simon kole

I agree, I was not clear enough at the beginning of this subject. I should have pointed out all three at that time.

About 90% of the chapters in Leviticus regard forgiveness and righteousness (ceremonial).
The remaining 10% deal with morals and government (civil).

There are no symbolic laws in the Decalogue (Ten Commandments).

The OT texts call them commandments, statutes and ordinances. The OT refers to them in a phrase as commandments, statutues and ordinances. You are the one winging it.The NT texts authorize the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant.

schriverja

Is the 'honor the Sabbath' moral, civil, or ceremonial?

According to Exodus 12:14, 17, 24, 13:10, Levi 6:22, 19:37, 20:22, 26:15 and many more the ordinances are stated as permanent, everlasting, forever, etc.

The language regarding statutes is similar...

How do you differentiate them? Are ordinances the optional ones? How about statutes?

How am I winging it? I've been pretty consistent in the view that the OT states the Law as a permanent condition, and that the NT, outside of Paul and Hebrews is consistent with this view.

One author, as well as a disciple of that author (the Hebrews author) endorse the transition. In my view, they disagree with the other NT writers, including the words of Jesus, which I have pointed out. They (Paul, Hebrews) also contradict many, many passages of the OT, as I and others have pointed out.

Hence my conclusion that the text is not unified on this issue.

Davka

I like how Christians will insist that the decalogue is the only part of the Law which applies to them, yet they refuse to honor the Sabbath day.

And oddly enough, the directions as to how to honor the Sabbath day are part of the Levitical Law which Christians insist no longer applies. :constern01:

Sheshbazzar

The only such transition 'authorised' in the NT is through one's death and burial.
Except a person dies, and is buried, the 'New Covenant' ('Testament') is not in effect.
THE LAW, its condemnations and its effects remain fully in force against all 'children of disobedience' for as long as any person lives in the flesh.
"....ready to pass away" does not mean '....has passed away'.
The 'transition' is an internal one, a transforming of the individual through belief and obedience to the Spirit.
Thus no one who has not so believed and been converted, has any access to the 'New' Covenant, but remains in the condemnations of the old, that is to say the letter of THE LAW, whereby ALL are concluded guilty and remain under the penalties of sin and a consequent death.

Atheists, simon, by very definition, -cannot- cross that barrier, because they have not believed the glad tidings. Much less obeyed that which they have not believed.

simon kole

And that's what Jesus did, in whose blood the New Covenant is made.

simon kole

Well, actually the NT says that love of God and love of neighbor will, by definition, fulfill the Decalogue.
So Christians are not specifically under it.

Davka

So you're changing your story?

First Christians were under the decalogue, now they're not?

BTW - When NT Jesus refers to The Law, it is understood that he meant the entire Mosaic Law, not just the decalogue.

Sheshbazzar

And this simon, is what you are failing to understand about the New Testament.
It is not His death that is again required. It ought to be obvious that when I wrote "Except a person dies and is buried, the New Covenant is not in effect...." that it is the believer(s) that are required to die and to be buried in an emulation of His death and burial, to ever become partakers in that New Testament.
Which was also further explained and clarified by the following statement and the full context;
"The 'transition' is an internal one, a transforming of the individual through belief and obedience to the Spirit.
Thus no one who has not so believed and been converted, has any access to the 'New' Covenant, but remains in the condemnations of the old, that is to say the letter of THE LAW, whereby ALL are concluded guilty and remain under the penalties of sin and a consequent death.

Atheists, simon, by very definition, -cannot- cross that barrier, because they have not believed the glad tidings. Much less obeyed that which they have not believed."

(-Believers do not cross over either. ......unless they DO what it is that is -required- of them.)

There is no way for you to validly be construing what I have above written as being something that He did, or was ever able accomplish for you, on your behalf. It -requires- and it -demands- YOUR active belief and personal participation.
You do not come under any of the promised protections or benefits of this New Testament unless YOU likewise believe, die, and are buried with Him. This part He could not do for you, or for anyone else.
The onus is upon the believer to take the action of also laying down their own life that they might likewise be raised up from the dead.

Unto whose baptisim were you baptised simon?
What was the occasion of your baptisim simon?
What was the name of he who baptised you simon?
Into what Name were you baptised into simon?
Can recall the date of your death simon?
And the name(s) of the witnesses present that laid holy hands upon you simon?
Did you recieve ha'rucha ha'Qodesh since you believed simon?
Have you recieved your new name, simon?
And whose feet amongst The Brethern have you washed upon The Layla Shemorim, simon?



Babbling on the Internet accomplishes none of these things simon.






.

schriverja

Where? That sounds like more writing in between the lines of God's word. I find it fascinating when people so vehemently defend a text as God's word, then add their own meaning between the lines left and right.

Jesus disagrees with you:

Perspicuo

His plan is being a trickster?

Because the moment he uses human language, he abides by its rules. If I say, "If you give me $5000 I will give you a house", you think 'What a deal!', give me $5000 and ask 'Where's my house?', and I give you a pencil... then I have tricked you. I can say all along "I had a plan", I still knew what "If you give me $5000 I will give you a house" would mean to you and motivate you to do. I therefore would be a prankster.

------

1) Those rules are not priestly rules, they are rules for the people, they are rules they must comply, priest or no priest.

2) I understand the Christian explanation for not obeying YHWH's law, but that is a Christian thing, it is not Jewish, what you say is not found in Leviticus.

3) If it is not in Leviticus but instead meant to be there, YHWH is a bad legislator compared to humans, he can't write or dictate his will clearly. Things had to wait for Christian theologians to come up with stuff Jewish rabbis had no idea of. Plain and simple, what you say, was not there, it's a mere excuse so Christians will not be bothered by God's law spelled out in OT.

Also...

... means you accept what the Original Post of the thread claimed all along, and you depreciate it as unimportant because there was, supposedly, a plan. It would be a con plan, because God (as you admit) does not care about setting things straight but provoking an action and then excusing himself with "I had a plan behind scenes all along", which is not a valid excuse but an admission of intentional misleading with an ulterior motive.