Sentences with phrase «ot laws»

We as humans WILL break the OT Laws (and many modern day ones too,) no matter how hard we try.

believing that it is a sin does not equal believing that all the OT laws are applicable today.

The OT laws condemn both participants, not just the woman.

But Jesus seems to support the OT laws as often as he reinterprets them.

Those OT laws you quote were for those people at that time.

Jesus supported the OT laws.

(Acts 15:28,29) To say that the prohibition against se2xual immorality is not for Gentiles the same as many of the other OT laws are not for Gentiles, goes against what the apostles said.

The OT laws are not suppose to be followed?

Jesus did say the OT laws still have to be obeyed.

My bible says that the OT laws will apply until the end of the earth, but I might be using an out - dated copy.

note: there are 3 types of OT laws: a) ceremonial (ritual cleansing, sacrifices, etc. — required to be made clean / holy) b) judicial (laws specifically for the nation state of Israel) c) moral laws (the 10 commandments, etc..)

And yes, Jesus said the OT laws still apply, so don't try to slither out that way.

And I've heard it many times before regarding the OT laws.

Dawn, when you read Matt 15 you find that Jesus is not saying to stone the children, he's reminding the Pharisees that they are inconsistent in their own attempts to follow the letter of the OT laws while criticizing others of for their inconsistency.

We are living under the new covenant, not OT law - Jesus said the law can be summed up in only 2 laws: love your neighbor as yourself and love God with all your heart.

Most modern Christians are not also Jews, so does the OT Law still apply to them?

He was a Jew and that was how they still define «sin», but he also broke the OT Law saying that it was made for men, not the other way around.

Sin, for Jesus, was following the OT Law, right?

The Law that states that gayness is a sin is part of the OT Law.

I guess the confusion for me is that «sexual immorality,» as far as the NT audience was concerned, referred back to the sexual sins outlined in the OT law, and it seems like sleeping with one's father's wife would be on par with homosexuality, which is included in the same set of «sexually immoral» sins.

I believe in the inerrancy of the autographs (original documents), many people and denominations may hold up only the words in red, or only the Pauline letters and even more hold up the OT law as for Christians today.

So, since you read it, you came up with the conclusion that it is it OT law meant for everyone, and not the Levite priests?

I thought the same thing, and upon reading the whole thing, i learned that this was a book about the OT law, and also priests, as well as the account of the festival calenders and the main heritage story of prophetic foreshadowing of the New Covenant, a better covenant.

So, for example, when he expressed horror at the case of adult - consensual incest going on at Corinth he used a description of the behavior, «someone has (his) father's wife» drawn from the prohibitions of man - stepmother intercourse in OT law (1 Cor 5:1).

I do know many Evangelicals who stammer and stutter when you point out an OT law that they aren't following.

Here in the Upanishads come to full expression two doctrines unknown in the Vedas, that of Karma, ot the law of sowing and reaping, and that of reincarnation.

Yes, the OT law, outside of the moral law, which also «infidels» or all of us in various measure have in their heart, is gone.

I think Mr. Jacobs tackles the idea of how impossible (or at least very difficult) it is to obey all the OT law, but he misses the point entirely on the NT.

b. Somehow the man was never mentioned and according to the OT law BOTH man and woman were to be stoned.

Atheism promotes an outlook on the world from a realist's perspective in which they are not concerned with a god whose jealously is such that should they violate any laws supposedly given by god to man, they are supposed to be killed (according to OT law).

way out of the «clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, I'm unaware of any denomination that interprets it any other way, and only the atheist tries to pull this stunt» truth that Christians do not live under OT law.

The OT law is not enforceable unless the NT says it is The OT law is still enforceable unless the NT says it is not

The verse has to be read within the entire context of scripture, including how Jesus lived and other things he said (notably — he who is without sin cast the first stone) to recognize that that verse is not now, nor has it ever been, interpreted to mean that Christians are under OT law upon Christ's resurrection.

Not exact matches

In the OT it centers on Israel's breaking covenant relationship with God through disobedience to the law (Jeremiah 2:19), especially following other gods (Judges 2:19) and practicing their immorality (Daniel 9:9 — 11)....

No, Jesus did nt comment on every details of everything... but he said numerous times that he was upholding the laws put forth in the OT.

2) He fulfills all the OT prophecies 3) the salvation He offers meets all the requirements of the law.

The OT times were tough and God's law matched the times, but the NT was about salvatio n and helping others despite not getting anything in return and for some reason this ins» t a good message.

Funny how Christians want laws that will reflec their values on abortion and gay marriage, but not the poor but both the OT and NT make it clear how they should be treated.

Jesus himself says he has come to fulfill the law meaning the sum of the OT regulations have been taken care of Jesus» life and death.

The OT explains God and gave us the Law through Mosses.

Damian, Jews were ordered to keep the law in conducts but Christians were ordered to wear Jesus and keep the law in hearts as well, not just in conducts; the reason OT has 600 commands whereas NT has over 1,000 commands.

If that is not correct, then it would seem that either the laws of the OT are still in effect or they were incomplete, in that they didn't include the «fulfillment» clause that Jesus invoked.

If a human being has the gender of «male» AND that same human being is not the property of a man / woman / master, then the Bible, in both the OT and the NT, under Law and under Grace, does endorse sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

There is widespread agreement with the view presented in the article on homosexuality in Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics (edited by Carl F. Henry [Baker Book House, 1973]-RRB-, which declares that «those who base their faith on the OT and NT documents can not doubt that their strong prohibitions of homosexual behavior make homosexuality a direct transgression of God's law.»

If a human being has the gender of «female» AND that same human being is the property of a man / woman / master, then the Bible, in both the OT and the NT, under Law and under Grace, endorses / mandates abstaining from sexual intercourse.

PaulD So, none of the laws in the OT are applicable?

Here's a biblical quote where jesus says we should follow the OT: Jesus orders Christians to follow the Law of Moses in the Old Testament: «Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

During Jesus» time the interpretation of the OT was weighted down with opinions and doctrines of men and the doctors of the law loaded burdens upon men shoulders.

Russ Am I right in understanding that you state popularity of belief as your reasoning for classifying the OT sanction against h0m0 $ exuality as anything other than a kosher law?

Evidently, both of you believe that just because such laws and punishments are mentioned in the OT, they should be reinstated today; no Christian believes such laws should still be active today.