Earrings? Why not? God piereces ears!

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Orthodoxy

There's no NT prohibition against bestiality either.

The argument of "if it is not repeated in the NT it doesn't matter" is about as idiotic as it gets. Paul says all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

The argument of "if it is not repeated in the NT it doesn't matter" is about as idiotic as it gets. Paul says all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness.

Yes BUT Paul says we are NOT under the law. The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us TO Christ and once we come to Christ we are no longer under the law.

So that is why, if it is not repeated in the NT it is not a part of the new covenant.

It's not idiotic at all. Do you really keep the entire law of Moses because Paul said all scripture is given?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes BUT Paul says we are NOT under the law. The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us TO Christ and once we come to Christ we are no longer under the law.

So that is why, if it is not repeated in the NT it is not a part of the new covenant.

It's not idiotic at all. Do you really keep the entire law of Moses because Paul said all scripture is given?

Being under the administration of the covenant and knowing and doing what is righteous are two different things. There was no NT to the early church. They had the sciptures of the Jews to look at. God's righteousness is all throughout scripture and the same line of reasoning is consistent.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Being under the administration of the covenant and knowing and doing what is righteous are two different things. There was no NT to the early church. They had the sciptures of the Jews to look at. God's righteousness is all throughout scripture and the same line of reasoning is consistent.

There was indeed a NT in the early church. They are under the New Covenant just as we are. They were taught orally by the Apostles.

This is evidenced as well by the first church council where they determined the Gentiles did not have to keep the laws of Moses. It was a Jewish thing. Paul emphatically tells us we are NOT under the Law of Moses

We are not under the law of Moses. Is the NT and Paul wrong?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

There was indeed a NT in the early church. They are under the New Covenant just as we are. They were taught orally by the Apostles.

This is evidenced as well by the first church council where they determined the Gentiles did not have to keep the laws of Moses. It was a Jewish thing. Paul emphatically tells us we are NOT under the Law of Moses

We are not under the law of Moses. Is the NT and Paul wrong?

I HAVE NEVER SAID WE ARE UNDER THE MOSAIC COVENANT! We are under LAW which is the LAW of Christ which has the same BASE tenants!

You missed my point... I am talking about books written. Most are written YEARS later after of christ's life and only partials here and there. They referenced the OT scriptures. Which Paul said ALL SCRIPTURE was for instruction in righteousness which was a reference to the writings of Law and Prophets etc...

AGAIN READ WHAT I SAID! Being under covenant and knowing righteousness are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! The basis of all law is upon the SAME REASONING! MArk 12:29-31 We are under the administration of Christ which is the SAME PRINCIPLES TAUGHT BEFOREHAND of which CHrist said and confirmed in John 15. Just as he, we do also the commandments of the Father. Which is a reference to that which ALL LAW HANGS of which HE DID and was found innocent!

If he could be charged with SIN and DEFILEMENT then we would no do it either. Ceremonial law in itself is not sin. That which defiles is of the heart. To not perform in heart would be sin but the failed action of the ceremony is not what defiles.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes BUT Paul says we are NOT under the law. The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us TO Christ and once we come to Christ we are no longer under the law.

So that is why, if it is not repeated in the NT it is not a part of the new covenant.

It's not idiotic at all. Do you really keep the entire law of Moses because Paul said all scripture is given?

Also you will NEVER find me saying we are under the "old covenant" "the law"! Also schoomaster is clearly principle foundation of which would be continued.

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes BUT Paul says we are NOT under the law. The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us TO Christ and once we come to Christ we are no longer under the law.

So that is why, if it is not repeated in the NT it is not a part of the new covenant.

It's not idiotic at all. Do you really keep the entire law of Moses because Paul said all scripture is given?

We are no longer obligated to keep the OT ceremonial laws, but what about the OT moral laws? Aren't we still obligated to keep those?

Theologians have generally recognized three types of OT laws: (1) moral, (2) ceremonial, and (3) civil.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Orthodoxy

We are no longer obligated to keep the OT ceremonial laws, but what about the OT moral laws? Aren't we still obligated to keep those?

Some divide the Law into three categories: the civil, the moral, and the ceremonial and say we no longer have to keep the civil and ceremonial but have to keep the moral. Others just teach that the Law was God's covenant with Israel and has been replaced (in total) by a New Covenant with a new people (the Church or the Israel of God). Others who go along with the whole New Covenant thing believe the only part of the law we are required to keep under the New Covenant is what the Apostles and Elders decided in Jerusalem and is recorded in their letter to the churches in Acts 15. There is one version of the Bible which includes the whole Limuda or Didache in the letter from the Apostles and Elders in Acts 15.