Holy cow!

>Doug,
>
>You seem to apply a very literal interpretation of the OT:
>
>
>Secondly, if you are Jewish and you do wish to place yourself under those laws the second question I'm going to ask is this: The Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and no sacrifices have been done there since. How do you cover your sins without sacrifices? You cannot according to the Mosaic Law.
>
>
>Are your standards the same for the NT?
>
>>Steven,
>>
>>Sure.. It's a long weekend... <g>
>>
>>First, a message TO our sponsors: Michel, I'm going to respond to this message which might generate a considerable amount of heat. I'm hoping to shed a little light and my response is presented in that hope.
>>
>>To those who will want to respond with the typical. "I don't believe that!" kind of response; please don't waste your time. I accept that you may not believe what I post. To those of other faiths - please understand that I know that some of what I will post you may find offensive. It is not my intent to deliberately offend you - though I understand that this is often an unfortunate byproduct of these kinds of discussions.
>>
>>Ok.. Now, Steve, let me first of all mention that the 'framework' of my thinking process here, which will guide my response is that which flows from what is called 'The Historic Christian' point of view. I use this phrase as defined by the late Dr. Francis Schafer. Essentially, it means that Christianity that the Apostles and Jesus meant when they said things. (All errors are my own. <g>
>>
>>
>>>Here's a recap.. Slavery did indeed happen - still does and it's not defended in the Bible. It's still happening this very day in places like the Sudan. What's your trouble here? Perhaps you got an answer that you missed? If you are suggesting that the Bible supports slavery you're 180 degrees out of phase though.
>>
>>> Hi Doug,
>>> Very interesting. Back when slavery was an issue in
>>> *this* country, it proved to be somewhat devisive.
>>
>>It did indeed. More than 'somewhat' I'd suppose...
>>
>>
>>> Basically, there were those that wanted to 'conserve'
>>> the institution and used biblical phrasing like "masters,
>>> be good to your slaves" etc as supportive of their
>>> thinking. It was a boon for 'states rights' and the birth
>>> of the 'Southern' Baptists too. Others wanted to
>>> 'liberate' those that didn't benefit from the institution
>>> so much. But, I digress...
>>
>>Well, you're certainly correct that folks used the Bible to justify their behavior. I'd assert that this wasn't confined to the 18th century. <g> More recently we've seen the Apartheid thinking process use this approach as well.
>>
>>
>>> I want to thank you for your efforts to educate us regarding
>>> the Bible and God's law. I can learn a great deal from
>>> you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many
>>> people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
>>> homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
>>> him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
>>> abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from
>>> you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and
>>> how to best follow them.
>>
>>Well, I think in general, if I'm understanding you correctly that your whole approach is incorrect. That is, unless you're just trying to somehow be 'clever'. <g>
>>
>>If you honestly and sincerely believe that you should obey the Mosaic Law I guess my first question to you is this: Are you Jewish? If not then those laws do not apply to you whatsoever.
>>
>>Secondly, if you are Jewish and you do wish to place yourself under those laws the second question I'm going to ask is this: The Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and no sacrifices have been done there since. How do you cover your sins without sacrifices? You cannot according to the Mosaic Law.
>>
>>So, if you wish to place yourself under those laws I'd suggest you're in trouble. <g>
>>
>>Given that the answer to your specific questions is entirely moot but I'll go ahead and respond and perhaps shed a little light on theissue for those who are interested, ok?
>>
>>Let me begin by 'painting' a background for you....
>>
>>Throughout history as recorded in the OT & NT God made several 'covenants' with mankind. One was the rainbow after the flood where God promised that He would never again cause a world wide flood. AAnother was with Eve where God promised to bruise the head of the serpent. Another was with Abram (later named Abraham) when he was a pagan in UR of the Chaldees where folks worshipped the moon goddess (Mother of Heaven) and God promised to make Abram the father of many nations. This covenant with Abraham was the covenant of faith. Another was indeed later the covenant with Moses whereby God promised to the Jewish people after they were liberated from Egypt (a 'type' of sin and the bondage of sin) was that when He brought them into the promised land that if they would obey the laws He gave them through Moses that He would bless them and if they broke those laws He would curse them.
>>
>>They repeatedly broke God's laws.
>>
>>The 'New Testament' actually is the 'New Covenant' that God has made with man.
>>
>>Paul, in the NT, asserts that the purpose of the OT law was not primarily to make man holy, right with God (righteous), sinless or somehow 'better' that other men. Rather it was designed to show that there was no way man could ever keep those laws. Have you ever read through them? <g> Man, you have to kill a goat for this, a bullock for that, a turtledove for something else.. If you strictly followed that law you'd have no animals left in short order. <g> The whole idea was to place those under the law in a state of mind where they became helpless.
>>
>>As an aside.. All religions share one essential notion. That is this; through some 'deed' or 'act' man is somehow able to lift himself to God. Penance, chanting, killing infidels <g>, killing their babies (as those who worshipped Moloch did) saying the Rosary, tithing, not drinking, not smoking, not going to movies.. Whatever.. All of these contain the notion that at the end of the day the individual has somehow 'earned' a blessing. forgiveness, the 'right' to enter God's presence and so forth.
>>
>>"Not so", says the Historic Christian position - through Paul in Romans and elsewhere. The whole of the NT covenant is that man cannot ascend to God but that God 'descended' to man. This makes sense in that it is impossinble for something finite to reach the infinite but that the infinite is surely able to reach to the finite.It's a matter of capacity and quality of ability.
>>
>>Remember, Jesus' big 'fights' were with the religious 'leaders' of His day and these folks were the instruments of His death. Stripping away the facade of phony spirituality, which is the by-product of religion, is essential. We all need to get to where we realize just how incapable we are of meeting God's 'level' of perfection first before we can get help. Remember, it's the sick who need the physician, not the whole..
>>
>>So.. Given that the OT Mosaic Law now should be understood, not as a means of making man 'right' with God, though you certaily could if you kept the law perfectly. Rather it presents a standard so high that man is forced to go to God in a position of total need.
>>
>>The cool thing about this 'new testament' is that when you approach God based, not on your own efforts but rather on what He has done the door's wide open.
>>
>>Now, let's give you a few quick responses..
>>
>>
>>> When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
>>> know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.
>>> 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor
>>> is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
>>
>>Well, as I mentioned there's no Temple so you're screwed. <g> Actually, what kind of neighbors do you have that don't like the smell of a barbeque? <g> Remember, a great portion of these sacrifices were to be eaten by the individual and their families - with rejoicing (sheck out the number of times this word or a similar one was used in the OT). The Jewish faith is singularly full of the notion of joy and it appears that God loves a good barbeque. <g>.
>>
>>
>>> I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
>>> it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what
>>> do you think would be a fair price for her?
>>
>>
>>Well, my first question would be to ask you what kind of creep you are for wanting to sell your daughter into slavery. Do you sell crack? <g> Not only that I'd suggest that if you attempt to do this you're going to find your butt in jail - as it should be. <g>
>>
>>Your question is based on extremely faulty thinking I'd suppose. Don't do it would be my response. <g>
>>
>>
>>> I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
>>> while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness
>>> (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have
>>> tried asking, but most women take offense.
>>
>>Well, the scriptures also assert that one should be in a state of marriage first so I guess my first response would be to tell you to make sure you're married to this woman or you're committing adultery. Now, if you insist on placing yourself under the Mosaic Law I'd respond by pointing out that it required that if you are not married to this woman you will need to be stoned as well as she if you are in the city limits. Only you get killed if you're outside the city limits as the scriptures recognize that men are stonger and she may have cried out but no one heard her. Unless you're married to her, under the Mosaic law you're toast. If you are married to her I'd presume she would just tell you to wait.
>>
>>
>>> Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the
>>> nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims
>>> that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can
>>> you clarify?
>>
>>Sure, slavery isn't legal anymore in the US. If you want to buy slaves you're going to either need to go to the Sudan or somewhere else where they are still sold. As an aside, if you really feel the need to own another human being there is a Christian organization that will indeed take your donation, go to places like the Sudan and purchase as many slaves as they are able. Their purpose of course is to immediately set those folks free. That's about the only way I know how your friend can buy a slave...
>>
>>> I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
>>> Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put
>>> to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
>>
>>Well, since the Sabbath of the Mosaic Law has been replaced by the Sabbath of the rest in Christ I suppose not - though your neighbor might want to do the deed if you like to mow your lawn early on Sunday morning. <g>
>>
>>Oh.. the Sabbath is actually from Friday sundown (around 6:00 pm) to Saturday the same time - unless it's a special 'High Sabbath' that happens every so often and what happened on the Thursday befor Jesus was crucified - which allowed for the total three days if you're intersted.. <g> The whole notion that Saturday or Sunday is the Sabbath is essentially a bunch of bunk. The Sabbath could be any day of the week. The whole notion is to make sure you take one day a week to rest and think about God.
>>
>>
>>> A friend of mine feels that even though eating
>>> shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a
>>> lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
>>> Can you settle this?
>>
>>Sure.. Modern medicine and understanding of dietary issues related to eating shellfish now allow us to eat them. Not only that Paul asserted that all things are edible and that nothing was in itself 'unclean' (though eating a shellfish at the wrong time of year will still kill you! <g>) but that the believer must be persuaded in his/her own mind. Conscience trumps legalism here.
>>
>>Oh.. As to what sin is worse than another.. The Bible asserts that all sins have been forgiven mankind except the sin of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Most Bible scholars believe (as do I) that since the Holy Spirit's 'job' is to convict man of their sin and of the redemption in Christ that rejecting this conviction (the free forgiveness of sin through Christ) is the unpardonable sin. That is, an individual's refusal of the free forgiveness - which if you think about it is pretty stupid.. At the end no man will be able to blame anyone but themselves. It's other men that want to lay heavy 'trips' on us, not God. Those heavy trips usually arrive with a lot of "Praise the Lord"s and wrapped in some religious sounding coverings.
>>
>>So.. To the homosexual I'd say what Jesus did to the woman caught in adultery (why didn't they bring the man as well? Their law says they should have..), "Where are your accusers?", "Neither do I condemn you", and "Go you way and sin no more." Homosexuality is still a sin and the Bible asserts that those who practice it will not inheret the kingdom of God but liars are also in that list. Have you ever lied? If you have you're in the proverbial same boat.. We all fall short of perfection. If you truly want to change God will make sure it happens. *smile*
>>
>>
>>> Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of
>>> God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit
>>> that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have
>>> to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
>>
>>
>>Remember, no Temple. However the Mosaic Law required absolute perfection. Priests, in order to hold that office, had to be without blemish. That 'rule' doesn't apply to those of us not in the presthood or to thise of us who are not Jewish. Moot point I suppose...
>>
>>> I expect you have studied these things extensively,
>>> so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for
>>> reminding us that God's word is eternal and
>>> unchanging.
>>
>>Always happy to answer an honest question as best as I am able. If I've not so done please ask again. And, again, for those who may disagree with me - please know that I am comfortable that you do. If you want to add a little light here please do but show a little maturity and keep your 'heat' to yourself. *s*
>>
>>> Thanks for the fun, Steven-
>>
>>You're more than welcome. Hope this helped...