The Law of God. OT. Applicable Today?

[TOG]

Many will try to take others back into law by throwing scriptures around. THis was the case in the 1st century.There is no law in perfect love. The old was destroyed in 70ad with the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple and the OT forever. If someone wants to live by the law, then they will be judged by the law.But as we well know NO ONE is able to keep the law except Chris twho kept the law perfectly to fulfill it and make it obsolete

The command against rape is in the law, but not in the Ten Commandments (which many think are a separate law), and if I remember correctly, that command is not repeated in the New Testament. Since the law has been done away with forever, does that mean that rape is acceptable from a biblical perspective? Of course, there are human laws that prohibit rape, and we are told to obey the civil authorities, but if those laws didn't exist, would rape be acceptable for Christians?

The TOG​

 

[phil marriner]

The Laws of God are written on the heart. Everyone will know in their heart it is wrong

 

[JLB]

The command against rape is in the law, but not in the Ten Commandments (which many think are a separate law), and if I remember correctly, that command is not repeated in the New Testament. Since the law has been done away with forever, does that mean that rape is acceptable from a biblical perspective? Of course, there are human laws that prohibit rape, and we are told to obey the civil authorities, but if those laws didn't exist, would rape be acceptable for Christians?

The TOG​

Was it wrong to rape before the law?


JLB

 

[JLB]

The command against rape is in the law, but not in the Ten Commandments (which many think are a separate law), and if I remember correctly, that command is not repeated in the New Testament. Since the law has been done away with forever, does that mean that rape is acceptable from a biblical perspective? Of course, there are human laws that prohibit rape, and we are told to obey the civil authorities, but if those laws didn't exist, would rape be acceptable for Christians?

The TOG​

Only a rapist would need a law to tell them that it is wrong to rape a woman.

Even then the law itself has no power to control the fleshly desires of a rapist.

9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. 1 Timothy 1:9-11


JLB

 

[phil marriner]

The Law was meant to produce a people who were loving. You are right no one is able to keep the law except one The Messiah .Law reminded people that they sin. But a rapist can be delivered form the desire to rape by the spirit

 

[phil marriner]

It was the law that reminded everyone that they sin so sin became known when the law was introduced. SO Father introduced the law when he saw how his people were behaving

 

[TOG]

Was it wrong to rape before the law?


JLB

There is no commandment before the ones given through Moses that says that rape is wrong. What there is is an implication that it was considered wrong. But there are also implications that the dietary rules were known and that the Sabbath was kept before Moses. If an implication is enough in one case, then it should be enough in the others as well. If people say that the Sabbath and dietary rules have been done away with, because the only direct commandments concerning them are in the law, then the same must apply to rape. If a mere implication of keeping one commandment before the law was given is enough to make it binding on Gentiles to day, but it is not enough for another commandment, then you are being inconsistent.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

Only a rapist would need a law to tell them that it is wrong to rape a woman.

The law is needed to define it as being wrong. If there were no law against rape, neither in the Bible nor in our civil laws, then it wouldn't be wrong. The law - whether it be God's law or human law - is what defines what is right and what is wrong. Without some kind of law, nothing is defined as wrong, and everything is allowed.

The TOG​

 

[childeye]

Many will try to take others back into law by throwing scriptures around. THis was the case in the 1st century.There is no law in perfect love. The old was destroyed in 70ad with the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple and the OT forever. If someone wants to live by the law, then they will be judged by the law.But as we well know NO ONE is able to keep the law except Chris twho kept the law perfectly to fulfill it and make it obsolete

From your posts, you come across as confident through Christ.

 

[phil marriner]

I claim to know nothing except Christ came died and rose again. Thats enough for me

 

[Edward]

There is no commandment before the ones given through Moses that says that rape is wrong. What there is is an implication that it was considered wrong. But there are also implications that the dietary rules were known and that the Sabbath was kept before Moses. If an implication is enough in one case, then it should be enough in the others as well. If people say that the Sabbath and dietary rules have been done away with, because the only direct commandments concerning them are in the law, then the same must apply to rape. If a mere implication of keeping one commandment before the law was given is enough to make it binding on Gentiles to day, but it is not enough for another commandment, then you are being inconsistent.

The TOG​

I forget where it's at in scripture, but there was a story of a girl who was raped. They made the people of the rapist a deal, he takes her for wife, and all of your people get circumcised, and then you can dwell here and we'll let the rape go. The agreed to this. All of the men got circumcised, and while they were yet sore and starting to heal from the operation, they came upon them and killed them all...

Is that a big enough implication for you? Not just the rapist was killed, but all of their people. Yep, I'd say rape is wrong.

 

[Edward]

The law is needed to define it as being wrong. If there were no law against rape, neither in the Bible nor in our civil laws, then it wouldn't be wrong. The law - whether it be God's law or human law - is what defines what is right and what is wrong. Without some kind of law, nothing is defined as wrong, and everything is allowed.

The TOG​

(Edited, ToS 2.4. Obadiah)That the law is written is not what makes it wrong, it was wrong before the law. The law is there for people that (don't realize) that it is wrong, or whom would seek to say it is ok because there is no law. By your logic, if they pass a law declaring Christianity to be unlawful, then you will give up your faith to follow the law?

 

[phil marriner]

Good work .Peace and Love

 

[TOG]

I forget where it's at in scripture, but there was a story of a girl who was raped. They made the people of the rapist a deal, he takes her for wife, and all of your people get circumcised, and then you can dwell here and we'll let the rape go. The agreed to this. All of the men got circumcised, and while they were yet sore and starting to heal from the operation, they came upon them and killed them all...

Is that a big enough implication for you? Not just the rapist was killed, but all of their people. Yep, I'd say rape is wrong.

That's the story of Dinah, Isaac's daughter. It's in Genesis 34. And thank you for making my point. An implication is big enough for me. That applies not only to rape, but also to the implication that Noah knew of the dietary laws and the implication that the Israelites kept the Sabbath before the command was given on Mt. Sinai. We could go even further. The Bible says in a number of places, both in the Old and New Testaments, that God never changes. He was no different when He created the Earth than He is today. That implies that the things He deems to be wrong today are the same things that He deemed to be wrong 3500 years ago when He told the Israelites through Moses what was right and wrong. That implication is enough to tell me that He still wants us to keep the Sabbath, eat kosher food and all the rest. But an implication is not enough for some others. They claim that if there is not a specific commandment, either before the law was given or in the New Testament, then it does not apply to Gentile Christians. Those people cannot support their view and remain consistent, since doing so would require them to find rape, among other things, acceptable behavior.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

(Edited, ToS 2.4. Obadiah) That the law is written is not what makes it wrong, it was wrong before the law. The law is there for people that (don't realize) that it is wrong, or whom would seek to say it is ok because there is no law. By your logic, if they pass a law declaring Christianity to be unlawful, then you will give up your faith to follow the law?

(Edited, response to deleted post. Obadiah) It's what the Bible says.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)​

The law defines what sin is. Let's look at some more implications. Since the law defines what sin is, then if there is no law (i.e. it has been abolished/done away with/faded away/etc.), then there is no sin. If there is no sin, there we have no need of a savior. Hows that for an implication? The fact that God had to send His son to die for the sins of people living today in the 21st century shows that the law and it's definition of sin is still valid today. And to paraphrase James, remember that He who said "Do not commit adultery" also said "Don't eat pork". Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

The TOG​

 

[Edward]

(Edited, response to deleted post. Obadiah) It's what the Bible says.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 3:4 KJV)​

The law defines what sin is. Let's look at some more implications. Since the law defines what sin is, then if there is no law (i.e. it has been abolished/done away with/faded away/etc.), then there is no sin. If there is no sin, there we have no need of a savior. Hows that for an implication? The fact that God had to send His son to die for the sins of people living today in the 21st century shows that the law and it's definition of sin is still valid today. And to paraphrase James, remember that He who said "Do not commit adultery" also said "Don't eat pork". Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

The TOG​

Oh i get it. you're not holding rape up but just making a point. Right on. I mostly agree with you, but not 100%. The law is valid, however, it's not by the letter of the law that we establish our behavior and conduct. His law is written upon our hearts (we have a conscience and know instinctively between right and wrong) and we are able to step outside of the letter of the law without sin, if our heart is correctly aligned and the circumstances dictate necessity. For instance, Jesus healed on the Sabbath without sin, King David and his men ate the shewbread which was only lawful for the priests to eat without sin, and I can eat pork without sin. But I couldn't go rape my neighbor without sin, even if it were not in the written law.

He who lives for the Spirit and is led by the spirit can not sin, because the Spirit wont go there. But if yo ustumble into the church and are starving, he'll probably tell you to go ahead and eat!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is no commandment before the ones given through Moses that says that rape is wrong. What there is is an implication that it was considered wrong. But there are also implications that the dietary rules were known and that the Sabbath was kept before Moses. If an implication is enough in one case, then it should be enough in the others as well. If people say that the Sabbath and dietary rules have been done away with, because the only direct commandments concerning them are in the law, then the same must apply to rape. If a mere implication of keeping one commandment before the law was given is enough to make it binding on Gentiles to day, but it is not enough for another commandment, then you are being inconsistent.

The TOG​

Come on now! We will not have this kind of rational logic in this forum!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

TOG, what I have gathered from this thread is that we don't need to even know about the law of tithe, and that's it's even wrong to give it place in your life, because the law is ineffective at producing cheerful, abundant givers. The Spirit is how that happens now. But as it turns out, the Spirit produces mostly believers who give less than a tenth of their income and who begrudge the tenth, resisting it fiercely. I just want to know how that lines up with the claim that the Spirit does over and above what the inferior way of the law can do in a person. Maybe you can help me see what I'm missing in their argument.

 

[JLB]

There is no commandment before the ones given through Moses that says that rape is wrong. What there is is an implication that it was considered wrong. But there are also implications that the dietary rules were known and that the Sabbath was kept before Moses. If an implication is enough in one case, then it should be enough in the others as well. If people say that the Sabbath and dietary rules have been done away with, because the only direct commandments concerning them are in the law, then the same must apply to rape. If a mere implication of keeping one commandment before the law was given is enough to make it binding on Gentiles to day, but it is not enough for another commandment, then you are being inconsistent.

The TOG​

There was no written law before Moses.

There was the Oral law of Noah's time.

If you are somehow trying to insinuate that because there was not a law that said do not rape

There is no commandment before the ones given through Moses that says that rape is wrong. What there is is an implication that it was considered wrong. But there are also implications that the dietary rules were known and that the Sabbath was kept before Moses. If an implication is enough in one case, then it should be enough in the others as well. If people say that the Sabbath and dietary rules have been done away with, because the only direct commandments concerning them are in the law, then the same must apply to rape. If a mere implication of keeping one commandment before the law was given is enough to make it binding on Gentiles to day, but it is not enough for another commandment, then you are being inconsistent.

The TOG​

The Sabbath is clearly dealt with by Paul and has been fulfilled in Christ.

Unless you are suggesting that the Church is required to put to death those who do not comply with the legal Sabbath requirements as mandated by the law of Moses.

If the Sabbath has been done away with as mandated by the law then the rest of the minor laws are surely done away with as well.

Using your logic.


JLB

 

[TOG]

Come on now! We will not have this kind of rational logic in this forum!

A friend of mine once told me that I think like a computer. I guess I can be overly logical at times.

The TOG​