard either to find clothes that are 100% cotton.

Seeing you wear 100% cotton for comfort rather than for OT-law, this won’t affect you: but I’ve dyed clothes that said 100% cotton on the label, and then found to my dismay that the thread used for stitching was actually made of polyester, meaning that it did not take the colour.

[Guest Butero]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

The meaning of not mixing wool with linen pertained in deeper context of this is not to be mixing two different things and keeping distinctive was for GOD's people to retain their separateness & distinctiveness.

Leviticus 19:19 "Not to mix different kinds of  seed....
do not mate different kinds of animals.
Deuteronomy 22:10 "do not yoke an Ox and donkey to plow..."

2Cor 6:14 "do not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers...what fellowship does righteousness have with unrighteousness, or what communion hath light with darkness, 15 or what harmony has Christ with Belial or what in common has a believer with a nonbeliever"

That is 100 percent correct. 

[junobet]

2 hours ago, Butero said:

A little more complicated, but I will try to explain this as briefly as I can.  There are basically three types of laws in the OT.  There are the laws pertaining to the Levitical Priesthood which were fulfilled at the cross and no longer apply.  There were laws pertaining to Israel's separation from the unclean gentile nations, and that would include things like circumcision, and yes, not wearing clothing made out of diverse kinds of material.  Dietary laws also fit into that category.  They don't apply because the gentiles found acceptance through faith in Christ, and that which Christ cleansed is no longer unclean.  Only moral laws still apply.  Deuteronomy 22:5 is re-affirmed in 1 Corinthians 6:9 under a man being effeminate, as the definition includes a man that wears soft or feminine clothing.  I could go into this in greater details, but this is the short version. 

Pray do go into more detail. Because I wonder which criteria you use to distinguish between these three types of law.

Personally I’m not surprised that scriptures that were written in an ancient patriarchal society are drenched in the then societies social codes. Where it gets interesting to me – because that’s when inspiration seems to be at open play – is when these codes are suddenly broken with and entirely new thoughts get formulated. For example when Paul, in many ways a true child of his time, says:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)

As for 1 Cor. 6:9: to see what Paul really means here you'd have to learn about the then hellenistic culture, in particular the power-structures and cults that were connected with being effeminate and with men on men sexual activity. What went on in the Roman empire back then certainly has little in common with Boy George wearing glittery clothes in the 20th century.

[Guest Butero]

2 hours ago, Gargamel Bojangles said:

I'm pretty sure the New Testament says one husband to one wife

You would be wrong.  It never says that a man can only have one wife.  By the time the New Testament was written, most had moved away from polygamy on their own, but not all.  Deacons and Bishops must be the husband of but one wife.  I can even show you where the practice of polygamy will be brought back during the millennial reign because there will be so few men as a result of war.  Seven women will cling to one man.  The scriptures you are referring to are dealing with divorce and re-marriage, not polygamy. 

[Guest Butero]

1 hour ago, Vendtre said:

I think the link between Deut 22:5 and I Cor 6:9 is a far stretch to say the least

It is absolutely a link.  All one has to do is look up the word effeminate in a Greek Dictionary.  Many in the modern church like to say the meaning is only homosexuality, but they are clearly wrong.  It is a man behaving and in some cases dressing like a woman.  Dr. Joseph Chambers, the Pastor of a Pentecostal Church in Charlotte N.C. has a booklet that makes the same connection where he is coming against women wearing pants. 

[Gargamel Bojangles]

11 minutes ago, Butero said:

You would be wrong.  It never says that a man can only have one wife.  By the time the New Testament was written, most had moved away from polygamy on their own, but not all.  Deacons and Bishops must be the husband of but one wife.  I can even show you where the practice of polygamy will be brought back during the millennial reign because there will be so few men as a result of war.  Seven women will cling to one man.  The scriptures you are referring to are dealing with divorce and re-marriage, not polygamy. 

That scripture was not talking about polygamy ..it was talking how about there would be so few men left that women will be fighting over them

[Guest Butero]

9 minutes ago, junobet said:

 

Pray do go into more detail. Because I wonder which criteria you use to distinguish between these three types of law.

Personally I’m not surprised that scriptures that were written in an ancient patriarchal society are drenched in the then societies social codes. Where it gets interesting to me – because that’s when inspiration seems to be at open play – is when these codes are suddenly broken with and entirely new thoughts get formulated. For example when Paul, in many ways a true child of his time, says:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)

As for 1 Cor. 6:9: to see what Paul really means here you'd have to learn about the then hellenistic culture, in particular the power-structures and cults that were connected with being effeminate and with men on men sexual activity. What went on in the Roman empire back then certainly has little in common with Boy George wearing glittery clothes in the 20th century.

I do have a little time right now.  It is really not that difficult.  Jesus said that he didn't come to do away with the law but to fulfil the law.  The law in it's entirety is still in tact.  It is just that some portions of the law do not apply because they were never meant to continue.  Lets suppose that Congress writes a bill and in this bill there are gradual changes being made to the current law.  There are bridges in that law to take you to the finished product.  They are steps towards full implementation.  They are not intended to remain forever.  That is how the law of Moses is.

The only nation on the face of the earth that worshipped the true and living God was Israel.  God gave the law to that single nation.  There were three distinct types of laws.  The first thing God gave them was part of the moral laws known as the 10 Commandments, and the rest of the law was given to Moses later on.  Moral laws are based on God's standard of holiness, and they never cease to be relevant.  As I say that, I do want to point out that in an ideal situation, we shouldn't have to have his moral laws on tables of stone to follow them.  They should be on fleshly tables of our heart as we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us, but for those who do not allow this to happen, the laws remain on tables of stone for all to see and act as a schoolmaster. 

This is not a separate type of law, but it has to do with enforcement of the moral laws.  Israel was bound by the law of Moses.  It would be similar to our Constitution, and it was the supreme law of the land.  To enforce laws, you must have penalties, and some were rather harsh.  You had death penalties for a number of crimes like witchcraft, cursing Father and Mother, homosexual acts or lying down with an animal.  Adultery also carried a death penalty, plus there were lesser crimes with lesser punishments.  While God has not changed, and his moral laws remain as is, the penalties were for Israel at the time.  Any nation can certainly adopt them, but they aren't required to.

In the law of Moses were laws showing Israel to be a separated people from the gentile nations around them that worshipped idols.  This included dietary laws.  The reason I mention this first is because of Peter's vision in Acts where the meaning is made plain.  In many cases, where Paul was dealing with people wanting to go back up under the law, he was dealing with laws of separation like circumcision.  If you will notice, Paul makes it clear that we are not to sin so grace will abound, and he makes it clear that people who engage in works of the flesh rather than walking in the Spirit shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, showing that under grace, we are not free to do anything we please and continue in sin.  Still, laws of separation do not apply because they were never intended for the gentiles.  We were after all the ones on the outside the Jewish people were separated from, but now we are made clean by the blood of Jesus when we put our faith in him, so what was unclean has been made clean.

Next comes the bridge I was speaking of called the laws dealing with the office of the Levitical Priesthood.  They were never intended to continue forever, but only till Christ, the perfect sacrifice would come and die on a cross once and for all for the sins of the world.  No longer would animals be sacrificed to cover our sins, but when we trust in Christ, he washes away our sins.  If we commit new sins, rather than going to an earthly priest and sacrificing an animal, we confess our sins to God, and the blood of his Son cleanses us from those sins.  The law was not done away with.  It isn't like it was repealed, even in part.  It was fulfilled by Jesus Christ.  The moral laws still matter.  If they didn't, then we would have no need to worry about having a séance or even entering into a marriage with our brother or sister as those laws were only mentioned in the Old Testament.  Still, they are clearly moral laws, and most recognize them as valid today.  Even my harshest critics in this thread have come against necromancy, which is a practice forbidden in the OT law of Moses. 

[Guest Butero]

11 minutes ago, Gargamel Bojangles said:

That scripture was not talking about polygamy ..it was talking how about there would be so few men left that women will be fighting over them

That is not true, as they were wanting the men to marry them to take away their reproach.  They didn't want to remain single.  It is clearly talking about polygamy.  Of course, there is this issue of what sin is.  Sin according to the Bible is the transgression of the law.  Polygamy is not in violation of God's law.  Now, you may say it is adultery, but commons sense would say you are wrong.  The same law of Moses contained the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and regulated polygamy.  That proves it was not considered adultery by God, and there is no place in the New Testament where that was changed.  I use the same logic to show that "Thou shalt not kill," does not apply to the death penalty, as God gave the death penalty in the same law where that commandment is located.  It also cannot mean military service as God ordered the children of Israel to kill in battle.  As to slavery, the Old Testament regulates it, and the New Testament admonishes slaves to obey their masters.  There is even a story of Paul sending a slave back to his master but pleading to the man to be good to him because he had become a Christian and helped Paul in his ministry.  Paul offers to repay the man for any financial hardships. 

[junobet]

22 minutes ago, Butero said:

I do have a little time right now.  It is really not that difficult.  Jesus said that he didn't come to do away with the law but to fulfil the law.  The law in it's entirety is still in tact.  It is just that some portions of the law do not apply because they were never meant to continue.  Lets suppose that Congress writes a bill and in this bill there are gradual changes being made to the current law.  There are bridges in that law to take you to the finished product.  They are steps towards full implementation.  They are not intended to remain forever.  That is how the law of Moses is.

The only nation on the face of the earth that worshipped the true and living God was Israel.  God gave the law to that single nation.  There were three distinct types of laws.  The first thing God gave them was part of the moral laws known as the 10 Commandments, and the rest of the law was given to Moses later on.  Moral laws are based on God's standard of holiness, and they never cease to be relevant.  As I say that, I do want to point out that in an ideal situation, we shouldn't have to have his moral laws on tables of stone to follow them.  They should be on fleshly tables of our heart as we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us, but for those who do not allow this to happen, the laws remain on tables of stone for all to see and act as a schoolmaster. 

This is not a separate type of law, but it has to do with enforcement of the moral laws.  Israel was bound by the law of Moses.  It would be similar to our Constitution, and it was the supreme law of the land.  To enforce laws, you must have penalties, and some were rather harsh.  You had death penalties for a number of crimes like witchcraft, cursing Father and Mother, homosexual acts or lying down with an animal.  Adultery also carried a death penalty, plus there were lesser crimes with lesser punishments.  While God has not changed, and his moral laws remain as is, the penalties were for Israel at the time.  Any nation can certainly adopt them, but they aren't required to.

In the law of Moses were laws showing Israel to be a separated people from the gentile nations around them that worshipped idols.  This included dietary laws.  The reason I mention this first is because of Peter's vision in Acts where the meaning is made plain.  In many cases, where Paul was dealing with people wanting to go back up under the law, he was dealing with laws of separation like circumcision.  If you will notice, Paul makes it clear that we are not to sin so grace will abound, and he makes it clear that people who engage in works of the flesh rather than walking in the Spirit shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, showing that under grace, we are not free to do anything we please and continue in sin.  Still, laws of separation do not apply because they were never intended for the gentiles.  We were after all the ones on the outside the Jewish people were separated from, but now we are made clean by the blood of Jesus when we put our faith in him, so what was unclean has been made clean.

Next comes the bridge I was speaking of called the laws dealing with the office of the Levitical Priesthood.  They were never intended to continue forever, but only till Christ, the perfect sacrifice would come and die on a cross once and for all for the sins of the world.  No longer would animals be sacrificed to cover our sins, but when we trust in Christ, he washes away our sins.  If we commit new sins, rather than going to an earthly priest and sacrificing an animal, we confess our sins to God, and the blood of his Son cleanses us from those sins.  The law was not done away with.  It isn't like it was repealed, even in part.  It was fulfilled by Jesus Christ.  The moral laws still matter.  If they didn't, then we would have no need to worry about having a séance or even entering into a marriage with our brother or sister as those laws were only mentioned in the Old Testament.  Still, they are clearly moral laws, and most recognize them as valid today.  Even my harshest critics in this thread have come against necromancy, which is a practice forbidden in the OT law of Moses. 

I may be misunderstanding you here: did you really just say you’d be fine with nations adopting “death penalties for a number of crimes like witchcraft, cursing Father and Mother, homosexual acts or lying down with an animal.” And adultery? Ugandan and Saudi Arabian politics are fine with you?

However, you did not quite answer my question: how do you discern which law in Deuteronomy falls under which of your categories?

And how come Jesus put some laws over others before He died for us on the cross?

Personally I have a rather simple (well not always simple) criterion for my moral decisions:

 

 

“³⁴ But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

³⁵ Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

³⁶ Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

³⁷ Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

³⁸ This is the first and great commandment.

³⁹ And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

⁴⁰ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

(Mt.22:34)

 

Love,

junobet