Is Dispensationalism Darwinism?

[evenifigoalone]

How was the method of salvation not different back then?????
The Jews had to do animal sacrifices in order to obtain forgiveness of sins and it was only temporary. If it wasn't, they would have only needed to do it once. And were they or were they not expected to make sacrifices to ask forgiveness for not following the law?

Today we don't need to do that because Jesus was our perfect, sinless sacrifice. We obtain forgiveness because we believe on him. Following the law ( and here I mean the law in our hearts) is not the way to salvation, but something we do because we want to please God and evidence of our salvation.

How do you believe salvation works today versus how it worked back then?

P.S.

Adding to this, there were also some very specific instructions God gave on the temple, sacrifices, priesthood, etc.

Would you say that all of that is necessary today?

As I recall, only the high priest could directly go into the holy of holies, and this was only once a year.
Do you think this still needs to be done today? Because we certainly have the Holy Spirit in us today and we certainly can talk to and hear from Him more than once a year.

If that's not the law changing to meet it's purpose according to new circumstances, I don't know what is.

 

[JLB]

Where else were new converts gonna hear the Word of God. Not like Torah scrolls were in print as they were today.

From those that The Lord sent to make disciples.

The Apostles, as well as Prophets, Evangelist's, Pastors and Teachers.

For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.", and has never produced one single Disciple of the Lord.

No, the sacrifices were to be prescribed only at the place where the Lord dwelt.

15 Seven days you shall keep a sacred feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord chooses, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you surely rejoice. 16 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed. Deuteronomy 16:15-16

This scripture says the feasts are to be held where the Lord Chooses.

If you can show from the law where gentiles living in there own country are exempt from this law, and can choose wherever to have feast's that were mandated by the Lord to be held in the place where He chooses, then your argument will be valid.

Remember the Feast Days were Sabbaths and were/are incorporated in the 10 commandments.

Sabbaths are a shadow of things to come, Christ is the substance.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17


Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations-- 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Now if you show from the law, where Paul is a false prophet or a false teacher, then your argument will be valid.

Paul teaches that Sabbaths and feast days as well as food laws are regulations that have no affect against the sinful desires of the flesh.

If you believe a person should keep the law and be circumcised, then please show from God's word where we are directed to do so.


JLB

 

[JLB]

It would be like saying one could only love somebody in Israel as it was only for the Israelites.

Exactly my point.

Why do you need special food, and special ceremonies and special days, that were shadows of Christ, to show love toward people.


JLB

 

[Ryan]

I think Romans refers moreso to the law in our hearts than the OT law.
It's difficult to look up scripture on my iPod, though, so I can't go look up the context at the moment.
But even if it is referring to the OT law, yes, it shows us why we need a savior. This is what I was taught since I was very young. But IMO, it doesn't mean to follow laws that are outdated and obviously just by looking at the context and purpose behind it can't apply anymore.

I think the OT law is to be compared not to the constitution, but rather to the laws that are based on the constitution. The constitution is more like morals, the framework behind the laws.

Jeremiah 6:16
Thus says the Lord, “Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
Jeremiah 18:15
‘For My people have forgotten Me, They burn incense to worthless gods And they have stumbled from their ways, From the ancient paths, To walk in bypaths, Not on a highway,

I never see Jeremiah, or the Prophets saying that God's laws are outdated and irrelevant for their own day. Some laws cannot be followed, plain and simple. I am not saying light up a couple of turtle doves after giving birth. But a simple commandment such as Leviticus 19:19 serves a natural purpose and a spiritual purpose. I believe the genetic modification of our food supply is exactly what God is warning against here and to not disrupt the natural cycles of his creation. Let like kind seed produce like kind seed.

Question:
If nothing can be taken from or added to the OT law, why does the Bible itself do this by saying in the NT that circumcision is no longer necessary? Why does it take away from the OT law by making animal sacrifices no longer necessary after Jesus' resurrection?

Perhaps not adding to or detracting from the law applied only to that time?
Or perhaps it was so that the law would be intact today so that whether we follow it or not we could read it and understand it in a historical context?

It merely said circumcision was never necessary for salvation. Nor was any work that was worthy to obtain salvation. The Apostles had no authority to take away a commandment of God's, they just taught that it was never a means to obtain the kingdom to come.

How was the method of salvation not different back then?????
The Jews had to do animal sacrifices in order to obtain forgiveness of sins and it was only temporary. If it wasn't, they would have only needed to do it once. And were they or were they not expected to make sacrifices to ask forgiveness for not following the law?

Today we don't need to do that because Jesus was our perfect, sinless sacrifice. We obtain forgiveness because we believe on him. Following the law ( and here I mean the law in our hearts) is not the way to salvation, but something we do because we want to please God and evidence of our salvation.

How do you believe salvation works today versus how it worked back then?

Hence the reason for this thread. The believe that has been taught that there was a different way before and then after Christ. There has always been one way for salvation. Romans 4 and Galatians 3 speak that an OT patriarch had the same faith as anyone had today. There was no difference or the Father would not be fathering us equally and would be having an unjust weigh. t Leviticus 19:35 would be wrong then if we thought that the Father treated people differently in different periods of mankind. That is what dispensation teaches, and that somehow this era is more blessed then the OT era.

Abraham had the same seed in him as you have in yourself. That seed is Jesus, and to fully produce the fruit of that seed (James 3:18; Phillipians 1:11) the Torah defines producing that fruit (Deuteronomy 4:8; Romans 7:12; Romans 10:4-5 (end was mistranslated from telos which is better rendered as goal) then the result of the fruit that is produced (Mark 4:8). But if you don't have that seed living inside you, your works mean absolutely nothing and you won't produce any fruit. So what I am getting at is if you have Jesus's seed in you, what should be the fruit you are producing? Should it not look like Jesus's and how he had defined it back in the first 5 books of the bible?

 

[evenifigoalone]

"Ancient paths" I take to mean generally morals rather than specific laws, but I suppose it is subject to the biases of whatever angle you're coming from.
But keep in mind that Jeremiah was written TO THE JEWS. Plus it was before Christ.

Question:
If there are laws that no longer apply anymore ("cannot be followed", there is no need to sacrifice turtle doves after giving birth) as you have just said, are you not in your own words promoting what you call darwinistic teaching?

 

[evenifigoalone]

Question:
If nothing can be taken from or added to the OT law, why does the Bible itself do this by saying in the NT that circumcision is no longer necessary? Why does it take away from the OT law by making animal sacrifices no longer necessary after Jesus' resurrection?

Perhaps not adding to or detracting from the law applied only to that time?
Or perhaps it was so that the law would be intact today so that whether we follow it or not we could read it and understand it in a historical context?

It merely said circumcision was never necessary for salvation. Nor was any work that was worthy to obtain salvation. The Apostles had no authority to take away a commandment of God's, they just taught that it was never a means to obtain the kingdom to come.

Okay. I'm not seeing that myself nor do I believe if, but I have no protest.
And what of sacrifices,then?

 

[JLB]

the Torah defines producing that fruit

Could you give a brief definition of The Torah, and how it differs from the Law of Moses.


JLB

 

[evenifigoalone]

I think Romans refers moreso to the law in our hearts than the OT law.
It's difficult to look up scripture on my iPod, though, so I can't go look up the context at the moment.
But even if it is referring to the OT law, yes, it shows us why we need a savior. This is what I was taught since I was very young. But IMO, it doesn't mean to follow laws that are outdated and obviously just by looking at the context and purpose behind it can't apply anymore.

I think the OT law is to be compared not to the constitution, but rather to the laws that are based on the constitution. The constitution is more like morals, the framework behind the laws.

Jeremiah 6:16
Thus says the Lord, “Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
Jeremiah 18:15
‘For My people have forgotten Me, They burn incense to worthless gods And they have stumbled from their ways, From the ancient paths, To walk in bypaths, Not on a highway,

I never see Jeremiah, or the Prophets saying that God's laws are outdated and irrelevant for their own day. Some laws cannot be followed, plain and simple. I am not saying light up a couple of turtle doves after giving birth. But a simple commandment such as Leviticus 19:19 serves a natural purpose and a spiritual purpose. I believe the genetic modification of our food supply is exactly what God is warning against here and to not disrupt the natural cycles of his creation. Let like kind seed produce like kind seed.

Question:
If nothing can be taken from or added to the OT law, why does the Bible itself do this by saying in the NT that circumcision is no longer necessary? Why does it take away from the OT law by making animal sacrifices no longer necessary after Jesus' resurrection?

Perhaps not adding to or detracting from the law applied only to that time?
Or perhaps it was so that the law would be intact today so that whether we follow it or not we could read it and understand it in a historical context?

It merely said circumcision was never necessary for salvation. Nor was any work that was worthy to obtain salvation. The Apostles had no authority to take away a commandment of God's, they just taught that it was never a means to obtain the kingdom to come.

How was the method of salvation not different back then?????
The Jews had to do animal sacrifices in order to obtain forgiveness of sins and it was only temporary. If it wasn't, they would have only needed to do it once. And were they or were they not expected to make sacrifices to ask forgiveness for not following the law?

Today we don't need to do that because Jesus was our perfect, sinless sacrifice. We obtain forgiveness because we believe on him. Following the law ( and here I mean the law in our hearts) is not the way to salvation, but something we do because we want to please God and evidence of our salvation.

How do you believe salvation works today versus how it worked back then?

Hence the reason for this thread. The believe that has been taught that there was a different way before and then after Christ. There has always been one way for salvation. Romans 4 and Galatians 3 speak that an OT patriarch had the same faith as anyone had today. There was no difference or the Father would not be fathering us equally and would be having an unjust weigh. t Leviticus 19:35 would be wrong then if we thought that the Father treated people differently in different periods of mankind. That is what dispensation teaches, and that somehow this era is more blessed then the OT era.

Abraham had the same seed in him as you have in yourself. That seed is Jesus, and to fully produce the fruit of that seed (James 3:18; Phillipians 1:11) the Torah defines producing that fruit (Deuteronomy 4:8; Romans 7:12; Romans 10:4-5 (end was mistranslated from telos which is better rendered as goal) then the result of the fruit that is produced (Mark 4:8). But if you don't have that seed living inside you, your works mean absolutely nothing and you won't produce any fruit. So what I am getting at is if you have Jesus's seed in you, what should be the fruit you are producing? Should it not look like Jesus's and how he had defined it back in the first 5 books of the bible?

Okay, but you are not really answering my questions.

Yes, we still believe in the same God as those living before Christ. (And by that, I mean before Christ came to earth as a man.) That's obvious. If I remember correctly, part of it was them believing the messiah (Jesus) would come one day.
But back then you were not saved, eternally forgiven, presentable to God without animal sacrifices. If that's not so, then what was their purpose? Back then, only the high priest had direct access to the Holy Spirit.
But now that we are covered by Jesus' eternal sacrifice, we are presentable to God, forgiven, and saved and therefore the laws regarding animal sacrifice no longer apply. They aren't necessary anymore.

Or are you trying to say that animal sacrifices are still necessary? If that's the case, then what was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice?

 

[evenifigoalone]

P.S.
Please quote scripture directly in the thread, it's really difficult to look it up from my iPod.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Another thought: The stoning laws regarding disobedient children, adulterous men and women, etc. What do you make of those? Should they be practiced today? Would you write your senators about signing it into law? Would you have your own children stoned if they were rebellious?
(I don't think many teenagers would exist today if we followed that law. ;) )

If you say they are not to be followed anymore, is that not contradictory to your premise in this thread?

 

[Ryan]

Where else were new converts gonna hear the Word of God. Not like Torah scrolls were in print as they were today.

From those that The Lord sent to make disciples.

The Apostles, as well as Prophets, Evangelist's, Pastors and Teachers.

For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.", and has never produced one single Disciple of the Lord.

Uhm, where did Jesus teach every Sabbath?

15 Seven days you shall keep a sacred feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord chooses, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you surely rejoice. 16 Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed. Deuteronomy 16:15-16

This scripture says the feasts are to be held where the Lord Chooses.

If you can show from the law where gentiles living in there own country are exempt from this law, and can choose wherever to have feast's that were mandated by the Lord to be held in the place where He chooses, then your argument will be valid.

Think of it this way. Can one still congregate and praise and worship the Lord without killing something? One can still observe and celebrate the Feast days without a sacrifice. Yes it was a commandment to gather where the Lord was, but would God be angry with someone who had health problems, financial strain, etc, that would prevent them from doing so. Look at Leviticus 23 and see how many times it says a perpetual statute throughout your generations. Do you think God knew that the Israelites would be scattered in the Diaspora? Of course he did, that is why he said throughout your generations. Diaspora or no Diaspora. No sacrifices, but we are still called to gather together and celebrate the Feasts and Sabbath's together.

Remember the Feast Days were Sabbaths and were/are incorporated in the 10 commandments.

Sabbaths are a shadow of things to come, Christ is the substance.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Colossians 2:16-17


Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations-- 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Now if you show from the law, where Paul is a false prophet or a false teacher, then your argument will be valid.

Paul teaches that Sabbaths and feast days as well as food laws are regulations that have no affect against the sinful desires of the flesh.

If you believe a person should keep the law and be circumcised, then please show from God's word where we are directed to do so.


JLB[/QUOTE]
Your premise is wrong because the doctrines of men it is talking about is surely not the Torah. Paul is surely not a false teacher because he never taught contrary to Torah or he would have been rightly accused of doing so. But he never did.

The law is there so we can receive blessings Deuteronomy 11:26-27. I like blessings, how about you?

He also says there is life and death. There is only one seed, and there is only one way (Psalm 118:8-9; Proverbs 14:12). There are man's ways which is death, or God's ways which is life. I prefer life (Deuteronomy 30:15-20)

It would be like saying one could only love somebody in Israel as it was only for the Israelites.

Exactly my point.

Why do you need special food, and special ceremonies and special days, that were shadows of Christ, to show love toward people.


JLB

As I explained above, I like and desire blessings. Those commandments you highlighted above is if you love God, you will keep his commandments (Deuteronomy 11:22; Deuteronomy 19:9; 1 John 5:3). Doing those things you mentioned above is like wearing a wedding ring. Sometimes I take off the ring, but it doesn't negate or change the fact I am married. And yes, if we love God, we would surely love other people as well.

 

[Ryan]

Regarding the links to scripture, I cannot see how that means the OT law will be put in our hearts.. That makes no sense. To know the OT law, you have to read it and basically memorize it. No, I think it refers moreso to the morals behind the law.
Jesus summed up the basic morals that the laws are based on:
1. Love The Lord with all of your heart, min, and strength
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

the Torah defines producing that fruit

Could you give a brief definition of The Torah, and how it differs from the Law of Moses.


JLB

The Law of Moses and the Torah are one in the same. Genesis - Deuteronomy. That is it that is all, there is no difference.

Rabbinic Judaism which is based on the Torah have what is called the Talmud. They place at times the Talmud over the authority of the bible.

There is only one authority and that is Torah, or the Law of Moses.

Torah comes from the root yareh which means to hit the mark, or where you want to aim for.

"It can also mean "to learn by pointing out the way".

And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach [yarah] them. (Exodus 24:12)

It is the responsibility of the parent to point the way to the children. This means all aspects of life, by pointing the way to God, a career, a moral lifestyle, etc. When a rock is shot from a sling, it is shot at a target. Likewise, the direction which a parent points out to his child must be at a target. This target is always obedience to God."

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_learning.html

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION] I will try and get to your questions tomorrow.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Okiedokie. I need to kinda go to bed myself...it's 1 AM. <.<

 

[JLB]

Uhm, where did Jesus teach every Sabbath?

Mountain tops, wheat fields, peoples homes.

He went to the synagogues to proclaim He was Messiah from the scriptures and cast the devil out of the people.

I don't see Him going there to disciple His followers.

One can still observe and celebrate the Feast days without a sacrifice. Yes it was a commandment to gather where the Lord was, but would God be angry with someone who had health problems, financial strain, etc, that would prevent them from doing so.

No where in the Law of Moses is there any rule or commandment that states Gentiles are to keep the law of Moses while in their own country.

To try and teach Christians living in Seattle Washington, to keep the feast of unleavened bread because that is what is commanded in the Law of Moses is NOT TRUE.

To try and teach Christians living in Manila Philippines to keep the feast of Tabernacles because that is what is commanded in God's word, is NOT TRUE.

but we are still called to gather together and celebrate the Feasts and Sabbath's together.

Where does it say that?

As I explained above, I like and desire blessings. Those commandments you highlighted above is if you love God, you will keep his commandments

There are no such commandments for Gentiles, living outside of Israel.

I have asked you to show from the law where we as Gentiles are to "keep the feast's" in own own country.

If you can then it is a commandment from God.

If you can not it is a commandment from men.

The law is there so we can receive blessings Deuteronomy 11:26-27. I like blessings, how about you?

Not keeping all the Law of Moses brings a curse. I don't like curses, how about you.


Here is some commandments Jesus taught -

21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:21-22


Please show from the Law where it is taught that if you say you fool, you will be in danger of hell fire.

Not one jot or tittle can be added or taken away.

or this -

44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,


Show from the law of Moses where it states this, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you.

as compared to -

Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Deuteronomy 19:21


JLB

 

[jasoncran]

uhm [MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION].

"if thine enemies ass go astray, though shall not fail to return it to him"

isn't that of the nature of the mercy of Christ? yes!

 

[JLB]

uhm @JLB .

"if thine enemies ass go astray, though shall not fail to return it to him"

isn't that of the nature of the mercy of Christ? yes!

That would be loving your neighbor as the Law requires -

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,Matthew 5:43-44


Now if you can show from the law where it was said to Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you, then Jesus was teaching the Law of Moses.

If you can not show from the law of Moses, where it says Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you, then this is the Law of Christ and exceeds the Righteousness of the law of Moses.

I think what you will find in the law of Moses is - Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Deuteronomy 19:21


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

What do you get out of Acts 15:10?

There were some who commanded that others, in order to be considered Christian (by them) would have to first be circumcised -AND ALSO- they had to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:5)

Peter reminded them that God had born witness of salvation given to Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15:8; 10:47)
Then he spoke further and stated that God had purified their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9)

At that point, Peter said something that would have been difficult for every Jewish believer who still thought that circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses was required for salvation to hear. He said they were "tempting God" and that they should not do such things.

Those who had argued previously heard what Peter said and they shut their mouths. (Acts 15:10)

But he didn't leave it at that. Peace between the disputing brethren was established as Peter applied the same principle to ever person there: "we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they [the uncircumcised Gentiles]. Then James stood up and quoted what Peter (called Simeon) had been saying, that God took from the Gentiles a people for His Name (Acts 15:14). Then it looks to me like he quoted Amos, chapter 9. (Acts 15:17).

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION] I have already provided you links in the past about the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus providing the proper interpretation of it, not the abolishment of it. Matthew 5:17-20 is still part of when Jesus said in Matthew 28:20 to observe all I commanded you, which is the correct interpretation of the Law of Moses, not the abolishment of it which is so clear.

http://www.bibletruth.cc/SermonOnMount.htm
http://www.saltshakers.com/gospels/gosp4.htm#s57

Enjoy the read. Furthermore...

In Deuteronomy 30:1–3 Moses writes: 1 “So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, 2 and you return to the LORD your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, 3 then the LORD your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. "

What is striking here is that even when Israel has been exiled to the lands of her enemies, she is still able to obey God sincerely (“all your heart and soul”) by doing all that He had commanded “today,” which means the whole Torah. Yet in exile there would be no Temple, no functioning priesthood, and laws related to the Land would not be applicable. How then could Israel be seen as obeying the Torah as given to her at Sinai, and as a result, be restored from her captivity? Is Moses suggesting a “no-win scenario?” If the way of restoration is repentance as evidenced by obedience to the commandments, and if such obedience is actually impossible because many of the commandments require the Temple, priesthood, and dwelling in the Land, then these words are without meaning. Rather, Moses’ words is that God considers obedience to those commands that are possible to keep as evidencing a genuine heart of repentance and love for Him, and He accepts this as obedience of the whole.

It does not make sense to obey God only when one is within the boundaries of Israel. If that was the case, then as soon as we get into Lebanon it is party time. Furthermore...

There are laws specific to kings, priests, men, women, widows, children, and so on. Nobody is suggesting that men need to keep the laws specifically detailed for women, or visa versa. People bring up this point in order to demonstrate logically that if some laws of Torah are given to specific groups, and therefore not to the whole, then the possibility exists that some laws could be given to Jews and not to Gentiles. The obvious problem with this line of reasoning is that when the Torah has laws for specific groups, it says so. Yet when it comes to such things as the Sabbath, the Festivals, kosher food laws, purity laws, and so on, there is no indication whatsoever that these are restricted to a specific sub-group.

Moreover, when these laws are given, it is clear they include the widest possible grouping, including both the native born and the foreigner (Sabbath: Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14; Pesach:
Exodus 12:48; Numbers 9:11; Unleavened Bread: Exodus 12:19; Shavuot: Deuteronomy 16:10–11; Yom Kippur: Leviticus 16:29; Sukkot: Deuteronomy 16:13–14; Sacrifices (which includes purity laws):
Leviticus 17:8–9; 22:17–18, 31; Numbers 15:14–16; kosher laws (includes prohibition of ingesting blood): Leviticus 17:12–13, 15; Numbers 19:10). Furthermore, at the renewal of the Sinai covenant
before Israel entered the Land, all were included in the ceremony, including the foreigners (Joshua 8:33–35), and this ceremony of accepting the Covenant included the entire Mosaic Torah: “There was not a
word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel with the women, and the little ones and the strangers who were living among them.”

Paraphrased from: http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/OLMResponse.pdf

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION] If I have time in the next week, I will try and start a thread about the 613 commandments and the seemingly archaic and brutal laws that are hard to understand. This will force me to dig deeper into the commandments which I have been longing to do now for awhile anyways. So I'll reserve comments about those questions till then. I have already deviated a bit with this thread a bit, and there are maybe a couple more points I want to make about Darwinism and Dispensationalism before I call er quits.