Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Biblical views on castration | Matt 19:12 | MJH | 185301 | ||
You mention that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament and then quote a verse that says the very opposite. Matt 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus did not come to put away or do away or replace the [Old Testament] but to [Do it completely]. Jesus came and lived it perfectly. In fact He was the Torah in flesh. But He never says that it is null and void. In fact the very next verse says "whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments...will be called least in the Kingdom." What you just stated was that Jesus Himself annulled not just the least, but the whole thing. Is He least in His own Kingdom? Thankfully it will only render many Christians "least" in the Kingdom, and not left out. And by "least" Jesus does not refer to some future punishment or place in line, but that because they annul the commands, they will not experience the true fullness of the Kingdom now, here, in this life and the next. Because they ignore some of the Law, they miss out on all God has for them. As far as castration is concerned, the Bible prohibited the castrated person from entering the Temple because of this deformity. God uses such pictures to demonstrate who He is, Holy. If being castrated meant being separated from God Himself (which it did not in the Old or New Testament) then why does Philip teach and baptize the eunuch in Acts 8? Romans 8:1-3 doesn't apply to the eunuch because being a eunuch was not a sin, it was simply of state of being. MJH MJH |
||||||
2 | Biblical views on castration | Matt 19:12 | Hank | 185309 | ||
MJH - "The New Testament replaces the Old Testament." ...... In a sweeping statement such as this one that you quoted from your correspondent, one needs to choose his words with a good deal more of precision. I submit that it is far better and much more accurate to say that the LAW of Sinai has no direct bearing upon the Christian, though it is a part of the Scripture given by inspiration of God and thus profitable for instruction in rightousness (2 Timothy 3:16). In Christ the LAW (and here again I emphasize the word "law") is "done away" (2 Corinthians 3:1-11). The promise is that "sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace (Romans 6:14). The Law was a temporary covenant -- Israel's "schoolmaster unto Christ" that they "might be justified by faith." But after that faith is come, even Israel is "no longer under a schoolmaster" (See Galatians 3:19-25). Christians are under grace, not the Law, and are told to "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1). ..... And it may also be appropriately observed that the 39 books comprising the Old Testament Canon contain much more than the Law. It is therefore not quite accurate to say that the New Testament REPLACES the book of Genesis, or Job, or Ruth, or the Psalms, to name as examples a quartet of well-known and beloved Old Testament books. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Biblical views on castration | Matt 19:12 | MJH | 185332 | ||
Hank, Just a clarification. I was not arguing that the Old Testament was replaced, but rather the opposite. Your quote of mine is my quote of the previous poster who stated that the New "replaced" the Old. So I agree with you in that part of your note; that the Old is not done away with. I separate from you in that the Mosaic Covenant from Sinai is done away with. I think it is not. How that all plays out in doctrine is about a 500 page book or so, but Paul and James make is quite clear that the Mosaic Covenant from Sinai was not done away with in Acts 21-23, and Jesus of course in Matt 5:17-19, and the book of James particularly where as Jews in the first century equated "good works" with "doing the commands." That's a bit of a simplified statement to something more complex, but in short, when we were created in Christ Jesus to do "good works" which were prepared in advance for us before the creation of the world. This is speaking of "Torah" which had been assumed in the first century to have been conceived before the creation of the World. (One of the seven things that the Oral Torah taught came before "In the beginning.") Also, to "repent" which consequently is absent in Paul's teaching, had a specific meaning. Repent is to turn back, but one has to have something to "turn back" too. That is why John and Jesus could say, "repent" because the Jews were to "turn back to Torah" or the right way of living in the land. Paul does not tell the Gentiles to "repent" because it would not have made any sense. "Repent" to what? My old pagan ways? Of course not. They were to convert to a whole knew life, leaving the old life behind. "Do not go back to your old ways in which you once lived." In fact, Paul taught the Gentiles to "not repent." It's also true in our evangelism efforts. Words mean something. The way of God is a specific defined Way of living. To live in this way invites the "Kingdom of God" into our lives both now and in the world to come. A little rambling..... MJH |
||||||