The importance of the Torah

[karen freeinchristman]

In light of the Gospels, how much weight should we give to the Torah?

Would you say we should keep all of the commands in the Torah, or only some of them, or none of them?

(This is a question arising out of the 90-day Bible study, but would like to get the opinion of others who may not read that thread.)

I wanted to make this a 'poll', but accidentally hit the wrong key and now I cannot change the thread.

[karen freeinchristman]

From wikipedia:

Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) accepts the books of the Torah as Scripture, but does not believe that all the Mosaic laws apply directly to Christians under the new covenant (or New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament)). While a few Christians from time to time have deduced from statements about the law in the writings of the apostle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle) Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus) that Christians are under grace to the exclusion of all law (see antinomianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism)), this is not the usual viewpoint of Christians. The vast majority at least affirm that the moral principles of the Decalogue still apply. The topic of Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus) and the law is still frequently debated among New Testament scholars.

[karen freeinchristman]

Antinomianism among Christians

In the case of Christianity, the controversy arises out of the doctrine of grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace), the forgiveness of sins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) and atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement) by faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) in Jesus Christ; Christians being released, in important particulars, from conformity to the Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) polity as a whole, a real difficulty attended the settlement of the limits and the immediate authority of the remainder, known vaguely as the moral law, see Cafeteria Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity). If God forgives sins, what exactly is the disadvantage in sinning, or the reward of obedience?

There are several issues that are addressed by the charge of antinomianism. The charge may represent the fear that a given theological position does not lead to the edification of the believer or assist him in leading a regenerate life. Doctrines that tend to erode the authority of the church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church) and its right to prescribe religious practices for the faithful are often condemned as antinomian. The charge is also brought against those whose teachings are perceived as hostile to government and established authority.

Indications are not wanting that St Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus)'s doctrine of justification by faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_by_faith) was, in his own day, mistaken or perverted in the interests of immoral licence. The first people accused of antinomianism were found, apparently, in Gnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism); various aberrant and licentious acts were ascribed to these by their orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox) enemies. In the Book of Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) 2:6-15, the New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament) speaks of Nicolaitanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaitanes), who are traditionally identified with a Gnostic sect, in terms that suggest the charge of antinomianism might be appropriate. We have few independent records of actual Gnostic teachings, but they seem to have approached the question in two ways: Marcionites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionites), named by Clement of Alexandria Antitactae (revolters against the Demiurge) held the Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) economy to be throughout tainted by its source; but they are not accused of licentiousness. Manichaeans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeans), again, holding their spiritual being to be unaffected by the action of matter, regarded carnal sins as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease. Kindred to this latter view was the position of sundry sects of English fanatics during the Commonwealth, who denied that an elect person sinned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinned), even when committing acts in themselves gross and evil.

Roman Catholicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism) tends to charge Protestantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism) with antinomianism, based in part on the distinctively Protestant doctrine of sola fide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide), salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation) by faith alone, (cf. James 2:24), and the typical Protestant rejection of the elaborate sacramental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament) liturgy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy) of the Roman church, and its body of canon law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law). Within Roman Catholicism itself, Blaise Pascal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal) accused the Jesuits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus) of antinomianism in his Lettres provinciales, charging that Jesuit casuistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casuistry) undermined moral principles.

Different from either of these was the antinomianism charged by Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther) against Johannes Agricola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Agricola). Its starting-point was a dispute with Melanchthon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanchthon) in 1527 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1527) as to the relation between repentance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repentance) and faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith). Melanchthon urged that repentance must precede faith, and that knowledge of the moral law is needed to produce repentance. Agricola gave the initial place to faith, maintaining that repentance is the work, not of law, but of the gospel-given knowledge of the love of God. The resulting Antinomian controversy (the only one within the Lutheran body in Luther's lifetime) is not remarkable for the precision or the moderation of the combatants on either side. Agricola was apparently satisfied in conference with Luther and Melanchthon at Torgau, December 1527. His eighteen Positiones of 1537 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1537) revived the controversy and made it acute. Random as are some of his statements, he was consistent in two objects:


in the interest of solifidian doctrine, to place the rejection of the Catholic doctrine of good works on a sure ground;
in the interest of the New Testament, to find all needful guidance for Christian duty in its principles, if not in its precepts.
From the latter part of the 17th century charges of antinomianism have frequently been directed against Calvinists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism), on the ground of their disparagement of "deadly doing" and of "legal preaching." The virulent controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced as its ablest outcome Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism (1771-1775). Other Protestant groups that have been so accused include the Anabaptists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist) and Mennonites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite). In the history of American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) Puritanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritanism), Roger Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29) and Anne Hutchinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hutchinson) were accused of antinomian teachings by the Puritan leadership of New England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England).

Theological charges of antinomianism typically imply that the opponent's doctrine leads to various sorts of licentiousness, and imply that the antinomian chooses his theology in order to further a career of dissipation. The conspicuous austerity of life among surviving groups of Anabaptists or Calvinists suggests that these accusations are mostly for rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) effect.

Quakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends) believed in an extreme form of Antinomianism. They felt that educated ministry was not needed, backed by the idea that anyone can take their own interpretation from The Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible). These ideas supported by the Quaker group fueled a conflict in England (because of the radical nature).


(also from wikipedia)

[lonnienord]

I believe the Torah applies to us. I believe we should be keeping the Sabbath Holy. I believe that we should be celebrating the High Holy days. I believe we should obey the sabbath years and jubilee. I believe we should keep Kosher. I believe we should adapt the Temple worship and priesthood to Christianity. I believe that the only changes that the Christian should make is the sacrificial system.

the sacrificial system was pointing forward to JESUS and HE became the sacrificial lamb. and the sacrificial system should be replaced by the celebration of the Eucharist.

[AngCath]

I personally give a lot of weight to the Torah but do not feel that Christians need be bound by the purity laws.

[lonnienord]

I personally give a lot of weight to the Torah but do not feel that Christians need be bound by the purity laws.Why not?? Doesn't GOD call us all to holiness?

[AngCath]

yes but i don't think that the prohibition of shellfish has anything to do with that.

[svdbygrace]

I also agree that Christians should be bound by the Torah, as in

2 Timothy 3:15-16

However, I agree with AngCath that the purity laws/some of the other laws are no longer "in effect" for Christians. The laws that still do apply are held within the New Testament.

[gitlance]

I believe the Torah applies to us. I believe we should be keeping the Sabbath Holy. I believe that we should be celebrating the High Holy days. I believe we should obey the sabbath years and jubilee. I believe we should keep Kosher. I believe we should adapt the Temple worship and priesthood to Christianity. I believe that the only changes that the Christian should make is the sacrificial system.

the sacrificial system was pointing forward to JESUS and HE became the sacrificial lamb. and the sacrificial system should be replaced by the celebration of the Eucharist.

Well those are some very interesting opinions from a Roman Catholic. Do you not believe that the laws and regulations of the Church have superceded the laws of the Torah?

[gtsecc]

I believe the Torah applies to us. I believe we should be keeping the Sabbath Holy. I believe that we should be celebrating the High Holy days. I believe we should obey the sabbath years and jubilee. I believe we should keep Kosher. I believe we should adapt the Temple worship and priesthood to Christianity. I believe that the only changes that the Christian should make is the sacrificial system.

the sacrificial system was pointing forward to JESUS and HE became the sacrificial lamb. and the sacrificial system should be replaced by the celebration of the Eucharist.
The Mass comes right out of the Temple worship.
So, we do keep that aspect.
However, I don't see anything wrong with eating Pork

[lonnienord]

The Mass comes right out of the Temple worship.
So, we do keep that aspect.
However, I don't see anything wrong with eating Porkme neither except for the fact that GOD said not to.:scratch: course if GOD said it that makes it very important to me!! I would rather obey :bow: GOD!!

[lonnienord]

Well those are some very interesting opinions from a Roman Catholic. Do you not believe that the laws and regulations of the Church have superceded the laws of the Torah?these opinions are from a person who loves GOD, was raised a Seventh-day Adventist and reads and prays the scripture. I am a RC because i am currently getting fed there. If there was an episcopal church which was biblical and charasmatic close to me i would probably go there cause i don't agree with Rome 100%. But for now GOD has me in the RCC. Though if you check my recent posting history i post on this board and the Deeper Fellowship boards much more than i do on OBOB

[gitlance]

me neither except for the fact that GOD said not to.:scratch: course if GOD said it that makes it very important to me!! I would rather obey :bow: GOD!!

GOD also told Peter not to call anything unclean which GOD had made clean... the dietary laws were overturned.

[gitlance]

these opinions are from a person who loves GOD, was raised a Seventh-day Adventist and reads and prays the scripture. I am a RC because i am currently getting fed there. If there was an episcopal church which was biblical and charasmatic close to me i would probably go there cause i don't agree with Rome 100%. But for now GOD has me in the RCC. Though if you check my recent posting history i post on this board and the Deeper Fellowship boards much more than i do on OBOB

Be careful with your wording. The Episcopal Church (and there is only one in America) is biblical and charismatic.

[PaladinValer]

The Torah is fulfilled in Jesus.

The moral and social Laws of the Torah are more or less still applicable as they are fulfilled in Jesus' Two Great Commandments.

The ritual/holiness Laws of the Torah are, however, completely unnecessary. Jesus Himself is our High Priest now. There is no need to follow these Laws. In fact, the Council of Jerusalem forbid the Church or any Christian to be forced to follow them. Voluntary use was usually frowned upon too, and is probably heterodox at best (see the Canons of the Council of Nicaea I).

[Fish and Bread]

God had one convenant (or contract) with the Israelites and a different convenant (Or contract) with the Christians. To me, that's fairly clear in both the scriptures and in tradition. Now, let's say Lonnie and I each were to sign contracts with the same person, would we bound by the term's of each other's contract? Of course not! We'd only be bound by the terms of the contract we signed.

So, Christians are not obligated to follow the cultural laws of the Israelites like keeping kosher. That's pretty clear to me through logic, but it is made absolutely explicit in scripture ("Do not make unclean what I have made clean!"). Now, is it okay if someone wants to keep kosher? Sure. Is it okay if someone wants to follow the old Jewish observances and do Passover and so forth? I don't have any problem with that. But under the new convenant that's purely a private devotion and nothing that the whole of Christianity is obliged to follow.

I think the interesting question in my mind raised by much of Leviticus and a lot of the Old Testament is how much of it Jesus intended to absolish and how much he intended to simply recreate or continue in a modified format, suitable for a wider audience, and taking into account his sacrifice for us all. I think the general Protestant view is that he intended to abolish most of the law, because it was too difficult for men to follow, and save us instead purely through faith. The Catholic perspective seems to be that he simply changed the law to apply to all the faithful and not just members of the Israeli tribe, through the sacrifice on the cross, and in doing so modified the law so that it would be more suitable for the new era and the new peoples that would be encountered. The real question is: Do we live under no law but the law of faith or a do we simply live under a new system of the law that replaced the old?

John

[lonnienord]

GOD also told Peter not to call anything unclean which GOD had made clean... the dietary laws were overturned.that is not true it is a total misreading of the text. GOD was telling Peter to minister to gentiles.

[lonnienord]

The Torah is fulfilled in Jesus.

The moral and social Laws of the Torah are more or less still applicable as they are fulfilled in Jesus' Two Great Commandments.

The ritual/holiness Laws of the Torah are, however, completely unnecessary. Jesus Himself is our High Priest now. There is no need to follow these Laws. In fact, the Council of Jerusalem forbid the Church or any Christian to be forced to follow them. Voluntary use was usually frowned upon too, and is probably heterodox at best (see the Canons of the Council of Nicaea I).so why is the torah a part of our Bible ~ seems like a bunch of dead weight i'm carrying around.

[gtsecc]

/gets out the popcorn

[lonnienord]

God had one convenant (or contract) with the Israelites and a different convenant (Or contract) with the Christians. To me, that's fairly clear in both the scriptures and in tradition. Now, let's say Lonnie and I each were to sign contracts with the same person, would we bound by the term's of each other's contract? Of course not! We'd only be bound by the terms of the contract we signed.

So, Christians are not obligated to follow the cultural laws of the Israelites like keeping kosher. That's pretty clear to me through logic, but it is made absolutely explicit in scripture ("Do not make unclean what I have made clean!"). Now, is it okay if someone wants to keep kosher? Sure. Is it okay if someone wants to follow the old Jewish observances and do Passover and so forth? I don't have any problem with that. But under the new convenant that's purely a private devotion and nothing that the whole of Christianity is obliged to follow.

I think the interesting question in my mind raised by much of Leviticus and a lot of the Old Testament is how much of it Jesus intended to absolish and how much he intended to simply recreate or continue in a modified format, suitable for a wider audience, and taking into account his sacrifice for us all. I think the general Protestant view is that he intended to abolish most of the law, because it was too difficult for men to follow, and save us instead purely through faith. The Catholic perspective seems to be that he simply changed the law to apply to all the faithful and not just members of the Israeli tribe, through the sacrifice on the cross, and in doing so modified the law so that it would be more suitable for the new era and the new peoples that would be encountered. The real question is: Do we live under no law but the law of faith or a do we simply live under a new system of the law that replaced the old?

Johna careful reading would show that GOD was talking specific about people Jews-Gentiles.

[AngCath]

lonnie, you are right this isn't the debate section so why did you bring that up?
also, don't you think it sad that just because Christians don't need to be kosher that you would render the Torah useless? There is a lot there and purity laws are only a small part of that so don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[lonnienord]

/gets out the popcornhey can i have some of that there popcorn or as one of the main actor should i be acting and not watching and munching on the popcorn???

[Fish and Bread]

that is not true it is a total misreading of the text. GOD was telling Peter to minister to gentiles.

Would God have told Peter to do something that was contrary to their agreement? In effect, under your scenario, he'd have been saying "Minister to the Gentiles by sinning.". I don't think God tells us to sin, though. I also think a reading of the text indicates that it was more likely that God was establishing a moral principle rather than a one-time exception. "Do not make unclean what I have made clean!" indicates to me that God is saying that these foods had been made clean for our consumption previously and for all time. He didn't say "Hey, here's an exception to the rule I have for you", he rather rebuked him, in essence saying in essence "Don't you know that isn't a rule?". The only way it wouldn't have been a rule is if we were under a new covenant rather than the old, which indeed is what Christianity has historically believed (That we're under a new convenant).

John

[Fish and Bread]

so why is the torah a part of our Bible ~ seems like a bunch of dead weight i'm carrying around.

The Torah is still valuable because it reveals part of the way God thinks and acts in the world. In essence, we gain valuable insights into his personality. And, of course, some of what is there is eternally applicable (i.e. "Thou shalt not murder") because it is God's moral law, which supercedes cultural considerations.

John

[lonnienord]

lonnie, you are right this isn't the debate section so why did you bring that up?
also, don't you think it sad that just because Christians don't need to be kosher that you would render the Torah useless? There is a lot there and purity laws are only a small part of that so don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.i didn't bring it up i simply responded to anothe post. It is hard for me to throw out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. how can we cut out some of the torah without throwing it all out??? How do we know what to throw out and what to keep???

[Fish and Bread]

being very careful here and if this post gets thrown out i will understand. I know that this isn't a debate section. It seems to me that when the Episcopal Church decided to ordain a practicing homosexual it became unbiblical. No?

No.

John

[Fish and Bread]

a careful reading would show that GOD was talking specific about people Jews-Gentiles.

That might be part of it, but I don't think it was the more explicit part of the exchange. It seems to me that the kosher food was the actual explicit part of the dialogue and the rest was more or less implicit.

John

[gtsecc]

unbiblical. No?

UnBiblical?

Maybe or maybe not - plenty of Christians have read the Bible and interpreted it in opposite ways - especially on this issue.

UnTraditional - Yes.

[PaladinValer]

so why is the torah a part of our Bible ~ seems like a bunch of dead weight i'm carrying around.

Reread what I said.

Incidentally, you have no right coming into our forum with such rude and un-Christian assalts and accusations.

[lonnienord]

Would God have told Peter to do something that was contrary to their agreement? In effect, under your scenario, he'd have been saying "Minister to the Gentiles by sinning.". I don't think God tells us to sin, though. I also think a reading of the text indicates that it was more likely that God was establishing a moral principle rather than a one-time exception. "Do not make unclean what I have made clean!" indicates to me that God is saying that these foods had been made clean for our consumption previously and for all time. He didn't say "Hey, here's an exception to the rule I have for you", he rather rebuked him, in essence saying in essence "Don't you know that isn't a rule?". The only way it wouldn't have been a rule is if we were under a new covenant rather than the old, which indeed is what Christianity has historically believed (That we're under a new convenant).

Johnthe dream was so specific it wasn't about food it happened three times and then Peter woke up and there were three gentiles at the door. The whole dream was not about food nor was it about sinning. It was totally about recognizing that Gentiles are people who GOD wanted Peter to minister to.

Are you familar with Joseph and the kings dream about cows? it wasn't about cows at all. (the seven skinny cows ate the seven fat cows ~ did that have anything to do with cows eating cows??? definately not it was about 7 good years followed by 7 years of fmine)

[lonnienord]

Reread what I said.

Incidentally, you have no right coming into our forum with such rude and un-Christian assalts and accusations.i love you and your church!! How was i rude or un-Christian. (I feel that ordaining a practicing Homosexual is unbiblical is that making an accusation?)

i come to you as a loving brother. If i seem to be un-christian i am really really sorry.

And it is my goal to focus on JESUS and as much as i have failed to do that here (and i know i have) please forgive me!!

[Fish and Bread]

the dream was so specific it wasn't about food it happened three times and then Peter woke up and there were three gentiles at the door. The whole dream was not about food nor was it about sinning. It was totally about recognizing that Gentiles are people who GOD wanted Peter to minister to.

If you happen to recall the chapter and verse number, I'll reread it and get back to you.

Are you familar with Joseph and the kings dream about cows? it wasn't about cows at all. (the seven skinny cows ate the seven fat cows ~ did that have anything to do with cows eating cows??? definately not it was about 7 good years followed by 7 years of fmine)

I just read that one recently for our bible in 90 days study. :) I am aware that some dreams can be symbolic metaphors, but they're usually not metaphors were God tells you to do something sinful, generally speaking. :)

John

[gtsecc]

Reread what I said.

Incidentally, you have no right coming into our forum with such rude and un-Christian assalts and accusations.
We can handle it gracefully I hope.
A lot of folks in the Christian world think we are a little nuts for somethings we have done. I want folks to come here and ask us about it.

[gtsecc]

i love you and your church!! !
I know you do.
Soemtimes it is easy totake things the wrong way over the net.
No worries. Thank you for asking questions here.

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

I know you do.
Soemtimes it is easy totake things the wrong way over the net.
No worries. Thank you for asking questions here.

I agree. I have enjoyed hearing your perspective on this issue. Also keep in mind that Anglicanism has almost 80 million adherents around the world, and we don't always agree on everything. The ECUSA has both very liberal and very conservative churches.

[gitlance]

that is not true it is a total misreading of the text. GOD was telling Peter to minister to gentiles.

Acts 10: "About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ 14But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’ 15The voice said to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ 16This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven."

Peter was hungry. God told him to kill and eat. Peter said "no," because those animals were unclean according to Jewish law. God said not to call unclean what God has made clean.

The Hebrew law does not apply any longer, because God has redeemed the entire creation through Jesus Christ. Nothing that Christ has touched is unclean -- all has been made clean through God's grace. This is what the Church calls a "sacramental worldview".

[gitlance]

Lonnie,

I think perhaps you should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and then talk to your priest about this topic. What you are proposing (adherence to the laws of Torah) is not a Catholic teaching... you really should not be teaching or believing things contrary to the Roman Catholic Church if you are going to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Heaven knows we have enough RCs running around who do an awful shame to such a wonderful Church simply because they have no clue what She teaches.

[svdbygrace]

/gets out the popcorn

Are you going to share? :confused: :P

[lonnienord]

Acts 10: "About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ 14But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’ 15The voice said to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ 16This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven."

Peter was hungry. God told him to kill and eat. Peter said "no," because those animals were unclean according to Jewish law. God said not to call unclean what God has made clean.

The Hebrew law does not apply any longer, because God has redeemed the entire creation through Jesus Christ. Nothing that Christ has touched is unclean -- all has been made clean through God's grace. This is what the Church calls a "sacramental worldview".Acts 10:9-23 i think a close reading of this shows the dream was not about food. I won't go post futher on this dream. you all know how i read it and for those who understand it differently can we just agree to disagree.

[lonnienord]

Lonnie,

I think perhaps you should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and then talk to your priest about this topic. What you are proposing (adherence to the laws of Torah) is not a Catholic teaching... you really should not be teaching or believing things contrary to the Roman Catholic Church if you are going to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Heaven knows we have enough RCs running around who do an awful shame to such a wonderful Church simply because they have no clue what She teaches.i wish we didn't have to pigion hole people. I explained in an earlier post what i believe. i have read and have a copy of the CCC which i use often. I am a cafeteria Catholic. I really wish there was a Seventh-day Catholic church which had open communion with all Christians who belived in transubstantian allowed to partake of JESUS. I also believe in the priesthood of all belivers. Mass should be prayed by all present. GOD honors the prayers of all of us and would preform the miracle for any of us. In this discussion i am me i am not RCC in this discussion ok? I am closer to messianic Jew

and above all i am a JESUS freak

[gtsecc]

Well, you have found the Historic Churches.
You will refine your beliefs more and mroe I bet soon.

[PaladinValer]

The dietary parts of the Torah are part of the ritual/holiness parts of the Torah. They're gone now.

Only the Judaizers, which were condenmed by the Council of Jerusalem in the 1st Century, say we must follow such laws.

And since I must, according to the rules, give proof for this accusation, allow me to refer the reader to Gitlance's post (#37) as said proof.

There is no such thing as a Christian requirement to follow a dietary restriction besides fasting. There is no obligation to do so, and both Scripture and Holy Tradition state quite clearly that such obligations are not even Christian at all. To say they are means Jesus died for nothing. It means He is a sham; a false messiah of a false God of a false faith that is currently misleading 2 billion people.

Jesus is my High Priest. I can eat all the pork, wear all the polyester, and drink all the coffee I want (the food part being within reason, of course. Gluttonly isn't something I admire). The only reasons why those things were even condemned in the first place was because the Gentiles did them. That's what the actually definition of what an abomination is; it is something that Gentiles do and Jews are not to do.

Christianity isn't Judaism. Judaism isn't Christianity.

[RobNJ]

/gets out the popcorn

And since you're not sharing, it's a GOOD THING I brought my own!!:P

[higgs2]

And since you're not sharing, it's a GOOD THING I brought my own!!:P
It's nice to see you :wave:

[Velo Princesse]

Mark 7:18-19
He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean)

I just read that last week and it seems to fit ya'lls conversation...

Randi

[karen freeinchristman]

I believe we should be keeping the Sabbath Holy

I have a really hard time figuring out exactly what it means to keep the Sabbath holy. In the NT, we are told that with the cleansing sacrifice made for us by Jesus, we are now holy people. So, what does that mean, to keep the Sabbath holy? Also, I have a really hard time imagining how it could be possible to not do any work on a Sunday. For one thing, how do we define 'work'? It means different things to different people. Some people get a lot of enjoyment from doing what others might call 'work'. :confused:

[stone]

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.




To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.
To carry out (an order, for example).
To measure up to; satisfy. See Synonyms at perform (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perform). See Synonyms at satisfy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=satisfy).
To bring to an end; complete
We can scratch the 4th definition, as it conflicts with that he said he did not come to abolish it, you are left with the other definitions of the word. I'm finding the Roman Empire played a major role in altering the ways christians worshipped and the ways they adapted them are still to this day.

The only reason why christians began to worship on Sunday was to avoid being charged taxes. Jews would not change because it is the law to keep the sabbath holy. I believe Jesus is proud of them for keeping the law. I believe this is also written in the new testament somewhere, the jews keeping the law that is.

I too find myself being drawn towards messianic judaism, but i have much research of all christians to do 1st.

[stone]

oops, i didn't realize what forum i was in.


heh

should i delete this?

[karen freeinchristman]

oops, i didn't realize what forum i was in.


heh

should i delete this?

I don't think you should delete it. :)

[svdbygrace]

I have a really hard time figuring out exactly what it means to keep the Sabbath holy. In the NT, we are told that with the cleansing sacrifice made for us by Jesus, we are now holy people. So, what does that mean, to keep the Sabbath holy? Also, I have a really hard time imagining how it could be possible to not do any work on a Sunday. For one thing, how do we define 'work'? It means different things to different people. Some people get a lot of enjoyment from doing what others might call 'work'. :confused:

The Sabbath, the Seventh day of the Week which is Saturday. (Jewish day of Worship and rest)
The Lord's Day, the First day of the Week which is Sunday. (Christian day of worship).

[karen freeinchristman]

The Sabbath, the Seventh day of the Week which is Saturday. (Jewish day of Worship and rest)
The Lord's Day, the First day of the Week which is Sunday. (Christian day of worship).

So, thinking about this, should we be keeping Saturday as our day of rest and Sunday as our day of worship?

I still can't get my head around the idea of doing no work whatsoever. (Maybe it's a woman thing? ;) )(sorry, couldn't resist that one! :cool: )

[svdbygrace]

So, thinking about this, should we be keeping Saturday as our day of rest and Sunday as our day of worship?

I still can't get my head around the idea of doing no work whatsoever. (Maybe it's a woman thing? ;) )(sorry, couldn't resist that one! :cool: )

Nope, I think we just observe the Lord's Day. :) (IMHO, though)

[Fish and Bread]

So, thinking about this, should we be keeping Saturday as our day of rest and Sunday as our day of worship?

I don't think we're commanded to, but I think doing so may be beneficial for folks, if it's practical for them to do. Unfortunately, two days not doing any sort of work isn't always something folks can usually pull off, because if they work Monday-Friday, Saturday is cleaning/household chore day! :)

John