So, are you saying any “literal” obedience to God is unnecessary?
Or, just the things you would call literal?
I find strange the words people throw around here…
Unnecessary.
Well, if you will only do it out of reward, then I’m not sure that God wants it.
Bird, I’m not following. Could you elaborate to help some of us out with what you mean?
The literal circumcision was done away with. The literal sacrifice was done away with. The literal passover and pentecost feasts were fulfilled. The literal temple was done away with.
If those are not useful literally, why the rest of the law?
When you talk about not knowing what to do, like say in murder or adultery, those are two instances of not loving your neighbor. If you kill someone, you are not loving them. If I cheat on my wife, I am not loving her. If I steal again I’m not loving my neighbor.
If I eat pig I’m not breaking the loving my neighbor law. You could say that you’re breaking the love God law. It was said that nothing on the outside can defile you, and I go back to the literals above being done away with, so why not this? I don’t think eating pig is not loving God.
What could that mean then? what is the significance of eating unclean animals symbolically? Mice are unclean, the word tselem is an idol that means mice. So there must be some spiritual significance to it. spiritual dirtiness, since mice congregate in dirty areas? I don’t know, it hasn’t been given to me yet
blessings
Sorry, I’m being cryptic, lol.
It seems there’s some discussion on what “laws” should be followed or what shouldn’t be followed. And then the talk of “maybe we shouldn’t follow these laws”. There seems to be some kind of a tie in with “if it’s not ordered to us, we shouldn’t worry about it”.
Now, I don’t really believe that. There is law and there’s reality. You can remove the law, obliterate it, but reality stands. Everything you do still has consequences. There is still the absolute law of the universe in effect.
One often thinks of legalistic consequences. “If you steal something, you go to jail.” “If you commit adultery, you get stoned”. “If you don’t believe, you go to Hell”. That’s a very low level (I don’t think the Psalm’s “the law is perfect and eternal” was talking about this, but actually absolute law). Jesus fulfilled this level and had it die with him.
But this level underlies a higher level. If you allow people to sporadically steal, or murder, you will disrupt society. If everyone goes off cheating, we have unstable families. But sometimes these consequences are unclear for people, hence we have laws. And all such engineered laws will always be limited, weak, obtuse in the sense that they generalize on people and the laws are more concerned with keeping societies together than anything else.
And Jesus removed the low level and instituted the high level. We now have the law written to our hearts and we need to make our decisions from the highest level possible: the level of love. The law of real circumstance, the law of effect on humanity, on our soul, on people around us, the law of case by case.
Bird,
Thanks for that clarification and welcome to the forum. I agree, well said regarding it is love that drives us and it’s wisdom that gives us our prudence. Follow love and you’ll be just fine.
But this raises the issue that I’ve been mentioning time to time - intuition is an issue which will have to be discussed.
I say this because, if I’m right, the literalist position is built on a system that denies any ability of human intuition. For if we did not have the law, we wouldn’t know what love is since the law is love. But I’ve argued before, that prior to any written torah, people knew exactly what love was and violence was always wrong(Romans 1) - in other words we don’t need the law to tell us what is love and what is not.
It’s my intuition that tells me that eating foods has nothing to do with being good or bad. That foods cannot take a man close to God nor further. Thus I deny Catholic transubstantionism and Literalists who claim eating pork is forbidden.
Instead, I understand the text to be typological and symbolic much as Magma shows. When Jesus says beware of the yeast of the pharisees he wasn’t speaking of some infection of tissue. He clarifies for the thick skulled disciples - HYPOCRISY! So I think Magma is right regarding particular points of the law.
But the literalist engages on different grounds and both Kelly and my high school friend try to defend food laws as “health laws”. But we’ve argued that if that’s the case, then the tradition of the elders was right - God should have endorsed the tradition of the elders that it’s proper and healthy to wash your hands. But that’s for a different topic and I don’t want to cover that here.
I want to stay focused on this issue that
A) God teaches us that when someone pokes out one persons eye, you shall poke out their eye - that way they’re be afraid and not poke out people’s eyes. (Deut 19).
B) Jesus says turn the other cheek.
How will turning the other cheek establish fear in people that they won’t go about poking out someone’s eye?
If we say the OT law was a civil code (not for individuals) but Jesus’ command was for Individuals (not civil) then why the need to say “YOU’VE HEARD IT SAID…BUT I TELL YOU!”. It seems Scribes and Elders would have argued no different than people today. It might have gone something like this: “Jesus, you incorrectly interpret the scriptures in Exo, Lev and Deut regarding eye for an eye. The context is clearly a civil code for a governmental establishment but you improperly quote it and apply it at an individual level.”
I’m all ears.
Judge may have been a poor word choice. I was just meaning to say that it’s easy to second guess these ladies decisions and I just really feel for them, how difficult a decision it is since they may actually lose their life. I know some see it as black and white, but maybe the loving thing to do depends? What about a mother that already has several children to care for. Maybe it’s in their best interest to abort?
I know I’m considered legalistic on this issue, but I don’t believe there is any excuse to take the life of my brother or sister. By making the decision to actively end anyone’s life we are claiming a sovereignty over a situation that we simply aren’t wise enough to claim. Ending anyone’s life necessarily determines a destructive outcome, but by being still we invite the transcendent Yahweh to actively enter our circumstances, fight for us in creative ways and potentially bring about an ideal outcome for everyone. Personally, I try to cling to this child-like hope. Yahweh will do right. Be still.
I’m reposting this hopeing to not digress away from the issue (we’re sort of gravitating towards abortion).
A) God teaches us that when someone pokes out one persons eye, you shall poke out their eye - that way they’re be afraid and not poke out people’s eyes. (Deut 19).
B) Jesus says turn the other cheek.
How will turning the other cheek establish fear in people that they won’t go about poking out someone’s eye?
If we say the OT law was a civil code (not for individuals) but Jesus’ command was for Individuals (not civil) then why the need to say “YOU’VE HEARD IT SAID…BUT I TELL YOU!”. It seems Scribes and Elders would have argued no different than people today. It might have gone something like this: “Jesus, you incorrectly interpret the scriptures in Exo, Lev and Deut regarding eye for an eye. The context is clearly a civil code for a governmental establishment but you improperly quote it and apply it at an individual level.”
I’m all ears.
Welcome Bird,
I think you have a good idea where I’m coming from. I too, appreciated your words.
Hey Auggy! Warning: Just kind of laying it out there. 
Could you give me your working definition of “love”? To me it is many things but, primarily it means we are right with God and our neighbor. That it is our heart’s desire to reach out to God and others as outlined in the commandments and that this active - doing love creates also a feeling in us and others of well being. This feeling is what most people define as “love”.
I do not think it is these feelings some call love that give wisdom or prudence. Deut 4:6 says keeping and doing God’s statutes and judgments is wisdom and understanding. Proverbs are the sayings of the wise. Wisdom and prudence from God is the same now because God is the same, He doesn’t change. And, as Bird said, the law is written on our hearts.
I find the idea “Follow love and you’ll be just fine.” is too obscure and means nothing to someone outside of christian culture. It comes off as, “always have warm fuzzy feelings and everything will fall into place”. I think your words are a bit confusing to me because I stand on the solid rock foundation of Yeshua, keeping Torah and “feelings” of love come from that, not the other way around. God has written the Torah on my heart, I see it confirmed in scripture, I keep and do Torah (as Yeshua did) and feelings of love come.
I do not deny any ability of human intuition. But, human intuition can be wrong and go unchecked. Frankly, and I’m not trying to be snotty here, when I hear someone proclaim they are a christian, I step back and just watch to see what kind of christian they are. Too many people claim Christ and think He sanctions any action that comes into their head. I’ve seen some bad stuff come out of people and they claimed it was from “the spirit”. If they also believed the scriptures were a credible source, they could have checked “the spirit” given behavior to see if it really were from God.
God’s Torah was given from the beginning. God is love, do you believe He shoved the human race into a hostile environment without giving them some wisdom? Written or no, the patriarchs kept Yehovah’s statutes and judgments. It may or may not have been “written down” but, it is clear when people were following God’s ways and instructions.
Romans 1 actually says the opposite of your use of it. People do not retain God in their knowledge. They continually go astray. Indeed the just shall live by faith but, you will have to reconcile that with the “old testament” because it is a quote from there.
That’s cool but, I think you can understand why I would rather do what God says (and what Yeshua did) than go with your intuition. I do agree with you that eating foods may not be about being good or bad. It may be about obedience, it may be a shadow picture of what should or shouldn’t go into the temple (which is now us as a shadow picture - 1 Corinthians), it may be a good many things we don’t yet understand or discern. I think you can also understand that saying people back then didn’t know how to cook pork but, now we do so it’s ok to eat means nothing to me. For me, it is not a matter of health.
I don’t follow you on the correlation between Catholic transubstantiation and not eating pork. Further, I still don’t know exactly what you are labeling me in the term “literalist” so, the two may fit together somehow but, it doesn’t in my thinking.
I think most people get that. Well, except I think Jesus meant the yeast that leavens bread instead of an infectious disease.
This is kind of weird for me because I hear you saying we can throw off some scriptures, interpret the written any way we want, and you can just go with “human intuition” and that’s enough because that is love but, you still use the “written” scripture to try to validate the point you want to make. This is my main point . .
" . . . and because from a babe the Holy Writings thou hast known, which are able to make thee wise–to salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus; every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness, that the man of God may be fitted–for every good work having been completed."
(2Ti 3:15-17)
The “Holy Writings” spoken of here is the “old testament”. If the “Holy Writings” are good enough for Timothy, operating in the Holy Spirit and in a “new testament” church, why should they not be for us also?
Matt and I don’t have exactly the same views, Auggy. I could care less if pork is healthy or not. I obey God because He is just, right, true, holy and He says not to eat pork (among other things). God never says anything about “health laws”. Not to say that health is not worth considering. Simply put, He is my Creator, He created this earth, the animals, He has said this is food for you, this is not. Thus, I obey. He knows a whole lot more than I do.
Already went over this but, hand washing according to the elders is not Torah. Simply: elders=man made laws added to or taken from Torah many times.
You want to focus on punishment for sin. I have no idea why or what it has to do with my not eating pork or keeping the Sabbath. I have no authority or great wisdom for you in this area, as this authority has been given to others, including governing authorities, as it says in Romans. It would be nice if every person on earth followed the higher path but, as long as we are in the flesh, sadly - it’s not going to happen. God commands us for our own good to give up wrongs, not rights. His system always results in Liberty and freedom. American law, includes “freedom”. The idea of freedom and law fit together in our minds when we speak of American law. Why not God’s law? The fathers said that the whole “freedom experiment” hinged on the people’s commitment to keep and do the commandments of God. Thus, we have enjoyed great freedom here. Sadly for a very short time - and I think we all know why. We don’t keep or do the commandments anymore and it is the christian institutional religion that is leading the rebellion and forging our chains of slavery to harsh, unjust law. We are on the edge of a knife - thanks to “human intuition” leading us away from God’s law (just, holy, good) and into what we call “love”. It’s easy to say we don’t need the law - especially God’s “old ways” (“The Ancient Principles” as Jefferson put it) and that we know better. We’ll see how we feel about that when we finally do away with justice in America. We’ll see what “freedom” is all about when what remains of God’s law is gone from this country. When it finally really effects you. When all is not theoretical talk - then we will know how great God’s law really is - how “easy His yoke and how light His burden”. Even those who profited by eliminating God’s law will grieve. Oh yeah, it will all work out in the end but . . .
Unchecked power is the foundation of tyranny. God’s just law checks the powers, it protects the weak against the strong.
He who has ears and all that . . . lol.
Just some thoughts.
Hi Amy,
I don’t mean to say you were doing anything wrong. I have just observed an interesting pattern in the use of the word or action “judge” or “judgment” on the threads in which I have been participating. I too feel for these women. I know the hardships they struggle with. I think it is our responsibility to make life saving decisions. This also goes beyond this issue. If I saw a child drowning, I may logically conclude I can’t possibly save her or him but, to me, no matter the outcome - I would still try. To me, logic is one thing, faith another. It is rather cut and dry for me but, that is because I have already suffered through it, already made my decision and would do the same again. I understand it is not so cut and dry for others and that those who haven’t gone through it may not understand me. It is so, I think, with all things.
Hey Mag,
I have heard it so and I understand what you are saying. I see these as “fulfilled” not done away with. The sacrifice (to me) is not done away with - it stands, it is, even now. John saw the Lamb slain in the true temple in heaven - it stands - it is still. An understanding of the shadow points us to the Messiah. Many christians don’t even understand who Messiah is or why He deserves that title. To them, He is the American Jesus not the Jewish Messiah. They have only a vague idea, if any, about the importance of the sacrifices and Yeshua as our sacrifice. Wouldn’t faith be strengthened by understanding sacrifices and what Yeshua really did when He became the sacrifice? Torah keeps pointing to Him, even in the fulfilling, keeps confirming His credibility as the Messiah. Same with the “feasts”, understanding and participating in circumcision, or baptism. Hebrews is clear that there has been a change in the sacrifice but, it is fulfilled not done away with. If the sacrifice was done away with, there would be no Savior. I know I don’t view things in a traditional manner and it is not easy to get where I’m coming from so, I understand your concerns about my convictions.
As with Auggy, I don’t really get this “literal” label. I agree that we do not need to keep the law to be saved, that Messiah’s sacrifice is our salvation. However, we are still in the physical flesh here. I think we begin to fall under the “too heavenly minded for any earthly good” lifestyle sometimes. Outside of christian culture the idea of “love” doesn’t even make sense without good works. We may tell our unbelieving neighbor we “love them, God loves them” etc., but, if we steal from them, kill them, commit adultery (even looking), etc., with their spouse we aren’t fooling anyone but ourselves. They know that isn’t love. I have only been consistent in loving God as He says to according to the commandments by keeping sabbath on the 7th day. I know Yeshua is our rest but, keeping 7th day sabbath is only an outward sign of that, like baptism is a sign of dying with Christ and being raised from the death. None of us have “literally” died and been raised with Christ - we are still here in the flesh. It is for a sign. Again, I know it is not traditional christianity and may be a new idea but, I do not see it as inconsistent with what Yeshua did or taught or what is written. I know it has long been taught as inconsistent but, those are only teachings taught by men.
Truth. I agree. I am only extending that idea to all of the commandments instead of a select few.
In historical accounts, people in Israel were cruelly tortured and mercilessly murdered because they would not eat swine. It meant that much to them to obey God and interestingly, it meant that much to the Greek pagans that they eat it. I wonder why?
“And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” (Dan 7:25)
Why does the anti christ want to change time and law? What does he want to change it from? God’s way of counting time, God’s law, I would venture.
“for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. `Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands–the least–and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them , he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.” - Yeshua Messiah (Mat 5:18-19)
The downfall in thinking we no longer are obligated to uphold the law in a physical way is, we no longer see a reason for keeping it. Again, this is my thinking, it is not traditional and I haven’t run into a lot of people that understand or appreciate it.
2 Corinth 6:16- 7:1 "We are the temple of the living God, as God has said “I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be thier God and they shall be My people.” (quoted from the “old testament” - Lev 26)
Therefore,
“Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” (from the “old testament” Isaiah 52, Ezek 20)
“I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, says Yehovah Almighty.” (from the “ot” 2 Sam 7)
Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from ALL filthiness of the FLESH AND SPIRIT, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
In this passage Mag, I see according to Paul the promises made to Israel is also extended to the Corinthian “goy”. And, that he says cleanse “ourselves” from ALL (all means all right?) filthiness of the FLESH, as well as the spirit, to perfect holiness. So, we are the temple of God. Where has anything unclean come into the tabernacle or temple in times past? Only when the pagans desecrated it with swine flesh. We are now the literal (in my terms physical and spiritual) “temple” of God. Isn’t it still important? It is to me. Also, as an aside, I think of things like illnesses related to swine and unclean things, scientists messing around with genetics and things they have no business in and think it will be important one day that we kept God’s commandments. It’s the prophet in me, lol! I do also think of it as how I love God. He knows my heart.
Blessings to you too! 
Isn’t our head covering in Corinthians spoken of as the authority over a woman (like a husband) spiritually and physically spoken of as a woman’s hair?
Hi Brother,
I don’t think it legalistic to value life. This is one basis for my stand for the importance of Torah. If we can’t glean from “Jesus” or “the holy spirit” in some supernatural way, or understand on our own somehow (logic, intellect, etc.), the importance of life - there ought to be an objective standard outside ourselves - our own ideas of “good”- to align ourselves with. Throughout the Holy Writings, we see and discern easily the importance Our Creator puts on life and especially the life of a person created in His image. So important that spilling the life blood of another requires the same of us. Torah here can be summed up in “love your neighbor as yourself” and “treat others as you would like to be treated”. To hold the life of your neighbor and protect it, at the same level of importance that you would your own life. I feel sometimes we get so caught up in what we don’t have to do anymore that we miss the whole flow of life. I don’t understand the difference between my situation and the women Amy knows who didn’t see a favorable outcome in their situation but, favorable or not favorable, I would rather trust Yehovah and continue in faith like Abraham who reasoned that God can raise the dead! Peace and blessing!
I seem to be in the middle between your two views guys, haha.
I believe we should all forgive all trespasses against us and leave justice to God. If someone trespassed against us, then is it because we harvested what we sowed earlior?
Sometimes, yes, sometimes, no.
Kelly,
I agree the sacrifice has been fulfilled, but at the same time the animal sacrifice is done away with. It is no more, to continue animal sacrifice would be an abomination to God and an affront to Jesus’ sacrifice. People that believe the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices re-instituted are absolutely wrong (IMO). We are the temple of the HS, of the living God. Everything in the OT law revolved around the tabernacle/temple. The whole law is one, echad. If the literal, and what I mean by literal is a literal building of stone, and actual animals being sacrificed, as opposed to spiritual/allegorical ie we are the temple, if the literal temple is removed, the literal sacrifice is removed, if the literal passover and pentecost is removed, you know the wave sheaf offering couldn’t even take place without a literal temple. IF those are removed then why not the rest of those laws?
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.’”a
8First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
the word for sets aside is here with all its usages, (it means to kill)
classic.net.bible.org/search.php … _index:337
He is not pleased with sacrifices and burnt offerings, He did not desire them.
Where it says made holy through, the word is sanctified/hagiazo. I’m not saying you are saying we are justified by the law. That has never been my argument. I know you don’t believe that. But I think you are saying we are sanctified by the law, and this is where I disagree. The law does not have anything to do with making us holy or sanctified. I think you’re saying its the outcome of being sanctified, but I disagree, the outcome are the fruits of the spirit.
Sorry if this is all over the place my brain is a little haywire, I started my yearly detox yesterday, I feel a little buzzed right now. 
I’ll get to the rest later 
Kelly,
I wonder how Kelly or any literalist avoids judging people who don’t keep the torah as they define law? I say this because you Kelly defend that human intuition is not enough for you do determine what parts are loving and what is not – for you (as I understand you – not trying to pigeon hole you) God’s laws are “love” and therefore abstaining from pork is love. So if someone eats pork, they are hateful and disobedient. Am I right about that? I ask because you seem to hold that not understanding why some things (like eating pork) is loving should not be left to your intuition. When you say eating foods may be about obedience, that to me is your way of saying…if you eat pork then you don’t love God, for to love God is to obey his commands. So I see you as on one hand not being able to explain how logically abstaining from particular foods shows love, but on the other you seem to argue it’s about obedience (which people do if they love God). I agree it’s all about obedience, but I believe God loves to speak in subtext. So eating has nothing to do with food as it does with you. Bread of life is not about wheat. These were only symbols.
I only mean that if Jesus means literally that nothing that goes into your mouth can defile you then it should be obvious that nothing you put into your mouth can make you more godly. It’s all about faith not about a type of magic cloth, or a piece of bread that was baked in an oven. Catholics seem to think the bread literally turns into Christ’s body when you digest it. That makes no sense to me. (I’m not saying you believe any of that, I’m just laying out that my objection to the Catholic is similar to my objection to your position.) I’m glad you don’t use the health reasons. I find them to be meaningless in defending the law. If abstaining from pork is healthy for you then someone should have schooled Jesus on why washing hands is more healthy than not – after all if our bodies are the temple then we should keep it clean right. I think I recall you appealing to health reasons – but perhaps my memory serves me wrong.
You say I focus on punishments. I am asking because if God has torah on how to deal with law breakers, I’m wondering why you don’t take up those measures. So yes, if we’re going to keep the law, we must keep it all including the laws on how to deal with law breakers. Why do we need new laws to deal with them, if in fact God has already told us how to deal with them. You’re last paragraph didn’t seem to really answer the question directly - seems all you did was declare that God’s law is freedom, people should follow it. I’m asking a legit question.
In Duet 19 God clearly states that the reason eye for an eye is issued is to make people fear.
Jesus states “you’ve heard it said eye for an eye, but I tell you turn the other cheek”
How do you find these two compatible?