Steven Carr

It is surprising how many churches insist that the law is not binding upon Christians, right after they have collected the tithes :-)

Evangelion

No, because the Law was not fulfilled until Jesus' passion. I mean that the Law and the prophets were the sole teachers until John, who began to proclaim the kingdom of God.

In the words of Paul:

Evangelion

I've never heard of any church doing this. Do you have proof?

Thought not.

In any case, my church doesn't tithe anyway, so... whatever.

Evangelion

Ooops, Mr Carr hasn't read his New Testament.

Evangelion

It means to bring to fruition everything that the Law had represented and pointed forward to.

Again, from Paul:

doubtingthomas

By saying "The OT law was fulfilled with Jesus," do you mean that all of the OT laws no longer apply to Christians? If so, then what are the laws that Christians are supposed to follow now? Finally, is it not moral relativism if things such as the laws concerning diet, the sabbath, and punishments are no longer applicable today, but were at that time?

Evangelion

Yes - all except the moral laws, which were not unique to the Law of Moses anyway (they already existed in other, non-Jewish nations and tribes) and were intended to continue as a constant standard; not as leftovers from the Law of Moses, but perpetual injunctions from YHVH.

The moral laws of God, since these existed even before the Law of Moses, were necessarily included within it and continued to be binding even after the Law's purpose had ended.

Nope. Because the non-moral laws were given for the purpose of (a) keeping the Jews separate from the Gentiles, (b) guiging and maintaining a nation (which the Christians, as a mixed community without any allegiance to earthly kingdoms, did not have) and (c) prefiguring the work of Christ (which was fulfilled at his passion.)

You can't ask people without a nation or govenment of their own, to enforce civil laws, because they have no way of enforcing them. You can't ask non-Jews to uphold laws which were specifically designed to identify their followers as Jews, because they're not. You can't ask people without a priesthood or temple to uphold laws which govern the management of the priesthood and temple, because they have neither.

It's not a question of moral relativism, because morality doesn't even come into it. It's a question of sociological context. The relationship of the New Testament Christian to his world, was not the same as the relationship of the Old Testament Jew to his world.

Different circumstances call for different regimes.

BTW, I can't see how the Sabbath injunction can be contstrued as a moral law. It was a purely ceremonial law with ritual, religious significance.

Punishment for breaking the law was enforced not on moral grounds, but on the basis that this was a day dedicated to the worship of YHVH.

Steven Carr

The 10 Commandments are not moral laws??

Christians pick and mix what laws they want to keep. Then they declare that these laws are 'moral' ones, while others (such as not wearing mixed fibres) were ceremonial, ritual laws.

After all, why not? They would be arrested if they attempted to put God's laws into effect in America.

So what choice do they have except to pick and choose that from the Bible which is acceptable to modern cultures.

But one wonders how a law like ' When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.' could be classed as a ceremonial, ritual law.

Or how could this be a ritual law 'If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.'

Jesus would, of course, have upheld such a law during his life and 'fulfilled' it.

Steven Carr

Yes, but that commandment only applied until Jesus died. After that, it was no longer binding on Christians. It had been 'fulfilled'.

doubtingthomas

How do you differentiate between moral laws and other laws?
Under condition A, it is morally unacceptable to do X
Under condition B, it is morally acceptable to do X

Is the above not an example of moral relativism?If it is, then how is this any different from God telling the Jews in the OT that it is wrong to eat certain foods, and then turning around in the NT and says its ok for Christians to eat them?