OT law & New Testament giving

OKAY...I was expecting a lot of flack because I know it is or can be a sensitive issue, and I know that I am going up against a few published commentators
Fish Catcher Jim said:
Question what law are you talking about ?
10 commandments ?
Or the 613 do's and donts of the Law of Moses ? OT laws that were added !
Big difference in them..........
Click to expand...
I've often wrestled with this issue. My current understanding is that there is really no division. All the 613 laws come down in the long run to the ten commandments, which in turn come down to the first.
Hypothetical: I love the Lord my God....hmmm nobody will miss this ipad that is lying in the unlocked store showcase, besides I could use the money I'd save to watch a few adult movies.
Quite a few wrongs in that hypothetical, none of which support my claim to love God.
I think the amplification of the Ten Commandments are/were to act as a guide for a more comprehensive understanding and application.
For example,
General Commandment
Commandment #7 and #10 Deu 5:21 "'And you shall not covet your neighbor's wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.'
Amplified application in part:
Deu 22:22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
I may be wrong, but I think the idea that not one jot nor tittle means not the least eensy weensy item of the Law is to be done away with till all be completed. That would logically include the 613 (explanatory) laws.
I am aware that some would therefore argue that the Sabbath must be kept, however that is not a sound Exegesis in light of much other Scripture.
 
calvin said:
Yes I thought I made it clear that I was addressing only a poor exegisis relating to v17,18 and in no way attempting to re assert the Law.

According to Jesus this is not so..not one jot, not one title, until all be fulfilled. Did I miss His second coming?:eek:
Click to expand...

That is the way I understood it calvin.
 
calvin said:
OKAY...I was expecting a lot of flack because I know it is or can be a sensitive issue, and I know that I am going up against a few published commentators

I've often wrestled with this issue. My current understanding is that there is really no division. All the 613 laws come down in the long run to the ten commandments, which in turn come down to the first.
Hypothetical: I love the Lord my God....hmmm nobody will miss this ipad that is lying in the unlocked store showcase, besides I could use the money I'd save to watch a few adult movies.
Quite a few wrongs in that hypothetical, none of which support my claim to love God.
I think the amplification of the Ten Commandments are/were to act as a guide for a more comprehensive understanding and application.
For example,
General Commandment
Commandment #7 and #10 Deu 5:21 "'And you shall not covet your neighbor's wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.'
Amplified application in part:
Deu 22:22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
I may be wrong, but I think the idea that not one jot nor tittle means not the least eensy weensy item of the Law is to be done away with till all be completed. That would logically include the 613 (explanatory) laws.
I am aware that some would therefore argue that the Sabbath must be kept, however that is not a sound Exegesis in light of much other Scripture.
Click to expand...

I agree with you calvin and I do not think that you are wrong. But even if you were, we all have opinions and should be able to share them with others.

It would be helpful I think if we understood the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term kataluo, literally meaning “to loosen down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans, and of the dissolving of the human body at death. The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” ---- “to render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself seen in Luke 24:44 which is what I think you were saying.

Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience under threat of a “curse” in Galatians 3:10, 13. In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.
 
Lanolin said:
Btw church is not a bank.
Click to expand...

This is not meant to sound stern or rude in any way; but the Vatican is a bank - "Istituto per le Opere di Religione"
The Istituto per le Opere di Religione administrates the financial responsibilities of the Holy See/Vatican City State.
Inside the Vatican archives you will find the "banca Vaticana" which holds millions of Euro's of materials.
The Vatican as a Holy See/State is extremely wealthy.

exsecutiva ripam sancte sedis (Latin) or Executive Bank of the Holy See hold hundreds of millions of Euro's worth of materials.

However, most churches are not a bank.
 
Fish_of_Faith said:
This is not meant to sound stern or rude in any way; but the Vatican is a bank - "Istituto per le Opere di Religione"
The Istituto per le Opere di Religione administrates the financial responsibilities of the Holy See/Vatican City State.
Inside the Vatican archives you will find the "banca Vaticana" which holds millions of Euro's of materials.
The Vatican as a Holy See/State is extremely wealthy.

exsecutiva ripam sancte sedis (Latin) or Executive Bank of the Holy See hold hundreds of millions of Euro's worth of materials.

However, most churches are not a bank.
Click to expand...

Now that comment may get you into some hot water with some of our members. Not that is not true but that it was said at all.
 
Fish_of_Faith said:
This is not meant to sound stern or rude in any way; but the Vatican is a bank - "Istituto per le Opere di Religione"
The Istituto per le Opere di Religione administrates the financial responsibilities of the Holy See/Vatican City State.
Inside the Vatican archives you will find the "banca Vaticana" which holds millions of Euro's of materials.
The Vatican as a Holy See/State is extremely wealthy.

exsecutiva ripam sancte sedis (Latin) or Executive Bank of the Holy See hold hundreds of millions of Euro's worth of materials.

However, most churches are not a bank.
Click to expand...

Holy smokes. Ugh.
 
Fish_of_Faith said:
This is not meant to sound stern or rude in any way; but the Vatican is a bank - "Istituto per le Opere di Religione"
The Istituto per le Opere di Religione administrates the financial responsibilities of the Holy See/Vatican City State.
Inside the Vatican archives you will find the "banca Vaticana" which holds millions of Euro's of materials.
The Vatican as a Holy See/State is extremely wealthy.

exsecutiva ripam sancte sedis (Latin) or Executive Bank of the Holy See hold hundreds of millions of Euro's worth of materials.

However, most churches are not a bank.
Click to expand...

I think you've misunderstood quite a bit when it comes to the Vatican, the Catholic Church, and the money taken in and given out.

But let's not get into that, otherwise we'll have yet another back-and-forth. I'm not sure you'll like my response.
 
Last edited:
I see you disagree its a bank...not a problem.
I was just reading the financial documents I aquired in Rome from the Vatican Board of Directors in a meeting last September regarding expenditure and the total assets it holds.

Never mind...discard my previous post.
 
Fish_of_Faith said:
I see you disagree its a bank...not a problem.
I was just reading the financial documents I aquired in Rome from the Vatican Board of Directors in a meeting last September regarding expenditure and the total assets it holds.

Never mind...discard my previous post.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, this doesn't conclude that what you said is true. I just think you're misunderstanding, that's all. The financial records are offered to the public so that the integrity is kept in place. There are priceless artifacts that do not belong to the Vatican, they belong to the Church and therefore cannot be bought or sold (it could even be committing the sin of simony if this were to happen since much of it has been blessed).

And then there donations and even other things like tour fees or gift shops, etc. which is used for patronages, schools, hospitals, but also society go to conservation, restoration, and upkeep, generally speaking.

The Vatican's yearly budget is 300 million at its height (lately it has been decreasing), but that's included in all of the charity work it has involvement with and is only a small percentage to banks which is usually around 10 billion.

But also, a bank has a purpose, and the Vatican is only a headquarters, if you will, for Church leadership.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to create a debate regrading it...it was merely from confidential documents I have read.

I can see a dislike to this so I will not say anything further on the subject.

Let's return to the OP.
 
Fish_of_Faith said:
I'm not going to create a debate regrading it...it was merely from confidential documents I have read.

I can see a dislike to this so I will not say anything further on the subject.

Let's return to the OP.
Click to expand...

No problem. In your defense, this is something many people misunderstand and part of it is because of a lack of explanation...and it ought to be explained by officials.
 
Looks like we went off-topic, but it's okay, let's say it is related - giving - law - Vatican business.
Just something more on law/commandments, etc.
Jesus said He came to fulfil the law - right?
So when was this fulfilling done? Second coming? Or at the time of the cross? I'd go with the later.
So why did He have to fulfil the law? I think this has a simple answer. So everyone can have rest.
No, not being lazy in front of the TV - but to have rest in Him - He is our rest, our Sabbath, our fulfilment of the law. Man it's good to be a child of Him.
O but wait - did I then just determine that we have no interest in the law and what it requires?
Definitely not - because I have rest in Him - I want to do what He has done, I want to live a life presenting a pleasing fragrance to my Father in heaven, and I definitely want not to do things that he finds detestable.
So now, YHVH's law is in my heart, and not a set of rules in a book and useless works before men.
Your light shines not because you do good works, but because your light shines like a city on a hill that cannot be hidden, men sees your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. No dead actions/works required, just the light of Him.

Just my take.
 
Back to giving.
Something that may sound weird to some... I like to say the word love can be substituted with the word charity.
After all, how much charity did our Father in heaven show us when Christ came to be upon that cross.
We did not deserve any - my sin was just too great to deserve any charity, and yet, here I am. And have I not received much charity from Him.
Charity gives, never takes, so your level of charity so to say is measured by your giving. Measure it yourself in your heart and adjust accordingly.
Now it's a simple switch/substitution to check your love against that of Christ Jesus. I know, it normally looks a sad case - but helps to plot a way forward. If you do not feel in your heart to be charitable towards the church of your choice, then pray to know where that charity is required, remember, money is not everything, what about your life and talents!

Above is what I have asked myself just now when I read everyone's comments, so for the record, I'm not trying to be a hypocrite.
 
Arrie03 said:
Looks like we went off-topic, but it's okay, let's say it is related - giving - law - Vatican business.
Just something more on law/commandments, etc.
Jesus said He came to fulfil the law - right?
So when was this fulfilling done? Second coming? Or at the time of the cross? I'd go with the later.
So why did He have to fulfil the law? I think this has a simple answer. So everyone can have rest.
No, not being lazy in front of the TV - but to have rest in Him - He is our rest, our Sabbath, our fulfilment of the law. Man it's good to be a child of Him.
O but wait - did I then just determine that we have no interest in the law and what it requires?
Definitely not - because I have rest in Him - I want to do what He has done, I want to live a life presenting a pleasing fragrance to my Father in heaven, and I definitely want not to do things that he finds detestable.
So now, YHVH's law is in my heart, and not a set of rules in a book and useless works before men.
Your light shines not because you do good works, but because your light shines like a city on a hill that cannot be hidden, men sees your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. No dead actions/works required, just the light of Him.

Just my take.
Click to expand...

Make take is His Birth, the cross and the Second Coming.

Matt 5:18-19:.......
"Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

God's law was not abolished. It was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The shadow found its reality!

The Second Coming of Jesus will be just as literal as the First Coming. In Luke 1:31-33 we read, "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end."

It is a Bible fact that Mary conceived and brought forth a son and named Him Jesus. Many times people will believe verse 31 literally, because it has been fulfilled. But often the same people will not really take much stock in verses 32 and 33, which deal with the Second Coming of Christ. The fact that He will reign over the house of David and that His reign and kingdom will never end has not happened yet. But if we believe one part of the Scripture we must be consistant and believe the other part as well.

If Christ came and literally fulfilled the prophecies in Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and others of a suffering Messiah, will He not as surely come and likewise fulfill the prophecies of a glorified Messiah reigning in victory and majesty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top