Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Studyman]

I find it hard to accept this perspective because this narrative must portray (i) Peter as a foolish married adult Jew who, despite giving up everything to follow Jesus, does not even know how to differentiate between what is common and unclean when God asked him to kill and eat, assuming God was referring only to the clean animal, yet Jesus gave him the key to the kingdom of heaven. (ii) And after three times, Peter still doesn't realise that God was just pointing to the clean animals? (iii) What was clean does not need to be cleansed because Jesus will not clean what has already been cleaned, as seen in John 13:9-10 when Peter asked Jesus to wash his hands and head, nor do the healthy require a doctor.

A man, Jew or Gentile, can turn to God and repent with the promise of being made clean, because he was created after the image of God which allowed him the ability to "choose" good or evil. Whereas an animal, is either created clean, or created unclean and has no recourse or even a reason to change, and no ability to choose to be something other than a swine or a sheep, depending on which one it is.

I like this point, that Peter, not a Babe in Christ, knew it was a sin to reject Gods judgment regarding clean and unclean animals, where eating in concerning. But may have still been clinging to ancient Jewish traditions and commandments of men regarding the non-Jew.

"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."

This was not God's Law, but the Pharisees Law which Paul said he was zealous for, when he was a Pharisee. God's Law regarding the non-Jew is below.

Lev. 19: 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

This man was the very definition of a man which is a Jew inwardly, whose circumcision was of the heart.

Jesus still understood that some animals were created clean for food, and some were created for other purposes. This is why HE would never cast demons on people's potential food, (Sheep), and mentioned not giving pearls to swine.

Great point about Peter.

 

[Doug Brents]

Are you implying that Cornelius as a God- fearer who went to Synagogue and kept the Sabbath was following New Covenant laws? Where did he learn them? Why need Peter? What laws did Peter preach? How come Peter didn't tell him that there were new laws to keep?

No. There is no indication in Scripture that Cornelius went to the synagogue or kept the sabbath. He did pray to God, and give alms, but he was not a proselyte.

And he certainly was not keeping the Mew Covenant before Peter came. He did not even know there was a new Covenant yet. He needed Peter to teach him about Jesus, and to show him the ways of the New Covenant.

So we throw out all Yeshua said and taught? Or wasn't that for Gentiles?

No, the things Jesus said are not part of the Old Covenant, but of the New.

But you believe that the LORD was setting before him a buffet of food, but you see as Peter said he never in his life, including for the past 10 years ate anything called by God Unclean.

I believe that God’s revelation of the New Covenant was still progressing. Peter did not know yet that God had made all things clean. This was as much a revelation to him as it is to you.

Once finding out that Cornelius and his household were God fearers and the LORD accepted him, he then went to them and stayed and surely ate with them. But since Cornelius was a God-fearer he knew the kosher laws and I'm positive he didn't serve him pork chops and shrimp wrapped in bacon.

Again, he was a God-fearer, not a proselyte. He most likely was not circumcised, he probably did not go to synagogue, and he almost certainly did not keep the Jewish dietary laws.

You don't know how often he did that.

Gal 2:11-13 says that Peter was eating regularly with the Gentiles.

The believing Messianic Jews you mean? The ones that James sent? Did you ever wonder why James sent them?
Perhaps it was to inform Peter and the other Messianic Jews there that Paul had not taught them to abstain from blood, idols, improperly slaughtered meats... That wasn't just Peter being a 'hypocrite' as Paul slandered him with, that was one who had judiciously kept the commandments of God and just found out he had been eating foods sacrificed to idols and more. No wonder all the other Messianic Jews got into an uproar, including Barnabas. I would have too.

Paul did not slander Peter. Peter was in the wrong and Paul called him out in it. Peter knew it was ok for him to eat with the Gentiles, but he allowed peer pressure to cause him to sin, and to draw the other Jews with him into the sin of hypocrisy also.

Peter didn't fear his fellow Messianic brethern, he feared GOD because he found he had duplicitly fallen into Balaams trap.

Look again at Gal 2:11-12. Remember, this is God speaking (through Luke).
“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.”
God says that Peter was to be blamed, because he feared the Jews (who came from James). And he did not listen to God in this instance, causing both himself, and the other Jews with him, to become hypocrites.

I think you mean Peter ate Unclean foods but how could they be unclean when you said they were made clean?

Yes, sorry, typing on my phone, I sometimes fat-finger the keys.
Notice the quotation marks around “unclean”. That is simply a method of referencing that category of foods as opposed to those you believe to be clean.

If Peter knew that from the vision you say, then why did he pull away as well as all the other Messianic Jews? Apparently they hadn't been told everything was good to eat now.

True, they may not have been. But it was Peter’s responsibility to tell them of God’s revelation to him.

Do you, then why ignore it? I do believe (even though it doesn't say) that the LORD brought them to Noah, he hand picked them just like he hand picked Noah based on his genetics.

God did not select Noah on the basis of his genetics. Where in Scripture do you get that?

But surely the LORD saying that he should take those clean animals by 7 pairs needed explanation? Even Abel knew what a clean animal was for an offering, he took from his flock, not from the local pig pen.

Who are we to ask God why He orders something? That is the question God Himself asked Job. We do not know all of what God may or may not have instructed Abel or Noah that is not recorded in Scripture. But we do know that God gave ALL of the animals that move on the Earth as food.
Gen 9:2-3 - “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.”
Does a pig live and move? Does a lobster live and move? Does a goat live and move? Case closed.

If you understood the real reason for the flood you wouldn't say that. Not all were Vegetarians nor even Vegans.
There is a reason God proclaimed this to Noach after the flood:

4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. ​

The real reason for the Flood? Seriously?
The only reason for the Flood was worldwide, pervasive, unrepentant sin. No one except Noah and his family found favor in God’s eyes.

I'm sorry you believe that way, for one God doesn't send anyone to Satan.

So God didn’t allow Satan to test and torment Job? God didn’t order that disobedient people be kicked out of the community (both Israel and the Church) in order for them to feel the pressure of being exiled to cause them to repent so they could be brought back into the community?

Really? Each must be convinced in his own mind? God says there are special days, HIS Days and if we love him we will keep these moedim, his appointed times with HIM.

I’m not going to debate God’s own words with you. God said it, period! Those are not my words. They are God’s directly from His Scripture. If you don’t like it, take it up with Him.

That doesn't make sense but then Peter said: "in which are some things hard to understand"

Doesn’t make sense? It makes perfect sense. But then, Jesus did speak everything in parables so that those in whom the Spirit was not working would not understand. I think that principle carries over in a lot of the rest of Scripture.

My LORD is not the LORD of the dead.

I don’t know who your lord is then. Because Jesus and His Father (the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob) is Lord of both the living and the dead who die in Him, according to these verses of Scripture.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not confusing like that.

That is not confusing. It is only hard to comprehend of you are fighting against the Word of God.

 

[HIM]

I find it hard to accept this perspective because this narrative must portray (i) Peter as a foolish married adult Jew who, despite giving up everything to follow Jesus, does not even know how to differentiate between what is common and unclean when God asked him to kill and eat, assuming God was referring only to the clean animal, yet Jesus gave him the key to the kingdom of heaven. (ii) And after three times, Peter still doesn't realise that God was just pointing to the clean animals? (iii) What was clean does not need to be cleansed because Jesus will not clean what has already been cleaned, as seen in John 13:9-10 when Peter asked Jesus to wash his hands and head, nor do the healthy require a doctor.

Yes Peter made a distinction between the two different animals that he seen, He seen common animals and unclean ones.

God only addressed what he cleansed, And that was the common. If he had cleansed the uncleaned He would have mentioned it. Don't add to the Word of Go

How you got Peter "does not even know how to differentiate between what is common and unclean when God asked him to kill and eat" from the above I have no idea. The post you respond to explicitly states that Peter made a distinction between two different animals. He seen common animals AND unclean ones. He knew the difference. And as was said, God only mentions cleansing the common ones. He does not mention the unclean.

 

[Lulav]

There is only one Messiah that matters. There is only one name under Heaven by which we (everyone) must be saved: Jesus.

Okay tracing back this line of discussion.

I did not Say the Jews Messiah, I said Jewish Messiah, there are other nations that have their own 'Messiahs' or weren't you aware?

You were arguing that Jesus is not the JEWISH Messiah and I gave you proof that he STILL Is by Quoting Rev 5.

Your answer to that was that it was false. YOU cut off the whole part of my response which I've included above from a screen shot.

Just wow! Talk about butchering what I said to make me out to be a liar. Your preconceptions are going to get you into trouble some day, sweetheart.

I did not butcher anything. I was giving proof in your stance that Yeshua is not the JEWISH Messiah only that he was Jewish. I gave passage to support that.

I was not calling you a liar.
And as a Senior Citizen I don't appreciate you calling me 'sweetheart' in a nasty derogatory manner nor your threats of 'trouble'.

 

[Grafted In]

I'm very sorroy. I forgot I not permitted here.

 

[Grafted In]

I'm very sorroy. I forgot that I am not permitted here.

 

[Cornelius8L]

How you got Peter "does not even know how to differentiate between what is common and unclean when God asked him to kill and eat" from the above I have no idea. The post you respond to explicitly states that Peter made a distinction between two different animals. He seen common animals AND unclean ones. He knew the difference. And as was said, God only mentions cleansing the common ones. He does not mention the unclean.

I think that God made the unclean animals clean and then told Peter to eat these animals that were once unclean. Your point of view is that God showed Peter both clean and unclean animals, but only asked Peter to eat the clean animal and never asked Peter to eat the unclean animal. Have I got that right?

Then, the problem comes up when Acts 11:1-3 'The apostles and brothers throughout Judea soon heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him and said, “You visited uncircumcised men and ate with them.”' Because “You know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with a foreigner or visit him.” (Acts 10:28) And Jesus agreed with this idea when He was on earth, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (Matt 15:26) - pointing at the Canaanite woman. In Acts 11, Peter told what he saw in the vision. “When they heard this, their objections were put to rest, and they glorified God, saying, ‘So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.’” (Acts 11:18)

So, if the vision was just telling Peter to eat the clean ones, even though both clean and unclean ones were there, who do the unclean ones in the vision represent? But in the Bible, we know the circumcised men always think of the gentiles as unclean. Peter talked about the whole vision again in Acts 11. He said that he knew God was pointing to the unclean animal.

This passage also tells us that we can now eat animals that were once considered unclean. But I think it would be easier for me to know if you think it's okay to eat the unclean animal today. Because if you believe we can't eat unclean animals, you won't accept that God was pointing to the unclean animals in this event because that would go against what you believe. (By the way, this is not the only event that tells us that we can eat all animals.)

And we should think about whether we are defending the doctrines of our denomination or the Bible. Also, I don't think any religious group needs to set doctrines to begin with, since we all believe the Bible. Doctrines are made IMAGE of the Bible, but it could be set up wrong if the early members or founders misread the Bible.

 

[rturner76]

I you are an Israelite, yes you are under the first covenant which is a harder road to ho that our Christian yolk of accepting Christ as our savior. Not so many sacrifice days and other routines that were done away with under the new covenant.

 

[HIM]

I think that God made the unclean animals clean and then told Peter to eat these animals that were once unclean. Your point of view is that God showed Peter both clean and unclean animals, but only asked Peter to eat the clean animal and never asked Peter to eat the unclean animal. Have I got that right?

God only mentions cleansing the common. He said, "What God has cleansed call not common." No mention of cleansing the unclean. Let's not add to the Word of God.

Then, the problem comes up when Acts 11:1-3 'The apostles and brothers throughout Judea soon heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him and said, “You visited uncircumcised men and ate with them.”' Because “You know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with a foreigner or visit him.” (Acts 10:28) And Jesus agreed with this idea when He was on earth, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (Matt 15:26) - pointing at the Canaanite woman. In Acts 11, Peter told what he saw in the vision. “When they heard this, their objections were put to rest, and they glorified God, saying, ‘So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.’” (Acts 11:18)

So, if the vision was just telling Peter to eat the clean ones, even though both clean and unclean ones were there, who do the unclean ones in the vision represent? But in the Bible, we know the circumcised men always think of the gentiles as unclean. Peter talked about the whole vision again in Acts 11. He said that he knew God was pointing to the unclean animal.

That is the crux of the matter really. The vision wasn't even about animals and eating, it was about how Peter and other Judeans viewed Gentiles.
Which wasn't even a view that was of the law.

This passage also tells us that we can now eat animals that were once considered unclean. But I think it would be easier for me to know if you think it's okay to eat the unclean animal today. Because if you believe we can't eat unclean animals, you won't accept that God was pointing to the unclean animals in this event because that would go against what you believe. (By the way, this is not the only event that tells us that we can eat all animals.)

No, God mentions only cleansing the common.

And we should think about whether we are defending the doctrines of our denomination or the Bible. Also, I don't think any religious group needs to set doctrines to begin with, since we all believe the Bible. Doctrines are made IMAGE of the Bible, but it could be set up wrong if the early members or founders misread the Bible.

I am nondenominational.

 

[HIM]

I'm very sorroy. I forgot I not permitted here.

Sure you are.

 

[FireDragon76]

I you are an Israelite, yes you are under the first covenant which is a harder road to ho that our Christian yolk of accepting Christ as our savior. Not so many sacrifice days and other routines that were done away with under the new covenant.

The New Covenant is a reinterpretation of the Old Covenant. Some things are similar, some are different. With 1300+ years separating them in time, an entirely different social milieu, you'ld expect some things to be different.

 

[Cornelius8L]

I am nondenominational.

Okay.

God only mentions cleansing the common. He said, "What God has cleansed call not common." No mention of cleansing the unclean. Let's not add to the Word of God.

That is the crux of the matter really. The vision wasn't even about animals and eating, it was about how Peter and other Judeans viewed Gentiles.
Which wasn't even a view that was of the law.
No, God mentions only cleansing the common.

God said, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” (Acts 10:13) and Peter reiterated, “I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter, kill and eat.’” (Acts 11:7) – Let not subtract from God's Word.

Peter did not claim he misunderstood God when he replied and narrated the story again. “No, Lord!” Peter answered. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” (Acts 10:14, 11:8)

God spoke a second time in response to Peter's comment about the unclean animals. “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:14, 11:9)

“This happened three times” (Acts 10:16, 11:10) – What did God and Peter do three times if not linked to the eating of unclean animals?

 

[Cornelius8L]

it was about how Peter and other Judeans viewed Gentiles.

So, you agree that the unclean animals refer to Gentiles and that God made them clean? Or we overlooked something, the 'common,' when Peter was speaking about unclean animals.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus still understood that some animals were created clean for food, and some were created for other purposes.

If so, why does Jesus say this in Mark 7:

"Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?”

is this not a rather clear challenge to the notion that there are unclean foods?

 

[expos4ever]

And like the Pharisees, the religions of this world promote falsehoods about God and His Word. One such deception, is that Paul promoted the religious philosophy that God's Law was nailed to the Cross. My hope is that others might also consider what is actually written and come to the knowledge of this truth.

1 Cor. 19: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Rom. 2: 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Re 1 Cor 7:19: I see no evidence here that Paul is specifically talking about Commandments embodied in the law of Moses. How do you know he is not speaking about commandments better not part of the law of Moses.

About the Romans 2 text, context is important:

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

Gentiles do not have the law. In fact, millions of them around the world have lived and died, never knowing anything about it. Paul is clearly arguing for a second kind of law, a law where the underlying principles of the law of Moses are made known all human beings. In any event, verse 14 shows that you can indeed be justified without access to the law of Moses.

I see no reason why either of these texts support the position that the Law of Moses has not been nailed to the Cross.

 

[Studyman]

If so, why does Jesus say this in Mark 7:

"Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?”

is this not a rather clear challenge to the notion that there are unclean foods?

The RCC thought so. But when a man reads for himself what is actually said, Jesus' Words do not challenge His Fathers instruction in righteousness at all. In fact, HIS words say just the opposite from what we are taught by the "Many" who come in Christ's Name.

Mark 7: 1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

So these men were not eating dogs or horses or slugs or swine's flesh, which would be in direct disobedience and disrespect to God. They had created their own "righteousness" and were holding others to their Traditions, much like their religious tradition which held that a man couldn't take a walk on God's Sabbath Day, in fellowship with Him, and pick an apple to eat along the way. Both were religious traditions and commandments of men they taught for Doctrines, that Jesus Himself told us.

Jesus points this out, but "many", who come in Christ's Name, do not acknowledge it.

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

This event had nothing to do with the Disciples or Jesus rejecting or teaching against God's Judgments.

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

So Jesus is telling us that disrespect for God's Laws, disobedience, dishonor for God, these all come from within and defile a man.

The naked woman next door does not defile you, your lust to covet her, your longing to look at her nakedness, your fleshy desire to think on her, these things come from within, not from without, and they defile you.

In like manner, it isn't the slugs or swine's flesh men eat that defiles them, it is the lust to disrespect God and despise His Judgments, the desire to feed the flesh whatever it fancies in spite of God, in known disobedience and disrespect for HIM, which comes from within and defiles a man, as Jesus tells you.

"These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands (Against which there is no Law of God) defileth not a man.

Jesus would never advocate for the wholesale rejection of His Father's Judgments that even Noah respected.

Does it matter? Certainly not in the religious traditions of the RCC and her protestant daughters. But for me, it's important to "prove" all things by the Holy Scriptures, and there is world of difference between the religious traditions of this world that God placed us in, and God's "instruction in Righteousness" that Paul told the Body of Christ in the New Covenant to "Continue in".

After all, who am I, but a child of God purchased for a price. Is it so unjust that a Father directs His Children regarding what is clean and what is not?

Would you feed your child maggots? Spiders? Worms? So everyone has their version of what is clean and unclean. Those Faithful examples of the Bible, "Yielded themselves" and "Submitted themselves" to God's Judgment, rather than their own, like Jesus did.

I'm OK with that.

 

[Studyman]

Re 1 Cor 7:19: I see no evidence here that Paul is specifically talking about Commandments embodied in the law of Moses. How do you know he is not speaking about commandments better not part of the law of Moses.

Moses never created even one Law. PAUL CERTAINLY KNEW THIS. Paul said "but the keeping of the commandments of God.". Every person alive can pick of the Oracles of God and find God's commandments.

Jesus even showed you where to look, for this interested in knowing them.

Matt. 19: 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which?

So here you go, this man asked the exact same question as you. "How do I know what Commandments Jesus and Paul were talking about? Since I believe in the Jesus of the Bible, it is clear to me what "Commandments" they were speaking to.


Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother:

Well that is pretty clear HE is speaking to the 10 commandments found in Exodus 20, even though HE left off the first and greatest commandment, we know "What Commandments" HE was speaking to. But HE didn't stop there.

"and," Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Where is this "Commandment" found? In Lev. 19. Even though HE didn't read them all, like "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." We know HE was including these when HE said "Commandments".

That is how I know what Commandments Paul was speaking about.

About the Romans 2 text, context is important:

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

How can a man sin "without Law"? Where there is no Law, there is no Sin, yet these men are both judged because of sin, which by the very definition is "Transgression of the Law". Context is truly very important. Paul is speaking again of Jew and Gentile here. The Jews were given the Oracles of God, the gentiles were not. Yet the Gentiles heard about God and therefore heard about sin. So even though they were "without law", they are still judged the same as the Jews. "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile"

Rom. 1: 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Jew and Gentile)

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified.

Yes, as is proven by "EVERY EXAMPLE OF FAITHFUL MAN IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE".

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

Like Rahab, and Cornelious?

Matt. 15: 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Gentiles do not have the law. In fact, millions of them around the world have lived and died, never knowing anything about it.

Careful not to think of yourself more than you should. You don't know anything about others, but what your human mind can conceive. There are children of men and children of God.

Judges 2: 21 I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died: 22 That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not. 23 Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua.

Coll. 1: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Paul is said to be hard to understand, and that "many" twist his words, as they do other scriptures as well. Jesus inspired this to be written by the Rock of HIS Church. It seems prudent to be careful not to believe you are excluded from this warning, As your words and Paul's words contradict each other.

Paul is clearly arguing for a second kind of law, a law where the underlying principles of the law of Moses are made known all human beings. In any event, verse 14 shows that you can indeed be justified without access to the law of Moses.

No it doesn't. Only by separating one or two scriptures from the rest of the Bible, then ignoring what the rest of the Bible teaches, can it be said that a man can be justified without God, or His instruction.

Even Jesus' own Words exposes this religious philosophy.

Matt. 19: 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

And again;

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

And again;

John 4: 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship:for salvation is of the Jews.

I see no reason why either of these texts support the position that the Law of Moses has not been nailed to the Cross.

Of course you can't. From a child you and I have been taught by the religions of this world that God's Laws are gone in one fashion or another. That God's Laws are bad, and against His People, and contrary to them.

But when a person turns from these worldly religious businesses and sects and places their believe in the Holy scriptures for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:, as Paul instructs. This world's religious philosophies start to crumble and fall apart.

You will see that the only God of Abraham preaching people on the planet, had corrupted themselves, and sold themselves to the devil. And generations of people were led astray by them. And Jesus came back, not to save you from God or God's commandments, as you imply, but from the religions of the prince of this world that HE warned us about. That is, the "Many, who come in His Name, to deceive.

Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

I am sharing a perspective of someone who has studied apart from these many religious philosophies which change according to the name above the door of the manmade shrine of worship.

The only thing I am advocating for is proving all things. Not simply justifying a religion you may have adopted, or were born into.

 

[Soyeong]

I find it hard to accept this perspective because this narrative must portray (i) Peter as a foolish married adult Jew who, despite giving up everything to follow Jesus, does not even know how to differentiate between what is common and unclean when God asked him to kill and eat, assuming God was referring only to the clean animal, yet Jesus gave him the key to the kingdom of heaven. (ii) And after three times, Peter still doesn't realise that God was just pointing to the clean animals? (iii) What was clean does not need to be cleansed because Jesus will not clean what has already been cleaned, as seen in John 13:9-10 when Peter asked Jesus to wash his hands and head, nor do the healthy require a doctor.

It's not clear to me what Peter needs to be portrayed as as a foolish married adult Jew. Peter clearly knew how to distinguish between what is common and unclean because he used both words to distinguish between what he said in his vision. The keys to the kingdom give someone the authority to interpret how to correct obey God's law, but they do not give someone the authority to make changes to it. Peter could have obeyed God's commands in Leviticus 11 and His command in his vision by simply killing and eating a clean animals, but there is a reason why he objected to doing what the Torah permitted him to do, and God was making the point three times that he was incorrect to restrict himself from doing that.

 

[expos4ever]

How can a man sin "without Law"? Where there is no Law, there is no Sin, yet these men are both judged because of sin, which by the very definition is "Transgression of the Law". Context is truly very important. Paul is speaking again of Jew and Gentile here. The Jews were given the Oracles of God, the gentiles were not. Yet the Gentiles heard about God and therefore heard about sin. So even though they were "without law", they are still judged the same as the Jews.

Your post is lengthy, but let me deal with this part first.

When Paul says this:

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

...he is recognizing the obvious: Jews are under the Law of Moses while Gentiles are not. Surely you are not suggesting that Gentiles are subject to the Law of Moses? Here, if not elsewhere, Paul is crystal clear to the effect that the Law of Moses only governs Jews. Yes, Gentiles sin, but not because they are under the Law of Moses.

Are you also suggesting that the Law of Moses is the only standard which defines sin? That, to me, is clearly not Biblical - as Paul writes in Romans 5, there was sin in the world long before the Law of Moses was given.

Finally, when you write "So even though they were "without law", they are still judged the same as the Jews", your wording is a tad unclear to me. If, repeat if, you are claiming the Gentile will be judged by the Law of Moses, you are directly contradicting Paul who writes that the Jews will judged by the Law of Moses, and Gentiles will not:

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

It is the Gentile who is "without the Law" and Paul writes that this Gentile will be judged, but certainly not by a law the Gentile was never subject to - the Law of Moses.

 

[Soyeong]

If so, why does Jesus say this in Mark 7:

"Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?”

is this not a rather clear challenge to the notion that there are unclean foods?

Jesus was speaking against being made common by eating with unwashed hands (Mark 7:1-13, Matthew 15:20), which has absolutely nothing to do with challenging the notion that there are unclean animals. Jesus is one with the Father, so he should not be interpreted as expressing disagreement with what the Father has commanded, especially when He set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to what the Father has commanded. Furthermore, he also should not be interpreted as setting aside what the Father has command when he just finished criticize the Pharisees as being hypocrites for doing that.