Hey /his/ Should Christians observe the Law of Moses?

File: bactriancamel.jpg (18KB, 303x285px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 303x285px

>>548723
When Jesus said he came to fulfill the law meant "ignore all the laws except these 10" .

>>548723

No. That would be hard.

>>548723
No, read St.Paul.

No

t. Paul

File: blondie3 (1).jpg (106KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 960x640px

>>548723
there are people who unironically think jesus couldn't have looked like that

blonde girl is a palestinian.

File: 1426715114373.jpg (9KB, 278x181px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 278x181px

Noahide laws and moral laws, nigger.

>>548842
kek
>>548865
That's a poor excuse.
>>548889
>>548893
>the descendants of Abraham are expected to observe the Law
>Galatians 3:29
Try again
>>548920
Jesus was a Jew

File: circumcision-5-728.jpg (137KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 728x546px

>>548921
Nice try

>>548923
you don't understand, palestinians are some of the most authentically "jewish" people out there, DNA wise

jews were homegrown canaanites with a rebel religion.

Reminder that the Jews warned against false messiahs that might try to abolish the law.

Reminder that Christianity is a test that the children of Israel must endure until they are worthy for the real messiah.

File: Enjoy_life.jpg (3MB, 3648x2056px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2056px

>>548723

I never really understood why Christians and Jews don't sacrifice doves and goats to Yahweh any more.

I mean obviously the Christians can argue that they don't need to any more, not now that the ultimate scapegoating ritual in the form of human sacrifice has taken place.

I'm not so clear about religious Jews, it seems, "ahem, cough, we don't do that shit any more".

C'mon guys. Yahweh would love a bit of animal sacrifice, he loves that old school shit. Just think how many brownie points you will get with Yahweh for help next time you are trying to find your car keys and pray for help.

>>548943
unironically this

>>548933
gtfo
>>548943
Except Jesus explicitly stated that he did not come to abolish the Law.

No

>>548893
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel and believe.

8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, bore them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost even as He did unto us,

9 and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul as they declared what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

>>548958
That might be convincing, except the "yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" cannot be observance of the Law of Moses, see 1 John 5:3 - the commandments are NOT a burden.

>>548958
>implying The Law isn't perfect
>implying men cannot fulfill the Torah
>implying the covenant with Israel can ever be abolished

Absolutely false messiah.

>>548971
Except neither Jesus nor his disciples ever implied that.

>>548982
Except your man up there said the law was a burden and that neither the Jews of his day, nor the Jews of yesteryear, were able to fulfill it along with trying to eradicate the distinction between Jew and gentile.

>>548990
Like I said, the burden being talked about is not observance of the Law of Moses because 1 John 5:3 says that the commandments are not a burden.

>>548970
Matthew 22:
36 “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said unto him, “‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.’

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’

40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

>>548998
1 John 5:3 - For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

So if you are keeping the two great commandments you should be led to keep the rest.

>>548997
Then what could he possibly be referring to?

>>549007
>So if you are keeping the two great commandments you should be led to keep the rest

You are trolling hard

>>549009
"Contrary to popular opinion, the “yoke” that neither we nor our “fathers” could bear refers not to the halacha itself (that is, the way of walking out the Torah), but rather is the responsibility for deciding and learning and knowing halacha for oneself, and learning and teaching the Torah for oneself…alone, as an outsider, with no one to help you."

>>549033
>the greatest commandment is to love God
>loving God means keeping his commandments
>keeping the greatest commandments means keeping the rest
Simple mathematics

>>549044
>the greatest commandment is to love God
>loving God means keeping his commandments

Quotation (required entry)

8 Owe no man anything, but to love one another, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9 For this, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” “Thou shalt not covet,” and if there be any other commandment, all are briefly comprehended in this saying, namely: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

File: torahFINAL.jpg (40KB, 660x330px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 660x330px

>>549051
Matthew 22:36-40 - 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

1 John 5:3 - For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

>>549058
Precisely, all of the commandments fall under one of the two great commandments.

>>549063
Words doesn't mean the same in all the cases. You need the context:

His commandments in the same epistle:
7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8 At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because[a] the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. 9 Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him[b] there is no cause for stumbling. 11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

The OLD commanded in the same epistle
For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous.

>>548723
Christians should observe the law of common sense and stop believing in fairy tales invented by ancient Mesopotamians.

>>548923

>That's a poor excuse.

Yes, yes it is.

File: why-bother-119-ministries-1024x576.jpg (35KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1024x576px

>>549141

>>548842

When the 10 were instituted they were for all place and time. The reason reason Christians don't follow a lot of those weird laws in the old testament is because they were essentially laws for the kingdom or temple, neither of which exist anymore so it wouldn't make any sense to hold them.

>>548950


>I'm not so clear about religious Jews, it seems, "ahem, cough, we don't do that shit any more".

Pretty much because they believe that animal sacrifice is supposed to be

A) done at a specific ritual site (Temple of Solomon) with the specific ritual instruments (which don't exist anymore)

B) Done in a state of ritual purity, which nobody has anymore and cannot regain without a certain rite involving drinking water mixed with ashes from a burned red cow. (Which there haven't been for a while)

It's basically a "no tickee, no laundry" in religious law.

>>549146

I see someone missed the point of Deuteronomy 4:26-41 entirely.

>>548723

No, the death of Christ was the fulfillment of the law and creation of the new covenant. That's why the temple veil ripped.

No, see church fathers.

File: 625c406b5c2cada1cd4573c142c43c64.jpg (144KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 612x612px

>>549185

>>549211
Jeremiah 31:31-34 - 31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

The laws of the New Covenant are the same laws of the Law of Moses.

>>549264

>The laws of the New Covenant are the same laws of the Law of Moses.

Then gentiles would be unable to accept Christ

>>548723
Well, for certain we doesn't have to follow the sacrificial laws because finally put that to rest.

As far as food restrictions; this is the response
"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." in acts 10. It seems to reflects slightly to one of Jesus's teachings in mark 7:
Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
And it's familiar to Romans 1:29-31.
The rest can answered by the thread.

>>549271
wat

>>549272
>Well, for certain we doesn't have to follow the sacrificial laws because finally put that to rest.

Those commandments were not abolished, they simply cannot be performed due to the lack of a functioning Temple on the Temple Mount and the the fact that we lack the level of purity required to perform those commandments, as stated above.

>"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

That's referring to Gentiles.

>"Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"

They were talking about eating with unwashed hands.

>>549410
>simply cannot be performed due to the lack of a functioning Temple on the Temple Mount and the the fact that we lack the level of purity required...
The sacrifices are atonement for sins to be forgiven and to establish purity as covenants between God and man, like for Isaac and the ram, like the lambs and children of Israel.
Jesus set the final sacrifice for all men first the Jews then the gentiles, thus we are no longer in need to spill blood of wan sheep.
Now we can be forgiven through/by Jesus, The one who took the sin of the world and in his permission we can be with God.
Remember our prophet, John the baptist statement on Jesus:
“Look! God’s lamb! The one who is taking away the sin of the world!"

>That's referring to Gentiles.
Unless you're saying Peter isn't a Jew, your rebuttal is inconsistent.

>They were talking about eating with unwashed hands.
Yes, I know. one sentence was about sacrifices and the other paragraph was about food restrictions.

>>549559

You do realize that most sacrifices had absolutely nothing to do with forgiveness, right? Including the Paschal sacrifice that Jesus is so associated with?

>“Look! God’s lamb! The one who is taking away the sin of the world!"

So Jesus was a woman? Because Leviticus 4:32 is pretty clear that when lambs are brought as sin-offerings, they're to be female lambs.

>>549610
Doesn't Abraham sacrifice a ram instead of Isaac though?

>>549640

Yes, but again, that had nothing to do with sin or remission of such.

>>549610
>they simply cannot be performed due to the lack of a functioning Temple
" Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.."

>You do realize that most sacrifices had absolutely nothing to do with forgiveness
remember the sacrificial lamb in Leviticus 5:10 and Leviticus 4:35. Also it appears that God pardons his wrath if there something in it place.
Like the Paschal sacrifice to the death of the firstborn, Isaac's ram, the deal for Lot and Jesus for us.

>So Jesus was a woman?
Regardless, he was seen God's lamb. if you have an problem with that. You know who to pray.

>>549742

>remember the sacrificial lamb in Leviticus 5:10 and Leviticus 4:35.

Leviticus 5:10 is talking about a man who cannot afford a lamb, so is instead allowed to bring a pair of birds (turtledoves or pigeons) No lambs. 4:35 is talking about that same female lamb back in 4:32.

>Also it appears that God pardons his wrath if there something in it place.

Yeah, like with Hannah! Oh wait.....

>Like the Paschal sacrifice to the death of the firstborn, Isaac's ram, the deal for Lot and Jesus for us.

I literally have no idea what you're trying to say. The Paschal sacrifice was to be a means of separating the Hebrews from the Egyptians, not anything to do with sin. Abraham's "offering" of Isaac was a test, not something to do with sin, and one that he only partially passed too; demonstrating that his level of understanding of God was one of blind obedience, as opposed to say Moses who could and did successfully "argue" with God about what to do next.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with Lot. Drunken incest isn't exactly an offering.

Offload your sins onto the escapegoat everyone.

http://www.escgoat.com/

>>549640
>Doesn't Abraham sacrifice a ram instead of Isaac though?
Fucking religious innovators.

>>548723
nope. the new covenenant overwrites the old.

>>548920
a buddy of mine who served in Iraq said there's alot of blonde and redhead arabs who are 'Lawrence's Children' i.e. bastard offspring of English, and French soldiers stationed in the middle east.
Blonde or red haired semites aren't purebred.

we are no longer under the law, but the law enlightens us as to what sin is.

ceremonial, dietary and sabbath laws were added to in christ (i.e. to not observe them isn't a sin), and the rest were fulfilled in christ, in that while breaking those laws is a sin, we are redeemed through christ

Jesus specifically replaces the law of Moses in some places. Divorce, for example. He suggests that Mosaic law is superseded by something much older.

ITT antinominalism

disgusting desu

>>549185
>When the 10 were instituted they were for all place and time.

Cite that verse please. Those 10 are in the middle of a hundred other laws.

>>549185

"The 10" aren't even all laws. I mean the first one is "I am the Lord your God who took you forth from Egypt to be your God."

>>548723
No.

See Galatians 3:13, Galatians 3:23-25, Galatians 5:14, Hebrews 7:12, Hebrews 8:13, Romans 7:1-6, Romans 10:4, Romans 13:8-10, Romans 14:14, Romans 14:20, Colossians 2:20-23, 1 Timothy 4:1-5

>>548723
Christians should just convert to Judaism

I remember reading somewhere that christians shouldn't take on the law because it's too difficult to keep. Something about the curse of the law?

>>548950
Actually, animal sacrifice isn't even a binding commandment.
It's said by the clerics in the Talmud and Mishnah (and some argue to some clues in the Torah itself) to have been a phase in Judaism to make easier the religious transformation of the formerly pagan Israelites to the Religion of Moses:
Supposedly, the pagans would be obligated to commit animal sacrifice so as to please their idols, and having it been a custom they could not possibly abandon, It was preferable that they would at least relate it to God itself.
I would give you the source but it's all written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and my English is nowhere good enough to translate everything by myself.
This issue was addressed by Maimonides himself though, you could probably find the deets online easily enough.

Listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI
>>548971
>implying the covenant with Israel can ever be abolished
One of the characteristics of the messianic age in Judaism isn't that the mosaic laws will be unnecessary.

>>548723
Well, it is said that the purpose of the old laws were to "increase sin", meaning to make people more aware that you could not avoid sinning. With salvation and grace through Christ, I'm fairly certain the need to follow Noahite Law has passed.

Unless you mean the Ten Commandments. But honestly, even if Christians don't "have" to follow those, they're pretty good rules for living a decent life and not fucking with other people or being a nuisance too much.

>>552592


see >>549164

File: 4123d10f621428412116464dff00ab36.jpg (17KB, 236x234px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x234px

>>551100
Listen, some of the sacrifices were as atonement for sin.
The reason why the israelites was G-d's chosen because the covenant made by Abraham.
The temple divide in two the day Jesus died, but raised new one for all.

"...this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." -Jesus.

> I have no idea what you're talking about with Sodom.
Remember what Abraham asked to the Lord, if there were at least 10 could the placed stayed be free of wrath. There were non besides Lot.

By the way, do you think the Hebrews were the Hyksos described by the Egyptians and the Ipuwer papyrus? It would explain so much.

>>551799

It's the context in how they were given.

>>549197
>following anything mentioned in Deuteronomy

Christians stem from the israelite faith. And i say Israelite not Juden, or Jewish. Because Juden, Judish or Jewish can be misnomer in a more historical interpretation of the word. Very Judgelike, law giver. But moses himself was a law giver; so historically he can be portrayed as a Jewish but that can be very innacurate. Hebrew themselves are the descendants of Abraham or the hIbrahim...with a very mute throaty h in the beginning. Now rendered as Yibrahim...like yiddish. The question is where did all the sons of abraham come from? Or were the sons of Abraham just that, a people who venerated a common ancestor to the point of making him seem like a God. Christianity is just that. A jewish religion that reads the torah. But abstains from the talmud and in place reads the new testament.

Ever heard of the Eve of the Angle? It was one eve when the anglos, prepared for war with every nation in the known world. It is a forgotten bit from history. But it was done in such a meticulous manner, it was like a thief in the night.

>>557929
the angles went to war with the saxons, brittons and celts. Then they said hold up hold up. Who is they, who is we. Who the hell was here first? Then the celts just showed their ass. Then they came to a reality, that they all needed Jesus asap.

>>555210
Yes, I'm asking you to cite that context. Give me verses.

Matthew 19:16-17 - 16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”