I Am Christian

Deuteronomy 22.5
‘The woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment for all who do so are an abomination unto the Lord your God.’

What do people think about this and what it means?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BetweenKittensandRiots · 36-40, MVIP

I see a lot of "Christians" Arguing the aren't bound by mosaic law and I just thought I'd refute that notion because that isn't bibilical at all.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Matthew 5:17

These "Christians" Seem to believe that the Blood Sacrifice of Jesus somehow means they're no longer bound by those laws.

But jesus himself even said he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

That means the law still stands according to JESUS HIMSELF.
[i]
Even if Paul taught something different he was in error.[/i]

There's nothing Scriptural about the notion that CHristians are not bound by Judaic and mosaic law- Jesus didn't destroy the law according to scripture.

For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

It's clear to any honest student of the bible that the real primary influence of christianity is paul. If Jesus had intended on starting a new religion He would have written a Creed. It's clear in scripture that if scripture is true ( which I doubt.) That jesus according to scripture lived breathed and DIED a JEW.

IF he IS resurrected ( HAHAHA? miracles are bullshit. it won't happen. ) he will come back as a JEW.

And it's Saul who taught that Jesus's blood sacrifice ultimately redeemed people from having to follow Mosaic law.

Matthew 5:19

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, [i]and shall teach men so, he shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven[/i]: but
whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

SW-User

Do you even believe in God?

BetweenKittensandRiots · 36-40, MVIP

@SW-User Nope.

SW-User

You make excellent points. However just because something is not abolished does not make it severely binding. The purpose of the law was to prove that we were in need of salvation. A savior. He has come to fulfill that purpose. I recall in the bible there was a passage where on the sabbath day, a man was hungry and went to pick a grain of wheat but that is supposed to be considered sin correct? Mark 2:23-2:27 in these passages jesus states that the Sabbath was made for man not man for sabbath. This indicates that there are certain areas of mercy where supposed sinful actions are not sinful. If that's the case for the sabbath, why not something else? Also jesus did give us two new commandments. To love each other as ourselves and to love God with all our heart. On those two commandments hang all the law and prophets.

SW-User

@BetweenKittensandRiots There was also a passage where Jesus spoke about meat in Which in the OT it states certain meats were not to be consumed. Mark 7:15: What enters a person is not what defiles them but rather what comes out of them. Mark 7:19: It enters not into the heart but the stomach and is expelled. Mark 7:21 for it is within a persons heart that comes evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder. If you can make a distinction between these passages which doesn't seem to exclude shellfish and pork and passages that condemn them, it would surely ease my mind. Also i'm [b]not trying to preach to you[/b]. I just wanted to state that for some reason, a lot of biblical interpretations are not always just black and white. Context is important too.