Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[ralliann]

Getting a little testy?

I do declare, you forgot to add verse 5 which has a stipulation and that stipulation is an "IF". If Israel follows the covenant I will present, you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. We all know the rest of the story.

Yep, not to mention it is the disannulling of the carnal commandment, that made the Apostles kings and priests. What effected that for Jew's, also effected the same to non jew's.

 

[Lulav]

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

Notice the 'divers washing'? Man made laws. Same ones Jesus taught against.

things are unclean because the LORD GOD declared them so. It has nothing to do with what man thinks about it, He is the CREATOR, he knows his Creation inside and out, only HE can make that determination and distinction.

 

[Lulav]

Well God appears to be OK with Gentiles eating them:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make [r]yourselves detestable by animal or by bird, or by anything [s]that crawls on the ground, which I have distinguished for you as unclean. 26 So you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have singled you out from the peoples to be Mine.

This text clearly tells us that these food restrictions mark the Jew out as distinct from the Gentiles.

So God, the maker of all things, apparently has no objection to vast majority of humanity eating these things.

Yes he was distiquishing them from the heathens and doing so by his commandments, instructions, etc.

Now there are two choices,
Are you Of Israel
Or of the nations?
If you are of the nations you are considered a heathen.

There is one God and he has one people and you either join yourself to them or the nations.

 

[Lulav]

And is Paul talking about handwashing in this text?:

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean,..... (Roman 14:20)

Or is Paul just "obfuscating"?

All things are not clean, as said so by the Creator of All things.

 

[ralliann]

I still don't see the connection. Moses laws given by God are just that, the Noachide laws are different.

We can agree here as to distinctions. The Noachide law is also God's law.

The law of Moses is the Laws given to Moses to give to the people.
The patriarchs were given individual laws that brought about the covenant.

Again we agree concerning Moses. I see circumcision in the foreskin of the flesh, given to Abraham. It is not clear what you mean "brought about the covenant". The covenant was circumcision in the foreskin of the flesh, the eighth day.
We do know that the covenant God made with Israel was not made with the Fathers.
De. 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

The reason the covenant was handed down to Isaac is because his father obeyed the LORD in all that he had commanded him to do.

He obeyed the circumcision of the flesh, And offering up Isaac, on the altar.

That is a good example of bad translation.

I find the lxx, better on some points.

It comes from the Greek translation of the Torah called the Septuagint with which it's been found to be Pauls' source of biblical passages.

The passage should read like this:

6 And he (Abraham) believed the Lord; and he (Abraham) counted it to HIM (the LORD) for righteousness.

No, seems we cannot agree, this does not align with either text new or old.

 

[Lulav]

Where, and please be specific, is there anything in this text that requires us to believe the Law of Moses is still in force?

Lulav said:

Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

49For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”


If you can't see it even with my emphasis I doubt you'll get it but I'll try again.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave a covenant to a people he choose to bring the Messiah through.
He gave them instructions to follow to be a holy nation that could produce such
When the Messiah came he was the one promised to come and to be Like MOSES and that all Gods people were to listen TO HIM.

Here in this passage Jesus is explaining that if you believe in Him then you are believing in the one who sent him (the Father God).
He did not speak on his own Authoirity but what the Father told him to say , that he said.
And you can see that he spoke of the Laws of his Father.

Even in the temptation he said this:

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

[ralliann]

Notice the 'divers washing'? Man made laws. Same ones Jesus taught against.

things are unclean because the LORD GOD declared them so. It has nothing to do with what man thinks about it, He is the CREATOR, he knows his Creation inside and out, only HE can make that determination and distinction.

Here is the difference, between us it appears.
Yes, he determines distinctions. He distinguished to whom, it would be unclean.
"Unclean to you".
Le 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Le 11:8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Le 11:31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.

 

[expos4ever]

For all who think the food laws still apply, here is a text from Paul:

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean,..... (Roman 14:20)

Please explain how we can possibly read this text as not requiring us to understand that Paul is saying all foods (with "foods' provisionally understood to include things like pork and shellfish) are ok to eat.

Are you going to redefine the word "food" to exclude things like pork, as at least one poster has done?

Let's see where that gets us. Suppose Paul believes, as some are suggesting, that things like pork and shellfish are not even considered to be "food". Fine. Then Paul would be saying nonsense! By your hypothesis (that the word "food" excludes pork, etc.), Paul is adding an entirely needless qualifier when he says all things are clean since the term "food" already is limited to clean things!

The logic of Paul's sentence cannot work with the assumption that "food", as a term, already excludes things like shellfish and pork.

 

[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.”

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.

You say that God's people didn't reject Jesus, but John 1:11 says that they did. Have I missed something?

 

[ralliann]

Notice the 'divers washing'? Man made laws. Same ones Jesus taught against.

things are unclean because the LORD GOD declared them so. It has nothing to do with what man thinks about it, He is the CREATOR, he knows his Creation inside and out, only HE can make that determination and distinction.

For all who think the food laws still apply, here is a text from Paul:

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean,..... (Roman 14:20)

Please explain how we can possibly read this text as not requiring us to understand that Paul is saying all foods (with "foods' provisionally understood to include things like pork and shellfish) are ok to eat.

It is also in the text of the law itself.
Food for man and beast. All green herbs. Animals were not given here..

Ge 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. {life: Heb. a living soul }

Then when animals are given for food, They are given EVEN AS the green herb.....

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

There are no kosher green herbs for Israel. This despite, some being poisonous.

Clean and unclean for Noah was with regards to sacrifices, because animals were not for food at that time.
So just like all green herbs were for food, He gave all animals for food.

 

[Cornelius8L]

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?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. But what does "For Christ is the end of the law, to bring [(eis)] righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom 10:4) mean to you?

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.

Jesus changed the law, especially the definition in the fifth commandment. He showed that is fulfilling and upholding the law. The sacrificial law is another strong sign that something ended, which is the custom. If the law does not change, you should not stop making sacrifices.

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.

Rom 6:15, which you quoted, says that we are not under the law. Does the law say that you die of judgment, or of natural causes? So, what did Moses' death show? Did he not show up again on the mountain in front of Jesus? (Matt 17:3)

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?

Why do you think Jesus said this in the first place if the few examples we gave didn't seem to show that He was breaking the law? He was clearly talking about the law from a different point of view, which is the law's principle. I agreed with Him. Paul pushed not the laws but the principles behind the law, and I agree with him.

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.

So you don't agree with Col 2:14? Because I'm not sure how the rest of what you say explains Col 2:14.

 

[Cornelius8L]

That passage was words directed to Miriam and Aaron, God was showing them that Moses had special consideration over them as prophets. Besides, it shows that what was given to Moses was easy to understand so no one could dispute it.

These words tell Miriam and Aaron that God will give all prophets riddles (Num 12:6-8). Is that what He said? or didn't He?

Most likely for a reason you haven't considered. Bringing about the Messiah was a covert operation.

Jesus says to eat my flesh and drink my blood. Do you take it literally?

Making personal accusations now ?

How would you know if I ever gave birth? What if I was barren, that would be an awful unkind and unloving thing to say to any woman, especially one your really don't know.

1. I am not in the land

2. Sacrifices for sin are paid for

3. Woman did not make the sacrifices

Even if you are a man, this statement still applies to you because you are now contending for the law, and the law says that giving birth is a sin because God said so in the Old Testament, not because I said so (Lev 12:5). Sacrifice was paid for those who agree with the change in the law. Your OT laws and customs still exist because heaven and earth haven't pass away. If women can't make sacrifices, you need to find a priest, and if you can't, the OT law says that your sin is not forgiven.

Really? That sarcasm bug must really be going around.

Peter didn't change anything don't make such a slandering accusation against him.

Exodus 19 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Exodus 19 was talking about the Jewish nation. Peter was pointing to all Christians, including those who weren't Jews. You should be familiar with the material you are citing.

 

[Studyman]

I think you should spend some time understanding what the whole NT is about.

1 Cor 6:12-13​

“Everything is permissible for me,” but not everything is beneficial.​

It's not the Bible, or the NT that is the problem between us. It is the religious philosophy of men who cherry pick scriptures in order to promote a particular religious sect or lifestyle. Jesus warned us about listening to such men. Paul said a great many things, as did Jesus, and the Prophets. The practice of picking and choosing verses, then separating them from the rest of the Bible, then building doctrines around it which support a particular lifestyle, is very common. The serpent used the same tactic to deceive Eve.

Paul also said in Rom. 6:16 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?

Why is this important?

1 Cor. 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:

So either Paul is a Schizophrenic, preaching one truth in one sentence, and a completely different truth in another, or you are understanding him wrong when he says all things are permissible.

So "many", who come in Christ's name, use Paul's words above to justify disobedience to God. Whether it be rejecting His Judgments regarding what constitutes adultery or fornication, or rejecting His Judgments regarding what Day HE sanctified as Holy, or rejecting His Judgments regarding what is food and what is not food. It's all the same. They use the scriptures, not as Paul instructs, "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".

But they select certain verses and use them to justify a certain religious sect or franchise, or theory, or religious Philosophy. Which of course changes, depending on which religious sect or franchise of this world we adopt, of the many that exists in the World God placed us in.

I am certain the Spirit of Christ didn't inspire the NT for this purpose.

“Everything is permissible for me,” but I will not be mastered by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other.​

Yes, "Food" is created and was meant for the stomach. But not everything on this earth is Food according to the God who created it, surely you understand this. You said Eve should have gone to God to advise her in the beginning. So will you go to God and ask HIM what HE created for food and what was created for other things? But you already know God's Judgment on this matter. Just as Eve knew God's Judgment. It's just you and her have been convinced to reject God's Judgment and adopt the judgments of another.

This is just truth. There is no place in the Bible where God or His Son, "made all things clean", or made "all days Holy", just as Paul's message above wasn't making "ALL Things" lawful.

So some study would be required, as instructed. But if a man has already rejected God's Judgments as unworthy of their respect, can this man learn the truth? Not according to Paul.

Rom. 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

This is why, in my understanding, that the Pharisees could kill their own God, believing they were serving the same God.

The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.​

Why? Whose judgment is it that teaches sexual immorality is not for the body? Paul just said all things are permissible for him. You posted his words to justify your religious lifestyle, "I love eating swine flesh, and I just had one for dinner. Let me respond to this." Can I not also then justify sexual immorality with Paul's same words? Can I then justify hating men for no cause, using Paul's sentence separated from the rest of the Bible?

So answer me this, where is God's Judgments regarding sexual immorality found? Is it not the same exact God, found in the exact Same Law and Prophets, which teaches;

7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

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.

So according to God's Word, is swine's flesh meant for the stomach of God's People? Is Blood meant for the stomach of God's People? Was the fruit of the tree of good and evil meant for the stomach of God's People?

Well it depends on who we talk to doesn't it Cornelious.

​

Gal 2:21​

For if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died for nothing.​

What "LAW" was "ADDED" to provide for forgiveness, 430 years after Abraham obeyed God's Laws and Commandments? If taking a goat to the Levite Priest removed my sins, then Christ died for nothing.

How is my understanding contrary to these truths??

Didn't I just make a logical point? I might as well add another, with which you might also agree: getting older doesn't mean one has grown up, and going through something doesn't mean one has learned. If I quote from the Bible and you say I'm studying disobedience to God's judgments and commands, you are saying that the Bible itself is disobedience to God's judgments and commands. Paul was the one who talked about getting rid of the old laws and commandments.

Well let's be honest here. You said "I love eating swine flesh, and I just had one for dinner. Let me respond to this." So you know the commandment, you have just rejected it as beneath your honor or respect based on popular religious doctrines and traditions of this world God placed us in. This is just true. Like Eve, you don't think there is anything wrong with this disobedience, and you share with others, just as Eve did.

And Paul doesn't talk about getting rid of God's Laws and Commandments. Religious men, who come in Christ's Name preach he did, the serpent in the garden did, but Paul doesn't. A careful examination of Scriptures proves this.

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

1 Cor. 7: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

1 Cor. 9: 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.

1 Cor. 10: 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

I could go on and on. Paul does not try to get rid of God's Law. The serpent does.

Jesus was the one who said that David broke the law in this situation (Matt. 12:4).

Because you don't understand the carnal Priesthood God had in place until the Christ came, you don't understand Jesus here.

"But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless."

What is the difference between helping a man out of a pit he has fallen into on the Sabbath, or giving the Lord's Anointed who is starving, the only bread available to you?

It isn't God's Law that is the problem here. It is this world's religions which have influenced you.

 

[Studyman]

Fear makes Peter lose faith, which makes Jesus rebuke him. What does Jesus' fear make him do—not beg for the cup to be taken away which is not the will of the Father?

Fear makes Peter lose faith, which makes Jesus rebuke him. What does Jesus' fear make him do—not beg for the cup to be taken away which is not the will of the Father?

Here is what Jesus said;

Matt. 26: 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.

Here is what happened to Peter.

Matt. 14: 28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. 31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Your judgment of Jesus "begging for the cup to pass" is pretty harsh given what HE actually said. And you comparing Jesus prayer to His Father moments before HE was captured and tortured, to Peters lack of faith is unjust in my view as well.

These were all written for a purpose. I don't believe the purpose was to justify rejecting God's Judgments.

Not only that, my friend, if you've ever contended with me, you'd know that I always bring Jesus into it, because He is my friend and I can say, "Hey, didn't Jesus also do this and that?" So, did Jesus do what the law said to do on the Sabbath when he was in the wilderness for 40 days (Lev 23:3, Matt 12:5)?

Is. 58: 13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

It is important to actually read what happened and examine the scriptures men use to justify.

Matt. 4: 1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

In what way did Jesus break God's Sabbath here? Is it servile work to "Fast"?

3 And when the tempter came to him, (After His Fast) he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Whose Word's were Jesus using here? Was HE seeking His own pleasure? Was HE not honoring God?

Where is your evidence that Jesus Broke God's Sabbath? He might have broken the Pharisees sabbath, the Catholic sabbath, maybe He broke your sabbath. But there is nothing here which can be used as evidence that Jesus sinned against His Father or broke His Father's Commandments.

Are you not simply continuing in your attempts to justify your rejection of God's Judgments by claiming Jesus also rejected God's Judgments? There is a scripture about the sabbath "Fast from the world" that God's Sabbath represents.

Is.58: 6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? 7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

My friend, what if the Bible is right? Not just the words that popular religions of this world use to justify their religious traditions and philosophies which cause those who follow them to "Law aside the Commandments of God", but "EVERY WORD" as Jesus clearly teaches.

Didn't Jesus break the law when he forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery by a few people (Lev 20:10, John 8:4)? Did Jesus not change the judgment of His Father?

The children of the devil will accuse a lot of people in the great Judgment. I believe it is important to examine what is actually written.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.

It seems the Scribes and Pharisees were using this event to prove Jesus broke God's Commandments as well.

But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:

In your religion, is this Righteous Judgment for Jesus to carry out the wicked agenda of the children of the devil who were trying to use "some" of God's Word to condemn Him?

And in what way did HE break His Father's Law? The Pharisees were told to stone her, those who had kept themselves under the same Judgment they were placing on the necks of others.

And in the end, where were her accusers? It takes two or more witnesses according to the Law of God, Yes?. "and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst."

Didn't the Congregation already stone her Spiritually? "And the Law came and I died". And what did Jesus do?

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.


Where did Jesus Break God's Commandments? Where are her accusers? Why did Jesus come, to judge, or to save?

This is why it's so important to not listen to "other voices" in this world God placed us in.

 

[expos4ever]

So just like all green herbs were for food, He gave all animals for food.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. It appears to me that you are arguing against the position advanced by Lulav, which is that from God's perspective things like pork and shellfish are not even food in the first place. And you are supporting your argument by providing texts like these that show that, at one point at least, these things were indeed food:

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

Have I understood you correctly?

If so, this seems like a slam-dunk to me and I am kicking myself for not thinking of it myself. If, as Lulav appears to be saying, God does not consider pork etc. to even be food, it seems impossible to explain texts lke Genesis 9:3 where it is so clear that pork, etc. are indeed "food".

 

[Doug Brents]

Perhaps you also think the apostles words are meaningless and in error too, as he quotes Isaiah verbatim …

Are you saying you are an Apostle?
No, the Apostles words written in the Bible are God’s words, not man’s.

Acts 7:48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: 49 “ 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me?

God dwells in the believer those He knows who follow Him and obey, 1 John 2:3-4 John 14:15-18 Acts 5:32 God's ministers from a heavenly kingdom. not built by human hands. Hebrews 9:11

That is true today. However, during the time from Moses to Jesus (which includes Isaiah), God “dwelt” in the Tabernacle and then in the Temple. His throne is in Heaven, but He dwelt among the Israelites (not within them).

I choose not to cancel out the OT and trust the many prophecies about judgement and the Second Coming of Jesus , which better prepares God’s people on what to do or not do and how to be clean both physically and spiritually to allow the Holy Spirit to dwell amoung His people. We have free will to believe what we want and it will get sorted out soon enough.

You are welcome to try to live by the Old Covenant. But do remember that those who seek righteousness through the Old Covenant must keep it perfectly to receive salvation, because Jesus is meaningless to such a person (Gal 5:2-6). And as has been pointed out before, it is impossible to keep the Law today, because there is no Temple to worship in, not Levitical priesthood to officiate (both of which are absolutely necessary for the fulfillment of some of the Laws of the Old Covenant.

 

[Studyman]

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?

What idea? You mean the scriptures which teaches the Jews religious traditions transgressed God's commandments? That the Jews Religion persecuted the "Church of God"? That the Pharisees and scribes 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.

That the Jews religion taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men and not God? That the Pharisees and Scribes didn't believe Moses? That they had been given the Oracles of God, but didn't believe them? That they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I have posted these scriptures. They are "clearly recorded".

But what does this world's religions teach about the Pharisees?

That they were "Trying to earn salvation by obeying God"? That they were keeping God's Laws "to the Letter"? That they were trying to turn the new converts to God's Laws?

So what idea are you speaking to?

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

The conversation was about why men understand the scriptures differently. I asked you a question. You didn't answer so I'll ask you again. "What is the main difference between Zacharias and the Pharisees, according to Scriptures?"

This is important as they both read the Scriptures, but their understanding was completely different.

 

[ralliann]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. It appears to me that you are arguing against the position advanced by Lulav, which is that from God's perspective things like pork and shellfish are not even food in the first place. And you are supporting your argument by providing texts like these that show that, at one point at least, these things were indeed food:

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

Have I understood you correctly?

If so, this seems like a slam-dunk to me and I am kicking myself for not thinking of it myself. If, as Lulav appears to be saying, God does not consider pork etc. to even be food, it seems impossible to explain texts lke Genesis 9:3 where it is so clear that pork, etc. are indeed "food".

Yes. There is no such thing as "kosher" green herbs. But would we say all are healthy for you? No. Some are poisonous. So the health issues are not involved here. There are no clean and unclean green herbs, just as there are no clean and unclean animals FOR FOOD.

Animals as clean and unclean in Noah's time, were not in regards to food, they were not given at that time. Their "kosher" status was in regards to sacrifices. The question here really is what constituted a clean or unclean sacrifice for Noah?

Judaism, does not for the most part teach kosher food has to do with health. though Messianics bring this up quite often, but not all.
But reading this just yesterday made me wonder about not only sacrificial Kosher for Noah, but also the idea of common to Noah with the same.

Judaism teaches..... The first....excerpt from Jewish virtual library, under the heading of

Jewish Practices & Rituals: Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot)​

There are three basic concepts underlying Karbanot. The first the aspect of giving. A korban requires the renunciation of something that belongs to the person making the offering. Thus, sacrifices are made from domestic animals, not wild animals (because wild animals do not belong to anyone). Likewise, offerings of food are ordinarily in the form of flour or meal, which requires substantial work to prepare.

This first requirement is something to think about. Animals were used for all kinds of things. Clothing, shelter, vessels, etc. So before animals were for food, domesticated animals were of use.
Wild animals would have been something that belonged to nobody, they were food for anybody whomsever hunted and killed them.
But a domesticated animal, would be something that you took time and effort that was set apart as your own, like the above says. "something that belongs to the offerer (holy, set apart). Instead of keeping it for his own benefit, he gives it to God. Was that what clean and unclean animals meant to Noah? A wild animal, he did not labor over to feed, shepherd etc. It was something common to anyman for food who killed it.
Just a thought which is "judaic", in first century judaism when the temple stood.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Are you saying you are an Apostle?
No, the Apostles words written in the Bible are God’s words, not man’s.

I was repeating the apostle, which you said was in error. I see you didn't actually address this.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Have I missed something?

Yes.