Christian observance of Levitican Law

[julienhr]

I'm seriously confused about Christian observance and non-observance of the Levitican laws. It seems to me that some laws are observed or quoted when it suits the needs of a particular agenda. I am sorry I am unable to quote passages in the NT where Jesus speaks on "the Law". (I don't have anything memorized and it's late and I'm not going to go pawing through my various translations. . . )

But this question is something that has been troubling me lately, especially in the light of those on the "religious right" quoting scripture to further their agendas (I hope I'm not insulting anyone here).

I know that different Christian churches adhere to different rules; ie. 7th Day Adventists as a case in point. How are they basing these judgments?

I feel somewhat stupid asking this question, but I admit that I am a "newbie" in my studies of Christianity.

I would love some guidance or pointers on this subject. Can somone recommend a book or books about this? And I'd love to hear some lively discussion about this!

 

[JJM]

I'm seriously confused about Christian observance and non-observance of the Levitican laws. It seems to me that some laws are observed or quoted when it suits the needs of a particular agenda. I am sorry I am unable to quote passages in the NT where Jesus speaks on "the Law". (I don't have anything memorized and it's late and I'm not going to go pawing through my various translations. . . )

But this question is something that has been troubling me lately, especially in the light of those on the "religious right" quoting scripture to further their agendas (I hope I'm not insulting anyone here).

I know that different Christian churches adhere to different rules; ie. 7th Day Adventists as a case in point. How are they basing these judgments?

I feel somewhat stupid asking this question, but I admit that I am a "newbie" in my studies of Christianity.

I would love some guidance or pointers on this subject. Can somone recommend a book or books about this? And I'd love to hear some lively discussion about this!

I'd like to say that this question is very misleading. Leviticus is named after the Levites with which it deals largely. The Levites are the Jews who worked in the temple so when you said Levitican laws I thought you where referring to laws that refer to the temple services of old in relation to church services of today. I only realized you meant the book upon reading another one of your posts.

well as for your question I'd say Christians have to follow all the laws of the bible that Jesus doesn't speak out against. or that are what set Jews apart from everyone else like Circumcision, kosher meals, ect. I believe that this come from the teachings of Paul.

I would recommend that your read the thread Christianity - a pick and choose faith? it speaks allot about this subject.

However, I think that there are two kinds of rules: 1.those that God truly has a problem with and 2. those he has told us to follow to make life easier for us. Examples of 1 are Murder & stealing because they hurt other people. Examples of 2 are Circumcision (this is much healthier) and Keeping the Sabbath (lets face it humans need rest). I personally haven't decided where the sexual laws would be placed.

I know you didn't directly mention your friend in this thread but if your reason for posting is was to get advice for her. May I ask why she chooses to be a lesbian if she thinks it is a sin. Also If you’d like to make her feel better you could point out the bible only speaks out against man with man relationships not woman with woman. I don't know of any books but I'll try and look.

 

[julienhr]

thanks and i'll keep looking into it

Thanks, JJM, tho' I'm still pretty confused on this subject. I'll look at that thread. As you probably have figured out, I'm not well versed in the "Old Testament". You're right when you mentioned that my interest was because of my friend. And it's not an imaginary friend ! I already mentioned that the Bible does say that man should not lay with a man, but she said that was a cheat or something to that effect.

So, perhaps I worded my question inaccurately. In effect, I am asking "What is sinning against God within Christianity?" Jesus said and I'm paraphrasing 'cause I'm at work, "I have not come to change the law, but to strengthen it", didn't he?

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Circumcision and Jewish observances

Dear JJM:

I am myself circumcised from a personal choice at the age of 24 because I thought it was better than not. No, I am not Jewish, nor an Arab, but a postgraduate Catholic Christian.

About your statement "Circumcision (this is much healthier)", I seem to remember reading in some news reports that research has established: cervical cancer is not really due also to coitus with uncircumcised men.

Looking back, on health, with or without the prepuce, I think modern access to water and soap in Westernized societies, in even the most simple of households, will insure hygiene for health reasons in the uro-genital regions of men.


Dear Jul:

My view about Christians not being required to observe a lot of Jewish observances, specially what scholars call ritual ones on cleanness and uncleanness, is that Paul -- the Apostles of the Gentiles, and thus accordingly called, gives a very general and safe policy which he himself uses time and again, namely:

If it does not cause any trouble with present company, and it is not harmful to your health, the omission of any Jewish observances on the part of the Gentiles can be accepted, if you continue giving thanks to God Who is also above all Jewish observances, considering that the New Law has abrogated the Old.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[JJM]

Dear JJM:

I am myself circumcised from a personal choice at the age of 24 because I thought it was better than not. No, I am not Jewish, nor an Arab, but a postgraduate Catholic Christian.

About your statement "Circumcision (this is much healthier)", I seem to remember reading in some news reports that research has established: cervical cancer is not really due also to coitus with uncircumcised men.

Looking back, on health, with or without the prepuce, I think modern access to water and soap in Westernized societies, in even the most simple of households, will insure hygiene for health reasons in the uro-genital regions of men.

I was referring to it being easier to get infection. I've never heard of it causing cancer but since you say it doesn't it's not something I will even look into. Your right in modern western societies that is not something that should be worried about. Assuming they are cleaned in the right way regularly, but at the time it was almost impossible to do this. Thus he told them to be circumcised. So I think that God does not actually have a problem with humans not being circumcised but because it's healthier (or was healthier if you prefer that) He felt the need to command that we do it.

Dear Jul:

My view about Christians not being required to observe a lot of Jewish observances, specially what scholars call ritual ones on cleanness and uncleanness, is that Paul -- the Apostles of the Gentiles, and thus accordingly called, gives a very general and safe policy which he himself uses time and again, namely:

If it does not cause any trouble with present company, and it is not harmful to your health, the omission of any Jewish observances on the part of the Gentiles can be accepted, if you continue giving thanks to God Who is also above all Jewish observances, considering that the New Law has abrogated the Old.

Susma Rio Sep

Could you please tell me where this quote comes from? I don't doubt it exists would just like to know where it's from.

Thanks, JJM, tho' I'm still pretty confused on this subject. I'll look at that thread. As you probably have figured out, I'm not well versed in the "Old Testament". You're right when you mentioned that my interest was because of my friend. And it's not an imaginary friend ! I already mentioned that the Bible does say that man should not lay with a man, but she said that was a cheat or something to that effect.

So, perhaps I worded my question inaccurately. In effect, I am asking "What is sinning against God within Christianity?" Jesus said and I'm paraphrasing 'cause I'm at work, "I have not come to change the law, but to strengthen it", didn't he?

Basically the answer to your question is if God finds it immoral you have to follow that law but if he gave that law for another reason you don’t have to. But even if God doesn't find it immoral if you swear to him or by his name that you'll do something or won't do as the case may be then you have to follow through with it.

So in the case of your friend. Well basically if you follow my philosophy on the different laws that God gave the Jews. You have to think why God gave this law. Is it because God truly thinks it’s morally wrong or is it because God feels it would be better if you didn't.

If it is the second then you have to think why would God think it better if you didn't

Well in homosexuality case I'd say health reasons. These health reasons are obvious in Males. (Before I say this I'd like to say that if the need to censor anything I'm about to write is felt needed I'll understand but for the understanding of what I'm trying to get across It is necessary to say this.) Having feces on your body regardless if it human or animal is not smart. So putting your penis in someone’s anus and thus getting feces on your penis is not smart. This to me is obvious. Next your anus is not meant to have anything inserted in it. After along enough time you begin to not control your Bowel Movements. But in the case of females I'm not sure if there are any health risks. I'm not saying that this is the reason God spoke out against Homosexuality He may just find it disgusting I don't know (because it is called an abomination) but if he sees nothing morally wrong with it then this is defiantly the reason why he said no, and also the reason he'd only speak out agianst men lieing with men.

But I'd still like to know why your friend is a lesbian if she thinks it's a sin. That could help out allot. If this is touchy subject just tell me I don't mean to pry into anything.

 

[iBrian]

But I'd still like to know why your friend is a lesbian if she thinks it's a sin.

Perhaps that in particular question is left for one of the other threads, such as Gay Marriage - or even a new topic on homosexuality on this Christian board itself - depending on whether you wish to address the general social issue of homosexuality, or the strictly religious issues.

As to the original question: as far as I know, in Christian Theology, the appearance of Jesus fulfilled the need to observe the original Judaic covenant with God - and that includes the various decrees in Exodus and Leviticus - so that it was no longer necessary to observe them.

However, issues of gender and sexuality were again commented upon within the Epistles of Saint Paul (Saul of Tarsus) which is why the issue resurfaces so strongly in Christianity.

To some, it would be as non-sensical to quote proscriptions against homosexuality from Leviticus, because those laws no longer apply. However, to others, the fact that Saint Paul makes a point of also proscribing against the issue, is taken as a sign that homosexuality cannot be accepted.

I'll let others with better knowledge take this up - my Concordance and Bible are buried under a lot of other papers at the moment.

 

[Quahom1]

There are several things a woman needs to be fulfilled, besides a faith:

A strong willed man.

A Strong hearted man.

An open minded man.

An open hearted man.

A gentle, masculine touch.

A gentle guiding touch.

A bowing spirit before his Maker.

Laugh if you wish, but it is true, in any religion, any culture, any faith.

Woman is life, and man is the servant of life. Every woman knows this in her heart, and every man as well. Choosing this is not so easy, particularly in today's world.

We are told that life is cheap, and women are cheaper...so not true!

The reverse is the fact of life. Woman completes Man.

Men are buddies, best friends, even love eachother with a (com) passion that can not be explained (due to circumstances, situations, experiences). But all is put aside when a man loves a woman (and vice versa). All else is suspended, superceeded, discarded.

The most dangerous animal on Earth is not a US Marine with an entrenchment tool...but a woman, protecting her man. (note the posessive). You don't find that in a man/man or woman/woman sexual relationship.

Gays may have love, but it is not the same...it can't be. Nature did not design us to lock and bond with same sex partners. Two men, or two women can not ever reach the potential bonding that Man and Woman can. It is physically, psychologically, and I surmise spiritually impossible.

There will always be something missing...

My two cents...


Q

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Stock knowledge

Dear JJM:

You are asking me:

Could you please tell me where this quote comes from? I don't doubt it exists would just like to know where it's from.

In regard to my saying that:

...the Apostle of the Gentiles, and thus accordingly called, gives a very general and safe policy which he himself uses time and again, namely:

If it does not cause any trouble with present company, and it is not harmful to your health, the omission of any Jewish observances on the part of the Gentiles can be accepted, if you continue giving thanks to God Who is also above all Jewish observances, considering that the New Law has abrogated the Old.

Actually, there is no such precise text in the Bible. I was not making an exact citation, but what I think could be a summary of Paul's thinking.

There are several places in the letters of Paul where he had to solve problems of Gentiles having to, or not, observe Jewish ritual prescriptions: like abstaining from blood, animals not slaughtered according to prescribed Jewish ways, circumcision, and others. His answers to those problems I think could be put together into that paragraph I wrote, reproduced above.

Please dispense me from looking up the precise references; otherwise I will just take back that paragraph.

Once I said that there are sexual transgressions in the Roman Catholic clergy (in another forum), and a very abrasive poster called me a low-down liar, unless I produced citations. It was a trap, because no amount of citations could satisfy him and he kept calling me a low-down liar.*

So, in the present case, I will just take back that paragraph and apologize now.

Can I find references to support my allegation? There is really no need for citations, people having read the letters of Paul several times are acquainted with those places where he solved problems of Jewish observances in favor of liberty for the Gentiles. Unless of course we are writing a dissertation on this topic.

Susma Rio Sep

*And no moderators ever called his attention to his language.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Greater than love for women

Dear Quah:

I am of the same sentiments as yours above on the sublime status of women.

But when you say that:

Gays may have love, but it is not the same...it can't be. Nature did not design us to lock and bond with same sex partners. Two men, or two women can not ever reach the potential bonding that Man and Woman can. It is physically, psychologically, and I surmise spiritually impossible.

I don't think I can agree completely.

Don't ask me for the exact citation, but didn't Jonathan and David love each other so much that David said he loved Jonathan more than women? And didn't Jesus love John the Evangelist so much that John could rest his head on the breast of Jesus as they reclined at table.

In history there have been and are still loves between the same sexes that supersede love between opposite sexes. Ask those folks who are fighting for same sex marriages, they will tell you that their love can equal if not exceed the love between a man and a woman.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[julienhr]

Brian wrote: "As to the original question: as far as I know, in Christian Theology, the appearance of Jesus fulfilled the need to observe the original Judaic covenant with God - and that includes the various decrees in Exodus and Leviticus - so that it was no longer necessary to observe them."

This is what I haven't been able to understand fully. Though I must admit my ignorance on many basic doctrinal matters. I have also not read much of the "New Testament" outside of the Gospels. Being a Quaker/Buddhist has colored my reading of the Bible quite a bit.

I did not desire an argument for/against homosexuality. I only wanted to understand further where to look in the New Testament for evidence of this being a sin or not, tho' of course, I presumed I'd have to look in Paul, for I found nothing in the Gospels and Jesus' words about "the Law" are confusing to me. Thank you are for pointers towards more understanding.

 

[Quahom1]

Dear Quah:

I am of the same sentiments as yours above on the sublime status of women.

But when you say that:

Gays may have love, but it is not the same...it can't be. Nature did not design us to lock and bond with same sex partners. Two men, or two women can not ever reach the potential bonding that Man and Woman can. It is physically, psychologically, and I surmise spiritually impossible.

I don't think I can agree completely.

Don't ask me for the exact citation, but didn't Jonathan and David love each other so much that David said he loved Jonathan more than women? And didn't Jesus love John the Evangelist so much that John could rest his head on the breast of Jesus as they reclined at table.

In history there have been and are still loves between the same sexes that supersede love between opposite sexes. Ask those folks who are fighting for same sex marriages, they will tell you that their love can equal if not exceed the love between a man and a woman.

Susma Rio Sep

Welcome julienhr. ;-)

Ah Susma,

My thoughts are not cut in stone (they're are scribed in concrete that is still wet, but setting fast).

Yes, and yes to both biblical accounts, but then I still rub my father's aching feet each time I come to their home on military leave, despite the fact that I have a wife and two sons of my own (I have a love for him that is much older than my love for my wife and kids). My point is it is a different kind of love.

Each time my wife said the words "Honey, I'm pregnant", I about hit the floor (in a verrrrrrrry good way!). Again the love is different.

My family is one of the most supportive, understanding and accepting of families that I know. And the three relatives that we have who are openly gay, have suffered one miserable relationship after another, after another (and definitely not because of family ostrisizing). In fact one is now dead, because his significant other 'loved' him to death, with AIDS. Between the three of them, they have had over 1000 sexual partners.

Makes me ask - What are you looking for? What are you missing? Where is the bond? How many shafts or sheiths do you have to sample before you find the right one?

Makes me wonder, is it love or lust, diguised as love?

David loved Jonathan, but his choice was to lay with Bathsheba.

Jesus Loved John, but his choice was to lay on the cross.

Gays seem to choose their own desires above everyone elses, and at the expense of everyone else.

If you can present evidence to the contrary, I will listen.

v/r

Q

p.s. the Levite priests stoned homosexuals to death...Hitler ordered them gassed and burned by the thousands...I think we've come a ways since then, but if I were gay, I wouldn't push the envelope too much, too fast...people are not quite ready. sort of like one arrogantly telling 100,000 too bad, get over it...dumb.




"Hillary Clinton was right on one thing...it takes a village to raise a child"

 

[JJM]

Brian wrote: "As to the original question: as far as I know, in Christian Theology, the appearance of Jesus fulfilled the need to observe the original Judaic covenant with God - and that includes the various decrees in Exodus and Leviticus - so that it was no longer necessary to observe them."

This is what I haven't been able to understand fully. Though I must admit my ignorance on many basic doctrinal matters. I have also not read much of the "New Testament" outside of the Gospels. Being a Quaker/Buddhist has colored my reading of the Bible quite a bit.

I did not desire an argument for/against homosexuality. I only wanted to understand further where to look in the New Testament for evidence of this being a sin or not, tho' of course, I presumed I'd have to look in Paul, for I found nothing in the Gospels and Jesus' words about "the Law" are confusing to me. Thank you are for pointers towards more understanding.

Just thought I would help you out. I don’t know if you already know this but because you said you’d look in Paul Not Paul’s writings I felt it necessary to tell you that you most likely won’t find what your looking for in Paul's Gospel but rather is letters to the Romans, Corinthians, etc. You’re more likely to find your answers there.

Also, don’t worry about the debate about homosexuality if you’ve been here long enough you see that most threads get off topic. Just keep asking your questions and you’ll most likely get answers. As for the other debate just let it go it may draw more people who can answer you question. You can always choose to ignore it.

 

[enton]

I'm seriously confused about Christian observance and non-observance of the Levitican laws. It seems to me that some laws are observed or quoted when it suits the needs of a particular agenda. I am sorry I am unable to quote passages in the NT where Jesus speaks on "the Law". (I don't have anything memorized and it's late and I'm not going to go pawing through my various translations. . . )

But this question is something that has been troubling me lately, especially in the light of those on the "religious right" quoting scripture to further their agendas (I hope I'm not insulting anyone here).

I know that different Christian churches adhere to different rules; ie. 7th Day Adventists as a case in point. How are they basing these judgments?

I feel somewhat stupid asking this question, but I admit that I am a "newbie" in my studies of Christianity.

I would love some guidance or pointers on this subject. Can somone recommend a book or books about this? And I'd love to hear some lively discussion about this!

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:11-12

 

[Saltmeister]

I'm seriously confused about Christian observance and non-observance of the Levitican laws. It seems to me that some laws are observed or quoted when it suits the needs of a particular agenda. I am sorry I am unable to quote passages in the NT where Jesus speaks on "the Law". (I don't have anything memorized and it's late and I'm not going to go pawing through my various translations. . . )

But this question is something that has been troubling me lately, especially in the light of those on the "religious right" quoting scripture to further their agendas (I hope I'm not insulting anyone here).

I know that different Christian churches adhere to different rules; ie. 7th Day Adventists as a case in point. How are they basing these judgments?

I would love some guidance or pointers on this subject. Can somone recommend a book or books about this? And I'd love to hear some lively discussion about this!

Christianity does not revolve around rules, protocols and technicalities. You should use your intuition, follow your instincts, listen to your heart in your efforts to discern right and wrong. These rules, protocols and technicalities were put in place to guide you in distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil, light and darkness, the healthy and unhealthy, the medicine and the poison. They were just a framework to guide our way of thinking. However, God also gave us a conscience that was independent of that framework, so we are quite capable of living and surviving without it.

We have been politically and morally liberated from these rules, protocols and technicalities by the selfless martyr who lived in defiance of dogma and ideology 2,000 years ago: the Jesus of the Christian Gospel. Perhaps you should look at Colossians 2:20-23.

So, what about the Old Testament? The religious leaders in Jesus' day were distorting the whole picture of the Religion of Israel (Judaism). They turned it into a bunch of rules. Your identity as one of God's people revolved around your ability to follow the rules. Break one rule, and BOOM!!!! You have desecrated God's Law and are no longer one of his people. You have been rejected by God.

You were condemned because of technicalities, even if you were sincere and devoted to God. Jesus died in defiance of that dogma. Because he was a good man, the moral authority of that dogma and those technicalities was annuled. Jesus didn't annul the Religion of Israel, he annuled the dogmatic and technicalised distortions of it. It was so that Jews could be real Jews rather than dogmatic rule-follower Jews.

Do we need to observe the Levitical laws? It's helpful, but not mandatory. We just don't make rules on whether to do it or not. It's personal. Don't be a rule-follower, be a free-thinker but also remember it's personal. The religious leaders, whether they are Jewish or Christian who teach you to follow Creeds are just as bad as the ones that were distorting the Religion of Israel 2,000 years ago. Can you sense the deja vu?

Moreover, if you're not a Jew, you don't have to do it. You don't need to become one.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

christians are not saved by law, we are saved by grace.