> >> And this is still relevant to us today, for when we keep God's laws we are showing our devotion to Him.
>
> >Here we are in quite a good deal of disagreement. As I explained in the "God's Word" thread, we can take principles, prophecies, facts about the physical and spiritual worlds, facts about the nature of God, history, and a number of other things from the Old Testament. But we can't rely on doctrine from the Old Testament. True, nine of the Ten Commandments are upheld by Paul in the books of Romans through Philemon,

And the remaining one is upheld in Hebrews, where it says something like, "and there remains a rest for God's people", in which "Sabbath-keeping" is a more accurate translation.

> whose epistles are directed for us, in post-crucifixion times, but the success rate for the rest of the Old Testament law is actually substantially lower. You have read Leviticus, right? The law in it is so complex, that not even modern day Jews follow it all.

Well, sure. They haven't built another tasbernacle, and the Temple has been destroyed. As we know, however, the Temple has to return, as the offerings and sacrifices can't be stopped(Daniel or Revelation somewhere; I don't have a Bible nearby) if they aren't going on. This is not to say that I'm going to rely on those offerings for atonement; my sin-sacrifice is Messiah.

> All the commandments about how altars should be built and what sacrifices should be made when and who should be stoned for what offenses -- none of that applies to today. The book of Romans explains why. Originally, those animal sacrifices were intended essentially to "tide them over" until Christ could make the ultimate sacrifice. If Christ hadn't come, none of those Old Testament folks would have been able to remain eternally saved. But since Christ hadn't yet been crucified, one couldn't then accept what he did to be saved and leave it at that. The animal sacrifices provided a temporary masking of sin.
>
> Right. Here I, too, should have been more specific. Christ died so that we wouldn't have to follow all the rules to be saved. Therefore I don't think the actual practices expounded in Leviticus should be used by us today. The point I was trying to make with that example was, to put it simply, that study of the Bible shows that our actions are still important to God. I believe that every part of the Bible has relevance to us and can teach us something important, even if we are not to actually engage in the acts it sets out.
>
> For example, Exodus 21 makes provisions concerning slaves. I believe that we can gain relevance from the text even though we do not and should not engage in the practice of keeping slaves. We see that we must value human life and treat laborers with respect (letting the slaves go free in the seventh year).

Yep. Although I think that if the slaveowners elsewhere(e.g. in America) would've kept these laws regarding their slaves, things would've been different. And in contrast to slavery in America, slaves were slaves only to pay a debt, not because somebody thought they were of an inferior race. Not that I think slavery is okay, but that way would've been, IMO, superior to the way it was here.

> >True, even then God valued the personal relationship people had with him, but the Law was mandatory, not optional.
>
> >It seems like "Christ's sacrifice nullified the need for our strictest adherence to ritual" but "all of God's laws of the past still apply to today" is simply common sense theology. Well, until you study the Word. It can't be a sound principle, because there is out and out *conflict* between the doctrine in some Old Testament laws and the doctrine given in Paul's epistles.
>
> >But WHAT works apply to today? All Old Testament Law, or just the parts left alone or explicitly upheld by the portions of the New Testament for our times?
>
> The law was mandatory because at that time the keeping of the laws was equal to salvation; Christ changed this and with that change came a change in the laws we are to follow.
>
> >If the WHOLE Bible is the Word of God, why shouldn't we follow ALL of it?
>
> I don't think that we should even come close to doing everything in the Bible (Leviticus for example) because in so doing we would deny the sacrifice of Christ and place too much emphasis on works.

Do you mean, if I decide for myself to eat Biblically kosher(as opposed to rabbinically kosher), keep the 7th-day Sabbath, and keep a Messianic version of the feasts(not necessarily a traditional version), I'm denying the sacrifice of the Messiah and placing too much emphasis on works, even though I neither rely on works for getting in God's good graces nor judge others in relation to that? Or do you just mean the sacrifical part?

I remember the Colossians verse about not judging others regarding festivals and Sabbaths(but again, not where it's located).

And I seem to recall something in one of the Corinthians about "he who eats, eats to the Lord, and he who abstains, abstains to the Lord".

> God does not use every passage in the Bible as a way to tell us what to do. However, each word is there for a reason and has a definite meaning for our times.
>
> Summary: I believe in following the teachings of Christ whenever there is an apparent conflict because he had the authority to overturn the law. Also, many rituals are simply not needed. However, we can gain wisdom through Biblical study of how God wanted people to live.
>
> Also, the verses you gave were great support for what I was trying to say. When looking at them, I saw something interesting about 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
>
> "All Scripture (the Old Testament primarily, since the New Testament wasn't fully established) is God-breathed (inspired by God and therefore infallible and meaningful) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (so we can learn to be righteous, not more worthy of salvation)."

Exactly.

> Gahalia

Nyperold