»Old Testament relevant for Christians? Eating shellfish OK?«
|
|||
 Ok real quick. I think maybe we are all wrong. Jesus came to clean up the laws. This is my opinion by the way, but, I think maybe we still should not eat shellfish (i don't cause it nasty) Maybe all the old testament laws should still be Practiced? Just an idea posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsOld Testament relevant for Christians? Eating shellfish OK? |
|
|||
|
Just a friendly note of correction. The Pharisees established 613 laws above those of the Old Testament. I am not sure how many laws the Old Testament has, but the number you were probably citing from Wikipedia was the laws the Pharisees created. posted by cardsin06 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: So I ran into this topic on a forum about the movie Saved!...
In Leviticus (a book of the Christian Bible), God tells people that homosexuality is an abomination. However, he also tells people that eating shellfish is an abomination. So why don't Christians protest the eating of crawfish as strongly as they protest homosexuality? [CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE] posted by cowboylou |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously I'm new at this... Please comments on following Paul's teachings "new testament" (king james version) in 1 Corinthians 11 1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. posted by cowboylou |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
So you are telling me that an all knowing, omnipotent, perfect, timeless God spoke to the people of the Old Testament positively about sexism and slavery and then he came to Earth and omitted everything He said. I would think that a timeless and perfect God would say what he means no matter who he was speaking to instead of changing his rules for the times. posted by johnp22 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: So I ran into this topic on a forum about the movie Saved!...
In Leviticus (a book of the Christian Bible), God tells people that homosexuality is an abomination. However, he also tells people that eating shellfish is an abomination. So why don't Christians protest the eating of crawfish as strongly as they protest homosexuality? - - already noted Moasic Law not applic to Christians, however, we do get insight into what is acceptable to God - namely holiness, or, cleanness. Much of Mosaic Law ensured people were clean or protected both pfusically and spiritually and not contaminated by surrounding nations... Incidentally . . TIEFLING Avatar - - pagan fertility symbol, male member into female organ, common in pagan Egypt and adopted into the regalia of bishops where loop goes round their necks and the fallus hangs in front masquerading as a cross. ! 
posted by HolyMoly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
hungarian kid: Well cus Nazis don't mind hating people but they hate disregarding food. I mean in WW2 Germany was very low on food.
I guess that would go for anyone in starvation or desperation for food, screw religion, I'm hungry. Taking ones life to eat while trapped under snow, things like this can eventually make the religion disregard such things . So maybe there will be one day a spin off religion of Christianity that allows homosexuals. And you can't take the Bible word for word. People were as biased back then as they are now. During WWII even the whiter than white Allies colluded with the religions to ensure Jewish soldiers got dispensation to eat Pork / rations permitting, Christians could eat fish on Friday, and whatever day you want the sabbath to be was fine for machine gunning someone to death. As for a spin of Christianity that is homo friendly, just watch this space...its all up for bargaining now to ensure the major Rs maintain their power / social status. Some are already conducting civil partnerships. posted by HolyMoly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
... I would think that a timeless and perfect God would say what he means no matter who he was speaking to instead of changing his rules for the times.[/quote] C'MON! times and circumstances, indeed even yhour audience, can be the very reasons FOR variation. In this case, it wasn't amnesia and brain damage, it was simply JC fulfilled - completed the Law. E.g. all the ongoing animal sacrifices pointed to the one time only perfect sacrifice, so were no longer needed. posted by HolyMoly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: Jesus: Mt 5:17-20 Paul: Ga 2:15-16 Jesus says obey the law, Paul says don't. Christians listened to Paul. Maybe they should be called Paulians instead? Paul came after Jesus. Jesus lived life under law until the day of his death age 33 when he fulfilled / completed / did away with it. Paul came later and correctly tells the new Christians - including gentiles - they are not under law. ALSO The law was perfect - if Jews fulfilled it they would indeed be justified. But imperfect men could not keep a perfect law, so it highlighted their need for redemption. Paul points out man could not be therefore justified by law. the law was in that way a curse, for it highlighted their imperfection. That however, does not mean God cursed them. posted by HolyMoly |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
knn: knn: So to sum it: No single Old Testament rule is applicable. In case you don't know it: The Old Testament is full of rules. The 10 commandments are just the 10 core ones. But there are hundreds of more. There are 613 Old Testament rules. Many of them are ceremonial ("Not to break any bones from the paschal offering", "To salt all sacrifices", "Not to bow down on smooth stone", "The High Priest must marry a virgin maiden") but many of them are also every day's (religious) life laws: Religious life laws of the Old Testament
Life laws of the Old Testament
I like:
IMO → Mescal worm gets to stay in bottle As you see, these laws are nonsense nowadays. Thus a better example than "don't eat shellfish" is "don't shave beard" actually. All in all there are 613 laws.  Top one re bones of the offering - pointed towards Jesus sacrifice, no bones broken. Incidentally, it was common for Romans to break their legs to prevent them pushing up on them to breathe, thus bring on death quicker. Something Christ cold have no control over. Beards - great - surrounding nations shaved. This was one (another - as clothing was specific too) way Jews immediately identified as different from the gentiles. Part of keeping them apart as a special people (hence no inter marrying as a general one.) 
posted by HolyMoly |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
1, 2, 3, 4
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4
 Register Log in |
The time now is 24 May 2012, 18:00 php B.B. |