> General Discussions
Having Trouble Understanding the "Law"
eutychus:
--- Quote from: Origen II ---Okay...I understand.
But still, if we are no longer to obey the Law of the flesh, why do we stop eating certain foods and viewing special Holy Days, but we still keep other parts of the physical law like homosexuality?
I'm just saying that I can't find anywhere where the ENTIRE Law is destroyed...nor can I find anywhere where the Food Laws are seperate from the sex Laws.
--- End quote ---
huh?
AGAIN:
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers
the desires of the flesh just arnt sexual sins and eating of foods.
do you know that some desire to obey the whole law???
can two gay people live and love each other but yet refrain from
sexual acts??
homosexuality is no different than any othere sexual perversion.
sex was created for man and women and the marriage bed undefield.
how is the command of LOVE fullfilled while commiting sexual perversion and causing another one to sin???????
i love shrimp every now and then, how would the law of love be fullfilled if
i invited someone who i knew didnt eat shrimp or meat and i served it to them????
chuck
Origen II:
Let me explain further:
The Messianic Jew I'm debating with states that we are obviously still abiding to certain laws if we find homosexuality as a sin, though we rid ourselves of other things like food laws, etc.
He basically is saying that not going with the food laws and holy days is just as much a sin as performing homosexual acts, because all the Law goes against sin (even the food laws).
So how can Christians say that the Law is "abolished" when we still abide to certain parts of the Law and not others. That was his point.
My problem is that I cannot find where homosexuality is different from the food laws within the OT. I also cannot understand how the "law" is only the 10 Commandments and not the other 603 Laws, if this is the case. While I understand that Paul made example about the 10 Commandments when he spoke of the "law", where is there a difference between the Law of Moses and the 10 Commandments expressed in the OT?
It just seems funny to me because we still do actually follow some of the written code still (like no homosexuality), yet we disregard everything else. So if homosexuality is still a sin that falls under "adultrey", then what seperates that from the food laws etc.? There is no distinction made within the New or Old Testaments (as I have read).
This is the problem.
P.S.: I am not advocating homosexuality, just making an example.
Steve Crook:
Please re-read the posts made because you obviously are over-looking what has already been stated.
The "bar" has been raised, NOT ABOLISHED. It has been fulfilled.
Commiting physical adultery is SIN as well as SPIRITUAL adultery. Both are SIN. However, if you are following spiritual law then are also following physical law. Physical homosexuality is a SIN under the Mosaic Law. Physical homosexuality is SIN under the spiritual law.
It is SIN, period. If it is a "spiritual law", it is ALSO a Mosaic Law but redefined to include the spiritual....which is MORE REAL, and NOT THE SHADOW. If physical adultery is SIN under the Mosaic Law, then spiritual adultery is SIN under God's Law.
It is not abolished, it is raised to a spiritual truth. Thinking IT is DOING IT.
Under the Mosaic Law you can think about it all you want, but acting on it was a crime. Now, thinking it is THE crime, and acting on it is simply just the end result. Either way, you are still guilty ....even WITHOUT the physical act.
When Eve lusted after the apple according to her flesh and eyes, and she also hadthe pride of life knowing it would give her the knowledge of good and even, SHE HAD ALREADY DONE THE DEED and WAS GUILTY. She has already spiritually eaten the apple.
Basically, this all has already been stated, but if you are conversating with someone who has not been given eyes and ears to see this, then you are battling against our Father himself..
I am sorry if none of this post helps you...
Origen II:
--- Quote from: Steve Crook ---Please re-read the posts made because you obviously are over-looking what has already been stated.
The "bar" has been raised, NOT ABOLISHED. It has been fulfilled.
Commiting physical adultery is SIN as well as SPIRITUAL adultery. Both are SIN. However, if you are following spiritual law then are also following physical law. Physical homosexuality is a SIN under the Mosaic Law. Physical homosexuality is SIN under the spiritual law.
It is SIN, period. If it is a "spiritual law", it is ALSO a Mosaic Law but redefined to include the spiritual....which is MORE REAL, and NOT THE SHADOW. If physical adultery is SIN under the Mosaic Law, then spiritual adultery is SIN under God's Law.
It is not abolished, it is raised to a spiritual truth. Thinking IT is DOING IT.
Under the Mosaic Law you can think about it all you want, but acting on it was a crime. Now, thinking it is THE crime, and acting on it is simply just the end result. Either way, you are still guilty ....even WITHOUT the physical act.
When Eve lusted after the apple according to her flesh and eyes, and she also hadthe pride of life knowing it would give her the knowledge of good and even, SHE HAD ALREADY DONE THE DEED and WAS GUILTY. She has already spiritually eaten the apple.
Basically, this all has already been stated, but if you are conversating with someone who has not been given eyes and ears to see this, then you are battling against our Father himself..
I am sorry if none of this post helps you...
--- End quote ---
The thing is that these post are helping me understand the nature of sex as a sin, but no one has yet pointed out why it isn't a sin to eat certain foods.
My real dilema is the food laws etc. What makes not eating certain foods any less a sin than homosexuality?
love_magnified:
The food laws represented a separation of the Elect, itself represented by the physical Jews. Remember Peter's vision of the sheet and the animals that he could eat? That represented the cleansing of the forbidden meats (representing Gentiles) who would enter into the royal priesthood according to spirit. So the food laws are a type and shadow. The righteousness of the Law represented the righteousness in spirit that we would be given so that we could fulfill Christ's higher law. That is why those who walk by Spirit respect their mothers and fathers, and love God with all their might, and do not take his name in vain. This is not because Moses says so, but because Jesus Christ is within us.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version