Is it Biblical to separate the moral law from the other parts of the Law?

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Dear ToBeLoved:

I would like "to be loved", too.
By what you say, you really are not making me feel loved.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying and accusing me of things that are not true and that are just plain silly. You are also not saying anything that makes any logical sense, too. I looked at your one post and I just stopped. I am not interested in reading anymore of your posts if you are looking to be an accuser of the brethren and if you are not looking to have any rational conversation with Scripture.

Believe whatever you want to believe.
Just leave me out of your conversations please.

Moving on now.
Please have a good day.
And may God bless you.


...
It's not that I don't love you, it is that you are not rightly dividing God's Word.

It's not personal Jason, but a lot of people come here to learn about the topic and if anything I notice is not correct Biblically, I correct it.

I've spent most of my life studying it in a Bible church, so it's not like i am clueless, I am very well versed, particularly in the New Testament.

I think the Bible is God-breathed and of the greatest importance especially in this day when sermons don't intricately even address God's Word anymore. And people need it. IMHO.

You are loved :groupray:
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
To Be Loved:

Thank you for the kind words now.
But I just would prefer not conversing with you because you seek to make it personal sometimes instead of just sticking with Scripture in a kind and loving and respectful way.

I think it is best we personally take a break in not conversing until you decide to keep strictly professional with God's Word alone. No personal jabs or back handed insults, etc. Truth is determined by God's Word alone. I come here to talk about the Bible and not to be insulted.


...
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
To Be Loved:

Thank you for the kind words now.
But I just would prefer not conversing with you because you seek to make it personal sometimes instead of just sticking with Scripture in a kind and loving and respectful way.

I think it is best we personally take a break in not conversing until you decide to keep strictly professional with God's Word alone. No personal jabs or back handed insults, etc. Truth is determined by God's Word alone. I come here to talk about the Bible and not to be insulted.


...
Just clarifying my position. I know no one like's to be corrected, so learn from it.

I admit sometimes I get carried away and I am in menopause so I get cranky. :help: :tutu:. I edited my posts and apologize.

I do discuss the Bible though so if that is your highest intent, than our conversations are at the highest level good for us and the others who read them. I think it is God's will.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If, as you say, Jesus can abrogate (annul) anything He chooses, then He can annul or cancel the threat or sentence of everlasting punishment. Assuming what you've said is Scriptural, then you have Scriptural backing for a hope that all will be saved.
Then even those who believe in everlasting punishment can hope for universal salvation, just like the Catholic church does. Because, according to you, God can abrogate anything He chooses. That includes everlasting punishment.
So do you have hope that all will be saved? If not, why not?
What I do or do not hope for is irrelevant. Let us go back to my questions which have never been addressed. One should not insist that I answer questions while mine are being ignored.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why does God appear to have three distinct categories of laws within the Commands of the New Testament?

Here are three reasons.

#1. Moral Law teaches people to be convicted as sinners so as to recognize the need for a Savior and as God's people the Moral Law helps them to recognize what things pleases the Father. Moral Law helps us to recognize that God is love and God is good beyond the mere printed words that state such truths within His Word.

#2. Civil Law helps us to recognize that laws help keep order within a society. If there were no Civil Laws, there would be chaos and no peace and harmony.

#3. Ceremonial Law is about partaking in a religious ceremony that helps to focus our minds on the Lord who is our Savior. All of the Ceremonial Laws of the OT pointed us to Christ. Even ceremonial based commands like baptism and the keeping of the Lord's supper is a way of focusing our minds on God or Christ in appreciation of Him.



...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

the old scribe

old scribe
Supporter
May 13, 2017
212
136
80
Arlington, TX
✟89,899.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why does God appear to have three distinct categories of laws within the Commands of the New Testament?

Here are three reasons.

#1. Moral Law teaches people to be convicted as sinners so as to recognize the need for a Savior and as God's people the Moral Law helps them to recognize what things pleases the Father. Moral Law helps us to recognize that God is love and God is good beyond the mere printed words that state such truths within His Word.

#2. Civil Law helps us to recognize that laws help keep order within a society. If there were no Civil Laws, there would be chaos and no peace and harmony.

#3. Ceremonial Law is about partaking in a religious ceremony that helps to focus our minds on the Lord who is our Savior. All of the Ceremonial Laws of the OT pointed us to Christ. Even ceremonial based commands like baptism and the keeping of the Lord's supper is a way of focusing our minds on God or Christ in appreciation of Him.



...

The agenda for dividing the Sinaitic law seems to be to support either some of the law as obsolete or as some of the law remaining enforce.
You have listed a three part division.
Sacrificial – passed away
Ceremonial – passed away
Moral – still in effect

Four categorizes for the Law:
Ceremonial/Sacrificial
Civil and Political
Social
Moral

Six categorizes for the Law:
Tabernacle related law including Sacrificial, Ceremonial, and Worship
Sacrificial law for Passover
Ceremonial law and Worship apart from the Tabernacle
Civil and Political law
Social law
Moral law

Some claim that scripture is clear that the Law is to be kept in its entirety - all the Law.
All the Law in scripture is to be kept – not certain parts or categories. If this is accurate we are all doomed unless we reconstruct the Temple in Jerusalem before we die. But then they add, since you cannot keep all the law believers are not bound to any of the Sinaitic law.

I have seen lists of 1,050 New Testament commandments and another of over 2,300. (Note: 2300 is my mistake - and error - thanks to Jason0047)
I guess I best throw in the towel since I am guilty of more than I keep whether it is the 613 OT commandments or those of the NT.

As I awake from my dream I hear the shout of "Good News!"
"What?" is my exclamation. "What is the Good News?"

But I awake too quickly to hear the answer, but now I am awake . . . . only to read on this forum that there is no "Good News." I must get to stacking stone and erecting an altar and buying animals before I die so that I might become perfect.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I might be convinced if you were to quote the scriptures you made reference to and show how they say that gentiles are the house of Israel.

Actually, I have been told this subject is against forum rules. So, you are welcome to write me. You can read the first few paragraphs of this, I end-noted it well enough that you get a decent explanation and references. As for "gentiles," I will say this, and please read through before passing judgment.

When ethnos and goyim were first translated into English, they were done so as nations and gentiles. They are still translated that way BUT, the definition of the word gentile is not the same today as it was when we first began to use it in our translations.

According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary, a gentile was a pagan, a heathen, anyone who wasn't a Christian or a Jew. But when you look up the word today, it means "any believer in Jesus who isn't Jewish." We have gone, essentially, from a pagan or heathen to any non-Jewish Christian. Where once a "gentile-Christian" would have been an oxymoron, it is now a badge of honor that changes the context of the words we read.

I don't have any issue with the word... most of the context loss would be remedied if we simply translated ethnos and goyim in most places as nations and that would allow us to make better connections to the prophesies that stand before us.

And in the end, there is "no" covenant made with gentiles anyway. Oh we have the nations part of the God's plan, but not in the manner we understand covenant. The new covenant is made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel... which is not "the House of the Jews and the House of the Jews." There is no mention of gentiles there, there is no 13th gate with "gentiles" written over it, it is Judah and Israel and their companions only. If you can't see yourself as "part of" Israel or Judah... then you will have a really hard time, Scripturally speaking, proving you are anywhere else BECAUSE... the new covenant is made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel... ONLY.


Where are the dietary laws said to be everlasting? If Jesus is God, as I believe He is, then God can abrogate anything He chooses.

An aspect of this discussion we can't have. You are a dispensationalist who sees not only time but the Law broken into easy to digest parts whereas God simply gave it all and did not divide it using terms like "moral" and "ceremonial." If you want to be intellectually fair, and if you want Scripture to be the final authority, then use the terms and phrases God used and not those that man added as he was trying to figure God out. "Moral Law" appears where? "Ceremonial Law" appears where? Please, give me the verses or stop using the phrases.

As for diet, God said a catfish was not food. Are you suggesting He changed His mind? If you say no then you should refrain from catfish... if you say yes, He changed His mind... then I must ask what assurance you really have that Yeshua will remain the only "door" we can walk through? You'll say something about ME now, but the truth is, if you were to honestly meditate on what you stated... if God can abrogate anything He chooses then He can abrogate Yeshua's work and decide to use plan C...... God help us all!


You have been very badly misinformed the words καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα/"cleansing all the foods" are in all the manuscripts. The false claim that the words were interpolated later has been foisted upon us by false teachers pushing their agenda and many people believe it without checking for themselves.

Yes yes... false teachers. It is interesting that Tyndale, the KJV, NKJV, Young's Literal, Wycliff, and more do not have "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean." ("Iesous" isn't in that verse) This is a phrase found ONLY IN modern PARAPHRASED bible versions. What we have is, "purging all food" or even if you prefer "cleansing all food" but this isn't dealing with what is clean and unclean.... this is dealing with pooping.

Mark 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" (20) And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man.

This isn't a declaration of a change in anything... what comes out of a man has ALWAYS been what makes him unclean (see Leviticus 13, all). Puss, sperm, blood... things that "come out of a man" are that which makes him unclean. Look at the verses:

Mark 7:18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him,

If I ate that catfish, it doesn't defile me because, as verse 19 states, I eliminate it, purge it... poop it out. That is all these verses are saying.

And by the way, it might help you to know that being "unclean" and "sin" are not equal. Yeshua was BORN unclean... yes... his body touched the same fluids (including blood) that made Mary unclean. Not a big deal... it isn't sin... there is a prescribed time and action that makes one clean.


Mar 7:18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, Peter evidently understood the vision meant if God made all foods clean, as the vision clearly stated three times, that certainly extended to making all gentiles clean, as well. Peter never once said that the vision was not about food. Also Paul certainly understood that the dietary laws, if not abrogated, did not extend to gentile Christians as shown in all the scriptures I quoted which have been conveniently ignored.

If Peter understood that verse to mean "food" then he openly stood defiantly against God by telling Him "No!" essentially to His face three times! Besides... he has the vision then there is the three men to take him to Cornelius, a non-Jew that Peter knew was not unclean. (THREE TIMES God said "eat," and then 3 Greeks show up) And "unclean" was how the Jews in that day viewed the Greeks and why God had to deal with this. But still... this is fairly simple...

Acts 10:19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you. (20) Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."

Peter wasn't sure what the vision was about until God sent him the three men. And then, when confronted by others Jews later.....

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

When did God show Peter that he should not call any MAN common or unclean? In the vision, of course.

The unnecessary vulgar phrase was "it is sin to eat a bottom dwelling poop eater."

Vulgar? That is what a catfish does... that is what God designed it to do... clean up the junk. So, if you have a problem with me pointing that out, your problem isn't with me, it is with God.
.....While the vision clearly said "all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air" had been cleansed three times that does not rob people of common sense.

Again, believe whatever you want. We have many examples of visions and dreams in Scripture and God uses literal UNRELATED symbols to make points. The symbols are not what the dream or vision is about... they are merely symbols that are pointing to another thing. The Pharaoh saw 7 healthy cows and 7 sicks cows. The sick cows eating the healthy cows had NOTHING TO DO WITH COWS. :) The way you are acting, any farmer with a sick cow better not put his healthy cow in there too or it will be eaten. I don't deny that the symbols God used to teach Peter that MEN who come to God in faith are not to be called unclean. What I do deny is your interpretation... Peter HIMSELF told us that God used the vision to teach him about MEN... and you are insisting on a secondary meaning that isn't supported by anything in Scripture... only by your interpretation. Neither Peter nor anyone else in Scripture said this vision was about food. Only dispensational Christianity views it this way.

I really do scratch my head on this one. Peter sees the vision, three men are right there... men Peter was raised to call unclean. He goes with them as encouraged by the Spirit and when he comes back and is asked, he says that God "showed him" (IN THE VISION) not to call men unclean. No mention of a change to dietary laws, only MEN.

.....I'm not trying to convince you of anything, shortly after I joined this forum more than 15 years ago I came to the conclusion that the hard core defenders of heterodox beliefs are almost impossible to reach. My purpose is to expose the fallacies in their arguments lest they mislead the unwary, new to the faith, etc.

Expose away. :) Peace to you and yours.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
And in the end, there is "no" covenant made with gentiles anyway. Oh we have the nations part of the God's plan, but not in the manner we understand covenant. The new covenant is made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel... which is not "the House of the Jews and the House of the Jews." There is no mention of gentiles there, there is no 13th gate with "gentiles" written over it, it is Judah and Israel and their companions only.
I disagree with this. Christ and the Bible certainly show that 1) Salvation was opened up to all people under the New Covenant 2) That the New Covenant is bringing together two sheep pens under Christ to be one 3) That the New Covenant is also for Israel and Israel is always first, but saying it is not for gentiles or that gentiles then fall under a classification of Israel, I think is incorrect.

The Bible has already clarified these issues, IMHO
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I disagree with this. Christ and the Bible certainly show that 1) Salvation was opened up to all people under the New Covenant 2) That the New Covenant is bringing together two sheep pens under Christ to be one 3) That the New Covenant is also for Israel and Israel is always first, but saying it is not for gentiles or that gentiles then fall under a classification of Israel, I think is incorrect.

The Bible has already clarified these issues, IMHO
I didn't say salvation wasn't open to the nations, I said the covenant is not made with gentiles. Go to Jeremiah 31:31-34 or Hebrews 8:8-11 and find the word gentile. You can't, it isn't in there... only Judah and Israel and therefore, you disagreeing isn't with me on this one... it is with the text.

But just remember what Paul said about those who come in faith to Messiah.... you WERE gentiles, you WERE aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel, you are NOW fellow citizens. You're not a gentile anymore, you WERE but you are not NOW.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Dkh587
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why does God appear to have three distinct categories of laws within the Commands of the New Testament?

Here are three reasons.

#1. Moral Law teaches people to be convicted as sinners so as to recognize the need for a Savior and as God's people the Moral Law helps them to recognize what things pleases the Father. Moral Law helps us to recognize that God is love and God is good beyond the mere printed words that state such truths within His Word.

#2. Civil Law helps us to recognize that laws help keep order within a society. If there were no Civil Laws, there would be chaos and no peace and harmony.

#3. Ceremonial Law is about partaking in a religious ceremony that helps to focus our minds on the Lord who is our Savior. All of the Ceremonial Laws of the OT pointed us to Christ. Even ceremonial based commands like baptism and the keeping of the Lord's supper is a way of focusing our minds on God or Christ in appreciation of Him.



...
Jason... the basic do's and don'ts were understood before Sinai. I have an article I wrote years ago called, "The law before Sinai." I show common commandments but also some obscure ones that we wouldn't think would have been known before Sinai... but they clearly were. So then, Israel gets to Sinai, God writes them down (ultimately through Moses) and He ADDS the ability to prosecute and the judgement. This was so Israel could act as a nation but the do's and don'ts weren't changed.... they became the civil law of that nation. So a man who lays with a man as he would a woman isn't just some "moral law," it was also a civil law if you want to use that term... but it is the same "don't" in this case. The only things added were the ability to prosecute and penalties.... the commandments didn't change.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I read a short article that made some good points in regards to the three fold nature of the Law. I am hoping this book does so, as well. If it does not, I will let you know. I am not one to believe just anything if there is no biblical support for it. As for people believing wrong things about Jesus: Well, I believe people are motivated by their own sins or personal life to think wrong things about Him.

I think your issue here is that if the Bible does not specifically talk about such a thing, then it cannot be true. Well, something is true regardless if the Bible talks about a particular thing or not. Grass is green regardless if the Bible talks about it or not. The point I am getting at is that I can identify certain truths within God's Word whether the Bible labels them in such a way is not all that important. Truth is still truth.



The Bible does not talk about cars, but we know cars exist.
Nowhere does the Bible say it is wrong to study the different aspects of truth within God's Laws.

You may not realize this or not, but I believe all of God's laws are moral laws at their core. Any Law of God is something that guides us into God's will and good ways. But to ignore that certain laws express an additional truth is to simply ignore truth for no good reason. I know Sabbath keeping and baptism are primarily ceremonial laws. Yes, at the heart they are moral laws because they are commands that come from God. They are things that God wants us to do. But to ignore that they are ceremonial when in fact they are ceremonial is to put on horse blinders for no good reason. I can recognize a truth and it is not wrong to do that.



Actually, the whole of the commands in Old Covenant does not apply to you. For even the moral laws (like do not commit adultery, etc.) were attached with death penalties if you disobeyed them. This is not the case under the New Testament or the New Covenant.



Again, while all laws or commands from God are moral at their core, the primary action of the command determines what kind of Law or Command it is. So any laws or commands that specifically involve you in partaking of some kind of ceremony or ritual is a ceremonial law.



No. Tithing is simply about giving. Giving so as to help others is a love issue or a moral issue. Tithing (Which is an OT command that is no longer valid anymore) would fall under the moral laws section. For it would fall under loving the brethren because tithing went to Levites back in the Old Testament. Tithes went to Levities so they can dedicate their lives completely to God in helping others to make sacrifices for God and to help others worship God. You are helping the worship of God and His people by tithing if you were an OT saint back in the day. But after Christ's death, there is no more tithing laws anymore because there is no more Levitical priesthood. Jesus is our heavenly high priest now.

The New Testament Law on giving is the following command.

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7).



Well, I care what people believe because proper belief and or faith determines a person's good standing with God or not. It begins with a broken heart and a proper understanding of God's Word (Which leads to proper and righteous action).



Not at all. I believe the Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12). I believe believers primarily look to the commands in New Covenant to obey God and they do not look to the Old Covenant to obey Him. For the Old Covenant commands are obsolete (as a whole). They are no more. We are under a New Covenant with New Commands.

Oh, and yes; I believe not keeping certain laws under the New Covenant is a salvation issue. For example: Jesus says if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven (Matthew 6:15). John says if anyone hates their brother they are like a murderer and no eternal life abides within a murderer (1 John 3:15).



I roll my eyes whenever somebody says that all we need to do is obey the 10 Commandments. For one, there are 613 commands in the Old Testament. Two, the Old Covenant as a whole or package is no longer binding to believers. Yes, many of the moral laws have appeared to have been carried on over into the New Covenant. I believe Paul speaks of this when He says that we fulfill the righteous aspect or part of the Old Law by loving others and by walking after the Spirit. This would be the moral laws from the Old Covenant. Moral laws are any laws that a person would instinctively know to do that is good and right without a specific command telling them to do that. It's love, my friend; And it doesn't get any better than that.



I believe only 9 out of the 10 Commandments apply to believers today; And even then, these moral laws are not attached with capital punishment if you were to disobey them. Believers today are not set out to hand out death sentences to other believers if they disobey certain laws of God anymore. The Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12).



It is super obvious that God's laws have changed. Believers do not sacrifice animals in a temple anymore. Such laws are no longer valid because Jesus is our Heavenly High Priest and Passover Lamb. Peter was told to eat unclean animals (Which is a violation of OT Law). Paul says if any man seek to be circumcised, Christ shall profit them nothing. So yeah. Going back to the Old Law is not good. We are New Covenant believers and not Old Covenant believers. This does not mean we ignore the Old Testament. The OT helps to point us to Christ and there are many truths within the OT that lines up with the NT.



I agree that if we truly love God, we will keep His commandments. But this would be the commandments in the New Testament and not the Old Testament now.



I see works as evidence or proof that God or Christ lives within a person. I see God or Christ as the source of a person's salvation. If they are not abiding in God or Christ, they have no salvation or life. A believer surrenders to God and the good works of the Lord flows through them. If a believer does evil and says they know God, they are a liar and the truth (Christ) is not in them (1 John 2:4).

James says faith without works is a dead kind of faith (James 2:17).
A dead faith cannot access the free gift of God's saving grace.


...

I will come back to this. I have a very full day. Blessings.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
....and another of over 2,300.

I would very much like to see this list of 2,300 Commands for the New Testament. I could not find such a list with a standard Google search. Can you provide me with such a list? I would really appreciate it so very much if are able to do so, my friend.

Anyways, may God's love shine upon you.
And please be well.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

~ Jason.


...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Jason... the basic do's and don'ts were understood before Sinai. I have an article I wrote years ago called, "The law before Sinai." I show common commandments but also some obscure ones that we wouldn't think would have been known before Sinai... but they clearly were. So then, Israel gets to Sinai, God writes them down (ultimately through Moses) and He ADDS the ability to prosecute and the judgement. This was so Israel could act as a nation but the do's and don'ts weren't changed.... they became the civil law of that nation. So a man who lays with a man as he would a woman isn't just some "moral law," it was also a civil law if you want to use that term... but it is the same "don't" in this case. The only things added were the ability to prosecute and penalties.... the commandments didn't change.

Paul says if you seek to be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Peter was told to eat unclean animals (Which is a violation of OT Law).
The Laws on animal sacrifices and the priesthood are no more because the temple veil was torn from top to bottom at Christ's death.
Jesus says to no longer render an eye for an eye but to turn the other cheek instead.
Paul agrees with this. He says do not render evil for evil.
2 Corinthians 9:7 says that we are to give what we have purposed to give out of heart to give.
So the 10% tithe is no longer binding. 2 Corinthians 9:7 conflicts with that older command on giving.
Paul says we are not to judge according to Sabbath keeping or holy days.
Yet, in the OT, a man was stoned for not keeping the Sabbath.
Clearly there is a change in the Law.
In fact, Hebrews 7:12 says there is a change in the Law.


...
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I will come back to this. I have a very full day. Blessings.

May God's blessings be unto you, as well.
And may His peace be upon you, too.


...
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Ken Rank
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Anyways, getting back to discussing the heart of the thread.

Paul never told us to keep an Old Testament type Command that was ceremonial like circumcision, or the Sabbath, or to sacrifice animals, etc.

However, Paul did stress the importance of keeping the righteous aspect or part of the Old Law by loving one's neighbor, though (Which fulfills such Moral Laws as "Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not covet, etc.").


...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I didn't say salvation wasn't open to the nations, I said the covenant is not made with gentiles. Go to Jeremiah 31:31-34 or Hebrews 8:8-11 and find the word gentile. You can't, it isn't in there... only Judah and Israel and therefore, you disagreeing isn't with me on this one... it is with the text.

But just remember what Paul said about those who come in faith to Messiah.... you WERE gentiles, you WERE aliens of the Commonwealth of Israel, you are NOW fellow citizens. You're not a gentile anymore, you WERE but you are not NOW.
The New Covenant is not a nation covenant or a people covenant, it is between each person and God, so I'm not sure how you could say this.

Jesus did come only for the Jews in His lifetime, but that time has passed. Jesus died.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Anyways, getting back to discussing the heart of the thread.

Paul never told us to keep an Old Testament type Command that was ceremonial like circumcision, or the Sabbath, or to sacrifice animals, etc.

However, Paul did stress the importance of keeping the righteous aspect or part of the Old Law by loving one's neighbor, though (Which fulfills such Moral Laws as "Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not covet, etc.").


...

Paul was usually addressing Gentiles.

Jews, like himself, continued to keep the commandments God gave to Israel.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Paul was usually addressing Gentiles.

Jews, like himself, continued to keep the commandments God gave to Israel.

Paul said if you seek to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing (Galatians 5:2).
Why would Paul teach something that is contrary to what he himself did?
It doesn't add up.
If keeping circumcision was necessary (even for the Jews), then Paul would say that circumcision was not for them but only for the Jews. But Paul never says anything like this.
Also, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.
We learn that the temple veil was torn from top to bottom at Christ's death letting us know that the Laws on animal sacrifices and the laws on the priesthood were no more.
This is letting us know that the Old Covenant was now no longer in effect.
Peter (who was a Jew) was told in a vision to eat unclean animals (Which is a violation of OT Law).


...
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually, I have been told this subject is against forum rules. So, you are welcome to write me. You can read the first few paragraphs of this, I end-noted it well enough that you get a decent explanation and references. As for "gentiles," I will say this, and please read through before passing judgment.
If you knew or thought that this subject was against forum rules why did you try to sneak it into the thread?
When ethnos and goyim were first translated into English, they were done so as nations and gentiles. They are still translated that way BUT, the definition of the word gentile is not the same today as it was when we first began to use it in our translations.
According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary, a gentile was a pagan, a heathen, anyone who wasn't a Christian or a Jew. But when you look up the word today, it means "any believer in Jesus who isn't Jewish." We have gone, essentially, from a pagan or heathen to any non-Jewish Christian. Where once a "gentile-Christian" would have been an oxymoron, it is now a badge of honor that changes the context of the words we read.
I don't have any issue with the word... most of the context loss would be remedied if we simply translated ethnos and goyim in most places as nations and that would allow us to make better connections to the prophesies that stand before us.
And in the end, there is "no" covenant made with gentiles anyway. Oh we have the nations part of the God's plan, but not in the manner we understand covenant. The new covenant is made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel... which is not "the House of the Jews and the House of the Jews." There is no mention of gentiles there, there is no 13th gate with "gentiles" written over it, it is Judah and Israel and their companions only. If you can't see yourself as "part of" Israel or Judah... then you will have a really hard time, Scripturally speaking, proving you are anywhere else BECAUSE... the new covenant is made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel... ONLY.
All this verbosity and it does not answer my question. And to me it appears to be irrelevant to anything.
An aspect of this discussion we can't have. You are a dispensationalist who sees not only time but the Law broken into easy to digest parts whereas God simply gave it all and did not divide it using terms like "moral" and "ceremonial." If you want to be intellectually fair, and if you want Scripture to be the final authority, then use the terms and phrases God used and not those that man added as he was trying to figure God out. "Moral Law" appears where? "Ceremonial Law" appears where? Please, give me the verses or stop using the phrases.
More irrelevant verbosity which does not answer my question. I did not use the terms "Moral law""Ceremonial law."
As for diet, God said a catfish was not food. Are you suggesting He changed His mind? If you say no then you should refrain from catfish... if you say yes, He changed His mind... then I must ask what assurance you really have that Yeshua will remain the only "door" we can walk through? You'll say something about ME now, but the truth is, if you were to honestly meditate on what you stated... if God can abrogate anything He chooses then He can abrogate Yeshua's work and decide to use plan C...... God help us all!
Are you saying that God cannot abrogate anything He has said? Have you read Moses discussion with God about the fate of Israel after they rebelled? Concocting ridiculous jejune arguments about Jesus' work does not prove or disprove anything
Yes yes... false teachers. It is interesting that Tyndale, the KJV, NKJV, Young's Literal, Wycliff, and more do not have "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean." ("Iesous" isn't in that verse) This is a phrase found ONLY IN modern PARAPHRASED bible versions. What we have is, "purging all food" or even if you prefer "cleansing all food" but this isn't dealing with what is clean and unclean.... this is dealing with pooping.
Mark 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" (20) And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man.
This isn't a declaration of a change in anything... Look at the verses:
Mark 7:18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also?
Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him,
I don't care about what versions you can find which you think support your assumptions/presuppositions. I remind you I quoted from the original Greek. I corrected your misunderstanding which you refuse to acknowledge . The words καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα/katharizo panta ta bromata, "cleansing all the foods" occurs in all, 100%, of the existing Greek manuscripts It was not interpolated as you keep insisting. Three words have been added for clarity in some versions. The primary meaning of καθαριζον/katharizon is cleanse. It occurs 29 times in the NT and is translated cleanse 26 times.
If I ate that catfish, it doesn't defile me because, as verse 19 states, I eliminate it, purge it... poop it out. That is all these verses are saying.
Nonsequitur. Please explain to me how having a bowel movement cleanses anything? As you are trying to explain this vs. as the catfish, or whatever, is unclean when it is eaten, it remains unclean as it is digested, etc. and only becomes clean when it is eliminated from the body? As you said "what comes out of a man has ALWAYS been what makes him unclean (see Leviticus 13, all). Puss, sperm, blood... things that "come out of a man" are that which makes him unclean." Thus the catfish or whatever, is still unclean as it comes out of the body in the end.
If we eliminate catfish from the discussion and assume that when Mark said "all foods" he really meant "all clean foods." why would clean foods have to be "cleansed?"

NET Mark 7:19
(19) For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer."22 (This means all foods are clean.)23
NIV Mark 7:19
(19) For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
Origen Commentary on Matthew Book XI
ANF10. Bibliographic Synopsis; General Index - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
12.
And He called to Him the multitude and said unto them, Hear and understand, etc. We are clearly taught in these words by the Saviour that, when we read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy the precepts about meat clean and unclean, for the transgression of which we are accused by the material Jews and by the Ebionites who differ little from them, we are not to think that the scope of the Scripture is found in any superficial understanding of them. For if not that which enters into the mouth defiles the man, but that which proceeds out of the mouth, and especially when, according to Mark, the Saviour said these things making all meats clean, manifestly we are not defiled when we eat those things which the Jews who desire to be in bondage to the letter of the law declare to be unclean
If Peter understood that verse to mean "food" then he openly stood defiantly against God by telling Him "No!" essentially to His face three times! Besides... he has the vision then there is the three men to take him to Cornelius, a non-Jew that Peter knew was not unclean. (THREE TIMES God said "eat," and then 3 Greeks show up) And "unclean" was how the Jews in that day viewed the Greeks and why God had to deal with this. But still... this is fairly simple...
Acts 10:19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you. (20) Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."
Peter wasn't sure what the vision was about until God sent him the three men. And then, when confronted by others Jews later.....
Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
When did God show Peter that he should not call any MAN common or unclean? In the vision, of course.
"If Peter understood that verse to mean "food" then he openly stood defiantly against God by telling Him "No!" essentially to His face three times!" This is not that difficult to understand. That is exactly what Peter did, three times, he said "Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean!"[NET] During the vision Peter certainly understood the voice from heaven, whom he addressed as κυριε/kurie i.e. Lord, to be speaking about food.
Vulgar? That is what a catfish does... that is what God designed it to do... clean up the junk. So, if you have a problem with me pointing that out, your problem isn't with me, it is with God.
Saying what you did is not necessary here.
Again, believe whatever you want. We have many examples of visions and dreams in Scripture and God uses literal UNRELATED symbols to make points. The symbols are not what the dream or vision is about... they are merely symbols that are pointing to another thing. The Pharaoh saw 7 healthy cows and 7 sicks cows. The sick cows eating the healthy cows had NOTHING TO DO WITH COWS. :) The way you are acting, any farmer with a sick cow better not put his healthy cow in there too or it will be eaten. I don't deny that the symbols God used to teach Peter that MEN who come to God in faith are not to be called unclean. What I do deny is your interpretation... Peter HIMSELF told us that God used the vision to teach him about MEN... and you are insisting on a secondary meaning that isn't supported by anything in Scripture... only by your interpretation. Neither Peter nor anyone else in Scripture said this vision was about food. Only dispensational Christianity views it this way.
There you go with that "dispensational" nonsense again. I quoted something from the ECF written long before any "dispensational" hoo-hah. "a secondary meaning that isn't supported by anything in Scripture." More nonsense. My interpretation is most certainly supported by scripture read the verses for yourself.

NET Acts 10:11-14
(11) He saw heaven opened and an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down to earth by its four corners.
(12) In it were all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and wild birds.
(13) Then a voice said to him, "Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!"
(14) But Peter said, "Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean!"
Are these verses scripture or not? There is an old maxim for interpreting scripture "If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." What did the plain sense interpretation of Peter's vision mean to formerly pagan gentile Christians who heard or read Acts?
.....Harking back to your counter example. Lean cows devouring fat cows is not something that occurs naturally in nature therefore it has a symbolic meaning which Joseph revealed to Pharaoh.
.....People eating all kinds of four-footed animals, etc. is something that does occur naturally in nature. Peter understood meaning of the vision was God had called all the four-footed animals etc. clean and Peter extended that to include gentiles.
I really do scratch my head on this one. Peter sees the vision, three men are right there... men Peter was raised to call unclean. He goes with them as encouraged by the Spirit and when he comes back and is asked, he says that God "showed him" (IN THE VISION) not to call men unclean. No mention of a change to dietary laws, only MEN.
Expose away. :) Peace to you and yours.

Already addressed above. Don't know if you noticed but I already did expose.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Paul said if you seek to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing (Galatians 5:2).
Why would Paul teach something that is contrary to what he himself did?
It doesn't add up.

I believe Paul was addressing Gentiles who were considering conversion to Judaism as a way of obtaining salvation. This idea appears in Act 15:1.

If keeping circumcision was necessary (even for the Jews), then Paul would say that circumcision was not for them but only for the Jews. But Paul never says anything like this.

If the subject is salvation, that would make sense.

Also, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

The context there is a change in the priesthood, referring to Jesus becoming High Priest in the heavenly temple.

We learn that the temple veil was torn from top to bottom at Christ's death letting us know that the Laws on animal sacrifices and the laws on the priesthood were no more.

Curiously, this was the exact moment that Jesus died. The veil is symbolic of his body. Hebrews 9 makes it clear that Jesus' entering into the Holy of Holies was to secure our eternal redemption. This was NEVER the purpose of the earthly Temple and priesthood.
This is letting us know that the Old Covenant was now no longer in effect.

Yet Paul and the other apostles continued to participate in the Temple rituals and sacrifices after Jesus' death.

Peter (who was a Jew) was told in a vision to eat unclean animals (Which is a violation of OT Law).

No. Peter himself explained that the vision was a metaphor, not to be read literally, when at the end of chapter 10 he says 'God has show me not to call any MAN common or unclean.' No reference to food here.
 
Upvote 0