Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

[Zzyzx]

.
Were OT laws "good and positive (in their time)"

From a current thread:

.

Most of the 600+ OT laws are(were) good and positive (in their time). Obviously cynics would rush to pick a difficult example for me, rather than pick one fairly, t random, but if I stick a pin in somewhere, and come up with, say, the 'Do not eat Shellfish' law, that one is(was) massively good and positive in it's time.

You see, mostly every law kept the tribes as healthy and as strong as possible.

Easy......... easy.......

Perhaps you refer to Leviticus 11:9-12 ESV These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

Aquatic animals without fins and scales include lobster, crabs, shrimp, squid, crawdads, catfish, eels, sturgeon, etc.

First, let us name the commonly known unclean fish -- these are scaleless fish -- which are not fit for food: catfish, eels, paddlefish, sculpins, sticklebacks, sturgeons, and swordfish. These fish do not have true scales. Together with these creatures are other forms of sea life unfit for human consumption: abalone, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, scallops, shrimp, whale. http://www.giveshare.org/Health/cleanunclean.html

Kindly explain to us (easy, easy of course) WHY a law against eating such things "is (was) massively good and positive in its time".

AND explain why prohibition against eating such things is not (or is) applicable now.

Questions for debate:

Does or did the prohibition against eating aquatic animals "without fins and scales" make sense? WHY?

Of the 600+ (or whatever number) OT laws, how many / what percentage can be identified as being "massively good and positive in it's time"?

[oldbadger]

This morning I found a dead magpie on the roadside. An objective view might decide that:
1. A car killed the bird
2. God killed the bird

I don't know which for certain, but I choose (1) with a big degree of confidence.

...... see?
I'm smiling, just now.
Are you ever ever going to be certain? You're not at this time, anyway.

[oldbadger]

There is a slight difference between American Law and the Law of God. We are entitled to look back at God's Law and assess it as being as true for us as it was for those to whom it was originally given. If we cannot do that, then we might as well ignore the Bible as being out of date. You are not advocating that, I assume.

May I reply to this post to Catnip?

Of course several of the OT Laws are out of date. Yes.
Can I give one example?

When Cephas (Peter) went to Joppa to meet with Gentiles, he was visited by a vision (It's in Acts) whereby he was told that he could forsake several of the OT Laws concerning food consumption.

Now this is just one instance of a repeal.
I wonder if any Christians could supply us with more, because I am not strong on them all.

[marco]

Are you denying our ability or the desirably of discering the timeless in the context of which it was found?

Heaven forbid. I could wax lyrical about many timeless passages of poetry, but someone will then come on and say I am being irrelevant.

The context of a barbaric time and culture and the timelessness of truth and beauty even IN that primitive context of time and place.

Does timeless truth and beauty become outdated simply because the context surrounding it was primitive, barbaric and anachronistic?

No. Far from it. And I can't think where I have given the impression that I am a philistine. Unfortunately, when I hear that death is being prescribed for ridiculous misdemeanours I temporarily forget the timeless beauty of the passages I am reading. Of course the antidote, whenever I come across a bad bit, is to flick through pages and find a good bit. I'm afraid I don't do that with novels I read. As Oscar said, books are either well written or badly written - he didn't qualify his opinion for the case of a book being both well and badly written.

Call me prejudiced but I cannot approach Abraham with anything nicer than contempt. My sympathies are with Isaac and the ram. What was the silly thing doing there?

We will have to agree that we are both wearing different spectacles. And I don't want to borrow yours.

[marco]

[quote="oldbadger"]

Certainty, oldbadger, is as dangerous as hubris. But in mathematics, far from opinion, I can happily be certain I have the right answer. When translating from another language, I am pretty close to being certain most of the time. On God - hmmm.

When debating with old badgers I am always in doubt.

[bluethread]

When Cephas (Peter) went to Joppa to meet with Gentiles, he was visited by a vision (It's in Acts) whereby he was told that he could forsake several of the OT Laws concerning food consumption.

That's not what Cephas (Peter) said he was told by the vision. (Acts 10:34-35) "Then Peter began to speak: I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.""

[marco]

May I reply to this post to Catnip?

Of course several of the OT Laws are out of date. Yes.
Can I give one example?

When Cephas (Peter) went to Joppa to meet with Gentiles, he was visited by a vision (It's in Acts) whereby he was told that he could forsake several of the OT Laws concerning food consumption.

Now this is just one instance of a repeal.
I wonder if any Christians could supply us with more, because I am not strong on them all.

Please feel free to come in and announce a new thread to the city and the world from my sitting room.
When you get your replies, you can let the host marco know which laws are no longer applicable.

[Elijah John]

Are you denying our ability or the desirably of discering the timeless in the context of which it was found?

Heaven forbid. I could wax lyrical about many timeless passages of poetry, but someone will then come on and say I am being irrelevant.

The context of a barbaric time and culture and the timelessness of truth and beauty even IN that primitive context of time and place.

Does timeless truth and beauty become outdated simply because the context surrounding it was primitive, barbaric and anachronistic?

No. Far from it. And I can't think where I have given the impression that I am a philistine. Unfortunately, when I hear that death is being prescribed for ridiculous misdemeanours I temporarily forget the timeless beauty of the passages I am reading. Of course the antidote, whenever I come across a bad bit, is to flick through pages and find a good bit. I'm afraid I don't do that with novels I read. As Oscar said, books are either well written or badly written - he didn't qualify his opinion for the case of a book being both well and badly written.

Call me prejudiced but I cannot approach Abraham with anything nicer than contempt. My sympathies are with Isaac and the ram. What was the silly thing doing there?

We will have to agree that we are both wearing different spectacles. And I don't want to borrow yours.

Never meant to imply that your spectacles were out of focus, just that we focus on different things. If I look, I see the sources of your objection and dissent. I admit they are there. Then I turn and refocus on the timeless good. Just as one spectacular song can redeem a concert (worth the price of admission), one timeless Gem redeems Scripture. But there are many more than one.

We moderns are at liberty to discard the barbaric and anachronistic, a liberty our primitive forebears did not enjoy.

[oldbadger]

When Cephas (Peter) went to Joppa to meet with Gentiles, he was visited by a vision (It's in Acts) whereby he was told that he could forsake several of the OT Laws concerning food consumption.

That's not what Cephas (Peter) said he was told by the vision. (Acts 10:34-35) "Then Peter began to speak: I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.""

Hello....
I was thinking of this repeal......

Acts {11:5} I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a
trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had
been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners;
and it came even to me: {11:6} Upon the which when I had
fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts
of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls
of the air. {11:7} And I heard a voice saying unto me,
Arise, Peter; slay and eat. {11:8} But I said, Not so, Lord:
for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered
into my mouth. {11:9} But the voice answered me again
from heaven, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou
common. {11:10} And this was done three times: and all
were drawn up again into heaven.

[oldbadger]

Please feel free to come in and announce a new thread to the city and the world from my sitting room.
When you get your replies, you can let the host marco know which laws are no longer applicable.

Thankyou.
I am just offering one example, as already shown, above.

[Elijah John]

Just because we no longer believe in an ancient religion does not mean we should destroy the ancient evidence of it. We are all poorer for it.

Very important point, agreed.

On the other hand, this belief that the OT Law was perfect and given by God (in the Bronze age) and should be forever applied is like applying Sharia Law--same, same, same! Even if the OT law was given to the Israel word for word by God, that does not indicate that it should stand for all time--that God had no intention that we should not progress.

ANOTHER important point, I completely agree.

Besides that, we have been told clearly by Paul that we are NOT under the Law and if we apply it to ourselves we give up our Covenant through Christ.

Never completely sure what Paul meant by that, the moral or the ceremonial Jewish Law.

IF that were the only excuse, of course--IF there hadn't been a show down against slavery and good Christians felt inspired to instigate a war to end it and WON!

The Bible was used to justify both side in the Civil war, and Glory Hallelujah, the slaves were freed!

But all of this is one reason I campaign so hard against Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists digging around in the Old Covenant--a system of Law given to a specific people (at best) to form a nation--and mixing oil and water.

It's one thing to mine the OT/Hebrew Bible for spirtual inspiration, quite another to mine it for antiquated civil law.

Isaiah claims that scribes with their lying pens falsified the Law. So, the Bible itself claims that the Law as it is written was falsified. (This specificity given in the possibility that some silent lurker is of this bent.)

I know Jeremiah implied as much, do you have the Isaiah reference? Could be a very useful passage.