Random Thought
So I understand the kind of superstructure of theology being this:
- Man's first sin made him eternally impure and *sinful* (even though it was women's fault!)
- God gave the law of Moses in the Pentatuke to outline what we should do and what we do to apease God of said sins
- Jesus died to take punishment of those sins which means we `can have life and life in abundance`
My thinking has always been `okay, that's cool so I don't have to do all these stupid rules of the old Testament` but I've just thought: surely that's not the case at all...
Surely we should still strive not to do all those things we were told not to do (or not do) in Leviticus because it's not the rules from which we were liberated from but the consequence.
If any clever chaps want to answer this, I'd be very grateful
- Man's first sin made him eternally impure and *sinful* (even though it was women's fault!)
- God gave the law of Moses in the Pentatuke to outline what we should do and what we do to apease God of said sins
- Jesus died to take punishment of those sins which means we `can have life and life in abundance`
My thinking has always been `okay, that's cool so I don't have to do all these stupid rules of the old Testament` but I've just thought: surely that's not the case at all...
Surely we should still strive not to do all those things we were told not to do (or not do) in Leviticus because it's not the rules from which we were liberated from but the consequence.
If any clever chaps want to answer this, I'd be very grateful
posted by Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) @ 7:34 PM
5 Comments:
At 8:38 PM,
Paul said…
I've a new testament commentary by a messainic jew. His view is that for gentiles our "law" is Acts 15 and the council of Jerusalem. For JEws he argues the OT law still stands in terms of moral structures except if you're a messainic Jew you can now rely oin Grace for your salvation, or something.
At 10:14 PM,
Unknown said…
there is no way we can follow the rules in leviticus and stuff. God knew that which he why he put them there; to make it clear the only way we could be saved is through him.
Jesus said the old law (of moses) has been replaced by him.
At 11:19 PM,
Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) said…
no no no no no no no no!
Jesus said he had come to fulfil the law, not replace it! (Matthew 5/6ish ottomh)
Paul, will get back to you bout that in a bit, want to mull over first, but cheers for response
At 11:25 PM,
Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) said…
Matt 5:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=17&version=31&context=verse
At 11:45 PM,
Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) said…
Paul: Surely the Acts 15 thang is a cultural discersion taken by the church leaders of the time... A judgement made by the evangelists to make the Gospel message more accessible to the gentiles, but without meaning to sound like a conservative `this is in the bible so the only reason it's there is for me to follow it because there's no other explination for why scripture might be there` prude, I should argue that Simon (below) is not making an indefinate precident for the practise of Christianity. And if he was, then surely without the scriptual or verbal consent of the God as a Trinity Himself then to follow such a teaching would be tantamount to dogma.
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." - Acts15:19-21
Is Simon excusing the Gentiles the greater expectations of the Jews? Or forging his own two-tier Christianity? Is it too postmodernist to say that a statement follwed by `It is my judgement`, even in scripture is an antiquated opinion and no more God's infallible truth than the ingredients list of a Pepsi?
Post a Comment
<< Home