Who did decide.....

Just which parts of the Old Testament should continue to be followed and which became obsolete upon Christ's ressurction?

Everyone agrees that the Ten Commandments should be followed, but the dietary law should not. Were they not all part of the same Law?

Historical and scriptural references accepted.

Of the ten commandments, we find nine of them reiterated in one form or another in the NT. That is not the case with the Sabbath. We are to gather on the Lord's day (Acts 20:7), and we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb 10:24-25), but there is no Christian Sabbath taught in the NT.

Jesus told Peter in a vision in Acts 10 that all foods, and by implication, all people, were clean. Dietary laws were no longer to be followed. See also 1 Cor 9 and Rom 14.

The OT Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality and other sexual perversions are repeated in the New Testament (Rom 1, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, etc.).

The first council of the church (Acts 15), and the entire book of Galatians, teach that the ceremonial laws are no longer in effect.


In general, it seems that the prescriptions and proscriptions from the OT that are repeated in the NT are still in effect. And, certainly, the parts of the OT which teach history still teach history; wisdom literature is still wise, the Psalms are often quoted in the NT, and the prophets are the prophets, and they have much to say about the second coming of Christ.

In his teaching on the New Covenant and priesthood in Hebrews, the writer of that book makes it plain that the OT ceremonies were shadows of what is now here and is permanent. They have been superceded (Heb 8-10), and are no longer in effect.

Well, someone more intelligent than myself can answer this, but I tend to think of "civil" law and "moral" law.

The civil law were things pertaining just to the nation of Israel. Like burning your clothes if they got mildew on them or distinguishing clean/unclean foods or being ceremonially "unclean" because of skin diseases, menstral cycles, and other bodily fluids leaving the body at improper times.....

In my opinion, the Christian today, is not under the civil law of the Old Testament.

The moral law of the Old Testament, however, does apply to the Christian today or at least the "spirit" of it.

Sexual sins are still sexual sins. Respecting the sanctity of life is still very important.

Laws in the Old Testament like.... don't have sex with your father's widow or treat the elderly with respect still applies to us.

Now, dividing all of the laws up into what is civil and what is moral seems to be what brings Christians today to very heated debates.

Also, consider this....Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law....that is to complete it and make it relevant.

Many Christians believe that the New Testament is less strict than the Old.

But I believe that Jesus holds us to a HIGHER standard. The Old testament said not to commit adultry.

But Jesus said if you just even entertain the idea of having sex with someone that you are not married to, then you HAVE committed adultry.

The Old Testament said not to kill, but Jesus said that hating someone is in essence, the same thing.

I don't think that we should get "bogged down" in arguing over the "jot and tittle" of the law.

I think that we, as New Testament Christians, should be more concerned with living each day in the obedience to Christ and not nitpicking each other to death by nitpicking the law.

Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><

Not everyone agrees that the Ten Commandments should be followed per se. They are contained in the two commandments described by Jesus: Love God, and your neighbor as yourself. None of the Hebrew Bible was done away with. It is there for doctrine and reproof. Jesus quotes from it. However, when National Israel rejected Messiah Jesus and therefore the Kingdom, salvation passed to the gentiles in the church age. Thereafter, anyone could be saved who trusted Christ as Savior. See Acts 9 and each of the Pauline Epistles.

True, but since Christ said that all the Commandments were summed up in Love God and love your neighbor, that means that in order to follow Christ's two we still need to follow all ten of the original commandments.

It is clear that we are no longer under all of the ceremonial laws that were in place in the Old Testament. But the moral laws falls directly under how we regard God, and how we treat our fellow man.
Then there is the problem with the Sabbath. I hope that this thread does not degenerate into that discussion. Paul made it quite plain that if you want to regard "the day," regard the day; If you do not regard the day, do not regard the day. Now Paul does not specify what he meant by "the day," but he said that others regards every day alike. By regarding every day alike, that includes regarding the Sabbath as any other day. We are, therefore, not bound by any sabbath laws. I would hope that there were no brethren here that are bound by the old sabbath laws. For me, I feel that, "This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
True, but since Christ said that all the Commandments were summed up in Love God and love your neighbor, that means that in order to follow Christ's two we still need to follow all ten of the original commandments.

Click to expand...

So, do you worship from sundown Friday night until sundown Saturday night? That is the Sabbath.

Hey gang: 'mk' wrote, opening this can of worms, undoubtedly now part of his menagerie:
"... Were they not all part of the same Law?
Historical and scriptural references accepted."
I'm not sure I know any 'historical' references, but I think I can find at least one Scriptural reference. The answer is yes, they were all part of the same law. (James 2:10)
Scarlett wrote: "I think that we, as New Testament Christians, should be more concerned with living each day in the obedience to Christ ", and-
watchman wrote: "Then there is the problem with the Sabbath. I hope that this thread does not degenerate into that discussion."
Watchman, you have MY assurance that I will do my best not to let this thread "...degenerate into that discussion." I'll try to help it "degenerate" into a different discussion. I always try to accede to a brother's wishes, if I can. Heh! Heh!
But to tie Scarlett's and Watchman's comments together, I will relate something I once heard from the late Dr. Oliver B. Greene. I've already related it elsewherre, but do not remember which thread. Dr. Greene, in his inimitable style, related that a lady once asked him, "Brother Greene, don't you keep the Sabbath?" His priceless response was, "Ma'am, I keep EVERY day!" I'd suggest that's a whole message in two sentences.
genesis12 writes:
"Not everyone agrees that the Ten Commandments should be followed per se. They are contained in the two commandments described by Jesus: Love God, and your neighbor as yourself." ^
Like unto it, StraightAndNarrow writes:
"True, but since Christ said that all the Commandments were summed up in Love God and love your neighbor, that means... "
I'm not exactly sure where this is found. And I'm not able to lay my hand on my concordance right now, but I could probably read through all the Gospels and find it. But I am a fairly slow reader, (and far slower at typing) and this would take several hours, if not till noon, to find this. It's already over two hours later than I want, but if I stop before I finish something on the BB, I have no way to save it at this site, and lose it when I log off. And I don't want to lose this, so would one of you two kindly answer and tell me where this is found, please? @ Thank you.
Finally Major B writes:
"So, do you worship from sundown Friday night until sundown Saturday night? That is the Sabbath."
Major, you are certainly correct as to when is the Sabbath. But all I've heard over the years about the Sabbath, at least before the resurrection was that it was a day of rest. Are there any references to weekly worshipping on the Sabbath, prior to this? I sure could use some help, if there are, 'cause I'm sure this would take me all year to find, if I had to read all the Bible from Genesis through John. Phew! G'nite, all.
Ed^

LOL Ed Sutton! I'm a SHE not a HE! LOL

The scripture your are referring to is Matthew 22:34-40.

I have other comments to make and questions to ask, but no time at the moment. I'll be back later......

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Originally posted by Major B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
True, but since Christ said that all the Commandments were summed up in Love God and love your neighbor, that means that in order to follow Christ's two we still need to follow all ten of the original commandments.

Click to expand...

So, do you worship from sundown Friday night until sundown Saturday night? That is the Sabbath. </font>[/QUOTE]Mat 5:17 "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Not only did Jesus come to fulfill the law...He made it more demanding. Hating someone He called murder. Looking at a woman with lust was committing adultery. The same can be applied to the Sabbath. I believe it can be stated that the "new" sabbath would be from Friday night to Friday night, all 7 days...our lives are to be lived in a state of worship all 7 days, as we are "in Christ".

Originally posted by Major B:
Of the ten commandments, we find nine of them reiterated in one form or another in the NT. That is not the case with the Sabbath. We are to gather on the Lord's day (Acts 20:7), and we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb 10:24-25), but there is no Christian Sabbath taught in the NT.

Jesus told Peter in a vision in Acts 10 that all foods, and by implication, all people, were clean. Dietary laws were no longer to be followed. See also 1 Cor 9 and Rom 14.

The OT Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality and other sexual perversions are repeated in the New Testament (Rom 1, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, etc.).

The first council of the church (Acts 15), and the entire book of Galatians, teach that the ceremonial laws are no longer in effect.


In general, it seems that the prescriptions and proscriptions from the OT that are repeated in the NT are still in effect. And, certainly, the parts of the OT which teach history still teach history; wisdom literature is still wise, the Psalms are often quoted in the NT, and the prophets are the prophets, and they have much to say about the second coming of Christ.

In his teaching on the New Covenant and priesthood in Hebrews, the writer of that book makes it plain that the OT ceremonies were shadows of what is now here and is permanent. They have been superceded (Heb 8-10), and are no longer in effect.

Click to expand...

I agree, if it's repeated in the NT

Okay, I'm back for a moment.

Major B said:

The first council of the church (Acts 15), and the entire book of Galatians, teach that the ceremonial laws are no longer in effect.

Click to expand...

A comparison of the two passages, shows that even the early church had problems with the dividing line. The warnings about meat sacrificed to idols and meat from animals that were strangled were contradicted by Paul later on.(1 Cor 8:4-8, 1 Cor 10:25)

Scarlett said:

Now, dividing all of the laws up into what is civil and what is moral seems to be what brings Christians today to very heated debates.

Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at. Who gets to decide where the line is? Do we get to decide for ourselves or should we be following the leader(whoever that might be in our individual lives)? (I have my own ideas on this one, but I'd rather hear what other think)

Genesis:

Can you give me a scripture reference for this:

It is there for doctrine and reproof

Click to expand...

I know there is scripture that says the Bible is there for instruction and wisdom(or is it instruction in wisdom?), but doctrine? I don't remember that.


The Sabbath question is a good example of the kind of thing I'm questioning. So I don't mind this thread degenerating in to debating it one way or the other so long as you keep in mind that the original question was "who has the authority to make the final decision". Webdog stated my position with this quote:

our lives are to be lived in a state of worship all 7 days, as we are "in Christ".

Click to expand...

A closer look at Ed Sutton's post reveals this comment:

'mk' wrote, opening this can of worms, undoubtedly now part of his menagerie

Click to expand...

LOL, no worms in the menagerie. Might have some crickets if the frogs haven't eaten them all.

No, we don't all get to make our own rules. Buy a Ryrie Study Bible, latest edition, and REALLY study it. Your question is answered in a dispensational view of the Bible. Your question simply disappears once you grasp that truth.

Too bad all Paul had was the Geneva Bible.

"My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's notes and scripture press..."

I know there is scripture that says the Bible is there for instruction and wisdom(or is it instruction in wisdom?), but doctrine? I don't remember that.

Click to expand...

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Okay, some of you Greek scholars tell me what the difference is in the version that Hank used for this passage(?) and how I read the passage in my NIV.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV: All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


No comments on this is why I should only use the KJV are needed.

Hi menageriekeeper

"Doctrine" has as it's root meaning "teaching":
From Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: doc·trine
Pronunciation: 'däk-tr&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin doctrina, from doctor
1 archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations.

The NIV (as well as other MVs) brings the word up to date into the 20-21st Century English vernacular.

Doctrine: Strongs 1319 didaskalia {did-as-kal-ee'-ah}
Meaning: 1) teaching, instruction 2) teaching 2a) that which is taught, doctrine 2b) teachings, precepts
Origin: from 1320; TDNT - 2:160,161; n f
Usage: AV - doctrine 19, teaching 1, learning 1; 21

I didn't mean to challenge anything or insist upon the KJV reading alone, I was trying to fulfill what I preceived to be an inquiry on your part.

HankD

Actually Hank, I realized you were just filling my request. Thanks for the info btw, it explains why I didn't recognize the verses in KJV although I knew them in the NIV. Thanks also for the Greek explaination.

The warning was for any others who might want to chime on version differences. That is not where I want this thread to go.

OK, I understand.

BTW, the 1611 KJV translators said that a variety of translations was a good thing in that it would provide the "sense" of the Scriptures.

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures:

Click to expand...

HankD