Biblical Dread Game and Why Christians Hate The Idea

Biblical dread game is founded on the husband’s authority and right to take another wife or a concubine. There’s nothing immoral about it (God had 2 wives, are you going to claim He did something wrong? See Jeremiah 31:31-32), nothing in the NT forbid it, and it’s still an allowable marriage option for men today. Note- I’m not making a defense of polygyny here, just stating that as fact.

Because modern Christianity teaches monogamy is the only permissible form of marriage and refuses to acknowledge men have the authority and right to more than one wife, the definitions of words like lust, fornication and adultery have become feminized and equalized, resulting in a huge negative impact on church doctrine. Probably the worst impact is in the modern doctrines concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage.

As a rule, as soon as the subject of dread game comes up the whole  “sex before or outside of marriage is forbidden” objection comes up when talking about husbands flirting (or going further) with women they aren’t married to.   The problem is such a prohibition cannot be found without making a reference to fornication or adultery and you might be surprised at what those words mean and don’t mean. Modern churchians don’t have a good definition of either of those terms because they ignore what the Law says (and more importantly, doesn’t say) as well as the critical point that a man is allowed to have more than one wife.  I discussed this a bit in “Pot… Kettle… Black” but I’ll get a bit more in depth in this post to demonstrate the extent of ignorance Christians have about the Bible.

The only thing necessary for a marriage to occur with an eligible virgin is sex.  With the act of penetration the man is making his commitment to marry her and neither her commitment or consent is required.   It is good to get the approval of the father first, because if she is still living at home her father can annul the marriage later if he doesn’t approve.  With a woman who is not a virgin but eligible to marry, her consent to marry is required in addition to sex (Numbers 30:9; 1st Corinthians 7:39). In Genesis 2:24 the authority to initiate marriage was given to the man, there is no prescribed ceremony required to initiate marriage and the authority rests solely with the man. With that in mind, look at Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which are “The Law” concerning pre-marital sexual relations between a man and woman eligible to marry each other.

In those passages we see no prohibition or condemnation on a man seducing a not-betrothed virgin, but there is a judgment: With the consummation of the marriage already accomplished, the man is required to pay her father what he is owed (the bride price) and live with the woman as husband and wife. The judgment isn’t about punishment but rather the requirement of the man to meet his responsibilities; with the additional restriction that because he has “humbled” his wife he can never divorce her. Because the father is in authority over his daughter, he has the right to refuse to allow the marriage (that would REALLY be punishment for the woman, who would be publicly known as damaged goods) but he still gets to collect the bride price from the man. There is no distinction between a married man and a single man because it doesn’t matter- married or single they can still marry her. However, with no prohibition or condemnation, the sexual activity cannot be called a violation of the Law (sin) and thus cannot be called “sexual immorality” which is a sin.

We know this because that is exactly what Romans 4:15 and 5:13 tell us.  Where there is no Law, there is no violation and without a violation there is no sin imputed.  That last word “imputed” is critical.  If God doesn’t call something sin, who are you to do so?

Since I’m already throwing sacred cows on the BBQ I may as well deal with a married man using a prostitute, which reinforces the point I’m making. There is no prohibition or condemnation of a man using (having sex with) a prostitute in the Law and it isn’t a sin for a non-Christian. A close study of Samson’s story confirms this. Samson was a Nazerite and the Spirit of the Lord was with him. The Law of the Nazerite is found at Numbers 6:1-8 and if you read that passage you’ll notice that part of the Nazerite vow was to remain holy and not become unclean. Yet, we see Samson going into a prostitute (Judges 16:1) but he remained holy and the Spirit of the Lord remained with him until he violated the Nazerite vow by having his hair cut. Having sex with a prostitute was not a sin and cannot be considered sexual immorality- and the Spirit of the Lord stayed with him because sex with a prostitute didn’t violate the Nazerite vow.

I said sex with a prostitute wasn’t a sin for non-Christians, and this is why: 1st Corinthians 6 contains a prohibition on Christians having sex with prostitutes, not because it’s sexual immorality (Paul did not violate Deut. 4:2 and claim it was) but because Christians are specifically forbidden to join the members of Christ to a whore by having sex with them. Following that Paul said to flee from immorality, but he did not use the word “porneia” but rather the word “hamartéma” which is defined as “a fault, a sin, an evil deed.” Paul made it clear he was talking about sexual sin and said the immoral man (one who violates God’s Law) sins against his own body. However, the instruction is specific to Christians because the non-Christian cannot join the members of Christ with a whore because he is not one with Christ.

Some claim 1st Corinthians 7:1-2 specifically forbids sex outside marriage, but there are three problems with that. First, that isn’t what the text actually says. Second, if that is what Paul really meant then Paul is guilty of a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, adding to the Law. The third problem is that exegesis hinges on the definition of porneia, which would only work if porneia could be defined as any sex outside of marriage.

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch (Greek word “haptomai” meaning to have carnal knowledge of) a woman. But because of immoralities (Greek word “porneia” meaning violations of God’s Law), each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”

It is far more reasonable to read the text for what it actually says.  If we try to get a deeper meaning from it, perhaps it that Paul is saying that because of the temptation of porneia around us, each man is to have his own wife (rather than the wife of another man) and each woman to have her own husband (and not any other man). Keep in mind that Paul was a Pharisee who was well trained in the Law and he knew what sexual immorality was… as well as what it wasn’t. He was also well aware of the prohibition on adding to the Law.

The Greek word “porneia” is translated into English as either “fornication” or “sexual immorality” and is clearly a sin but what we think of as fornication isn’t specifically defined anywhere in Scripture. The word can describe both physical sexual sin and thus encompasses adultery, bestiality and incest; as well as idolatry, which is giving that which properly belongs to God alone (worship, praise, authority) to anyone or anything else. AGAIN, we know from Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 that where there is no Law there is no transgression and no sin imputed. In other words, if God didn’t forbid something in His Law, it isn’t a SIN (forbidden for all time for all people).

I realize just how uncomfortable that is for most Christians, which is probably why pastors don’t teach about it. Since there is no prohibition or condemnation of the extra-marital sex mentioned in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, such sexual activity cannot be porneia (fornication), which is a sin. There are consequences to such behavior (don’t have sex with a woman you are unwilling to marry) but it isn’t a sin and to claim it is a sin when God didn’t do so is to violate Deuteronomy 4:2 (you shall not add to the Law or subtract from it).

(NB: This gets a bit complicated for Christians because that which is not of faith is sin and if one knows the right thing to do and doesn’t do it, that is sin to him (Romans 14:23 and James 4:17). There are also restrictions placed on Christians that go beyond what the Law required, such as the prohibition on using a prostitute in 1st Cor. 6 and the prohibition on divorce between married believers in 1st Cor. 7, but there is no specific restriction on pre-marital sex in the NT even though Christians really wish there was.)

To get to the definition of fornication we should also look at Hebrews 13:4, which says the marriage bed is to remain undefiled (Greek word “amiantos” meaning “undefiled, untainted, free from contamination”) and describes two sins that defile the marriage bed: adultery and fornication. As seen above, a man can have sex with a woman that’s not his wife and not be in sin, but if a married woman has sex with anyone not her husband it’s adultery. Adultery requires a married woman and a man can only commit adultery if he has sex with another man’s wife. The definition of the Hebrew word we translate as “adultery” applies equally to both illicit physical unions and illicit spiritual worship. In the physical sense the word carries with it the connotation of illicit sexual activity that can produce an illegitimate child, which means a penis in a vagina.

However, the word in Hebrews 13:4 that is translated as “fornicators” (“pornos,” not “porneia”) refers to a man who indulges in unlawful sexual immorality. What is unlawful sexual immorality? For that we have to go back to the Law and we’ve already seen that a man isn’t in sin because he had sex with a woman he wasn’t married to as long as she wasn’t married or betrothed to someone else. The word translated as “adulterers” is defined as the man who commits adultery. Thus, both the husband and wife are able to defile the marriage bed, the wife by introducing the adulterer and the husband by engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse (adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, etc.), but this passage also points to things like the husband and wife having sex while the wife is menstruating.  That is forbidden and in the same category of sins as adultery, bestiality, idolatry and male homosexuality.

What illicit activity doesn’t reach the bar of being adultery? The word “pornea” includes any illicit (unlawful) sexual activity from incest to bestiality, or as mentioned above, having sex with the wife while she’s menstruating. When Christ interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1-3 in Matthew 19, He specifically used the term “porneia” and said that was the only reason for which a man could legitimately divorce his wife. It can even be argued that idolatry was grounds for divorce under what Jesus taught. After all, that’s why God divorced Israel.

Examining the words we translate as adultery and fornication using the teachings of the Law and the NT, we must conclude (leaving aside homosexuality, incest, bestiality and other perversions) that within marriage, what we like to think of as adultery and fornication are specific sins that require the presence of a married woman; with the term fornication being a broader descriptor that includes infidelities on the part of a wife that would not rise to the level of adultery.

This goes further than most Christians would imagine. Given the teaching in Matthew 5:27-32, a married woman who deliberately dresses provocatively or immodestly in order to garner the sexual desire (lust) of men could be described as a fornicator. However, a woman eligible to marry who dressed provocatively or immodestly in order to garner the sexual desire of men could not be described as a fornicator because she isn’t married (or betrothed) and any desire she stimulates on the part of the men is not lust because the man’s sexual desire for her can be legitimately satisfied by marrying her.

The objections of the modern Christians to dread game are not supported by the Bible because if a husband is not in sin for having sex with a woman that isn’t his wife (as long as she’s not married or betrothed) then he certainly isn’t in sin if he’s flirting with her. The teaching of the modern church concerning monogamy robs the husband of an extremely effective tool, the legitimate threat of taking another wife if the one he has refuses to honor, obey and please him.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Biblical Dread Game and Why Christians Hate The Idea

  1. Renee Harris says:

    If sex outside of marriage is ok then why marry bc most under 30’s only want to marry for God approved sex

    • I didn’t say it was OK, I pointed out that the bible doesn’t say it’s a sin, per se. Notice the point about Romans 14 and James 4?

      Men want to marry to start families, have a dedicated partner and friend within a relationship that’s glued together by sex. Lots of sex. In every room of the house, on the porch, in the car, wherever. That’s it.

      What do women fantasize about? Sex with strangers. Getting raped. Being tied up and blindfolded. See a pattern here that has nothing to do with marriage? Do you honestly think women just suddenly started to be this way?

      • Renee Harris says:

        Part of the problem I have with laws that criminalize prostitution is it’s just another example of women trying to restrict men’s options for sex.
        I know what you mean

        • Women hate it when men have sexual options. I’m sure that one day you’ll have a husband and when you do, he will love it more than you can imagine when you open your blouse and pull his head down into your tits. I trust you’ll figure that out all on your own.

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    There was no penalty to the man for using a prostitute, but a daughter who acted as a prostitute, was sentenced to death. Would have been in her interests to reveal the affair and get married. Also, “the land will fall to whoredom”. And it has.

    • The penalty was not because she had sex but because she later tried to pass herself off as a virgin and married some guy under false pretenses. That triggered the adultery offense. She was stoned at the door of her father’s house instead of the city gates because there is an implied fault that he didn’t do his job in keeping her under control.

      There is nothing in the Law forbidding a woman from being a prostitute and there are plenty of times in history when it was the only thing a woman could sell to keep her and her children fed.

      Part of the problem I have with laws that criminalize prostitution is it’s just another example of women trying to restrict men’s options for sex. There was a famous madam who ran a “sporting house” in Bowling Green, Kentucky in the 30’s through the 60’s. I received a copy of her memoir titled “The House on Clay Street.” It was amazing just how closely she worked with the police and city fathers.

      She was invited to speak at a women’s luncheon and she told the ladies that she could explain exactly how they could keep their husbands out of her place, but she didn’t think they were capable of appreciating just how simple it was. She walked out without telling them, although she did explain in the book:

      -Look pretty
      -Don’t say no
      -Show some enthusiasm
      -Say thank-you afterward.

      She said if wives did that their husbands wouldn’t stray into her parlor. The hilarious part was she thought the enthusiasm and saying thank-you afterward were the most important parts

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Leviticus 19:29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

        How does one cause his daughter to be a whore? Weakness and negligence I suspect.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        If a woman was allowed to be a whore, why did Judah call for Tamar to be brought out and burnt at the stake? Perhaps part of “causing your daughter to be a whore”, is neglecting to show her the deadly consequences of such behavior.

        • Keep in mind that was prior to the Law. I can’t answer your question because I don’t know what drove Judah’s comment.

        • tteclod says:

          She was purportedly betrothed to Judah’s son, who he did not deliver to her as promised as a husband, so she tricked him into bed to get from him a child – twins, as it happened – and he was forced to recognize her right to justice by means of deception, quote: “She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son.” After that, he did not again fuck her.

  3. Mycroft Jones says:

    Toad, my understanding agrees with Rushdoony, and with the Orthodox; the Law was from the beginning. Judah was under the same Law as the one Moses wrote down and formalized.

    Calum Carmichael shows that the “story” parts of the Bible are also parts of the Law; they are case law. They show how the Law was meant to be understood and implemented. His work “Law, Legend, and Incest” in Leviticus is epic; it shows how large chunks of the “Law” are actually abbreviated commentary on the historical events in Genesis.

    • Some guy says:

      Hi. Toad and commentors, you’ve inspired me to finally work my way through reading the whole Bible instead of the snippets I hear at Mass every Sunday (Roman Catholic here). So, thanks!

      I must say this blog is bringing to light some questions that I’ve always had, and is actually causing me to have new ones.

      Regarding the Law delivered to Moses, it seems to me that the Bible makes it clear that it is a contractual Law and not a universal constant, like gravity. For example, in Acts, chapter 15, the Jerusalem Church debates amongst itself and confers with the Holy Spirit about whether Gentile Christians need to be circumcised and follow the full Law of Moses. Peter states that the Gentiles should not “be yoked” by the Law, which even they themselves and their Fathers before them had such a hard time following. This means that the Gentile Christians weren’t already a party to the Law of Moses, which they would be if it were like gravity instead of a contract. The Apostles instead command that the Gentile Christians instead abstain from blood, food knowingly sacrificed to idols, food from strangled animals, and fornication (Douay-Rheims translation).

      Acts of the Apostles, chapter 16, seems to clarify though that the Jewish Christians, as Jews, were still bound under the Law of Moses because after the Jerusalem Church’s decision, Paul goes out and circumcises Timothy while visiting the cities of Derbe and Lystra because Timothy, a believer, was the son of a Jewish woman.

      But, this viewpoint raises other questions. For example, if you’ve preached the Gospel to your neighbor, but he has outright rejected him, then is it not a sin to covet his sports car?

      • Hi Some Guy

        The problem with the approach you’re taking is found at Romans 4:15 and 5:13. Sin was in the world (meaning sin existed) but where there is no law there is no transgression and no sin imputed. Doctrinally, that means God’s Law (the Law of Moses) is God’s Law for all times, for all people and for all nations. It is absolute and unchangeable.

        In becoming a christian one becomes a servant of Christ because Christ paid a debt He did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay. You may want to read that several times. Scripture says He redeemed us and that goes straight to the Law concerning servitude. When we become Christians we are imputed (judged) with the righteousness of Christ and God cannot see out sin, only the righteousness of Christ. We literally become children of God, of whom Christ Jesus is the firstborn. So, while He is our brother, because He redeemed us He is also our Master and we are His servants according to His will. This is why the New Testament provides some further restrictions on Christians than the Law applies to everyone. It isn’t that the Law was changed, it’s that we as Christians have further restrictions placed on us as Christians.

        One good example that I’ve discussed is the use of a prostitute. There is nothing in the Law that says it’s a sin for a man (married or otherwise) to use a whore. Think about that for a moment. Under the Law, it isn’t a sin. However, 1st Corinthians 6 contains a prohibition against such activity (not because it’s sexual immorality) but because it is joining the members of Christ to a whore in the act of becoming one flesh with her. Another example which I’ve written about is divorce. In Matthew 19 Jesus was interpreting the Law of Moses, applicable to all people for all time. Under the Law of Moses divorce was allowed, but if one reads the text Jesus makes it clear that divorce was never part of God’s plan. In 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul makes it clear the instruction applies only to believers and is from Christ: wives are not to separate from their husbands and husbands are not to divorce their wives. Period. For two married believers there are no grounds for divorce and there is to be no divorce.

        This is not a popular exegesis of Scripture but I believe it is correct.

      • Some guy says:

        Hi Toad,

        Thanks for your comment, it caused me to think a lot.

        Initially, I was going to talk about Covenant theology (for and intro, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenantal_theology_(Roman_Catholic)). But, then I wondered why God would send the Flood or destroy Sodom if the Law of Moses wasn’t “for all times, for all people and for all nations”. But, as a counterpoint, I then wondered why, if that were the case, would the Holy Spirit reveal through the Apostles that the Gentile Christians did not have to “be circumcised and be commanded to observe the law of Moses”?

        I thought about this contradiction a lot and had an insight this morning while disciplining my daughter. My insight was this: the full Law of Moses was part of a special agreement between God and the Isrealite nation. At the time it was specifically not applied, for example, to the Egyptian people that the Isrealites had been fleeing, and later it specifically was not applied to the Gentile Christians. This means that the “Law of Moses” was not given to all peoples for all times. Through Adam’s actions though, all people know what is good and what is evil. And, God dislikes evil – hence the Flood.

        When I went to write this comment, I noticed that you, seemingly unknowingly, agreed with me earlier yesterday:
        “Artisanal Toad says:
        November 12, 2015 at 8:40 am
        Keep in mind that was prior to the Law. I can’t answer your question because I don’t know what drove Judah’s comment.”

        Right now, I think that all of your discussions about polygony are still valid. When forbidding sexual immorality, the Jerusalem Church’s reference for that would have been the stipulations about sexuality in the Law of Moses and the Torah as a whole. Even in Genesis, Lamech wasn’t cursed for having two wives, but for slaying a man.

        From what I’ve been able to research, polygyny fell out of favor in the 3rd and 4th Centuries because of accommodation to and absorption of the wider Graeco-Roman culture wherein monogamy was preferred and / or the secular law (monogamy had enabled the Greeks and Romans to build large, powerful armies for centuries). But, there is no Biblical basis for bans on polygyny.

        Some churchmen argued against polygyny with a different strategy, saying that it was needed for a time to populate the Earth, but is no longer needed. That seems without Biblical basis to me as well. There is no record of the Holy Spirit rescinding polygyny in Scripture. And, furthermore, God promised Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars. There is an estimated 100 octillion stars, but there haven’t been that many descendants of Abraham yet; so, it makes no sense that God would remove a tool for making humans that is as useful as polygyny before anywhere close to 100 octillion descendants have been born.

        Last, today in the 21st Century, the Catholic church makes two main arguments against polygyny: that it is a violation of human dignity and that it is violates the natural law. I don’t understand these arguments either. First, polygyny doesn’t prevent anyone from pursuing spiritual virtues; so, I can’t fathom how it would harm human dignity. Second, God made men so that they produce a lot of sperm all of the time, but women so that they only release a set number of eggs at certain times. This means men’s natural objective is to cause many fertilizations, but women’s objective is to find the highest value man possible for her precious eggs. Polygyny seems to me to accommodate these different natural reproductive goals much better for all parties than forced monogamy, and thus would be a more loving approach.

  4. Mycroft Jones says:

    If a woman “needs” to prostitute herself, that means her father isn’t feeding and sheltering her. Ergo, he is causing her to prostitute herself. A woman is always owned by a man; her father if noone else. A harlot is a woman who rejects male ownership of herself. Harlotry upsets the social order, weakens society until stronger neighbors overcome it. Look at Babylon; when the soldiers marched in, the cucks hid while their wives eagerly hopped on invader cock. Just like those German chicks standing in the street offering “kisses for refugees!” Identical to old Babylon, with its institutionalized harlotry.

    • Obviously you’ve never been in a war zone. What you’re saying is nice in theory, but sometimes reality intrudes. When the soldiers march in the men get killed and the women do whatever they have to do to survive. Don’t think that was limited to Biblical times, it’s still happening today. Find somebody that lived through the war in Bosnia back in the 90’s and they can explain it to you. If you could feed a woman’s children she’d cheerfully screw you silly. They lived in their basements and only came out at night to get water and find food because during the day snipers shot at anything that moved.

      One of my former spotters was in Sarajevo doing countersniper work during that war. He told me he and his partner were supporting almost 20 kids and their mothers because he could grab MRE’s by the case and as a sniper team they had autonomy in where they operated. He said (and I believe him) that he never asked the women for sex, they did it out of gratitude (and probably to ensure he kept coming back with food). You can say what you want but I won’t throw rocks at those women. They did what they had to do to survive and the only thing they had to trade was their bodies. It’s not pretty but they survived and their children survived.

      The same thing happened in Italy and Germany after WWII. Japan, Korea and Vietnam as well. War brides are not traitors, they’re survivors.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Category difference. War brides and captive maidens are not harlots. If the captors/invaders refuse to do the duty of husband to them, that is their sin, not the woman’s. In similar manner, a woman found in a field, and forced, is held innocent.

        This is separate from a father causing his daughter to whore through a) lack of discipline and b) not feeding and sheltering her.

        Sirach 42:9 A daughter is a hidden source of sleeplessness for her father, and anxiety about her deprives him of sleep: in her youth, that she doesn’t pass her prime, and when she’s married, that she not be hated;
        10 while she’s a virgin, that she not be seduced and become pregnant while still living at home; when she’s married, that she not go straying; or having married, that she not be infertile.
        11 Keep a strict watch over an unruly daughter so that she doesn’t make you an object of ridicule to your enemies, a topic of talk in the city and the assembly of the people, and she shame you before the crowd.

        • I think we’re saying the same thing. My point was sometimes things get really bad and the women have to do things that they wouldn’t ordinarily do. But then again, some women do stuff like that anyway.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Continuing the previous comment, the captive maidens you describe, are different from the Babylonian women who hopped on invader cock while their men refused to fight. Refusing to fight for your women is a way of pimping them. Since every Bablonian woman was a whore at least once in her life, perhaps the men let the women go welcome the invaders because they didn’t care; they were already whores, why risk your life for them?

        I refer now to Herodotus description of the fall of Babylon to Cyrus and the Persians. And then later accounts of Alexander the Great’s conquest of that same city.

        German men aren’t defending their nation because their women are already whores by default.

  5. Renee Harris says:

    What did you think of human trafficking ?

    • That depends. How much money does your father want for you? For the right price I might be tempted to break open my piggy-bank and buy you. If that counts as trafficking then I’m all for it.

      Any father that’s managed to keep his daughter a virgin should be able to get as much money for her as he can.

      Now, you realize I’m not a fan of monogamy, right? If you’re looking for monogamy I’m not the guy you want to talk to. In fact, give me a trio of heathen bi-girl sluts over the virginal evangelical princess every single time. So, if you have some agreeable friends who were on board with that, the critical question is whether you can make sammiches. Sex I can get from any wife but sammiches made with love are special. And just out of curiosity, how much is your dad asking for you? Put the price tag on your butt, take a pic and send it to me. Come to think of it, we could auction you off to the highest bidder. I’m pretty sure there’s a reality show that does something like that, or I could put you on Ebay. Ask your dad about that.

      • Renee Harris says:

        Haha well played

        1. My dad is not selling me. I’m a free agent
        2. My sammiches making Game needs work … How do you feel about Ham and cheese omelette s and lobber trait ? I can makes the first working onThe second
        3 . I mean the chruchain misunderstand of Isaiah 61 of care the captures free
        But save your money for the new star war as it may not be good but inserting

        • You live in your father’s house and claim to be a free agent? You need to be spanked. Hard. Waiting for the pic of your butt with a price tag on it.

          • Renee Harris says:

            It just darned on me: sons having the right to all of the Father goodness , slaves don’t. Chrucnhary reject true son- ship Thus want to limit the right of son .
            Point to ar

          • Renee Harris says:

            Spanked hard? Ok but by you or my father? Or both… I move out as to not be a financial burden on him and my mother.

  6. Mycroft Jones says:

    Some guy, before your meditations on Acts 15 go further, please consider this: the Law was from the beginning, and is for all time.

    In Acts 15, the only issue was “should converts be circumcised”. In the Law of Moses, foreigners had to keep the Law, but did NOT have to be circumcised. This is explicitly spelled out. That is why at the end of Acts 15, it said “they will hear the Law of Moses being read every Sabbath”.

    What we deduce from that is, the Pharisee bloc wanted to impose further restrictions on converts that the Law of Moses itself did NOT.

    Furthermore, look at the nature of the limitations placed on the Law in Acts 15. On the surface it looks like: don’t eat blood, food sacrificed to idols, strangled things, and fornication, and you’re ok.
    Do you notice something odd about that list? It isn’t even as complete as the ten commandments. What about murdering and stealing?

    Turns out, there is another way to read it, and at least one of the early church fathers hinted at it. Strip away the modern English translation, look at how a Hebrew person would have read it, and it becomes clear.

    Jesus summarized the Law as “Love God and Love your neighbor”. A summary does not replace that which it sums, but gives a hint at that which it is summarizing. Here in Acts 15, we have another summary of the law:

    abstain from
    a) pollutions of idols (idolatry, though shalt have no other gods before me)
    b) fornication (all types of sexual immorality, incest, bestiality, adultery, etc)
    c) from things strangled (Hebrew “treyf”, refers to all unclean foods)
    d) blood (it doesn’t say “eating blood”, it refers to murder, smiting, slander)

    Look at the wording from the Hebrew point of view, and you have the apostles saying “don’t worship other gods, don’t have bad sex, don’t eat forbidden things, don’t kill.

    The Hebrew “treyf” does refer to things strangled (which were forbidden in the Law), but came to be used as a larger category term for all forbidden “unclean” foods. Now, it is true, Acts was written in Greek. The Greek word used corresponds to Hebrew treyf, and is what the early Law keeping Hebrews would have used when writing their thoughts in Greek. Comparing the New Testament to the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament allows us to make claims like this.

    The forbidden foods in the Law already included blood; there was no need to repeat it. So it wasn’t. Blood referred to murder.

    With this in mind, the Law wasn’t changed; the apostles clarified that the Law was not to be added to, “no further burden”. As a summary of what makes the Law of Moses distinctive, the four items are pretty good. And they make way more sense than the common understanding.

    Another thing that needs to be kept in mind about Acts 15; the four items were requirements for entry; but it was asserted right after that they would learn the full Law, as Moses was being read every Sabbath in the synagogues.

    • Some guy says:

      Mycroft,

      Thank you for the comments. It gave me lots to think about over the weekend.

      Where do you get your information about the various languages and translations? I am curious and wish to read more in this vein.

      I also find myself wondering how Christianity got so much wrong for 1800+ years.

      Funnily enough, the priest at Mass this weekend told us that it was National Bible Week this week. But, the more I read, the more I disagree with the Catholic Church’s specific teachings. Yet, on some level, I think the Church must realize their error – they even used the Ten Commandments as their thematic structure for the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

      I spent a lot of time trying to develop criticisms of your approach this weekend, but could not make any work. In fact, for example, it seems that the Gospel passages usually cited for the repeal of the Jewish dietary laws don’t even say that.

      I kind of feel the same way I did after learning about Game and the truth of socio-sexual dynamics. I spent decades in Sunday School, went to a Catholic university where I had courses on theology – I’ve invested a lot of time and money – and now I’m wondering if I even have a basic understanding of how God wants me to live.

      Anyways, thanks again. And, keep up the good work!

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Hi Some guy.

        My information about languages etc accumulated over the years. I started off by learning to use Strong’s Concordance, and moved on from there; took Hebrew lessons, etc. I’ve had to compare and contrast, and pick nuggets of insight from morasses of dross. I’ve kept livestock, cows, sheep, doves, and honeybees. I’ve learnt ancient astronomy and trigonometry. As time went on, the nugget to dross ratio went down to a point where I no longer bother; I go directly to the Hebrew and Greek. Much simpler that way. Just let the words mean what they mean, and stop reading meanings INTO the words.

        Like riding a bicycle, it helps to have training wheels. Some of the training wheels I had access to, are no longer on the web.

        How did Christianity get so much wrong for 1800+ years? I have the answer. Hadrian. Bar Kokhba rebellion. Read Daniel Gruber’s book, “Rabbi Akiba’s Messiah”. That is where it all changed. Hadrian made it a death penalty to say the name YHWH, or to observe Sabbath and New Moon. But he allowed the Jews to keep a Saturday sabbath instead of the Sabbath, which was originally counted from the New Moon.

        Anyhow, during that Rebellion, the original Law keeping Israelite Christians were killed off by Jews and Romans alike; the remaining pagan Christians distanced themselves as much as possible from anything Jewish, because of the wrath of Rome; the Bar Kokhba rebellion brought Rome to its knees and it never recovered. The only Jews left were those who pledged loyalty and allegiance to Rome. Even the remaining rabbis. The history of Roman Catholicism and Judaism has, ever since, intertwined like the strands of a DNA helix. They have each adapted and responded to each other. The Roman empire and its daughters, for the past 2000 years, use Jews as high level administrators and servants as part of whatever covenant Hadrian made with the remnant of Judah.

        Judaism and Christianity alike were diverted from the Law of Moses by Bar Kokhba’s rebellion. This is why the prophet Daniel fainted, and was sick for days after when YHWH showed him the future. (Daniel 8; the whole Bar Kokhba and Hadrian thing is in there, if you know how to see it)

        Hadrians Horror changed history forever. It was a bigger historical turning point than the first world war.

        The one empire that broke the Glubb limit was the Byzantine Empire. They did this by hewing closer to the Law of God than any other historical empire. More details in Rushdoony’s book “The Institutes of Biblical Law”. Which is an excellent read anyway. People dismiss theonomy, saying we’ll be subject to “holiness spirals”. They are just ignorant. Theonomy has built in safeguards to prevent holiness spirals. Holiness spirals are the weakness of Christianity because it has thrown out the Law on its ear. People don’t have a reliable, grounded standard of good and evil, so they are groping. Rushdoony contains good examples of holiness spirals CAUSED by rejecting the Law.

      • Some guy says:

        (Note: this comment is mostly for myself and any other Catholics / Christians experiencing cognitive dissonance from Toad’s writings).

        I started reading through the online version of Rushdoony’s “Institutes of Biblical Law”, and couldn’t find fault with anything I had read in it so far.

        Being the incredulous Catholic that I am, I flipped open the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” again to read what the Catholic church has stated that it believes.

        It posits a sort of hierarchy of moral laws (para. 1952): God’s own eternal law -> the natural law (essentially the ability to discern the difference between good and evil that is part of every person’s human nature) -> the revealed law (Law of Moses and the Gospel) -> other civil and ecclesiastical laws. It is important to note that the Apostles stated in Acts 5:29 that civil and ecclesiastical laws are subordinate to the revealed law when they told the high priest and council in the Temple that “We [the Apostles] ought to obey God rather than men.”

        The Catechism states that the Law of Moses has not been abolished, but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment. (para. 2053) Just as Jesus summarized the Law in Matthew 22:37-40, and (as Mycroft pointed-out) the Apostles summarized it in Acts 15, the Catechism states in paragraph 1962 that the Ten Commandments are themselves a summary of the moral prescriptions in the Law of Moses. Furthermore, the church teaches that all humans are obliged to follow the Ten Commandments (paras. 2068, 2070, 2072).

        The Catechism also teaches that the Church has infallible authority in certain topic areas (para. 2035 – 2043), which are:
        1. teaching something that is in the oral or written tradition deposit of divine revelation,
        2. doctrine necessary to preserve, explain, or observe the truths of the Christian faith, and
        3. specific precepts of the natural law because their observance is necessary to salvation (such as the need to attend church to celebrate communion, etc.):
        3.1 You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor
        3.2 You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
        3.3 You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
        3.4 You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
        3.5 You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.

        In conclusion, based on the Catholic church’s own stated dogmas. I deduce that if the church teaches some doctrine (such as all female-female sexual intimacy is sinful) that is beyond that found in divine revelation then it is overstepping its authority; if it teaches some doctrine that contradicts divine revelation (that all premarital sex is sinful) then it is abusing its position of authority to teach falsehood; and, if it fails to teach some doctrine (such as to not eat bacon) then it is neglecting its duty.

        Aquinas divided the Law of Moses into moral, ceremonial, and juridical rules. He thought that only the moral ones applied to Christians and that it was wrong for Christians to keep the ceremonial and juridical rules. I cannot find in the “Catechism of Catholic Church” that the Church’s official dogma agrees with Aquinas’ sentiments. In fact, if the Ten Commandments are a summary of the Law of Moses and Catholics are obliged to keep the Ten Commandments, as the Catechism states, then by inference the ceremonial and juridical ones would need to be kept as well.

        It seems then that a lot of the Roman Catholic church’s doctrine might be whack. There seems to be problems with dogma coherence and practice of the faith in the real world. And, as a Catholic desiring piety, I’m not 100% sure what to do about it. Personally, I’m going to keep reading my Bible and try to learn and understand more. Life would be easier if I am wrong in these observations, but currently I don’t think I am.

      • Some guy says:

        tteclod,

        I’ve been reading more, and It occurs to me that never in my life have I heard a priest talk about the witch of Endor or the Easter zombies in Matthew. And, I gotta wonder why that is.

  7. RichardP says:

    Re. to whom the Law of Moses was given: I will argue this point more thoroughly at some other time, as I have no time to do so now. For now, here is something I just posted at Dalrocks. I have run into the argument that Acts 15 was only talking about whether to impose circumcision on the Gentile converts. That is balderdash, and only someone who is not reading carefully could possibly come to that conclusion. Consider this statement by Peter in Acts 15:

    ““Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (vs. 10-11)”

    Do you actually believe that Peter was saying that “neither we nor our fathers have been able to keep the command / yoke to be circumcised”? Seriously?? You think the Children of Israel had trouble keeping the males circumcised because it was a yoke they could not bear??? Further, do you believe Peter was saying “we believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, rather than being saved by circumcision”?? You think the Children of Israel thought they were counted as righteous because they were circumcised?? That is a woefully inadequate undertanding of what the Children of Isael, and Jews historically, believe that it takes to be called “righteous”.

    OK – enough of that. Here is what I posted at Dalrock’s. I strongly encourage you to aquaint yourselves with the material at both links I provide, keeping what I wrote above in mind.
    ———
    From here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/what-about-the-fathers/#comment-194266

    @Dale: “Jesus did not abolish the law; he fulfilled it. (Matt 5:17-20, John 16:16-17.) Until both of the following are true, the law will remain:”

    You may be correct that the law will remain, but it will remain only for those to whom it was given. The law was given only to the Children of Israel. It was not given to the gentiles. As Paul states: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.” (Romans 2:14)

    Acts 15 discusses this truth in some detail. There is a good discussion of Acts 15 at this link: http://www.gci.org/bible/torah/exodus2a

    You might notice that the four requirements imposed on new Christians in Acts 15 reflect the sentiment in the Noahide Laws that the Children of Israel believed were given to the Gentiles by God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

    The “Law” given to the Children of Israel is valuable to the Gentile world for instruction and reproof. But, as the readings I’ve referenced above make clear, the Gentile world has never been bound by that “Law”. Only the Children of Israel were/are bound by it.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      The “Law” never required Gentiles to be circumcised, but it did require Gentiles to obey it. Let that sink in. The Law explicitly exempted Gentiles from circumcision and Passover observance, but not the other things.

      The Law explicitly says “There is ONE Law for you, and for the stranger”. (Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:16, Exodus 12:49) This is such an important precept, that it was repeated three times.

      Further, the Karaite and Samarian branches of Judaism do affirm that the Law is for all nations. The Covenant is with Israel, but the Law is universal, like gravity.

      Unless you believe that Wisdom and Understanding is reserved to Israel only, and that God doesn’t intend for it to be shared with the Gentiles.

      Deuteronomy 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

      Your link to Grace International doesn’t make the point you are hoping; the author doesn’t know the Law of Moses, so his comments about it are off base. Jesus never criticised the Law of Moses, neither did any apostle or disciple.

      Lacking the foundation, modern day Christians built weak and crumbly structures on their sandy beaches of “By Grace Alone”. If you read the Old Testament, you can see Grace was present and necessary from the very beginning. It was beside the Law, both being universal and eternal parts of the plan of salvation, from the foundation of the world.

      Since you are a Christian, RichardP, I hope you’ll take a bit of time and start reading Rushdoony’s “Institutes of Biblical Law” as our friend “Some guy” has done.

      For now, until you demonstrate that “heaven and earth have passed away” as per Matthew 5, the Law is still in full force, for peace and for a blessing on your soul. Why do people disrespect God’s blessings?

      • RichardP says:

        As I stated, I’ve not the time to develop this argument fully here. I provided what I did as a starting point for folks to think about. Your response ignors the issue of the new covenant replacing the old covenant. Rhetorical question provided below; I’m not trying to discuss this topic here.

        MJ, if you are correct, what did Paul mean by this when he said the Gentiles did not have the law (rhetorical question)?

        “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.” (Romans 2:14)

        If you are correct, what did Peter mean by his statement? What was the “yoke (something that rabbies placed on their student followers) to which Peter refers here? (rhetorical questions):

        ““Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Acts 15:10-11)”

        What did Peter mean by that? And the four requirements that the Acts 15 Council imposed on the new “Christians” – they were in addition to the whole of the Law that the Christians were obligated to keep were they (rhetorical)??? Additional requirements imposed on Christians that were not imposed on the Children of Israel (rhetorical)???

        Nothing you have said satisfactorily addresses the issues raised by these quotes from the New Testatment.

        From whence does salvation come? Adherence to the Law of Moses, or faith that the final sacrifice of Jesus provided the covering that God requires in order to forgive your sin? Are adherence to the Law of Moses AND belief in the final sacrifice BOTH required for salvation (what does the New Testament say)? If the answer is “No”, which one needs to be jettisoned??? If the answer is yes … ??? (Again, rhetorical only.)

      • RichardP says:

        Left this out of my previous response. Again, for information only. Not trying to start a discussion.

        If you do serious reading in the Jewish literature, you will discover that the Children of Israel / Jews believe that the Law of Moses was given to them only and to no one else (part of what being chosen was all about). They believe that the Noahide laws were given to everyone else. This truth matches the points made in Acts 15.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

  8. RichardP says:

    Testing. I just posted something. It is not showing up, nor am I seeing a message that it is in a que waiting to be vetted. I included two links in the post, so maybe it is indeed in a que to be vetted and I’m not being told that. Hopefully AT lets it through since I didn’t think to make a copy of the post.

    • Relax. I was out in the woods. Good to see you, I’ll respond after I get cleaned up.

      • RichardP says:

        Wasn’t stressing. Other sites that hold up posts for validation usually leave a message. Your site didn’t, so I was just placing a marker in case I had somehow screwed up my attempt to post and it never showed up.

  9. Mycroft Jones says:

    Some guy: I took the Buckminster Fuller approach. He called himself “Guinea Pig B”. He did self experimentation. Like a martial art, large chunks of the Bible can only be understood by direct application and practice. The simple act of living the Law of Moses (which is safe, because Jesus did it) is all it takes. Over the years, insight flows, and understanding grows.

    My experiments with livestock raising, and astronomy, etc, was all geared toward better understanding the Bible. At this stage, I don’t know if you are ready to dive into topics like geocentricity, etc. The Matrix we are in is a very deep rabbit hole. It is the mercy of God that we are blind to how blind we are; best that you learn a bit at a time. Many people throw away the Bible and go full atheist. This makes me sad; the Law of Moses is a force like a nuclear hurricane. Any small group of 5 men that commit to keeping it, will have an incredible amount of power like you can’t believe. Just like Genghis Khan and Sonny Barger. ISIS are childish pikers by comparison.

    When Roosh posted about the Calhoun “Rat Utopia” experiments, I realized instantly this was the missing info that explains the Great Flood and the Tower of Babel story. Also it explains Sodom and Gomorrah and “how could a loving God kill all those innocent women and children…” He didn’t. They were already walking dead. He was saving the rest of the human race.

    It is interesting Roosh has finally picked up on the anti-fertility message of the elites. Life is good. Death is evil. In agriculture, if the cows, sheep, doves, or honeybees stop breeding, you have a PROBLEM! It reduces the health and vigor and productivity of the flock. In agriculture, the struggle is to make things grow, not to stop them! Our gardeners aren’t willing to do the things needed for human fertility, so they bring in immigrants as substitutes. They are blind to the reality of human nature and God’s Will that is expressed in the Law of Moses.

    Catholicism did the Reconquista when it battened down the hatches and brought back large chunks of the Law of Moses. The Puritans made America great when they got even closer to the Law of Moses than the Anglican hypocrites. Each step toward holiness, is a step toward power.

    Due to Christian indoctrination, most people can’t take these steps toward power, because they don’t know what holiness is.

    I appreciate you taking the time to read Rushdoony. So very few people ever do. It will be a relief to have someone to talk to who has also read Rushdoony.

  10. Mycroft Jones says:

    Some guy: after careful and deep and thorough investigation, reading through the entire Bible, questioning many sages, pastors, and experts, I still couldn’t admit to the conclusion, until George Gordon said it out loud: There is one law. There is no distinction between moral, ceremonial, and judicial. It is all one. http://georgegordon.org/audio/radio/page-1.html

    Later I found out on my own, that animal sacrifice continued long after Christ (Acts 21:23,24) and the apostles themselves recommended it as a good and valid practice. And in the centuries after, the Church of the East, and the churches in Africa, continued to perform sacrifices. It is only the western Roman churches that did away with sacrifice. Think about that. 3/4 of Christianity, for most of time, has practiced animal sacrifice. And you never knew. Most people don’t. Due to Western dominance, it is fairly well hushed up; the other Christians know how emotional it makes Westerners.

    Much of the church continued to practice polygamy also, particularly the Nestorians and the African branches.

    Before Rome became dominant, the Arian Christians of Germany and Europe practiced polygamy until 1000 years ago.

    • Some guy says:

      “At this stage, I don’t know if you are ready to dive into topics like geocentricity, etc.”
      Haha. If you only knew you, wouldn’t bother with a disclaimer like that. Please jump into whatever topic you would like to discuss. I am eager to learn.

      “This makes me sad; the Law of Moses is a force like a nuclear hurricane. Any small group of 5 men that commit to keeping it, will have an incredible amount of power like you can’t believe. Just like Genghis Khan and Sonny Barger. ISIS are childish pikers by comparison.” I concur. Samson with the jawbone of an ass and all that.

      I’ve read most of Rushdoony’s “Institutes of Biblical Law” – I did skim a few bits though. Rushdoony has tons of great insight. The problem is that it is dense and non-persuasive. Also, why did Rushdoony get divorced?

      I think the West is ready for a Christianity that has been refactored back to its original core (i.e. a version that probably views St. Basil the Great of Caeserea as too liberal). It would be the ultimate “lifehack”. But, there are obstacles to overcome to convert non-Christians and “Churchians” to that Christianity. God’s Law seems simple, yet has far-reaching and complex implications. And, I don’t think I’ve seen it presented this way – in a manner that would be accessible on multiple understanding and familiarity levels.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Some guy, I AGREE with you. If you have ideas on HOW to present it in an accessible way, I’d love to work with you on it. If you say yes, we’ll exchange contact info. Toad, if you’re reading this, please forward my email address to Some guy.

        Rushdoony wrote to appeal to an educated seminary audience, smart abstract thinkers. In turn, how can we make this accessible? That is our task; Rushdoony gave us the tools.

        As for the divorce, here is what Rushdoony’s daughter said:

        QUOTE Joanna
        Your tirade of innuendo and half truths is very upsetting. Why would you write something like that knowing nothing of the circumstances and knowing her children might read it? First of all, let me begin with the fact that my mother was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who refused to take medication. She caused her children and others a great deal of pain. She was institutionalized twice. Both times she admitted herself. Her own paranoia caused her to leave her family, divorce her husband, and then spread rumors that held no truth. It was a painful time and the memories remain painful. She is rarely mentioned because of that pain and in order not to dishonor her memory. Would you be happier if we wrote a Mommy Dearest book? It was and is hard enough to cope with her illness and the problems it created without speculation from outsiders.
        END QUOTE

        From that, it sounds like a legit Biblical divorce.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        That is why I speak of the team of 5. As long as it is all internet debates and discussions, it isn’t real. It has to be lived. If even 5 of us can gather together, things will take off like an F-15. By this, I mean if even 5 of us get on-message enough to actually live in community (not commune; the Law is all about property and inheritance), there will be no stopping it.

        Also, the more the team recognizes the significance of Babel, Sodom, Gomorrah, and Calhoun’s mouse research, the more urgency the prophetic books have. People are wasting their lives waiting to be raptured; judgement is coming very soon. Not Armageddon, which is at some debateable point in the future. But real judgement could come at any day. Already the Muslims encircle us, and our elites appear to have capitulated.

      • Some guy says:

        Mycroft,

        I’ve been using a bogus email address to post here. Please send an email to: someguybible@gmail.com.

        Regarding the “Syrian” refugees, I can’t help but to recall God talking to the Hebrews about the Canaanites and saying something like “…I gave you fields that you did not till and cities that you did not build.”

  11. Mycroft Jones says:

    RichardP, you asked a lot of what you call “rhetorical” questions. That means you don’t think they have answers. Read Rushdoony; they are all addressed and answered. The depth of Christian delusion is deep, so flinging a few rhetorical questions around is useless. If you want to talk about this, then put in the time and effort to learn what you are talking about.

    As for your mention of the Noahide laws, so what? So what if some mainstream sects of Judaism think the Torah is only for Jews? I already mentioned two branches of Judaism (Israelite Samarian, and Karaite Judaism) that say otherwise. But if you are a follower of Christ, then what Jews have to say on the matter has no weight; only what Christ and the Word say.

    • RichardP says:

      No MJ – they are rhetorical because I want folks to know I am not going to discuss this in any further detail in this thread – which is about something other than the Law of Moses. What did Paul mean by the verse I quoted? What did Peter mean by the verse I quoted? These questions indeed have answers. Stating that they are rhetorical questions means “think about what the answers must be in order to stay logically consistant with the conslusion reach in Acts 15, but don’t post that answer here because we are not going to discuss it.

      I though that was rather obvious.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        I see, trying to shut down discussion so noone will see how wrong you are. Let us protect your tender little ego; believe whatever you want about Jesus Christ, you’ll still go to heaven.

  12. Mycroft Jones says:

    Toad, is there some way to fix the comment depth? Bit annoying when things get three deep, someone flings a bunch of rhetorical questions around, and I have to put my reply down here at the bottom of the thread with no way to link back to the original comment.

  13. RichardP says:

    ” … without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)

    A generic statement for sure, as we know that those too poor to procure an animal for sacrfice at the Temple could offer other things that did not bleed. But Jesus fulfilled the law by becoming the final sacrifice (his shed blood was made sufficient for all who accept it). When we ask God for forgiveness, and he responds “where is the shed blood I require in order to forgive you?”, we point to the shed blood of Jesus. And the New Testament makes exactly the point that this is sufficient for us. The shed blood of Jesus, the final sacrifice, allows God to forgive us when we point to that shed blood and believe it is sufficient for us.

    How, then, does continued animal sacrifice make any sense in the context of the new covenant salvation and forgiveness of sin??? Animal sacrifice may have continued. That doesn’t mean it was accepted by God. You cannot point to anything in the New Testament that says continued animal sacrifice is a necessary, or even acceptable, thing. The New Testatment requires that we point to the shed blood of Jesus and accept that as sufficient for us. Where does animal sacrifice play a role in that. Or, again, do we need to do both??? Believe that the shed blood of Jesus is sufficient to cover our sin BUT also sacrifice an animal just to be sure we haven’t missed something?

    There were many sects that veered off from the true message of the final sacrifice, as described by the apostles in the New Testament. Much of the argument in the New Testament is against the beginning proliferation of these aberrant teachings.

    The existance of an idea is not sufficient to make that idea legitimate.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      You blithely ignore Acts 21 that shows animal sacrifice was not only acceptable, but endorsed by the apostles. The 12 apostles who were taught directly by Jesus himself. Who are YOU?

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      You really should come back to this discussion AFTER you’ve read the Bible.

  14. RichardP says:

    @ MJ: “…if you are a follower of Christ, then what Jews have to say on the matter has no weight; only what Christ and the Word say.”

    The death of Jesus brought something to a close. That “something” is whatever Jesus meant when he said “it is finished”.

    Many believe that the “it” referred to here was the Old Covenant. The death of Jesus, the shedding of his blood as the final sacrifice to cover the sins of those who believe that shed blood is sufficient, brought to a close the Old Covenant and ushered in the beginning of the New Covenant.

    The entirety of Acts 15 addresses this change-over from Old to New covenant. The entire group of apostles meeting in Acts 15 were Jews. All of the New Testament was written by Jews. They brought God’s message to us, the Gentiles. Yet you state that what Jews have to say in this matter has no weight? Only what Christ and the Word say! We only know what Christ and the Word say because Jews wrote it down, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    So – in Acts 15, there were two groups of Jews. One group of Jews stated that the new Gentile christians were subject to the law. The other group of Jews stated that they believed the Holy Spirit had already demonstrated that God would accept the Gentiles because of their faith – there was no need for them to be bound by the Law of Moses. Which group prevailed, in terms of the letter that was drafted at that Acts 15 meeting? Which group was being led by the Holy Spirit (you cannot logically claim that both groups were)? (Again, rhetorical questions.)

    The meeting at Acts 15 demonstrates that the Children of Israel / Jews were divided into more than one camp, more than one set of beliefs. And today they are divided into even more groups with divergent sets of beliefs. But just like the Christian sects that devolved into heresy, some christian sects stayed closer to the “truth” as revealed in the New Testament than others. So likewise have some Jewish sects stayed closer to the “truth” of what they believe in New Testament times than others. So what. Some Jewish groups

    If you read the Jewish literature carefully and closely, “you discover that the Children of Israel / Jews believe that the Law of Moses was given to them only and to no one else (part of what being chosen was all about). They believe that the Noahide laws were given to everyone else. This truth matches the points made in Acts 15.” And if you read carefully, you will discover it is the more conservative Jewish groups that believe this. They believe today that the Laws of Moses were given only to the Jews. They believed in Acts 15 that the Laws of Moses were given only to the Jews. Do others believe differently? Acts 15 proves that they do. Reading a broad swath of current and ancient Jewish writings proves that they do. So what.

    Which approach was ratified by the leading of the Holy Spirit?

    An aside: If you read that article on the Noahide laws I linked to, toward the bottom, you will discover that the U.S. Government, in various ways, has agreed that they are legitimate in principle.

    And, of course – if you do not believe that a New Covenant superceded the Old Covenenant, then none of this matters does it.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      You sound like one of those Messianics. If you want to take your doctrine from the Talmud, have at it. Since you haven’t even read the Bible all the way through, you have no basis to claim this sect or that sect of Judaism is “closer” to the original Faith.

  15. RichardP says:

    Addendum for MJ:

    Jesus was a Rabbi when he spoke all of his words to his followers. Those words were the “yoke” he placed upon them, which is what Rabbi’s did to their followers (“my yoke is easy and my burden is light” was a reference to what Rabbi’s did to their students / followers). Prior to his death, all of the words of Jesus were spoken by a Jew to other Jews regarding the Law of Moses, plus what his death was going to accomplish regarding that law.

    Jesus was a Rabbi when he spoke all of his words to his followers. Jesus was a Rabbi when when he uttered the words “it is finished”. Was Jesus still a Rabbi when he came out of the Tomb, having accomplished his goal of becoming the final sacrifice? Does the New Covenant require Rabbi’s? (Rhetorical questions)

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      What is the point of such rhetorical questions? That Jews get to dictate how Christians interpet the Bible? Laff. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

  16. Renee Harris says:

    What the Holy Spirit ? If one is living under His control and want more than one wife that is his business . If he wrong Holy Spirit will tell him

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s