Which OT Laws are carried over to the NT?

[KingsGambit]

If we focus on the two Jesus said were the biggies, we wouldn't have to worry about all the rest.

Problem is, this argument is big among the pro homosexuality crowd, who dont see it as a violation of the two great commandments. We have more work to do.

[One Bad Pig]

Problem is, this argument is big among the pro homosexuality crowd, who dont see it as a violation of the two great commandments. We have more work to do.

Teaching them the true meaning of love would mitigate that - if they were willing to learn.

[Hornet]

Per Eph. 2, Col. 3, Gal. 3, Heb. 7, and others, I believe that the entirety of the Law of the Obsolete Covenant -- each and every decree, ordinance, and Commandment -- has been abolished, cancelled, nailed to the Cross, hung on the Tree. The "laws" of the New Covenant are to have faith in Jesus as I AM, and to love one another / love our neighbors as ourselves / treat others as we wish others to treat us.

Ephesians 2:14-15 states, "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace."

Jesus is our peace who has broken down the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances. What are these ordinances?

What did Jesus mean when He said that He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them?

[KingsGambit]

Teaching them the true meaning of love would mitigate that - if they were willing to learn.

How would you go about explaining it within the context of addressing homosexuality?

[Hornet]

The moral law of the old testament is still in "effect" - basically what is right and wrong (stealing, lying, murdering, coveting, sexual immorality etc) but the punishments or consequences are no longer in effect, nor are the ceremonial laws (dealing with cleanliness, sacrifices, wearing or eating certain things)

And also as gentiles, we were never under the OT law. That was for hebrews.

Acts 21:25
As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

Some people say that the Law of Moses was a unit and that it cannot be divided up into different parts such as the moral law and the ceremonial. How would you respond to this?

[KingsGambit]

Some people say that the Law of Moses was a unit and that it cannot be divided up into different parts such as the moral law and the ceremonial. How would you respond to this?

Ask them for evidence of this.

[Faber]

So having sex with your mother is no longer immoral?

That wasn't meant to be a complete list.
But there's this...
incesticide.jpg

[Hornet]

Problem is, this argument is big among the pro homosexuality crowd, who dont see it as a violation of the two great commandments. We have more work to do.

Does God's institution of marriage in the Book of Genesis rule out homosexuality?

[KingsGambit]

Does God's institution of marriage in the Book of Genesis rule out homosexuality?

By itself, I think it would be an inconclusive argument though it can help explain why homosexuality is prohibited elsewhere. I prefer to stick with the direct prohibitions in Scripture.

Awhile back, a couple of people tried to use natural law theory to argue against homosexuality. I pointed out that this would prove more than most people wanted. For example, the act of pitching a baseball overhand is inherently unnatural to the arm (this is not controversial within baseball circles, and pitcher injury rates are fairly high), but nobody was willing to concede that baseball was thus sinful. I think it's best if we simply conclude that homosexuality is sinful because God directly said so.

[Sparko]

Some people say that the Law of Moses was a unit and that it cannot be divided up into different parts such as the moral law and the ceremonial. How would you respond to this?

They are wrong. Morality is objective and true for everyone at the basic level. God set the boundaries of right and wrong. And they mostly repeated in the new testament. But God also gave specific rules for specific people, like how to sacrifice animals, what clothes to wear, setting up governments, priests, and so on. He gave those rules to the Hebrews. They don't even make sense to modern people. And as I just quoted previously, the apostles themselves said that those rules do not apply.

[Littlejoe]

Following the Law as a basis for our morality is still valid and IMO, good, what was done away with was the reliance on obedience to the Law in order to have right standing with God...that was replaced with the Cross. "There is now no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..." But, if you life doesn't change, then maybe your future home location has not changed as well.

[Rushing Jaws]

Per Eph. 2, Col. 3, Gal. 3, Heb. 7, and others, I believe that the entirety of the Law of the Obsolete Covenant -- each and every decree, ordinance, and Commandment -- has been abolished, cancelled, nailed to the Cross, hung on the Tree. The "laws" of the New Covenant are to have faith in Jesus as I AM, and to love one another / love our neighbors as ourselves / treat others as we wish others to treat us.

Nothing to add to that, except to say that Acts 15 seems to solve the problem by adopting into the NT a few OT laws, but with a new, transformed, typically NT motive. But unless otherwise stated, of particular laws, the Law is defunct, dead, fulfilled, over, “done away in Christ”. Context can be very helpful here.

Which is BTW one reason to stop worrying about whether OT narratives happened as described, IMO. The NT Christian’s “setting in life” is not the Law, as it was for the Jews; it is Christ. Not a God-given Code, but a God-given Christ.

[Rushing Jaws]

Incest was not only morally acceptable, but absolutely necessary at the beginning of Creation.

So, from our perspective now, creepy and "ew," but not a moral absolute.

Disagree totally. With both parts.

1. Gen. 4 is not biography.
2. If God can be OK with incest, which is unrighteous later on, His Righteousness either:

a) is OK with what is evil - or
b) changes its moral content, so that incest, from being OK, becomes wicked - or
c) the Divine attitude to incest is changeable and capricious - or
d) the OT is just a lot of people writing down their best, fallible, guesses as to God’s Character - or
e) the OT may reveal God’s Righteous Character, but the readers have to guess which parts reveal it, & which don’t.

If God can be OK with incest, why not with genocide, and with God knows what other horrors ? God, one assumes, must be at least as righteous as a morally good man. So if human beings are not OK with incest, I don’t see how God, Who is Infinite in Goodness, Righteousness and Holiness, can have been OK with it. STM the widespread and ancient taboo against incest is a reflection of God’s Righteousness.

[Hornet]

By itself, I think it would be an inconclusive argument though it can help explain why homosexuality is prohibited elsewhere. I prefer to stick with the direct prohibitions in Scripture.

Awhile back, a couple of people tried to use natural law theory to argue against homosexuality. I pointed out that this would prove more than most people wanted. For example, the act of pitching a baseball overhand is inherently unnatural to the arm (this is not controversial within baseball circles, and pitcher injury rates are fairly high), but nobody was willing to concede that baseball was thus sinful. I think it's best if we simply conclude that homosexuality is sinful because God directly said so.

That's true. The Book of Genesis does not prohibit homosexuality.

I think it is hard to make a natural law argument against homosexual marriage. One could say that homosexual marriage does not fulfill all of the purposes of marriage, but who defines the purpose of marriage? I think its best to say what God says about it.

[One Bad Pig]

That's true. The Book of Genesis does not prohibit homosexuality.

I think it is hard to make a natural law argument against homosexual marriage. One could say that homosexual marriage does not fulfill all of the purposes of marriage, but who defines the purpose of marriage? I think its best to say what God says about it.

See Gen. 1:22, Gen. 9:1

One could quite justifiably say that homosexual 'marriage' fulfills NONE of the purposes of marriage.