Our Creator's Dietary Laws

ViaCrucis · Nov 20, 2017

gadar perets said:
?? No, my position is that the Christian interpretation of Paul is wrong. Paul himself said they were unfulfilled shadows in his day. He said they "ARE shadows of things to come (in Paul's future)". He did not say they "were shadows of things that were".

Your reading is peculiar, since μελλόντων is in the present tense and active voice; the sense instead seems to be looking back and moving forward.

"I said I would come" Does not mean that I will arrive at yet an indeterminate time in the future, but that I have arrived already.

If their fullness of these things is not in Jesus, then why does the Apostle say, "the substance is Christ"? And why would he instruct the Colossians to not let people judge them on these matters?

"Let no one judge you in food, or drink, or in regard to feasts, or new moons, or sabbaths"

Do you believe he means, "Let no one judge you for doing these things"? In which case what do you think he means when he writes that the "handwritten decrees" have been "wiped away" and nailed to the cross?

-CryptoLutheran

gadar perets · Nov 20, 2017

ViaCrucis said:
Your reading is peculiar, since μελλόντων is in the present tense and active voice; the sense instead seems to be looking back and moving forward.

"I said I would come" Does not mean that I will arrive at yet an indeterminate time in the future, but that I have arrived already.

If their fullness of these things is not in Jesus, then why does the Apostle say, "the substance is Christ"?
And why would he instruct the Colossians to not let people judge them on these matters?

"Let no one judge you in food, or drink, or in regard to feasts, or new moons, or sabbaths"

Do you believe he means, "Let no one judge you for doing these things"? In which case what do you think he means when he writes that the "handwritten decrees" have been "wiped away" and nailed to the cross?

-CryptoLutheran

The Greek word "soma" does not mean "substance", but "body". In verses 4 and 8 Paul warns the Colossians about deceivers. Then again, in verse 18, Paul gives his final warning about these same deceivers. It was the deceivers of verses 4,8, and 18 that were judging the Colossians regarding the things mentioned in verse 16. They had been imposing their man-made commandments and traditions upon the Colossians. Paul told them not to allow anyone to judge them concerning those matters. An important addition was made in the KJV that does not appear in any Greek manuscript. The word "is " in verse 17 was added, which changes the meaning of Paul's statement. That is why it is written in italics. Retaining the word "is" implies the thought of shadow vs. reality ("but the body is of Christ"). In other words, Messiah fulfilled the shadow of the things mentioned in verse 16. However, if you remove the added word "is", it implies that we should not let any man outside the "body of Christ" judge us in respect to these things.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you ... but the body of Christ.

Indeed that is in line with the context of Paul's previous and ensuing statements. Notice Colossians 1:18 & 24 and Colossians 2:19, all of which teach us that the body of Messiah (σωμα του χριστου) is the church or all true believers. Later translations such as the one you cited followed the KJV addition of making it a shadow/reality situation by not only retaining "is", but by translating "soma" as "substance" instead of "body". That really misleads people. You won't find "soma" translated "substance" anywhere in the NT except in Colossians 2:17 of modern translations. In the NASB, for example, "soma" is translated "body" 128 times, but "substance" only once (in Colossians 2:17).

The Greek word for "decrees" (KJV-ordinances) is a form of the root word "dogma" which means man-made rules, laws, commandments, precepts, etc. Paul is not talking about YHWH's ordinances in this verse. He is talking about man's ordinances or traditions. This same word is used in Colossians 2:20 pertaining to the doctrines and commandments of men; in Luke 2:1 pertaining to a decree from Caesar Augustus; in Acts 17:7 pertaining to a decree from Caesar; and in Ephesians 2:15 pertaining to the decrees of men. It always pertains to man's commandments, not YHWH's. Compare the word dogma with the Greek word that pertains to YHWH's ordinances/decrees, "dikaioma."

This word dikaioma was used in Luke 1:6 pertaining to the ordinances of YHWH and in Hebrews 9:1,10 pertaining once again to YHWH's ordinances. Therefore, Paul is saying in verse 14 that the traditions and commandments of men are the issue, not YHWH's laws. But what was nailed to the cross? The Greek construction shows that the "handwriting" was nailed, not the decrees. The handwriting or, in Greek, the "cheirographon" was a certificate of debt. Whenever a man sins against YHWH his sin is imputed against him (Romans 4:7-8). When men exalt the traditions of men over the commandments of YHWH, as the Pharisees did, for example, they sin against YHWH. The Messiah became sin for us and when He was nailed to the tree so were the sins that were imputed against us. YHWH's holy ordinances were not nailed to the tree, the certificate of debt resulting in our death sentence was nailed to the tree. That is why Paul said the Colossians were "dead in your sins" in verse 13. The principalities and powers of verse 15 caused the people to sin by their man-made laws, but Messiah was victorious over them.

ViaCrucis · Nov 20, 2017

gadar perets said:
The Greek word "soma" does not mean "substance", but "body". In verses 4 and 8 Paul warns the Colossians about deceivers. Then again, in verse 18, Paul gives his final warning about these same deceivers. It was the deceivers of verses 4,8, and 18 that were judging the Colossians regarding the things mentioned in verse 16. They had been imposing their man-made commandments and traditions upon the Colossians. Paul told them not to allow anyone to judge them concerning those matters. An important addition was made in the KJV that does not appear in any Greek manuscript. The word "is " in verse 17 was added, which changes the meaning of Paul's statement. That is why it is written in italics. Retaining the word "is" implies the thought of shadow vs. reality ("but the body is of Christ"). In other words, Messiah fulfilled the shadow of the things mentioned in verse 16. However, if you remove the added word "is", it implies that we should not let any man outside the "body of Christ" judge us in respect to these things.

Correct that the word is "soma", which of course makes sense in relation to shadow.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you ... but the body of Christ.

Sure, if you replace the meat of the passage with elipses you can achieve anything. But let's take a gander shall we?

"Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in Him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of things to come, but the body belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations--'Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch' (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."

In all of this, you think the reading should not be that Christ is the body of which those things are shadow, but that those things are shadow and we are to be judged by the body of Christ? And that Paul is not in any way pointing out the false religion of those who say things like "Don't handle" and "don't taste"?

Indeed that is in line with the context of Paul's previous and ensuing statements. Notice Colossians 1:18 & 24 and Colossians 2:19, all of which teach us that the body of Messiah (σωμα του χριστου) is the church or all true believers. Later translations such as the one you cited followed the KJV addition of making it a shadow/reality situation by not only retaining "is", but by translating "soma" as "substance" instead of "body". That really misleads people. You won't find "soma" translated "substance" anywhere in the NT except in Colossians 2:17 of modern translations. In the NASB, for example, "soma" is translated "body" 128 times, but "substance" only once (in Colossians 2:17).

Context is key, which is precisely why a contrast between shadow and body makes sense. Note that Paul later uses the same word when he says "severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." The obvious interplay of language here is that punishing the body (the physical body) by adhering to specific regulations doesn't actually address the fundamental problems of the flesh--that is the lusts of the flesh, which is precisely what he goes on to talk about in Colossians 3,

What we eat has no bearing on lawfulness, what matters is that we abstain from greed, envy, malice, etc.

The Greek word for "decrees" (KJV-ordinances) is a form of the root word "dogma" which means man-made rules, laws, commandments, precepts, etc.

That's false. The very word "dogma" is used to refer to the apostolic preaching (Acts 16:4), the word simply means "decision", "decree", or "opinion".

Paul is not talking about YHWH's ordinances in this verse. He is talking about man's ordinances or traditions. This same word is used in Colossians 2:20 pertaining to the doctrines and commandments of men; in Luke 2:1 pertaining to a decree from Caesar Augustus; in Acts 17:7 pertaining to a decree from Caesar; and in Ephesians 2:15 pertaining to the decrees of men. It always pertains to man's commandments, not YHWH's. Compare the word dogma with the Greek word that pertains to YHWH's ordinances/decrees, "dikaioma."

I find it fascinating that you specifically avoided Acts 16:4, which reads: ὡς δὲ διεπορεύοντο τὰς πόλεις παρεδίδουν αὐτοῖς φυλάσσειν τὰ δόγματα τὰ κεκριμένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ

This word dikaioma was used in Luke 1:6 pertaining to the ordinances of YHWH and in Hebrews 9:1,10 pertaining once again to YHWH's ordinances. Therefore, Paul is saying in verse 14 that the traditions and commandments of men are the issue, not YHWH's laws. But what was nailed to the cross? The Greek construction shows that the "handwriting" was nailed, not the decrees. The handwriting or, in Greek, the "cheirographon" was a certificate of debt. Whenever a man sins against YHWH his sin is imputed against him (Romans 4:7-8). When men exalt the traditions of men over the commandments of YHWH, as the Pharisees did, for example, they sin against YHWH. The Messiah became sin for us and when He was nailed to the tree so were the sins that were imputed against us. YHWH's holy ordinances were not nailed to the tree, the certificate of debt resulting in our death sentence was nailed to the tree. That is why Paul said the Colossians were "dead in your sins" in verse 13. The principalities and powers of verse 15 caused the people to sin by their man-made laws, but Messiah was victorious over them.

And yet what does the Apostle say elsewhere?

"The Law was given and sin increased",

"Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. What then shall we say? Is the law sin? By no means! Indeed, I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the Law had not said, 'Do not covet.'"

"Why then was the Law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred."

The Law does not decrease sin, where knowledge of the Law increased, sin increased, for knowledge of sin increased--it is precisely the Law which condemns us in our sin. Thus the Law becomes entirely powerless to make men righteous, and for this reason there is a righteousness apart from the Law.

-CryptoLutheran

gadar perets · Nov 21, 2017

ViaCrucis said:
Correct that the word is "soma", which of course makes sense in relation to shadow.

“Soma” makes perfect sense because Paul is referring to the believers (the soma/Body of Christ).

In the passage below, I put the faulty translations in red and important context words in blue.

"Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world (the things of this world, not the things of YHWH), and not according to Christ. For in Him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in Him, who is the head (of the Body of believers) of all rule and authority. In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands (not in the text). This He set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of things to come, but the body belongs to (of) Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head (of the Body of believers), from whom the whole body (the church), nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations--'Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch' (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings (not YHWH’s commandments, but man’s)? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion (not the things of YHWH) and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." (Parentheses in blue or red mine)

In all of this, you think the reading should not be that Christ is the body of which those things are shadow, but that those things are shadow and we are to be judged by the body of Christ? And that Paul is not in any way pointing out the false religion of those who say things like "Don't handle" and "don't taste"?

Paul is indeed pointing to the false religion of men who exalt their traditions over YHWH’s commandments. “Christ” is NOT “the body”. The church is the body and Messiah/Christ is the HEAD. Paul made that clear several times. You want Paul to be saying, “Don’t let anyone judge you concerning these things because they are fulfilled”. In reality, Paul is saying, “Don’t let an unbeliever judge you concerning these things which are unfulfilled shadows. Only a member of the Body of Messiah can do so.” The Colossians were keeping the Feasts, New Moons and Sabbaths and Paul was telling them how to deal with outsiders who judged them about how they kept those things. For example, an unbelieving Jew would say, “You can’t do xyz on the Sabbath”. Paul’s says don’t listen to him. He is not part of the Body.”

Context is key, which is precisely why a contrast between shadow and body makes sense. Note that Paul later uses the same word when he says "severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." The obvious interplay of language here is that punishing the body (the physical body) by adhering to specific regulations doesn't actually address the fundamental problems of the flesh--that is the lusts of the flesh, which is precisely what he goes on to talk about in Colossians 3,

What we eat has no bearing on lawfulness, what matters is that we abstain from greed, envy, malice, etc.

New Moons, Feasts and Sabbaths have nothing to do with the lusts of the flesh. Paul raises those issues (greed, envy, malice, etc.) to counter the carnal desires of those outside the Body of Messiah (those who try to impose their man made commandments). He is telling the Colossians not to be like those disobedient men.

gadar perets wrote - The Greek word for "decrees" (KJV-ordinances) is a form of the root word "dogma" which means man-made rules, laws, commandments, precepts, etc.

That's false. The very word "dogma" is used to refer to the apostolic preaching (Acts 16:4), the word simply means "decision", "decree", or "opinion".

Yes, decisions, decrees and opinions of men, even if those men are believers.

And yet what does the Apostle say elsewhere?

"The Law was given and sin increased",

"Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. What then shall we say? Is the law sin? By no means! Indeed, I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the Law had not said, 'Do not covet.'"

"Why then was the Law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred."

The Law does not decrease sin, where knowledge of the Law increased, sin increased, for knowledge of sin increased--it is precisely the Law which condemns us in our sin. Thus the Law becomes entirely powerless to make men righteous, and for this reason there is a righteousness apart from the Law.

I never said the Law makes one righteous. I know full well there is a righteousness apart from the Law. Neither does the Law save us. It tells us when we sin so that we can repent and receive forgiveness. It is like a mirror. Look into the law and we see the filth on our face, but if we throw away the mirror, we have nothing to tell us we are sinning and will therefore not confess those sins so we can be cleansed of them. If you abolish “Thou shall not commit adultery”, then adultery becomes acceptable for there is no law against it. The same holds true for every commandment. Christians say the Sabbath is abolished. Now it has become acceptable to work on the 7th day for there is no longer a law against it. How convenient. Do away with the dietary laws so you can have your bacon. Do away with the Holy Feast Days so you don’t have to take off from work on those days. The abolishment of the law is a matter of convenience and it caters to the flesh.

BTW, you forgot to add Romans 3:31 to your list above;

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

You are telling me of a faith that abolishes the law. Paul tells me of a faith that establishes the law (makes the law to stand). He tells me about a holy, just and good Law when used correctly. He opposed the misuse of the Law as a means of salvation and/or justification, but he never said it was abolished. It was prophesied that the same Torah the Jews tried to keep externally and failed would become internal under the New Covenant.

Strong in Him · Nov 22, 2017

gadar perets said:
One of the most common arguments used by Christians is that they do not have to keep the dietary laws because they were not given to Gentiles, but only to Jews.

They were.
The law was given to the people whom God had rescued from slavery in Egypt. He had been their Saviour, now he wanted them to live as his people.
We have a Saviour too; he tells us how we can become God's children, and how we are to live once we are. Nowhere does he say "come to me to be saved and then go back to the OT and keep all the food laws there."

gadar perets said:
The distinction between clean and unclean animals has existed at least as far back as Noah’s time (Genesis 7:2). Noah and his family were Gentiles. The unclean animals on the ark could not be eaten or sacrificed by them.

Interesting then that unclean animals were taken onto the ark at all. Why not let them drown with all the sinful, unclean people?

gadar perets said:
Had Noah eaten or sacrificed one of the two pigs on the ark, the species would have become extinct unless piglets were born on the ark.

Exactly - so why take them onto the ark?

gadar perets said:
When Henry Ford invented the automobile, he included an owner's manual so the owner would know what type of fluids the car needed to operate efficiently. Our Creator knows exactly what our bodies need for fuel. He knows what will harm us and what will help us.

This is an argument that always comes up. But saying that we shouldn't eat something because it is unhealthy or bad for us, is not at all the same as saying that God has given a command that we may not eat it.

gadar perets said:
He gave us a manual (the Bible) informing us as such.

No; the Bible reveals God and teaches us about God, his love, his plan of salvation and his will.
It is not a diet book, nor a scientific textbook.

gadar perets said:
Throw away that portion of the owners manual and put in fuel that is harmful such as swine's flesh, shellfish, etc, and our bodies will be negatively affected.

If that was a natural consequence then everyone who ate/eats pork, shellfish etc would be very unhealthy/dead. And conversely everyone who ate/eats "clean" food would have no health problems at all. It would be designed that way, by God, so that we all got the message that disobeying his law led to disaster.
But I know of two people, younger than me and with a much healthier diet, who have died. I'm sure there have been many more.
Conversely, I know of people who've always had huge fry ups, including bacon and pork sausages, bread and dripping during the war, Spam and so on, who have lived to ripe old ages or who are currently in their 90s.

gadar perets said:
Another is the FACT that YHWH clearly said unclean animal flesh would defile us (Leviticus 11:44)

No, he said that it would defile the Israelites - who didn't have refrigeration and all the food hygiene standards that we have now.

gadar perets said:
and that He considers them to be "abominations" (something that, when eaten, utterly DISGUSTS Him) (Leviticus 11:10-13, etc.). He wants His people "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."(Leviticus 11:47).

Yet his Son taught that nothing that goes into a person's mouth can make them unclean. Why? Because it does not stay there very long. What really makes someone unclean, said Jesus, is bad language, blasphemy, dishonesty etc etc.
Even Paul, the former Pharisee, said the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking.

gadar perets said:
It is interesting that failure to obey one of YHWH's dietary laws caused the fall of mankind in the first place.

No it didn't. The act of disobeying God is what caused mankind to fall. God told Adam not to do something, and Adam deliberately did it.
If eating a specific fruit was a sin because that fruit was unclean, then God would have told us what the fruit was. But if you read Exodus and Leviticus, certain kinds of animals were regarded as unclean - no fruit or veg. Before Noah, ALL seeds, fruit and plants were given as food.

gadar perets said:
Many have not learned from Adam and Eve's mistake of eating what was forbidden.

Because that wasn't their "mistake".
Their SIN was to disobey God; to do something which their Creator had commanded them not to do.

gadar perets · Nov 22, 2017

Strong in Him said:
They were.
The law was given to the people whom God had rescued from slavery in Egypt. He had been their Saviour, now he wanted them to live as his people.
We have a Saviour too; he tells us how we can become God's children, and how we are to live once we are. Nowhere does he say "come to me to be saved and then go back to the OT and keep all the food laws there."

He did not have to tell us to keep the food laws. YHWH already did. Yeshua did not tell us to not have sex with animals. That does not mean we can now. New Covenant believers are to live by the Torah that was external to the Israelites, but is now internal in us.

Interesting then that unclean animals were taken onto the ark at all. Why not let them drown with all the sinful, unclean people?

Exactly - so why take them onto the ark?

They each have a specific function in nature. That function is NOT to provide sustenance to people. That's what clean animals, fruits and vegetables are for.

This is an argument that always comes up. But saying that we shouldn't eat something because it is unhealthy or bad for us, is not at all the same as saying that God has given a command that we may not eat it.

Even the medical community advises us to not consume shellfish or pork. They are highly toxic flesh loaded with parasites and bacteria. However, health issues is only one factor why our Creator said not to eat it. The primary factor is because He is DISGUSTED by the consumption of it by His people. Yeshua's death and resurrection did not suddenly make YHWH change His mind and like it when we consume it.

No; the Bible reveals God and teaches us about God, his love, his plan of salvation and his will.
It is not a diet book, nor a scientific textbook.

Yet, there is MUCH science and dietary advise in it. Yes, it teaches us "HIS WILL" which includes obedience to His dietary laws.

If that was a natural consequence then everyone who ate/eats pork, shellfish etc would be very unhealthy/dead. And conversely everyone who ate/eats "clean" food would have no health problems at all. It would be designed that way, by God, so that we all got the message that disobeying his law led to disaster.
But I know of two people, younger than me and with a much healthier diet, who have died. I'm sure there have been many more.
Conversely, I know of people who've always had huge fry ups, including bacon and pork sausages, bread and dripping during the war, Spam and so on, who have lived to ripe old ages or who are currently in their 90s.

There are exceptions. The medical community advises against eating those things because 1) they can kill you and 2) they can deteriorate your health. I abstain from such flesh primarily because I love YHWH and want to obey Him. I don't seek ways to get around His laws to please my carnal flesh.

No, he said that it would defile the Israelites - who didn't have refrigeration and all the food hygiene standards that we have now.

That is because the Israelites were His people. We are now His people and they apply to us. In spite of all our "hygiene standards" and refrigeration, many people die from trichinosis each year.

Yet his Son taught that nothing that goes into a person's mouth can make them unclean. Why? Because it does not stay there very long. What really makes someone unclean, said Jesus, is bad language, blasphemy, dishonesty etc etc.

Yes, you can conclude that if you take his words out of context as you have. The issue was eating clean food with dirty hands, not eating unclean flesh.

Even Paul, the former Pharisee, said the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking.

The context of Romans 14 is CLEAN MEAT that became inedible in the weaker brother's mind. A citizen of the Kingdom should not cause a weaker brother to stumble.

No it didn't. The act of disobeying God is what caused mankind to fall. God told Adam not to do something, and Adam deliberately did it.
If eating a specific fruit was a sin because that fruit was unclean, then God would have told us what the fruit was. But if you read Exodus and Leviticus, certain kinds of animals were regarded as unclean - no fruit or veg. Before Noah, ALL seeds, fruit and plants were given as food.

That is what I said. They failed to obey. It was a food related command that they disobeyed. That simply highlights the fact that the lust of the flesh is a major weakness of man. Also, I never said a specific fruit was unclean. Try not to distort my words for your own ends.

ToBeLoved · Nov 22, 2017

gadar perets said:
The distinction between clean and unclean animals has existed at least as far back as Noah’s time (Genesis 7:2). Noah and his family were Gentiles. The unclean animals on the ark could not be eaten or sacrificed by them. That is why YHWH told Noah to bring food for him and the animals (Genesis 6:21). Had Noah eaten or sacrificed one of the two pigs on the ark, the species would have become extinct unless piglets were born on the ark. YHWH, however, provided seven pairs of clean animals in preparation for Noah and his family to eat meat and offer sacrifices after leaving the ark.

Noah and his family were Gentiles?

Verses please.

gadar perets · Nov 22, 2017

ToBeLoved said:
Noah and his family were Gentiles?

Verses please.

There were no Jews until Jacob had children. All people were Gentiles.

ToBeLoved · Nov 22, 2017

gadar perets said:
There were no Jews until Jacob had children. All people were Gentiles.

Gentile doesn't exist without there being the word Jew.

ViaCrucis · Nov 22, 2017

Strong in Him said:
Interesting then that unclean animals were taken onto the ark at all. Why not let them drown with all the sinful, unclean people?

A perhaps better question is what would "clean" and "unclean" animals, in regard to dietary rules, have any meaning when in the text the eating of meat was not permitted until after the flood--in which God gives to Noah and his family, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." (Genesis 9:3). Though the "clean" animals did become relevant for one reason: "Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar." (Genesis 8:20)

No where does the clean/unclean distinction have any relevance to what is food; because it had not been permitted to eat animal flesh until after the flood in which God gives everything as food. To Israel only does He restrict certain foods, as part of the covenant He made with them on Mt. Horeb--even as Moses says in Deuteronomy 5:1-3, that these commandments which God gave Israel had not been given to any of their fathers.

-CryptoLutheran

Strong in Him · Nov 22, 2017

gadar perets said:
He did not have to tell us to keep the food laws. YHWH already did.

He told the Hebrew people to keep the food laws, not gentiles.
Like I said, he saved them from slavery, he made a covenant with them. They were his people - the people HE rescued.

We have been saved too, from sin and death, not from Egyptian taskmasters. Jesus saved us - he brought in the new covenant, prophesied by Jeremiah. A new covenant was needed because God's people broke the old one that he made with them.

gadar perets said:
New Covenant believers are to live by the Torah that was external to the Israelites, but is now internal in us.

Though neither Jesus nor the early church said that.
Jesus said he had come to fulfill the law. And the apostles taught that if you were going to be circumcised and keep the law, you had to keep ALL of it - and if you did that, then you were saying that Christ died in vain. The early church did not teach anything about refraining from unclean meat. They said you shouldn't eat food offered to idols, but Paul changed his thinking on that after a while.

gadar perets said:
They each have a specific function in nature. That function is NOT to provide sustenance to people. That's what clean animals, fruits and vegetables are for.

Refraining from food because it may not be nutritious or provides sustenance is one thing. Refraining from food because it is an absolute command from God that you must, and is a command applicable to all people for all time; is completely different.
God never said that. Gentiles only refrained from pork etc if they converted to the Jewish faith; i.e stopped being gentiles.

gadar perets said:
Even the medical community advises us to not consume shellfish or pork. They are highly toxic flesh loaded with parasites and bacteria.

Which is still completely different from saying that God has commanded it - different issue.

gadar perets said:
The primary factor is because He is DISGUSTED by the consumption of it by His people. Yeshua's death and resurrection did not suddenly make YHWH change His mind and like it when we consume it.

If God commands that we should not do something, that is the only reason needed; God has forbidden it. He wouldn't need to give a "secondary reason" of it not being good for you.
Jesus did not say, "NOTHING that goes into the stomach can make a person unclean", for no reason. Jesus came to reveal God to us, teach us more about him, his nature and his will. If one of the Father's commands to his creation was that no one should eat pork; Jesus would have said so.

gadar perets said:
Yet, there is MUCH science and dietary advise in it. Yes, it teaches us "HIS WILL" which includes obedience to His dietary laws.

If you interpret it that way and believe that everything given to the Israelites necessarily applies to us too.
If you do, then I hope you also wear clothes of only one fabric, regard women as unclean once a month and stone people to death for not keeping the Sabbath. If you do, congratulations. I still think you're wrong, but at least you apply God's word consistently.

gadar perets said:
There are exceptions. The medical community advises against eating those things because 1) they can kill you and 2) they can deteriorate your health. I abstain from such flesh primarily because I love YHWH and want to obey Him. I don't seek ways to get around His laws to please my carnal flesh.

Never mind heath reasons; is it a command from God and his will that his people should NEVER eat pork?
If it is, then it should be a consequence that everyone who disobeys this command will die - unless they are convicted of their sin and repent. There should be no exceptions - it should not be possible for a Christian to eat pork, live to a great age and maintain a strong relationship with God. They would have sinned, and lived their life in continual, repeated sin. They would have died disobeying God's command.

Salvation and eternal life are through Jesus; anyone who refuses to come to him will not have that life. Jesus said that nothing can snatch his sheep from his Father's hand - so I hardly think that a bacon buttie will be able to do it.

gadar perets said:
That is because the Israelites were His people. We are now His people and they apply to us.

That's making an assumption; we are under a NEW Covenant, sealed by the blood of Jesus.
Live by the Old one if you wish too, but Jesus did not say, "this is my blood of the New Covenant - drink it, and then go away and continue to keep the old one."

gadar perets said:
Yes, you can conclude that if you take his words out of context as you have. The issue was eating clean food with dirty hands, not eating unclean flesh.

No, if you read the passage, Jesus had finished talking to the Pharisees. He was talking to his disciples inside the house; different conversation.
Jesus said that nothing that goes into a person's mouth can make them unclean, because it goes into their stomach. The disciples had not bitten off, chewed and swallowed their unwashed hands, so clearly Jesus was referring to food that was actually eaten and digested.

gadar perets said:
The context of Romans 14 is CLEAN MEAT that became inedible in the weaker brother's mind.

I wasn't thinking of Romans 14; I was referring to 1 Corinthians 8, and especially verse 8.

gadar perets said:
That is what I said. They failed to obey. It was a food related command that they disobeyed.

That doesn't make any difference. They failed to obey - that was the point.

gadar perets said:
That simply highlights the fact that the lust of the flesh is a major weakness of man.

Maybe. It showed that they could be tempted, led astray and could listen promises made by someone other than God, and chosen to believe the serpent's lies.

gadar perets said:
Also, I never said a specific fruit was unclean.

I didn't say that you did.
I was pointing out that their sin was disobeying God. The fruit was irrelevant - if it had been significant, we would have been told what fruit it was and that it could make people unclean.

gadar perets said:
Try not to distort my words for your own ends.

To say, "I think you have misunderstood my words/argument", would be one thing. Saying that I have distorted your words, which implies intent, and that I did it for my own ends - is a judgement.
Besides, if you didn't say those words, they did not exist and could not be distorted.

gadar perets · Nov 22, 2017

ToBeLoved said:
Gentile doesn't exist without there being the word Jew.

Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

This refers to the descendants of Japheth. They existed as Gentiles long before the Jews came to exist.

gadar perets · Nov 22, 2017

ViaCrucis said:
A perhaps better question is what would "clean" and "unclean" animals, in regard to dietary rules, have any meaning when in the text the eating of meat was not permitted until after the flood--in which God gives to Noah and his family, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." (Genesis 9:3). Though the "clean" animals did become relevant for one reason: "Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar." (Genesis 8:20)

Genesis 9:3 needs to be qualified. YHWH was speaking to Noah and his sons (vs. 1). They already knew the difference between clean and unclean animals. Therefore, when YHWH said, "Every moving thing," Noah knew that He meant every moving thing that was clean. YHWH spoke similar words to Adam when He said, "every herb" and "every tree," shall be food for you (Genesis 1:29). Adam obviously knew that YHWH meant every herb or tree that was edible, for many plants are poisonous to man. Was YHWH including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when He said, "every tree"?

In Genesis 8:21, YHWH said, " . . .neither will I again smite any more every thing living as I have done." Are we to understand this literally? Did YHWH smite those in the ark or aquatic life? No. Therefore, this verse needs to be qualified by understanding it to mean, "every thing living on the ground" as is revealed in Genesis 7:22; " And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Genesis 9:3 should be understood as, "Every moving thing that lives and is clean shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."

No where does the clean/unclean distinction have any relevance to what is food; because it had not been permitted to eat animal flesh until after the flood in which God gives everything as food. To Israel only does He restrict certain foods, as part of the covenant He made with them on Mt. Horeb--even as Moses says in Deuteronomy 5:1-3, that these commandments which God gave Israel had not been given to any of their fathers.

-CryptoLutheran

The commandments He gave Israel, which includes the dietary laws, is called the Torah. That same Torah is to be written on the hearts and minds of New Covenant believers (Jeremiah 31:33). Also, Deuteronomy 5:1-3 does NOT say "these commandments which God gave Israel had not been given to any of their fathers." He said the "covenant" was not made with the Fathers. Obviously there were many commandments the fathers obeyed that were included in the covenant made at Mt. Horeb like not murdering, not stealing, not committing adultery, etc.

ToBeLoved · Nov 22, 2017

gadar perets said:
Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

This refers to the descendants of Japheth. They existed as Gentiles long before the Jews came to exist.

I looked at the verse and it doesn’t say Gentiles. What version is that so I can look it up?

Soyeong · Nov 22, 2017

Tolworth John said:
So you are arguing that all the OT laws should be obeyed, not just the dietary laws?

God wanted the Jews to be a holy people, who showed just how wonderfull life would be if we followed Gods laws.

We also have the same calling to be a holy people.

God wanted the nations of the world to come and ask about the loving God who gave such wonderful rules that resulted in a people being blessed.

Sin being what it is in us, this did not work.

Israel's good kings tended to live for much longer than the evil kings did, so if you add up the years, they were under a good king for about 80% of the time, which means many people were blessed, and for the vast majority of the time. However, even if Israel had completely failed to follow God's instructions for how to be blessed, it does not follow that we should intentionally reject those instructions and prefer to follow Israel's example of disobedience rather than to learn from their disobedience what not to do (1 Corinthians 10:1-14).

The new covernant only requires that we love God/Jesus and that we love others in the same self sacrificing way.

That is also only what the Mosaic Covenant required.

gadar perets · Nov 22, 2017

Strong in Him said:
We have been saved too, from sin and death, not from Egyptian taskmasters. Jesus saved us - he brought in the new covenant, prophesied by Jeremiah. A new covenant was needed because God's people broke the old one that he made with them.

And that New Covenant includes Torah written on our hearts and minds.

Though neither Jesus nor the early church said that.
Jesus said he had come to fulfill the law. And the apostles taught that if you were going to be circumcised and keep the law, you had to keep ALL of it - and if you did that, then you were saying that Christ died in vain. The early church did not teach anything about refraining from unclean meat. They said you shouldn't eat food offered to idols, but Paul changed his thinking on that after a while.

Yeshua was dealing with the Jews. He did not have to repeat every commandment in order for it to be validated.

"Fulfill" does not mean "abolish".

The context of needing to keep the whole law is justification. If one was to reject justification by faith, then he was obligated to keep the whole law because that would be the means of his justification. If he broke one commandment, he would no longer be justified.

The "early church" consisted of all Jews. They did not need to teach about not eating unclean meat. They all knew not to; even Peter knew not to over ten years after Yeshua's resurrection. And don't give me the ridiculous argument that Peter was ignorant of his new found freedom to eat unclean.

And no, Paul did not change his thinking on meats sacrificed to idols.

If one of the Father's commands to his creation was that no one should eat pork; Jesus would have said so.

So what you are saying is that "Jesus" gave us every commandment we are to keep as believers? Where did he say to not have sex with animals? Where did he give a command against homosexuality?

If you interpret it that way and believe that everything given to the Israelites necessarily applies to us too.
If you do, then I hope you also wear clothes of only one fabric, regard women as unclean once a month and stone people to death for not keeping the Sabbath. If you do, congratulations. I still think you're wrong, but at least you apply God's word consistently.

They all apply to us except stoning. YHWH said, Vengeance is mine, I will repay. People will be judged not only for their Sabbath breaking, but for every law they broke unless they repented.

Never mind heath reasons; is it a command from God and his will that his people should NEVER eat pork?
If it is, then it should be a consequence that everyone who disobeys this command will die - unless they are convicted of their sin and repent. There should be no exceptions - it should not be possible for a Christian to eat pork, live to a great age and maintain a strong relationship with God. They would have sinned, and lived their life in continual, repeated sin. They would have died disobeying God's command.

What happens to a Christian that commits adultery, but does not repent? Will they die? Will they live, but be judged? Will they live and not be judged? Whatever applies to breaking any law also applies to breaking the dietary laws.

Salvation and eternal life are through Jesus; anyone who refuses to come to him will not have that life. Jesus said that nothing can snatch his sheep from his Father's hand - so I hardly think that a bacon buttie will be able to do it.

I said nothing about people losing their salvation or their eternal life, so don't imply that I am making this a salvation issue.

That's making an assumption; we are under a NEW Covenant, sealed by the blood of Jesus.
Live by the Old one if you wish too, but Jesus did not say, "this is my blood of the New Covenant - drink it, and then go away and continue to keep the old one."

Nor did I ever say we are to live by the Old Covenant. You seem to love to twist my words and paint me in a bad light. You should be ashamed of yourself. I have repeatedly said we are under the New Covenant where TORAH is written on our hearts and minds (Jeremiah 31:33).

No, if you read the passage, Jesus had finished talking to the Pharisees. He was talking to his disciples inside the house; different conversation.
Jesus said that nothing that goes into a person's mouth can make them unclean, because it goes into their stomach. The disciples had not bitten off, chewed and swallowed their unwashed hands, so clearly Jesus was referring to food that was actually eaten and digested.

He was teaching his disciples the meaning of the words they heard him speaking to the Pharisees. The Pharisees were accusing the JEWISH disciples (men who would never be eating unclean meat) of breaking the traditions of the elders by eating CLEAN FOOD with dirty hands. So when he is talking about food going into the mouth, he is referring to clean food. YHWH already declared that when unclean meat enters a person's mouth, they become defiled (Leviticus 11:43-44). Yeshua was not contradicting his Father.

I wasn't thinking of Romans 14; I was referring to 1 Corinthians 8, and especially verse 8.

The context is about eating meat sacrificed to idols. It is NOT about eating unclean meat. The meat that was sacrificed to idols and possibly eaten by believers was CLEAN MEAT. Had a major law like not eating swine's flesh been broken by eating a pig that was sacrificed to an idol, there would have been a double uproar, not only against eat meat sacrificed to an idol, but by eating swine's flesh as well.

To say, "I think you have misunderstood my words/argument", would be one thing. Saying that I have distorted your words, which implies intent, and that I did it for my own ends - is a judgement.
Besides, if you didn't say those words, they did not exist and could not be distorted.

When you wrote, "If eating a specific fruit was a sin because that fruit was unclean, then God would have told us what the fruit was. But if you read Exodus and Leviticus, certain kinds of animals were regarded as unclean - no fruit or veg. Before Noah, ALL seeds, fruit and plants were given as food", you were implying that I was teaching the fruit was unclean.

gadar perets · Nov 22, 2017

ToBeLoved said:
I looked at the verse and it doesn’t say Gentiles. What version is that so I can look it up?

That was the KJV, but that is irrelevant. The Hebrew word translated "Gentile" is "goy". Other versions translate it "nations" or "people" or "heathen". The point is, "goy" is where we get the word "Gentile" from.

Strong in Him · Nov 23, 2017

gadar perets said:
And that New Covenant includes Torah written on our hearts and minds.

Where did Jesus say that?
Where does he say "believe in God, follow me, receive eternal life and go on keeping all the Torah"?

gadar perets said:
Yeshua was dealing with the Jews. He did not have to repeat every commandment in order for it to be validated.

If keeping ALL the Torah, and food laws, was a command from God, that his gentile followers would be expected to keep, Jesus would have said so.

gadar perets said:
"Fulfill" does not mean "abolish".

I never said it did.
The law has been fulfilled in and by Christ. The laws about sacrifices, and shedding blood to receive forgiveness of sin, have been completed, fulfilled, in him. Jesus came to live - i.e was tabernacled - among us, he was without sin, he shared a final Passover meal with his disciples and gave them a new Passover, he died to make atonement for us, was raised again and, at Pentecost, his Spirit was poured out on the disciples. He has fulfilled many of the feasts, as well as laws about forgiveness. He summed up the 10 commandments in the words, "love the Lord your God and love your neighbour as yourself" and gave us a new commandment, to love as he loved us.

Nowhere does he say, or the NT teach, "believe this, but go away and make sure you only wear clothes made from one fabric, (i.e no cotton/wool/polyester mixes), and refrain from pork and prawns."

gadar perets said:
The context of needing to keep the whole law is justification. If one was to reject justification by faith, then he was obligated to keep the whole law because that would be the means of his justification. If he broke one commandment, he would no longer be justified.

Jesus saves - not Jesus + keeping the law.
If we could be justified by anything apart from Jesus, he would not have needed to die.

gadar perets said:
The "early church" consisted of all Jews. They did not need to teach about not eating unclean meat.

The early church quickly accepted Gentiles, see Acts 10. Paul founded churches in other countries.
Even Jesus preached to, and accepted, Gentiles - the woman at the well, the Roman centurion with the sick servant, the Syro-Phonecian woman, for example. He commended the latter two for their great faith; nowhere did he say "now sit down while I teach you the Jewish law and what God really wants from you".

gadar perets said:
And don't give me the ridiculous argument that Peter was ignorant of his new found freedom to eat unclean.

We are not told whether Peter, or any of the others, continued to refrain from unclean meat.
It is in Mark 7 that we find the comment "In saying this he declared all foods to be clean". Peter was the main source behind Mark's Gospel; I doubt that sentence would have been written without his knowledge and approval. Peter was also the one who received the vision about not calling certain things unclean.
But at the end of the day, discussion about the disciples' diet is only supposition; we don't know.

gadar perets said:
And no, Paul did not change his thinking on meats sacrificed to idols.

He was one of those present at the council of Jerusalem and took their letter - telling Gentiles to abstain from food offered to idols - to the churches. Later he told the Corinthian church that an idol means nothing, that God created all things; but that some people didn't know that and believed that if they ate food offered to an idol, it would contaminate them, 1 Corinthians 8:8, because their conscience was weak. He then said that the Kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking.
So he had been someone who believed that eating food offered to idols was wrong - as a Pharisee he would not have condoned that - but later taught a Gentile church that idols were nothing and they could eat food offered to them if their conscience allowed them to.
Sounds like a change to me.
And even here he says nothing about unclean food, or gives the Corinthians a list of such foods.

gadar perets said:
So what you are saying is that "Jesus" gave us every commandment we are to keep as believers? Where did he say to not have sex with animals? Where did he give a command against homosexuality?

He taught that marriage, between man and woman, was given by God. He taught us to love as he loves and to treat others as we wish to be treated. Having sex with animals was not a question that people were asking, nor even an issue.
I'm saying that if keeping the JEWISH law, the one that he fulfilled, was essential for GENTILES, and was God's will and plan for us; he would have said so. Neither he nor the church taught "come to Jesus to be saved - then go away, read the law given to the Israelites and make sure you keep that".

gadar perets said:
They all apply to us except stoning.

Nope.
Stoning for not keeping the Sabbath was God's command to the Israelites, and one which they kept. If you say we have to keep the law, that means ALL of it.
Not trimming your beard, standing up in the presence of elders was also the law; I hope you keep those? The law also said they had to sacrifice animals for sin. Even the Jews don't keep that law now, and they don't go to the temple to celebrate their feasts, offer their tithe, or whatever, because they have no temple. If even they don't keep the law as given to Moses, why do we need to?

gadar perets said:
What happens to a Christian that commits adultery, but does not repent? Will they die? Will they live, but be judged? Will they live and not be judged? Whatever applies to breaking any law also applies to breaking the dietary laws.

You haven't yet provided a verse where Jesus teaches the dietary laws have to be obeyed - or a verse where he says anything about them at all.

gadar perets said:
I said nothing about people losing their salvation or their eternal life, so don't imply that I am making this a salvation issue.

I didn't say that you were.
I was pointing out that this is not about salvation. Someone can be a Christian, be saved, born again, filled with the Spirit and serve God all their lives - and eating ham, pork or prawns won't change or affect that. If they were disobeying God by eating their ham sandwiches, they would be continually living in sin and their relationship with God would be permanently affected. If this was the case, then eventually the Spirit would convict them of this sin so that they could be forgiven.

gadar perets said:
Nor did I ever say we are to live by the Old Covenant. You seem to love to twist my words and paint me in a bad light.

I'm not twisting your words. You have said that all the Torah applies to us. You are saying that we need to keep it and the dietary laws.
How could we do this and NOT live by the Old Covenant? These things all belong to the Old Covenant; the law given to Moses at Sinai, for the Israelites who had been rescued from Egypt.

Maybe you could explain how someone can keep all of the Jewish Torah and yet not be under that covenant.

gadar perets said:
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Says the man who accused me of distorting your words for my own ends.

gadar perets said:
I have repeatedly said we are under the New Covenant where TORAH is written on our hearts and minds (Jeremiah 31:33).

God said that he would put his word and his law into our hearts, not the Torah with all its complicated hygiene rules.

Jesus is the Word of God, John 1:1-3 - the eternal word, though it seems that you don't accept that. Jesus is also the truth and the fulfilment of the Jewish law. We can have Jesus - God's word and fulfilment of the Jewish law - in our hearts.
This is a NEW Covenant - as the book of Hebrews says, where there is a new covenant, the old one is no longer needed or in force.

To be continued.

Strong in Him · Nov 24, 2017

gadar perets said:
The context is about eating meat sacrificed to idols. It is NOT about eating unclean meat. The meat that was sacrificed to idols and possibly eaten by believers was CLEAN MEAT.

Scripture doesn't say that.
In the NT there is no mention of clean and unclean meat, (except in Peter's vision), and especially not of teaching Gentiles that they shouldn't eat certain foods.
Even acknowledging an idol, never mind offering food to it, is contrary to the 2nd commandment. A Jew would not have considered such a thing. Something offered and dedicated to God is holy; something offered to a pagan idol would have bee regarded as unclean and profane.
Paul founded churches in places where the people worshipped idols - like Athens and Ephesus - and it was likely that any meat sold in the market would have first been offered to a particular idol. Note that there are no question about the type of meat bought; Paul does not say that Corinthians can eat meat that has been offered to a pagan god as long as it is not ham/pork.
His statement about the Kingdom of God not being a matter of eating and drinking, still stands.

gadar perets said:
When you wrote, "If eating a specific fruit was a sin because that fruit was unclean, then God would have told us what the fruit was. But if you read Exodus and Leviticus, certain kinds of animals were regarded as unclean - no fruit or veg. Before Noah, ALL seeds, fruit and plants were given as food", you were implying that I was teaching the fruit was unclean.

Well to be fair, that's how it sounded.
God said that Adam could eat from any tree except one particular one; Adam disobeyed God's command. Food itself was not part of the first sin. But by saying that it was "a food related command that he disobeyed", it sounded like you were saying that the fall came about because Adam ate the wrong food.
Maybe you didn't mean it like that, but why introduce food into the picture otherwise? Adam disobeyed God; he deliberately did what God had told him NOT to do. What he ate is irrelevant.

gadar perets · Nov 24, 2017

Strong in Him said:
gadar perets said: ↑

And that New Covenant includes Torah written on our hearts and minds.

Where did Jesus say that?
Where does he say "believe in God, follow me, receive eternal life and go on keeping all the Torah"?

Jeremiah 31:33 –

“כיH3588 זאתH2063 הבריתH1285 אשׁרH834 אכרתH3772 אתH854 ביתH1004 ישׂראלH3478 אחריH310 הימיםH3117 ההםH1992 נאםH5002 יהוהH3068 נתתיH5414 אתH853 תורתיH8451 בקרבםH7130 ועלH5921 לבםH3820 אכתבנהH3789 והייתיH1961 להם לאלהיםH430 והמהH1992 יהיוH1961 לי לעם׃H5971 .

Hebrews 8:10 uses “laws” in place of “Torati”.

He has fulfilled many of the feasts, as well as laws about forgiveness. He summed up the 10 commandments in the words, "love the Lord your God and love your neighbour as yourself" and gave us a new commandment, to love as he loved us.

You said “many” meaning “not all”? Which feasts has he not fulfilled and why aren’t you keeping them? Yes, the two greatest commandments sum up the ten, but they don’t replace them. We show our love to YHWH by obeying the first four and our love to man by obeying the last six. When we take YHWH’s name in vain, we show we do not love Him as we should. When we break the Sabbath, we show Him we don’t love Him as we should, etc.

Nowhere does he say, or the NT teach, "believe this, but go away and make sure you only wear clothes made from one fabric, (i.e no cotton/wool/polyester mixes), and refrain from pork and prawns."

Matthew 19:17.

Jesus saves - not Jesus + keeping the law.
If we could be justified by anything apart from Jesus, he would not have needed to die.

Yes, the Messiah saves, but then he commands us to sin no more (don’t break the law anymore – John 5:14; John 8:11; 1 John 3:4).

The early church quickly accepted Gentiles, see Acts 10. Paul founded churches in other countries.
Even Jesus preached to, and accepted, Gentiles - the woman at the well, the Roman centurion with the sick servant, the Syro-Phonecian woman, for example. He commended the latter two for their great faith; nowhere did he say "now sit down while I teach you the Jewish law and what God really wants from you".

Faith establishes the Law (makes it to stand) Romans 3:31. Faith does not say, “HalleluYah, we don’t have to keep the Law anymore!”

The council at Jerusalem imposed four basic commands on the Gentiles knowing full well the Gentiles will eventually learn the rest of Torah as they heard Moses read every Sabbath Day (Acts 15:19-21).

It is in Mark 7 that we find the comment "In saying this he declared all foods to be clean". Peter was the main source behind Mark's Gospel; I doubt that sentence would have been written without his knowledge and approval. Peter was also the one who received the vision about not calling certain things unclean.

Mark 7:19 reads, "Because it enters not into his heart, but into his belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats." (KJV) The last three words do not mean all unclean food is now cleansed as deceived translators of modern version would have us believe. Yeshua simply meant that waste food was carried off by the digestive tract. The digestive system was cleansed of whatever was eaten. The word “draught” in the KJV would refer to the toilet bowl in our day.

The scribes and Pharisees had seen the disciples eat bread without first washing their hands. This was contrary to their traditional beliefs. At that time, however, the disciples only ate clean food. Therefore, the context is eating clean food with unwashed hands. It has nothing to do with eating unclean animal flesh.

As a result of their question in verse 2, Yeshua rebukes their tradition and their hypocrisy and sums up his statements in Matthew 15:20, "These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man." This chapter has nothing to do with cleansing unclean meat. The issue was centered on tradition and outward ritual cleansing, which made them appear holy. But Yeshua wants us to have complete change of heart and mind, not of the outward appearance.

He was one of those present at the council of Jerusalem and took their letter - telling Gentiles to abstain from food offered to idols - to the churches. Later he told the Corinthian church that an idol means nothing, that God created all things; but that some people didn't know that and believed that if they ate food offered to an idol, it would contaminate them, 1 Corinthians 8:8, because their conscience was weak. He then said that the Kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking.
So he had been someone who believed that eating food offered to idols was wrong - as a Pharisee he would not have condoned that - but later taught a Gentile church that idols were nothing and they could eat food offered to them if their conscience allowed them to.
Sounds like a change to me.

Well, I guess he changed his mind again after that since he teaches the Corinthians in chapter 10 to not eat meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 10:18-21). You are misunderstanding 1 Corinthians 8.

He taught that marriage, between man and woman, was given by God. He taught us to love as he loves and to treat others as we wish to be treated. Having sex with animals was not a question that people were asking, nor even an issue.

They weren’t asking if they could eat unclean either or work on Sabbath.

I'm saying that if keeping the JEWISH law, the one that he fulfilled, was essential for GENTILES, and was God's will and plan for us; he would have said so. Neither he nor the church taught "come to Jesus to be saved - then go away, read the law given to the Israelites and make sure you keep that".

Since Yeshua and the early church taught we are under the New Covenant where Torah is written on hearts and minds, then they both taught obedience to Torah.

Not trimming your beard, standing up in the presence of elders was also the law; I hope you keep those? The law also said they had to sacrifice animals for sin. Even the Jews don't keep that law now, and they don't go to the temple to celebrate their feasts, offer their tithe, or whatever, because they have no temple. If even they don't keep the law as given to Moses, why do we need to?

Trimming the beard was lawful. Totally destroying it by shaving it off was not. Of course I have a beard. All men that are capable of growing one should. Why would I want to look like a woman? Don’t you have enough respect for your elders to stand when they come in your presence?

You haven't yet provided a verse where Jesus teaches the dietary laws have to be obeyed - or a verse where he says anything about them at all.

I am not like you. When my Father tells me to do something I do it. I don’t need to be told twice.

I was pointing out that this is not about salvation. Someone can be a Christian, be saved, born again, filled with the Spirit and serve God all their lives - and eating ham, pork or prawns won't change or affect that. If they were disobeying God by eating their ham sandwiches, they would be continually living in sin and their relationship with God would be permanently affected. If this was the case, then eventually the Spirit would convict them of this sin so that they could be forgiven.

The Spirit has been trying to teach Christians to obey Torah for hundreds of years. They keep coming up with excuses not to. Their rewards will be greatly diminished in the Kingdom.

I'm not twisting your words. You have said that all the Torah applies to us. You are saying that we need to keep it and the dietary laws.
How could we do this and NOT live by the Old Covenant? These things all belong to the Old Covenant; the law given to Moses at Sinai, for the Israelites who had been rescued from Egypt.

Maybe you could explain how someone can keep all of the Jewish Torah and yet not be under that covenant.

The Old Covenant was not just about obeying the Law. It had a totally different way of being administered. A carnal people had to keep an external Law. Under the NC, a spiritual people are to keep an internal Law (the same Law [Torah]), but we do so with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit (if we allow the Spirit to help us). We do so with a better temple, better sacrifice, better high priest, better promises, etc. Just because the Law is the same, it doesn’t mean the covenant is the same.

God said that he would put his word and his law into our hearts, not the Torah with all its complicated hygiene rules.

See the Hebrew of Jeremiah 31:33 above. Is it too complicated for you to not have sex during your period or too bathe your flesh after your period ends? You have this mindset that YHWH’s laws are such a burden which is the exact opposite of what is true.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 1 John 5:3

Our Creator's Dietary Laws

Confessional Lutheran

Messianic Hebrew

Confessional Lutheran

Messianic Hebrew

Great is thy faithfulness

Messianic Hebrew

Well-Known Member

Messianic Hebrew

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Great is thy faithfulness

Messianic Hebrew

Messianic Hebrew

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Messianic Hebrew

Messianic Hebrew

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Messianic Hebrew

Similar threads