Jesus' commandments - opposed to His Fathers Commandments? - Really?

[bugkiller]

They are not under the condemnation of the LAW - but they are obligated to honor parents, to not take God's name in vain etc.

I simply find it hilarious you post such things as the above contradictory statement.

bugkiller

 

[1stcenturylady]

You are free to "quote you" on that point all day long. We all accept the fact that people have free will.

I don't understand what you are saying with "quote you," but it doesn't matter. Just know that I accept you and your beliefs on the Sabbath, even if you don't accept me believing the way I do, but we should all be fully convinced in our own minds about the Sabbath. If I'm wrong, God will let me know.

 

[Soyeong]

I don't understand what you are saying with "quote you," but it doesn't matter. Just know that I accept you and your beliefs on the Sabbath, even if you don't accept me believing the way I do, but we should all be fully convinced in our own minds about the Sabbath. If I'm wrong, God will let me know.

Paul was not saying that as long as we are convinced in in our minds that it's ok, then we are free to commit murder, theft, adultery, or to disobey any of God's commands. Where God's gives clear word, human opinion must yield, but where God does not give clear word, only then should each be convinced in their own minds.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Paul was not saying that as long as we are convinced in in our minds that it's ok, then we are free to commit murder, theft, adultery, or to disobey any of God's commands. Where God's gives clear word, human opinion must yield, but where God does not give clear word, only then should each be convinced in their own minds.

I was quoting Romans 14, nothing to do with moral laws, but everything to do with keeping one day over another to the Lord, or keeping everyday the same to the Lord. Or being a vegetarian or not. Paul said, everything is lawful, but not everything is helpful. Food for the stomach, the stomach for food. It doesn't matter. But keep yourself from sexual sins.

 

[Soyeong]

I was quoting Romans 14, nothing to do with moral laws, but everything to do with keeping one day over another to the Lord, or keeping everyday the same to the Lord. Or being a vegetarian or not.

As stated in Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is how to handle disputes of opinion, not whether followers of God should follow His commands. We aren't to keep the Sabbath because man esteemed it or because of our opinion, but because God esteemed it, blessed it, made it holy, and commanded His followers to keep it holy. So for example, no one was disputing whether to obey God's command against idolatry, but they did dispute what actions counted as idolatry. For example, ,eat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so someone who was at a community meal who couldn't verify that the meat hadn't been sacrificed to idols might be of the opinion that only vegetables should be eaten. They were judging those who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:2-3).

In Romans 14:5-6, it is talking about those who ate unto the Lord or who abstain from eating, so it talking about fasting. The only day that God commanded fasting was on the Day of Atonement, but as a matter of opinion it had become a common practice to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain events (Luke 18:12). Those who esteemed certain days for fasting were judging those who did and were in turn being resented, so it is this sort of judging people over opinion that Paul was seeking to quell. So whether someone fasts on other days is a disputable matter of opinion, but whether someone fasts on the Day of Atonement or keeps the Sabbath is a matter of obedience to God.

Also, morality is based on what we ought to do, and we ought to obey God, so all of God's Laws are inherently moral laws, and it is always immoral to disobey any of God's commands.

Paul said, everything is lawful, but not everything is helpful.

That was a common saying in Corinth which was the root of the problem that Paul was writing his letter to them to address, so he was quoting it to argue against it, not to endorse it. In the same passage he listed a number of things that would keep someone from entering the Kingdom, so quite clearly he did not think everything was Lawful, and if you still think that he did say that it was, then you should think that he sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 13:4-5 and would have needed to repent. You would then need to decide whether God or Paul had the greater authority and which one to follow.

Food for the stomach, the stomach for food. It doesn't matter

Not according to God. He would not have commanded His people not to eat unclean animals if it didn't matter. According to Leviticus 11:44-45, refraining from eating unclean animals is a way to act according to God's holiness, so to say that it doesn't matter is to say that God's holiness doesn't matter.

But keep yourself from sexual sins.

Indeed.

 

[1stcenturylady]

As stated in Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is how to handle disputes of opinion, not whether followers of God should follow His commands. We aren't to keep the Sabbath because man esteemed it or because of our opinion, but because God esteemed it, blessed it, made it holy, and commanded His followers to keep it holy. So for example, no one was disputing whether to obey God's command against idolatry, but they did dispute what actions counted as idolatry. For example, ,eat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so someone who was at a community meal who couldn't verify that the meat hadn't been sacrificed to idols might be of the opinion that only vegetables should be eaten. They were judging those who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:2-3).

In Romans 14:5-6, it is talking about those who ate unto the Lord or who abstain from eating, so it talking about fasting. The only day that God commanded fasting was on the Day of Atonement, but as a matter of opinion it had become a common practice to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain events (Luke 18:12). Those who esteemed certain days for fasting were judging those who did and were in turn being resented, so it is this sort of judging people over opinion that Paul was seeking to quell. So whether someone fasts on other days is a disputable matter of opinion, but whether someone fasts on the Day of Atonement or keeps the Sabbath is a matter of obedience to God.

Also, morality is based on what we ought to do, and we ought to obey God, so all of God's Laws are inherently moral laws, and it is always immoral to disobey any of God's commands.



That was a common saying in Corinth which was the root of the problem that Paul was writing his letter to them to address, so he was quoting it to argue against it, not to endorse it. In the same passage he listed a number of things that would keep someone from entering the Kingdom, so quite clearly he did not think everything was Lawful, and if you still think that he did say that it was, then you should think that he sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 13:4-5 and would have needed to repent. You would then need to decide whether God or Paul had the greater authority and which one to follow.



Not according to God. He would not have commanded His people not to eat unclean animals if it didn't matter. According to Leviticus 11:44-45, refraining from eating unclean animals is a way to act according to God's holiness, so to say that it doesn't matter is to say that God's holiness doesn't matter.



Indeed.

I've spoken so much on the Sabbath issue, if you don't know where I stand by now, you never will, so I will go on to food.

In the beginning we were all vegetarians, not meat eaters. Clean meats were meant for sacrifices only for sin, not to be eaten.

After the flood, a new allowance was made that EVERYTHING THAT MOVED was good for food, including unclean meats.

After the Jews were chosen unto God, they could not eat any meats that couldn't be also offered unto the Lord as a sacrifice. The unclean meats represented the Gentiles which they were to remain separated from.

When the gospel went to the Gentiles, then God lifted that ban on meats because what God has cleansed, let no man call unclean.

 

[Soyeong]

In the beginning we were all vegetarians, not meat eaters. Clean meats were meant for sacrifices only for sin, not to be eaten.

After the Fall, they were permitted to kill clean animals for offerings and use the skins as hides, so I see no obligation to prohibit them from eating the flesh. Animals did not eat other animals prior to the Fall, but this changed.

After the flood, a new allowance was made that EVERYTHING THAT MOVED was good for food, including unclean meats.

This was not giving anything knew, but was restoring what had been taken away insofar as Noah was temporarily required to eat the same food as the other animals while on the ark for obvious reasons (Genesis 6:21).

After the Jews were chosen unto God, they could not eat any meats that couldn't be also offered unto the Lord as a sacrifice. The unclean meats represented the Gentiles which they were to remain separated from.

Jews were never required to be separated from Gentiles, but rather they were intended to be a light to the Gentiles to teach them how to serve God and walk in His ways (Isaiah 2:2-3).

When the gospel went to the Gentiles, then God lifted that ban on meats because what God has cleansed, let no man call unclean.

In Peter's vision it says that all kinds of animals were let down, so why didn't Peter simply kill and eat one of the clean animals in accordance with God's command? Why did he object to doing what God's Law permitted? The issue was that there was a man-made ritual purity law where something clean that came in contact with something unclean became defiled or common (Mark 7:3-4), so all of the clean animals bundled with the unclean ones had become common. By saying that he had never eating anything common or unclean, Peter was saying that he had never broken that man-made ritual purity law of God's dietary Law, and by refusing to kill and eat a clean animal Peter was disobeying God to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke him for referring to clean animals as unclean, but for referring to clean animals as common, so his vision was not even in regard to the status of unclean animals, but to the incorrect status of clean animals, which he interpreted three times as referring to the incorrect status of Gentiles. With no other vision in the Bible do we reinterpret to mean anything other than its stated meaning. If Peter had tried to do away with God's dietary Laws, then he would have sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and needed to repent, and the people would be quicker to stone him as a false messenger of God according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5 than to accept what he said.

 

[bugkiller]

Paul was not saying that as long as we are convinced in in our minds that it's ok, then we are free to commit murder, theft, adultery, or to disobey any of God's commands. Where God's gives clear word, human opinion must yield, but where God does not give clear word, only then should each be convinced in their own minds.

Is someone here from the pro grace side saying such things as we are free to commit murder? I have not read such a post.

bugkiller

 

[1stcenturylady]

After the Fall, they were permitted to kill clean animals for offerings and use the skins as hides, so I see no obligation to prohibit them from eating the flesh. Animals did not eat other animals prior to the Fall, but this changed.



This was not giving anything knew, but was restoring what had been taken away insofar as Noah was temporarily required to eat the same food as the other animals while on the ark for obvious reasons (Genesis 6:21).



Jews were never required to be separated from Gentiles, but rather they were intended to be a light to the Gentiles to teach them how to serve God and walk in His ways (Isaiah 2:2-3).



In Peter's vision it says that all kinds of animals were let down, so why didn't Peter simply kill and eat one of the clean animals in accordance with God's command? Why did he object to doing what God's Law permitted? The issue was that there was a man-made ritual purity law where something clean that came in contact with something unclean became defiled or common (Mark 7:3-4), so all of the clean animals bundled with the unclean ones had become common. By saying that he had never eating anything common or unclean, Peter was saying that he had never broken that man-made ritual purity law of God's dietary Law, and by refusing to kill and eat a clean animal Peter was disobeying God to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke him for referring to clean animals as unclean, but for referring to clean animals as common, so his vision was not even in regard to the status of unclean animals, but to the incorrect status of clean animals, which he interpreted three times as referring to the incorrect status of Gentiles. With no other vision in the Bible do we reinterpret to mean anything other than its stated meaning. If Peter had tried to do away with God's dietary Laws, then he would have sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and needed to repent, and the people would be quicker to stone him as a false messenger of God according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5 than to accept what he said.

Huh? Nothing you said made any sense.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't understand what you are saying with "quote you,"

It means that your post contains no reference to scripture - so it is just your own words. Fine, you have free will you can say whatever you wish

but it doesn't matter. Just know that I accept you and your beliefs on the Sabbath, even if you don't accept me believing the way I do,

You are free to believe whatever you wish as I state numerous times. What is more you say "I accept your beliefs" does not mean you agree with my beliefs only that you accept the fact that I do believe the Bible as I do and have free will. I keep saying the same.

In this post you make it appear that saying the same thing is saying two different things. Not sure why.

 

[BobRyan]

In Peter's vision it says that all kinds of animals were let down, so why didn't Peter simply kill and eat one of the clean animals in accordance with God's command? Why did he object to doing what God's Law permitted? .

The rats, cats, dogs, bats that Peter saw were "unclean" they were unclean in Genesis 7 and unclean in Lev 11 and unclean in all the bible. Peter was standing on the Word of God and when asked to "explain the vision" Peter said "call NO MAN unclean".

Many have misread that into "Call no BAT or RAT unclean" as if this is why Christ died on the cross. It is an abuse of the Gospel ... not even the Gospel at all.d

But notice this - in walking with Christ for 3.5 years while He was on earth Peter was obviously NOT eating rats or bats cats or dogs. And at the time of Acts 11 that was still the case. In fact it was such a shock to Peter that God would even mention it that he kept "pondering to himself what this should mean" and it is clear that his fellow Christians would probably have been equally mystified. All the Christian church at that time did not know about the good news of eating rats or that this was "the gospel" -- rather another gospel.

The real Gospel was as Peter stated "call no MAN unclean" as the message of the "eat rats and bats" vision.

 

[BobRyan]

I was quoting Romans 14, nothing to do with moral laws, but everything to do with keeping one day over another

One day of the Lev 23 annual holy days approved of in the Bible... but not one day of Gal 4 pagan holy days flatly condemned by Paul.

In the Bible details matter - also in the Protestant reformation

 

[BobRyan]

As stated in Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is how to handle disputes of opinion, not whether followers of God should follow His commands. We aren't to keep the Sabbath because man esteemed it or because of our opinion, but because God esteemed it, blessed it, made it holy, and commanded His followers to keep it holy. So for example, no one was disputing whether to obey God's command against idolatry, but they did dispute what actions counted as idolatry. For example, ,eat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so someone who was at a community meal who couldn't verify that the meat hadn't been sacrificed to idols might be of the opinion that only vegetables should be eaten. They were judging those who ate everything at the meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:2-3).

In Romans 14:5-6, it is talking about those who ate unto the Lord or who abstain from eating, so it talking about fasting. The only day that God commanded fasting was on the Day of Atonement, but as a matter of opinion it had become a common practice to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain events (Luke 18:12). Those who esteemed certain days for fasting were judging those who did and were in turn being resented, so it is this sort of judging people over opinion that Paul was seeking to quell. So whether someone fasts on other days is a disputable matter of opinion, but whether someone fasts on the Day of Atonement or keeps the Sabbath is a matter of obedience to God.

Also, morality is based on what we ought to do, and we ought to obey God, so all of God's Laws are inherently moral laws, and it is always immoral to disobey any of God's commands.



That was a common saying in Corinth which was the root of the problem that Paul was writing his letter to them to address, so he was quoting it to argue against it, not to endorse it. In the same passage he listed a number of things that would keep someone from entering the Kingdom, so quite clearly he did not think everything was Lawful, and if you still think that he did say that it was, then you should think that he sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 13:4-5 and would have needed to repent. You would then need to decide whether God or Paul had the greater authority and which one to follow.



Not according to God. He would not have commanded His people not to eat unclean animals if it didn't matter. According to Leviticus 11:44-45, refraining from eating unclean animals is a way to act according to God's holiness, so to say that it doesn't matter is to say that God's holiness doesn't matter.



Indeed.

Good point -- irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I never said I don't like what Jesus says in John 15.

Where did you come up with that idea?

Bet it is the title of the thread and maybe he read how you handled the verse in another thread.

bugkiller

Nothing in the title of this thread that mentions opposing John 15 -- as we all know.

No sense in debating the obvious part.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nothing in the title of this thread that mentions opposing John 15 -- as we all know.

No sense in debating the obvious part.

I must say that this is one of least clever dodges I have yet seen from you. If John 15 does not address the issue of Jesus' commandments relative to God's commandments (which it definitely does in explicit detail, which undermines your argument completely) then what scripture do you prefer?

Thus, the charge of cherrypicking scriptures to suit your argument now rests firmly on your guilty shoulders.

 

[1stcenturylady]

It means that your post contains no reference to scripture - so it is just your own words. Fine, you have free will you can say whatever you wish



You are free to believe whatever you wish as I state numerous times. What is more you say "I accept your beliefs" does not mean you agree with my beliefs only that you accept the fact that I do believe the Bible as I do and have free will. I keep saying the same.

In this post you make it appear that saying the same thing is saying two different things. Not sure why.

What I mean by "accept" is I don't condemn your beliefs, because you are honoring God in your own way, and He accepts you as His child.

I am honoring God also, but knowing Adventists unless you are different, you condemn my beliefs and believes God does too.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The rats, cats, dogs, bats that Peter saw were "unclean" they were unclean in Genesis 7 and unclean in Lev 11 and unclean in all the bible. Peter was standing on the Word of God and when asked to "explain the vision" Peter said "call NO MAN unclean".

Many have misread that into "Call no BAT or RAT unclean" as if this is why Christ died on the cross. It is an abuse of the Gospel ... not even the Gospel at all.d

But notice this - in walking with Christ for 3.5 years while He was on earth Peter was obviously NOT eating rats or bats cats or dogs. And at the time of Acts 11 that was still the case. In fact it was such a shock to Peter that God would even mention it that he kept "pondering to himself what this should mean" and it is clear that his fellow Christians would probably have been equally mystified. All the Christian church at that time did not know about the good news of eating rats or that this was "the gospel" -- rather another gospel.

The real Gospel was as Peter stated "call no MAN unclean" as the message of the "eat rats and bats" vision.

Why were they unclean to eat? If cooked thoroughly, none could kill you. There was only a continuing distinction for sacrifices to God. But for man, only to the Jews.

Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

1 Timothy 4 "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[Soyeong]

Huh? Nothing you said made any sense.

You made the claim that clean animals were meant for sacrifices only, not to be eaten, but I see no reason to think that if they were permitted to kill animals for sacrifices and for their hides that they weren't also permitted to kill them for food.

In Genesis 9, Noah was already permitted to eat clean animals, so God was not permitting him to do something new, but rather He was removing the temporary restriction in Genesis 6:21 of eating the same food as the other animals. If Noah had been permitted to eat clean animals while on the ark, then they would have gone extinct, and thus defeated the purpose of saving them.

You claimed that God required Jews to be separated from the Gentiles, but this requirement is found nowhere in God's Law, so your claim is false. According to Isaiah 2:2-3, Jews were intended to teach the nations to follow God's Law and to learn to walk in His ways, which could not be done while being separate from them, which is why God needed to do away with the man-made law Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles.

In Peter's vision he object to God's command to kill and eat by saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, and these words have distinct meanings. Jews had man-made laws by which they taught that something that was clean could be made common/defiled/ritually impure, while eating something unclean refers to God's restriction in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 in regard to which things were food. When God told Peter to kill and eat, He was telling him to eat one of the unclean animals, but to eat one of the clean ones. However, according to that man-made law, all of the clean animals there had become common, so he was not permitted to eat them. So the issue in his vision was not in regard to whether Peter could eat unclean animals, but in regard to whether he could eat clean animals. God was doing away with the man-made restriction on eating clean animals just as He was doing away with the man-made restriction of visitation or associating with Gentiles. God did not say to not call something unclean that He had made clean, but not to call something command that he had made clean, so again the issue is whether or not clean animals could become common.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You made the claim that clean animals were meant for sacrifices only, not to be eaten, but I see no reason to think that if they were permitted to kill animals for sacrifices and for their hides that they weren't also permitted to kill them for food.

In Genesis 9, Noah was already permitted to eat clean animals, so God was not permitting him to do something new, but rather He was removing the temporary restriction in Genesis 6:21 of eating the same food as the other animals. If Noah had been permitted to eat clean animals while on the ark, then they would have gone extinct, and thus defeated the purpose of saving them.

You claimed that God required Jews to be separated from the Gentiles, but this requirement is found nowhere in God's Law, so your claim is false. According to Isaiah 2:2-3, Jews were intended to teach the nations to follow God's Law and to learn to walk in His ways, which could not be done while being separate from them, which is why God needed to do away with the man-made law Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles.

In Peter's vision he object to God's command to kill and eat by saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, and these words have distinct meanings. Jews had man-made laws by which they taught that something that was clean could be made common/defiled/ritually impure, while eating something unclean refers to God's restriction in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 in regard to which things were food. When God told Peter to kill and eat, He was telling him to eat one of the unclean animals, but to eat one of the clean ones. However, according to that man-made law, all of the clean animals there had become common, so he was not permitted to eat them. So the issue in his vision was not in regard to whether Peter could eat unclean animals, but in regard to whether he could eat clean animals. God was doing away with the man-made restriction on eating clean animals just as He was doing away with the man-made restriction of visitation or associating with Gentiles. God did not say to not call something unclean that He had made clean, but not to call something command that he had made clean, so again the issue is whether or not clean animals could become common.

That is human reasoning, but it is NOT written until Genesis 9.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You made the claim that clean animals were meant for sacrifices only, not to be eaten, but I see no reason to think that if they were permitted to kill animals for sacrifices and for their hides that they weren't also permitted to kill them for food.

In Genesis 9, Noah was already permitted to eat clean animals, so God was not permitting him to do something new, but rather He was removing the temporary restriction in Genesis 6:21 of eating the same food as the other animals. If Noah had been permitted to eat clean animals while on the ark, then they would have gone extinct, and thus defeated the purpose of saving them.

You claimed that God required Jews to be separated from the Gentiles, but this requirement is found nowhere in God's Law, so your claim is false. According to Isaiah 2:2-3, Jews were intended to teach the nations to follow God's Law and to learn to walk in His ways, which could not be done while being separate from them, which is why God needed to do away with the man-made law Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles.

In Peter's vision he object to God's command to kill and eat by saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, and these words have distinct meanings. Jews had man-made laws by which they taught that something that was clean could be made common/defiled/ritually impure, while eating something unclean refers to God's restriction in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 in regard to which things were food. When God told Peter to kill and eat, He was telling him to eat one of the unclean animals, but to eat one of the clean ones. However, according to that man-made law, all of the clean animals there had become common, so he was not permitted to eat them. So the issue in his vision was not in regard to whether Peter could eat unclean animals, but in regard to whether he could eat clean animals. God was doing away with the man-made restriction on eating clean animals just as He was doing away with the man-made restriction of visitation or associating with Gentiles. God did not say to not call something unclean that He had made clean, but not to call something command that he had made clean, so again the issue is whether or not clean animals could become common.

Again, your reasoning is your own is your assumption that the unclean animals were actually clean, and not clearly what was written. I find it interesting you don't care what God means.