So, after reading through many of these forums (as well as being apart of many) a question struck me (quite hard, like a brick). I see posts saying "those bible laws don't apply today, but these still do." So how are they chosen? Who says it's okay to still follow certain laws but not others? What's the criterium for choosing which laws are still relevant? And if certain laws aren't right anymore, doesn't that question the infallibility of the bible? Just something that really interests me.

Thanks.

Me again.

I'm sure people have written at times "These laws do not apply, and these ones do". I don't know whether this is a misspeak on their behalf, or perhaps just a juggle with semantics, or they may literally mean that they do not apply. I cannot speak for them, I can only speak for myself. And as I see it - ALL the laws of the Bible still apply today. I personally cringe whenever I read a post here saying that certain laws "do not apply" today". Even Jesus said he came not to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. The contention I raise is HOW the passages apply. Some still apply the same way. Some others apply in different ways. Whatever the case may be, every answer I have given is based on contextual reading of the scripture.

The criteria that I use to decide is proper contextual study of the passage. And that is harder than it might seem. I've posted this before, but just to share it again:

One needs to consider the context - not just what the individual verse says, but how it fits into the chapter, then how it fits into the book, then how it fits into the whole Bible. What style was it written in (historical, narrative, poetry, prophecy). Who was it written for (if known)? Who wrote it (if known)? Why was it written (was it a warning, a judgement, a call to celebrate, a call to persevere....). When was it written (Old Testament or New Testament). What part of the Old/New Testament is it (the Law, the writings, the wisdom books, or the prophets/ gospels or teachings or revelation). If we wrote a time-line of biblical events, where on that timeline does this event occur? What Greek/Hebrew words are used in the verse (may need a concordance for this part if you're not a Greek/Hebrew scholar). What words are repeated in the passage (repeated words or phrases usually denote special significance). What context is the word used in in this verse? What context was the same word (again, may need a concordance) used in different parts of the specific book (assuming it was used again), and what context did the same author use the word in within other texts they wrote - if they wrote more than one book, that is). What did the author originally intend their reader to gain from the text? Is it the same today?? How does this passage point to Jesus Christ? If Old Testament, how was this passage fulfilled through Jesus? If New Testament, what does this passage show about the character of Jesus?

As you can see, it's never as simple as "look, this verse says this *insert passage* , so we should do this *insert application*". Unfortunately, many people, both Christian and non-Christian, do this. But it is the easy way out.

In short, I see that all the laws still apply, and as such, I still see the Bible as infallible. But they all must be tempered by these steps of context. Not so easy as many would think, and it's not something that can be found out by a quick two-minute review of a page of text.

1- That statement is a contradiction

2- How about this one:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)



How is that still applicable? Seems like it allows sex slavery. How is that infallible?

So, just so I'm clear, If I buy a sex slave from her father and I'm repeatedly raping her, and she's just not doing it for me anymore, I can sell her, but just not to foreigners? Nice. Real applicable to today's world and morality...

But maybe I misunderstand your point?

One needs to consider the context, yes. And the context was that that passage of the bible was written by men seeking to controll a population of desert wanderers trying desperately to hold together as a culture, in my not so humble opinion.


Please elaborate, and check out www.evilbible.com for more biblical endorsements and rules about rape, murder, infanticide, fratracide, patricide, genocide, etc. etc.

How does context lead us to the idea that those rules are still valid today and the bible infallible?

we are not talking about sex slavery here, because he could only have sex with here if he married her

The big question should be are you better off being judged by the law or by Grace?

Irish

Yes we are. There's nothing in ancient hebrew law that I've ever seen in the bible forbidding sex between female slave and male master.



But I'll concede that THAT passage doesn't mention sex specifically. As if slavery is not offensive enough.

However, here's some more goodies:


Deuteronomy 22:28-29


So, I can rape unengaged girls, but if I get caught, I owe fifty pieces of silver (what's that in today's dollars, like 3 grand?) and then I have to divorce her. Nice. The rape victim has to marry her attacker. Wonderful!

How about this one:

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Does God blame the victim? Interesting.

Clearly, these are not applicable to today's society. So one must concede that the bible is not infallible when viewed in the context that it is written for a specific audience in a specific time.

The laws of the Bible DO apply today. However many don't realize the difference between the laws meant for Jews, and the laws meant for non-Jews. If Christians weren't always trying to make it look as if the Bible is about Jesus, they'd realize that. Unfortunately, there are many contradictions in Christian theological teachings. Luckily for us, there's still Judaism .

Wait, so only Jews get stoned if they don't scream out when being raped?

That's more like it, lad

What does that even mean?

Tough one, eh

tough to figure out what that means. Judged by Grace? What the heck is that? What law? Who's law?

To me, that statement is a cliche without meaning, just a collection of words. Like "peanut butter windshield fluid electric handbag."

Really? It would be fornication, sex outside marriage, and that is forbidden.

I knew you'd get it

That's probably what he meant then.

Unless Irish was really talkin about Grace Kelly

Without a doubt , yes, but only within the same of outside self

This conversation is getting too complecated and philosophical for me. Thank God I 've still got plenty of beer left

See ya, lad

lol

Not really when one considers that slaves don't count as people and Solomon had multiple wives. Adultry is also forbidden, but not really explained in the 10 Cs. But I'll concede the point to you.

The 613 commandments (basically Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) are meant specifically for the Jews (although there are some things meant for all people). All of this stuff is defined and outlined within the Talmud, Mishneh and other Rabbinical writings. So when you read either the 10 commandments or any of those laws concerning stoning, you are reading the laws given to the Jews by Moses at Horeb (Sinai). For Non-Jews there are 7 laws.

Surely, the entire new testament is only for jews. Like the Koran is only for Muslims.

Where do you get the 7 laws for non jews? And what's the point of having laws for people who don't believe you have the right or the divine intercession to make up rules for them?

What are those 7 rules? I'm a non-jew, (well, I guess all christians are jews, sort of...) so I only have to follow 7 rules? Actually, I only have to follow two: Love god and love all people.

? I don't know what that means. The NT is supposedly for everyone, but an examination of it reveals otherwise.


The seven laws are in the Torah. Um....Jews didn't make the laws, God did. And they are pretty good laws (No Idolatry, No Blasphemy, No Theft, No Murder, No Adultery, No torturing animals, and Maintain Justice).


No Idolatry, No Blasphemy, No Theft, No Murder, No Adultery, No torturing animals, and Maintain Justice

Good for you, unfortunately that don't work. And no, Christians aren't Jews.

I never saw a place that suggests slaves are not considered people, in fact laws also apply to slaves, therefore they must be people (they also could sin),
polygamy is not much of an argument, you could have more views it didn't matter, as long as you were officially married to them.
You could have sex with 10 women if you liked, but you HAD to be married.

but I'll play along and say that slaves were not human (which is ridiculous) , so if they are animals, it is just as sinful because
sex with animals was also forbidden

Really I don't know where did you come up with this idea of sex slaves, there just is no room to even squeese that in Jewish law even if
one was trying to find holes in laws for their own advantage in that time.

So, wait, I'm confused....the old testiment laws don't apply anymore but the new testiment does? That's why it's not okay to have slaves and kill animals for rituals? But then, the ten comandments are in the old testiment, so what are the laws of the new testiment?

Love god, love each other, don't do anything to other that you don't want them to do to you.

Once you live by these principles, by love, you don't need any laws, because your heart simply guides you through every situation.
Nobody has to tell you don't murder, you won't because you live by love.

How about the US, where they were considered property, livestock, until the 3/5 compromise, where they were considered 3/5 of a person.



Christ was asked which commandments were the most important in an attempt to trap him into talking smack about the other laws. Instead, he said something like "the most important are these new commandments: love the lord your god with all your heart and soul, and love your neighbor as you love yourself."

In essence, that means that the other laws don't mean anything if they are breaking the two new laws. The two new laws override the old, technical, petty laws of the OT.

That's one of the fundamental aspects of Christ's message, most often overlooked and ignored.



So you know better than Christ?

Christians are, in a certain viewpoint, an extension of the jewish faith. How can you believe all the jewish prophecy that culminated in Christ, beleiving Christ to be the savior, but see that as completely divorced from judaism? You accept their savior and their prophecy, but don't see your religion as being connected to Judaism? That's weird.

No , I meant in the Bible, I never saw a place where Jewish slaves were not people.

but like I said it really makes no difference for the issue we are discussing (was sex with them allowed) people or not,
the only "thing" a Jew was allowed to put his sexual organ in was his wife or one of his wives.

I'm curious how believers that the bible's laws are actual laws that should be followed feel about the new testiment's law that only 144,000 virgin men are going to be allowed into heaven?

"Relevation:
14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. "

According to this law, you can't have been with a women and you can't be a women. If you fall under one of those two catagories, you're not going to heaven. Just wondering thoughts on this law.

I see no sex slavery. I see slavery, and I see commands on how to treat the woman if she becomes married to the family. No sex unless it is in the context of marriage. That is a law that goes throughout the entire Bible. Yes, you may be right that there is no specific law stating "do not have sex with slaves", but it is not needed when the larger law "No sex outside of marriage" is considered.

How does this passage relate to us today? Firstly, you read my entire post in the first reply, you saw the steps of context. Yet when it came to YOU applying this passage from Exodus, you did exactly what I was warning against. You went from "passage gives laws on slavery, therefore in order to apply the Bible properly we need to own slaves.....". That is exactly the opposite of what you should do. You can never do that, not if you want a proper contextual interpretation. We are not the Ancient Jews, we are not living in a nomadic society, we are not living thousands of years ago. We live in a different world. The most obvious point is that slavery is against the law in today's world, and we are commanded in the Bible to "submit to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1). furthermore, even if this were not so, it is also written in Galatians that all in Jesus Christ are the same - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28).

So since it is now established that this rule no longer applies IN THE SAME WAY as before, and we take it as true that the Law still stands, then we come to the question as to how it relates to us today. This passage from Exodus is speaking of slaves. And so I look to the character of Jesus, who was the ultimate slave. Though God in the flesh, Jesus humbled himself and made himself a servant (slave) to all. He treated others better than himself, he treated all with love and tenderness, respect and kindness. And ultimately, he died on the cross for everything I had ever done wrong. He is the ultimate slave. My response to this then, is to turn my life over to Jesus, and become a slave to his will, a slave to righteousness. My response is to become a servant (slave) to all people, and show them all this same love that Jesus has shown us.

There are more contextual steps that I considered when looking at this passage. It is more detailed than what I provided here. I've just narrowed it down a little to make this post somewhat readable and not take up an essay. In short, these are the contextual steps you took to apply this passage today:

1- Passage says that women should be kept as slaves indefinitely.
2- Therefore the Bible demands that we keep women slaves today

Contrary to my very first post that detailed all the contextual steps required, you simply did it anyway. I'll re-quote that section which outlines the contextual steps required to get a proper understanding of the passage today,

~ PA

Firstly, this is not a law, it is a prophecy. There is a difference. Whatever its meaning it has no application to our society today.

Secondly, it is within the book of Revelation, and I hesitate to ever apply anything from this book due to the highly symbolic nature. It is full of signs, symbols, numbers, names, and they have as many interpretations as there are people who read them. It is almost impossible to get a proper contextual understanding. However, this is as I see it, and it requires us to flip a few pages back into Revelation 7, which also deals with 144,000 - this time breaking them down into where those 144,000 people come from - 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes (revelation 7:4-8).

More importantly, it is followed directly after by the words: "After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."" (vv9-10). So since there are 144,000 people from the tribes of Israel, and then a "great multitude" from all the other nations, it seems that there are well over 144,000 people worshipping God in in heaven.

Three questions arise from this passage then -

1 - Are the 144,000 in Revelation 7 are the same 144,000 in Revelation 14. The answer to this is uncertain, and though I'd lean on the possibility that they are I am hesitant to say for sure.

2 - What is important about "144,000"? As I mentioned, Revelation is a highly symbolic book. Numbers, and multiples of numbers have great meaning. It just so happens that the number 12 represents the people of God (12 tribes, being the most obvious example). And multiples of a thousand often denote large numbers but not infinite. In this case, we have 12,000 people multiplied by 12 tribes to arrive at 144,000. The symbolic nature of these numbers cannot be underestimated, and therefore I think this is symbolic - referencing a large but ultimately finite number of people.

3 - Are the 144,000 only from the tribes of Israel? Difficult to say. Revelation seems to make it clear that it is. However, Galatians 3:28 also makes it clear that in Christ, there is no such thing as a Jew or a Greek. We are all one in Jesus Christ. That sentiment is echoed throughout the New Testament. Romans, for example, speaks of circumcision being only useful if it is a "circumcision of the heart" (Romans 2:29). Being a Jew is not a free pass to special treatment. All are one in Christ. This term has since come to be known as "Spiritual Israel". All who are in Christ are "Spiritual Israel". And therefore, when I read Revelation 7, I think the 144,000 refers to all, not just to the Israelites. And as I mentioned in point 2, above, the number 144,000 might be simply a large, but ultimately finite number.

Of course, this could be a mistaken interpretation. The 144,000 could very well be some kind of "priest" class chosen by God to be the priests in this new heaven, while the great multitude are just the rest of us regular plebs who make it to paradise. I don't think that fits very well with what we know of scripture, but it is possible - as I said, I don't like to make any doctrine based solely on the book of Revelation. Since it has no bearing on the way I live my life as a Christian, I don't think it really matters, to tell you the truth. What I do know for certain that taking Revelation 14 with Revelation 7, it is clear that it is not only referring to chaste men.

Hope that helps,

~ Regards, PA

Thank you for your interpritation.

Yes I probably do.


No, they aren't. Not even hardly.


I don't see Christ as Savior. I follow the teachings of Orthodox Judaism. Christ didn't fulfill all the prophecies, and he spoke things which are blasphemies to God.



I'm sorry for the confusion. I am not a Christian.

I think Knight of Zion is a the missing link that everyone on this forum has been looking for.
A lot of atheists have been wondering how come new and old testament are so different, and how would new testament look in eyes of original Jews. I think we have someone here who has beliefs of original Jews, and is the missing link, and an answer
to the question, how come Jesus teachings were so different.

I think you are REALLY reaching and you're interpreting the bible wildly to get it to fit what you want. And abortion is legal here too, so why don't most christians submit to that law from a governing authority? Why do they still protest and shoot people and blow clinics up in the name of god? Because they select what to believe from a book that can endorse or condemn ANYTHING, even slavery.

If that slavery passage were still relevant today, (without the wild rationalizing you did) one would see it as permission to have slaves.

How's this one relevant today?
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
or

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

or

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)


A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)


You can make anything relevent if you bend and rationalize it enough, and I think that's what you're doing.



As an ex catholic, I have to inform you that we're taught that we are the extension of the original "God's People," the Jews. We read and study the hebrew bible and make it a part of our religion, and we see Christ as the fullfillment of the jewish prophecies.

if you disagree as a jew, that's fine, but you can not argue that the catholic religion, and many other christian religions, incorporate the old testament and see themselves as the next step in the jewish faith---christianity.



Ok let's change that " CHRISTIANS" accept the jewish prophecy and the belief of the first JEWS that jesus is the fulfillment of their prophecies, yet you don't see how we view our religion as being connnected to Judaism?

Thank you. I hope to provide more knowldge about Judaism and dispel errors about it. As well as giving some insight as to how Jews see Christianity. It is one of the most insulting and blasphemous idealogies which claim to have the Glory of God about it.


I'm sure you do. However, it's not an extension of the Jewish faith, and any REAL non-biased understanding of the Hebrew scriptures will tell you that. You look at the OT through the eyes of a Christian, and are biased (completely blinded from seeing the OT for what it is). Jesus did fulfill some of the prophesies. But if he fails to fulfill even one, than he isn't the Messiah. He has failed to fulfill some, and therefore isn't the Messiah.


I know they see themselves that way. And I'm merely saying that to say it is an insult to the Jews, and to God. A rabbi once said that "the teachings of Christianity are more insulting than anything Hitler ever inspired or said against the Jews." It's one thing to be outisde of them and hate them. But to say that you derive from them, that you are a part of them, an extension, a contiuation, and to teach the heresies against God which are taught, it's insulting and offensive to many Jews.


I see how you view your religion as being connected to Judaism. I'm telling you it isn't. Your concepr of the Messiah isn't even the same as what Torah says. Your God isn't the same God of the Torah. Your viewpoints insult HaShem, and you have a malicious spirit who plays games on you. Sounds a lot like a Pagan religion to me, and the more I examine the Jewish scriptures, the more I see how un-Jewish Christianity is.

Nothing to thank me about. I was merely saying how you are an example of Jewish perspective, which is something that lacks on this forum.
And the "missing link" thing was a kind of a joke really.

The thing is a lot people who are against christianity don't "let" christians isolate themselves from earlier Jewish teachings stating
how both NT and OT follow the same ideology.
And you are an example that they don't. Because if you can show that OT perspective doesn't approve of NT perspective, then it can got
the other way around too.

Perhaps in the application of that passage I may have been "reaching", and I can definitely see how you think I am doing so - there may be a better application of the passage. Perhaps I could ask the question "What am I a slave to today?" Am I slave to the internet or movies or tv? Am I slave to alcohol or pornography? Am I slave to my job, a slave to the search for money? Or maybe a slave to my family and their wishes? And from there, I can bring it back to Jesus Christ and how we should be slaves to him instead.

But I am not reaching when I pointed out that the Bible encourages us to follow the Laws of the land, which forbids slavery. And there is the passage that I quoted in the previous post which says that in Christ we are all one, no distinction made between the slave and the free. As such, I have no qualms in stating that it does not apply to the modern world. Maybe my application was off, but my reasoning was not.

As for abortion being legal, there is a difference between slavery and abortion here. For one, the Bible never actually condones the owning of slaves. It just accepted it as a part of the society of the time. There is no law that states "You must own slaves" and therefore there is no law that stops a Christian not owning slaves. In the case of abortion, there is a very specific law - "Do not Murder". And since Christians believe that life begins well before birth, to abort a fetus is to break that particular rule and murder the child. As such, regardless of whether the governing authorities accept it as not, it does not mean we have to agree with it. However, we do not then have the right to attack those clinics, snipe the doctors and bomb the patients. That is going beyond the bounds that God has allowed, because we would then be committing murder ourselves, not to mention carrying out judgement. I can abide by the laws of the governing authorities and accept abortion. I don't have to like it though. And I don't have to submit myself (or more correctly my wife, if I get married) to abortion just because it is legal.

I'd say magic is still wrong. I have no issue with stating that people who are practicing magic are breaking the rules of the Bible. However, this particular verse is the prescribed punishment for practicing sorcery, it is not the law itself. The LAW applies still to this day. The PUNISHMENT however, does not. Punishments are not laws. They are a part of law, but they are separate to law. God, now that he does not directly interact with people as he did in the Old Testament has left the law the same. But we are commanded to not judge others. We are commanded to Love them, treat them with Love and Respect.

The same can be applied to all those verses you quoted. They definitely still apply. "Do not dishonour your parents" is still a law that we should abide by, as is "Do not commit adultery". The punishment only applies insofar as God promises that we will all be put to death for our sins. God does promise that. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). So the punishment does still apply, but we are not the ones to carry it out now. God is, and he will exact that penalty on us all. We are all domed because we have all sinned. Which is why Jesus came to die in our place, because if he didn't we'd have to stand on our own, and we'd all be screwed.

Probably. As I said, maybe the application of the passage was wrong. But the reasoning to say that it does not apply the same way still does most definitely fit.

I can prove that. I can prove that Christ isn't necessary for atonement, that there is no God-man predicted in the OT, that humans aren't incapable of following the law (perfectly) and that Jesus didn't fulfill all Messianic prophesies. Of course Christians always have excuses for that.

Sorry, but your comments are too hilarious, altho I am sure you are quite sincere. I just find it uproarously funny that you are soooooooo "anti christian", when only a month or so ago you were a die hard jesus follower...................

Sorry to sidetrack the thread.

I am sincere. I can disprove all I said I can disprove, with the Bible...TBH, I was a Jesus follower because I was ignorant...I didn't know what the Bible actually said, and now, I am glad to have this knowledge. Although, I don't blame the Christians who don't know, that's just a matter of not reading the Bible enough. Those who do know....I don't know about them...oh wait, yes I do "It's a matter of interpretation."