Faith or Law?

[Toknow]

Every society has some moral structure. Romans 2:14 & 15 says that man has a conscience and God has made it clear what His requirements are. It is one of the things that separates us from animals. Australian Aborigines had a legal and moral code before white people colonised the country.

What I'm saying is that the moral structure you mention is what we learn to obey.
I mean that IT IS GOOD to have rules down in writing.

The rules went FROM STONE
TO OUR HEART....

they were written down first on stone and then in the heart.

The Israelites, for instance, had to have laws in order to create a new society.

 

[Toknow]

We can create categories for the laws that were given in regard to the conduct of the King, the High Priest, judges, men, women, children, or in regard to sexual immorality, ritual purity, offerings, feasts, tithing, the Temple service, those living in the land, those who are strangers living among them, and so forth. The subcategories are for our benefit to help us conceptualize God's laws and there is no rule about how many or which categorized we should use. We could categorize God's laws based on which book of the Bible they are found in and there is no rule against doing that, but just because we there is a way of categorizing God's laws that makes sense to us doesn't mean that the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same way.


Some people think that just the Ten Commandments are the moral law while other people include others laws are being part of the moral law. Some people consider the Sabbath to be a moral law while others consider it to be ceremonial law. So, yes, everyone has their own list of which laws they think are part of the moral law that is most likely different from others.


Indeed, those subcategories create confusion, which is one of the reasons why I object to them.

You are allowed to object to them..
you are NOT allowed to state that they do not exist.

You have no grounds to make that claim. If there was anything that all Jewish and Christian scholars agreed on, then that would be amazing. I've seen a Jewish scholar cited as using the categories of civil, ceremonial, and moral law, but it also states that they were influenced by Christianity.

Actually S....Christian scholars have agreed on everything already..
a really long time ago...

it's we modern folk that would like to change Christianity into what we each would like instead of adhereing
to the Christian RELIGION.

it's those such as yourself that are attempting to change what has been known for two millennia.

No need for YOU to start a new one of your own liking.


It is bizarre for you to accuse me of trying to change Christian theology by taking the position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded. That's the whole of being a follower of Christ.


Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so what grounds do you have for thinking that following the Law of Christ involves following something that is not in perfect accordance with following the Law of Moses?

Because I'm a Christian person...
I've learned the Christian faith
and
The Christian religion

And the Christian faith and the Christian religion have taught me that the Law of Moses is dead.

And I TRUST my Christian faith and my Christian religion.

 

[James456]

What I'm saying is that the moral structure you mention is what we learn to obey.
I mean that IT IS GOOD to have rules down in writing.

The rules went FROM STONE
TO OUR HEART....

they were written down first on stone and then in the heart.

The Israelites, for instance, had to have laws in order to create a new society.

So would you agree the words ''Ten Commandments'' are now meaningless to the believer, as they instinctively know in their mind how God wants them to live and in their hearts they want to live that way.
If I told a fib about anyone, I wouldn't have to think of the words ''ten commandments'' I would just feel bad for going against how in my mind I know I should live and in my heart I want to live

 

[Soyeong]

soyeong, Christ was against the pharisees, because they added to the law and made it a burden, you do not want to be one of those

The strongest criticisms of a group tend to come from the members of that group because they care the most about how the group is represented. The Talmud contains harsh words from Pharisees towards other Pharisees, so someone doing that does not necessarily mean that they were against the Pharisees. The Pharisees were not a monolith group, so while a number of them had problems with pride and hypocrisy, that does not mean that that was the case for every last Pharisee or that Pharisaism is just about pride and hypocrisy and has no redeeming value. Most of the people who speak about someone being a Pharisee in a negatory manner don't have an ounce of the dedication to God's Word that many of the Pharisees had.

Hillel was the grandfather of Gamaliel, who was Paul's rabbi (Acts 22:3), and there is very strong agreement between Jesus and the House of Hillel, which is what won out over the House of Shammai in order to become what is Orthodox Judaism today. There are many things that the Talmud derives from the OT that are also taught in the NT, so it was all part of the same world.

There are many questions that would arise naturally for a nation that decides to put the Torah into practice, which is why Moses got swamped with questions and had to appoint a system of judges (Exodus 18). In Deuteronomy 17:8-13, it gives authority to priests and judges to make rulings about how to obey the Torah that the community was obligated to obey, which basis for the Talmud. This means that God gave man some say about how to walk out the Torah and if they went through all of the right procedures and methods of interpretation and made a ruling that was not was not what God intended, then the community was still obligated by God to follow the ruling. In Matthew 23:1-4, Jesus recognized that the scribes and Pharisees had this authority by saying that they sit in the Seat of Moses and by instructing his followers to do and observe everything that they said. Jesus was not challenging their authority so much as he was challenging the heart with which they were using it.

 

[Toknow]

So would you agree the words ''Ten Commandments'' are now meaningless to the believer, as they instinctively know in their mind how God wants them to live and in their hearts they want to live that way.
If I told a fib about anyone, I wouldn't have to think of the words ''ten commandments'' I would just feel bad for going against how in my mind I know I should live and in my heart I want to live

James,
if we automatically knew what was sin...
why does the NT need to teach it?

I'd say, and I'm sure everyone agrees, that the Two Great Commandments will cover all the rest....
they are enough to be a moral person, and to worship God. (first 3).

But the writers of the NT specifically listed sins.
I could list them, but I think we all know them.

Jesus said that even divorce is sin...and yet it's not in the 10 commandments.

I DO believe that we follow with the heart and that we know, more or less, what would displease God.

Can we say that we need both?
The heart and some rules.

 

[James456]

James,
if we automatically knew what was sin...
why does the NT need to teach it?

I'd say, and I'm sure everyone agrees, that the Two Great Commandments will cover all the rest....
they are enough to be a moral person, and to worship God. (first 3).

But the writers of the NT specifically listed sins.
I could list them, but I think we all know them.

Jesus said that even divorce is sin...and yet it's not in the 10 commandments.

I DO believe that we follow with the heart and that we know, more or less, what would displease God.

Can we say that we need both?
The heart and some rules.

Well I think, according to someone, there are 1050 NT commands. Im not saying we cannot learn from any of them. However, I would say, the base commands if you like are different:

When I was young, I would read my bible in the sermons in church(I was young and they were long), and I would read of the ten commandments. It baffled me why the tenth one was there. I figured God just tagged it along at the end to make the number up to ten. But in those days, I only related the tenth commandment to not desiring the material goods of another, such as their nice house or car. Although I believed we should not do that, it hardly seemed that important compared to the other nine.
But when I reached puberty, and heard people say ''We must obey the TC'' my thoughts instinctively turned inward to my impure thoughts and I felt much guilt. And yet, at that time I still only related the tenth commandment as written to desiring the material goods of another.

 

[Toknow]

Well I think, according to someone, there are 1050 NT commands. Im not saying we cannot learn from any of them. However, I would say, the base commands if you like are different:

When I was young, I would read my bible in the sermons in church(I was young and they were long), and I would read of the ten commandments. It baffled me why the tenth one was there. I figured God just tagged it along at the end to make the number up to ten. But in those days, I only related the tenth commandment to not desiring the material goods of another, such as their nice house or car. Although I believed we should not do that, it hardly seemed that important compared to the other nine.
But when I reached puberty, and heard people say ''We must obey the TC'' my thoughts instinctively turned inward to my impure thoughts and I felt much guilt. And yet, at that time I still only related the tenth commandment as written to desiring the material goods of another.

Yeah.
I doubt I could remember 1,050 commands !!
And I doubt it's even that many - but can't say.

What IS the 10th commandment?

 

[James456]

What IS the 10th commandment?

Why are you asking that?

 

[Toknow]

Why are you asking that?

I want to make sure that you're referring to SHALL NOT COVET.
I don't understand what it has to do with what you described was your understanding of it....

 

[James456]

I want to make sure that you're referring to SHALL NOT COVET.
I don't understand what it has to do with what you described was your understanding of it....

“You shall not covet/desire your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence Rom7:7&8

Thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not desire what is not yours to desire, thou shalt not lust(unless it is for your spouse) You must not therefore dwell on any impure thought.
The commandment covers what goes on, on the inside of man, his thoughts, desires. No outward act is needed to transgress it

 

[Toknow]

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence Rom7:7&8

Thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not desire what is not yours to desire, thou shalt not lust(unless it is for your spouse) You must not therefore dwell on any impure thought.
The commandment covers what goes on, on the inside of man, his thoughts, desires. No outward act is needed to transgress it

OK
I see how you're making the connection.

Lust does not always refer to intimate desires.
Lust could be for anything....some women, that we might call a clothes horse...lust for clothes.

Covet means exactly what you've stated above.
It's a longing that goes from the exterior to the interior.

I might steal a ring from a jeweler...
but NOT necessarily because I lust for it.

If I lust for that ring,,,it's sinful even if I DO NOT steal it.

This goes to what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 5:28...
it's a matter of the heart.

After all, if the heart does not change our very soul will not change.

Lust is a satanic tool to keep us away from the transformation that God would like to see.

Here Paul is using the example of money...but it could refer to anything.

1 Timothy 6:6-8
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.
8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.
9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.

 

[James456]

OK
I see how you're making the connection.

Lust does not always refer to intimate desires.
Lust could be for anything....some women, that we might call a clothes horse...lust for clothes.

Covet means exactly what you've stated above.
It's a longing that goes from the exterior to the interior.

I might steal a ring from a jeweler...
but NOT necessarily because I lust for it.

If I lust for that ring,,,it's sinful even if I DO NOT steal it.

This goes to what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 5:28...
it's a matter of the heart.

After all, if the heart does not change our very soul will not change.

Lust is a satanic tool to keep us away from the transformation that God would like to see.

Here Paul is using the example of money...but it could refer to anything.

1 Timothy 6:6-8
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.
8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.
9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.

I accept that, but concupiscence does refer to lustful desires of the flesh for another

 

[Toknow]

I accept that, but concupiscence does refer to lustful desires of the flesh for another

Concupiscense does mean desires of the flesh...
but it can be used for other desires too.
Again...the meaning of lust.

In Catholic theology (I'm not Catholic - not that there's anything wrong with it, just want to be honest here)
concupiscense, I mean the word, takes the place of how we refer to the SIN NATURE.

 

[James456]

Concupiscense does mean desires of the flesh...
but it can be used for other desires too.
Again...the meaning of lust.

In Catholic theology (I'm not Catholic - not that there's anything wrong with it, just want to be honest here)
concupiscense, I mean the word, takes the place of how we refer to the SIN NATURE.

Ive looked the word up in a few dictionaries, they all say sexual desire, so I imagine by far and away that is what it is mainly taken to mean

 

[Toknow]

Hey @James456
Nice convo.
But must leave till later....

 

[Toknow]

Ive looked the word up in a few dictionaries, they all say sexual desire

I know.
Not going to debate this.
I know Catholic theology and look...I live in Italy!
The word is used in place of sin nature.

Not a big deal.
Later.

 

[Toknow]

@James456

Here, I took the time....



Che cos'è il peccato di concupiscenza?


Cristianesimo. Nella teologia cattolica è definita concupiscenza la brama di possesso e la debolezza della natura umana che porta l'uomo a commettere il peccato, di qualunque natura esso sia.


Trans:
In Christianity, in Catholic theology, it is the weak human nature that brings man to commit sin...
of any type it might be.

 

[Soyeong]

You are allowed to object to them..
you are NOT allowed to state that they do not exist.

I used to use those categories, but sin then I've found major problems with using them, so I no longer use them, but I did not claim that they do not exist. There are many ways that that God's laws could potentially be categorized and all of those categories exist, but just because there are scholars who think that it makes sense to categorize God's laws in a particular manner does not establish that Paul also categorized God's laws in the same manner. For example, if one scholar through that a set of 137 of God's laws could all be considered to be part of one category, but Paul never considered there to be a category that had exactly that set of 137 laws, then they would be in error to interpret Paul as referring to that category.

The fact that something being a civil or ceremonial law doesn't mean that is not also a moral law is another problem that I have with those categories.

Actually S....Christian scholars have agreed on everything already..
a really long time ago...

it's we modern folk that would like to change Christianity into what we each would like instead of adhereing
to the Christian RELIGION.

it's those such as yourself that are attempting to change what has been known for two millennia.[/quote]
It is one thing to claim that Christian scholars agree on everything already and quote another thing to demonstrate that to be true. If you think that Christian scholars agree on everything, then you clearly have no idea no understanding of Christian scholarship.

Christianity is about following what Christ taught, so me taking the position that Christians should follow what Christ taught is not trying to change Christianity into anything.

Because I'm a Christian person...
I've learned the Christian faith
and
The Christian religion

And the Christian faith and the Christian religion have taught me that the Law of Moses is dead.

And I TRUST my Christian faith and my Christian religion.

Saying you were taught to do that and that you trust what you were taught does not answer my question.

I grew up being taught by by Christian religion to have a negative view of obeying the Law of Moses. However, the Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying the Law of Moses, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so I realized that if I was going to continue to believe that the Psalms are Scripture, then I needed to also believe that they expressed a correct view of obeying it. For example, in Psalm 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so I could not continue to believe in the truth of those words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape my view of obeying the Law of Moses. Moreover, the authors of the NT should be interpreted in light of the fact that they were in complete agreement with the Psalms rather that as expressing views that are incompatible with the truth of what they considered to be Scripture, especially because Paul also said that he delighted in obeying it (Romans 7:22), which led me to see how I had been taught to systematically interpret the NT with a negative slant towards obeying the Law of Moses and question whether what I had been taught was correct.

 

[Soyeong]

Well I will just copy what I wrote to you on another website:

The Jerusalem church met to decide which Mosaic laws gentiles be asked to follow. Four were given
God's applicable laws are NOT(NOT) arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not!!
And your argument they only started with four laws fails anyway, as I keep telling you, for years later the leaders of the church confirmed to Paul they were STILL(STILL) only asking gentiles to follow the same four laws, none had been added!"(Acts21:25
So Im afraid, it is an indisputable fact, if you are correct, the leaders of the first century church, including Peter, James and Paul gave gentiles a licence to sin as sin is the transgression of the law. It really does not matter how much you write or reason, you cannot change that fact''''

And BTW, they were there to discuss disputable matters, not what is termed the moral law


Now you can write whatever response you like, but it will be ignored, for I have given you indisputable facts

Indeed, that is where you are continuing to repeat your claim that it is an indisputable fact that if I am correct then the leaders of the first century church gave Gentiles a license to sin while also continuing to avoid giving any sort of justification for that claim.

 

[James456]

Indeed, that is where you are continuing to repeat your claim that it is an indisputable fact that if I am correct then the leaders of the first century church gave Gentiles a license to sin while also continuing to avoid giving any sort of justification for that claim.

I am happy to leave it to the independent observers of my post to decide if you are correct or not