Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[expos4ever]

There are things which are alive that are considered by their CREATOR to be Fit to eat for his people. Anything not included in the Torah about that list is NOT considered Food.

You are trying, I suggest, to evade what Jesus is saying by redefining words and concepts. It is a strategy commonly used by those on your side of this matter. Here is how this strategy works. You have to deal with the huge challenge posed by this statement:

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

So what do you do? You take it upon yourself to redefine the concept of "thing" to exclude pork and shellfish.

Besides, even if the Jews did not consider "pork" to be food, they were immersed in a world where everyone else did - it is really hard to believe that they would not be aware that pork was "food".

But even if, repeat even if, we accept that pork etc. is not "food", notice what Jesus says about what actually does defile:

That which comes out of the person, that is what defiles the person defile:

Has Jesus forgotten that pork etc. does not come out from the person?

I realize you will counter with the assertion that the whole conversation is restricted to the issue of handwashing and that the meaning we ascribe to "nothing" needs to be interpreted in that light. I get it. But I suggest that such an hypothesis cannot survive any kind of a reasonable analysis of what Jesus actually says - it requires us to believe:

(a) that something commonly consumed in the Middle East (although not by Jews) would not be understood by Jews to be "food".

(b) that Jesus is being sloppy with His use of the word "nothing", since pork obviously is a thing; why not simply say what He means, i.e., that otherwise acceptable food eaten with unwashed hands does not defile.

(c) that Jesus has forgotten about the defiling effect of ingesting pork when he argues that it is what comes out of a person that defiles.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Agreed, meant to use the word “most”, regardless this is not a parable given by Jesus, but a prophecy given to the Prophet Isaiah. Not sure why it being from the OT would make any difference, lots of prophecies about the Second Coming in the OT and prophecies are meant for God’s people to understand.

Let's think about this: if God's people (Israeli) understood the OT prophecies, they wouldn't already have rejected Jesus. They did not accept Jesus, which shows that they did not understand the prophecies, which seemed like riddles to them.

 

[Lulav]

The uncircumcision was never bound by the Mosaic covenant. Noah, Abraham etc. were not either. Both were righteous before Moses law, and apart from it.

Righteous in obedience.

God declared that prophesies are riddles (Num 12:6-8). They should not be taken literally.

Surely you have misinterpreted that passage.

“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision;
I speak to him in a dream.
7 Not so with My servant Moses;
He is faithful in all My house.
8 I speak with him face to face,
Even plainly, and not in dark sayings;
And he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant Moses?”​

​

Where you get the idea that they should not be taken literally is beyond me and opens up a whole can of worms.

For instance are we not to take the Messianic prophecies literally? If not then how do we know if Messiah has even come yet?

Sin, as we can all agree, is disobedience to God. But if God alters something, refusing to adhere to the alteration is sin. We're discussing whether or not these "changes" happen.

The 'changes' you allude to did not happen.
God does not change his Holy word.
I don't 'adhere to the alteration' because I don't believe there has been one, just a lot of deception.

Noachide is not doing your own thing. It was taught in their synagogues and still is a teaching in Judaism. Just like clean and unclean sacrifices, in Noah's day. Animals were not given for food yet.
Not every animal is altar kosher. And that was the context of Genesis, was altar kosher.

Ge 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

It is not a health issue either since no poisonous plants were forbidden.

ralliann, I have no idea why you keep harping on Nochiade laws, where is that even part of the discussion. I am not a noachide, are you?
I really don't understand your statements here or even what they are in 'answer' to.

That is why Jesus told them to cast the first stone as witnesses.
De 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
De 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

The witnesses were to be the first to put them to death......

Jesus was not a witness against her.

Yup, familiar with the passage. But you see the key there is that there are two involved in adultery, thus both need to be at the accusation of such, but that wasn't the case here.

If Jesus wasn't a witness how did he know she sinned.

Romans 10 says "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness". In what sense has the Law ended? While I agree that Paul can be hard to understand at times, he surely is saying that the Law has ended in some sense.

Basically the sacrifices for sin, not all sacrifices were for sin.

As far as Paul being 'hard to understand' that is a softened version of what the Greek really says.

The word really means something like - incomprehensible.
I agree he may be saying that but where are the two or three witnesses?

Are you (those who think the Law remains) going to say this has to do with obedience to the Law no longer being how we attain "righteousness"? Well, I think Paul never believed that was the case anyway.

So what is Paul saying? In what regard has the Law ended?

Beats me, he comes up with all kinds of laws never mentioned in torah. So your guess is as good as mine.

How do you know it was not a valid accusation? if it was not valid, why does Jesus offer an entirely different explanation for not proceeding with the stoning - He says only those without sin are in a position to carry out this element of the Law of Moses.

It is obvious Jesus is effectively doing away with this element of the Law, it is impossible to fulfill if only non-sinners can carry it out.

He was not doing away with the law he was acting on righteousness, mercy as the 'case' was not properly handled. Today we would say that in a secular court of law it would be 'case dismissed' as there wasn't proper evidence.

Misleading. You have to know that those of us who think the Law has been retired do NOT believe we are free to "do our own thing".

I've heard many a believer say they don't have to do any of the commandments because Jesus did them all for them already.

 

[Cornelius8L]

The story about the woman found in adultery - it was not a righteous accusation. One reading of the Torah would show anyone willing to investigate.

If they 'found her in the act' then where was the other partner? You can't commit adultery by yourself yet they only brought forth the woman to Jesus. That is unrighteous and against the ordinance about that kind of thing.

'If a man commits adultery with a married woman—committing adultery with another man’s wife—the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.' Lev'If a man is found lying with another man’s wife, both of them—the man and the woman with whom he lay—shall die. Thus you will sweep away evil from Israel.' Deut.

The fact is that Jesus state that she did sin when he told her to 'go and sin no more'.

The Pharisees are described as lovers of money. How certain are we that the man's release wasn't influenced by money? Isn't injustice common in their time?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Let's think about this: if God's people (Israeli) understood the OT prophecies, they wouldn't already have rejected Jesus. They did not accept Jesus, which shows that they did not understand the prophecies, which seemed like riddles to them.

God's people didn't reject Jesus, just the unbelievers. God's Israel are God's people, not those who are born into it. Romans 9:6 Gal 3:26-28. Many of the children of Israel were destroyed by God during the wilderness due to unbelief and disobedience Ezekiel 20:13, Ezekiel 20:21, which is why we are warned not to take the same path.

 

[Lulav]

Wrong. As I have demonstrated many times, God’s law is restated in the New Covenant. And it is God’s law as stated in the New Covenant that we are bound to today.

Didn't you say this?

"The Old Covenant; all of it, every single command and ordinance, was surely cancelled.
That includes the

• dietary restrictions,
• sabbath observance,
• sacrificial system,
• and the 10 commandments"

 

[Cornelius8L]

It is a common part of growing up for two siblings fight each other, but that does not mean that they ever intend to kill each other. If two siblings are fighting and something happens that causes one of them to die, then it would be committing murder if they intended to do that, but if it was intentional, then it would be accidental manslaughter.

In Numbers 35:11, it says to select cities refuge that any manslayer who kills without intent may flee to. So the purpose of examining examples like whether or not the manslayer has a history of hating the person that they killed is to help the judge discern whether or not it was done with intent. It is a possible scenario that manslayer had a history of hating the person that they slew, but that it was still an accident, in which case there would not be intent and it would not be serving justice to find them to be found guilty of committing murder, so these are not intended to be understood as being black and white guidelines for judges that should be strictly followed even to the point of doing injustice. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are weightier maters of the law, so if someone is doing injustice, then they are not correctly obeying it.

God's righteousness and justice are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so they did not change between Genesis 1 and the giving of the Mosaic Law. It is not the case that God thought that murders should be given protection and change to thinking that murderers should be given the death penalty, but rather God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is a righteous judge who knew whether or not Cain slew Abel with intent and He treated Cain accordingly with justice.

So, Jude and John both misjudged Cain (Jude 1:11, 1 John 3:12), but you made a better judgment than either of them.

 

[Lulav]

When he sinned. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

He said regarding the Law he was blameless

5-6 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;Concerning zeal, persecuting the church;
touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Surely you have misinterpreted that passage.


“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision;
I speak to him in a dream.
7 Not so with My servant Moses;
He is faithful in all My house.
8 I speak with him face to face,
Even plainly, and not in dark sayings;
And he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant Moses?”Where you get the idea that they should not be taken literally is beyond me and opens up a whole can of worms.

For instance are we not to take the Messianic prophecies literally? If not then how do we know if Messiah has even come yet?

Please note that according to the verses you quoted, only Moses received the "plain words," not any other prophet. Yes, Messianic prophecy is indirect.

The 'changes' you allude to did not happen.
God does not change his Holy word.
I don't 'adhere to the alteration' because I don't believe there has been one, just a lot of deception.

In fact, you also change the law from the Old Testament. Did you give a sin offering when you gave birth? (Lev 12:5) Otherwise, you break the law and are guilty of all (James 2:10). Even without the temple, you can still offer sacrifices like Abraham did because Peter said we are priests (1 Peter 2:9). Whoops, Peter's words that we are priests already changed the law.

 

[Studyman]

I think I understand what you're saying, but doesn't that contradict what Paul says below?

Gal 5:2-3 “Take notice: I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.”

By this time, they should have figured out that it's not a Pharisee's circumcision, but a law's circumcision.

No, not at all. It confirms what Paul and Jesus, and the Law and Prophets said about the Pharisees religion.

"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 freed men from the deception of the religions of the world in that time, just as HE frees His people today from the deception being promoting by the religions of the world HE placed us in.

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Where our contention lies, is that you have been taught, and believe, that it was God's Laws that was the "Yoke of Bondage" the Pharisees were promoting. It wasn't. Jesus freed Paul from the deception, the "Yoke of Bondage" these children of the devil were promoting.

Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, were also freed by the Same Rock. Look into it and answer me one question. According to Scriptures and Jesus own Words, what was the glaring difference between Zacharias and the Pharisees?

 

[Cornelius8L]

God's people didn't reject Jesus, just the unbelievers. God's Israel are God's people, not those who are born into it. Romans 9:6 Gal 3:26-28. Many of the children of Israel were destroyed by God during the wilderness due to unbelief and disobedience Ezekiel 20:13, Ezekiel 20:21, which is why we are warned not to take the same path.

John 1:11 “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.”

 

[Soyeong]

So, Jude and John both misjudged Cain (Jude 1:11, 1 John 3:12), but you made a better judgment than either of them.

I did not disagree with what they said.

 

[Cornelius8L]

"For the Pharisees, to be "circumcised" and follow the "Law of Moses" meant to partake in "their" religion and "their" religious traditions

Where did this idea actually come from? Was it clearly recorded? If it doesn't, how do we know that it meant that 2000 years ago?

Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, were also freed by the Same Rock. Look into it and answer me one question. According to Scriptures and Jesus own Words, what was the glaring difference between Zacharias and the Pharisees?

Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist? How does he fit into the conversation about circumcision?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

John 1:11 “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.”

Yes, many Jews did not receive Him because they were unbelieving, which does not change anything in my post you are responding to. Who crucified Jesus- the Romans, only because the Jews insisted sinless Jesus be crucified over Barabbas.

 

[Studyman]

Since there is only one Lawgiver and her husband and Father are still around, why didn't Eve ask her husband and Father before eating? The difference here is that we talked to the Teacher, but Eve didn't. We have the Scriptures and HS with us, and Eve had God with her in the Garden, so she should have asked God like we search the Scriptures.

Yes, Eve didn't have an excuse. Paul said no one does.

Rom. 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 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:

So you and I, like Eve, was shown the Wrath of God against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men. It's just that, like Eve, "many" are convinced not to "Believe" Him.

The end of the law is at the cross, not before it (Rom 10:4, Gal 3:13, Gal 4:4-5, Col 2:14). So, while Jesus was still alive, they would still think of Gentiles as unclean dogs (Matt 15:26).

Rom. 10: 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Is Jesus not perfect? Is HE not the "Intent" of the Law for Righteousness? Should I not "believe" in Him, and the ONE who sent Him? What does Jesus say about the Law?

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.

The Jesus of the Bible teaches me not to even "THINK" HE came to destroy HIS Father's Law. He knew I would be contending with men, who call Jesus Lord, Lord, who would try and convince me, using "Some" of God's Words, that He came to destroy God's Law.

Gal. 3: 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

So the LAW says, "The soul that sins shall die". But are we not redeemed from this death? Now what?

Rom. 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, 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?

This was over 14 years into the New Priesthood Covenant, and according to Paul, Sin still brings death. Where there is no Law, there is no Sin. So the Law is still here, just as Paul and Jesus teaches.

The scriptures you use to promote the popular religious philosophy that Jesus destroyed His Father's Laws, actually confirm that HE did no such thing.

Gal. 4: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

But we have already established.

"What then? shall we sin, (Transgress God's Commandments) because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

Why would Paul say this? Because HE "Believed" in the Jesus of the Bible, that's why.

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.

Has Jesus returned? Nope, therefore ALL is not yet fulfilled. And you and I are walking the same Earth Jesus Walked on. So who should I believe? You, who are preaching that Jesus destroyed God's Laws on the Cross? Or Jesus and Paul who promoted the Law and Prophets their whole lives?

Col. 2: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Again, you use this verse to support your religious philosophy that Jesus basically lied to me in Matt. 5. I would point to Paul's Word's describing the Religion HE promoted before Jesus turned him. A religion that had taken over the Temple in Jerusalem, and had turned the Gospel of God into a religious business.

Gal. 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

So then, Stephen was a member of the Church of God/Christ yes? Jesus was the head of God's Church, Yes? So whose LAW caused their deaths? God's Law? Or the Law of the Pharisees Paul belonged to? "We have a Law, and by Our Law HE must die"

But now, Paul is a member of the Church of God, Yes? So what Law was against Him, and Gentiles, and Jesus, and the Prophets?? It was these Traditions and Commandments of men that Jesus exposed and nailed to His Cross.

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

To believe this world's religious philosophers, and by extension you, I would have to believe Jesus "Spoiled" His Father. That HE made a show of God openly and Triumphed over God's Laws on the Cross.

It wasn't God's "Handwriting of ordinances" that were against Jesus, Paul, Stephen or the Church of God.

You and I have been taught by the religions of this world God placed us in, that God's Laws were against the "Church of God". But it's a lie, according to all the Scriptures.

 

[Soyeong]

This reasoning is not correct. In fact, Paul explains exactly how something that is good can, indeed, bring about his death: the Law is good, but what it acts on is fallen human nature.

But either way, you continue to clearly reject Paul's words.

I accept Paul's words, which is why I don't interpret him as contradicting himself, so it strange that you would accuse me of rejecting Paul's words when you are the one who is rejecting that he denied that that which is good brought death to him, and you are erroneously trying to explain his words in a way that contradicts what he denied. Paul did not say that the Mosaic Law produces sin when it acts on fallen human nature, but that the law of sin produces sin when it acts on the Mosaic Law.

There nothing innate to the Mosaic Law that produces sin, for example, you can't specifically explain what is is about the command to love our neighbor as ourselves that produces sin, so what you are trying to say does not even work in principle. The fact that there is something within us that leads us to do the opposite of what we are told to do is not something that is innate to the Law of Moses, so when it is something within us that leads us to not love our neighbor as ourselves, then it is the something within us that is fully responsible for producing that sin, and it is not a dark side of the command to love our neighbor as ourselves.

He says sin took an opportunity provided by the Law to bring about Paul's death. This cannot mean anything other than that the Law did indeed play a role. You may not like this, but is the unavoidable result of taking Paul at his word - if something provides an opportunity for some other thing to do something, that first thing still plays a role, even if a rather small one.

There is a difference between an active and a passive role. The only thing that the command to love our neighbor as ourselves is doing is passively existing and it is not doing anything to actively bring about Paul's death, so there is no side of that command that is bringing about his death. There is something within us that reacts to the passive existence of that command that actively leads us to not love our neighbor, and this is what brought death to Paul, not that command.

And then there is this:

but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died

Paul is clear again: the commandment was at least part of the reason why sin came to life (and Paul died).

You may not like this, but there is simply no wiggle room here if we honour what words means and how sentences express meaning.

Again there is nothing innate to the commandment that caused Paul to die, so it is passively existing, and Paul died because sin came to life in reaction to the existence of the commandment. So the commandment did not play any part of an active role to cause Paul to die, which is why Paul denied that the commandment brought death to him, so the commandment does not have a dark side.

 

[ralliann]

ralliann, I have no idea why you keep harping on Nochiade laws, where is that even part of the discussion. I am not a noachide, are you?​

I really don't understand your statements here or even what they are in 'answer' to.

It was in response to whether or not "we" are "still" subject to Moses law. So, of course I brought it up. There are those of us (the uncircumcision) which have never been subject Moses law in the first place. Including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
I am sorry you consider it harping, but I believe it is an important tid bit.

Rom 4:9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

 

[ralliann]

Please note that according to the verses you quoted, only Moses received the "plain words," not any other prophet. Yes, Messianic prophecy is indirect.

In fact, you also change the law from the Old Testament. Did you give a sin offering when you gave birth? (Lev 12:5) Otherwise, you break the law and are guilty of all (James 2:10). Even without the temple, you can still offer sacrifices like Abraham did because Peter said we are priests (1 Peter 2:9). Whoops, Peter's words that we are priests already changed the law.

We know from Hebrews it was the fleshy commands that were disannulled.
Clean and unclean animals, circumcision.
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Ro 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean

 

[Leaf473]

We know from Hebrews it was the fleshy commands that were disannulled.
Clean and unclean animals, circumcision.
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Ro 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean

There's that "nothing" word again. Same word as is used in Mark, I think it was... nothing going in our mouths makes us unclean.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/14-14.htm

 

[ralliann]

There's that "nothing" word again. Same word as is used in Mark, I think it was... nothing going in our mouths makes us unclean.

[URL unfurl="false
"]Romans 14:14 Interlinear: I have known, and am persuaded, in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself, except to him who is reckoning anything to be unclean -- to that one it is unclean;[/URL]

I think it significant the convincing of Paul of this is... IN THE LORD JESUS.