Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Studyman]

Does this text make it clear to exactly what Jesus was obedient?

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Will you really argue that Jesus obeyed the Commandments of another? And for what reason? To justify the lusts of your flesh?

Are you simply assuming that it is the Law of Moses?

I am assuming nothing, only believing in the Jesus of the Bible. But it seems you will not be persuaded, as Jesus Himself tells me.

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.

I agree with the analysis of respected theologian NT Wright who argued that when Paul writes of Jesus's obedience, he is referring to His obedience, not to the Law of Moses, but rather to the covenant obligations of Israel, which Jesus took upon Himself.

Yes, this world is full of religious philosophers who come in God's Name. Even EVE was influenced by a religious philosopher who came in God's Name. "For God doeth know"!!! Paul was brought up "at the feet of Gameliel" another "respected" religious philosopher of his time. And he learned to follow a Law that advocated for the murder and persecution of the members of the Church of God.

My question to you, would be, "Why on earth would you choose the words of some random religious philosopher of this world God placed you in, over the God Inspired Holy Scriptures that Paul told the Body of Christ to "continue in", in the New Covenant?

Who convinced you that Wright was more Holy than White? Or Wesley than Valentinus, or Calvin than Russel?

I find it fascinating that God gives men His Oracles, delivers them to each man's home, shows men through them His Righteousness, and His Wrath against all unrighteousness. Sends His Son to pay for their sins, prepares Prophets and Disciples to teach us HIS Gospel, and still, religious men would rather pick a random preacher from the literal "MANY" that come in Christ's Name, that Jesus specifically warned about. Rather than humbling themselves to submit to God's "instruction in righteousness".

Think about that. Man will follow any religion, any high day, any sabbath, and judgment. AS long as it isn't God's Way, God's Holy days, God's Sabbath, or God's Judgments.

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

It's not like God hasn't warned us. It's because men really don't believe in Him.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Fornication, eating the blood of animals, meats offered to idols, eating dog meat, or swine's flesh, those who live in these traditions of men, are laying aside the Commandment of God so that they can continue in whatever lifestyle or practice that suits them.

I love eating swine flesh, and I just had one for dinner. Let me respond to this.

God never says that "commandments of God" can only refer to the Ten Commandments. We know we have other records that show the commandment of God means the whole law of God. Commandments are also a part of the law (James 2:10-11, as v11 says law breaker, not commandment breaker).

God's commandments include being born again (John 3:3, John 1:12-13, 1 Peter 1:23). And what's born again?

Law = Guardian (Gal 3:24) = Basic principles (Gal 4:1-3)​

Gal 4:9But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!”…​

19 “My children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,”…​

21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not understand what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born through the promise. 24These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:​

“Rejoice, O barren woman,​

who bears no children;​

break forth and cry aloud,​

you who have never travailed;​

because more are the children of the desolate woman​

than of her who has a husband.”​

28Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time, however, the son born by the flesh persecuted the son born by the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? “Expel the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.​

Continue with Gal 5, which talks about removing circumcision, the everlasting covenant God made with Abraham, even for the bought foreigner (Gen 17:12-14). Paul removed God's everlasting covenant with Abraham while saying, "We are the seeds of Abraham" (Gal 3:29). Is this God telling us to change through Paul? Or, Paul telling lies?

You are promoting the popular religious philosophy that Jesus advocated for disobeying God by rejecting God's Judgments. So we are not to give our pearls to swine, but it's OK to eat the swine. Clearly Jesus was not such a hypocrite. There are religious traditions of man, and there are Commandments and Judgments of God. Shall we not at least acknowledge the difference first?

Whether or not people think Jesus is a hypocrite depends on how they understand Him. In John 7:8–10, wasn't Jesus acting like a hypocrite? “God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and not act? (Num 23:19).” How can we defend the actions of Jesus, who should be carrying God's nature here, if not by the spiritual standard but by the human standard? We can only defend Jesus by saying that He was talking about what the Feast of Tabernacles meant spiritually(heavenly), not what it was like on earth. We can do this because we know that Jesus always talks about spiritual(heavenly) things, which is why His disciples always got him wrong. Jesus would have known that his brother was talking about the earthly feast, but he answered him concerning heavenly feast, "My time has not yet come," which would have made Him look like a hypocrite in the eyes of the people. But it doesn't bother Him. Along the same lines, Jesus broke some earthly laws to show that he cared more about heavenly laws than earthly ones (the examples of the principle or earthly customs).

No, it was the Truth of the "purity laws" of the Torah. It wasn't the fruit that defiled Eve. It was the rejection of God and HIS instruction from her heart, that defiled Eve.

It wasn't the "blood" that defiled the Gentiles in acts 15. It was the lust to continue in whatever disobedient lifestyle they had grown accustomed to, that caused them to lay aside the Commandments of God, that defiled them. It wasn't the "money" that defiled Ananias and Saphira, but greed and lust which comes from within a man, not from without.

Was Jesus defiled when he asked God to take away the cup? Isn't that evidence of not having faith or full submission without wavering? Why do we set a standard for defilement where it doesn't exist?

 

[Studyman]

Argumentative - you have zero evidenced that I approached these texts with a preconceived position on the matter.

You are promoting the preconceived position that Jesus broke God's Laws. And that God's Judgments regarding the difference between what is food and what is not food, were destroyed by Jesus in these Scriptures.

Am I understanding your position wrong?

How, and please be precise, does any of this mean that when Jesus says "nothing that goes into a man defiles him", there really remain a lot of things that do indeed defile?

Well simply answer this question. Does disobedience to God's instruction come from within, or without?

Granted, Jesus does indeed contrast all the things that proceed from the heart, and which do indeed defile, with handwashing which, of course, does not defile. And I know you guys think this somehow means that Jesus is entirely restricting the scope of what "goes in" to "food, otherwise permissible, that has been eaten with unwashed hands".

For the record, I never thought Jesus was restricting what "goes into a man" to food. And neither was HE, as HE said "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:"

What "goes into a man" can come into him through his eyes, his ears, his mouth. That is why I made the point about a woman. Or the candy bar a boy steals. It isn't the woman, or the candy that defiles, but the lust to rebel against God's authority, which comes from within.

But there are a lot of problems. Yes, the conversation starts with a discussion about unwashed hands. And, yes, in the Matthew version, (but interestingly, not in the Mark version) it ends with handwashing. But the intervening analysis offered by Jesus is such that it seem unlikely He is excluding pork, etc. from the discussion:

Only because it is your tradition to eat pork, are you trying to justify eating pork. You wouldn't feed maggots to your children. You wouldn't feed Spiders to your children. But in your tradition, you would feed pork to your children. God deems all three as not created for food. You have judged some of God's Judgments as worthy of your respect and honor, but when it comes to abstaining from your own traditions, that is where your judgments and God's Part ways.

I'm not saying these things to condemn or even judge, but because it's simply a truth I also confronted about myself years ago.

Does it matter? It doesn't to the RCC or her Protestant daughters. But it did to Jesus "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:"

And it did to Paul.
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Yes, disobedience, rebellion, disrespect, stubbornness, all come from within. Why can you not accept or even acknowledge this undeniable truth. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-15-18/

I politely suggest you guys need to evade examining the inner logic of these words. Even though the conversation is triggered by the matter of handwashing, Jesus tells us the reason the handwashed food does not defile is that the food goes into the stomach and then goes out (albeit in a manner most unseemly). But this happens to pork and shellfish too!

And Blood, and things strangled.

Acts 15: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, (Law of Moses) and from fornication, (Law of Moses) and from things strangled,(Law of Moses) and from blood. (Law of Moses)

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Acts-15-22/
So what is the ONE thing that is different from eating shellfish, pork, blood, and things strangled, and eating an apple without first washing ones hands a certain way, according to Scriptures?

The answer is simple. One is forbidden by God's Word which Paul says was "Written for our sakes no doubt", and one was not forbidden by God.

This is simply a biblical Fact. Shall a man not consider these Facts, even if his traditions might be exposed as contrary to the Righteousness of God?

So if Jesus is wanting to exclude these items, He is speaking very carelessly indeed.

Now wait a minute here. It is you who included the consumption of animals the Rock of Israel deemed as unclean. Jesus never even hinted to eating pork here. He is speaking to the unrighteous religious traditions of men, who laid aside the commandment of God.

You are adding to His Words to justify your own traditions. This is simply true.

And if that is not enough, Jesus goes on to explain what does defile - the things that come out from the heart. The last time I checked, shellfish and pork do not "come forth from the heart".

But rebellion against God's commandments does come from within. Jesus said so. God told eve not to eat of one tree in the midst of the garden. It was not the "fruit" that defiled her. It was disobedience and rebellion which comes from within.

In your religion, DO you believe that rebellion and disobedience to God comes from within?

So, unless Jesus is being equally careless in His explanation, these things - shellfish and pork - do not defile since they do not come out from the heart.

But disobedience does come from the heart. God didn't say "Wash your hands a certain way, before you eat". But God did say "This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Don't look at the Scriptures through the prism of self-justification. Is there a difference between the religious tradition of men, and the Written Laws of God? There is an honest answer to this question. We shouldn't let our fleshy pride hide the answer from us, just to justify itself.

Let's look at this from a different angle. Consider this statement:

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Jesus defines what defiles a man (e.g. things that come out from the heart), and then contrasts it with handwashing which we we all agree does not defile. You appear to believe that the logic of this contrast does not close the door on the possibility that pork still defiles.

There is only one reason why there is even a question between the difference of eating an apple without following some religious washing tradition of men, and eating pork or slugs. It is the same exact reason, created by the same exact God, why there is a difference between Loving our Neighbor, or hating him without a cause. The same exact reason why there is a difference between seeing a female and committing adultery in your heart.

Please consider;

There is only one reason why there is even a question between the difference of eating an apple without following some religious washing tradition of men, (Of which there is no Law of God against) and eating pork or slugs. (Which God's Law forbids) It is the same exact reason, created by the same exact God, why there is a difference between Loving our Neighbor, (Of which there is no Law of God against) or hating him without a cause. (Which God's Law forbids) The same exact reason why there is a difference between seeing a female, (Of which there is no Law of God against) and committing adultery with her in your heart. (Which God's Law forbids)

In each case, the lust to rebel and disobey, comes from within and defiles a man, not from without.

At least according to the Jesus of the bible.

But that is not correct and here is why: Although you guys need to overlook this to salvage your position, Jesus has already excluded pork and shellfish from the things that defile in the preceding sentence. So your argument (as I understand it) does not work. Yes, if we did not have the preceding statement that defined defilement in terms of what comes out from the mouth, then you would definitely have a point - Jesus could still believe that the "set of things that defile" include shellfish and pork.

Still, disobedience defiles a man, and in every instance, disobedience comes from within. I get that you can't accept this undeniable biblical truth, because you would then have to deal with your own traditions which cause those who follow them, to "Law aside the commandment of God".

Jesus didn't do this.

Bottom Line: I would characterize the position of those who think Jesus is not overturning the food laws as a strategy of pointing out that the conversation is triggered by handwashing, and even ends with a comment about handwashing in the Matthew version, while artfully ignoring the intervening analysis that Jesus offers, an analysis that is, as far as I can see, incompatible with the position that pork etc, still defile.

It was never the Pork that defiled a man. It was never the adulterous woman that defiled a man. It was never the worlds riches that defiled a man. It was never eating with unwashed hands that defiled a man.

It was and still is the rebellion, disobedience and disrespect for the God and Father of the Lord's Christ, which defiled men. And this disobedience always comes from within.

Lev. 11: 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Matt. 7: 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Thanks for the lively discussion. This topic has been contentious for centuries. For me, it's a no brainer. Surely my Father knows what food for His Children is and what is not. Why rebel against Him from my heart.

I'm ok with it as I believe this God knows more than I, and I love Him. I am always reminded of the old rock and roll song in discussions such as this. "I will do anything for Love, but I won't do that".

Food for thought.

 

[expos4ever]

What I am advocating for is an honest examination of what Jesus actually said for the purpose of doctrine.

Mark 7: 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, (Like you are accusing Jesus of doing) 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 you are accusing Jesus of doing) that ye may keep your own tradition.

Here is the problem: If all we had were these verses, I think you would have a point. But, I believe you are committing the logical error of believing that since Jesus is opposed to one thing - these human traditions - He cannot therefore also be committed to abolishing the Law of Moses. But, to be fair, I do not want to gloss over one thing Jesus says here: He clearly does criticize the Pharisees for breaking the Law of Moses (your statement that I am saying Jesus is doing the same thing needs to be understood in light of a critical distinction - Jesus, unlike the Pharisees - is in position of authority over the Law). But the fact that Jesus criticizes their failure to obey the Law does not, and this really actually quite obvious, logically necessitate that the Law will remain in force after Jesus' death. For all we know, the target of Jesus's critique is the attitude of disobedience that the Pharisees display, rather than the fact they are disobeying the Law.

There is also something a little misleading about focusing on this issue of man-made traditions - you, and others, seem to think that because Jesus utters the "nothing that goes into a man defiles" statement in the setting of His repudiation of man-made traditions - a fact I readily concede - that this means that Jesus must, by some sort of unexplained reason, never stray from that topic, never open the discussion up to something new. Here is the problem with this: you ignore the "springboard" explanation - that it makes perfect sense for Jesus to leverage a a discussion about add-ons to the Law as a "way in" to a conversation about the status of the Law itself.

 

[ralliann]

That is not a question, it's a statement wrapped around an accusation.

You were quoting my answers to someone else.

I don't know what answer you are looking for.

Yes, but I believe that it is rather rude to assume to answer for someone else. and you weren't just asking a question you started off with

"Lulav, what kind of answer is this? You do not because you cannot keep the law as Moses wrote in scripture."​

Another accusation.

OK,it can be generalized even though it was a response to something Doug said. However to make it easier for all to understand what I was speaking of let's see the actual quote and answer from myself.

--------------------------------



---------------------------------

So I'm pretty sure it can be seen that I was asking DOUG if he talked to his children that way about the rules he made for them to follow. You know like, don't stick a fork into a socket or look both ways before crossing the street, or eat all your vegetables, things like that a loving parent teaches their children to do because they love them and care about their welfare. I'm sure he wouldn't preface it by saying what he said above.

His answer to me you actually echoed in your accusation

"I am asking you a question myself now. You do not keep the law as Moses wrote in scripture."

So I'm asking you, how do you know what I do?

It is how forums go. I asked a question, concerning a comment you made in a post. I did not see the thread to be between you and one other person here. I cannot ask in the messianic forum, but I can here, in an open forum.

 

[expos4ever]

Taking a walk in fellowship with God on HIS Holy Sabbath, and eating an apple along the way, without first washing your hands according to a certain religious tradition, was not against God's Commandments, rather, it was against manmade religious traditions of the children of the devil at that time.

Indeed, but all that this shows is that, during the time it was in force, people added man-made traditions onto the Law. Your statement, while true, in no undermines the assertion that, as of the Cross, the Law of Moses has been set aside.

Fornication, eating the blood of animals, meats offered to idols, eating dog meat, or swine's flesh, those who live in these traditions of men, are laying aside the Commandment of God so that they can continue in whatever lifestyle or practice that suits them.

Does the adulterous woman defile a man? Or is it the fleshy lust for her that comes from the heart? Did the Blood of animals defile the Gentiles in Acts 15? Or was it the Lust to disobey God in their heart, that defiles them?

You are using Jesus here and miss-representing His Word's to justify a popular religious lifestyle, in this case, rejecting God's Judgment regarding what is food and what is not.

You are rather obviously begging the question - assuming the very thing under debate: whether the Law of Moses is still in force.

You are promoting the popular religious philosophy that Jesus advocated for disobeying God by rejecting God's Judgments. So we are not to give our pearls to swine, but it's OK to eat the swine. Clearly Jesus was not such a hypocrite. There are religious traditions of man, and there are Commandments and Judgments of God. Shall we not at least acknowledge the difference first?

Well, it is perfectly coherent for me to say (a) during the time the Law was in force, yes, there was a difference between the religious traditions of man and the Law of Moses; (b) the Law of Moses is now set aside.

 

[Studyman]

I love eating swine flesh, and I just had one for dinner. Let me respond to this.

Yes, rejecting God's Judgments have been a popular religious tradition of this world's religions since the wicked kings of Israel. At least you are honest as to why you disobey God in this matter. You love Pork. I did too for a long while. But Jesus said to "deny myself" pick up my traditions and past life's experiences (my cross) and Follow Him, so it seemed prudent to no longer follow my thoughts and desires, but to place my Trust in His Words, as I believe HE knows better for me what I need. And Paul did say the Law and Prophets were written specifically for my admonition. And to be careful not to rebel in my heart the way the Children of Israel did.

So I followed the advice of the Disciples in Acts 15, and I "Abstained from fornication, from swine's flesh, stealing and hating others for no real cause", all that I knew I struggled with. Then studied, having abstained from this disobedience, the Law and Prophets that Paul said are able to make me wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. And also for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So even though my carnal heart loved to eat pork, and chase women, I studied God's Word's abstaining from these fleshy lusts, as the gentiles were also instructed to do in the Scriptures. Now, 30 years later, I understand perfectly why God created for me His "instruction in righteousness". Why HE created His Sabbaths for me, and His Judgments regarding what is food and what is not, and how to fight against the lusts of my flesh, the cross I will bear until Jesus comes back and removes it. If I would have rejected God's judgments, but still studied, I would understand differently, and would no doubt have adopted one of the many religious sects of this world who have also rejected God's Judgments, but still study "in His Name".

You have studied in rejection of God's Judgments, by your own admission. You have already Judged God regarding HIS Judgment of what is food and what is not, as unworthy of your respect and honor, choosing to live by your own Judgments concerning swine, than God's Judgment concerning swine.

As a result, your religious philosophy differs from mine. Your religion teaches a different gospel than the one I read. Our understanding is different, because we have "Yielded ourselves" to obey different authorities.

I say these things not to condemn, but to be honest. If I were to engage with you, you would be defending and justifying your disobedience, while I would be sharing everything obedience has taught me.

I have an advantage in that I lived as you do at one time in my life, but you have never lived as I have over the last many years. You will start avoiding real discussion of scriptures, and refusing to answer questions, it will become contentious between us. And I'm not sure I want to go there again and again.

So I will only respond to one of your more troubling religious philosophies.

"Was Jesus defiled when he asked God to take away the cup? Isn't that evidence of not having faith or full submission without wavering? Why do we set a standard for defilement where it doesn't exist?"

I find it quite appalling that you would compare your unsatiable lust to eat swine's flesh, with Jesus feeling fear for the wretched torture HE knew was coming. But I feel compelled to point out what really happened.

38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Why would you leave this most important Truth out of your rebuke of me? It is this kind of discourse that I know is coming, if I were to engage with you regarding what the scriptures actually say about God's Judgments.

Perhaps I might just suggest that maybe God has a reason for His commandments, even the ones we may have been convinced are unworthy of our respect. And maybe we should consider that true "Faith" in God, is believing HIM and HIS Judgments when the world around us does not.

 

[expos4ever]

No, it was the Truth of the "purity laws" of the Torah. It wasn't the fruit that defiled Eve. It was the rejection of God and HIS instruction from her heart, that defiled Eve.

Huh? My statement was that, in the following statement, Jesus repudiates the food laws:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

How is your statement above in any way a response? No reasonable person would disagree that piece of shellfish "goes into a person". So, at a plain literal reading, Jesus is indeed challenging the kosher purity Laws of the Torah. And all we are seeing in the way of a counterargument is that the setting in which this statement was made is a discussion of handwashing. Well, the attentive reader will want to know how that fact justifies transforming this:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

....into this:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him, except shellfish, pork, etc.;

It wasn't the "blood" that defiled the Gentiles in acts 15. It was the lust to continue in whatever disobedient lifestyle they had grown accustomed to, that caused them to lay aside the Commandments of God, that defiled them. It wasn't the "money" that defiled Ananias and Saphira, but greed and lust which comes from within a man, not from without.

This is why the Disciples, inspired by the Spirit of the Christ, told the Gentiles to abstain from disobedience to God in these areas, knowing that Moses of Old Time is read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. And they could learn about God's Righteousness, that the Pharisees didn't believe in, and were ignorant of, when Moses was read.

Not sure I see how any of this challenges the assertion that Jesus is to be taken literally when He says that nothing that goes into a man defiles him and, more broadly that the Law of Moses is retired. Just because the Law of Moses reflected and promoted God's righteous principles, and I have never denied this, does not mean that we still need to consult that Law given that we have been given the indwelling Spirit.

 

[Studyman]

Here is the problem: If all we had were these verses, I think you would have a point. But, I believe you are committing the logical error of believing that since Jesus is opposed to one thing - these human traditions - He cannot therefore also be committed to abolishing the Law of Moses.

The religious philosophy that Jesus abolished the Laws of God that HE gave to His people through Moses is not something the Bible teaches at all. This world's religions promote such a philosophy, but not the Holy scriptures.

But, to be fair, I do not want to gloss over one thing Jesus says here: He clearly does criticize the Pharisees for breaking the Law of Moses (your statement that I am saying Jesus is doing the same thing needs to be understood in light of a critical distinction - Jesus, unlike the Pharisees - is in position of authority over the Law).

Your religious philosophy that Jesus broke His Father's Commandments might be popular with a few of this world's religions, but the Holy scriptures certainly do not teach such a thing about Him.

But the fact that Jesus criticizes their failure to obey the Law does not, and this really actually quite obvious, logically necessitate that the Law will remain in force after Jesus' death. For all we know, the target of Jesus's critique is the attitude of disobedience that the Pharisees display, rather than the fact they are disobeying the Law.

Jesus says the Laws of God will be in force as long as this earth is here. I am still walking on the same planet Jesus walked on. He also said the Laws of God will remain in force, until "ALL" is fulfilled. He has not yet fulfilled "all things", as we are still awaiting HIS return, which is most important. AS far as the Pharisees are concerned. Jesus said they didn't believe Moses. That they didn't obey the Laws God gave to Moses for them. And HE said not to do what they do, when sitting in Moses' seat.

There is also something a little misleading about focusing on this issue of man-made traditions - you, and others, seem to think that because Jesus utters the "nothing that goes into a man defiles" statement in the setting of His repudiation of man-made traditions - a fact I readily concede - that this means that Jesus must, by some sort of unexplained reason, never stray from that topic, never open the discussion up to something new. Here is the problem with this: you ignore the "springboard" explanation - that it makes perfect sense for Jesus to leverage a a discussion about add-ons to the Law as a "way in" to a conversation about the status of the Law itself.

Your entire argument is presented to justify your particular religious philosophy ""I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions."

Jesus said disobedience and rebellion to God's Laws comes from within.

You have provided no evidence that Jesus rebelled against His Father's Laws, as no such evidence exists. Therefore a man must accept the probability that the religious philosophy "Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions." is a religious doctrine and tradition of man, much like the teaching that it is a sin to eat without first washings your hands a certain way.

However, the instruction of God defining what is food and what is not, is not a religious doctrine or tradition of man, because it's in your own Bible. It seems prudent to at least acknowledge this undisputable Biblical Truths.

 

[Studyman]

Huh? My statement was that, in the following statement, Jesus repudiates the food laws:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

Disobedience defiles a man and comes from within. Your refusal to believe this Biblical Fact, doesn't make it untrue. There is no disobedience to God eating an apple without first following some manmade hand washing ritual. There is direct disobedience to God in eating dogs or swine's flesh.

This is simply a Biblical Fact. Your unbelief doesn't change the status of this truth.

How is your statement above in any way a response? No reasonable person would disagree that piece of shellfish "goes into a person".

Only those who don't believe God. Jesus said this disobedience only comes from within. It's not the shellfish that defiles a person, just as it wasn't the forbidden fruit that defiled EVE. It was disrespect, dishonor and disobedience to God, that defiles a person. And these come from within, not from without.

So, at a plain literal reading, Jesus is indeed challenging the kosher purity Laws of the Torah. And all we are seeing in the way of a counterargument is that the setting in which this statement was made is a discussion of handwashing. Well, the attentive reader will want to know how that fact justifies transforming this:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

....into this:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him, except shellfish, pork, etc.;

You are here to justify yourself. Therefore, when I ask you the question, "what is the difference between not washing hands before eating, and eating swine's flesh, you refuse to answer. And of course you do. Because the answer is, one is a man-made tradition, and the other is direct disobedience to God.

You may believe there is no difference between God's Laws, and man's laws, but Jesus never teaches such a thing.

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.

Now your religious tradition may be eating swine's flesh and slugs, but to do that, you MUST Law aside the Commandment of God. Jesus said this rebellion and disobedience comes from within, not from without.

Not sure I see how any of this challenges the assertion that Jesus is to be taken literally when He says that nothing that goes into a man defiles him and, more broadly that the Law of Moses is retired.

Jesus didn't come to "Retire" God's instruction of Righteousness. You came to destroy God's Laws, but Jesus didn't. Truly it is the rebellion and disobedience that defiles a man. AS Jesus said "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Just because the Law of Moses reflected and promoted God's righteous principles, and I have never denied this, does not mean that we still need to consult that Law given that we have been given the indwelling Spirit.

God's Spirit would never promote the rejection, rebellion or disrespect of God's Righteous instructions. At least, not the God of the Bible.

As Paul taught the New Covenant believers.

2 Tim. 3: 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Lev. 11: 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Truly men know of this God and Father of the Lord's Christ. But they refuse to acknowledge His Righteousness. Jesus said this rebellion and dishonor for God comes from within.

 

[expos4ever]

About the whole "handwashing" argument to explain why we are not to take Jesus literally here:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

It cannot be overstated enough: just because the conversation starts, and even finishes with Jesus critiquing man-made add-ons to Torah, this does not mean that Jesus cannot taken the conversation about handwashing and used it as a springboard to not only critique the add-ons but to also make a larger point: the Law of Moses itself is now set aside.

It is easily to be lulled into believing that if Jesus is addressing handwashing, He can only be talking about handwashing in His reply. But this is obviously just an assumption.

What is being conveniently set aside when people make the "the context is handwashing" argument is that context itself also plausibly supports the argument that we are to take Jesus literally when He refers to "nothing" (above). Why? Simple - a conversation about handwashing, since it deals with defilement in relation to eating, is but one tiny adjustment away from being a conversation about the food laws themselves.

In any event, note the deafening silence about this key fact: I believe no one (who believes the food laws survive) is actually offering explanations for (a) why Jesus would use the word "nothing", as in "nothing that you take into your body defiles" if He really believes there are plenty of things that so defile; and (b) Jesus would explain the lack of defilement of whatever it is He is talking about by the explanation that the consumed item enters the body and is then evacuated out when He knows fulls well that shellfish and pork take this exact same non-defiling route out of the body.

 

[Studyman]

Indeed, but all that this shows is that, during the time it was in force, people added man-made traditions onto the Law. Your statement, while true, in no undermines the assertion that, as of the Cross, the Law of Moses has been set aside.

You are rather obviously begging the question - assuming the very thing under debate: whether the Law of Moses is still in force.

Well, it is perfectly coherent for me to say (a) during the time the Law was in force, yes, there was a difference between the religious traditions of man and the Law of Moses; (b) the Law of Moses is now set aside.

God's Laws are Set aside by you and the Pharisees, that you may promote your religious traditions. This is true.

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.

But Jesus never did any such thing. And neither did His Disciples. Was it the Blood from without that defiled the Gentiles in Acts 15? Or did Paul tell them to Abstain from eating Blood because it was in direct disobedience to God?

Look, we are simply going in circles. You are going to continue to justify your religion, regardless of scriptures. I simply wanted to share a perspective of a man who believes God and have found His instruction in righteousness, essential in this evil, disobedient world.

I have done that, so to continue arguing would be fruitless.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[expos4ever]

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God in his inner being, but contrasted that with the law of sin that was waging war against the law of his mine and holding him captive. In would not make sense to interpret Romans 7:4-6 as referring to the Law of God, as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death or delighted in being held captive, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive.

I suggest that no scholar, not even one, believes that the Law here in Romans 7:6 is not the Law of Moses:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

But, in any event, you are not telling the whole story. To wit:

I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me

While Paul delights in the Law, he also recognizes it has a dark side - it brings energizes and empowers his sinful nature.

 

[Cornelius8L]

I say these things not to condemn, but to be honest. If I were to engage with you, you would be defending and justifying your disobedience, while I would be sharing everything obedience has taught me.

No worries; we're having conversation; there's no need for condemnation because there is only One Judge. Being honest about where we stand will help our conversation because we are discussing how God will judge us. Our disagreement is about whether or not this restriction still applies. If there are no more restrictions like this, then no one is actually rebelling.

The council of Jerusalem didn't end in one meeting; they debated for a long time before deciding that foreigners no longer had to be circumcised, which broke God's everlasting covenant with Abraham (Gen 17:12–14), even though they still claim that foreigners are the seeds of Abraham (Gal 3:29). That was a serious twist concerning God’ judgment.

Whether or not eating pork is permitted now depends on whether or not the law comes to an end with Christ's resurrection and whether or not the law has ‘evolved from its caterpillar form into that of a butterfly.’ Although the butterfly's and the caterpillar's actions couldn't be more different, they are the same creature. So, calling something unclean that God has already made clean is like saying the butterfly still needs to eat leaves like a caterpillar. This goes against God's judgment and command.

I also respect those who want to keep the custom, since the law of freedom lets us. But if we are accused of disobedience for breaking the law when there is no longer such a requirement, we should explain ourselves because we can't live by a random principle.

I wouldn't say much about being in advantage or not because God set different boundaries for different people, but we can share what we know. God gave me the gift of HS to prophesize about my surroundings, but not about other people. Still, I don't think I'm better than other people because “in humility consider others more important than yourselves (Phi 2:3).”

Concerning the fear Jesus felt, Peter was also feeling fearful when he walked on water, and Jesus rebuked him for not having enough faith. In response to your earlier statement that "this disobedience only comes from within," my point is that having fear in our hearts and a tendency to not follow God's instructions does not make us defile, as Matthew 12:3-7 shows. Jesus, as God, doesn't have to show this because He is perfect. But He did it so we could see that the standard wasn't really that tough.

 

[Studyman]

No worries; we're having conversation; there's no need for condemnation because there is only One Judge. Being honest about where we stand will help our conversation because we are discussing how God will judge us. Our disagreement is about whether or not this restriction still applies. If there are no more restrictions like this, then no one is actually rebelling.

The council of Jerusalem didn't end in one meeting; they debated for a long time before deciding that foreigners no longer had to be circumcised, which broke God's everlasting covenant with Abraham (Gen 17:12–14), even though they still claim that foreigners are the seeds of Abraham (Gal 3:29). That was a serious twist concerning God’ judgment.

That's not exactly accurate in my understanding, please allow me expand on why. Paul claimed the Body of Christ to be the true "circumcision". "We are the Circumcision" he said. Circumcision was and is still an absolute requirement from God. No one in the Body of Christ can remain uncircumcised. So the Covenant of Abraham is still intact. And God's instruction through Moses is still in force.

Duet 10: 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

The Pharisees, who were children of the devil, who were teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men, not God, had a religion. Their religion was called "The circumcision" (made with hands). But they were not Circumcised after the manner of God's Covenant with Abraham.

Mark 7: 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.

For the Pharisees, to be "circumcised" and follow the "Law of Moses" meant to partake in "their" religion and "their" religious traditions that Jesus said caused those who followed them to "Full well ye reject the commandment of God". A burden that neither they nor their fathers could bear. Jesus speaks to this.

Matt. 23: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they (Pharisees, not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

So to say "foreigners no longer had to be circumcised" isn't actually accurate in my understanding and isn't what Paul teaches, I don't think.

Col. 2: 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

The Faithful like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and the wise men knew God and understood HIM regarding HIS teaching of Circumcision.

Jer. 9: 24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

So in Acts 15, we are told by the religions of this world we were born into, that Peter and the Disciples were turning the New Converts away from the Holy Scriptures and God's Laws. But that isn't true. The Disciples were turning the new converts away from the religions and religious traditions of the children of the devil. And turning them toward the Holy scriptures and God's Laws.

Acts 15: 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, (Law of Moses) and from fornication, (Law of Moses) and from things strangled, (Law of Moses) and from blood. (Law of Moses) 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Which is the same place Jesus told the multitudes and His Disciples to go "do" what Moses instructed. Just don't follow the Pharisees religion, because they say they follow the Law of Moses, but they do not.

I'm just a dumb cowboy, and sometimes I don't communicate well. Do you understand what I am expressing?

I'll join into the rest of this conversation in another post.

Thanks for inviting the discussion.

 

[Bob S]

Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?​

Gentiles never were and becoming Christians never changed that fact. So, the question is are Christians under any laws? I would suggest that we certainly are under many laws, one of the many is the Royal Law of LOVE. Jn15:9-14

Since Gentile Christians were never under the laws of the old covenant how about naming the laws we are under. Again, since Gentiles were never under the laws of the old covenant and in the New Testament are told to keep the commandments of God, what commands would be included in commandments of God?

 

[expos4ever]

Matt. 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Shouldn't a man then believe "EVERY WORD" of God incarnate, like Jesus Himself instructs?

Should we not believe every word? OK, let's go with that. Here is some Scripture from the Old Testament:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on here? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. And that has already happened.

I do not believe that you or anyone else in these threads have ever actually dealt with my argument that it is entirely plausible that, in Matt 5:17, Jesus is drawing on a well-established Biblical (and extra-Biblical tradition) for that matter tradition of using end of the world language in a specifically metaphorical way to refer to events in the here and now. If this is the case, we do not need to understand Jesus (in Matt 5:17) as saying at the law will remain literally until heaven and earth pass away.

In fact Jesus says the law will last till "all is fulfilled". And what goes Jesus say at the moment on the cross when cosmic history literally turns the corner?

It is finished

You have to believe this striking connection is a pure coincidence. I will let readers judge how likely that is.

 

[Studyman]

Whether or not eating pork is permitted now depends on whether or not the law comes to an end with Christ's resurrection and whether or not the law has ‘evolved from its caterpillar form into that of a butterfly.’

Couldn't the same thing be said about the religion Eve was convinced to adopt about God's command regarding what to eat and what not to eat? She was convinced God's Law came to an end. And that she was free to spread her wings and create her own Law, follow her own path. Didn't Paul specifically warn about this very thing? "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

But in my understanding, here is where what is actually written in the Holy scriptures is so important. Because God placed you and I in a world in which "another voice" who also quotes some of God's Words, teaches us all, as it did Eve, that we are already "eternally secure", and that God's Law no longer matters.

There is a lot of Scriptures which counter the popular religious philosophy of this world, that God's Law ended. The Post would be too long to state them all. But it seems prudent to post at least one.

Rom. 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, (Transgress God's Law) because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

In this one scripture, there are volumes more, where Paul is teaching the Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile, over 14 years after Jesus ascended, that transgression of God's Law still brings death. Isn't this the reason why we are instructed to "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless."? Isn't this God's Pleading to all His People?

Ez. 18: 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Although the butterfly's and the caterpillar's actions couldn't be more different, they are the same creature. So, calling something unclean that God has already made clean is like saying the butterfly still needs to eat leaves like a caterpillar. This goes against God's judgment and command.

I agree with this statement perfectly. "What God has cleansed". And Peter did as well.

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.

"Many", who come in Christ's name, teach that Peters vision was about the end of God's judgments regarding what is food and what is not. But it seems only those who have rejected His Judgment in this matter, are promoting such a doctrine. And it does beg the question about Peter. He was one of those men eating with unwashed hands the Pharisees condemned. Did Peter not get the memo regarding Jesus abolishing His Fathers Judgments regarding clean and unclean animals?

Or is the reason why Peter didn't "Kill and Eat" is because Jesus didn't abolish HIS Father's Judgments? Given Jesus own Words about dogs and swine, and the Prophesies of Isaiah, I believe Jesus didn't come to destroy His Father Judgments.

But this understanding is not widely held in the religions of this world, who call Jesus Lord, Lord.

 

[expos4ever]

I understand why you would want to change the subject, and redirect the conversation away from your religious philosophy that preaches "I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions."

An obvious misrepresentation that only those who have not been following this thread will believe. Those who are actually following along will know that I was responding to a dubious assertion that I was "twisting scripture". So, in response, I showed that those who believe the Law remains in force are systematically guilty of the same offence.

You, it seems, want readers to believe that I want to dance away from my claims that Jesus broke the Law, at least at times. This is, of course, demonstrably false.

But for me, the very reason why I bring this world's religious philosophies to the Light of the Scriptures, is to prove them, as instructed. Not only to discern your preaching, but to shine the Light on the contents of my heart as well, to expose any darkness that remains.

There has been case made that Jesus did, at times, "break" the Law. When the response to such a carefully argued case is to demonize my position (e.g., cynically characterizing it a "religious philosophy of this world"), and not appropriately engage the arguments I have provided, the astute reader will draw the obvious conclusion. Please address my arguments and leave the sermonizing out.

 

[Studyman]

I also respect those who want to keep the custom, since the law of freedom lets us. But if we are accused of disobedience for breaking the law when there is no longer such a requirement, we should explain ourselves because we can't live by a random principle.

The question remains, who is teaching men that God's Laws are simply customs to be discarded or kept as men see fit? When, in all the holy scriptures, were men permitted to create their own "principle", their own religion, their own righteousness? Ananias and Saphira, according to this religious philosophy, should have had the freedom to do as they please, because according to this world's religions, God's Law is no longer "required" for the Body of Christ.

But that can't be true, can it? The entire Gospel of Christ, from the Exodus to Revelations, warns of the consequence of rejecting God's Righteousness and His Judgments.

rom. 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Rom. 2: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

This is Paul speaking to the Body of Christ over 14 years after Jesus ascended. He is in the New Priesthood Covenant God promised.

So yes, men are freed from Sin when they repent and "Yield themselves" to obey God's Law, by the Blood of the Lamb of God. They are free from indignation and the Wrath of God. And the Veil is removed in the reading of the Law and Prophets. And they have God's compassion, and HIS Mercy and His Loving kindness as they, like Paul, "Press toward the mark of the high calling of "God", which is in Christ Jesus..

But when they only serve Him with their lips, and they promote religious doctrines and traditions of men while at the same time, rejecting His Judgments and instruction in righteousness, and teaching others to do the same, indignation and wrath.

Is this not what Paul is teaching here?

I wouldn't say much about being in advantage or not because God set different boundaries for different people, but we can share what we know. God gave me the gift of HS to prophesize about my surroundings, but not about other people. Still, I don't think I'm better than other people because “in humility consider others more important than yourselves (Phi 2:3).”

I knew you would go for the "you think I'm better than you" card, it's only natural and I knew if we engaged in this topic, you wouldn't be able to resist. It's OK, I felt the same way in times past. I was simply pointing out a truth about Scriptures. You study in direct disobedience to God's Judgments and Commandments. I know this because you said so. You believe your disobedience is justified. The Pharisees also studied in direct disobedience to God's Commandments, and they also believed their disobedience was justified. Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, studied in obedience to God, certainly in His Judgments that even a child can understand. There is no question that their understanding of Scriptures was different. That God revealed to them, Truths HE didn't reveal to the mainstream preachers of their time, who had laid aside the Commandment of God so that they might live in their religious traditions.


Paul said of the mainstream preachers of his time.

Titus 1: 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

I don't think Paul was a hypocrite, or that he considered himself better than these men. He was simply stating the Truth. But I'm quite sure these men thought Paul was not being humble, and that Paul thought he was better than them. Which would cause them to not look into what he was pointing out for the edification of them both, but you defend themselves, and justify their "works".

That is why I was hesitant to engage..

Concerning the fear Jesus felt, Peter was also feeling fearful when he walked on water, and Jesus rebuked him for not having enough faith. In response to your earlier statement that "this disobedience only comes from within," my point is that having fear in our hearts and a tendency to not follow God's instructions does not make us defile, as Matthew 12:3-7 shows.

David did follow God's instruction. Shall HE not go to the Priest of God for help? And so did the Priest. Shall he not help the Lord's children who needs help? Whose Law did David break? Whose Law did the Priest Break? This is what I mean about the difference of understanding between those who honor and respect God's Judgments, and those who reject His Judgments to follow popular traditions of the world God placed them in.

Having fear, anger, jealousy, none of these things are "Disobedience to God". And all these emotions given us by God can be used for Good.


Matt. 10: 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Eph. 4: 26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

2 Cor. 11: 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

But you are comparing natural human emotion that Jesus expressed, to evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: which come from within and defile a man.

And this to justify your tradition "I love eating swine flesh, and I just had one for dinner".

Paul never did this.

Jesus, as God, doesn't have to show this because He is perfect. But He did it so we could see that the standard wasn't really that tough.

Jesus was a man, in all ways as His Brethren. He was One with His Father in thought and works. But HE wasn't His father. He wanted me to know His Father, "AND" Him.


John 5: 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

My issue is not with you personally at all. You are only living as the religious sect or franchise you have adopted teaches. It is with the religious philosophy promoted by the religions of this world God placed us in, that we are told to "prove". As Jesus Himself warns.

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.

My point was to show that Jesus didn't destroy His Father's Judgments in Matt. 15, or Mark 7. He exposed the religious traditions of men and showed us where disobedience and rebellion against God comes from.

I was very hard for the Pharisees, who were so indoctrinated, and invested into the Jews Religion which had "Laid aside the commandment of God" in order to promote their own religious doctrines and traditions of man.

It will be hard today as well, unless a man "denies himself" and seek the Kingdom of God, and HIS Righteousness.