RPS

Why? Most of Christianity doesn't accept that standard, and the way Noah seeks to apply it is accepted by only a relative few fundamentalists (and fundamatheists seeking to score debating points), so why should it apply to this "discussion"?

sunspark

So? Most of Christianity, past and present, doesn't agree on much of anything.

That's your interpretation/opinion. Can you not make an argument on the topic at hand from scripture? If you're correct you should have no trouble doing so.

RPS

The issue isn't agreement, it's standards.

No, it's a brute fact. Catholics and the Orthodox reject it outright and while the Protestant tradition (sola scriptura) accepts the idea of scriptural authority alone being normative, that tradition consistently seeks to compare scripture with scripture for a consistent result. As the Westminster Confession puts it: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." Noah explicitly rejects even this approach. There's no reason to take him seriously.

Yup. I already have in outline, in fact. The Westminster Divines speak to it here.

Nonsense. Noah wants to play by his own rules -- rules the vast majority of Christianty rejects. I have no obligation of accept those erroneous rules and play along.

Nuwanda

Good call on the first one. You're right it was also eaten by the tither and his family during the annual tithe feast. However, it is specifically commanded to bring it to the Levite as well. This is of course impossible for anyone today since we do not know which Jews are Levites.

Your second point is incorrect. The tithe was first commanded of the Israelites while they were in the Sinai. They were not to give the tithe until they reached the promised land (Israel).

This is one example of a law that no modern man can keep. There are a whole host of laws commanded concerning the care of the tabernacle, the ark, the temple, the instruments in the temple, etc that cannot be kept (for obvious reasons - the tabernacle, the ark, and temple no longer exist). One cannot simply say "the law is the law," and avoid analyzing the finer points of it when making arguments with it.

Sheshbazzar

A very good question sunspark, and the evidence is very consistent throughout the New Testament accounts, that the earliest Jewish Believers that the Man from Galilee was The Messiah, continued to live a very Jewish lifestyle, participating in The Temple affairs and observing those things pertaining to The Law, as was considered "walking orderly" (Acts 21:24) in those days.
However, The Jewish Priesthood and The Sanhedrin was offended by the teachings, religious beliefs, and convictions of this "sect of The Nazarene" They soon became so vehement in their objections and hatred of this form of preaching and belief, that they placed an official BAN on the preaching or teaching in this Name;
"Let us strictly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this Name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in The Name of Yahoshua."
(Acts 4:17 see also Deut. 17:8 regarding "commanded") (transliteration of the early Hebrew/Jewish form of the Name supplied)

This BAN, and the disciples continuing disobedience to it were on a collision course; (Acts 5:28-29) (here we have the Apostle Peter himself resisting the authority of The Sanhedrin, so disobeying The Law (Deut. 17:10-13) yet stating "We ought to obey Elohim rather than men" indicating that for Peter there was a WORD to be obeyed that transcended The written Law. (40)"... And when they had called The Apostles and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in The Name of Yahoshua.." (Acts 5:40, see also Deut. 10-11 and 25:2, the rationale of The Sanhedrin for beating them.)

The Apostles and disciples continued to disobey the BAN until there arose the disputation between Stephen and the Legalists of the synagogues, that resulted in him being stoned to death for speaking those things that they did not want to hear. (Acts 6:5-7:60)
Thus we have a full blown controversy, and wholesale disobedience to, and disrespect for The Jewish Priesthood by the sect of The Nazarenes.
And Paul has not even spoken his first word on the matter.

But this dispute was not about other aspects of The Law, such as the observing of The Sabbath Days, or of regulations pertaining to foods, or Temple offerings, or the other more abstract requirements of The Law.
Those who were of Jewish culture continued to engage in most of the traditions and rituals of The Law, other than (eventually) dropping the requirement that Gentile Believers needed to be circumcised and obey the letter of The Law (and the Rabbinical interpretations thereof) regarding foods.

Fast-forwarding; Today we still have Believers whom by persuasion, endeavor to "obey" and to "keep" the requirements of The Law to the very best of their ability, with regards to The Sabbaths, and New Moons, and the abstaining from the Scripturally proscribed meats.
This is the teachings, practice, and custom of my own congregation, where I was baptized (immersed) by the hands of Samuel our Pastor, and John, who had witnessed to and converted me.
And all of these are my brethren in the Messiah Yahoshua, and in the service of YAH-YHWH, whom for His Holy Name's sake, do yet greet me with the right hand of fellowship, and the Holy kiss of brotherhood, though I walk in a liberty of conscience in these matters, which by some is accounted as disobedience to The Law (which it is)
But I love these brethren as they are, and would not have any to sin by violating their conscience with respect of foods, or by omitting of the observance of The Holy Days, for "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin".

So the sentence of my conscience in this matter is, The man that desires to keep The Law, let him "keep" it (foregoing such as stoning and such)
and the man that has confidence in a liberty to not be under The Law, let walk in that liberty.
Something seriously lacking in this "quotation" sunspark, its called "context"
If you had quoted the entire paragraph, rather than your chosen snippet,
it would be evident that following the action and example of Moses, who has first hand Scriptural authority is better than....following vain opinions, that noah happens to be an unbelieving and Scripture twisting atheist is only incidental.

I post to reveal all those matters that such as noah would rather ignore.
Where in all of this thread has been his explanation for why, or for what reason Moses and all of the those millions of Israelites disobeyed the commandment of circumcision? The very sign of the Covenant, which no man could partake in except that he had that sign of a severed foreskin.

I have presented in answer to this threads question "When and where are the OT laws repealed?" evidence from the Scriptures (agreeing with noah on the point) That The Laws never have been "repealed"
But I also presented evidence that there has always been an -exemption- clause inherent, this of course does fall within the province of "preaching", however a discussion that would choose to totally neglect how Moses and his millions of followers acted with respect to obeying ALL of The Law, would be less than complete. (putting it mildly)
My motive is to shine the light of the WORD of truth into that place that the atheists participating in this thread would rather remained in the dark and out of sight.
Doing this whether it be effective or not, is a ethical mitzva to me, it is not necessary for me that you should accept anything I write.

Dark Virtue

That does help, thank you.

Can you tell me where the Holy Days fit into the whole thing?

Also, how do you distinguish between what is a "principle" law and what isn't? If Christ did away with the 10 commandments (and replaced them with two general ones) then A) why don't people actually follow them (number 4 comes to mind) and B) why is there such a stink to post the 10 commandments in public buildings?

And thanks again, I appreciate your answers!

Gamera

[QUOTE=sunspark]To other men, who also fail to keep the law, but worse.

I don't think you are trying to understand but rather are quibbling with my clear meaning. Nobody is called righteous in the OT, except Noah, and that in an ironic sense "rigtheous in his time" a time so bad that God had to destroy the world, a backhanded compliment if there ever was one. The bible often talks about a "righteous man" in the abstract, as a concept of how a righteous person should act, but there are no such actual persons identified. In the whole bible.

Isn't that a clue to you that nobody, I mean nobody, is rigteous in God's eyes, rebutting noah's claim that the Law makes you righteous.

Try again, these don't refer to actual persons, but merely the idea of the righteous man, the fictious concept of a man who keeps the entire law. But there is no such man, and never was one. That's what the bible teaches. And hence the Law cannot save.

You can't have it both ways. Under the NT rigteousness comes by faith, not the law, and the NT conceptualizes the FAITHFUL of the OT as being righteous, which is imputed to them by faith, not by keeping to the law. The NT specifically asserts over and over again that salvation is through faith (with rigtheousness imputed through Jesus sacrifice).

So you're barking up the wrong tree in citing attributions of righteousness to persons, made in the NT. It argues exactly against your claim.

Gamera

To show that we need a savior and cannot comply with God's standards by our own efforts. And thus, we cannot brag when we are saved since it is a gift, not something we earned. Because above all else God hates pride and arrogance.

Steven Carr

Job 1:1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright;

Luke 1:5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.


What does 'blameless' mean?

Or 'upright'? (yashar in Hebrew, dikaios in Greek)

Zechariah and Elizabeth obeyed 'blamelessly' all the commandments that they knew about.

Were they to be blamed for not obeying commandments they did not know about?

Gamera

Let's quote it here to rebut noah and the rest. They tend to ignore the actual verses of the NT that don't suit them.


For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. 10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.