HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations


Most Christians claim that they donít have to keep the Law that God gave Moses in the Old Testament of the Bible.
This book commands murder and genocide and killing heretics and those who donít belong to the ďtrue faithĒ for God commanded it and God must be obeyed for God is never wrong. The Bible is more explicit and clear on this being Godís will than the Koran. The fact that some Christians assume these teachings are the Old Law the Jewish Law and Jesus has given us a new law means nothing for the new law doesnít forbid these murders. Also Judaism which is the religion of the Old Law is the one true faith. All Christians believe that except they add their own faith is the fulfilment of Judaism, the completion of the true religion. There are two true religions and you have to belong to the most up to date one which is Christianity. Logically if you canít get people converted to Christianity you have to advise them to go to Judaism instead. This means that the Christians are claiming that the true faith has the right to kill and stir up religious wars if God commands it for they and Judaism are the one religion except that Christians are up to date. They are taking responsibility for those murders. It also means that Christians if they should give any religion freedom should give it to Judaism and insist that Judaism has its legal rights to stone homosexuals and adulterers and so on. Christianity is a murderous religion in a real sense. One of its principal doctrines is the doctrine of St Paul that if you get circumcised you are bound to keep the entire Law of Moses so its valid today. Itís still in force. Paul declared that it is because the Law is right and valid that we need Jesus to save us from its condemnation. Most Christians hold that though we are condemned for breaking the Law and it is valid we are not bound to keep it for Jesus did a lot of the keeping for us. That means then that in principle Christians are not opposed to fanaticism. They are only opposed to it when they think Jesus took care of that obligation for us. Religion like that is dangerous and it is trying to push people towards the borders of religious lunacy. It is particularly dangerous for the impressionable. It desensitises those who are against fanaticism.

In the first five books of the Old Testament we find out what the Jews and Jesus called the Law or Torah. Traditionally, written by Moses, it is the central part of the Old Testament.

The law is supposed that there are three kinds of laws in this series. There were the ethical laws, dealing with what was right and wrong. The civil law or the political laws. And then there were the ceremonial laws, the laws that laid down the liturgical rules, the rules about how God should be worshipped. But there are no distinctions made between the three groups of laws in the Bible in the sense that there are three separate laws. They all compose one law Ė they are one law. And people like Seventh-day Adventists who say there are two, moral and ceremonial, are making a division that does not exist. When Jesus said that the whole law is about loving God and others it follows that there was only one law. It was all a moral law. 2 Chronicles 31:3 calls the Torah the Law not laws. The Ten Commandments are all recognised as the moral law yet they contain the liturgical law of the Sabbath. There is no room for anybody who tries to make out that there were two laws, the law of God and the Law of Moses, either. Some tend to say that Paulís God only did away with the ceremonial law. Romans 7 has Paul saying, in the person of God, that we are dead to the law of Moses including its rules forbidding coveting and lust. And they always take expressions about being dead to the law to mean the ceremony law is done away and isnít a law anymore and they wish to hold that we must still avoid sins like coveting and lust!

The Law of Moses never says that the laws commanding that we kill homosexuals and adulterers and witches are civil laws so they are moral laws meaning we must always keep them.

In Galatians 4, Paul spells out the differences between the covenant of Sinai and the one Jesus brought. Paul would have said here what law he meant if there were a ceremonial law and a moral one as Adventists imagine. Paul contrasts the old covenant with its bondage with the new one of freedom in Christ. He never says that the bondage was one of rules but was one of rules that man was unable to keep but now we are free in the Holy Spirit to obey God and enjoy it.

The Law of Moses is the most exciting section in the Bible at least for those who like to be shocked. It is enough to make Christians and Jews curse their religion if they have humanity in them. It is every bit as blood curdling as a depiction of what is allegedly advocated by the Devil and his servants would be.

The Law advocates the execution by stoning of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), insubordinate sons (Deuteronomy 21), apostates (Deuteronomy 13) and kidnappers (Exodus 21:16) as well as murderers (Exodus (21:12). A priestís daughter who fornicates Ė fornication is two unmarried people having sex - is to be burned to death (Leviticus 21:9). If a man lay with his bride and found that she was not a virgin he was permitted to have her battered to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). All these commands are claimed to have come down from God, the great tyrant in the sky. Over and over the Law claims to quote God as he delivered these laws. It often says God forbade anyone to interfere with the actual text inferring that it was exactly what he wanted. The Law puts a malediction on anyone who does not carry out all its precepts (Deuteronomy 28:58,59). God predicts that if Israel departs from the Law he will do all sorts of horrible things to it.

On a more pleasant note, the Law tells Godís people to forgive one another and be neighbourly. This is spoilt when it commands them to love God with all their energy inferring that people must only be dealt with as God wants for his sake and nobody elseís. Some would say the cruel laws should be interpreted in the light of the nice bits. They would say that if a homosexual is sorry for his sin that God wants the punishment revoked. But they would all say that to avoid the death penalty so what would be the point of making the penalty?

The Law promised to give people freedom from error and ignorance. Because it boasted of its infallibility it had to be a means of forcing people to be free. That is what laws are for: freedom. There is no liberty when people do exactly what they wish. Imagine what life would be like if they do.

The Law says that boys must be circumcised, animals be sacrificed, a special tabernacle for the holiest rites is to be set up, priests are to be ordained and it lays down that certain foods and people and things can make you physically dirty in the sight of God. For example, if you touched a chair that a menstruating woman sat on you were considered dirty or unclean. Lepers, meaning anybody with any kind of skin trouble, had to be shunned for God said they were not clean.

Jesus adored the Law. He spoke of Moses as being an inspired prophet of God, a man who God spoke to the people through. He claimed to be the Prophet Moses predicted in Deuteronomy 18 so he believed in its authority and divine origin and it said that Godís prophets are protected against erring when God speaks through them. Moses was totally infallible where Jesus was concerned. We are told that Jesus abolished the Law but we will learn that he did not. He was indeed another Moses as portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew.

Jesus came to teach people how to use the Law (page 8, Not Under Law).

Jesus staked all his authority on the Jewish Bible which included the Law of Moses. He said it was a preparation for him and predicted him. It was his CV. From this it follows that the Old Testament is superior to the New. For Jesus to abolish any part of it would be like burning the information necessary for a major deal just before the deal would be finalised.

When the Old Testament says that we must follow God and not man it is indicating that if you use your head you will see that a true prophet really is speaking for God so that when you follow that prophet you are not following just a man but a man who is in touch with God. If a prophet gives out strange or dangerous commands from God then to follow him is to follow a man and not God. The Old Testament is stating then that any reasonable person would agree that the law of the land should make provisions for adulterers and homosexuals and idolatrous apostates to be stoned to death. This is why people saying the civil law that God gave is not as unchangeable as the moral law is incomprehensible to me. Itís wishful thinking. When the Old Testament God indicates that his law is sensible and gives no reasons for his murderous laws it is clear that he feels that anybody that disagrees with them is stupid and therefore opposing morality. If Jesus changed any of his regulations then Jesus was undoubtedly a false prophet.

The Old Testament predicts that the Law will never be done away.
The Bible does not support the idea that Jesus hated murder and the murderous laws of the Old Testament.

Daniel 7:25 condemns alteration of the law of Moses by a future anti-god monarch which is taken to refer to the antichrist who is yet to come.

After the absorption of Judaism into the Messiahís cult, the world will be asked to kill anyone who contradicts his word (Zechariah 12:10-13:3). The Law of Moses commanded the same thing so this implies that the morals of the Law will still be binding. The end of Judaism is indeed possible for it is just a small religion. We should be worried if the prediction will come to pass because it will have to be before Judaism dies.

So, the prophets foreknew that the Christ will someday lead his servants in murdering apostates and carrying out the capital laws of God to precision. If you Christians believe in the Bible you must be ready to build a religious machine that will destroy all who disagree with your religion. You have to have it set up for Jesus threatened to come back any moment.

In the Book of Malachi, God says that the people must remember to keep the Law that he gave Moses on Horeb and then that he would send Elijah before the end of the world to turn the hearts of the children to the fathers and the hearts of the fathers to the children (3). This is evidently a way of saying that Elijah would turn the children back to the ways of the fathers who kept the Law. Jesus said that Elijah represented John the Baptist so if he did then neither Jesus or John altered or abrogated the Law.

God promised that he would bring the children of Israel back to their land and make saints of them if they love him right in Deuteronomy 30. It stresses that they must obey the Law God set before them that day and that time. Verse 8 asks that all the commandments they got in Mosesí day be observed. The Bible says that Israel will be scattered for being disobedient and will be restored in their land if they are good. Incidentally, teachings such that as this accuse many Jews of being totally sinful when they are not all back in their land. They breed anti-Semitism. The promise applies also to modern Jews who obey God. They will be back in their land and be safe forever if they obey the Mosiac Law of God. The promise in Deuteronomy 30 is conditional on their obedience to the law. It is not conditional on the Law being abolished. The thought is very very far from it.

Obadiah recites an oracle that has not been fulfilled yet for it predicts the destruction of the nations apart from a righteous portion of Israel. The way it promises that a part of Israel will be saved and the Temple Mount, Zion, will be dedicated to him implies that the people of the Law will get his special attention because of the Law for God wants to be served. Why else would Israel have been singled out? The Temple represented and expressed and was run by the Law so when the Temple is going to be restored the Law is going to be restored.

The prevalent attitude that Christians have towards the Torah is that it is old hat for God has dropped it. They imagine that Christ and the apostles did away with it.

Since the Law and the Prophets were used by Christ to verify his own claims it follows that the New Testament has importance only because of the Old. The Old Testament is the bedrock of Christianity. It is more important than the New in the sense the New has no authority without it. Salvation was still possible under the Old so no one can say the New was better on that score. When the Old Testament is that important there is no way God could abolish anything in it. Jesus said that people like him coming back from the dead was not as important or convincing as the Law and the Prophets (Luke 16:31).

One will scan the Torah in vain for anything that says it is just a temporary collection of precepts. Not even the rest of the Old Testament even hints that the Torah is not eternal. A temporary Law that does not say that it is temporary has no value because anybody claiming to be a prophet could change it. The silence of the Law about its alleged transience indicates that it claims to as permanent as the Lord God himself.

Jesus said that the divorce law was temporary because it did not fit Genesis which said that marriage could not be broken but that is only his interpretation of what may be a contradiction. But one can argue that when the Torah allows divorce it does not say this is the dissolution of a marriage for it never allows remarriage.

God said that when anyone kills another by mistake he must flee to the City of Refuge and if he is found outside it by the avenger he is to be killed by him (Numbers 35). The important line is, ďAnd these things shall be for a statute and ordinance to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.Ē It is an everlasting law. By implication so are the others. The covenant God made with Israel demanded that they keep the Law for it was the words of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:69) and God said that this compact was as much between the descendants of Israel as it was between the Israelites alive then (Deuteronomy 29:13,14). He gave no intimation that the Law would cease to be binding on any future generation so the law of God could not be abolished. It is written that what is to be in this future and what is revealed in the Law of Moses is given to the descendants of Israel forever that they may keep ALL the words of the Law which is described as this Law lest there should be any doubt (Deuteronomy 29:28).

God would be a liar for saying that the Law is to be obeyed by the people and their descendants when he only meant that it must be kept by the people and some of their descendants. Anybody talking that way means all the descendants.

The fact that some ethical laws were added to the Law or exceptions made to its commands after being promulgated does not mean that God can create a new law that does not agree with the one he made first. Laws have to take account of changed circumstances and exceptions do not contradict the rule but show that it is true. A law can be ignored when there is no need for it anymore but that is not the same thing as scrapping it.

Deuteronomy 29:29 says, ďThe secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but the things which are revealed belong to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.Ē The secret things are neither the events of the future or even the more probable additions to be made to the Law. It is not likely that such a silly meaning like, ďthe future concerns our descendants foreverĒ, would have been intended. So, it is saying that the Law concerns Israel and its children forever. Forever is literal for there are no clues that Israel thought then that the world would never end.

Christians try to persuade us that the Law here is merely the Ten Commandments. Not true. The context is about the whole Law not just them. The Torah never calls them the Law but calls all it commands the Law.

The Christians and the Jews hold that the Psalms are divinely inspired books, that is, scripture. Jesus knew them well and he called the Old Testament including them scripture.
Psalm 119 praises the Torah and prays to be able to live it better. If the author had believed that its authority would pass away when the Saviour comes he would have prayed for its abolition in its lifetime. It would be a sin to want the Law if the saviour wanted to do away with it. If God inspired the psalm then he denied that he ever intended to change or abolish the Law.

The Psalm says that the word of God, the Torah, will never pass away (119:89). It says that through all generations it is true (v90). And Christendom dares to say that it is no longer true that we have to keep the Sabbath or stone adulterers to death.

Verse 152, ďOf old have I known Your Testimonies, and for a long time, [therefore it is a thoroughly established conviction] that you have founded them forever.Ē The testimonies are Godís declaration that his laws are truth which we read about in the previous verse.

Verse 160 says, ďEvery one of your righteous decrees endures foreverĒ.

The Book of Ezekiel promises that in our future that God will enable his people to obey his statutes which include the sacrifices of the Law so we know what statutes are meant (20). Ezekiel 36 says that God in our future will sprinkle clean water on the people to cleanse them from ritual impurity. Christianity says it is a symbol but that is because they are prejudiced. It need not be. It could be literal therefore it should be taken literally. Ezekiel 40 on says that the Law will be in force and proved by God later on so it opposes the doctrine that it will be done away. It says that there will be a Temple, priests, animal sacrifices and Sabbaths.

The Book of Baruch which Catholicism added to the Bible says that the Law of Moses is wise and will be in force forever and that God will turn on those who donít respect it (4:1).
Anybody who says that God meant the Law to do for a while is a heretic and a false prophet.

Ezekiel 40-48 gives us the clearest proofs that the Law will be maintained by divine decree even in our future. It says that the Law will always be compulsory down to the finest detail.
God promised to deliver Israel from all its sins to make them obey all his rules under the new David, the Christ (Ezekiel 37:24). When Israel is expected to butcher apostates and adulterers and many other kinds of sinners in those says it is not just those who have descended from Israel who are meant for prophecy says that the Israel of the future will include Gentiles - with Israelite blood in them somewhere Ė too.

Concerning the priests, ďAnd in a controversy they shall act as judges, and they shall judge according to My judgmentsĒ (Ezekiel 44:24). These judgments are the penalties laid out in the Torah for there is no hint of an altered Law in Ezekiel. The New American Bible translates the verse better as referring to laws of capital punishment.

In Ezekiel, God seems to change a rule he made in the Torah. The Torah says a priest cannot marry a widow but must only take virgins (Leviticus 21:7). Ezekiel says a priest is allowed to marry a priestís widow (Ezekiel 44:22). Since Ezekiel wants all the commandments of the Law to be carried out it is obvious that that he made a mistake for he overlooked what the Law said. It is not grounds for insisting that Ezekiel did not consider the Law to be unalterable. Was Ezekiel making an exception to the Torahís rule? The Torah forbade that when it forbade any alteration of the text so he was not. An exception would not prove the rule in this case for if it did Ezekiel would have been saying that a priest can only marry a priestís widow for a grave and unavoidable reason. Exceptions only prove the rule when the rule is superseded by a more important rule making the exception necessary. Some would reply that maybe Ezekiel knew we had the sense to know that it would not be allowed but for a serious reason. Another possibility is that when the widow was married to a priest she is not defiled so another priest could take her. The rule about priests having to take virgins is about priests not defiling themselves with ordinary women so priests marrying other priestís widows would be okay with it. In that case, Ezekiel was clarifying not adding.

The book describes a Temple that has not been built yet. Some Christians say that the Temple is symbolic and a real structure is not meant. There is no evidence for that. They call something symbolic when it contradicts their presuppositions to get around it. It is not right to take something as a symbol without proof. The Fundamentalist apologetic, Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, states that Ezekiel 40-44 will be literally fulfilled (page 280). They are right that it claims to be a literal prophecy.

It says that animal sacrifice will take place (40:41,42). God commands these sacrifice according to v43. Cereal offerings and sin offerings will be performed as instructed by the Law of Moses (42:13).

In Ezekiel 44:7 God complains that the Gentiles who were never circumcised were admitted into his Temple but that will not happen in the New Temple (v5). God bemoans their not being circumcised in heart and flesh implying it would not be as bad if they were - implying that even Gentiles must be circumcised.

The purity laws must be kept Ė including the one commanding priests to stay away from dead bodies even from their dead parents (44:25).

God commands that the festivals and Sabbaths must be kept (45:17). Chapter 47 describes the world being a paradise and God spells out the way he wants the land distributed to the tribes of Israel (47,48). In chapter 10, God will be visible from the Temple. This great miracle will ensure that the people will be ideal servants forever.

The additions to the writings of Isaiah (i.e. 40-66) are supposed to support the indifferent attitude of the Church to the Law of Moses.

In Isaiah 56, dishonouring the Sabbath seems to be understood as sinning on it.  But the Bible stresses that we sin must of the time so sinning must mean working on the Sabbath and not praying enough on it. Then foreigners and eunuchs will be welcomed into the Lordís congregation though barred by the Law. Does this tell us that the Law or part of it will be a thing of the past then? The Law permitted foreigners to join his people only when they had been insulated against pagan influence for all non-Jews were pagans. So, the eunuchs are the only real problem. But God promises that they will not be dry trees so he is promising that the eunuchs that join will be admitted because they have been miraculously cured of their infertile state. He is not reneging on what he commanded in the Law. He says he wants them to keep his Sabbaths meaning the feasts for Sabbath means rest and all the feasts were Sabbaths. He says he will have a house or Temple and sacrifices will be offered. As the miraculous restoration of the eunuchís testicles has not happened yet, the prophet is telling us that the Law must still be in force. Nobody can plot the predictions before the time of Jesus.

Isaiah 66 says that God will have priests and Levites and the scattered children of Israel will return for every nation, all flesh, will adore him from Sabbath to Sabbath and the dead who will all be sinners and godless people will be hated by all on earth. All that is still to come. This was to take place after God terrified the entire world (ďall fleshĒ) with fire (66:15-17).

Jesus prized the Book of Isaiah and loved to read it. Accordingly, he would not have dreamt of abolishing the Law.


The sect that reads the Bible the most, the Christadelphians, which is intellectual in tone, teaches that the Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt and priests and sacrifice restored. With their obsession with prophecy it is plain that their stance on this issue has more weight than the Christian who questions it.

The Book of Zechariah predicts that when God finally takes over the world that sacrifice and the feast of Booths which entailed a lot of spilling of animal blood (Leviticus 23) will still be carried out (Zechariah 14). Ezekiel 40 onwards speaks of a new Temple in which there will be priests and where the rites of the Torah, the Law, will be observed including blood sacrifice and circumcision. Only God could restore the Zadokite priesthood it speaks of so God approves of all this. It is absurd to say that these portions of Ezekiel are symbolic for they contain no indication of that. Orthodox Christians are only trying to justify their hatred of its teaching. The prophets never say that the law of animal sacrifice will be abolished.
It could be argued that since there are no priests that Christians have to follow the Old Testament liturgy for sacrifice as far as they can and offer the sacrifices themselves. The Torah has people who did that before God ordained priests to do it.

If Malachi 1:11 refers to an acceptable sacrifice that will be offered by the nations in messianic times as most claim then it means animal sacrifice offered by them as a whole. Catholics take it as a prophecy of the sacrifice of the Mass which is the same sacrifice as that of Jesus. But the Mass is contrary to the Bible. And Malachi says the sacrifice will be brought to God. Nobody can bring the sacrifice of Calvary to God for it cannot be repeated in time and space as Catholics themselves admit.

Malachi 3 contains a prophecy about the messenger of the covenant coming before the Lord comes to the Temple. Jesus taught that it was about John the Baptist. But the coming is has in mind is the coming of this personage to judge the world and it says that it will be almost unbearable. Johnís coming was not like that. We are told that the messenger will purify the priests so that the sacrifice of Jerusalem and Judah will please God like it used to do. The prophecy certainly speaks of what will happen in the era after Jesus if it is from God. It says that sacrifice is not to be stopped.

In Malachi 3:6-12 God tells us first that he is the Lord and the Ruler and he changes not so he means he does not change his laws. Then he complains about his laws not being kept and he says Israel has robbed him by not paying tithes and animals for sacrifice into his storehouse. He makes threats if this is not done. It could not be plainer that this prophet was trying to make loads of money. The prophet admitted that Israel was appallingly disloyal to God and the priesthood was as bad so how it have been entitled to these goods?
Afterwards God addresses the few just people in Israel and he tells them they shall see who is righteous and who is not and that fire from Heaven will burn the wicked. In other words, those who do not adhere to the Law as they know it will burn. The Law is to last forever.

Christians argue lamely from silence that storehouse tithing is not for Christians though the New Testament never addresses the issue and could not have practiced it itself and it is argued that none was commanded by the Law either which is supposed to show that the rule was only temporary (Storehouse Tithing, Does the Bible Teach it?). But the Law did not envisage storehouse tithing in a literal storehouse but the tithes and animals had to be kept in some kind of outfit so in principle it did agree with it.

A book that Catholics have added to the Bible, Sirach, says that the promise of God to give the priesthood to the Levites will last forever (45:15). Some say that the verse means that the promise was only everlasting to the Levites who lived then and not to all who descended from them. Now, what use is priesthood to dead people? Later on their interpretation is done away for we read that the high priesthood belongs to Phinehas and to his descendants for all time and then that the priesthood of Aaron belongs to all who have him for a forefather. If the priesthood is perpetual then sacrifice is still meant to continue.

Catholics treat animal sacrifices as something vile and satanic little knowing that they are supposed to offer it. Bible experts among them know the real truth.
The Christian doctrine that the Law of Moses as given by God to Moses in the first five books of the Bible is now abrogated and replaced is false. The Church had so little faith in God in Jesus in the early days that it abandoned Godís teaching to make the movement of converts into the Church far smoother.

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
Christ and Violence, Ronald J Sider, Herald Press, Scottdale, Ontario, 1979
Christís Literal Reign on Earth From Davidís Throne at Jerusalem, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
Early Christian Writings, Editor Maxwell Staniforth, Penguin, London, 1988
Essentials, David L Edwards and John Stott, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1990
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke-Heinmann, Penguin Books, London, 1991
Godís Festivals and Holy Days, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1992
Hard Sayings Derek Kidner InterVarsity Press, London, 1972
Jesus the Only Saviour, Tony and Patricia Higton, Monarch, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, 1993
Kennedyís Murder, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1964
Martin Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1999
Moral Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
Not Under Law, Brian Edwards, Day One Publications, Bromley, Ken, 1994
Radio Replies Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
Sabbath Keeping, Johnie Edwards, Guardian of Truth Publications, Kentucky
Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
Set My Exiles Free, John Power, Logos Books, MH Gill & Son Ltd, Dublin, 1967
Storehouse Tithing, Does the Bible Teach it? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1954
Sunday or Sabbath? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1943
The Christian and War, JB Norris, The Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1985
The Christian and War, Robert Moyer, Sword of the Lord Murfreesboro Tennessee 1946
The Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
The Enigma of Evil, John Wenham, Eagle, Guildford, Surrey, 1994
The Gospel and Strife, A. D. Norris, The Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1987
The Jesus Event, Martine Tripole SJ, Alba House, New York, 1980
The Kingdom of God on Earth, Stanley Owen, Christadelphian Publishing Office, Birmingham
The Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press, London, 1993
The Plain Truth about Easter, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1957
The Sabbath, Peter Watkins, Christadelphian Bible Mission, Birmingham
The Ten Commandments, Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1972
The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Brooklyn, New York, 1968
The World Ahead, November December 1998, Vol 6, Issue 6
Theodore Parkerís Discourses, Theodore Parker, Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, London, 1876
Those Incredible Christians, Hugh Schonfield, Hutchinson, London, 1968
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books, London, 1995
War and Pacifism, Margaret Cooling, Scripture Union, London, 1988
War and the Gospel, Jean Lasserre, Herald Press, Ontario, 1962
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1992
Which Day is the Christian Sabbath? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, California, 1976

The Law of Moses: Is It Valid Today?

The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ by Arnold Fruchtenbaum

Is Old Testament Law for New Testament Christians
This Christian site accepts that the New Testament did not run the Law of Moses out of town but accepted it. It argues that Matthew 5 has Jesus stating that he has no intention of doing away with the Law of Moses and what he does with it is he gives out a stricter interpretation of it. But strangely it argues then that Jesus did discontinue some parts of the Law. 1 Samuel 15:22,23/Isaiah 1:11-17/Jeremiah 7:21-23/Proverbs 21:3/Matthew 9:13/23:23 are said to make no sense unless the law can be given three distinctions which are Moral, Ceremonial and Civil. Not once however in these verses does God even hint that the Moral laws and the Civil laws and the Ceremonial laws are to be treated as three units. What they are is three different kinds of law in one law based on love. The first two cannot be changed because of the link with morality but the latter can if it is only temporary and states that clearly. You canít change what love is. The law plainly commands and practices hatred so God is assuming that we need to hate in order to love properly so that is how a law of love can encourage and foster hatred.
Christians, assuming that they are to have any distinctions at all, are to have just Moral and Ceremonial law. The Christians make the distinctions for they hold that the moral law of God is unchangeable while the civil and ceremonial law of God is changeable. But when there is no evidence that moral and civil are not the same they can only hope for the abolition of the Ceremonial law. They simply have to hold that it is right to slay homosexuals and other sinners Moses wanted dead in the name of God.
A case for holding that Paul believed that the law that could not save was a legalistic interpretation of the Law and not the law itself as it actually was is dismissed. Paul never hinted that he meant only the interpretation of the law was dangerous for salvation not the Law itself. Paulís word for the Law backs this dismissal up.
Then the site suggests the correctness of the shocking statement of the theologian Geisler that all Godís laws must be in accord with Godís nature but need not be necessitated by that nature and so they can be changed. In other words, God can forbid you to pay taxes to the temple so that the poor may be given the money and then he could change that law. But that does not explain how he could command the stoning of certain sinners. Any law he makes, changeable or unchangeable is designed to bring about the best. So if the Israelites were better rid of these sinners so were we. If the temple can do without money it can at other times so the law would have to be reinstated. There is a sense then in which all his laws are permanent. They are permanent but if other permanent laws become more important than them they are just put to the background and not done away until they can be put back to the foreground again. Not one of the laws in the Torah are claimed to be changeable or even look like that kind of law. They are all different from the one about paying money to charity instead of the temple. God in the Law said you could murder a burglar who breaks into your house at night with impunity. Now is that a law that isnít necessitated by Godís nature? It does no good at all. It clearly indicates that God does not accept the view that he has any laws that his nature does not require him to make but which he makes anyway. It is unnecessary and it is against the nature of a good God. Geisler is wrong.
The Law claims to be right. In other words, we are meant to see that it is right even if we donít believe in God. God told the Hebrews that other nations would consider them to be the wisest nation on earth because of their Law (Deuteronomy 4:6,8).
At least Geisler would admit that stoning people to death is not necessarily incompatible with God. He would say that if God doesnít allow it now, he still wants us to have the mindset that we would do it if he asked. We want to do it but it is because he asks us not to that we donít. The fanaticism is still there.