Kelly I’m so happy to hear of the miracle you had with your cancer and your daughter. That is a precious story of God’s goodness. I of course do see the other side of the coin, the worst being when a father has lost both mother and baby. I find myself amazed at how you stare fear down. I’m impressed. I know you’re not trying to impress me, but I’m impressed all the same. I wish all stories ended as victorious as yours, but life in this present age is unfortunately not like that.
Auggy, I agree with what you said above 100%. I have found some who try to put you under a form of new testament law as well. For some reason I’ve received 6 videos about head coverings in my email inbox this month, telling me how I’m not pleasing God without a veil on my head.
Kelly, your story reminds me of a friend I had from Mexico. She was diagnosed with cancer and told that if she didn’t abort she would die. Because of her faith she refused. The cancer spread. They cut off her leg, but it was too late. She died when her son was 2. I think it’s a very difficult situation when this happens. I do think it was very loving of her to give up her life for her son’s. Her son, unfortunately, has had a rough life not having had his mother. I don’t think we can judge women that make this very difficult decision. I also have a friend that lived after her mother was told to abort and didn’t. Her mother ended up being ok, but killed herself with alcoholism. This life really is difficult.
I’m not judging, Amy, just saying that sometimes we don’t take hold of blessings because we can’t get past fear. This thread is interesting in that there is complete tolerance of most everything except specific convictions and the following of those out specifically. When anyone has specific convictions and are walking them out they are “judging” or “judgmental”. Oh well! Go ahead and judge me as being judgmental. Lol!
I don’t think anyone is being intolerant toward your convictions (at least not intentionally). We all think we’re right to some extent and the other “side” is missing out on a fuller life. We (the non-literal law keepers, I know literal is not the best way to put it but I can’t think of any other way to say it) believe we have more freedom and want you to experience that freedom. You feel keeping the Torah brings more freedom and want us to experience that freedom also.
I’m not trying to label here or pigeon hole either. Like I’ve said I truly believe that God has you where you’re at, and has you to keep the law as you are. On the flipside I also truly believe that God has me to keep the law the way that I am. I’ve asked Him if He wants me to keep it literally, over and over and have yet to receive a yes.
You’ve said a few times that without it we’re left to our own conscience to tell us what to do and thats not satisfactory. I say yes amen we’re left with our own conscience to confirm or convict us, and that is the fullness of sonship.
I hear you, Jeremy. I was speaking about faith instead of fear and referring to Amy’s comments that “we shouldn’t judge” those who do things differently. I could care less if I am judged by anyone. I’m just saying, admonishing someone to “not judge” is judging that person. Something to think about.
Kelly,
That’s a fallacy. Amy’s not saying “you are judging” she’s saying “we” as Christians (The Church) should not judge those people but sympathize with them the way God sympathizes with us in such hardships. I did not read her as saying “Kelly is judgemental” or even that Kelly is wrong. She’s agreeing with you on one hand and also promoting that we need to hurt people and try to help them see the truth.
And Magma nailed it, no one is judging you for your literal interpretation of law keeping. We’re not intolerant, otherwise we’d insist you believe in salvation by the law. We know you don’t. But that doesn’t mean we agree with your interpretations of how the law is kept and what it means. There is room to disagree.
Similarly as I said before, it’s a fallacy to say that others who don’t hold your view endorse murder, adultery and idolatry. We don’t. Critical thinking shows us that often we treat things as “either/or” and usually it’s not the case.
I’m not sure where to go with the idea that we don’t need to follow Gods instructions. On one hand, it becomes a free for all when anything anyone wants to do is regarded as “Christ righteousness”. If I don’t accept what is a revelation we can all see and understand of God’s instructions then it leaves, as general revelation, an instruction of a human who calls what they want to say or believe, the “real truth”. Which necessitates written instruction which conflicts with God’s “old, outdated” written instruction. What’s the point if that? Auggy, you’re neo instruction would be, we have to obey the law of Christ (whatever that means) and yet we still can’t literally murder someone or literally commit adultery and maybe more, I don’t know- I’d need a list since its different than the list in the Bible. Some say we don’t have to “do” anything or change in any way, some say we stick to the revelation with the obvious written revelation of christ - don’t hate your brother, don’t look lustfully, etc. Why do you see following the instructions as “incorrect”? Why should we follow some alternate law or the idea that we have no responsibility to the general revelation? We can put the bible in the trash I guess but, then no one will listen because we would be speaking with no verifiable authority.
Again,
Not I (nor anyone I know of on this board who’s been involved in the discussion) would say we don’t need to follow God’s instruction. This is simply how “freedom in Christ” translates to you because if we have freedom from the mosaic codes, then we are free to sin. I think that’s how you hear alot of this discussion.
I say we do need to follow God’s instruction, but I see the law as not being righteouness in itself. I see it as pointing to righteoussness (Christ) and he sums up the law - Love. It’s not that I see God’s law as outdated. I see “literal interpretation” as outdated.
I believe there is a great subtext to scripture. So for me shadows are hardly useful. They were only meant as signs, the reality is patience, kindenss, goodness, long suffering, self control, never rude, never arrogant (Christ). Those who live by these things may in fact eat any food, work on any day, mix whatever fabrics - for those things are passed and now the reality has been made clear - Christ and God’s love. Those who love, fullfill the law.
I have more to say because your statment “Law of Christ - whatever that means”. I think we need to dialogue on that a bit.
The literal circumcision was done away with. The literal sacrifice was done away with. The literal passover and pentecost feasts were fulfilled. The literal temple was done away with.
If those are not useful literally, why the rest of the law?
When you talk about not knowing what to do, like say in murder or adultery, those are two instances of not loving your neighbor. If you kill someone, you are not loving them. If I cheat on my wife, I am not loving her. If I steal again I’m not loving my neighbor.
If I eat pig I’m not breaking the loving my neighbor law. You could say that you’re breaking the love God law. It was said that nothing on the outside can defile you, and I go back to the literals above being done away with, so why not this? I don’t think eating pig is not loving God.
What could that mean then? what is the significance of eating unclean animals symbolically? Mice are unclean, the word tselem is an idol that means mice. So there must be some spiritual significance to it. spiritual dirtiness, since mice congregate in dirty areas? I don’t know, it hasn’t been given to me yet
It seems there’s some discussion on what “laws” should be followed or what shouldn’t be followed. And then the talk of “maybe we shouldn’t follow these laws”. There seems to be some kind of a tie in with “if it’s not ordered to us, we shouldn’t worry about it”.
Now, I don’t really believe that. There is law and there’s reality. You can remove the law, obliterate it, but reality stands. Everything you do still has consequences. There is still the absolute law of the universe in effect.
One often thinks of legalistic consequences. “If you steal something, you go to jail.” “If you commit adultery, you get stoned”. “If you don’t believe, you go to Hell”. That’s a very low level (I don’t think the Psalm’s “the law is perfect and eternal” was talking about this, but actually absolute law). Jesus fulfilled this level and had it die with him.
But this level underlies a higher level. If you allow people to sporadically steal, or murder, you will disrupt society. If everyone goes off cheating, we have unstable families. But sometimes these consequences are unclear for people, hence we have laws. And all such engineered laws will always be limited, weak, obtuse in the sense that they generalize on people and the laws are more concerned with keeping societies together than anything else.
And Jesus removed the low level and instituted the high level. We now have the law written to our hearts and we need to make our decisions from the highest level possible: the level of love. The law of real circumstance, the law of effect on humanity, on our soul, on people around us, the law of case by case.
Bird,
Thanks for that clarification and welcome to the forum. I agree, well said regarding it is love that drives us and it’s wisdom that gives us our prudence. Follow love and you’ll be just fine.
But this raises the issue that I’ve been mentioning time to time - intuition is an issue which will have to be discussed.
I say this because, if I’m right, the literalist position is built on a system that denies any ability of human intuition. For if we did not have the law, we wouldn’t know what love is since the law is love. But I’ve argued before, that prior to any written torah, people knew exactly what love was and violence was always wrong(Romans 1) - in other words we don’t need the law to tell us what is love and what is not.
It’s my intuition that tells me that eating foods has nothing to do with being good or bad. That foods cannot take a man close to God nor further. Thus I deny Catholic transubstantionism and Literalists who claim eating pork is forbidden.
Instead, I understand the text to be typological and symbolic much as Magma shows. When Jesus says beware of the yeast of the pharisees he wasn’t speaking of some infection of tissue. He clarifies for the thick skulled disciples - HYPOCRISY! So I think Magma is right regarding particular points of the law.
But the literalist engages on different grounds and both Kelly and my high school friend try to defend food laws as “health laws”. But we’ve argued that if that’s the case, then the tradition of the elders was right - God should have endorsed the tradition of the elders that it’s proper and healthy to wash your hands. But that’s for a different topic and I don’t want to cover that here.
I want to stay focused on this issue that
A) God teaches us that when someone pokes out one persons eye, you shall poke out their eye - that way they’re be afraid and not poke out people’s eyes. (Deut 19).
B) Jesus says turn the other cheek.
How will turning the other cheek establish fear in people that they won’t go about poking out someone’s eye?
If we say the OT law was a civil code (not for individuals) but Jesus’ command was for Individuals (not civil) then why the need to say “YOU’VE HEARD IT SAID…BUT I TELL YOU!”. It seems Scribes and Elders would have argued no different than people today. It might have gone something like this: “Jesus, you incorrectly interpret the scriptures in Exo, Lev and Deut regarding eye for an eye. The context is clearly a civil code for a governmental establishment but you improperly quote it and apply it at an individual level.”
Judge may have been a poor word choice. I was just meaning to say that it’s easy to second guess these ladies decisions and I just really feel for them, how difficult a decision it is since they may actually lose their life. I know some see it as black and white, but maybe the loving thing to do depends? What about a mother that already has several children to care for. Maybe it’s in their best interest to abort?
I know I’m considered legalistic on this issue, but I don’t believe there is any excuse to take the life of my brother or sister. By making the decision to actively end anyone’s life we are claiming a sovereignty over a situation that we simply aren’t wise enough to claim. Ending anyone’s life necessarily determines a destructive outcome, but by being still we invite the transcendent Yahweh to actively enter our circumstances, fight for us in creative ways and potentially bring about an ideal outcome for everyone. Personally, I try to cling to this child-like hope. Yahweh will do right. Be still.
I’m reposting this hopeing to not digress away from the issue (we’re sort of gravitating towards abortion).
A) God teaches us that when someone pokes out one persons eye, you shall poke out their eye - that way they’re be afraid and not poke out people’s eyes. (Deut 19).
B) Jesus says turn the other cheek.
How will turning the other cheek establish fear in people that they won’t go about poking out someone’s eye?
If we say the OT law was a civil code (not for individuals) but Jesus’ command was for Individuals (not civil) then why the need to say “YOU’VE HEARD IT SAID…BUT I TELL YOU!”. It seems Scribes and Elders would have argued no different than people today. It might have gone something like this: “Jesus, you incorrectly interpret the scriptures in Exo, Lev and Deut regarding eye for an eye. The context is clearly a civil code for a governmental establishment but you improperly quote it and apply it at an individual level.”
Welcome Bird,
I think you have a good idea where I’m coming from. I too, appreciated your words.
Hey Auggy! Warning: Just kind of laying it out there.
Could you give me your working definition of “love”? To me it is many things but, primarily it means we are right with God and our neighbor. That it is our heart’s desire to reach out to God and others as outlined in the commandments and that this active - doing love creates also a feeling in us and others of well being. This feeling is what most people define as “love”.
I do not think it is these feelings some call love that give wisdom or prudence. Deut 4:6 says keeping and doing God’s statutes and judgments is wisdom and understanding. Proverbs are the sayings of the wise. Wisdom and prudence from God is the same now because God is the same, He doesn’t change. And, as Bird said, the law is written on our hearts.
I find the idea “Follow love and you’ll be just fine.” is too obscure and means nothing to someone outside of christian culture. It comes off as, “always have warm fuzzy feelings and everything will fall into place”. I think your words are a bit confusing to me because I stand on the solid rock foundation of Yeshua, keeping Torah and “feelings” of love come from that, not the other way around. God has written the Torah on my heart, I see it confirmed in scripture, I keep and do Torah (as Yeshua did) and feelings of love come.
I do not deny any ability of human intuition. But, human intuition can be wrong and go unchecked. Frankly, and I’m not trying to be snotty here, when I hear someone proclaim they are a christian, I step back and just watch to see what kind of christian they are. Too many people claim Christ and think He sanctions any action that comes into their head. I’ve seen some bad stuff come out of people and they claimed it was from “the spirit”. If they also believed the scriptures were a credible source, they could have checked “the spirit” given behavior to see if it really were from God.
God’s Torah was given from the beginning. God is love, do you believe He shoved the human race into a hostile environment without giving them some wisdom? Written or no, the patriarchs kept Yehovah’s statutes and judgments. It may or may not have been “written down” but, it is clear when people were following God’s ways and instructions.
Romans 1 actually says the opposite of your use of it. People do not retain God in their knowledge. They continually go astray. Indeed the just shall live by faith but, you will have to reconcile that with the “old testament” because it is a quote from there.
That’s cool but, I think you can understand why I would rather do what God says (and what Yeshua did) than go with your intuition. I do agree with you that eating foods may not be about being good or bad. It may be about obedience, it may be a shadow picture of what should or shouldn’t go into the temple (which is now us as a shadow picture - 1 Corinthians), it may be a good many things we don’t yet understand or discern. I think you can also understand that saying people back then didn’t know how to cook pork but, now we do so it’s ok to eat means nothing to me. For me, it is not a matter of health.
I don’t follow you on the correlation between Catholic transubstantiation and not eating pork. Further, I still don’t know exactly what you are labeling me in the term “literalist” so, the two may fit together somehow but, it doesn’t in my thinking.
I think most people get that. Well, except I think Jesus meant the yeast that leavens bread instead of an infectious disease.
This is kind of weird for me because I hear you saying we can throw off some scriptures, interpret the written any way we want, and you can just go with “human intuition” and that’s enough because that is love but, you still use the “written” scripture to try to validate the point you want to make. This is my main point . .
" . . . and because from a babe the Holy Writings thou hast known, which are able to make thee wise–to salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus; every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness, that the man of God may be fitted–for every good work having been completed."
(2Ti 3:15-17)
The “Holy Writings” spoken of here is the “old testament”. If the “Holy Writings” are good enough for Timothy, operating in the Holy Spirit and in a “new testament” church, why should they not be for us also?
Matt and I don’t have exactly the same views, Auggy. I could care less if pork is healthy or not. I obey God because He is just, right, true, holy and He says not to eat pork (among other things). God never says anything about “health laws”. Not to say that health is not worth considering. Simply put, He is my Creator, He created this earth, the animals, He has said this is food for you, this is not. Thus, I obey. He knows a whole lot more than I do.
Already went over this but, hand washing according to the elders is not Torah. Simply: elders=man made laws added to or taken from Torah many times.
You want to focus on punishment for sin. I have no idea why or what it has to do with my not eating pork or keeping the Sabbath. I have no authority or great wisdom for you in this area, as this authority has been given to others, including governing authorities, as it says in Romans. It would be nice if every person on earth followed the higher path but, as long as we are in the flesh, sadly - it’s not going to happen. God commands us for our own good to give up wrongs, not rights. His system always results in Liberty and freedom. American law, includes “freedom”. The idea of freedom and law fit together in our minds when we speak of American law. Why not God’s law? The fathers said that the whole “freedom experiment” hinged on the people’s commitment to keep and do the commandments of God. Thus, we have enjoyed great freedom here. Sadly for a very short time - and I think we all know why. We don’t keep or do the commandments anymore and it is the christian institutional religion that is leading the rebellion and forging our chains of slavery to harsh, unjust law. We are on the edge of a knife - thanks to “human intuition” leading us away from God’s law (just, holy, good) and into what we call “love”. It’s easy to say we don’t need the law - especially God’s “old ways” (“The Ancient Principles” as Jefferson put it) and that we know better. We’ll see how we feel about that when we finally do away with justice in America. We’ll see what “freedom” is all about when what remains of God’s law is gone from this country. When it finally really effects you. When all is not theoretical talk - then we will know how great God’s law really is - how “easy His yoke and how light His burden”. Even those who profited by eliminating God’s law will grieve. Oh yeah, it will all work out in the end but . . .
Unchecked power is the foundation of tyranny. God’s just law checks the powers, it protects the weak against the strong.
He who has ears and all that . . . lol.
Just some thoughts.
