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

[bugkiller]

Under the New Covenant the "LAW of God is written on the heart" Jer 31:31-33
1 John 5:2-3 we "show" that we LOVE God when we keep His Commandments "for this IS the LOVE of God - that we KEEP His Commandments"

If you believe Paul, then all things are not lawful as he himself condemns a whole list of things in 1 Cor 6 saying
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards..

Let's believe Paul's writing.

The list in 1 Cor 6 does not mention taking God's name in vain - but we know that too is sin - for 'sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 even in the New Testament. So as John said "Sin NOT" 1 John 2:1. We show that we Love God when we keep God's Commandments for as 1 John 5:2-3 says "this IS the Love of God - that we KEEP His Commandments"

Paul reminds us of the TEN Commandments in Eph 6:2 -- telling us that in that still-valid still-applicable "unit of ten" the FIFTH commandment is the FIRST in that list "with a promise".



Indeed. God's word condemns the eating of diseased animals and also condemns eating rats in Lev 11.

The New Covenant (Jer 31:31-33) does not direct the saints down the road of rebellion against the Word of God -- and I think we both agree on that obvious Bible detail.

You use Paul as a quote source only in that you only want to believe select passages while denying others like several "not under the law" passages. You use Paul against himself. He can not be saying yes and no to the same issue of keeping the law.

bugkiller

 

[1stcenturylady]

No one in America is eating food offered to idols. It is not offered in our grocery stores.

Your comment about Jer 31 can only be true if v 32 is deleted from the sentence.

bugkiller

Good point, buggy

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob.

Yes Bob, but what kind of law is Leviticus 11, ceremonial or moral?

As I said before - no such thing as "ceremony of not eating diseased meat" - I think we all agree to that.

Hello Bob.
You said the law was divided into moral law and ceremonial law,

Actually those confessions of faith talk about moral law, civil law, ceremonial law etc.

And so did the Baptist Confession of Faith admit to that obvious detail.
And so did the Westminster Confession of Faith admit to that obvious detail.
And so does 1 Cor 7:19 point to the distinction between "ceremonial" and "Commandments of God".

So then both sides see the point clearly -- it just does not get "any easier" than that!

so into which category does Leviticus 11 belong?

As stated above in the obvious answer - there is "no such thing as the ceremony of not eating diseased meat" -- and we both know.

Just stating the obvious -- again.

You seem to be avoiding the obvious David.

Hello Bob.
Yes Bob, but what kind of law is Leviticus 11, ceremonial or moral?

Hello Bob.
Thus Leviticus 11 is a moral law according to you.
I would call Leviticus 11 a health law.

Is that your answer to your own question "what kind of law is Leviticus 11, ceremonial or moral?
"
1 John 3:3 "Sin IS transgression of the Law" - I think we both agree to that.

 

[1stcenturylady]

As I said before - no such thing as "ceremony of not eating diseased meat" - I think we all agree to that.



Actually those confessions of faith talk about moral law, civil law, ceremonial law etc.

And so did the Baptist Confession of Faith admit to that obvious detail.
And so did the Westminster Confession of Faith admit to that obvious detail.
And so does 1 Cor 7:19 point to the distinction between "ceremonial" and "Commandments of God".

So then both sides see the point clearly -- it just does not get "any easier" than that!




As stated above in the obvious answer - there is "no such thing as the ceremony of not eating diseased meat" -- and we both know.

Just stating the obvious -- again.

You seem to be avoiding the obvious David.





Is that your answer to your own question "what kind of law is Leviticus 11, ceremonial or moral?
"
1 John 3:3 "Sin IS transgression of the Law" - I think we both agree to that.

Sin is transgression of the moral law, right. But as far as food, God doesn't want us to call unclean what He, Himself, has cleansed. Going against that commandment of God is sin. We must not fight against God, and call what He has done, meaningless, and especially try to convince others to sin with you.

 

[BobRyan]

Sin is transgression of the moral law, right. But as far as food, God doesn't want us to call unclean what He, Himself, has cleansed.

As far as mankind "call no man unclean" as Peter said - but nothing about "call no diseased meat unclean" and nothing about "call no rat sandwich unclean" -- that Gospel has nothing at all to do with such a thing.

Just stating the obvious.

Another "obvious" detail is that the Jews had gentiles in their synagogues every Sabbath as we see in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18 - so reporting to Jewish Christians "call no man unclean" would have been rather tame compared to your suggestion of calling no rat-sandwich or diseased-meat unclean. Such an announcement would have been a major bombshell for the first century church -- Peter never claims such a thing.

Obviously.

You can claim whatever you wish - I will stick with the Bible on this one.

 

[1stcenturylady]

As far as mankind "call no man unclean" as Peter said - but nothing about "call no diseased meat unclean" and nothing about "call no rat sandwich unclean" -- that Gospel has nothing at all to do with such a thing.

Just stating the obvious.

Another "obvious" detail is that the Jews had gentiles in their synagogues every Sabbath as we see in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18 - so reporting to Jewish Christians "call no man unclean" would have been rather tame compared to your suggestion of calling no rat-sandwich or diseased-meat unclean. Such an announcement would have been a major bombshell for the first century church -- Peter never claims such a thing.

Obviously.

You can claim whatever you wish - I will stick with the Bible on this one.

It was a New Covenant Commandment to not call anything unclean that God has cleansed. God was first calling the unclean animals, clean, with the additional ramification that the Gentiles may receive the gospel as well as the House of Israel. It is the same pattern as in the OT - BOTH.

In other words, eating pork is no longer against the law and a sin to eat, touch or handle. It is merely food for the stomach, and the stomach and food will all be destroyed and is no longer a issue.

Of course, if you still think it is sin, then it IS a sin, but only on you.

I just want to know. How can you not see the same pattern as in the Old Covenant? They are identical. If God was only dealing with cleansing the Gentile people in Acts 10 as you claim, and not cleansing unclean food, then you could also ignore the food law in the OT if they are not linked. But if God meant the food laws applied in the OT, then you have to obey His Word on His cleansing unclean meat in the NT. To do otherwise is hypocritical.

Old Covenant
1. Leviticus 11 clean and unclean animals described

2. Leviticus 20:24-26 separation from Gentiles "I am the Lord your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25 You shall therefore distinguish between clean animals and unclean, between unclean birds and clean, and you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird, or by any kind of living thing that creeps on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. 26 And you shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be Mine.

New Covenant

1. Acts 10:15 Unclean animals cleansed. "15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

2. Acts 10:28 Gentiles cleansed. "Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

And Christians have a bonus that counters the poisons found in diseased meat.

Mark 16:16-18 Here is 18: "they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Under the law, you have to will yourself to do every step. Under the NT grace, we are freed from the law, and trust God by faith. He then gives us the Holy Spirit to sear the moral laws on our hearts in order to love our neighbor as ourselves. Our main duty is to believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, our God.

Bob, I really hope you grasp what I'm saying, because it is straight from the Bible, the difference being it is far better than the OT, it is our freedom in Christ. If you could get to heaven by being justified by your following the law, why did Christ even have to die? No! Walk in the Spirit and you will not be under the law.

I'm not saying for you to do anything you don't feel comfortable with in regard to keeping your body healthy, even though God says He is going to destroy it and give you a better body. But, PLEASE take heed and don't pronounce something to be sin that God plainly says is not. Obey God and don't be stiff-necked. See the light in grace. Many things changed after Christ started His Church. No more circumcision, no food laws, no days that are shadows of Christ to observe, and best of all no more sacrifices. Yuck!

 

[BobRyan]

It was a New Covenant Commandment to not call anything unclean that God has cleansed.

True and Peter said this is specifically speaking about Gentiles - gentile evangelism.

Has nothing to do with eating gentiles, or eating diseased meat or eating rats according to Peter.

I really hope you grasp what I'm saying, because it is straight from the Bible, right from Peter's own interpretation of the vision he was shown.

 

[1stcenturylady]

True and Peter said this is specifically speaking about Gentiles - gentile evangelism.

Has nothing to do with eating gentiles, or eating diseased meat or eating rats according to Peter.

I really hope you grasp what I'm saying, because it is straight from the Bible, right from Peter's own interpretation of the vision he was shown.

Don't you grasp that the eating of unclean mean in the OT was directly correlated to the separation from Gentiles? So, if the OT was connected, why can't you see that the same goes for the connection in the New Testament. Where is your fear of the Lord if you are going to deliberately call Him a liar! He said to "Kill and eat" when all that was in the sheet were unclean animals, and you say He didn't. Peter got the double meaning, that God not only makes the meats clean, but all Gentiles too, what about that is so hard to understand? Or do you hold Ellen G. White in higher esteem than God's spoken Word?

It is not that the law was in any way bad. It isn't. And Adventists are right when it comes to health, but not what grace is all about. If we are not under the law, then as Paul said, all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. Eating meat today is not helpful. A raw vegetarian died is best. And lawlessness is when you hate your brother because it goes completely against loving your neighbor as yourself. But as long as we are thankful for the food we eat, it is up to us what we eat, and what we don't, just like the New Testament says. How come you give so little credence to our covenant, the covenant Jesus DIED TO GIVE US!

 

[BobRyan]

Don't you grasp that the eating of unclean mean in the OT was directly correlated to the separation from Gentiles?

Nonsense There was no OT statement saying not to evangelize gentiles, not to eat with them, not to go into their houses -- and we all know it!

Even the NT Jews were having the gentiles in the very synagogues! See Acts 13, Acts 17:1-4, Acts 18:4 "Every Sabbath". We have unclean animals in Genesis 7 long before any Jew-vs-gentile distinction existed!!

Bible details "matter"

But if the speculation you offer were remotely true that Lev 11 were just there to make sure no gentile went to heaven and no Jew talked to them... Then gentile evangelism would require that Christians eat rat sandwhiches and diseased meat of both clean and unclean animals (the very thing Lev 11 specifically forbids) - to make sure we had "gentile evangelism". Which of course Peter NEVER says is the meaning of the vision -- so people write it in their posts having no such text at all as the interpretation of the symbols. It would be like saying "Satan really is a dragon flying in the sky as Rev 12 says - because it is in Revelation 12". Peter gives the interpretation of the symbolic vision - and people reject his inspired text "anyway".

Everyone has free will - they can do as they please... I choose the Bible.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Nonsense There was no OT statement saying not to evangelize gentiles, not to eat with them, not to go into their houses -- and we all know it!

Even the NT Jews were having the gentiles in the very synagogues! See Acts 13, Acts 17:1-4, Acts 18:4 "Every Sabbath". We have unclean animals in Genesis 7 long before any Jew-vs-gentile distinction existed!!

Bible details "matter"

But if the speculation you offer were remotely true that Lev 11 were just there to make sure no gentile went to heaven and no Jew talked to them... Then gentile evangelism would require that Christians eat rat sandwhiches and diseased meat of both clean and unclean animals (the very thing Lev 11 specifically forbids) - to make sure we had "gentile evangelism". Which of course Peter NEVER says is the meaning of the vision -- so people write it in their posts having no such text at all as the interpretation of the symbols. It would be like saying "Satan really is a dragon flying in the sky as Rev 12 says - because it is in Revelation 12". Peter gives the interpretation of the symbolic vision - and people reject his inspired text "anyway".

Everyone has free will - they can do as they please... I choose the Bible.

What does "all things are lawful" mean to you in 1 Corinthians 6?

What does "Kill and eat" mean to you in Acts 10?

What you are saying is that both Paul and God are liars.

You really don't have a clue that we are under a New Covenant. You choose the Old Covenant of earning your way to heaven by the law.

And your statement that we would be required to eat rat sandwiches is your downfall. We are NOT REQUIRED to do anything regarding food because there are NO LAWS about it, except about blood. You are not choosing ALL of the Bible, just the part about the law. We walk by the Spirit, not by the law!

Now, how we sin is through unbelief in Jesus and through hate, lust, practically anything we commit of the flesh. But no where in the NT are we Gentiles COMMANDED to keep any food laws, or REQUIRED to observe special days. Only Judaizers, which Paul was always fighting because it went against only following the Spirit, made any such requirements to be justified.

Even the Lord's Supper is not required at any commanded time. We do it in remembrance of our Lord's death out of love, not a command. Even the particulars of choosing wine over grape juice, or grape juice over wine; or of leavened bread over unleavened bread, or even Ritz crackers is not written out, even though the original was fermented wine and unleavened bread. I happen to choose either red wine or grape juice, but always unleavened bread. For me partaking with leavened bread is a sacrilege, but that's just my rules for myself, not anyone else.

 

[BobRyan]

What does "all things are lawful" mean to you in 1 Corinthians 6?

That is a very good question. Let's take a second to actually look at 1 Cor 6 and see.

Does it mean "it is ok to take God's name in vain"??
Does it mean "it is ok to worship false gods, idols, images"??

Here is what 1 Cor 6 actually says --
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

What does " great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child." - mean?

Shall we let the Bible interpret the Bible?

shall we allow Peter to write the inspired interpretation of his vision?

According to Peter the Acts 10 symbols have nothing to do with eating gentiles, or eating diseased meat or eating rats.

Obviously.

Still there are those who would debate against the obvious -- and they have free will to do so.

 

[1stcenturylady]

That is a very good question. Let's take a second to actually look at 1 Cor 6 and see.

Does it mean "it is ok to take God's name in vain"??
Does it mean "it is ok to worship false gods, idols, images"??

Here is what 1 Cor 6 actually says --
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

What does " great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child." - mean?

Shall we let the Bible interpret the Bible?

shall we allow Peter to write the inspired interpretation of his vision?

According to Peter the Acts 10 symbols have nothing to do with eating gentiles, or eating diseased meat or eating rats.

Obviously.

Still there are those who would debate against the obvious -- and they have free will to do so.

What does if you walk in the Spirit you are not under the law mean to you?

 

[1stcenturylady]

BR, my friend are you afraid of the final question?

 

[1stcenturylady]

As far as mankind "call no man unclean" as Peter said - but nothing about "call no diseased meat unclean" and nothing about "call no rat sandwich unclean" -- that Gospel has nothing at all to do with such a thing.

Just stating the obvious.

Another "obvious" detail is that the Jews had gentiles in their synagogues every Sabbath as we see in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18 - so reporting to Jewish Christians "call no man unclean" would have been rather tame compared to your suggestion of calling no rat-sandwich or diseased-meat unclean. Such an announcement would have been a major bombshell for the first century church -- Peter never claims such a thing.

Obviously.

You can claim whatever you wish - I will stick with the Bible on this one.

We are talking LAW. We are not talking healthy. God has given us a sound mind, and also the Spirit. What you don't understand is we are NOT UNDER THE LAW! And that, my friend is what the BIBLE says.

But, you can stay under the law if you like, but don't teach others that it will justify anyone. What you call sin, God no longer judges as such.

I see you avoided the "final question." So I repeat, what does "if you walk in the Spirit you are not under the law" mean to you?

 

[listed]

That is a very good question. Let's take a second to actually look at 1 Cor 6 and see.

Does it mean "it is ok to take God's name in vain"??
Does it mean "it is ok to worship false gods, idols, images"??

Here is what 1 Cor 6 actually says --
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

What does " great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child." - mean?

Shall we let the Bible interpret the Bible?

shall we allow Peter to write the inspired interpretation of his vision?

According to Peter the Acts 10 symbols have nothing to do with eating gentiles, or eating diseased meat or eating rats.

Obviously.

Still there are those who would debate against the obvious -- and they have free will to do so.

Yes those people are excluded from heaven. Those who are in compliance with John 13:34 are covered.

 

[listed]

What does if you walk in the Spirit you are not under the law mean to you?

Great question. For him to provide an honest answer voids his argument.

 

[1stcenturylady]

That is a very good question. Let's take a second to actually look at 1 Cor 6 and see.

Does it mean "it is ok to take God's name in vain"??
Does it mean "it is ok to worship false gods, idols, images"??

Here is what 1 Cor 6 actually says --
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

What does " great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child." - mean?

Shall we let the Bible interpret the Bible?

shall we allow Peter to write the inspired interpretation of his vision?

According to Peter the Acts 10 symbols have nothing to do with eating gentiles, or eating diseased meat or eating rats.

Obviously.

Still there are those who would debate against the obvious -- and they have free will to do so.

I'm holding my breath until you answer the "final question" in my last post. Don't make me pass out!

What does if you walk in the Spirit you are not under the law mean to you?

 

[BobRyan]

I'm holding my breath until you answer the "final question" in my last post. Don't make me pass out!

What does if you walk in the Spirit you are not under the law mean to you?

Romans 3:19-21 -- not under the condemnation of the Law.

1 John 3:4 "Sin IS transgression of the Law"

Romans 6 - what it truly means to be freed from sin.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

...
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,

 

[bugkiller]

I'm holding my breath until you answer the "final question" in my last post. Don't make me pass out!

What does if you walk in the Spirit you are not under the law mean to you?

You will at least turn blue.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Romans 3:19-21 -- not under the condemnation of the Law.

1 John 3:4 "Sin IS transgression of the Law"

Romans 6 - what it truly means to be freed from sin.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

...
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,

Is complying with JN 13:34 continuing in sin? Is it obedience to the law?

bugkiller