Are we still required to follow Mosaic law?

[Gman]

That's great Gman. Now that you mention it, I've been on a diet similar to the Atkins diet. I get to eat a lot of bacon. It's called "the blessing of having the freedom in Christ to eat whatever you want" diet. [/u]

Doh..

G, what kind of job do you have that gives you Saturday off, and requires you to work on Sunday?

None...

Gman, Jesus Christ is my Sabbath. And, you're not taking Him from me.

Hey if you want to work seven days of the week, that's fine by me.. Just don't complain to Him about our chaotic workaholic lives then...

[Wolfgang]

Yes, there really is a Mosaic law, Leviticus 19:14 that forbids putting stumbling blocks in front of blind people. You mainstream Christians, now, are you really going to tell me that is one of the "laws" Jesus abolished in Ephesians 2:15?

RickD, the freedom you actually have, if you are going to be really honest, is to have a significantly higher chance of contracting stomach cancer as a result of eating bacon. I prefer being in a relatively painless, effortless dietary prison in which I can keep a healthy, cancer free stomach. Decades of well documented research has shown that bacon is the meat most suspected of causing stomach cancer. I could give a very long list of serious ailments caused by eating pork in general, too. Eating what has been divinely ordained as forbidden is risky business physically, and potentially deadly spiritually.

[RickD]

Yes, there really is a Mosaic law, Leviticus 19:14 that forbids putting stumbling blocks in front of blind people. You mainstream Christians, now, are you really going to tell me that is one of the "laws" Jesus abolished in Ephesians 2:15?

Wolfgang, unfortunately this is a matter of technology keeping up with mosaic law. Almost perfectly coinciding with the abolishment of the "stumbling block" law, the blind walking stick was invented. So now when we "mainstream Christians" place stumbling blocks in front of blind people, they just use their walking sticks to feel their way past the obstacles. Gone are the days when I would take a field trip with my church group to homes of blind people, just to laugh hysterically as they tripped over our strategically placed stumbling blocks. Those were the days...

[RickD]

Wolfgang wrote:
RickD, the freedom you actually have, if you are going to be really honest, is to have a significantly higher chance of contracting stomach cancer as a result of eating bacon.

Thanks for the tip Dr. Oz. It seems this article agrees with your view on eating bacon. The article also states that being tall poses a higher risk of cancer. So I eat bacon on occasion(maybe once or twice a month), and I'm short. So I reckon I'll be ok.
Eating bacon and being tall causes cancer

Wolfgang wrote:
Eating what has been divinely ordained as forbidden is risky business physically, and potentially deadly spiritually.

Are you saying my salvation is at risk because I eat bacon?

[Wolfgang]

Yes, because you are deliberately and in a sustained manner violating a known, well established, minimal dietary standard. With remorseful repentance, though, you can seek forgiveness and with the help of Jesus will most likely be forgiven. That sin and even a few others may not necessarily "buy you a ticket" into the "lake of fire," which will probably be nuclear in nature because it will also be hot and massive enough to evaporate the world's oceans. Deliberate sin combined with a CONTEMPT for divine laws is what defines anomia, the Greek word for breaking Old Testament laws. Your previous humorous remark about the stumbling blocks also revealed some element of contempt for such a law protecting the blind (maybe the stumbling block law was directed towards smart aleck teenage punks pulling pranks on blind people). Believing mainstream Christianity's many flawed doctrines is treading on dangerous territory. I suppose you believe that tornadoes and hurricanes are merely chance, mindless weather events with never any divine purpose, too. Old Testament Biblical verses and historical evidence, though, indicate otherwise. Unstoppable tornadoes and hurricanes have not been abolished. Neither have pork trichinosis, ASP (Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning, PSP (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning), and rat lungworm, ocassionaly found in shrimp and crabs, all forbidden foods. You would think, if the Lord is fair and reasonable, that He would have abolished those very serious health risks, too, if He had abolished the dietary laws. SInce it can be assumed that the Lord is fair and reasonable, and since those health risks obviously have not been abolished, those still existing health risks for eating forbidden food are further evidence that the food laws are still in force. The Lord does not change, and His laws therefore do not change, unless verses in the Bible tell us one or more laws have been changed.

You are grossly underestimating the temper of the Lord. Yes, of course, the New testament reveals the great, even intense love God the Father and Jesus have for people, but it also continues to reveal the apparently equally great, even intense hatred they Both have for sin, defined by 1 John 3:4 as violating the law, which in Greek means violating the written torah. Matthew 13:41,42 "means business." Verse 41 contains the ominous anomia word in the Greek.

[jlay]

Wolf,
what denomination do you consider yourself part of?

Acts 10: 11,12,13,14,15

[Wolfgang]

Aha, you have really opened yourself up to corrective criticism now. In about 6 or 7 hours I will show you how those verses cannot possibly mean that the food laws have been abolished. You keep preaching, context, context, context. Context will snare you royally again in those Acts 10 verses.

I have some yard work to do for now.

[RickD]

Wolf,
what denomination do you consider yourself part of?

Acts 10: 11,12,13,14,15

Jlay, considering Wolfgang wrote this, and he thinks the Worldwide Church of God is the most righteous church, I think that tells us enough.

Again, I remind everyone that law keeping saves no one, only grace through Jesus Christ is what now saves us. According to Jesus, though, not me or remnant churches of the former Worldwide Church of God, which are the most righteous churches (including like minded sister churches) in the world, according to Jesus parts of the Mosaic laws still need to be strictly obeyed. Failure to obey those laws in a very good manner will not necessarily cost you your salvation, but sloppy obedience could cost you dearly in the competitive "reward" given to you in the next life.

[RickD]

Herbert Armstrong, the founder of The Worldwide Church of God:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_W._Armstrong

Armstrong preached an eclectic set of theological doctrines and teachings that he claimed came directly from the Bible.[2] These theological doctrines and teachings have been referred to as Armstrongism. His teachings included the interpretation of biblical prophecy in light of British Israelism,[3] and required observance of parts of the covenant Law including seventh-day Sabbath, dietary prohibitions, and the covenant law "Holy Days".

The cult of Armstrongism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrongism

Wolfgang, this is a fair warning. If you're going to peddle your cult doctrine, you will be banned. My patience is non existent for this garbage.

[Canuckster1127]

Actually, the Worldwide Church of God that was under Armstrong has repudiated most of the things that Wolfgang is promoting. Their website is here:

http://www.gci.org/

It's worth a look. They've returned to Grace.

In particular, you might want to read this detailed history.

http://www.gci.org/aboutus/history

I think this is the first time I've seen an entire denomination turn from error and return to grace in this manner. There are some small splinter groups from the old movement and that is where some of the other links are coming.

[RickD]

Maybe Wolfgang will take a cue from those formerly known as the Worldwide Church of God, who realized their errors.

[Wolfgang]

Acts 10:11-15 was used to show that the food laws are no longer in force during this age. Many, many reasonable, educated people think that the following interpretation of those verses makes more sense, and that those verses do not support the idea that the dietary laws are abolished. Read the following with an open mind, and then draw your own conclusions.


Acts 10:10-17:"Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; ....... he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' 14 But Peter said, 'Not so Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.' 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, 'What God has cleansed you must not call common.' 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. 17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant ........"

ANALYSIS: One cannot ignore Acts 10:28-29 which say: "........ 'You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for........."
Without reading the latter verses it's easy to jump to the premature conclusion that God has abolished laws restricting which foods can be eaten. After carefully reading Acts 10 one can see that Peter never concluded that he could eat any kind of animal even after seeing the vision three times and "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant." Peter later realized what the revelation really meant. Peter now understood that he should no longer call anyone common or unclean according to verse 28. After recognizing the purpose of the dream he later was able to baptize the first gentiles (non-Israelites) the Lord had called into the Church (verses 45-48). During the time that Jesus lived Jews erroneously believed that gentiles were unclean and should be avoided. Peter's dream showed that God was now beginning to offer salvation to people of any race, and not just to Jews.

In Acts 11:2-18 Peter later told some Jews about this dream, and in verse 18 even those Jews came to the same conclusion about the dream: "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."

[GreyDeSilvisanctis]

I’m sorry for taking long, KBCid. I was travelling for my season’s vacation with my family. (Hey, I apologized! LoL – this is an apologetics site)
Anyway, I thank RickD for replying to some of the earlier posts when I was gone.

So the original mosaic laws that dealt with defining what a sin is are still in effect and they have been magnified to include the inward man.

Christ indeed took our place as a sacrifice but does it mean that we should be bound to the Mosaic laws? This is the question now.

ummm... Christ did not take our place as a sacrifice. The Jews did not sacrifice people. They sacrificed animals. Christ took the place of the 'animals' that were being sacrifed all year long by Jews as offerings for their sins according to mosaic law. Here is an example;
Mat 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Yes, He did. Refer to Rick's post.
In actuality, animals really never cut the cost or even paid our sins in full but I'm sure you knew about this. We were deserving death (Rom 3:23 and Rom 6:23).

See this is a sin offering being given because of a mosaic law that demanded a specific form of sin offering, which was a temporary law, and was still required to be observed until Christ made his sacrifice. At the moment that Christ did make the sacrifice however, it eliminated all the laws that directed specific sacrifices to pay for their sins.
So what the apostles had to deal with after Christ was the ingrained customs of the jews to make animal sacrifices for their sins. They had to teach the people that those laws were temporary and never actually saved the bringer of the sacrifice. What the apostles needed to change was the actions and thoughts of the people from the concept of animal sacrifice eliminating the cost of sin to Jesus Christ being the sacrifice to eliminate the cost of sin.

The gift that Moses commanded was to be a testimony unto the priests of Jesus' work. It's just that obvious. This is a testimony that would be revealed later on to us.
What you're trying to do is lessen the scope of the Law, similar to what the Pharisees did in their hypocrisy so that they may be deemed "Holy" through their works.

A few chapters before Hebrews 10, say that the old covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13).

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

And indeed it did. Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. God has made a new way to take away sin. He also eliminated the simple understanding of what a sin is since he has magnified how a sin can occur. Thus the old agreed upon commandments that limited coverage for the physical has been upgraded to the spiritual and now is to be written on the heart instead of the old stone method.

The New Covenant, let's look at that. But first, let's go back to what the Old Covenant was.

Actually, the "magnification thing" of the requirements of the Law WAS the original intention of the Law. The situation during Jesus' time was that some of the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law skewed the entire thing up (lessened the requirement) so that THEY can be seen as "Holy" which was hypocritical of them as Jesus repeatedly said they were. God never graded nor will he ever grade on the curve because He is a Just God who will never let wickedness go unpunished. (Remember: the wages of sin is death Rom 6:23) I can't keep that kind of Law and nor can you and anyone else but Jesus did. As I have said, Jesus came to show them what the Law really was, not some watered down rules that can easily be broken and bypassed but a mirror to show how disastrously unholy we were in God's eyes.

If that Law was still in our hearts then we basically spit on what Jesus' did. For He came to fulfill that Law once and for all.

The new covenant is that we will love God and our neighbor and if we sin then Christ is our offering for those sins. Since all the old commandments other than the sin offering ones hung from those two commands then they must still apply since the two main commandments still apply.

I invite you to define how one might obey the main two commandments without obeying the old ones.

Really? Uh, no. But you aren't far from the Kingdom, the New Covenant that Jesus ushered after His death. (*cough* read the verses after Jesus said about the two main commandments you speak of. *cough* spoilers: Mark 12:34). What Jesus was talking about here is more or less the summary of the Laws of the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant, the new law and the only command is found in John 13:34. Given by Jesus Himself to His disciples as He predicted the betrayal of Judas and Peter's denial.

John 13:34 (NASB)
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Have you taken at least a peek at the rest of Hebrews 10?
The law cannot be placed juxtaposed with wickedness yet we are told that it was placed in our hearts, written in our minds (Heb 10:16, Jer 31:33).

uh huh.
Let's look;
Heb 10:16-20 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

You read it.
But what was your point here? This affirms what I've said to you. What Paul meant here was that we are worthy because Christ has made us worthy. Since Jesus fulfilled the law (Matt 5:17), all we need to do is act the way we were remade as new creations in Christ.
The Apostle Paul said in the rest of Hebrews 10 that we persevere in faith. It is by grace we have been saved, through FAITH (Eph 2:8). Note that we have NOTHING to do with the Old Covenant Law other than fulfilling it ourselves just as Christ did Himself. We then define faith so hold on.

So this means we don't have a sinful heart. Contradiction? No, Christ died for us and sanctified us in the process.

So you have recieved the gift from the Father?
If at Christs death it sanctified everyone who would come to believe in him then how does this happen?
Mat 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
And notice it is not just a few either, it is 'many'. Obviously those people believe that Christ is the way otherwise why would they say what they say. These people 'believe' in Christ right?.

Yes, I have received the gift. I was never happier in my entire life.
The answer is easy. The many did not live by faith or persevered by faith.

You also took Matt 5:27-28 out of context. Christ operated this way before His death and Resurrection: He took a cue from His Father and held the mighty Sword of Justice to the throats of the Jews who were so proud of their salvation by works. But later on, He fulfilled the law for us so that we won't be condemned.

What laws exactly did he fulfill. Can you specifically name them? And in the verses below what sins are being refered to?
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
And how would it be possible to sin if Christ eliminated or fulfilled the laws that defined what a sin was?

What do you mean Christ eliminated? Fulfilled does not mean eliminated. The Law or the Mosaic Law is still there and as PaulSacramento had said in the first page of this thread, it is not required for us to follow the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law still does its job in showing us where we sin.[/quote]
Christ fulfilled every Law. It is our job to follow through with faith so we accept the gift. How do we accept our grace through faith? By fulfilling the Mosaic Law ourselves (NOT follow it but fulfill it).

~Grey

[GreyDeSilvisanctis]

... A peculiar thing to refrain from Christmas?

Again the point being that many Christians celebrate Christ's birth on the 25th.. And yet some look at the Biblical festivals as being legalistic to follow.... That is the point I'm trying to make. How is it legalistic to follow the Biblical festivals? I mean truly...

Which festivals are you talking about? I never considered it legalistic to follow the Biblical Festivals.

Not really, take a look at Wolfgang's post. He says he abhors the idea of Christmas because of its pagan origins. Yes, there are some Christians that do refrain from Christmas.

Actually wolfgang is correct. Christmas, the date it's celebrated, is actually pagan historically. The issue here however is can it be celebrated... I believe and many others believe that it can. Of course... And that is Biblical to celebrate Christmas.. And the second coming too..

I have yet to know of any Biblical evidence to celebrate Christmas. I'll try to look for some in my free time.
G, We're going off-topic.

I never said the law was a curse. Anyway, I agree with you here. The law did provide to help people live. What else would you expect from a loving God?
It is a natural tendency for Christians to obey the law whether they are conscious of doing so or not. It is the Fruit of the Spirit that is manifested then.

Fruit of the spirit? So you think that people magically know not to practice homosexuality, commit adultery, fornication, and the likes? Come now...

No, I'm not that stupid though I really should have expounded on that so thanks for pointing it out for me.
"We receive grace through faith and not by works so that no one can boast" this is found in (Eph 2:8-9). But wait a sec you might say, "How about Eph 2:10, the next verse that says we are to do good works, doesn't that still make us follow the Mosaic Law? The verses before are about not boasting in works." Well, thing is we are not required to follow the Mosaic Law but fulfill the Mosaic Law through Love as Galatians 5:13-14 puts it. Note that in verse 14 it says that the entire Law is fulfilled in keeping one command and that is "Love your neighbor as yourself." It's a bit confusing since this is only ONE command to fulfill the others (I mean, what happened to the greatest command in the Old Covenant?)... that is if you don't note the new command and (as far as I know) the only command in the New Covenant (because Jesus, our new High Priest, said so) which is found in John 13:34-35. Note that verse 35 also says that we may be known as Christ's disciples.

John 13:34 (NIV)
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Living by faith means we should love one another as Christ loved us. How do we love like Christ? Well, you can answer this on your own.
Also, the apostle Paul shows us LOVE clearly in 1 Cor 13. I think you know about this already.

However, when Paul talked about Judaizing, he meant making the law's works come hand-in-hand with grace as a way to salvation which, as I have said before, will make Christ's death for us all for naught.

No where did Paul talk about Judizing.. He did talk about trying to use G-d's law legalistically to try and attain salvation... But that had to do [with] how one perverted G-d's law. Not the law itself....

Yes, what you say is true. Understand that every bit of the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled. Never was it said just this law and not that law, but everything was fulfilled.

The question of this thread is "Are we still required to follow the Mosaic law?" and my answer is no. It is not required.

~Grey

That is your personal opinion, it is not scriptural... If you see the LOVE behind G-d's commandments, then you would naturally want to follow them. G-d gave His commandments OUT OF LOVE... Not legalism.. That is why we follow it.

Of course we give our personal opinions here. It's to show others our ideas and let them react to it so we can be open to correction and etc. I guess I caught your attention so thanks for this discussion.
Yet, what I say to you IS scriptural. The question was "Are we required to follow the Mosaic law?" my answer is a simple "no". Christ fulfilled it already.
You follow it out of love, I can follow them too but I'm not required. But what's important is that we fulfill them with love - this is faith.

~Grey

[Wolfgang]

Some people on this forum have used Matthew 5:17 to help them decide if the Mosaic laws still need to be followed. That verse, though, is actually a controversial one. I wonder if anyone here has taken the time to read what the Greek for "fulfill" really means. A significant percentage of Christians, who do not fear hostile peer pressure, believe that the following interpretation/analysis of Matthew 5:17 is the best interpretation. Read it and see what you think of it.

Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." --- New King James Version

The original Greek word for fulfill is pleroo, Strong's number 4137, which does not mean to replace, abolish, substitute, or perform for other Christians. It overwhelmingly means to "make replete, level up, be full, perfect, fully preach, complete, or to fill." Fulfill means to fill to the full in verse 17, to fill full, or fill fuller. Pleroo means basically "to add to," or "supplement." Joseph H. Thayer, famous Bible word expert, includes the following words in his definition of pleroo: "to furnish or supply liberally," "liberally supplied," "to render full," "to fill up to the top," "so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim," "to make complete in every particular," and "to render perfect."

The same pleroo word was used in Matthew 13:48 in which nets were filled up with fish!

Jesus added to, improved, and magnified the law. For example, in His famous Sermon on the Mount, He added to or refined (improved) the law at least eight times: 1) Matthew 5:22: refining further the law prohibiting murder, merely being angry with someone without a cause or seriously insulting someone is now a very serious sin, 2) Matthew 5:28: just looking at a woman lustfully is now equivalent to adultery, 3) Matthew 5:32: whoever marries a divorced woman now commits adultery (there may be one exception), 4) Matthew 5:34: never swear at all, 5) Matthew 5:39-42: if you are slapped on one cheek, let yourself be slapped on the other cheek and do not refuse to loan or give to others if they ask for a loan or help (there are obvious common sense exceptions since some people might argue that Jesus does not expect us to unnecessarily severely injure ourselves or damage or ruin ourselves financially giving to drug addicts, financial predators, etc.), 6) Matthew 5:44: instead of hating our enemies, we are now instructed to love, bless, pray for, and do good to our enemies, 7) Matthew 6:15: we must now forgive others instead of holding a permanent grudge, and Matthew 7:1: do not judge others unless you want to be judged by the same criteria.

The following reputable translations help show that Jesus DID NOT "fulfill" the law in a way that clearly no longer required us to obey the law. He simply made the law better, adding to it, and refined it further. We still need to diligently observe many Mosaic laws.

Matthew 5:17: "You folks should not infer from customary presumption or from established supposition that I came to loosen-down or demolish the Law (or: Torah) or the Prophets. I did not come to loosen-down or demolish, but to the contrary, to fulfill (or: fill up) and make full." --- Jonathan Mitchell New Testament.

Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to set aside the law and the prophets; I have not come to set them aside, but to bring them to perfection." --- Knox New Testament.

Matthew 5:17: "Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion." --- Weymouth New Testament.

Mainstream Christians misinterpret pleroo to mean that Jesus has discharged Christians from the obligation to continue closely obeying the Mosaic laws.

God the Father is referring to His Son, Jesus Christ in Isaiah 42:1-4,6,7,19-21. Isaiah 42:21: "Jehovah is delighted for His righteousness' sake; He WILL MAGNIFY the Law and make it honorable" --- Green's Literal Translation.

Isaiah predicted that Jesus would MAGNIFY the law. No Old Testament prophet EVER even remotely hinted that Jesus would remove from each Christian the need to individually continue obeying the law. Other respected translations such as the John Nelson Darby Translation, A Conservative Version, English Jubilee 2000, New Heart English Bible, World English Bible, English Revised Version, American Standard Version with Strong's, Updated King James Version, American King James Version, KJV Pure Cambridge Edition, Rotherham Emphasized Bible, Julia Smith Translation, Noah Webster's KJV revision, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Coverdale's Translation, American Standard Version, Leeser Old Testament, Young's Literal Translation, Concordant Literal Version, and the Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament also use the word "magnify" in Isaiah 42:21.