Every jot and tittle

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You should not interpret Deuteronomy 31:16-22 as undermining Deuteronomy 30:11-20

1. Deuteronomy 31:12 Moses says to the people "listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law"
2. Deuteronomy 31:16 "And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves....They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them."

Why does Moses tell them to keep a law that God knows they won't keep?

Jesus expressed his love through His actions and what that looked like was sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is how we are to love as he loved.

Is it our job to accept worship? (John 9:37-38). Please show me where Jesus says to copy Him by keeping the law.

The way to love God is by obeying His commandments, which is the same throughout both the OT and the NT

Where is the commandment in the OT to "believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:23)?

I already demonstrated that Acts 15:1 was speaking about a requirement that was being added on top of what God had commanded.

How did you demonstrate it? Where in Acts 14 or 15 does it say anything about extra-curricular requirements?

the Mosaic Covenant was just as much about love as the New Covenant

2 Corinthians 3:6-7 "And He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, which was engraved in letters on stone..."

How is the Mosiac Covenant a covenant of love when Paul says it "kills" and is a "ministry of death"?
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am most certainly not kidding. And note: my position is essentially that of a highly respected Biblical scholar: NT Wright. I will not repeat the argument I have already made - it is there for all to evaluate.
You can quote whoever you want. I quoted Scripture. Wrestle with it or ignore it. That's your choice.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,661
5,770
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,078.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Problem is, your premise is without warrant. Jesus challenged their ORAL LAW; otherwise known as the tradition of men in Mk 7:7-8. Jesus did not challenge the Levitical food laws as you claim. Carefully read v.9 He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition. The Jews - not Jesus - set aside the commandment of God (Levitical law) in order to maintain their own oral tradition (Talmud). Hint: the Talmud is not Scripture and in fact contradicts Scripture in many ways; yet the Jews would rather follow their oral law instead of the written law of God.
I carefully read this post. I find nothing here that I believe I have not already addressed. Again, for others who may be reading: If Jesus is only concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

And what is your interpretation of this text (if you have already addressed this, please point me to the particular post):

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,661
5,770
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,078.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Consider this from Galatians 3:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Just in case there is any doubt that “law” here refers specifically to the Law of Moses, note the meaning that Paul ascribes to the word “law” a few sentences back:

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

Clearly, Paul is talking about the Law of Moses.

The word "tutor" (first text, above) is the well-known Greek word "paidagogos". And, as per the Net Bible definition, a paidagogos is

"a tutor i.e. a guardian and guide of boys. Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood."

By the very nature of the task of the paidagogos, his job comes to an end at some point in time - when the child becomes a man.

Paul is saying the Law of Moses has been retired since it has fulfilled its role, just as a tutor moves on after child comes of age.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,661
5,770
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,078.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Did you actually read Romans 7?? If you bothered to do so you would find that instead of condemning the law as you allege, Paul commended the law.
Rom 7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good.
Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin
Rom 7:17 And if I do what I do not want to do, I admit that the law is good.
Rom 7:22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law.
Rom 7:25 So then, with my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

I prefer to believe Paul's opinion over yours.
This has already been addressed in detail by me, if not by others. You, conveniently, do not continue on into Romans 8. Interested readers, please see post 51 for the details.

But I offer the following as a complementary argument to post 51. Here the end of Romans 7 and the beginning of Romans 8:

Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [r]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life [a]in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did.....

Note the "wretched man I, yes, am". Present tense. You are arguing that from the use of the present tense in verse 25 ("I myself with my mind am serving the law of God"), we can infer the Law of Moses is still in force. Well, there is a problem with this. Is Paul still "wretched" at the end? Of course not! He has been set free from his wretched state. So here is the clincher: Even though Paul uses the present tense in declaring he is wretched, he does not want us to think he is still wretched. Likewise, we cannot assume that because he "serves the Law of God" - present tense - that he is still doing so by the time we get to Romans 8.


The use of the present tense is arguably confusing, but the overall logic of the passage places the Romans 7 stuff in the past.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
John 5:24
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

I love John 5:24. It is a beautiful promise from our Lord. The only thing is you probably have read this verse a ton of times and do not realize that in this instance, the words "he who hears My word," is in reference to "obeying His Word."

First, logic dictates that if a person is not seeking to obey the words of Jesus on His righteous instructions (like His words on the Sermon on the Mount, etc.) they are not really hearing the words of Jesus and or listening to Him. Acts of the Apostles 3:23 talks about how if any man does not hear that prophet, they will be destroyed. This prophet is Jesus according to Acts of the Apostles 3:20-22.

"And it shall come to pass, that every soul,
which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts of the Apostles 3:23).​

The context of Acts 3 is turning people away from their iniquities.

"...his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Acts of the Apostles 3:26).​

Second, now it is true, there is an aspect of "hearing" or listening to God's Word in the sense of understanding it. In John 8:47, Jesus essentially says that the Pharisees were unable to hear His words because they were not of God. Why were they not able to understand His words? It was because of their sin. For Jesus said,

43 "Why do you not understand my speech? even because you cannot hear my word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do." (John 8:43-44).​

Paul confirms this truth, as well. In 1 Timothy 6:3-4, Paul says,

3 "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing," (1 Timothy 6:3-4).​

In other words, the person who does not agree with the words of Jesus and the doctrine according to godliness is proud and knows nothing (i.e. They have no understanding or they are unable to hear God's Word).

Three, the context in John 5 does not support a sin and still be saved type belief (Which most in the church teach these days.), but it supports "obedience to His Word." Jesus tells the man in whom he healed to "sin no more, so that nothing worse happens to you." (John 5:14) (NASB). Jesus refers to the resurrection of life for believers as having done good, and He refers to the resurrection of damnation for the wicked as having done evil. For Jesus says, "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:29).

Four, the context talks about abiding in His words.

"And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not." (John 5:38).​

While abiding in His Word is to believe, abiding in His Word would also include putting away sin, too; For David talks about hiding God's Word in his heart so that he may not sin against the Lord.

"Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You." (Psalms 119:11) (NKJV).​

In John 15:1-7 is about abiding in Christ and His words.
By abiding in Christ and His words, we will produce fruit or good deeds.
(Note: Compare the words "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance," by John the Baptist in Luke 3:8 with Acts of the Apostles 26:20 that says, "that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.").

Now, let's look at John 15:7-10.

Jhn 15:7 "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Jhn 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
Jhn 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
Jhn 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." (John 15:7-10).​

John 15:7 talks about how abiding in His words is related to a successful prayer life. Is this important part of one's salvation? According to Scripture... "yes." "Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him." (John 9:31). "The LORD is far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous." (Proverbs 15:29). "He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He also will hear their cry and save them." (Psalms 145:19). "He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, Even his prayer is an abomination." (Proverbs 28:9) (NASB).

John 15:8 talks about bearing much fruit. Do we need to bear fruit (works) as a part of salvation? Yes. John 15:5 says if a man abides in Him, they will bear much fruit. John 15:6 says if any man does not abide in Him, they are cast forth like a branch and burned. Fruits are deeds (Compare again Luke 3:8 vs. Acts of the Apostles 26:20). Paul says, "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Titus 1:16). In other words, a person can deny God by a lack of good works. Jesus says of the servant who was over a few things: "His lord said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.’" (Matthew 25:21) (NKJV). Yet, Jesus says this of the unprofitable servant: "And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’" (Matthew 25:30) (NKJV).

John 15:8 talks about being Christs disciples. Is being a disciple a salvation issue? According to Scripture.... Yes, you have to be a disciple to be saved.

Jesus says at another point, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; " (John 8:31).

Jesus also said,
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
(John 8:32).

A part of continuing in His Word and being a disciple ALSO includes one knowing the truth with that truth setting them free.

The Pharisees claim to be in bondage to no man and asked why Jesus is asking them that they should be made free.

"They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
(John 8:33).

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."
(John 8:33-36).

Verse 34 - Jesus says that whoever commits sin is a servant of sin.
Verse 35 says that this servant of sin shall not abide in the house forever.

Yes, the Pharisees did not even believe in Jesus, but they did look for a Messiah to save them, but it was their sin that prevented them from even seeing Jesus as their Savior and Messiah. Jesus saying that the one who is a slave to sin will not abide in the house forever.

What house is He referring to?

The house of Christ (or the house of the Son of Man).
For we see in Scripture that the Son of Man will send forth His angels and gather out of HIS KINGDOM (Christ's house) all who offend (make others to sin - Mark 9:42), and who work iniquity (justifying sin or lawlessness), and they will be cast into the furnace of fire (the Lake of Fire).

"The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42).​

So the servant of sin will not abide in the house of the Son of Man forever on the account of their offenses and iniquity. Christ will gather out of His Kingdom by His angels all who offend and work iniquity and they will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

At the Judgment: Christ needs to gather these wicked servants (the weeds) out of His Kingdom before He gives His Kingdom back to God the Father (See: 1 Corinthians 15:24).

For Jesus was manifested to take way our sins.

"And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin." (1 John 3:5).

"But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." (Romans 13:14).​

Also, Jesus says,

"And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:27).​

Taking up one's cross is a part of losing one's life, and the one who loses their life for His sake [loses their life for Christ's sake] shall find it [shall find life eternal], and the one who saves their life [saves their life in gaining the whole world, i.e. could include fame, or an acceptance of the world in it's sinful thinking, pursuits and ways] will lose it [lose their life eternally].

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:24-26).​

Paul says,

7 "But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," (Philippians 3:7-8).​

John 15:9 says we have to continue in His love. Paul says if any man loves not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be accursed (1 Corinthians 16:22). 1 John 4:8 says, "He that loves not knows not God; for God is love." Jesus (who is the Word made flesh) is God (John 1:1) (John 1:14) (Revelation 19:13) (1 Timothy 6:14-15) (Revelation 19:16). Seeing Jesus is God, we need to know Jesus as a part of salvation. Jesus told those believers in Matthew 7:23 that He never knew them and that they were to depart from Him because they worked iniquity (or sin). For the person who says they know the Lord and yet they do not keep His commandments, they are a liar and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:4). All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8). We need to abide in the Son in order to have eternal life. For 1 John 5:12 says he that has the Son has life, and he that does not have the Son does not have life. This is why we need to abide in Christ and His love. For God is love (1 John 4:8). The apostle John says he that does not love His brother is not of God (1 John 3:10).

John 15:10 says that keeping His commandments is abiding in His love. Jesus said in Matthew 19:17 that if you will enter into life, keep the commandments. Jesus agreed with the lawyer that to love God and love your neighbor is a part of inheriting eternal life (Luke 10:25-28). Revelation 22:14-15 says, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."

Note: Keeping Christ's commandments is not keeping the Old Testament Law of Moses as a whole or package deal. The Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, laws on animal sacrifices, etc. are no longer binding under the New Covenant. They have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We now follow the commands of Jesus and His followers.

For the Law came by Moses, but grace, and truth came by Jesus Christ
(John 1:17).

But the New Covenant does not mean we do not need to obey; We need to trust and obey, like the old church hymn of that very title.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

not under law

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2020
428
115
Worcester
✟18,172.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
This has already been addressed in detail by me, if not by others. You, conveniently, do not continue on into Romans 8. Interested readers, please see post 51 for the details.

But I offer the following as a complementary argument to post 51. Here the end of Romans 7 and the beginning of Romans 8:

Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [r]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life [a]in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did.....

Note the "wretched man I, yes, am". Present tense. You are arguing that from the use of the present tense in verse 25 ("I myself with my mind am serving the law of God"), we can infer the Law of Moses is still in force. Well, there is a problem with this. Is Paul still "wretched" at the end? Of course not! He has been set free from his wretched state. So here is the clincher: Even though Paul uses the present tense in declaring he is wretched, he does not want us to think he is still wretched. Likewise, we cannot assume that because he "serves the Law of God" - present tense - that he is still doing so by the time we get to Romans 8.


The use of the present tense is arguably confusing, but the overall logic of the passage places the Romans 7 stuff in the past.
Rom7:7-11&14-24 is all about coveting.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are two wrong extremes by believers on this topic.

On one end of the spectrum: There are those who wrongfully think we are under the Law of Moses or its ceremonial laws (like the Saturday Sabbath, etc.) (See: Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 6:14, Romans 14:5, Hebrews 7:12).

On other other end of the spectrum: There are those who wrongfully think we are not under any of God's laws as a part of salvation (Including the commands that came from Jesus and His followers) (See: Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28, 1 Timothy 6:3-4, Titus 1:16, Titus 2:11-12, Romans 8:13, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 3:15, Revelation 22:14-15).
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,661
5,770
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,078.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There are two wrong extremes by believers on this topic.

On one end of the spectrum: There are those who wrongfully think we are under the Law of Moses or its ceremonial laws (like the Saturday Sabbath, etc.) (See: Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 6:14, Romans 14:5, Hebrews 7:12).
Agree, as you would expect if you have been reading my posts.

On other other end of the spectrum: There are those who wrongfully think we are not under any of God's laws as a part of salvation (Including the commands that came from Jesus and His followers) (See: Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28, 1 Timothy 6:3-4, Titus 1:16, Titus 2:11-12, Romans 8:13, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 3:15, Revelation 22:14-15).
I am curious - have you encountered any such people in this particular thread?
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,661
5,770
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,078.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
To those who think the Law of Moses lives on, I trust you realize how many elements of the Law revolved around the Temple. And surely you would not deny that Jesus is declaring Himself to be the new temple here:

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up

So given that Jesus is replacing a central element of the Law of Moses with Himself, surely this is powerful evidence that the time of the Law of Moses is drawing to a close.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,563
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If God wants you to witness to someone who eats shellfish, and you're like, "no God, I won't eat unclean food" and then God shows you shellfish and tells you to eat, there are two lessons there;
Jesus ate with and taught sinners. That obliterates your point. (You really should get some clue as to what I believe before you speak and think you've set some kind of trap for me. :)

I told you, there is no reason to go on. Let it go, please.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,563
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A new (kainos) commandment or a renewed commandment from the Old Testament?

I looked up the Greek 'kainos' (new) and here is what the Lexicon stated.

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Greek: kainos

translation: new
a as respects form; recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
b as respects substance; of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon

There is no mention of the word 'renewed' in that Lexicon.

You must cite the Lexicon that you referenced.
Thayer, Liddle-Scott and Strong's are my 3 go to sources. Strong's says, "Of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while G3501 is properly so with respect to age): - new." So Kainos is new in regards to freshness whereas Nehos is new in regards to AGE. A 1968 Mustang that you buy and restore and make look new in kainos, a brand new on the showroom Mustang is Nehos.

Now, I also take Greek words back to the LXX and from there, see what Hebrew word is used in the Hebrew manuscripts in the same place. An easy example of which is found in Hebrews 8 which quotes Jer. 31. There, where we find "I will make a kainos covenant" we see the word chadashah in Hebrew. Chadashah is the verb chadash (H2318) (to renew) being used as an adjective (hence the form change H2319) to describe the covenant. Hence, "I will cut a renewed covenant." Remember David, God called the covenant at Sinai everlasting (Psalam 105:8-10) so it is, whether that agrees with our theology or not. So it makes sense that it is renewed BUT.... there is new to it. What was on stone is being moved the heart (Ezk. 11:19) and that is new. But the covenant is the same everlasting covenant that started with a promise to restore things back when Adam sinned. There is more to this so I wouldn't just dismiss it. I can share some additional things if you are interested?
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,563
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Matthew 5:2
But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”

Matthew 12:5
Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?

Matthew 6:6
But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.

Matthew 12:8
For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

So the disciple were breaking the law but were innocent![/QUOTE]
I said, "just show me the TORAH (God's law) commandment he broke and then I will concede your point." Matthew isn't Torah... find me a commandment in the 613 commandments found in God's law that shows what he did was breaking a commandment. Again, as you have been told repeatedly now, he didn't break God's law, he broke RABBINIC LAW. He broke what as ADDED BY MAN TO GOD'S LAW.

There is no commandment in God's law that says one can't pick and eat on Sabbath, none. It specifically says you can't pick and sell nor pick and store to sell later. Both are work. But picking and eating isn't work, it is eating.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,563
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If you are citing Strong's it has been found to have about 15,000 errors and omissions. Here is the definition of "Kainos" from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich one of, if not the, most highly accredited Greek lexicons available.
καινός, ή, όν (Aeschyl., Hdt.+; ins, pap, LXX, TestSol; TestAbr A 7 p. 84, 27 [Stone p. 16]; Test12Patr; JosAs 14:13 and 15; Philo, Joseph., Just., Mel.) comp. καινότερος; prim. sense ‘new’.
pert. to being in existence for a relatively short time, new, unused (X., Hell. 3, 4, 28; PGM 36, 265; Judg 15:13; 2 Km 6:3; 4 Km 2:20) ἀσκοί wineskins (Josh 9:13) Mt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:38. ἱμάτιον (Artem. 2, 3 p. 86, 3; 3 Km 11:29f) vs. 36. μνημεῖον Mt 27:60; J 19:41 (w. ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἦν τεθειμένος added). τὸ κ. the new piece=πλήρωμα Mk 2:21; Lk 5:36. καινὰ καὶ παλαιά Mt 13:52 (perh. with ref. to coins; cp. PGrenf II, 74, 9; 77, 7f).
pert. to being not previously present, unknown, strange, remarkable, also w. the connotation of the marvelous or unheard-of (Pla., Apol. 24c; X., Mem. 1, 1, 1 ἕτερα καὶ καινὰ δαιμόνια; Just., A I, 15, 9; Orig., C. Cels. 1, 58, 15) διδαχή Mk 1:27; Ac 17:19. ἐντολή (κ. νόμος: Menand., Fgm. 238, 3 Kö.; Diod S 13, 34, 6) J 13:34; 1J 2:7f (Polyaenus 2, 1, 13 οὐ καινοὺς νόμους … ἀλλὰ τ. παλαιούς); 2J 5. ὄνομα (Is 62:2; 65:15) Rv 2:17 (here w. ὃ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ λαμβάνων, perh. as antidote to adversarial magic); 3:12. ᾠδή 5:9 (Ps 143:9; cp. Is 42:10; Ps 32:3; 39:4.—Philo, Vi. Cont. 80 ὕμνος κ. [opp. ἀρχαῖος]); 14:3. γλῶσσαι Mk 16:17. κ. γένος of Christians Dg 1. θεώρημα AcPl Ox 6, 1f (διήγημα Aa I, 241, 11). θέαμα GJs 19:2f (Mel., P. 19, 127). Christ as ὁ κ. ἄνθρωπος the new kind of human being IEph 20:1. ἢ λέγειν τι ἢ ἀκούειν τι καινότερον either to hear or to say someth. quite new (=‘the latest thing’) Ac 17:21 (s. Kühner-G. II 306f; Norden, Agn. Th. 333ff [but s. HAlmqvist, Plutarch u. d. NT ’46, 79f, w. ref. to Plut.]; B-D-F §244, 2; Rdm. 70 and s. Demosth. 4, 10 ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι … λέγεταί τι καινόν; γένοιτʼ ἄν τι καινότερον … ; also Theophr., Char. 8, 2; BGU 821, 6 [II A.D.] ὅταν ᾖ τι καινότερον, εὐθέως σοι δηλώσω; Simplicius, Coroll. De Tempore, in Aristot., Phys. p. 788, 36ff καινοτέραν ἐβάδισεν ὁδόν=he traveled a rather new road [of interpretation]; Jos., Ant. 14, 104; Iren. 1, 18, 1 [Harv. I 169, 3]).
pert. to that which is recent in contrast to someth. old, new
ⓐ w. no criticism of the old implied (Herodas 4, 57 καινὴ Ἀθηναίη; Lucian, M. Peregr. 12 κ. Σωκράτης): of the Son of God or Logos, who is old and new at the same time Hs 9, 12, 1ff; Dg 11:4.
ⓑ in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new. In such a case the new is, as a rule, superior in kind to the old ἡ κ. διαθήκη the new covenant or declaration (Jer 38:31; Just., D. 11, 4 al.; Did., Gen. 46, 4; 156, 5) Mt 26:28 v.l.; Mk 14:24 v.l.; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hb 8:8 (Jer 38:31), 13; 9:15. κ. νόμος (Timocles Com. [IV B.C.] Fgm. 32, 4 κατὰ τὸν νόμον τ. καινόν; Just., D. 12, 3; Mel., P. 7, 46) B 2:6. λαὸς κ. 5:7; 7:5; cp. 15:7.—Esp. in eschatol. usage κ. οὐρανοί, κ. γῆ (Is 65:17; 66:22) 2 Pt 3:13; Rv 21:1; Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινή vs. 2; 3:12. καινὰ πάντα ποιεῖν 21:5. καινὸν πίνειν τὸ γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25.—Of the renewing of a pers. who has been converted κ. ἄνθρωπος Eph 4:24; Dg 2:1. κ. κτίσις a new creature 2 Cor 5:17a; cp. 17b (Ps.-Pla., Axioch. 11 p. 370e ἐκ τῆς ἀσθενείας ἐμαυτὸν συνείλεγμαι καὶ γέγονα καινός=out of weakness I have brought myself together and become new; cp. Orig., C. Cels. 6, 67, 33); Gal 6:15; cp. B 16:8. All the Christians together appear as κ. ἄνθρωπος Eph 2:15.—RHarrisville, The Concept of Newness in the NT, ’60; GSchneider, Καινὴ Κτίσις (Paul and background), diss. Trier, ’59, Neuschöpfung oder Wiederkehr? ’61. Qumran: DSwanson, A Covenant Just Like Jacob’s, The Covenant of 11QT 29 and Jeremiah’s New Covenant: New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed. GBrooke/FMartínez ’94, 273–86.—B. 957. Schmidt, Syn. II 94–123. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. S. νεό.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 496–497). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Every jot and tittle
 
Upvote 0

John Helpher

John 3:16
Site Supporter
Mar 25, 2020
1,345
479
45
Houston
✟85,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Jesus ate with and taught sinners. That obliterates your point.

Yeah, of course he did, but then again no one argued that he did not eat with sinners. The point was that Peter's stubborn hanging-on to old testament traditions (like not eating "unclean food") prevented him from witnessing to the people God wanted him to witness to; those people did not have the same dietary restrictions so Peter distanced himself from them.

Then God told Peter to stop being so resistant to change; to eat the "unclean" animals so that he could fellowship with those people whom God wanted him to witness to.

This wasn't the last time Peter would have trouble in this area, though. He was later rebuked by Paul for continuing a double standard where, when he (Peter) was around gentiles he'd be more free and relaxed regarding Mosaic law, but when he was around the Jews, he'd suddenly revert back to Mosaic law for the sake of maintaining the reputation of his Jewish heritage.

A lot of people had trouble letting go of the old ways. That's what Jesus meant when he talked about stiff, hardened old bottles. They didn't have room for anything new. Here we are, 2000 years later, still dealing with those same issues.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,563
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, of course he did, but then again no one argued that he did not eat with sinners. The point was that Peter's stubborn hanging-on to old testament traditions (like not eating "unclean food") prevented him from witnessing to the people God wanted him to witness to; those people did not have the same dietary restrictions so Peter distanced himself from them.

Then God told Peter to stop being so resistant to change; to eat the "unclean" animals so that he could fellowship with those people whom God wanted him to witness to.

This wasn't the last time Peter would have trouble in this area, though. He was later rebuked by Paul for continuing a double standard where, when he (Peter) was around gentiles he'd be more free and relaxed regarding Mosaic law, but when he was around the Jews, he'd suddenly revert back to Mosaic law for the sake of maintaining the reputation of his Jewish heritage.

A lot of people had trouble letting go of the old ways. That's what Jesus meant when he talked about stiff, hardened old bottles. They didn't have room for anything new. Here we are, 2000 years later, still dealing with those same issues.
Look... I can explain it if you want to hear it? But I am not wasting time going back and forth. I have held your belief and can probably teach it as well or better than most. However, there are more ways to look at things. Again... if you are interested, willing to hear, I will share. Otherwise, there is no point in going on.
 
Upvote 0

John Helpher

John 3:16
Site Supporter
Mar 25, 2020
1,345
479
45
Houston
✟85,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
find me a commandment in the 613 commandments found in God's law that shows what he did was breaking a commandment.

Moses' allowance for Jews to write a bill of divorce is included in this list of 613, and yet Jesus contradicted that, by saying Moses (not God) had allowed the people to divorce (and only then because he had given in to their stubbornness on the issue).

Jesus corrected the issue by saying, "What God has joined together, let no person put apart". Moses was not infallible nor perfect. God allowed him, and the people, a fair bit of freedom when making these laws because he wanted to see what they'd do with them, very similar to the situation Samuel face with the children of Israel wanting a King. God said they only wanted a king because they had already rejected him, but in the end, when they stubbornly persisted, he gave in to their demands.

Jesus' ministry fixed all those problem areas. He filled in the gaps and corrected the mistakes. Your stubborn insistence on wanting to go back to a lesser standard isn't some kind of noble pursuit of God's righteousness. It's just a stubborn unwillingness to change.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,661
5,770
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,078.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
.... find me a commandment in the 613 commandments found in God's law that shows what he did was breaking a commandment.
This is easy to do. Surely I don't need to tell you that the Law of Moses declares many foods to be unclean. Jesus says this:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him

Granted, Jesus is (here anyway) not breaking the Law Himself, but He is essentially declaring that is now outdated.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,661
5,770
Montreal, Quebec
✟251,078.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In John 8, a woman caught in adultery is brought to Jesus. And the Law required an adulterer to be put to death. What does Jesus do? He essentially overrules that provision of the Law and sends her on her way.

Seems pretty clear that Jesus is "disobeying" the Law.

Now then, what kind of responses do we get to this? Things like:

1. The Pharisees were framing an innocent woman and Jesus knows this;
2. What about due process - the Law requires that.

First, there is no evidence in the story that either of these, or any another unstated special qualifying condition, is at play.

Second, the entire account is entirely eviscerated of any significant teaching content if an innocent woman was being framed, or due process evaded; these things obviously call for the woman to be let go - Jesus is not telling us anything new and fundamental. But, if as I suggest, He is challenging the Law of Moses, we are indeed learning something compelling and informative - a new covenant is dawning.

Third, Jesus wins the argument by the zinger "whoever is without sin cast the first stone". Yet are we not all sinners? Surely, Jesus is stating some sort of universal truth here. It therefore entirely trivializes Jesus's teaching to collapse it down to a matter like framing an innocent woman, or failing to follow due process.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,459
3,771
Eretz
✟317,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
How is the Mosiac Covenant a covenant of love when Paul says it "kills" and is a "ministry of death"?

It is REALLY simple yet most of you can't or don't want to understand it. Sin is the transgression of the law. The wages of sin is death...death is the curse of the law. Yeshua nailed the curse to the cross. Without Him we would be dead in our sins. Now we have forgiveness/grace for our sins! No more sacrifices!
 
Upvote 0