@Smileyrius,
Quote:Smileyrius When looking at the mosaic law, you need to be studious as to why any law was applied, you can break it down in to three seperate categories: Civil law, Ceremonial law and Moral Law.
Well what is the purpose of breaking it down into three parts?
I find no NT teaching from Jesus or Paul that says the law of god can be divided three ways.
This seems to be arbitrary. It seems as though someone wants to say “This does not apply, this does apply. Here is why….”
There are many ways to break down the laws. One way that I find to be utilitarian is to say “These laws apply to you when you deal with yourself, or with others of the tribes of Israel. These other apply when My People deal with the idolaters and others not of My People.”
That has a biblical (OT) basis. Using OT scripture I can show that the law says – paraphrased – ‘When dealing with outsiders….’. This is very clear, not really open to interpretation.
All law was about God’s people doing as God instructed, that is not open to interpretation.
We know that with the NT the meaning of “god’s people” changed to include gentiles, and that Jesus fulfilled many laws, made them irrelevant.
We know that no law condemns a man to hell, all are free to experience a blissful eternal life by the grace of god as revealed by Jesus.
Quote: Israelites would have known very little about biological diseases and safe cooking methods for foods such as pork and shellfish, yet ceremonial law though unknowingly, quarantined them and safeguarded them from dangerous bacteria.
Biological diseases were not limited to pork and shellfish, I would think you would agree.
What special health issues are there concerning eagles, or calamari, which are also an abomination?
What of “flying creeping things, which have four feet”, what special health risk?
In the case of pork, a modern day spin would be to mention trichinosis, which is not a bacterial issue, but a parasitic issue. Pork has no unique bacterial issues compared to camel or goat.
And another point, none of these issues you mention disappeared at the birth or death of Jesus.
All of these issues are still with us.
The implication of your position is the scientific knowledge supersedes the laws of god.
God has these laws, but hey, they are no longer relevant because we know about refrigeration and the importance of well cooked pork.
If the knowledge of man negates the laws of god, there are many issues to reexamine.
Logic dictates that that the knowledge of man does not negate the laws of god.
Any injunction by god to not eat pork, shrimp, lobster, eagles, calamari, flying creeping things, which have four feet, cannot be ignored simply because of the knowledge of man, logically there would have to be a deeper issue.
You have not identified such an issue.
That issue might affect other injunctions as well.
Quote: Gods moral laws on the other hand are timeless, as they are an indicator of spiritual cleanliness and acceptableness to god, therefore showing his personality.
Why?
Because you and others say so?
Why is it that abominations of eating are not morality based, but who a person sleeps with is?
Where does the bible say these should be treated differently.
You do have an answer for that, and refer us to Matthew 3:15, [And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.]
You refer us to the account the baptism of Jesus by John, to say that ‘expires’ the ‘ceremonial’ injunctions against abominations of unclean foods.
I reread Mathew Henry’s commentaries of this passage, and he says “ Thus Christ filled up the righteousness of the ceremonial law, which consisted of diverse washings ”. Nothing about eating, just ceremonial washings.
John Gill’s commentaries says “ and as it became Christ to fulfill all righteousness, moral and ceremonial.” So not only ceremonial, but moral as well. If pork is ceremonial, and Matthew 3:15 tells us such abominations are no longer valid, and choice of sleeping partners is a moral issue, then it likewise in not a valid abomination. Like pork, it is a nonissue, according to Gill.
I do not see that the meaning you want for Matthew 3:15 is at all obvious, yet you offer no explanation.
Here is what we know.
“Be fruitful and multiply.”, was extremely important, according to the bible, and as understood by the Israelites. It was so important, it was more important than who one slept with.
Fornication, sexual relations outside of the benefit of marriage, was permitted and even encouraged, to be fruitful and multiple. If a man’s wife did not bear children, it was expected that he would sleep with his servants, slaves, or the relatives of his wife so that he might make children.
The daughters of Lot were so concerned that they might not be able to find a male partner, they slept with their father. Incest was bad, but not having babies was worse, so they slept with the one who might impregnate them. They were successful and bore two sons for Lot.
When it appeared that Sarah was too old to bear children, she told Abraham to sleep with their slave Hagar, so that there would be children. Abraham was a good husband and did as his wife suggested, slept with Hagar, and Ishmael was born, the ancestor of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.
Sarah later bore Isaac, of Jewish fame. To this day Muslims and Jews do not care much for each other.
In the same vane, men sleeping with men did not lead to procreation, so was discouraged.
What is the teaching of Jesus on homosexuality?
We know what his teachings were on the accumulation of wealth – a good way to stay out of heaven.
Homosexuality – nothing said.
And what of Paul? What he the teach concerning sexual relations? He taught that good Christians would do well to be like he was, celibate, no sexual relations with men or women.
He considered any romantic involvement to be a distraction. By his teaching, ‘Be fruitful and multiple’., was no longer important, certainly less important than dedication to Christ.
By his teaching, and that of the NT, procreation was no longer a guiding principle.
The obvious reason against homosexuality (inability to procreate), was no longer valid.
The OT Bible says eating pork, shrimp, eagles, octopus are an abomination, just as homosexuality is.
The NT says Christians are not under the laws of the OT. If we follow the teachings of Jesus we see that accumulation of wealth is more harmful to the soul than homosexuality.
If we follow the teachings of Paul we see that marriage is a stumbling block in our walk with Christ.
Quote: Do not settle for suggested ignorance when you ask a question. There are always answers, let no one tell you otherwise. You will not always have answers readily to hand, but if you earnestly seek them, they come in time.
I agree, with the principle, but not the answers you have found. That is based on my study, not of what man has said about the Bible, but based on what the Bible says.
John 13:34
