All for One, One for All... So to Speak

[bookofmirrors]

This is exactly the kind of thing LuneNoire was talking about a while back!

Comments

[spy-isis.livejournal.com]

Leviticus is my favorite book, I used to sit in church with my late aunt and point out those passages to her, and ask why. She didn't like it much.

[(Anonymous)]

I good pastor can explain this to you. I hate for you to be ignorant of the fact, but I can't explain it well without mucking it up. Some of the dress codes or things like that were for just that time, but when it came to things like this, it was for all time. You also have to know for what audience that book was written for- that helps alot. Let's suppose that you didn't know all the facts or the ins and outs of something. You couldn't come to a good conclusion without hearing all sides. I believe that's what lots of non-christians do and then they point the finger that we are ingnorant and have closed minds, but the fact is they have prejudged without getting all sides to the story and believe that they know what all they're talking about, but in reality they have come to the conclusion based on their own mind and perception of things without seeing all sides. They're living by their own rules. I know this is not comeing out right. You owe it to yourselves to explore not on your own, but to go to a good church that can tell you why such and such is the way it is, or go digging yourself. Don't be biased though. Go to the Christian websites and see what information they have. Do your own digging of the truth, but do it by looking in ALL places. This is all I can think of to help. A really good Christian preacher can explain these things to you, then you can go look for yourself to find out if it's true or not. I have done this many times. Look to see what part of the Bible was written for what audience. People do try to take something that was meant for a different time period and apply it to todays circumstances. For instance the part about women not wearing all this big jewelry and such. That was for that time period because during that time prostitutes dressed like that and we were not to come across like that because we were changed from those old ways. I don't hate gay people, nor do I try to push things down their throat. This is a way for us to look at this. I don't agree with it, but normally don't even talk about this with my friends that are gay. I love them and don't like what they do, but we go on and we go on. I'm just saying don't limit yourself on whose explanation you read. You only have one viewpoint. I don't remember how I came to the conclusion that certain things, like homosexuality were not the way God had planned us, but I can tell you that I'm a stubborn person and I would be the "Doubting Thomas" of our day. I did however come to the conclusion after much study and reasearch, and of course the Holy Spirit. I pray that you will seek for truth too in whatever area of your life- even if it doesn't pertain to God's Word.

[bookofmirrors.livejournal.com]

The problem is, those who practive orthodox Judaism (from which Christianity stems) would disagree with you. So would some Christains I know, who still believe ALL those things are sins. I could not find anywhere in Leviticus which stated that the laws were subject to change or interpretation. I did find a passage which stated they applied to God's people, no matter what nation they were in.

However, I did find a passage (not in the Bible itself, but in a short summary of Leviticus) that said that the laws of Leviticus were meant only for the Leviites, the priests, and not for the laypeople. I find that interesting, and it's the first I've heard of it. Apparently, this is made clearer in the Talmud, which have been preserved intact over the ages (so Judaism claims), unlike the Bible, which has many different versions, translations, and interpretations.

More and more, I'd love to study Judaism, but it just seems so overwhelming. There's SUCH a rich history there, with meaning upon meaning upon meaning, all layered perfectly in the original language, and full of interesting viewpoints. Not all of which I agree with, of course, but... just wow.

Ditto, by the way, for early Christian history. Also fascinating, with a rich rich history which is sadly mostly ignored now.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm trying to find something for you here. What I wrote above didn't come out like I was thinking. Like things being different for that time frame. Let's say they told the women of that time to cover their heads because the prostitutes are the ones who had their's uncovered. We couldn't actually take that literally for today because that's not the way we are today, but we could take the meaning of that and apply it to today as a woman should not dress whoreish, which in this day and time might be with her breasts hanging all out. That's why all those laws are like they are. It's the same meaning, but not the EXACT thing. But for some things that never change, then that would be EXACTLY for today. Don't commit adultery would be the same for today.

[(Anonymous)]

Here is something I found. I didn't know this myself, or what it was called, but I had some concept of it. I will give you the whole site to look at too, but here is an excerpt.

Objection: We are not under levitical law.

This argument states that because we are free to ignore other laws that are listed (such as wearing blended material or eating pork) with those regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament that we should be free to ignore these as well.

Unlike the other examples cited, the New Testament nowhere abrogates the entire book of Leviticus, nor the laws against homosexuality.
The prohibition against homosexuality is not part of the ceremonial cleansing code - it is part of the sexual purity laws. Ceremonial examples are not part of God's universal moral law (much of which is repeated in Israel's law). While we are not under the ceremonial requirements of Israel, all people are under His moral law (for more on this issue see Are We Under the Old Testament Law?).
There is a distinction between separation laws (those that kept Israel set apart from the nations - such as diet and clothing) and moral laws that are universal and binding on all people. Because God Himself repealed dietary laws (Acts 10) and erased the salvific distinction between Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:28-29), we are free from these ordinances. This has nothing to do with freedom from universal moral commands.
That God's moral laws are universal in scope is obvious from the example of God's wrath against immorality in Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter 2:8). These people were not Israelites and did not have God's written law yet God held them accountable for breaking the moral law that all people instinctively know (Rom. 2). Just in case this last point were not obvious from history, God pointed it out in the very passage under question! (Lev. 18:27).
Jesus Himself quoted Leviticus as containing one of the most important of all commands (Mt. 19:19 quoting Lev. 19:18). Thus, although parts of levitical law do not apply to people today, the moral law contained in it certainly does.
If this argument hold any water then the homosexual should also allow bestiality and incest, which are also outlawed in this same section and not repeated in the New Testament.

http://www.souldevice.org/ethics_homosexuality.html

[(Anonymous)]

Objection: Levitical laws applied only to religiously unacceptable rites.

This revisionist reading of Leviticus claims that only in cases where homosexual behavior is linked to idolatrous practices is it forbidden.

It is true that the Hebrew term qadesh refers to something set aside as holy (e.g. 1 and 2 Kings), it is not even used in the levitical passages under question, yet Moses clearly knew this term (Dt. 23:17).
None of these passages specify any kind of "addition of idolatry" to these practices to make them sinful.
The Hebrew word for "abomination" (toevah), while usually associated with idolatry, appears in Prov. 6:16-19 in connection with sins having nothing to do with idolatry or pagan ceremony.
If this argument holds water then it also applies to things like bestiality and incest. These would have to be acceptable so long as they were not linked to idolatrous practices.
Most of the laws concerning the sacrifice of children actually do have to do with idolatry - would this same argument apply?

[bookofmirrors.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I'd love to see more of that. That does make more sense. So many permutations and connatations, though. I'm guessing the best judge of that would be a Jewish scholar, as far as what they actually meant, for both ancient and modern times.

And then someone well-versed in both Judaic AND Christian studies for how the New Testament ties into it. Fascinating.