Bible Questions

[xfactor352]

What is the catholic response as to why many do not follow rules set in the Old Testament about eating shellfish, and other rules, such as those found on this website

biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

As a Catholic myself, I am confident in my beliefs, however I would like to explain some questions about the Bible to others, and these rules seem to make up most of their questions.

Thanks

 

[fred_conty]

There is the Old Testiment, with old testiment laws in the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, for the old chosen people. Laws such as those in purification rites, the washings, and those of clean and unclean food, and all sorts of other O.T. laws.
In the old, there are moral codes, and then there are the sacrificial/ritual codes

There is the New Testiment, with new testiment codes in the New Testiment books, for the new chosen people. Laws such as St. Paul mentioned in his letters.

When Jesus died, that was the end of all of those old sacrificial/ritual codes in the old law. And when Jesus said that all would be fulfilled and not a letter would be forgotten, it wasn’t forgotten and was fulfilled in his death which started the New Law. It was then fulfilled and finished.

The old covenant was circumcision bringing a person into the body of the chosen Jewish people under the old law and establishing an agreement to observe the Old Covenant with God.

The new covenant was baptism bringing a person into the body of the chosen Christian people under the new law and establishing an agreement to observe the new covenant with God.

Paul says, that the old law is unnessary, circumcision, and the new law,baptism, now makes a person part of the new chosen people.

If this were not true, then we would be bound to all the old laws, such as washing our bodies after doing certain things, eating certain foods and avoiding others, sacrificing doves or oxen according to our financial being, and so on. Clearly, in the New Covenant with God, these things are unnecessary and were abrogated with the comming of the New Law which Jesus Christ established with his death.

If we read the new testiment, all 10 commandments are in the new in some form or another. They may not be enumerated or in order, but all of them are there.
Tho the moral code is maintained, the sacrificial and ritual codes of the old are not.
And in addition, there are those mandates in the sermon on the mount contained in the New.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Rainaldo]

What is the catholic response as to why many do not follow rules set in the Old Testament about eating shellfish, and other rules, such as those found on this website

biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

As a Catholic myself, I am confident in my beliefs, however I would like to explain some questions about the Bible to others, and these rules seem to make up most of their questions.

Thanks

Well the long answer is, read Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews!

 

[jmcrae]

What is the catholic response as to why many do not follow rules set in the Old Testament about eating shellfish, and other rules, such as those found on this website

biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

As a Catholic myself, I am confident in my beliefs, however I would like to explain some questions about the Bible to others, and these rules seem to make up most of their questions.

Thanks

We are under a New Covenant that was inaugurated by Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and resurrection from the dead. He fulfilled the Old Law, thus completing it, which is what He meant when He said, “It is finished.” The New Covenant was prefigured by the Old Covenant, but we have different ritual laws to follow, which exist for the purpose of uniting us with Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Old Testament laws that prohibited eating certain foods were abrogated by Jesus Christ, who “declared all foods clean.” See Mark 7:14-22.

 

[JRKH]

What is the catholic response as to why many do not follow rules set in the Old Testament about eating shellfish, and other rules, such as those found on this website

biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

As a Catholic myself, I am confident in my beliefs, however I would like to explain some questions about the Bible to others, and these rules seem to make up most of their questions.

Thanks

The simple answer to this is that these requirements were dismissed by the Council of Jerusalem contained in Acts 15.

Peace
James

 

[losh14]

It’s interesting that when some condemn Leviticus for being backwards, they ignore the good that is in there. I don’t think the site you reference would mention:
Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.(Lev 19:14)

What is the catholic response as to why many do not follow rules set in the Old Testament about eating shellfish, and other rules, such as those found on this website

The Levitical dietary laws - which aren’t directly mentioned below:
biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

are contravened by Divine command in Acts 11. Paul extends this line of thought further in Romans 14. In general, though, the laws under the Mosaic Covenant that were manifestations of Divine Will specific to the Covenant are discontinued under the New Covenant, even if the substance of the law remains. For example, the condemnation of sexual immorality (of which homosexuality is a small part in terms of total text as well as how often its practiced) remains from the beginning, even though the Mosaic Covenant called for execution while the New Covenant calls for separation from the Church.

As for specific reasons why certain laws aren’t followed, I think there are three overarching themes you can use:

1. Separation as a form of holiness
2. The demand for blood sacrifice is satisfied
3. Scientific reasons for certain laws

We don’t follow the first because the reason for the separation is either no longer evident (the prohibition against eating a calf boiled in its mothers’ milk was a pagan rite that is no longer recognized today - no one thinks eating a cheeseburger is worshipping Ishtar), or because Christ has set us apart by His Sacrifice.

We don’t follow the second because the need for blood is satiated by Christ (Heb 9:14). To be fair, the Jews who still uphold the Mosaic Covenant no longer participate in blood sacrifice as commanded in Leviticus because the Temple is destroyed.

The third reason probably wouldn’t be bad to follow - and where we do it’s probably without realizing it. Laws like this are that new fruit trees should not be harvested for the first three years (ensure viability of food supply), and no sex during menstruation (supposedly there’s evidence that such acts lead to a higher risk of ectopic pregnancy).

But why aren’t we under the Mosaic Covenant? Jesus.

 

[fred_conty]

It’s interesting that when some condemn Leviticus for being backwards, they ignore the good that is in there. I don’t think the site you reference would mention:
Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.(Lev 19:14)

The Levitical dietary laws - which aren’t directly mentioned below:
biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

are contravened by Divine command in Acts 11. Paul extends this line of thought further in Romans 14. In general, though, the laws under the Mosaic Covenant that were manifestations of Divine Will specific to the Covenant are discontinued under the New Covenant, even if the substance of the law remains. For example, the condemnation of sexual immorality (of which homosexuality is a small part in terms of total text as well as how often its practiced) remains from the beginning, even though the Mosaic Covenant called for execution while the New Covenant calls for separation from the Church.

As for specific reasons why certain laws aren’t followed, I think there are three overarching themes you can use:

1. Separation as a form of holiness
2. The demand for blood sacrifice is satisfied
3. Scientific reasons for certain laws

We don’t follow the first because the reason for the separation is either no longer evident (the prohibition against eating a calf boiled in its mothers’ milk was a pagan rite that is no longer recognized today - no one thinks eating a cheeseburger is worshipping Ishtar), or because Christ has set us apart by His Sacrifice.

We don’t follow the second because the need for blood is satiated by Christ (Heb 9:14). To be fair, the Jews who still uphold the Mosaic Covenant no longer participate in blood sacrifice as commanded in Leviticus because the Temple is destroyed.

The third reason probably wouldn’t be bad to follow - and where we do it’s probably without realizing it. Laws like this are that new fruit trees should not be harvested for the first three years (ensure viability of food supply), and no sex during menstruation (supposedly there’s evidence that such acts lead to a higher risk of ectopic pregnancy).

But why aren’t we under the Mosaic Covenant? Jesus.

There is much good in the old but there is a fullfillment and advancement in the new.

For instance, concerning the blind in Leviticus, we might refer to the sermon on the mount.

Or the letters of Paul which give us directions about charity towards our fellow man.

The new covers the old and embelishes it because not we have good reason to do them, namely,

seeing Jesus Christ in our neighbor.

Just a thought.

 

[Crumpy]

What is the catholic response as to why many do not follow rules set in the Old Testament about eating shellfish, and other rules, such as those found on this website

biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

As a Catholic myself, I am confident in my beliefs, however I would like to explain some questions about the Bible to others, and these rules seem to make up most of their questions.

Thanks

I skimmed over a part of the page you referenced. It’s true, we ought to be able to give a reason for our beliefs, as St. Peter says.

Let me just add this to the previous responses to your question. The apparent criticisms of the OT laws seem to be superficial and not based on serious reflection. Christian beliefs will be attacked irreligiously, and that’s the problem.

Why shouldn’t the Israelites use anything with a cloth made up of a mixture of cotton and wool (I think it is)? Is this superstitious? Was this some pagan formula that was to be avoided? No, it was that this combination of cloth was used to create the veil from the outer to the inner part of the Holy of Holies. It was considered sacred and was not to be used for ordinary purposes.

Likewise, the formula for incense used in the Tabernacle by the High Priest was not to be used anywhere else.

So, we’re talking religious purposes for these commandments (which is what they are called by the Jews).

The commandment about putting a disobedient son to death? The Jewish scholars analyzed this commandment and came to the conclusion that it could not technically be enforced. OK, that’s odd, in itself. but, aside from that, The purpose of this commandment was for instructional purposes, of how to teach kids how important it was to obey their parents. Likewise the similar command about daughters, and you might even throw in the commandment involving the water test, for wives suspected of adultery.

The latter commandment had the immediate effect of stopping a man from putting his wife to death, for suspected adultery, and submitting her to a religious-based test. And, the obvious intent of this commandment was to teach women to not engage in this kind of conduct. No woman would want the water test.

These serve a high religious purpose of teaching obedience to the commandments of God and the sacredness of life, etc.

Of course, nobody could keep all these commandments, try as they might to avoid breaking them.

Abraham was not justified for any of his works, but for his faith in God. Likewise, it was the faith of the Jews (the remnant who had faith) who were to be saved. this is detailed (and a good commentary on Romans helps a lot) by St. Paul. It is a key Christian teaching of the New Testament.

You should have pity and respect for those that may taunt you with a barrage of questions. Give them a couple explanations like those that I have given here.

All of this is about God and should be discussed with the utmost reverence. It would be good to make that point, too.

 

[Crumpy]

to elaborate a bit:

consider Psalm 1

**Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked, Nor go the way of sinners, nor sit in company with scoffers.

Rather, the law of the LORD is their joy; God’s law they study day and night.

They are like a tree planted near streams of water, that yields its fruit in season; Its leaves never wither; whatever they do prospers**

“Scoffers” has the ordinary meaning, of people who doubt or even worse, people who ridicule the word of God. Atheists are in this group.

If you’re dealing with atheists, your ordinary conversation and explanations may not be enough for them, and they may turn their derision towards you, for your belief. That’s OK, in the larger sense. We should expect this kind of opposition, and it does not surprise us that such people exist and attack our beliefs.

There are so many more things to say here, but I’ll leave it at what I have said in these two posts.